mauserme Posted November 30, 2020 at 12:21 PM Share Posted November 30, 2020 at 12:21 PM 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 RightsFor 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 LiptakNov. 30, 2020, 5:00 a.m. ETWASHINGTON — 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 More sharing options...
Plinkermostly Posted November 30, 2020 at 01:05 PM Share Posted November 30, 2020 at 01:05 PM Could come out as: shall not be infringed -- that would require strict scrutiny, and that would be . . . wonderful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raw Power Posted November 30, 2020 at 07:05 PM Share Posted November 30, 2020 at 07:05 PM This could potentially be applied to voting rights as well. I don't have any issue with that, but I'm sure some on here do. Once the debt to society is paid, rights should be restored, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTHunter Posted November 30, 2020 at 09:14 PM Share Posted November 30, 2020 at 09:14 PM This case deals with "nonviolent" vs. "violent" felony cases. But who determines the "what" of violence? Or the level of it?And can they be trusted to apply the same standards to different ethnicities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sctman800 Posted November 30, 2020 at 09:42 PM Share Posted November 30, 2020 at 09:42 PM The problem I find when looking at violent vs. non-violent felon cases is a lot of reduced charges. Or charges dropped for a guilty plea on the reduced charge so the states attorney does not have to go to trial. Jim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted December 2, 2020 at 01:51 AM Share Posted December 2, 2020 at 01:51 AM Those same four justices are now on high alert for a promising case in which to expand Second Amendment rightsI would use the word "restore" instead of "expand". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benbow Posted December 2, 2020 at 02:13 AM Share Posted December 2, 2020 at 02:13 AM 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 More sharing options...
mab22 Posted December 2, 2020 at 03:00 AM Share Posted December 2, 2020 at 03:00 AM I believe her stance is that non-violent felons should have their 2nd amendment rites restored. http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2019/D03-15/C:18-1478:J:Flaum:aut:T:fnOp:N:2309276:S:0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRJ Posted December 2, 2020 at 11:38 AM Share Posted December 2, 2020 at 11:38 AM I'm with ACB on this. Restore rights after time served.If it's safe to let them walk the streets then they should be afforded the ability to vote and carry a firearm and associate with other people who may also be excons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.