Second Amendment

Amy Coney Barrett Thinks the Second Amendment Prohibits Blanket Bans on Gun Possession by People With Felony Records

The SCOTUS contender's 2019 dissent will alarm gun control supporters but reassure people who want judges to take this constitutional provision as seriously as others.

|

Rickey Kanter, who owned a Wisconsin company that sold therapeutic shoes and footwear inserts under the brand name Dr. Comfort, pleaded guilty in 2011 to one count of mail fraud for shipping inserts he falsely claimed were approved by Medicare to a podiatrist in Florida. Kanter received a prison sentence of a year and day, followed by two years of supervised release. He also paid a $50,000 fine and agreed, in a separate civil settlement, to pay Medicare a $27 million reimbursement. But that was not the end of his punishment, since his felony conviction meant that he permanently lost the constitutional right to possess firearms.

That categorical ban on gun ownership by people with felony records, a feature of both Wisconsin and federal law, cannot be reconciled with the Second Amendment, Supreme Court contender Amy Coney Barrett concluded in a 37-page dissent from a 2019 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. Barrett's thorough and scholarly opinion marks her as a judge committed to applying constitutional provisions in light of their historical background and original public meaning.

In the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects the right to own guns for self-defense. At the same time, the majority opinion mentioned some "presumptively lawful regulatory measures," including "longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill." But both Barrett and her two colleagues on a 7th Circuit panel, who upheld the federal and Wisconsin bans that Kanter challenged, agreed that Heller did not settle the question of whether the Second Amendment allows the government to disarm someone like him.

"The constitutionality of felon dispossession was not before the Court in Heller, and because it explicitly deferred analysis of this issue, the scope of its assertion is unclear," Barrett wrote. "For example, does 'presumptively lawful' mean that such regulations are presumed lawful unless a historical study shows otherwise? Does it mean that as-applied challenges are available? Does the Court's reference to 'felons' suggest that the legislature cannot disqualify misdemeanants from possessing guns? Does the word 'longstanding' mean that prohibitions of recent vintage are suspect?"

In addressing a question that she and the majority agreed Heller left unresolved, Barrett considered English common law, proposed and ratified provisions of state constitutions in the U.S., and firearm restrictions enacted in the 18th and 19th centuries. Her conclusion:

History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns. But that power extends only to people who are dangerous. Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons. Nor have the parties introduced any evidence that founding-era legislatures imposed virtue-based restrictions on the right; such restrictions applied to civic rights like voting and jury service, not to individual rights like the right to possess a gun. In 1791—and for well more than a century afterward—legislatures disqualified categories of people from the right to bear arms only when they judged that doing so was necessary to protect the public safety.

That rationale does not easily fit laws that take away the Second Amendment rights of anyone who has ever been convicted of a felony (or, under federal law, "a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year," which is similar but not quite the same thing), no matter how long ago the offense occurred and whether or not it involved violence or even an identifiable victim. While Kanter ripped off Medicare (and therefore taxpayers), the government presented no evidence that his particular crime or any other personal characteristics showed he had violent tendencies that posed a threat to public safety.

The categorical ban on gun possession by people with felony records is therefore "wildly overinclusive," Barrett noted, quoting UCLA law professor Adam Winkler. "It includes everything from Kanter's offense, mail fraud, to selling pigs without a license in Massachusetts, redeeming large quantities of out-of-state bottle deposits in Michigan, and countless other state and federal offenses," she wrote. The ban is also underinclusive, she added, since people may reasonably be deemed dangerous even when they have not been convicted of a felony—for example, when they commit certain violent misdemeanors (another disqualification under federal law).

Given the poor fit between the ban's scope and its ostensible purpose, Barrett said, it is not "substantially related to an important government interest"—the test under the "intermediate scrutiny" that the majority said it was applying in this case. "Neither Wisconsin nor the United States has introduced data sufficient to show that disarming all nonviolent felons substantially advances its interest in keeping the public safe," she wrote. "Nor have they otherwise demonstrated that Kanter himself shows a proclivity for violence. Absent evidence that he either belongs to a dangerous category or bears individual markers of risk, permanently disqualifying Kanter from possessing a gun violates the Second Amendment."

Barrett closed with a warning that will alarm gun control advocates but reassure people dismayed by the failure of federal courts to follow up on Heller and the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (which made it clear that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments) by taking the right to arms as seriously as other constitutionally protected rights. "While 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," she wrote. "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.'"

Advertisement

NEXT: Two Cheers for Supreme Court Term Limits

Second Amendment Gun Rights Gun Control Originalism Supreme Court Amy Coney Barrett

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

252 responses to “Amy Coney Barrett Thinks the Second Amendment Prohibits Blanket Bans on Gun Possession by People With Felony Records

  1. Good for her, confirmation can’t happen soon enough. Trump has had an embarrassment of riches when it comes to SC nominees, between Gorsuch and this woman we should be thrilled.

    1. Yeah man, between her opposition to “qualified immunity” blank checks for out-of-control cops, and now gun control, this babe is looking better and better! More and more babealicious!

