Jump to content


Photo

Amy Coney Barrett


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 fxdpntc

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 525 posts
  • Joined: 24-September 13

Posted 18 March 2019 - 07:00 PM

Interesting dissent to a recent 7th Circuit decision about felons and the Second Amendment. 

 

Also interesting, because  Barrett's possible appointment to the SC, is controversial among 2A supporters.

 

Rickey I. Kanter pleaded guilty to one count of federal mail fraud for falsely representing that his company’s therapeutic shoe inserts were Medicare-approved and for billing Medicare on that basis. Both federal law and Wisconsin law bar a convicted felon from possessing a firearm.

On Friday, a Seventh Circuit panel ruled (in Kanter v. Barr) that the application of those federal and Wisconsin bars to Kanter did not violate his Second Amendment rights. In an impressive dissent (beginning here), Judge Amy Coney Barrett explained why she disagreed. From her opening paragraphs (emphasis in original):

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.

https://www.national...amendment-case/



#2 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,693 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 18 March 2019 - 09:10 PM

I like the argument, there are WAY and I mean WAY too many non-violent crimes that should not remove protected rights for a lifetime if at all, but they do and the list grows literally every day!

 

IMO it's a planned and deliberate government overeach and opression tactic by leglislators used to circumvent the Constitution's protections.


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#3 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 13,388 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 18 March 2019 - 10:48 PM

The dogma speaks loudly in her...


“Most gun control arguments miss the point. If all control boils fundamentally to force, how can one resist aggression without equal force? How can a truly “free” state exist if the individual citizen is enslaved to the forceful will of individual or organized aggressors?
 
 It cannot.” 

 

― Tiffany Madison― 


#4 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 13,388 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 18 March 2019 - 10:53 PM

Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent

 

https://www.amazon.c...ASIN=1594035229

 

 

The volume of federal crimes in recent decades has increased well beyond the statute books and into the morass of the Code of Federal Regulations, handing federal prosecutors an additional trove of vague and exceedingly complex and technical prohibitions to stick on their hapless targets.  No social class or profession is safe from this troubling form of social control by the executive branch, and nothing less than the integrity of our constitutional democracy hangs in the balance.

 


“Most gun control arguments miss the point. If all control boils fundamentally to force, how can one resist aggression without equal force? How can a truly “free” state exist if the individual citizen is enslaved to the forceful will of individual or organized aggressors?
 
 It cannot.” 

 

― Tiffany Madison― 


#5 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 20,738 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 19 March 2019 - 05:17 AM

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.


I love this.

IC has been making this same argument for years.

#6 Ranger

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 977 posts
  • Joined: 22-February 09

Posted 19 March 2019 - 07:09 AM

I actually logged in just to post the link. I think her dissent is very well written and logical.

#7 THE KING

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,654 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 09

Posted 19 March 2019 - 09:49 AM

Now we can only hope RBG leaves the bench. 

 

ACB would be a nice replacement based on this dissenting opinion from her. 



NRA Patriot Life Member - Endowment
ISRA Member
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
ISP Certified Illinois Conceal Carry Instructor
Retired Professional Firefighter / Paramedic


#8 Teufel Hunden

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 493 posts
  • Joined: 07-January 14

Posted 19 March 2019 - 10:31 AM

Now we can only hope RBG leaves the bench. 
 
ACB would be a nice replacement based on this dissenting opinion from her.


It will also be interesting to see how the left wages a war of personal destruction on her (ACB - if nominated). Unlikely they will go with their standby of uncorroborated sexual harassment so I wonder what they will turn to. My bet is that they will attack her faith as a Catholic and say that she is disqualified because she believes abortion is immoral. In doing so, they'll also turn Article VI, Clause 3 on its head.

#9 cybermgk

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,141 posts
  • Joined: 10-October 17

Posted 19 March 2019 - 11:11 AM

 

Now we can only hope RBG leaves the bench. 
 
ACB would be a nice replacement based on this dissenting opinion from her.


It will also be interesting to see how the left wages a war of personal destruction on her (ACB - if nominated). Unlikely they will go with their standby of uncorroborated sexual harassment so I wonder what they will turn to. My bet is that they will attack her faith as a Catholic and say that she is disqualified because she believes abortion is immoral. In doing so, they'll also turn Article VI, Clause 3 on its head.

 

Yea, they will go the 'bigoted route, possibly using her religious beliefs as the *ist basis.


