Jump to content

Barrett’s Vote Could Tilt the Supreme Court on Gun Rights


mauserme

Recommended Posts

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/30/us/supreme-court-barrett-gun-rights.html




 

Justice Barrett’s Vote Could Tilt the Supreme Court on Gun Rights

For years, conservative justices have said the court disfavors the Second Amendment. Justice Amy Coney Barrett is likely to shift the balance, and a case to help her do so may be knocking.

By Adam Liptak
Nov. 30, 2020, 5:00 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON — Justice Amy Coney Barrett is just starting to make her mark at the Supreme Court.

On Wednesday, her vote flipped the court’s approach to restrictions on attendance at religious services during the coronavirus pandemic. While Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was alive, the court had allowed such limits, in California and Nevada, by 5 to 4 votes. After Justice Barrett succeeded her, she joined the court’s four most conservative justices to strike down restrictions in New York.

Those same four justices are now on high alert for a promising case in which to expand Second Amendment rights, having written repeatedly and emphatically about the court’s failure to take gun rights seriously. Justice Barrett seems poised to supply the fifth vote they need.

A Second Amendment case decided last week by the federal appeals court in Philadelphia is a promising candidate for Supreme Court review, not least because it presents an issue on which Justice Barrett has already taken a stand.

It concerns Lisa M. Folajtar, who would like to buy a gun. But she is a felon, having pleaded guilty to tax evasion, which means under federal law she may not possess firearms.

She sued, arguing that the law violated her Second Amendment rights. A divided three-judge panel of appeals court rejected her challenge, saying that committing a serious crime has consequences. It can lead to losing the right to vote, to serve on a jury — or to have a gun.

...

Justice Barrett’s arrival changes the calculus. Should Ms. Folajtar appeal to the Supreme Court, it is a good bet that Justice Barrett will find her arguments persuasive.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so, the problem you have with "violent" v "non-violent" is that the state may not have been able to prove the alleged violence, the defendant, having spent thousands of dollars already on criminal defense, and missed dozens of days of work already, pleads guilty to a BS crime he didn't commit, simply because its cheaper, and you want to deprive him of his civil rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...