Barrett: Nonviolent Offenders Should Not Lose Their Second Amendment Rights

Judge Amy Coney Barrett

This image provided by Rachel Malehorn shows Judge Amy Coney Barrett in Milwaukee, on Aug. 24, 2018. (Rachel Malehorn, rachelmalehorn.smugmug.com, via AP)

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.”

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

comments

  1. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

    Anyone who is safe and stable enough to be out of prison and in normal society should have all of their rights restored. If they can’t be trusted with weapons then they should still be locked up.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      Serious question. Does that mean we should do away with probation and parole, and any sort of early release?

      1. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

        I would say that a person who is safe enough to be granted probation, parole, or early release should be able to possess firearms at that point.

        If a person is too dangerous to be allowed to have firearms while he is on parole, etc, what is to stop him from getting one illegally, or just using an axe from Home Depot to kill the witnesses in his case, or his ex wife, or whoever it is whose safety we are concerned about? If we think he is the kind of guy who is going to get released and then start committing crimes of violence pretty quickly, maybe we just shouldn’t let him out.

        The entire criminal justice system needs to be recreated and based on restoration and restitution to victims. Victimless crimes need to be eliminated entirely. Only violent crimes where the person is likely to commit more violence should result in incarceration.

        1. avatar possum says:

          I’m very lenient on a person’s rights. However I disagree with a person on probation or parole having their rights restored, and I’m just not talking out my ass because I’ve done both. Technically your still incarcerated, once your parole/probation expires all rights for violent and nonviolent persons should be restored. A felon in some states can have their gunm rights restored after ten years and lotsa money. The only crime you cannot commit and have your 2a rights restored is a misdemeanor, that’s the Domestic Violence charge. Your 2a rights are lost For Life because you Jap slapped your old lady for buying meth instead of paying the rent.

        2. avatar Dude says:

          I agree this should be changed, but I think the point of checking in with a probation officer is that you aren’t sure this person can be trusted to be safe. Recidivism rates gives you an idea how trustworthy violent criminals are. Some people learn their lesson, some don’t. Plus, all felonies aren’t equal. Just because you’ve been convicted, or got into a fight doesn’t mean you’re dangerous to the general population. Sometimes people that got their tail whipped had it coming.

        3. avatar Dude says:

          “Technically your still incarcerated, once your parole/probation expires all rights for violent and nonviolent persons should be restored. ”

          This makes sense.

        4. avatar GS650G says:

          If they can rent a truck at home depot then there isnt justification for banning non violent offenders. I would allow prosecutors to make a case in front of a judge for exceptions but there should be a review option. After a period of good behavior rights should be restored.
          We should be executing murders anyway.

        5. avatar Medic 28 says:

          I have to disagree when it comes to probation. The process of probation is to confirm that the convicted person in fact rehabilitated and they are still serving out their sentence. Parole is different, they have been deemed rehabilitated and are free to go about unrestricted for the most part. Probation convicts are not fully trusted.

        6. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Does anyone claim to have any evidence whatsoever that any such prohibition affects violent criminals in any way? I mean, I would love to run out and kill a few dozen people while robbing banks and transporting drugs, but I know I can’t because there’s a law against me having a gun. Are we serious? The entire idea of NICS, to my knowledge, has never been shown to have the slightest effect on violent crime, firearms crime, or any other crime, we are just supposed to ASSUME it does because it sounds good.

          How about we drop all the expensive shit around firearms purchases or transfers, all the record keeping and ID requirements, and just tell persons when they become prohibited. After that, if they’re found with a gun, shoot them to death on the spot. I can guarantee that was precisely the plan when 2A was adopted without restrictions.

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Does anyone claim to have any evidence whatsoever that any such prohibition affects violent criminals in any way?”

          Of course it does. In some sort of universe, somewhere, out there.

        8. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

          If we’re not sure if someone is going to be violent why are we letting them out on probation or parole?

    2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      This,prior to 1934 NFA that was the case, once one has paid their debt to society they regain all of their rights.

      1. avatar Craig in IA says:

        Hopefully said rehabbed felon would pay it him/her/itself and not use Mini-Mike’s
        money…

      2. avatar DJ says:

        ^^^

        Has the debt been paid or not?