      1. Subhuman-a-licious … that’s a poor attempt but you get the gist of it.

        1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…CMs after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

          Here’s what I do…>>Cashapp

    2. I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially rewarding Job I’ve had . Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this Abq-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month . . I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hr

      Heres what I do……………………………………………… More INformation Here

      1. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do….. Click here

    3. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing j0bs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8894 a month. I’ve started this j0b and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
      +++++++++++COPY HERE====Go For More Details

    4. Start making cash online work easily from home.i have received a paycheck of $24K in this month by working online from home.i am a student and i just doing this job in my spare ?Visit Here

    5. Start making cash online work easily from home.i have received a paycheck of $24K in this month by working online Abt from home.i am a student and i just doing this job in my spare ?Visit Here

    6. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and qbstart making extra cash online by follow instruction on the given website………Click here

  2. Is that a herp on her thin upper lip?

    1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…HBg after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

      Here’s what I do…>> Click here

    2. She’s Cajun, Irish and German. It’s probably a freckle.

  3. While I appreciate these glimpses into Barret’s track record, are there any articles on Lagoa coming down the pike?

    1. I think everyone is assuming it will be Barrett, maybe it is just a head fake by Trump. Getting everyone focused on her so he can introduce Lagao, who has less time on the bench.

      1. Base is pushing back on ACB a bit

        1. Yeah no one is perfect. And maybe Trump is allowing the rumor so she draws fire while he secretly is leaning to appointing Lagao.

          1. Yeah that’s it. More 7-dimensional chess.

            1. That isn’t any degree chess, it is typical politics. Or Trump is sold on Barrett. Fuck did you miss me replying to you all the time and showing you up? We can go back to that if you want.

              1. That Lying Jeffy thinks bluffing is 7th dimensional chess shows how dumb he really is.

                1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…CMs after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

                  Here’s what I do…>> Click here

      2. I was leaning toward head fake, but it’s a trade off which depends on a lot of evaluaation.

        There’s an advantage in encouraging the Left to be wrong about the nominee for as long as possible.

        The flip side of that pancake is that tossing out a trial balloon lets you see which way the wind is blowing. Brings up problems before you make the official announcement.

        What happened with Kavanaugh and Gorsuch?

    2. How will they ever draw a distinction between what is regarded as a 2nd Amendment right and what is just insane? For instance using this logic I should be able to possess a fully automatic weapon or even a grenade launcher to defend myself from the boogie man. If not then that is a violation of my rights. But we all know that there are restrictions on such weapons so it would follow that the government can regulate the ownership and possession of deadly weapons and let’s face it they are all dangerous in the wrong hands.

      1. Why not a grenade launcher? When the Second Amendment was written it was quite legal for people to own cannon, pretty much the historical equivalent.

        The emphasis should be on dangerous people. When the prohibition on felons possessing firearms was written, a typical felon was John Dillinger. Today it’s more likely Martha Stewart.

      2. You can own a fully automatic weapon. You need a federal license, I believe, but it isn’t hard to get.

  4. Woohoo! More guns less qualified immunity. I’m in

    1. Yeah she looks good on paper (but so did Kennedy).

    1. Repeatedly and with fervor, ideally in a 3some with the 11th Circuit’s Britt Grant.

    2. Yeah, but only if Tulsi likes her too.

  5. I’m curious if prosecutors will starts adding to black defendants in their plea deals a prohibition against owning guns. Let’s be honest america love white people with guns but not black people with guns. My biggest fear with the second amendment is that it means one thing to a race and a second to another.

    1. Your comment is as poorly worded as it is ill-informed.

      1. The comment may be poorly worded but there is ample evidence that gun control has deeply racist roots.

        And there is good reason to fear that prosecutors will continue their pattern of abusing “voluntary” conditions in plea deals – conditions that are blatantly unconstitutional in any other context.

        1. Yeah and still is racist and classier in how it is applied. Look at California, a shall issue state, it is almost impossible for poor and especially poor minorities to get issued carry permits.

          1. Look at California, a shall issue state, it is almost impossible for poor and especially poor minorities to get issued carry permits.

            It’s for their own good.

            1. I’m confused. California is a may issue state, not a shall issue state. It’s almost impossible to get a carry permit in the urban counties for anyone. It’s much easier in the rural counties.

              1. My mistake you are correct. I did get that mixed up. It is a may issue you are correct.

                1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…HBo after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

                  Here’s what I do…>> CashApp

        2. but there is ample evidence that gun control has deeply racist roots.

          That’s true enough. Unfortunately, that’s not what he said.

    2. my biggest fear is you have family who let you onto their computer.

      1. Some people should be nominated for Darwin awards.

        1. It’s way funnier when they nominate themselves though.

    3. Let’s be honest america love white people with guns but not black people with guns.

      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

      1. I’d wager that for people under 30, the above eclipses “Go ahead, make my day.”

          1. My parents pay per viewed that one for movie night when I was 11. They were unaware of what we were getting into.
            When i was even younger, my aunt got The Last Boy Scout from blockbuster to entertain me one night, because it was a football movie.
            She cut off the vcr like 10 minutes in. Memorable scene.

          2. Yeah, gen x and older millenial

          3. Is this .30 cal vs .50 cal discussion?

    4. Mike Lowrey: Now back up, put the gun down, and get me a pack of Tropical Fruit Bubblicious.
      Marcus Burnett: And some Skittles.

      1. I was disappointed with the latest movie. Not as good as the first two. Still a decent movie. And Tea Leoni was sexy as hell in the first one.

        1. I love Bad Boys 2.
          It’s hilarious.
          They get in numerous shootouts, get in a high speed chase that does tens of millions of dollars of damage and endangers tons of people on the freeway as cars are launched as projectiles, and… INVADE CUBA.
          All to catch an extasy dealer.

          1. I was referring to bad boys 3

            1. I got it.
              Wasn’t refuting you, just joining the conversation.

        2. Tia would be good casting for Judge Barrett.

    5. Democrat prosecutors will. They have a near 200 year history of trying to disarm the darkies.

    6. Funny, you say America is fine with white people and guns but hates black people with guns yet it’s the White people with guns that are vilified and the black people who are held up a strong and independent when they show up with the same guns.

