Thread by @DempseyTwo

Here is another opinion of Amy Coney Barrett from her time on the 7th Circuit Court. A dissent in a case called Kanter vs Atty General Barr.
Barrett is the sole dissenting opinion.
This is a gun rights case but if you look really close, you can see systemic racism.🧵👇🏻

Kanter plead guilty to 1 count mail fraud. Although it was for shipping diabetic shoe inserts that cost Medicare $314,000 and weren’t up to snuff. WI law prohibits felons from owning guns. The question before the court was: Do dispossession statutes violate 2nd amendment right?

The district court held that, ‘[...] the application of the federal and Wisconsin felon dis-possession laws to Kanter is substantially related to the government’s important interest in preventing gun violence. ‘

So far, WI has a law that says if you’re a felon, you can’t own a gun. The law is to protect WI from gun violence. This is the most basic of boiling down the law because therein lies the systemic racism. Wait until you see how the law is actually written...

The law prohibits gun ownership among felons, but makes exceptions for violators of antitrust laws, unfair trade practices, or other business practices. Now class, let’s think long and hard about who might be committing those crimes. I wonder the racial breakdowns of the stats.

So a certain type of felon gets to keep their guns. Got it.
Is it any wonder the, now indicted for misappropriation of donor funds NRA came out in full favor of Amy Coney Barrett?
Back to our case review...

How far back does ACB want to take us? How about the 1700s? In her dissent she writes, ‘that power (dispossession) 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.’

So then who decides who is and what is ‘dangerous’? It is clear in Wisconsin at least, they want to protect some criminals from losing gun owning rights, but not others. This is systemic racism right here. In this law in Wisconsin. Two systems of justice.

Aren’t violators of antitrust laws just as ‘dangerous’ to our society? It could be argued their crimes are wider reaching thus creating victims on a large scale.

Her dissent further shows an inability to recognize founding era legislators of having a vast desire for our country to evolve into the future. She states in her dissent we should rely on founding era laws to determine this question yet also concedes there are none.

We’re going to give RBG’s seat to this nominee? Really? Without proper review of her opinions? Why is she siding with the gun lobby? Why are they pushing her forward? Dissents when it comes to disarming felons. Even if you disagree with that politically, it is the law in WI.

Meaning the legislators made the choice to protect their community through a law. Barrett would rather ignore it. But don’t take it from me. Read the case here. Call your Senator. #ACAnotACB
END
law.justia.com/cases/federal/…