        Personally I’m not comfortable with criminals with convictions for violent crimes with guns and drugs having gun ownership restored.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Personally I’m not comfortable with criminals with convictions for violent crimes with guns and drugs having gun ownership restored.”

          Well, first, the referenced opinion was restricted to non-violent felons. Second, some financial conditions can never be met (and probably the intention). Third, there is a Catch-22: all “proceeds” related to the crime are confiscated. Then the convicted is prevented from earning any income (being in jail is not conducive to earning income).

        2. avatar Ralph says:

          “Second, some financial conditions can never be met (and probably the intention). Third, there is a Catch-22: all “proceeds” related to the crime are confiscated. Then the convicted is prevented from earning any income (being in jail is not conducive to earning income).”

          Oh, that makes me so sad — thieves having trouble making a living, with no thought to the victims who actually made a living only to have it stolen by the thieves.

          Fvck ’em. Until they pay full restitution, they’re not getting their rights restored. Period.

      3. avatar Art out West says:

        Once someone is done with their sentence, their gun rights should be restored. Period

        On the other hand, most serious violent criminals should be executed or banished.

        1. avatar possum says:

          Not even. Cool when people whom have never gotten into any trouble have all the answers on the penalties of a crime. Now what say ye if Kyle Rittenhouse is found guilty. Kill him quick , because. Uh huh

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “On the other hand, most serious violent criminals should be executed or banished.”

          Extraordinarily wasteful.

          Put those people on a national registry of available body parts for medical purposes. No reprieve.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Convicted felons should have their 2A rights restored for 10 years before they are allowed to vote again.

      4. avatar Bemused Berserker says:

        1968 GCA prohibited possession by a felon, not the 1934 NFA. Easy to get them turned around as both were Unconstitutional.

    3. avatar Icabod says:

      Consider the recidivism rate. “ A U.S. Sentencing Commission report on recidivism among federal prisoners, released on January 24, 2019, showed that nearly 64% of prisoners who had been convicted of violent offenses were arrested within eight years compared with about 40% of those convicted of nonviolent offenses.” https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2019/may/3/long-term-recidivism-studies-show-high-arrest-rates/

      Then there are fines and restitution. Would you wait until those are paid?

      1. avatar Bemused Berserker says:

        Yes, all debt to society must be paid before restoration of rights.

    4. avatar Thixotropic says:

      I’m likin’ this Barret broad more and more each day.

    5. avatar GluteusMaximus says:

      I agree

    6. avatar drunkEODguy says:

      In theory it sounds good Pirate, and your premise is sound. However, in the current state of the the criminal justice system in the United States I fully support lifetime bans on violent offenders 2A rights barring specific instances where judges or the state executive grants clemency and restoration. I came to this opinion after working in the federal prison system for a time. Some people aren’t even “people” after they do chose to do certain things, and the death penalty should be handed out more than it is frankly. Glad they unfroze the Fed’s death row in Terre Haute. Don’t miss that job whatsoever.

  2. avatar Mike says:

    Confirm this woman to the SCOTUS right NOW.

    1. avatar Tim says:

      Call Susan Collins right now: (207) 622-8414
      Tell her to support the President in fulfilling his constitutional duty.
      Vote “yes” of Barrett.

    2. avatar GS650G says:

      This is the best nominee in 30 years

      1. avatar Cam says:

        Hopefully, everyone thought Roberts would be great and he turned to be a total loser. Don’t know what dirt they have on him, if they got aflight to Epstein island on his or what but he sure failed to produce. Not a strict constructionist to be sure!

        1. avatar Anymouse says:

          Nobody thought Robert’s would be great. They picked somebody they thought would be easy to get through confirmation. That’s how we got duds, like Souter. They weren’t selected for their philosophy. Not going with unproven, wishy-washy nominees been a great attribute of Trump.

    3. avatar Optimistic Engineer says:

      I have one issue for President and SCOTUS: 2A. If you have that, all the other rights will be assured.

  3. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

    I would say that a person who is safe enough to be granted probation, parole, or early release should be able to possess firearms at that point.

    If a person is too dangerous to be allowed to have firearms while he is on parole, etc, what is to stop him from getting one illegally, or just using an axe from Home Depot to kill the witnesses in his case, or his ex wife, or whoever it is whose safety we are concerned about? If we think he is the kind of guy who is going to get released and then start committing crimes of violence pretty quickly, maybe we just shouldn’t let him out.

    The entire criminal justice system needs to be recreated and based on restoration and restitution to victims. Victimless crimes need to be eliminated entirely. Only violent crimes where the person is likely to commit more violence should result in incarceration.

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      Another way of looking at it is Probation/Parole is a ‘test period’ to find out if we can trust them again before they regain their freedoms. I’m currently leaning towards the ‘test period’ theory.

      If we really trusted them, they wouldn’t still be under court supervision.

      1. avatar rt66paul says:

        Exactly. Maybe this should also extend to those with suspended sentences – although I have a problem with a suspended sentence felony being called a felony. The law breaking could not have been so bad to produce a felon if he did not get a year in jail.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The law breaking could not have been so bad to produce a felon if he did not get a year in jail.”

          There is a certain amount of reasonableness there, however….

          It is the sentence being suspended, not the conviction. It seem many jurisdictions (all?) have a two step process: trial; sentencing. After conviction at trial, the felony label is permanent (barring a “pardon”). Of course, laws could change so that if a sentence for felony is shortened to less than a felony, the conviction reverts to “misdemeanor”.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        If I thought those are a “test period” I would rather parole/probation be eliminated altogether, your test is risking my life! Sentenced to 25 years, serve every minute and then have all your rights restored upon release.

    2. avatar James Campbell says:

      “Victimless crimes need to be eliminated entirely.”
      So, someone with a dozen DUIs and driving on suspended license charges just gets to keep on doing it until they kill someone?
      The governments FIRST responsibility is to keep citizens safe.
      We can only hope those who call this type of behavior “victimless” are the ones losing loved ones to it.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “So, someone with a dozen DUIs and driving on suspended license charges just gets to keep on doing it until they kill someone?”

        Pre-crime punishment? Keep them locked up because of something that hasn’t happened? Have you considered the mischief that theory allows?

        “The governments FIRST responsibility is to keep citizens safe.”

        This is political jabberwocky. Nowhere in the constitution is “the government” charged with public safety. “Promoting the General Welfare” is not a directive that the national government’s prime purpose is individual safety. A concept that is as dangerous as pre-crime punishment.

        1. avatar JC Hype Squad says:

          Please do not deign to argue with the great James Campbell!

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Please do not deign to argue with the great James Campbell!”

          OK, my bad.

      2. avatar FedUp says:

        I missed the part where he said DUI was victimless.

        1. avatar Biatec says:

          yeah dui is not victimless. It’s the same as pointing a loaded gun while drunk. It’s not victimless. idk why people pretend drunk driving is victimless. You are completely disregarding the safety of other people on the road and actively endangering them.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “You are completely disregarding the safety of other people on the road and actively endangering them.”

          DUI has no damaged victims, beyond the individual (let’s not get into all that “the family pays a price”). A person encountering a drunk driver cannot sue in court for “might have”; no damage, no standing to sue.

          The concept of a threat that results in no injury is somehow actively endangering the public is a fine argument against personal possession of a firearm in public.

        3. avatar James Campbell says:

          Sam I Am certainly thinks DUI is victimless.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Sam I Am certainly thinks DUI is victimless.”

          Right up until someone (other than the drunard/doper) is injured, or property is damaged.

          Same as with any other human activity. Punish the act, not the “maybe”.

        5. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

          Following Sam I Am’s reasoning, shooting a gun into the air doesn’t recklessly endanger anyone unless someone happens to be hit???

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Following Sam I Am’s reasoning, shooting a gun into the air doesn’t recklessly endanger anyone unless someone happens to be hit???”

          One can be endangered without being an actual victim – damages. Some people have the driving skills of a toad. Everytime you enter a street or hiway, you are being endangered. Yet, no one gets tried as a criminal. Why? Lack of a victim ???