      1. How many black mass murderers can you name? How many white mass murderers can you name?

        1. You’re strengthening his point

    7. The only thing I’d like better than having Blacks in my firearm classes, is for Blacks to step up and become instructors. But then I have an ulterior motive.

      Teaching people to shoot is empowering. Empowered people tend to get uppity.

      I like uppity.

    8. Well, a lot of gun control has been motivated by racism historically. Just as with those past injustices, people need to be vigilant and make sure that the rights of all are respected.

  6. Her position on gun laws will just make the coalition to expand the court even more determined to act. Keep’em coming Reason.

    1. So you admit the court packing scheme is an attempt to end Constitutional rights and inflict authoritarian government prohibition on individual rights?

      1. Not even close and you’ve got it completely backwards. You’re calling the American people authoritarian for having a different opinion on guns and the American people believe Republicans are abusing the process for selecting judges. In the best of circumstances, it’s controversial to overturn a law. When you consider the way in which the Republicans came to their advantage, it makes overturning laws even more suspect and intolerable. Now, I’m actually not as offended when criminal laws get booted but others really care about gun control and I’m more or less sympathetic to it. But fuck with the ACA and other hard fought laws snd and see what happens.

        1. No she upholds the Constitiuton and your response was to advocate for court packing. That is authoritarian. Period. It is an individual right your feelings don’t trump that. You are literally advocating to pack the court to take away rights. It doesn’t get more authoritarian than that.

          1. The court is packed with Republicans judges. Y’all did it. It’s packed up.

            1. The courts aren’t packed. The number of members hasn’t changed in over a century. Your argument just keeps getting less tied to reality. The judges were appointed to empty seats and filled as per the Constitiuton. No one changed the number of seats to appoint new members. And just FYI what side is my side, since I am no longer a Republican and have been LP since 2016?

              1. I could only wish that the courts were “packed” with Libertarians.

            2. Just for shits and giggles what does packed mean to you? The fact that most opening came up in such a way that Republican nominees were confirmed? Fuck calling it packed right now is just whining that you don’t like the rules.

            3. Haha the dumbass doesn’t even know what packing the court means.

            4. You are approaching Tony and Jeffy levels of stupidity here. But, I’m not really surprised.

              1. He is not approaching he passed that event horizon quite awhile ago.

          2. “It doesn’t get more authoritarian than that.”

            Patience.

        2. And fuck with unconstitutional laws is exactly what the courts should do. If the law violates the Constitiuton it should be thrown out. Any other interpretation is an appeal to authoritarian behavior, i.e. we are all subjects rather than citizens and have no recourse against bad laws. Worship of the state (e.g. worship of laws to such a degree that you don’t believe they can be overturned on Constitutional grounds) is the hallmark of statism and by definition statism is always authoritarian.

        3. Also your take that certain laws are beyond review just demonstrates how little civic knowledge you have. Can you explain again how Gerrymandering helps elect Senators?

          1. I can explain how the Senate is undemocratic. I can explain how the Republicans ruthlessly used that undemocratic process to pack the courts with partisan judges. I can explain why judges appointed in such a way could lose credibility.

            1. The Senate is votes in by members of each state, nothing undemocratic about that. And Republicans control most states, again that ain’t gaming the system (which was created in 1783 BTW and the GOP wasn’t even fucking formed for 70 years later). And the Republicans used the system that was put in place in 1783 and didn’t change it so nothing you said has credibility. And the only ones it has lost credibility with are the ones who whine when they don’t get their way. So you obviously don’t like the Constitiuton and the way it is written.

              1. You sound like an extremist.

                1. He’s an extremist for understanding the Constitution?

                  Well congratulations, you’re one of the few people here that isn’t an extremist!

                2. You sound like a leftist.

                3. What exactly is extremist about following the Constitiuton? And understanding the history of the Constitiuton? The fact that you consider the Constitiuton an extremist position sure explains a lot.

                  1. Mea Culpas I did get the date wrong the Constitiuton was passed in 1789, the Revolution ended in 1783. Sorry.

                    1. You are forgiven. Go, and sin no more!

              2. Constitutional Convention: 1787
                Ratification: 1788 (1790, if you think it should have been unanimous.)
                First US Congress meets under the Constitution: 1789.

                Does one have to have a history degree to know these things, or to know how to look them up?

            2. You could try, but it would just provide more evidence of your stupidity.

              So please do!

        4. The america people believe no such thing. *Some* people believe that. Others understand that it’s business as usual

        5. “the way in which the Republicans came to their advantage”

          =

          Elections have consequences

        6. “You’re calling the American people authoritarian for having a different opinion on guns…”

          Your opinion on guns is worth exactly the same as your slimy existence – zero
          “..shall not be infringed.”
          Read it and weep, you pathetic piece of lefty shit.

        7. But fuck with the ACA

          I’m not going to get into the constitutionality of that law but it is a shit law that created perverse incentives. For example, the law caps insurance overhead on claims at 20%. That includes profit. So now the insurance company has no incentive to cut costs on claims. The only way increase profitability is to increase the cost since profits are locked as a percentage. That also incentivizes the insurance company to increase rates, leaving the employer to suppress wages or outsource to avoid increased expenses. Good riddance to that.

        8. The American people do not have a different opinion on guns. Only progressives do. Americans love freedom and the constitution. You,progressives must stop infringing in the rights of Americans.

      2. I wouldn’t call it that. It’s more an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the court. It becomes just another example of partisan BS power plays and the court will lose all respect by the public and the transformation of the US into full on banana republic will be complete. Of course that’s what both major parties want because corruption is much easier in banana republics.

