Mediaboss Marketing

Before addressing the subject of this column, I wish to express an opinion on an issue which appeared in the recent grammar school brawl laughingly called a presidential debate. Good Ol Joe Biden followed his partys strategy of denouncing Donald Trump as a crypto-fascist. He seized on the presidents failure to condemn the Proud Boys as a fascist-nazi-racist-nasty hate group. The president yielded the point after the debate was over by condemning this group. I have no knowledge about the ideological convictions of this group, apart from displays of the American flag. All I know is that they have confronted Antifa rioters in Portland and Seattle. I enjoyed watching tapes of the Proud Boys knocking the rioters on their cabooses. I might have enjoyed watching a mob of Quakers doing the job more, but we must all settle for whatever is on offer.

Moving on to a more interesting issue, we can expect a lot of hectic chatter about Judge Barrett and her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Most of the emotion on the subject will be centered on speculation about what positions she may take on hot-button issues. These speculations will not concern her legal analysis. Her opponents and partisans will not show much interest. They are only interested in whether she will arrive at the desired outcomes. Some liberals fear that her Catholic convictions will bend her in the wrong direction. Its not that they object to Catholics as such, Good Ol Joe is Catholic after all and they are comfortable with him. Their problem is with Catholics who believe their churchs teachings.

Barrett is known as a disciple of the late Justice Scalia, who has argued that a Judge who is faithful to his oath of allegiance to the Constitution has to be prepared to accept legal decisions which will make him uncomfortable or, alternatively recuse himself from judgement. This is a reassuring principle but its not conclusive.

Leaving aside her religious beliefs Judge Barrett has a judicial record relevant to the Second Amendment. In Kanter v. Barr (2019) her decision accepted bans on gun ownership by persons

who have a clear record of a history of violence. She argued against a blanket rule that applies even to felons who have no such a record. She wrote that this it was wildly over-inclusive, to ban an honest-to-goodness felon convicted of redeeming large quantities of out-of-state bottle deposits in Michigan. Maine has a law against people importing recyclables for redemption. Its far from unlikely that some undetected scamp has already committed this crime. (Confessing here: I didnt look it up to find whether Maine classifies this malfeasance as a felony.)

Her position on Kanter gives Barrett the clearest record on the Second Amendment of any recent nominee. On broader Second Amendment issues the Supreme Court has ruled that it includes protection of the right of self-defense. Ginsbergs death leaves Justices Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan as determined defenders of the governments exclusive right to possession of fire-arms. Since the 2008 Heller and 2010 McDonald decisions which ruled against a governmental power to completely ban gun ownership was passed with five votes, Barretts views are of special interest to citizens who believe in a right of self-defense.

Since the nominee is commonly described as a disciple of Antonin Scalia his ruling on Heller, backed by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Thomas and Alito, is our best guide on how Barrett may interpret the Second Amendment. Dick Heller, a special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty, requested exemption from restrictions on keeping his weapon at home. Under the District of Columbia law he was obliged to disable the gun by taking it apart or fixing it with a trigger lock.

Scalias originalism doctrine argues that the Constitution must be understood by the voters. Judges must read its words and phrases as they are used in a normal and ordinary way.

The Second Amendment reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. He argued that the preface about the militia announces a purpose and that the prefatory part does not limit or expand the scope of the operative part. He pointed out that shall not be infringed recognizes the existence of a pre-existing right, i.e., the Amendment did not create a right, it recognizes a right.

Scalia quotes Justice Ginsburgs interpretation of bearing arms in an opinion she wrote for an earlier case. She wrote as the Constitutions Second Amendment indicates wear, bear, or carry upon the person or upon the person, or in the pocket for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in the case of a conflict with another person. Scalia reinforced this proposition by pointing out that nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century and the first two decades of the 19th century established the citizens right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state, or bear arms in defense of himself of the state.

If Judge Barrett is called upon the decide a Second Amendment case while sitting on the Supreme Court its seems certain that she will follow her mentor in upholding the right of self-defense it was written to protect. Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and the other Democrats in Congress are hoping for a liberal judge who will support the views of the liberal judges who will support the dissents in McDonald case when they wrote that the U.S. Constitution does not include a general right to keep and bear firearms for purposes of private self-defense. . . . the use of arms for private self-defense does not warrant federal constitutional protection from state regulation.

Supporters of Second Amendment rights should take note and make their candidates know about their concerns.

