WV - State gun rights group urges Capito, Manchin not to confirm Kavanaugh

[Bruce in WV]

This looks like opposition research, but the citation and quotes from written opinions look legit. If true, it’s worrisome.

https://www.wvnews.com/news/wvnews/state-gun-rights-group-urges-capito-manchin-not-to-confirm/article_ab1efd4a-b076-56c2-94f4-fa328f340797.html

Here’s the link to the WVCDL alert on their FB page.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/WVCDL/permalink/10156680205389225/

[sundance435]

Dog whistle. Read his whole dissent - they're selectively quoting him out of context. I will say he's probably not going to vote to overturn the NFA, but he's not going to vote in a way that further erodes 2A rights, either.

[BoringGuy45]

He already dissented against an assault weapons ban, and that issue is going to come up a lot quicker than anything regarding the NFA. Honestly, if the GOA endorses him, he's probably okay.

[The_War_Wagon]

Is this the same gun "rights" group, that supported Obama, right up until he was elected... and then vanished off the face of the earth? :rolleyes:

[kwelz]

Many of these groups require controversy and fear to keep donations coming in. They will do anything possible to keep the money coming in.

We had a group here in Indiana go after Jim Lucas for being anti gun. The same Jim Lucas who has been fighting for Constitutional carry and other Pro Gun legislation from the day he was elected. The closer he got to success the more they went after him.

[sundance435]

He already dissented against an assault weapons ban, and that issue is going to come up a lot quicker than anything regarding the NFA. Honestly, if the GOA endorses him, he's probably okay.

Yeah, I think it would be tough for many of the people on this board to get a GOA endorsement, so I'm good with that. A dissent is a dissent - maybe it's more relevant in 50+ years - regardless, if you read the whole thing, it's clear he recognizes the importance of the 2nd Amendment.

[RazorBurn]

Is this the same gun "rights" group, that supported Obama, right up until he was elected... and then vanished off the face of the earth? :rolleyes:

I've been a member of the WVCDL for several years now. I've never seen them support Obama, or any of his cronies. I for one found Kavanaugh's dissent in Heller 2 interesting, and I'm glad the WVCDL pointed it out. The fact that he's willing to set up gun bans as "Constitutional" because they've been "common law" is a bit unsettling to me.

The WVCDL is unapologetic in their approach to gun rights and remind me a lot of the GOA in their attitude. The WVCDL has been instrumental over the past five or six years in seriously expanding West Virginian's rights. We now have constitutional carry and preemption among other things that they have been very active in helping get passed.

I advise everyone to read the WVCDL's accomplishments page. The WVCDL is on our side, and they fight for West Virginian's Second Amendment rights every single day. Damn good organization, and reasonable dues of only 25 bucks per year.

http://www.wvcdl.org/accomplishments.php

I found the below article interesting and informative.

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/07/09/judge-kavanaugh-and-the-second-amendment

Here is a copy of the e-mail sent to WVCDL members from the WVCDL



Open Letter to Senators Shelley Moore Capito and Joe Manchin

Senators,

In a time when our nation is so bitterly divided that so many can only see through the lens of "their side," and everyone else is simply "the others," true character comes from seeing and rejecting the "us" or "them" identities thrust upon us by politicians and media. These partisan blinders generally serve a single purpose; obscuring truth.

Hidden below the raging culture war of us v. them lies a document. It is a decision in the court case commonly known as "Heller II" and it addresses fundamental civil liberty, and specifically, our right as human beings to defend ourselves. In the observation of various Second Amendment Rights groups' championing of the appointment of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States, we can only conclude that none of them have bothered to read his dissent in that case. That is the benevolent explanation. The more sinister explanation is that they have indeed read it, and they do not care about its contents and what those contents say about the future of the Second Amendment should Judge Kavanaugh be confirmed.

The board and members of the WVCDL are not afflicted by partisan blindness. We can read. And what we have read is deeply disturbing.

An excerpt:

"First, just because gun regulations are assessed by reference to history and tradition does not mean that governments lack flexibility or power to enact gun regulations. Indeed, governments appear to have more flexibility and power to impose gun regulations under a test based on text, history, and tradition than they would under strict scrutiny. After all, history and tradition show that a variety of gun regulations have co-existed with the Second Amendment right and are consistent with that right, as the Court said in Heller."