        I can only wonder which country will win the foreign state sponsored coup d’état. Oh, I know, maybe it will be corporate. What kind of odds can I get on Bezos and Musk?

    2. Yes dumbshit we know the democrats are corrupt power seeking individuals with no morality, ethics, or shame. That they wish to inflict their disease on the rest of us should warn you off, but instead like Kirkland you must need the abuse.

  7. O/T (well, it’s tangentially about guns):

    Just look at what these ‘peaceful protestors’ were planning.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/23/oregon-portland-pro-trump-protests-violence-texts

    How many laws were broken here? Conspiracy to commit murder? Conspiracy to commit an act of terror? I wonder if RICO laws could be invoked here. After all yesterday there was so much outpouring of support for using RICO laws against those violent rioters. Maybe Bill Barr could declare them to be a “terrorist organization”. Who’s funding this shadowy cabal of violent extremists?

    1. Thanks for the link!

      The far right
      Revealed: pro-Trump activists plotted violence ahead of Portland rallies
      Patriots Coalition members suggested political assassinations and said ‘laws will be broken, people will get hurt’, leaked chats show

      It all depends on whose ox gets gored!

      1. If they’re doing it online it only means they’re really stupid. There’s no indication they’re any different from the Antifa type folk other than I understand Antifa-likes prefer to keep the discussions offline with no proof other than the ‘he said, she said’. Much better but still basically the same old klan tactics.

        Yeah different klan ideology but when you use the same tactics what’s the difference really.

    2. Is this a 1 night is the same as 100 nights plus a murder? Not sure what you’re proving here.

      1. Think hard, Jesse. I’m sure something will come to you eventually.

        1. So in other words you can’t come up with a logical response so you try sophomoric sarcasm?

    3. Ok.
      RICO the Proud Boys and blmantifa.
      How do you think that’s gonna go?

    4. That link doesn’t say what you or the guardian thinks it says.

      First, they claim to have access to all of it while only releasing snippets.

      And their out of context snips are fully in keeping with planned defensive action, not only offense.

      It’s a rorscach test. You read into it what you want to. But Guardian is definitely telling you what you should think.

      Question – how is something as constitutional as a militia an extreme radical thing? I can’t figure that. But I reject that pejorative.

      1. It’s all bullshit. There is no far right violence.

    5. “The chats on the GroupMe app, shared with the Guardian by the antifascist group Eugene Antifa…”

      False flag?

    6. Always sharing your authoritarian fantasies.

  8. “Supreme Court justices serve for life and make decisions that impact every American,” said a statement from the League of Women Voters. “They require a thorough vetting process that is transparent to the American people. Such a process would be undermined if rushed through.”

    The whole deal stinks. You can’t get that kind of stink off. Trump has almost ruined the Supreme Court. For their own sake, the judge should not accept the nomination until after the election and depending on the results maybe not accept at all. 5-4 is good enough. The Republicans are too greedy.

    1. Rushed through? RBG was approved in 42 days, others sitting on the court were approved in meer weeks. Nothing is being rushed through. And how did Trump ruin the courts? By appointing judges you don’t like? The same as conservatives could say about Obama’s picks. Fuck you have the civic understanding of a 4 yo.

    2. Well, the real solution here is to get to a point where who sits on SCOTUS doesn’t really matter that much.

      Both tribes are fond of writing bad, vague, terrible laws and then leaving it up to courts to sort it all out. It’s great for the politicians in three ways: they can claim credit for “helping people” in writing these vague laws; they can derive power for “shaping the courts” to interpret these terrible laws in the “correct way”; and when the whole mess falls apart, the politicians can avoid blame for writing crappy laws and instead blame the courts for “not doing their jobs”.

      We just need far fewer laws in general, and those laws that remain, whatever the courts have to do with those, should be just adjusting details, not making sweeping national policy changes.

      1. He thinks some laws are sancrosanct and above judicial review. He includes by implication above gun control laws and doesn’t think packing the courts to destroy gun rights is an authoritarian move.

        1. He thinks some laws are sancrosanct and above judicial review.

          I will let him speak for himself, but that is not how I interpret his comment.

          And how would you fairly describe what Republicans have done lately with regards to the federal judiciary? They haven’t exactly been secretive of their desire to use their temporary power to install as many right-wing judges as they can on the courts.

          1. He said as much yesterday that the courts have no authority to overturn the ACA. Do you have any principles Jeff beyond Republicans evil? Come on, you claim to be middle of the road. He literally stated yesterday the courts have no authority to decide on the ACA and he doesn’t think packing the courts to enact gun control is authoritarian, he said as much above.

            1. He said as much yesterday that the courts have no authority to overturn the ACA.

              If he said that, then I don’t agree with it. I was referring to his comments today. Maybe he should speak for himself.

              1. A said this mfer court should take care because they have the Trump and McConnell stink all over them. If they start bossing around a Democratic president and country then they risk a response like adding a few judges for a modern America. God bless.

                1. So you admit they can’t rule on anything a Democratic president does? You aren’t helping your case.

              2. He is speaking for himself. He keeps doubling down. So you have a chance to call out a tribalist leftist but once again you are defending him. Just like always.

                1. I’m “defending him” by letting him speak for himself and disagreeing with what you claimed he said?

                  1. Yes because it was pointed out what he said previously. And yes you are defending him when you said that isn’t how I read it.

                    1. So disagreeing with your interpretation, means that I am defending him? Maybe “disagreeing with your interpretation” means that I am “disagreeing with your interpretation” and the rest is you reading too much into it.