        7. avatar James Campbell says:

          I brought up the example (DUIs) to show how some offences considered “non-violent” and “victimless” can easily become violent, and fatal.
          Libertarians and Progressives LOVE to touch on this topic with generalizations, and always painting with broad strokes, but refuse to acknowledge (or discuss) the reality of the devils residing in the details. These details would need to cleared up by our legislative branches of government. Good luck with that.
          If I had a neighbor cooking meth in their garage, and they were caught several times doing it, I would expect they receive a prison sentence.
          The fact they had not blown up their home and possibly killed one/several of my family members does NOT make their behavior “victimless”.
          Their wanton disregard for others safety/lives and property should have them losing their right to live in a civilized society for some time, followed by a probationary period to ensure they’ve revised their dangerous behaviors.

        8. avatar Jim Bob says:

          Some people are much better and safer “drunk” drivers than others. “Drunk” being based on the standard 0.08% BAC.

        9. avatar LarryinTX says:

          If a crime does not involve a specific victim, then that crime is victimless. WTF with the stupid word games? DUI is an action which is illegal and should be punished due to the risk involved. It is a victimless, non-violent crime, as well. Being drunk was considered a mitigating factor in all manner of violent crimes for a lot of decades, the law is not exactly consistent, and what applies today may not, next week.

        10. avatar Caymes Jambell says:

          James Campbell knows what it is to have several DUIs and to be stripped of the 2nd Amendment rights as a consequence.

        11. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

          You can get a DUI for sleeping it off in your car rather than driving. They have it set up that way so it is easier to prosecute other cases, not because the sleeper harmed anyone. Most laws can be and are abused. Carrying without a permit can be a felony – boy howdy you might have shot somebody!

        12. avatar drunkEODguy says:

          yeah naw bro. Operating a one ton death machine around people while you’re drunk is no different than carrying a loaded firearm while you are drunk. Actually, the former is way worse, its more akin to walking around brandishing a firearm at people while you are visibly drunk.

      3. avatar GluteusMaximus says:

        What have you done James to break the idiots mind who alway trolls you? I find your comments generally inoffensive

  4. avatar S.Crock says:

    I agree with her that non violent felons should get their rights back but this also shows that she holds gun rights in high regards. A person who will say even felons deserve gun rights is likely a staunch defender of the 2A in all regards.

  5. avatar I Haz A Question says:

    The previous font looked more professional. This one is not an improvement for TTAG. Odd on the eyes while reading, IMHO

    1. avatar rt66paul says:

      I was going to say just the opposite. I can read this text much better, it pops out of the screen to these old eyes.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Ahhh! Font is now back to normal. Thank you, Dan!!

        I don’t have to squint now. The “new” font was literally hard on my eyes.

  6. avatar Madcapp says:

    She’s right, the idea that you should permanently lose one of your fundamental rights under the Bill of Rights for a $300 property crime is a complete fraud.

  7. avatar It time to fix a grave injustice says:

    It’s time we overturn the lifetime ban for misdemeanor domestic violence convictions.

    Seriously- if a guy slaps his girlfriend because she is being a woman, he shouldn’t lose his 2A rights.

    Russia repealed their domestic violence laws, and the result was divorces went down.

    Let’s end the divorce industry.

    1. avatar Debbie W. says:

      A man who slaps beats his wife deserves to be beaten to a bloody pulp and left out on th front lawn as a warning to all youasswipte lintlickers think you are better than women.

      1. avatar Debbie W. says:

        To the ersatz Debbie…A gutless twerp with a short penis who steals a moniker and proceeds to be someone they are not is a pervert, now gfy shorty.

        1. avatar FedUp says:

          I was wondering if you had multiple personality disorder, or what.

        2. avatar Yuck! says:

          Shudder to think there is some poor geezer out there who has resigned himself to lie down with this insufferable, hate filled hag.

        3. avatar Debbie W. says:

          Fed Up…Why wonder about what should be obvious?
          Yuck…If it is not you stealing my moniker it a pervert like you with a tampon up his behind. Either way pull the ripcord and go yuck yourself peewee.