John Frary of Farmington, the GOP candidate for U.S. Congress in 2008, is a retired history professor, an emeritus Board Member of Maine Taxpayers United, a Maine Citizens Coalition Board member, and publisher of FraryHomeCompanion.com. He can be reached at [emailprotected]

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

Read the original:
Amy Coney Barrett and the second amendment | Lewiston Sun Journal - The Bethel Citizen

In this post, I briefly outlined Judge Amy Coney Barretts impressive dissent inKanter v. Barr, in which she determined that categorical bans on a felons 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 companys 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 Kanters history or characteristics that indicated that he was likely to misuse firearms.

Having run across various distortions of Barretts 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 possession laws and that the Seventh Circuit had refused to read too much into the Courts precautionary language. (P. 15.) It expressly acknowledged that the Seventh Circuit is among the several federal appellate courts that have left room for as-applied challenges to the federal ban on firearm possession by a felon. Indeed, it cited and quoted Seventh Circuit precedent for the proposition that [W]e recognize that 922(g)(1) [the federal ban] may be subject to an overbreadth challenge at some point because of its disqualification of all felons, including those who are non-violent. (P. 10.)

The panel majority recognized that whether nonviolent felons as a class historically enjoyed Second Amendment rights was an open question:

The first question is whether nonviolent felons as a class historically enjoyed Second Amendment rights. Heller did not answer this question. [P. 14.]

The panel majority ultimately concluded that it need not resolve this difficult question. (P. 19.) It instead proceeded on the assumption that nonviolent felons have Second Amendment rights and held that the felon-dispossession statutes satisfy intermediate scrutiny and can therefore be applied against Kanter. (Pp. 19-26.)

3. Garrett Epps (whose misrepresentation of Barretts position on stare decisis Ive already refuted) is simply wrong when he claims that Barrett asserted thatHellerdidntreallymean that felon possession laws were constitutional. (His emphasis.) The question in the case was not whether the laws were constitutionally permissible; it was instead whether the constitutionally permissible laws could be applied against Kanter. Under Barretts position, the laws remain enforceable against violent felons as well as against any subcategory of nonviolent felons whose convictions can be shown to be substantially related to violent behavior and against any nonviolent felon whose other personal circumstances or characteristics indicate that he would pose a risk to public safety if he possessed a gun.

Indeed, as Barrett points out, her historical analysis indicates that the category of persons who can be disarmed is simultaneously broader and narrower than felonsit includes dangerous people who have not been convicted of felonies but not felons lacking indicia of dangerousness. (My emphasis.)

Ive seen various other claims that Barrett somehow disregards Hellers statement that felon-dispossession statutes are presumptively lawful. Not so. She addresses that statement for a full page (p. 32) and concludes, like the majority, that that statement provides only a place to start: I agree with the majority that Hellers dictum does not settle the question before us.

4. Tweeting on the Kanter case, liberal Second Amendment scholar Adam Winkler has stated that he agree[s] with Barrett and has argued that blanket bans on firearm possession by felons goes too far. Some felonies do not suggest violent tendencies (think of Martha Stewart), and the interest in public safety is not advanced by denying those people their rights. (In the same tweet thread, he says that theirs is not the mainstream position among judges who have ruled on the question so far.) Liberal law professor Alan Morrison expressed a similar agreement with Barrett in this recent Federalist Society panel discussion.

More here:
Re: Judge Barrett on the Second Amendment - National Review

In a previous interview with The News & Advance, Good said he believes assaults on law enforcement should be a felony. At the time, he also said he was in favor of an automatic death penalty for the killing of a police officer.

Good took several shots at Webb as well, stating his opponent has been otherwise silent on issues surrounding the Second Amendment.

[Webb is] MIA on the Second Amendment, hes MIA on supporting the police. However, he does support the radical BLM Movement, Good said, describing Black Lives Matter as a Marxist organization.

Good also referenced his tenure with the Campbell County Board of Supervisors and his track record of support for local law enforcement. He said during his time on the board, the county had increased funding for the sheriffs department by $685,000 from about $4 million.

We stand with law enforcement, we stand behind them, Good said. There is a reason why we are overwhelmingly supported in this district by the sheriffs and commonwealths attorney.

Van Cleave said issues facing gun ownership are unprecedented attacks, claiming opponents want to get rid of law and order.

Weve got to win this. We cannot afford to lose where we are now, Van Cleave said of the Nov. 3 presidential election.