Judge Kavanaugh argues for pages on end that Heller sets up a test for the abridgement of gun rights. He makes endless references to the "historic and traditional" bans, and indicates that the mere presence of a ban justifies the ban regardless of its true Second Amendment impact. He further opines that the "common use" language from the Heller (I) decision, tied with the "historic and traditional" bans, justifies the perpetuation of those bans.

Distilling his dissent into a single line could easily and reasonably be done as such: "If it has been banned, it will stay banned. The existence of a ban alone, proves that ban is constitutional."

This sets up a condition where gun rights can never improve at the federal level. They may only degrade over time. Consider a real-world hypothetical, framed within Judge Kavanaugh's contorted logic:

NFA items were effectively banned in 1934. Therefore, they are not now in common use (because, obviously, they are banned). And because they are not in common use (because they've been banned for 84 years) and there's a historic and traditional ban, they stay banned. Judge Kavanaugh championed all the worst parts of Heller (I) in his dissent.

Another example of Judge Kavanaugh's circular logic in his Heller (II) dissent:

"With respect to the first step, Heller tells us 'longstanding' regulations are 'presumptively lawful,' 554 U.S. at 626-27 & n.26; that is, they are presumed not to burden conduct within the scope of the Second Amendment. See McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3047 (2010) (Heller 'did not cast doubt on [certain types of] longstanding regulatory measures'); Chester, 628 F.3d at 679 (Heller 'acknowledged that the scope of the Second Amendment is subject to historical limitations'); Marzzarella, 614 F.3d at 91 (Heller indicates 'longstanding limitations are exceptions to the right to bear arms'); United States v. Rene E., 583 F.3d 8, 12 (1st Cir. 2009) (Heller 'identified limits' of the Second Amendment based upon 'various historical restrictions on possessing and carrying weapons'). This is a reasonable presumption because a regulation that is 'longstanding,' which necessarily means it has long been accepted by the public, is not likely to burden a constitutional right;"

Read that last line again: "This is a reasonable presumption because a regulation that is 'longstanding,' which necessarily means it has long been accepted by the public, is not likely to burden a constitutional right;"

I will interpret that to plain speak. "If it's been banned, it should stay banned, and is not a violation of your Second Amendment rights." This pays no respect to the reality that the Second Amendment has been eviscerated for 84 years.

Possibly the most chilling words from Judge Kavanaugh's pen are as follows:

"As a citizen, I certainly share the goal of Police Chief Cathy Lanier to reduce and hopefully eliminate the senseless violence that has persisted for too long and harmed so many. And I greatly respect the motivation behind the D.C. gun laws at issue in this case. So my view on how to analyze the constitutional question here under the relevant Supreme Court precedents is not to say that I think certain gun registration laws or laws regulating semi-automatic guns are necessarily a bad idea as a matter of policy. If our job were to decree what we think is the best policy, I would carefully consider the issues through that different lens and might well look favorably upon certain regulations of this kind."

Those are not the words of a man who understands or supports the Second Amendment.

The West Virginia Citizen's Defense League is an aggressive organization that advances the rights of West Virginians. We have reviewed multiple opinions and dissents by Judge Kavanaugh. Given what is in black and white before us, we cannot conclude that he is a pro Second Amendment judge. Further, we are not in the business of merely "defending" gun rights. We are in the business of advancing them. And since we care nothing for the partisan culture war underway, we cannot support Judge Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States.


Keith Morgan, President
Ian Masters, Vice President
Thomas Raynes, Treasurer
Keith Owen Campbell, Secretary
Amber Perry, Lobbyist
Charles Horst, Member
Kevin Patrick, Jr. , Member
Patrick Moore, Member

West Virginia Citizen's Defense League, Inc.

---------------

A copy of this letter is available here:
http://www.wvcdl.org/kavanaugh.pdf

The Kavanaugh dissent in Heller II is available here.




Find us on Facebook

Keith Morgan
President, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.

[BoringGuy45]

If we're honest with ourselves, we can never truly expect a judge whose stance is simply "what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?" Nobody is going to hold the hard line stance that any law regarding firearms whatsoever constitutes "infringement", at least, not among judges and legal scholars. However, if we look at the big picture, the fact is that he was the dissenting judge on a case involving the dreaded "assault weapons". When such a case reaches the SCOTUS, I see little reason to believe that he would rule against his own precedent.