Barrett takes issue with Heller?

Lutherf said:

Amy Coney Barrett has an issue with the Heller decision?

Well, she may not really be against the Heller decision. It seems she just wants some common sense applied when Heller is cited.

Judge Barrett’s Dissent in Second Amendment Case | National Review

Basically, for those that don't feel like clicking a link or reading stuff, the 7th Circuit decided that Wisconsin was totally justified in dispossessing a guy who committed Medicare fraud of his 2A rights. The majority decided that the dispossession was fine because the government has a compelling interest in protecting the public from people who have been convicted of a "serious federal felony or for conduct broadly understood to be criminal".

Barrett has a slightly different opinion and believes that the "compelling government interest" is in protecting the public from dangerous people, not just white collar, non-violent felons.

The majority conclusion is on page 26 of this PDF. Barrett's dissent follows - 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#page=27

Click to expand...

Lutherf said:

Amy Coney Barrett has an issue with the Heller decision?

Well, she may not really be against the Heller decision. It seems she just wants some common sense applied when Heller is cited.

Judge Barrett’s Dissent in Second Amendment Case | National Review

Basically, for those that don't feel like clicking a link or reading stuff, the 7th Circuit decided that Wisconsin was totally justified in dispossessing a guy who committed Medicare fraud of his 2A rights. The majority decided that the dispossession was fine because the government has a compelling interest in protecting the public from people who have been convicted of a "serious federal felony or for conduct broadly understood to be criminal".

Barrett has a slightly different opinion and believes that the "compelling government interest" is in protecting the public from dangerous people, not just white collar, non-violent felons.

The majority conclusion is on page 26 of this PDF. Barrett's dissent follows - 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#page=27

Click to expand...

ttwtt78640 said:

Once a convicted felon has served their sentence (including any parole/probation assigned) then their full constitutional rights should be restored. To make a distinction as to which felonies are "dangerous" is bound to be disputed - are not all who ignore the law and commit a serious crime (i.e. a felony with a sentence of one year or more) not "dangerous"? If not then why lock them up?

Click to expand...