Kavanaugh Defends Opinion That Assault Weapons Are “Common” and Can’t Be Banned

Watch his testy exchange with a Democratic senator on his controversial position.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

In 2011, Brett Kavanaugh wrote a dissent in a case in which he argued that the District of Columbia’s ban on assault weapons was unconstitutional. “A ban on a class of arms is not an ‘incidental’ regulation,” he wrote. “It is equivalent to a ban on a category of speech.” No other court has agreed with Kavanaugh on this front, and other appeals courts have upheld reasonable limits on gun ownership.

On Wednesday, the second day of Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing to join the Supreme Court, this dissent was front and center as he faced sharp questioning from the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) grilled the nominee about his view that assault weapons couldn’t be regulated, asking what evidence he used to justify his position that assault weapons were “in common use” and thus their ownership was protected by the Second Amendment. 

Kavanaugh dodged the question, saying, “Machine guns can be prohibited.” Feinstein responded, “I think we’re on totally different wavelengths.” She noted that machine guns had long been prohibited and went on to press him on assault weapons, highlighting their use in multiple school shootings in recent years. Feinstein wanted to know what evidence or research he’d drawn on to support his assertion that assault weapons were “common.” Kavanaugh insisted that “millions and millions” of assault weapons were owned in the United States, to which Feinstein replied, “You’re saying numbers define common use?” She expressed skepticism that an assault weapon was something lots of ordinary Americans toted around on a daily basis.

Kavanaugh claimed sympathy to the problem of gun violence, noting that he’d grown up around Washington, DC, which was once known as the murder capital of America. None of that changed his views on gun regulation, though. “This is all about precedent for me,” Kavanaugh told Feinstein, citing the Supreme Court’s 2008 majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, authored by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, which overturned the District’s ban on handguns and firmly established an individual right to own guns. Watch the entire exchange here:

Kavanaugh kicked off the second day of his confirmation hearing amid loud and angry protests from the public, whose noisy objection to his nomination drowned out most of his answers from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the committee chairman. But most of the protesters had been removed from the room by the time Feinstein launched into her interrogation.

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate