Perhaps the most high-profile opinion Barrett has written is a dissent in Kanter v. Barr, a case that upheld a Wisconsin law taking gun rights away from non-violent felons. The majority opinion was written by Judges Joel Flaum and Kenneth Ripple, who were appointed by President Ronald Reagan.
“History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns,” Barrett wrote. “But that power extends only to people who are dangerous .”
She added: “[W]hile 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. 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.’”
Severino lauded the dissent as “bold” and said preserving rights for felons, especially nonviolent ones like the individual at issue in Kanter v. Barr, is something that both sides should be able to get behind.
The first stance in the article on the most important topic.
Not as strong as I would like, but not as bad as a paranoid hoplophobe.
I really hope that the statute gets struck down. If a felon gets the right to vote back why not all the rights.
But may be possibly on a case by case basis. No idea how it would work. May be crimes qualified as violent. This creates problems too because a lot of violent crimes has low recidivism rate like murder for example. It’s a difficult issue. But st the end of day i am for complete repeal of the statute.
What is the deal with having SCOTUS be full for a national election? SCOTUS has no role in that. Bush v. Gore was extraconstitutional as they themselves noted in their decision and also noted their decision couldn’t be used as a precedent.