        4. avatar FedUp says:

          If it is not you stealing my moniker it a pervert like you with a tampon up his behind. Either way pull the ripcord and go yuck yourself peewee.

          Now there’s the Debbie Wasserman Schultz we’ve come to know.

        5. avatar James Campbell says:

          I delt with the same issue Debbie W.
          I called and spoke with TTAGs Dan Z personally, he had me upload an Avatar on WordPress.
          He tweaked the 0s and 1s so ONLY I could post content on TTAG using my name.
          Dan even stripped out a bunch of old posts made under my username, but not by me.

        6. avatar Caymes Jambell says:

          But to be clear: the December 2019 post declaring James Campbell’s homosexuality was written by him for him.

      2. avatar possum says:

        What if a woman whips up on her ole man, that happens. It’s always poor innocent woman. And they’ve screwed that dv charge up so much that’s it’s not covering “all beat to hell and bloody” anymore. Many weman use that DV shit as a stick to get even. Case in point, me and my X got into it, she had been told how to get back at him by one of her man hating friends before the argument ever started. She slapped herself ripped her shirt and called the law on me. Lucky for me she didn’t show up for court so the charges were dropped, however I still did three days in jail and lost money. Not every DV charge is poor little Missy all beat to hell and bleeding

        1. avatar CentralVirginian says:

          I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. US v. Castleman was a ridiculous opinion.

          Moral of the story, if you have a partner, man or woman, who likes to get nuts or has a vindictive side, cut them loose while you still have your rights.

      3. avatar rt66paul says:

        While I have never slapped my wife, she has never done anything to deserve it. I can see why some wives get slapped, I have seen them act up, just ask any bartender or taxi driver. Hitting a woman with your fists is way over the top.
        As my wife has always told me, “you have to go to sleep sometime”. A slapped wife can always get revenge.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “As my wife has always told me, “you have to go to sleep sometime”. ”

          My wife often reminds me that considering my insurance policies, I am worth more dead than alive.

      4. avatar Cam says:

        Nope, equal mean equal. If a man hits a woman than it should be no different than a man hitting a man. Woman already get a pass, women get to vote without signing up for selective service.

        1. avatar John in AK says:

          “Disparity of Force.” It’s a legal principle. Study it. Make it your friend. It will help you to understand why, if you are a 6′ tall, 200lb healthy man who gets slapped by a 100lb, 5′ tall woman, you can’t rare back and punch her full in the face with as much force as you can muster. Or, gender aside, if your 5-year-old son throws a plastic block at you, you can’t brain him with a 2×4 in self-defense.

          ‘Plumbing’ doesn’t enter into it.

    2. avatar possum says:

      Divorces went down and the shovel sales went up…. No seriously, I’ve been bitching about the DV= No Gunms For Life for quite awhile. It’s bullsht and was/is nothing more then a Bill Clinton gunm grab scheme.

    3. avatar RGP says:

      “if a guy slaps his girlfriend because she is being a woman”

      Sounds like you and your boyfriend/life partner get along great.

    4. avatar LarryinTX says:

      How about let’s not advocate something which supposedly worked in Russia? We live in the most successful nation in the world, which has saved the planet, at great expense, twice already. All other nations should be seeking to emulate us.

  8. avatar Debbie W. says:

    Never mind a felony…You can be denied over a domestic misdemeanor that occurred in a person’s youth. Something that would not rate being on Jerry Springer should not cost those who have not repeated such behavior, etc. Now if a weapon was used or fists and feet to send someone to an ER that’s another story. But a pissing contest between two immature lovebirds, etc. is not enough to strip someone of their right of self defense for life. IMO.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Agreed, completely. Change the law to define a FELONY, then it’s all good, but if it is a misdemeanor it should not affect your rights.

  9. avatar Dude says:

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-termlimits/democrats-prepare-bill-limiting-u-s-supreme-court-justice-terms-to-18-years-idUSKCN26F3L3

    “Democrats in of the House of Representatives will introduce a bill next week to limit the tenure of U.S. Supreme Court justices to 18 years from current lifetime appointments, in a bid to reduce partisan warring over vacancies and preserve the court’s legitimacy.