Continue reading here:
Dozens gather in support for Good, Second Amendment in Nelson - Lynchburg News and Advance

The job duties of our county commissioners must include protecting citizen rights and to occasionally reiterate these rights as in the non-binding 2013 resolution supporting Second Amendment gun rights. These rights were supported, giving the citizens of our county a vote of confidence. Thankfully, the Glencoe Area Chamber of Commerce held a candidate forum last Wednesday that helped identify which commissioner candidates for Districts 1 and 4 actually understand our self-protection rights.

A key question asked at the forum is if candidates would support or vote to repeal the 2013 resolution supporting Second Amendment gun rights. Commissioner Sheldon Nies represented District 4 in 2013 and voted yes. Daryl Luthens strongly supported the resolution. In contrast, Rich Pohlmeier was against this resolution because he felt that we dont need a local resolution.

For District 1, Commissioner Ron Shimanski was a co-sponsor and seconded the motion by then-Commissioner Jon Christensen for the 2013 resolution. Candidate Nathan Schmalz stated that he was against the resolution. He considered this as wasting time and would vote to repeal this resolution. Jose Luciano stated that he attended that commissioner meeting and was wholeheartedly with the resolution.

Were not trying to change the law, said Sheriff Scott Rehmann in 2013. The purpose of this resolution is to show we stand with the people of McLeod County ... I disagree with the argument that guns should not be in the citizens hands. Were not wiping the slate clean of any laws. Were just supporting the people.

We still need commissioners to support the people in 2020. Vote for Jose Luciano and Daryl Luthens for county commissioners!

Originally posted here:
PAID ELECTION LETTER: Vote for Jose Luciano and Daryl Luthens to protect your Second Amendment rights - Crow River Media

KINGSTON Accompanied by a former area congressman and a local candidate for Congress, a Missouri couple that gained national fame for pulling guns on Black Lives Matter protesters outside their home in June visited Luzerne County on a Team Trump bus tour Wednesday.

Mark and Patricia McCloskey touted the Second Amendment and advocated for President Donald Trumps reelection while addressing dozens of supporters outside the Republican Party of Luzerne County headquarters on Wyoming Avenue in Kingston.

Its been such an honor to ride with Mark and Patty. They are really American heroes who stood up, who had a backbone and werent going to let somebody take something that didnt belong to them. I want to thank them for coming to Pennsylvania, former U.S. Rep. Lou Barletta of Hazleton told the crowd.

During a 20-minute address in front of the tour bus, Mark McCloskey said hundreds of protesters, some armed with guns, trespassed into the couples private community in St. Louis on June 28 and surrounded their home amid unrest in the city over racial injustice. They threatened to murder him, rape his wife, burn down their house and kill their dog, he said.

He said police and fire departments notoriously had stopped responding to looting, violence and fires in the city amid the chaos, so he felt he needed to take a stand.

We didnt feel like getting burned up. We didnt feel like getting shot and wanted to defend ourselves, Mark McCloskey said.

Fearing a mob of protesters would possibly come near their neighborhood, Mark McCloskey said he had fire extinguishers placed around his house and guns at the ready on the first floor.

Mark McCloskey said he and his wife were preparing to barbecue outside and werent even wearing shoes when the protesters entered the private community and approached their house. He said he retrieved an AR-15 rifle from their home and his wife emerged with a handgun, which he said was inoperable.

They aimed the guns at protesters, but in the end, no shots were fired and the protesters eventually moved on.

After images and videos of the gun-toting incident circulated around the country, the McCloskeys became heroes to Second Amendment advocates on the right and were seen as reckless vigilantes to many on the left.

St. Louis prosecutors eventually charged the couple with a felony count of unlawful use of a weapon and the case is still pending.

We have seen up close and personal a taste of things to come if the Harris-Biden administration takes over the country, McCloskey said. Pennsylvania is critical to the president winning this election and we wanted to do whatever we can to make sure Donald J. Trump gets reelected.

Prior to the Kingston event, the McCloskey bus tour visited Hazletons GOP campaign office and afterward it visited the Scranton GOP office.

Jim Bognet of Hazleton who is running against U.S. Rep. Matt Cartwright, D-8, of Moosic introduced the McCloskeys in Kingston.

Weve been warning all year that if we didnt stop this violence and shut down whats happening in Portland and Chicago, it would come to Pennsylvania. One day in June it came to these peoples doors. It came to their doors a mob out of control, Bognet said. What did they do? They stood up and used their Second Amendment rights. And now they are here to tell their story about how they stood up for themselves and big city liberals are going after them and trying to destroy their life.

Link:
St. Louis couple that pulled guns on protesters advocate for 2nd Amendment, Trump in NEPA - Wilkes-Barre Citizens Voice