                    2. No, when I also referred to his comment that explaining the Constitiuton is an extremist position your reply was to imply I was crying. Taken all together it seems you rather criticize me rather than the person who is actually stating the Courts have no power, is advocating for court stuffing and believes that Republican nominees can’t rule on Democratic presidential actions. Taken all together you are defending him.

                    3. Someone called you a name here on the Reason comment forums? Heavens to Betsy! Where is my fainting couch?

                      What do you want me to say? He shouldn’t have called you a name? Okay, he shouldn’t have called you a name. But I’m not the forum hall monitor. It’s not my job to be policing everyone’s comments.

                    4. It isn’t about the name calling and if you think it is that’s on you, it is the fact that he thinks following the Constitiuton and understanding it is an extremist position.

            2. Come on, you claim to be middle of the road.

              I have never claimed to be “middle of the road”.

              1. So you admit you’re a leftist now?

                1. Because those are the only two options, “middle of the road” or “leftist”.

                  1. Well you aren’t right and you aren’t middle of the road so that leaves one conclusion, logically.

                    1. Well, since *you* aren’t right and aren’t middle of the road, I guess that leaves “one conclusion” for both of us, doesn’t it?

                    2. I have never stated I am not right. I have stated multiple times I am a libertarian leaning conservative. So sad at a gotcha.

                    3. Well. Have you heard of this thing called a ‘political compass’?
                      https://www.politicalcompass.org/

                    4. And???

                    5. And just for your information I did just take the test. Soldily Libertarian right, Authoritarian score was minus 4.15 and economic freedom was positive 6.63.

                    6. It means that there are other conclusions besides “left”, “middle of the road”, and “right”.

                    7. Just for shits and giggles what is your score, since I gave you mine? And not really, the X axis is left vs right and the y axis is authoritarian vs libertarian, ergo even if you are not on upper side on the y axis you still are left middle or right on the x axis.

                    8. Economic axis, +0.75
                      Social axis, -5.44

                    9. So less free market, and slightly more socially liberal than me. So I actually you are on the right side of the scale, economically. Albeit only slightly.

                    10. He’s lying get his actual answers

                    11. 4.5
                      -2.1

                      But it’s kinda dated, and bullshit anyway

                2. Yes, Lying Jeffy is a leftist. He’s also fat.

                  1. That test was great!
                    I am exactly in the middle.
                    And I thought I was conservative because I’m a gun enthusiast who reads the Bible!
                    I guess not caring what you do in the bedroom, who adopts, or what you smoke, put me in the center.
                    I left the Republican Party when I had to get rid of all my bump stocks.
                    Now I’m just going to go ahead and buy an overpriced machine gun

              2. And so you are aware, upthread he just called me an extremist for explaining how the Constitiuton works.

                1. Would you like a tissue?

                  1. Would you like some principle

                  2. Would you like some Drano?

          2. And as for their desire to put conservative judges, so what it is their Constitutional duty to fill court seats. How is this different than Democrats trying to do the same thing when they are in control?

            1. Are you aware of the rules changes that McConnell has instituted in order to speed nominations through the Senate?

              1. No McConnell rule (which is actually the Biden rule BTW) was that if the President and senatorial control were different parties he said it multiple times in 2016. You are leaving out the central aspect of his policy.

                1. That’s not what I’m referring to.
                  I’m referring to things like using the “nuclear option” for all the judges, and eliminating so-called “blue slips”.

                  He is going beyond what Democrats did.

                  1. Didn’t Reid end the filibuster for lower courts first?

                    1. Reid did it on a temporary basis. McConnell made it permanent.

                    2. So Reid did it but McConnell isn’t allowed to use the same tactic?

                    3. Tell me how condemning McConnell for using Reid’s tactics isn’t pure tribalist bullshit?

                    4. Repeat after me: McConnell has gone beyond what Reid did.

                    5. By using the same tactics as Reid he has gone beyond Reid? Repeat after me ‘chemjeff is a partisan hack’.

                    6. Is this where you object to everything I say because you’re drunk and/or bored?

                    7. So using Reid’s tactics is going beyond Reid? As for a single senator being able to block a nomination using blue slips that is a recent invention, not a norm. For most of the existence of blue slips (not introduced until 1917 BTW) it took both senators and all it did was have the committee report adversely but the Senate could still vote. Requiring both Senators to turn in positive blue slips before voting didn’t start until 2003. So arguably McConnell just reverted to how Blue Slips were used for most of their history. And they weren’t even used for the first 150 years of the country at all.

                    8. Yes using actual history and principles would appear drunk to you who doesn’t understand either.

                    9. Making Reid’s temporary tactics permanent is going beyond what Reid did, yes.

                      Did Reid get rid of the “blue slips”? No.

                    10. Reid only made it temporary because he didn’t want Republicans using it. I don’t consider using the same tactic going beyond. As for the blue slips, yes Reid didn’t eliminate them, I’ll give you that one but the use of blue slips is a new thing so hardly a norm. And allowing someone to completely block a nomination is a very recent thing. So again not a norm. So yes McConnell did technically bgo beyond Reid on one issue, that has very little historical basis and no Constitutional basis. So ehh! Not the end of the world, not that big a deal.

                    11. McConnell just basically ended a 15 year old process. And used Reid’s tactics that Reid only made temporary so others could not use the tactics. Not sure how either of those are a bad thing.

                  2. Blue slips for a Supreme Court nomination is an assertion that the Senator owns people from his state and has a veto over what jobs they can get. If that’s a tradition, it’s a bad tradition like slavery.

            2. You’re swimming in koolaid. Adding a few judges is a hardcore move but justified because Republicans have been so dirty. Look, it hasn’t even happened yet and might never so you can chill the fuck out. But prepare yourself for hell if you fuck with the ACA. That’s politics.