    The new bill, seen by Reuters, would allow every president to nominate two justices per four-year term and comes amid heightened political tensions as Republican President Donald Trump prepares to announce his third pick for the Supreme Court after the death on Sept. 18 of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, with just 40 days to go until the Nov. 3 election.”

    It’s weird how democrats weren’t concerned about any of this when the Supreme Court had a liberal majority. It’s funny how the press can report this with a straight face.

    1. avatar possum says:

      There burying the witch now, I bet that honor guard was wishing them steps were shorter, if it was me on the way out the guys in back need to drop the coffin and watch it bounce to the bottom.,,,, When I die I don’t want nobody somber or sober, pass the bong, poor whiskey on my grave. Yeah buddy

      1. avatar James Campbell says:

        I’m reminded of Tommy D in A.V. when I think of RBG being brought in……
        https://youtu.be/3HTLDpHaqms

    2. avatar Debbie W. says:

      RuthLess democRats are on the warpath…No amount of meds can stop them now. They’ll just have to burn themselves out like a bunch of tantrum exhausted brats…If it’s not the Electoral College, it’s the 2A, etc. It’s always going to be something to keep the attention away from their history of despicable race based atrocities. Could you imagine if the democRat Party was ever held accountable for their race based atrocities? The Reparations alone would bankrupt and shut down the Rat Party for a thousand years. Oh Happy Days.

    3. avatar Jeffery P says:

      Bullshit.

      Limiting the president’s constitutional powers can only be done through a constitutional amendment.

      The limits on length of service? Excellent idea. Should apply for all federal judges, but only for current office. IE, a promotion to an appellant court is a new 18 year term.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        “The limits on length of service? Excellent idea.”

        I’ll take the House seriously when they also limit themselves and the Senate. I won’t hold my breath.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Excellent point!

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          The constitution already has a set of term limits.

          They’re called ‘elections’.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Should apply for all federal judges, but only for current office. IE, a promotion to an appellant court is a new 18 year term.”

        Such promotions are pure politics. You want term limits, make them simple, just like the limit on presidential terms. The judge gets one block of time, carved up however, but no one judge gets any more time than another.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          If we do anything, I’d say retire them all at 65. Judges, Justices, Representatives and Senators. The President serves his 4 years at a time, age doesn’t matter.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…I’d say retire them all at 65.”

          Ok, 18yrs, or 65, whichever occurs first.

    4. avatar Ralph says:

      Interesting how the Dems are trying to overrule the Constitution without amending it. Article III states that the judges “hold their office during good behavior,” period.

      If the Dems really want to improve government, they should consider term limits for Pelosi, Schifface, Nadler (who may have gone poo-poo in his panties recently), Schumer and the rest of the thieves.

      And if the thought of Barrett being grilled because she’s a Catholic by Diane Feinstein doesn’t enrage you, you need to think again.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “And if the thought of Barrett being grilled because she’s a Catholic by Diane Feinstein doesn’t enrage you, you need to think again.”

        No, what engrages me is the Republicrats wanting to be seen as “fair”, “reasonable”, honoring tradition by permitting any testimony before the sub-committee. There is nothing to be learned that wasn’t visible when Barrett was elevated to the appeals court.

        And aren’t they a fine bunch of gentlemen, telling the nominee that they endorse the idea the nominee should be smeared by the Dims.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I have to agree. If the nominee was grilled within a certain number of years, and no one can point to any misbehavior, and the Dembulbs have already announced she will not get a single vote from them, then the confirmation should be complete 1 hour after the nominee is announced. The bonus would be listening to the Dems screaming when they are so clearly told to STFU.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The bonus would be listening to the Dems screaming when they are so clearly told to STFU.”

          Zackly

      2. avatar neiowa says:

        The nomination should go directly to the full Senate Monday at 1pm. NO BS hearings. And if the nomination does not so specify the Senate should designate Barrett as Chief Justice. Roberts demoted to peon.

  10. avatar former water walker says:

    Oh I agree with restoration of right’s with plenty of caviots. You have to restore what you stole,burlarized or damaged. I had a contentious relationship with my 1st wife. I’d hate to have that BS come up from 43some years ago!

