Re: Judge Barrett on the Second Amendment

Re: Judge Barrett on the Second Amendment

In this post , I briefly outlined Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s impressive dissent in Kanter v. Barr , in which she determined that categorical bans on a felon’s possession of firearms could not be applied to Rickey Kanter, who had 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. Barrett concluded that the federal government and the state of Wisconsin had failed to show that their categorical bans could be applied against all nonviolent felons or that there was anything in Kanter’s history or characteristics that indicated that he was likely to misuse firearms. Having run across various distortions of Barrett’s position, I will go a bit deeper in this post. 1. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), Justice Scalia stated in his majority opinion: Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. In a footnote appended to that sentence, he referred to “these presumptively lawful regulatory measures.” 2. The panel majority in Kanter observed that the Court in Heller “never actually addressed the historical pedigree of felon […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.