I hate to say this, folks, but the big flap over Brett Kavanaugh’s supposed endorsement of assault rifles and other pro-gun issues is nothing other than a big nothingburger. Understand that I’m not trying to find a back-door way to support his nomination. I’m also not trying to imply in any way that his nomination shouldn’t be opposed based on concerns that he might help the Supreme Court undo fundamental decisions that guarantee justice and equality for all.

My problem is that I keep reading and hearing things that Kavanaugh allegedly believes about guns, and then when I listen to what he actually says, it doesn’t add up. Is he a pro-gun guy? No kidding – gee, what a surprise. Will he tilt the Court to the right if and when another gun-control law comes up for review? Of course he will. On the other hand, his response to Senator Feinstein’s question about his views on assault rifles was not only well within accepted legal parameters, but followed directly from the majority Heller opinion written by Scalia in 2008.

First of all, contrary to what appeared on the Giffords website, he did not say that ‘assault weapons can’t be distinguished from handguns.’ What he said was that as semi-automatic weapons they could not be distinguished from semi-automatic handguns as a “matter of law.” And what he obviously meant by that statement is the fact that since 1934, federal gun law has made a clear distinction between semi-automatic weapons, as opposed to weapons which fire full-auto, the latter being very heavily regulated, the former much less so.

Incidentally, David Hogg is also jumping into the argument by saying that the ‘effective’ range of a handgun is 75 feet but the ‘effective’ range of an AR-15 is 1600 feet; hence, the AR is not a gun to be used for self-defense. David’s a lovely young man, he’s a big and important cog in the gun-control machine. He doesn’t know squat about guns.

I notice that every, single anti-Kavanaugh post somehow neglects to mention the words ‘matter of law.’ But that’s exactly the point. Kavanaugh is absolutely correct in following the precedent set by Scalia whose opinion gave Constitutional protection to privately-owned guns, with the exception of ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapons, by which Scalia meant guns designed for military use.

Do me a favor, okay? Please don’t send me a nasty email or accuse me of being some kind of gun-sucking troll until you read what I am now going to say. The problem with the 2008 Heller decision is that Scalia, the Court’s alleged gun nut, really didn’t know much of anything about guns. If he did, he could never have made a distinction between so-called ‘weapons in common use’ and ‘weapons of war’ because most of the handguns owned today happen to be guns that were designed and initially manufactured for military use. The most popular handgun sold today – Glock – was designed for the Austrian Army and is carried by many troops in the field, including American troops. Every, single polymer gun in the Sig catalog is designed on the same platform which was used for the U.S. Army’s new handgun. The most popular handgun of all time, the Colt 1911 45acp pistol was designed for the Army by John Browning in 1907.

The United States is the only country that makes no distinction between small arms for the military and small arms for civilian use. In fact, even the whole idea of full-auto versus semi-auto is nonsense, because the current battle rifle, the M4, can be shot in semi-auto mode.

When the Supreme Court decided to extend Constitutional protection to weapons in ‘common use,’ it created a definition that had nothing to do with history, law or anything else. It was nothing more than an ill-founded opinion by a jurist whose colleagues knew even less about guns. Sorry, but when it comes to guns, the collective stupidity of our highest court can’t be blamed on what Brett Kavanaugh said or didn’t say.