  11. avatar Sam I Am says:

    It’s a possible start.

    Should drive Kavanaugh and his “history and tradition” nuts.

  12. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

    Yeah all them poor unarmed child molesters

    1. avatar rt66paul says:

      I think that a convicted child molester has been proved to have committed a violent act.

      1. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

        Ok Mr Technical then how bout those who just deal child porn and sell and/or posses it but were never proven to have touched a child.
        Y’all hate it when the one size fits all answer doesn’t really work

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Punishment (ANY punishment!) for simply possessing printed materials is a clear violation of the first Amendment. Can we get together about protecting the Constitution?

        2. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

          No LarryinTX we can not. We do not support child porn in any way shape or form you sicko

        3. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

          LarryinTX I think your a chomo now

        4. avatar neiowa says:

          Larry don’t be a moron (sounds like a song).

          The 1st Amendment was intend as about POLITICAL SPEACH.

        5. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

          Shook that tree and ole short eyes LarryinTX fell out.
          Yup I dimed ya out too. I showed it to some folks. Let there be no doubt in your mind who did it when you get carted off.

  13. avatar 24and7 says:

    especially if you just got in a verbal altercation with your girlfriend at home or over the phone…Reform domestic violence laws now…

  14. avatar LifeSavor says:

    Unfortunately, I hope Barrett is NOT the nominee. She is good on the 2A but poor on health freedom. She supports the Jacobson decision that says state governments can FORCE adults to receive vaccines. I am NOT making a vax/anti-vax argument. Instead, I making the point that no government has the authority to commandeer your body and force medical treatments. I would like to see a candidate that is strong on both the 2A and medical freedom.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      “I making the point that no government has the authority to commandeer your body and force medical treatments.”

      I completely agree, a woman’s body is hers to command, not the government or the religions.

      No one should force a woman to have any medical treatment or, to elect not to have any medical treatment, that’s freedom.

      I am surprised that you posted your comment, I had not taken you for a pro-choice person.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        So the .gov should not have the right to force us to shelter in place or wear a mask? It’s our body, after all.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “It’s our body, after all.”

          Actually, that concept is quite limited. It applies only if you are, or identify as, female, and you are seeking an abortion.

  15. avatar Darkman says:

    While I can support the idea of a person not losing their 2A rights for non violent offenses. If a violent offender used an illegally possessed firearm while committing a crime. They should never be allowed to Legally own firearms. Knowing full well since they used an Illegally possessed firearm in the first place nothing will stop them from doing so again. Beyond a complete reversal of a person’s moral and ethical beliefs, permanent incarceration or the Death penalty. Violent offenders especially repeat offenders need to be used as examples to society. Since they have already shown a lack of wanting to be a part of a productive society. I believe they should be removed from society permanently. Three strikes and you’re not only OUT You’re DEAD. Stop wasting resources on people who have shown their lack of wanting to be an asset of society rather than a burden on society. We spend as a nation more money every year on incarcerating criminals than is spent on the education system. I’m also fed up with all this ” Criminal Justice Reform” Bullshit. How about “Victim’s Justice Reform”. Once you eliminate the repeat offenders from the equation and the money wasted on them. Those resources can be put to much better uses to support victims and the damage caused by criminals. Done ranting now so back to the Circus.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Knowing full well since they used an Illegally possessed firearm in the first place nothing will stop them from doing so again. ”

      With recidivism rates at ~85%, no convicted felon should have any of their rights restored. A prior conviction in the first place is proof they are likely to commit a crime in the future.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        “they are likely to commit a crime in the future”

        Excellent, punishing pre-crime is the path to authoritarianism, good show!

        Just because a drunk driver is very likely to cause accidents, with injuries or death, is no reason to ban them from driving…

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Excellent, punishing pre-crime is the path to authoritarianism, good show!”

          You missed the point entirely, again.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          So you agree that any sort of restrictions on firearms ownership is a ‘pre crime’ situation? Cannot stop a person from buying or carrying a firearm because of what they might do in the future?

