Senate Republicans confirmed Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court just days before the election.
Trump supporters cheered that victory knowing Barrett would be on the court just in time to hear some of the most important cases in American history.
And now Amy Coney Barrett is about to hit Democrats with the defeat they fear the most.
Before Barrett’s confirmation, the court’s four conservative justices made it clear they wanted to take on gun control calling the Second Amendment a “disfavored right.”
But the court’s four conservatives knew that liberal Chief Justice John Roberts had four other votes to uphold gun control so the court did not hear any serious challenges to the left’s schemes to disarm Americans.
That could change in short order.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Lisa M. Folajtar’s attempt to overturn a congressional ban on nonviolent felons owning firearms.
In 2011 Folajtar pleaded guilty to tax fraud, but she sued in 2018 arguing that a law passed by Congress imposed a blanket ban on all felons—regardless of the nature of their crime—from owning firearms.
The court ruled that there was “no reason to deviate from this long-standing prohibition in the context of tax fraud.”
But Trump appointee Judge Stephanos Bibas dissented arguing that a blanket ban on felons owning guns had no basis in history or the Constitution and that the Second Amendment meant what it said.
“Felons are more than the wrongs they have done,” Bibas wrote. “They are people and citizens who are part of ‘We the People of the United States.’ So they too share in the Second Amendment ‘right of the people to keep and bear Arms,’ subject only to the historical limits on that right.”
With Amy Coney Barrett replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg and giving conservatives a five to four majority on the court, the justices appear poised to take up this case in the first step in expanding Second Amendment rights.
That’s because Barrett’s already ruled in a similar case and came down on the side of holding that bans on nonviolent felons from owning firearms are unconstitutional.
In Kanter v. Barr, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Rickey Kanter was barred from owning a gun because of a conviction on mail fraud charges.
However, Barrett dissented in that case arguing that legislators only had the power to ban violent thugs from owning guns.
“History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns,” Barrett explained. “But that power extends only to people who are dangerous. Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons.”
Barrett added that the government provided no data to prove it had a compelling interest in stripping the gun rights of nonviolent felons.
“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. Nor have they otherwise demonstrated that Kanter himself shows a proclivity for violence,” Barrett dissented.
Replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg with Amy Coney Barrett shifted the court dramatically to the right.
That impact may be felt on no issue more greatly than the Second Amendment.
If you want American Patriot Daily to keep you up to date on any new developments in this ongoing story and the rest of the breaking news in politics, please bookmark our site, consider making us your homepage and forward our content with your friends on social media and email.