              1. How have they been dirty? By appointing judges using the power granted them in the Constitiuton. And define hell and fuck with, is the AcA a Constitutional amendment? If not it can be changed live with it. Fuck learn some civics.

                1. He tried.
                  His time in the 6th grade were some of the best years of his life, but he failed civics every time.

          3. Don’t judges get appointed when there are openings on the bench? Did the GOP create a bunch of new court positions or are they just filling vacant ones? All this talk of court packing. Democrats making threats if they don’t get their way. If the GOP holds the Senate and Trump remains president, both of which are likely, the Democrats have provided McConnell with both the motivation and moral authority to add more judges to the Supreme Court. As usual the Democrats are too stupid to see their changing rules to get their way policy can blow up in their faces. They’re in this position of being totally powerless because Harry Reid changed the rules.

            1. I remember when McConnell said the Dems would regret those changes “ sooner than they think”.
              I remember thinking at the time that the Dems were awfully short sighted.
              Eventually the stupid party would get into power.
              It’s the same thing in California.
              Eventually the Republicans will win.
              And then Ranked choice voting will seem like a bad idea

              1. “It’s the same thing in California.
                Eventually the Republicans will win”

                There is no evidence supporting such a prediction

          4. Of course they do that. And Democrats would do the same thing given the opportunity. Politics sucks, but here we are.

    3. And nothing rushed, both her and Lagao were appointed in the last two years and have already undergone vetting and both have been on the short list for years, so they aren’t unknowns.

    4. The whole deal stinks. You can’t get that kind of stink off. Trump has almost ruined the Supreme Court.

      how? what are you even talking about? what does this even mean?

  9. I think Barrett is a huge mistake. We don’t need another bare-bones conservative on the court. You cannot win an election by appealing to one electorate. Lagoa is a far smarter choice and much more likely to command respect from Latina/o voters who might be on the fence regarding Trump’s 2020 election.

    1. for that reason, I don’t think it will be Barrett.

      For one, they conservatives in power KNOW that overturning Roe v Wade would be bad for them. They can get perpetual motion machine energy from their base by leaving it in place.

      1. https://babylonbee.com/news/republicans-nervous-roe-v-wade-could-be-overturned-eliminating-any-reason-to-vote-for-them

        When you think about it, there is some truth to this. I know several (not a ton, but several- my mother being one of them) people I would consider “bleeding hearts” in general but that bleeding heart extends to the unborn. As they see abortion as literal murder, any possibility of ending it is an overriding factor in how they vote. Should that no longer be an issue, suddenly I think a lot of that group would see significant appeal in the social-justicy, hand holding, “let’s govern with love and compassion” kind of platform that Dems are more likely to sell (if not live up to). I think a lot of the evangelical megachurch crowd would fall into this. They might not switch in a single election cycle (you don’t just become friends with someone you thought was a murderer, plus even with Roe v Wade overturned, Dems would almost certainly make it their business to try and reinstate it) but in less than a generation, I think you could see a shift.

      2. I disagree. I think it will be barrett because
        a) trump is the one who picks … he didnt make the list but he gets to pick and he likes good looking women [barrett being better looking imo]
        b)if trump worried about gaming the nuances of race\skin based demos he wouldnt say half the stuff he says – he’d actually pretend to be politically correct
        -so in the end he will pick who HE likes best for his own reasons and not for electoral advantage [nearly as much]

      3. That’s how they rationalize it, but the base just sees a bait and switch. Appropriately so, because that IS what you’re describing: A bait and switch.

        It’s not perpetual motion, it’s a machine running down to a stop because no energy is being put back in it.

    1. What does that even achieve? Did those specific rioters have a specific grievance with that specific restaurant? Otherwise, why go in flipping tables. I’m not expecting Einsteinian levels of reasoning out of thugs with bats, but at least a modicum would be nice.

      1. It’s nothing more, nor less, than terrorism

    2. If only transgressions by powerful people incensed you as much as those committed by people of no importance do.

  10. BREAKING: Trump SCOTUS Candidate Interview Questionnaire leaked!

    FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

    Ask each candidate each of the following questions:

    1. Are you a woman? (yes/no)
    2. In the upcoming election, will you help me with the Suburban Housewife demographic? (yes/no)
    3. As you know, my electoral strategy is to deliberately cast doubt on the electoral process, inevitably inviting lawsuits and sending the election contest to the Supreme Court. Will you rule in my favor? (yes/no)
    4. Do you agree that I’m the best president ever? (yes/no)
    5. Will you vote against ObamaCare? (yes/no) (Trick question – the correct answer is “whatever Trump’s position is happens to be at that moment”)
    6. Are you willing to personally murder George Soros? (yes/no)
    7. Which is more dangerous – the Marxist threat, or the Marxist menace?
    8. Do you love America? And by “America”, I mean the patriotic red states in the middle, not the shithole blue states. (yes/no)
    9. I’m totally the best President ever, right? (yes/no)
    10. Can I grab your pussy? (yes/no)

    1. So it is Biden’s questionnaire because he also is accused of grabbing a woman’s pussy? Or did you memory hole that he was accused of sexual assault by a surbordinate?

      1. And to expand, Trump said they let you, whereas Biden is accused of being told no and still doing it.

      2. Lighten up, Francis.

        1. Really? That is the best you can come up with when your attempt at humor is pointed out it equally applies, if not more so, to the other candidate?

          1. Have you been drinking again?

            1. Is that your best? So sad.

            2. Did you think that up all by yourself? Oh no you didn’t because people have been using that against squrrly for years so not only sad but unoriginal to boot.