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Dafook do you define as an “illegally possessed firearm”? Are you talking about a previously convicted felon who commits ANOTHER violent crime with a firearm after being a prohibited person? I’m thinking by the time we have multiple felonies along with possession by a prohibited person, prohibition already exists AND is rather obvious. If that is not what you mean by “illegally possessed firearm”, what the fuck is?

      1. avatar Darkman says:

        Someone who commits a first time caught/arrested/charged crime with a Stolen Firearm It happens a lot more than people realize especially Juvenal offenders, but because they are Juvenal’s their records are normally sealed. Often they are disallowed as evidence in a later criminal proceeding once they are designated an Adult even if the previous offense could have been classified as a Felony.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          “Juvenal’s”

          Who is this Juvenal fellow you speak of?

          Is he a juvenile?

  16. avatar RGP says:

    It might be a good idea to actually define “nonviolence,’ especially considering all the stunning examples of “nonviolent” beautiful people or whatever the hell they are who are regularly assaulting people, killing people, burning and looting businesses, and causing all manner of mayhem.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Nobody said those people were nonviolent, the only claim is that they were peaceful. In Demspeak, people seeking the correct result (Marxism) can be violently peaceful.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “…people seeking the correct result (Marxism) can be violently peaceful.”

        I think you got that bassackward. People seeking the correct result (Marxism) are peacefully violent.

  17. avatar Brian says:

    With some exceptions, convicted felons who have met ALL the obligations of their sentence can possess firearms.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I suspect that depends on the state.

      1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

        No, it’s just BS. Felon as a prohibited possessor is federal- 18 USC 922 G.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “With some exceptions, convicted felons who have met ALL the obligations of their sentence can possess firearms.”

      That’s right. “Shall Not Be Infringed” means “with some exceptions” – – – to be determined at a later date, by whoever has the political power to do so.

      The real issue is not “Shall Not Be Infringed”, but which infringements seem “common sense” to us.

  18. avatar Indy Jonze says:

    the double standard as it pertains to the bill of rights is epic. commit murder, democrats desperately try to restore your right to vote. steal an apple from a street vendor, lose your 2a rights forever. ok then…

  19. avatar Nanashi says:

    Now she needs to call US v. Miller a show trial.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Shit, I’d go to Washington to vote for her myself!

  20. avatar Darkman says:

    Where judge Barrett stands on the 2A and other Issues:
    Where has Amy Coney Barrett stood on important cases? | Fox News
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/amy-coney-barrett-case-rulings

  21. avatar Red says:

    NO offender who has served their time should have their Second Amendment Rights removed after serving their time. Please show me in the Constitution that the Bill of Rights can be permanently taken away from American citizens. It is totally wrong, but no one seems to care, least of all so-called Second Amendment organizations.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Own goal” error by Trump. Disappointing.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “You’re referring to a half trillion in reparations?”

          No. Allowing the name to leak on the day RPG was placed in/on the rotunda. Unnecessary insult.

          Didn’t know about the “reparations”, as you put it.

  22. avatar enuf says:

    So I agree, not trustworthy enough to have a gun should be not trustworthy enough to get out of prison.

    Now, who out there has a plan to pay for all the new prisons we will have to build?

    If you went to prison for any type of felony you should not have automatic renewal of full rights of citizenship. You should have to prove yourself worthy in a courtroom, in front of a judge, or fuck off.

    As for “You have paid your debt to society”, no, you have not. You have been punished. For the rest of your days you are suspect of further acts of assholery of an unlawful nature. Prison is not Redemption unless the prisoner makes it so.

    So fuck you on voting rights and gun rights and various professional licenses and whatever other ideas society can come up with to get it thru your thick skull

    DO NOT DO CRIMES YOU FUCKING ASSWIPE!!!!!!

    That about covers it.

  23. avatar Patriot Solutions says:

    No shortage of anti-2A posters here who would not like my pro-2A states laws where even a violent felony conviction does not trump a persons RIGHT to arms for the Affirmative Defense of “self defense”. If Charles Manson walked out the prison doors here and used a gun for self defense on the same day you could not convict him under state law even if he had 10 convictions for violent crime.

    You guys (not all) are the same tyrants that are running the Asylum.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email