Amy Barrett On Guns

3
520

Presented without comment

“History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns,” Barrett wrote. “But that power extends only to people who are dangerous.”

She added: “[W]hile both Wisconsin and the United States have an unquestionably strong interest in protecting the public from gun violence, they have failed to show, by either logic or data … that disarming Kanter substantially advances that interest. On this record, holding that the ban is constitutional as applied to Kanter does not ‘put[] the government through its paces’ … but instead treats the Second Amendment as a ‘second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.'”

Her dissent in a case taking gun rights away from a non violent felon.

3 COMMENTS

  1. Her dissent in taking gun rights(not privileges)away from non -violent offenders,hmmmm….,no where in bill of rights do I see any thing about some folks not having these birth rights.Keep violent offenders in jail,but you walk the streets you have the right to firearms,again,a birth right.

    Yes,better then some choices but until they follow the constitution as written am not too hopeful about SCOTUS.

    Why would in theory free men and women bow down to a few folks in black robes when they many times a year seem to set rules/decide law against the constitution.

    DD,believe Amy Barret a shoe in despite a lot of screeching/”peaceful protest” ect.

    I would say she was related to the Barrett folks that make .50’s ect.,well,then I would feel a great choice!

  2. Judge Amy Coney Barrett dissent in Barr v Kanter (2019) Second Amendment argument acquiesced to 42 references to “person/s”. Her Second Amendment, textualism approach having zero reference to “person/s. Judge Barrett’s view only recognizes “person/s” in Barr and her refusal to acknowledge, recognize or connect the U.S. Constitution benchmark legislative interpretive language of “person/s,” to the Second Amendment, referenced 49 times in our Constitution. Questioning Judge Barrett’s judgment runs in conflict with her view of the Barr v Kanter and not applying her viewpoint of “person/s” to the Second Amendment.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here