              1. Did you have a bad day?

                What are you drinking?

                1. Having a great day, you keep showing how immature and unsophisticated you are which is the cherry on top.

                  1. Well glad to hear you are having a great day.
                    What are you drinking?

                    1. Milk.

                    2. I don’t drink alcohol until after I’ve done my evening chores which I just finished.

                    3. Good for you. Milk has a lot of calcium and Vitamin D.

                    4. And protein and Conjugated linoleic acid.

                    5. And bovine growth hormone.

                    6. Actually the difference is minimal between rBST treated cows and non rBST treated cows both will have BST in them and rBST is rarely used anyhow because of the scaremongering campaign. It would benefit the environment and the farmer if it was used but the consumers don’t want it, so creameries have basically stop buying milk from farmers that use it.

                    7. And both rBST treated cows and non treated the actual amount of growth hormone present is measured in ng/kg of milk so hardly full. More like trace amounts.

      1. And he definitely isn’t a leftist. Lol.

        1. You’re right. Only leftists make jokes at Trump’s expense. Real patriotic Muricans take Trump super-seriously and even salute when his name is only mentioned.

          1. No only leftist don’t realize the joke also applies to Biden and arguably more so and when it is pointed out come up with a lane reply of lighten up Francis. Sorry that was pretty silly on your part.

            1. And leftist jokes tend to be bitter and lack any understanding of basic humor.
              Fitting.

    2. The peaceful protesters in Louisville shot two police officers. You must be so happy tonight. Did you cum when you heard it or had the news of people being terrorized in restaurants cause you to be a bit exhausted at that point?

      1. There are actually some people around here who derive pleasure when cops are shot. I’m not one of them. To be honest I am closer to a pacifist mindset.

        1. ” To be honest I am closer to a pacifist mindset.”

          This is about policing not war you gibbering idiot

      2. Up to three now, so I’ve heard.

        BLM really wants their stack of protester bodies, don’t they.

        1. 3rd guy injured, but not shot. Per https://twitter.com/shongables/status/1308955069979779073

          Well, it’s still early.

      3. I don’t condone it, but what do you expect? The police have declared themselves above legal retribution. Well then, this is the retribution that is left.

    3. “BREAKING: Trump SCOTUS Candidate Interview Questionnaire leaked!…”

      Did your mommy say you were clever?
      She lied.
      What a pathetic attempt at humor.

  11. I could care less about Roe v Wade

    If she’s pro 2A and skeptical of government regulatory overreach I’m in.

    1. She apparently upheld lockdowns, so…
      Let’s see what the Cuban has to offer.

  12. I am creating an honest wage from home 3000 Dollars/week , that is wonderful, below a year agone i used to be unemployed during a atrocious economy. I convey God on a daily basis i used to be endowed these directions and currently it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with everybod…. Read More   

  13. All gun control laws like background checks are unconstitutional.

    +1 if she is the nominee.

  14. Her bitter, seething, inconsequential dissents with respect to gun safety decisions next year should be entertaining. She would mostly be writing separately, if at all, though, as junior justice among the six-justice conservative minority in dissent.

    Carry on, clingers. For another four months, anyway

    Then, the reckoning.

    1. “Her bitter, seething, inconsequential dissents”

      It’s telling that even though that doesn’t apply to her at all when she’s on the Supreme Court you don’t seem to have any other responses in your memory banks so you issued that one and it doesn’t make any sense to anybody

    2. Gun safety? That’s pretty much up to the owner. Minority? So you think the libtards will win and pack the court. You should watch the Young Turks 2016 election coverage. It will give you a glimpse of the future. Liberals cheat, lie, manipulate, threaten, and use any other means to get their way rather than open debate resulting in sound public policy. Why do we only see gun control mentioned in the wake of tragedy? Because gun control is bad policy. It Doesn’t Work. They need emotions to override logic in order to advance their agenda. The National Academy of Scienes and the CDC reviewed gun control laws to identify the ones that worked. Their conclusions were identical: None. That’s right Karen, no gun control law ever made you a damn bit safer. In addition the totally antigun CDC wrote in an unpublished report guns are used defensively around 2 million times per year. Probably why the report was unpublished. Contrary to liberal dogma being a victim is not morally superior. If you don’t want a gun don’t own one. But you have no business telling the next guy what to do.

    3. BTW nobody is fooled by the lame attempt to re-label gun control as “gun safety”.

    4. Are you still pretending to be libertarian?

  15. I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially Abe rewarding Job I’ve had . Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month . . I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hrHeres what I doVisit here to earn thousands of dollars

  16. It’s obvious common sense isn’t common anymore.

    Nice campaign button.

    “Libertarians for retards and murderers with guns.”

    1. Speaking of retards, murder isn’t a non-violent felony, retard.

      1. Threat of violence is irrelevant as in the case of extortion, dipshit.

        1. Fuck off and die, Nazi.

      2. Mostly peaceful felons only.

  17. Reason site give me a thousand of dollars $ and….READ MORE

    1. To whom did you provide poontang?

  18. I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially Abe rewarding Job I’ve had . Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month . . I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hrHeres what I do Visit site

  19. By the way, I almost forgot to mention that, assuming Barrett is the nominee, the more the senate democrats attack her religious faith, the more they’re going to piss off Joe Manchin, who is also Catholic.

    1. Not to mention Joe Biden!

    2. And Hispanic voters. Win/win, really.

  20. Barrett. Logoa, Jill Larson; all are better that RBG and certainly anything that would come out of a Harris administration. That is if you actually favor limited government and have any [positve] interest whatsoever in the 2A.