ISRA Member

NRA Member

U.S.A.F Veteran

Single Father of 2


#10 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 13,388 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 19 March 2019 - 11:41 AM

 It will soon be time to replace Bader-Ginsberg, and watch how the liberal entitlement babes will screech and wail, demanding that a "progressive" female judge be picked as Ginsberg's replacement to "honor her memory".

 

They will wage a war of destruction against Barrett.  I think it reveals that the National Organization for Women, is nothing but a collection of radical leftists who happen to be female.  

 

The National Organization for Woman will praise secular feminists who advocate for easier and tax-payer funded abortions, but a Christian woman who wants to marry a man, and have 5 or 6 kids?  They call her a cow and the liberal media never says a peep about it.  National Organization for Women ?  Well not for Jewish women, not unless those Jewish women are willing to label Israel as an occupying power and advocate for sanctions against Israel.  

 

A prominent conservative African American woman was called an Uncle Tom and an Aunt Jemima, and there was never a statement from NOW condemning the remarks.  As soon as there is any criticism of a female liberal progressive politician, NOW immediately categorizes the criticism as a sexist attack by those who are waging a war on women.


“Most gun control arguments miss the point. If all control boils fundamentally to force, how can one resist aggression without equal force? How can a truly “free” state exist if the individual citizen is enslaved to the forceful will of individual or organized aggressors?
 
 It cannot.” 

 

― Tiffany Madison― 


#11 drumgod

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 561 posts
  • Joined: 26-January 13

Posted 19 March 2019 - 12:27 PM

 

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.


I love this.

IC has been making this same argument for years.

 

 

but... but... Guns are evil killing machines therefore anyone who owns one is dangerous...



#12 MagSlap

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,481 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 15

Posted 19 March 2019 - 01:17 PM

 

 

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.


I love this.

IC has been making this same argument for years.

 

 

but... but... Guns are evil killing machines therefore anyone who owns one is dangerous...

 

 

This a clear demonstration of the ingestion of "Liberal Logic".... 

While you point is taken...be careful.  Experimenting too much with such a drug will cause long-term mental health issues.

(Not purple)



#13 Lou

    Resident Old Guy

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 13,612 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 04

Posted 19 March 2019 - 01:39 PM

 It will soon be time to replace Bader-Ginsberg, and watch how the liberal entitlement babes will screech and wail, demanding that a "progressive" female judge be picked as Ginsberg's replacement to "honor her memory".
 
They will wage a war of destruction against Barrett.  I think it reveals that the National Organization for Women, is nothing but a collection of radical leftists who happen to be female.  
 
The National Organization for Woman will praise secular feminists who advocate for easier and tax-payer funded abortions, but a Christian woman who wants to marry a man, and have 5 or 6 kids?  They call her a cow and the liberal media never says a peep about it.  National Organization for Women ?  Well not for Jewish women, not unless those Jewish women are willing to label Israel as an occupying power and advocate for sanctions against Israel.  
 
A prominent conservative African American woman was called an Uncle Tom and an Aunt Jemima, and there was never a statement from NOW condemning the remarks.  As soon as there is any criticism of a female liberal progressive politician, NOW immediately categorizes the criticism as a sexist attack by those who are waging a war on women.

You have to look no further than NOWs support of Bill Clinton knowing full well how he treated women.
As long as Bill was 100% behind reproductive rights he could do no wrong in the eyes of NOW.

If it ever comes to ACB being nominated to the SCOTUS you will see what true misogyny looks like,

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -  George Orwell

A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again. 


#14 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,029 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 23 March 2019 - 07:47 AM

IC has been making this same argument for years.
We've been going even further. Say someone was convicted of a forcible felony 20 years ago. Burglary. Has since turned their life around. Not so much as a speeding ticket since. I don't (and many of us don't) see why that person should be permanently stripped of his or her gun rights because of something they did two decades ago that changed their life for the better. It's the government saying "We want you to better yourself, but we're still gonna slap that scarlet 'F' for 'felon' on you for life and deny you rights." Doesn't comport with the intent of rehabilitation. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#15 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 9,103 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 23 March 2019 - 11:05 AM

If ACB is nominated, I want President Trump to tweet about how progressive he is for nominating yet another woman to balance out the sexes on the court.    


The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#16 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,945 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 26 March 2019 - 12:08 AM

Well, I disagree strongly with Barrett's stance on abortion, but her logic on the Second Amendment and its application to non-violent felons is impeccable.


"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Who gets to keep and read books? The Media? Or is it the People?

 

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

 InX89li.jpg
 

 
 
 
 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users