    As for Barretts position on non violent felons and the right to bear, it only make sense if any restriction is indeed concerned with actual public safety, and not just another opportunity to arbitrarily restrict that part of the BOR. I’ve actually seen opeds that call for minor traffic offenses as a cause to take away someone’s right to own a gun.

    Personally I am counting my blessing, and to the day SCOTUS grants cert to a 2A case and settles the disputes among the lower courts.

    1. Yes from a Libertarian standpoint the judicial nominees by Trump to the SC and other courts will be a lasting legacy. We need to get more Libertarian minded people elected to congress.

  21. Opposes qualified immunity. Smeared by progressives. Sounds about right.

  22. Well if liberals are going to get convicted liberal felons to vote for them, the least conservatives can do is make sure convicted conservative felons are armed?

  23. A big part of the problem is what I call felony inflation. Felonies used to be really serious crimes, actual hanging offenses. Nowadays, legislators inflate what are really regulatory offenses into felonies(by statute) to prove how serious they are about enforcing statutes that are hard to enforce, or are just widely ignored. It’s just a cheap political trick. If you are going to impose felony-type penalties, *mens rea* should be a necessary element of the offense.

    1. While I agree fully with “mens rea”, I would say it falls short. Before the B.A.R. Association criminally perverted our justice system as part of their campaign of subversion, people were generally left alone by the government and it’s agents entirely, as without an injured party to bring a claim, there was no crime. So, mens rea sure, but not before corpus delicti.
      It is the B.A.R. Association’s fictional concept of malum prohibitum that “creates” crimes where non would otherwise exist. Or maybe I should say it is the application of malum prohibitum statutes to People, instead of commerce, for the purpose of abject tyranny, that is the issue.

    2. Not just felony inflation, the penalties for felonies are starting to percolate down to misdemeanors. It used to be that one of the traditional distinctions between misdemeanors and felonies is that only the latter could result in you losing any civil rights.

      Not since the Lautenberg amendment.

  24. Jacob Sullum
    “That categorical ban on gun ownership by people with felony records, a feature of both Wisconsin and federal law”…

    The “ban” as you call it has nothing to do with “law”… They are both federal & state, “statutory codes”. The BAR Association’s fantasy land of “legal fiction”. The cancer that has been destroying our justice system since before the Civil War. Of course a judge versed in constitutional law gives it no credence.
    The government we created for ourselves and put limits on via the constitution, has no authority to alter the limits we put on them.

    1. “Bar” is not an abbreviation.

  25. How will they ever draw a distinction between what is regarded as a 2nd Amendment right and what is just insane? For instance using this logic I should be able to possess a fully automatic weapon or even a grenade launcher to defend myself from the boogie man. If not then that is a violation of my rights. But we all know that there are restrictions on such weapons so it would follow that the government can regulate the ownership and possession of deadly weapons and let’s face it they are all dangerous in the wrong hands.

    1. Why should they? An effective citizen militia needs modern weapons.

  26. Best SC nominee in decades. Get it done.

  27. This online Magazine/Forum should be called Psychotic Viewpoints.

    Jacob Sullen as is the case with all fantasy writers should have done his due diligence and researched the laws pertaining to being sentenced to a felony and 2nd Amendment rights, if you can convince a judge of existing extenuating or it was a Class D Felony committed decades earlier as in vandalism exceeding $25,000 in total property damage you can get your 2nd Amendment rights reinstated in the state of WI and many other states for that matter.

    Reason, ROFLMAO never has been anything reasonable or rational about the opinions they have.

  28. The left incessantly whines about how the justice system unfairly corrals black men into becoming felons and prisoners.
    Yet, they are supportive of disarming all felons.
    In other words, the left is okay with disarming minorities.
    Gun control continues to further its racist origins and the Democrats continue being the purveyors of racism.
    Google Jim Crow Laws. The Dems want blacks unarmed and vulnerable.

    1. Considering the 2nd Amendment was written to protect people from (among other things) slave uprisings, let’s not just throw around accusations of favoring racist policy.

      Do you think gang violence could be at least partially addressed by making guns more scarce? Or do you only care about gang violence to the extent that you can use it as political rhetoric for why black people suck?

  29. As long as the felony was not violent in a literal sense…meaning that there was no actual or threatened physical violence/injury or use of any kind of a weapon then a felon should not lose their 2nd Amendment rights. If a weapon or physical violence was NOT involved, 2nd Amendment right should NOT be forfeited.

  30. [ USA PEOPLE COME HERE ONLY ] My last month’s online job to earn extra dollars every month just by doing work for maximum 5 to 9 hrs a day. I have. joined this job about 3 months ago and in my first month i have made $17k+ easily without any special online experience. Everybody on this earth can get this job today and start making cash online by just follow details on this website…Click For Full Detail.

  31. Making more pay each month from $15,000 to $18,000 by simply making a simple showing on the web from home. I have gotten $17594 a month ago from this online activity by simply doing this in my low maintenance for most extreme 2 to 3 hrs day by day on the web….. Read More   

  32. Single Mom With 4 Kids Lost Her Job and…READ MORE

  33. Single Mom With 4 Kids Lost Her Job and they…READ MORE

  34. … and you DO have a right to falsely yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater.

    Not prohibited in the constitution so nyah-nyah-nyah!

    You are all gun nuts!

  35. ¦A¦M¦A¦Z¦I¦N¦G¦ ¦J¦O¦B¦S¦
    Start your work at home right now. Spend more time with your family and earn. Start bringing 85$/hr just on a laptop. Very easy way to make your life happy and earning continuously.last week my check was 24551$.pop over here this site…….COPY HERE====Go For More Details