The moderator for the next presidential debate (if there is to be one) will be Steve Scully. He used to be an intern for none other than Joe Biden. How about that?

Joe and Steve

How many times is his name on the Lolita express manifesto?


What about the Children?


Texas Women…sigh


I have ancestors that came from Great Friesland


Household income by census tract in the contiguous US


Millionaires Move



“What we do in life, echoes in eternity”


Amy Coney Barrett: Gun Rights Too Important to Be Taken Lightly


Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States, holds the Constitution and its Second Amendment predominate above the whims and inclinations of modernity.

She made her love of the constitution clear when nominated by Trump, saying, “I love the United States, and I love the United States Constitution.”

She further provided a great degree of insight into her views on the Second Amendment via her dissent in the Kanter v. Barr (2019). That case centered on non-violent felons and Second Amendment rights, and the viability of “felon dispossession statutes” in both federal and state law.

Plaintiff Rickey I. Kanter unsuccessfully contended in District Court that he ought not be forced to forfeit gun rights over a mail fraud conviction. He appealed his case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, where he was unsuccessful once more, as the Seventh Circuit upheld the lower court’s ruling.

However, Barrett dissented from the Seventh Circuit’s majority, addressing the federal prohibition that bans all felons from firearm possession:

History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns. 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. Nor have the parties introduced any evidence that founding-era legislatures imposed virtue-based restrictions on the right; such restrictions applied to civic rights like voting and jury service, not to individual rights like the right to possess a gun. In 1791 — and for well more than a century afterward — legislatures disqualified categories of people from the right to bear arms only when they judged that doing so was necessary to protect the public safety.

Wisconsin Statute § 941.29(1m) would stand on solid footing if their categorical bans were tailored to serve the governments’ undeniably compelling interest in protecting the public from gun violence. But their dispossession of all felons — both violent and nonviolent — is unconstitutional as applied to Kanter, who was convicted of mail fraud for falsely representing that his company’s therapeutic shoe inserts were Medicare-approved and billing Medicare accordingly. 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.

In this area — felons and firearms — Barrett holds that the rights protected by the Second Amendment are only to be forfeited if the felon fits into a “dangerous category or bears individual markers of risk.”

American citizens can’t possibly become experts on every issue facing America’s decision-makers, but most of us are deeply aware of the critical points in at least one issue, whether it is farm subsidies, health care, or in this case gun owners’ civil rights. How those we elect (and those they appoint) assess and take positions on those issues well-known to us tells us whether or not we can trust them and their staffs to analyze all other matters and make the right decisions. In the matter of gun owners’ civil rights, both President Trump and Judge Barrett ‘pass the litmus test.’


  1. Trump has been mildly disappointing on gun rights. I disapprove of his ban on bump stocks. He has had several opportunities to prove his support for 2A, but failed to use them. More specifically, he has failed to require the ATF to clearly and consistently define (and enforce) all the aspects of firearm law. I’d like to buy an arm brace AR-15 pistol, but the ATF definition of them has changed from pistol to SBR and back twice. It would be a shame to spend the money and become an instant felon the next month with a single email.
    Still, he has not been horrible on 2A. He hasn’t damaged our other firearm rights, that I know of. Does anyone else have thoughts on this?

    • He’s sure been better than average.

      I don’t care about the bump stocks -sure, they are probably strictly un-constitutional, but so has been every gun law since 1938. That ship has sailed, we aren’t ever going back to being able to just mail-order a new Colt Monitor and buy dynamite at the hardware store. Besides, a good product-liability case could have been made against bump stocks as making the weapon less safe and reliable in operation. AFAICT, they were pretty useless anyways. I’m also not a big fan of loopholing laws, no matter how stupid those laws are.

      In any case, Trump has slightly improved the firearms situation overall, which is better than we can expect from a politician nowadays. Especially one who is essentially a 1980s Democrat, politically.

      I’m with you on the “pistol” thing, and the “somehow this is not a sawed-off-shotgun” thing.

      • At least half if not more than half of Congressional Republicans are far less active in supporting 2A than President Trump is. As Kle points out, President Trump never claimed to be a conservative, he’s a populist. The Republicans (who are fine with globalism) hated him and most still don’t like him. President Trump is a nationalist and is the best we’ve got. If Hillary had won the last election, I’m still convinced that we would have seen a civil war. Maybe it’s only delayed.

      • Just a bit of trivia. The new 14 inch barrel 12 gauge “firearms” come with a bird’s head grip. Legally, they can’t come with a pistol grip, because that makes them shorter than the legal minimum length of 26 inches. Replacing the bird’s head with a pistol grip makes it a SBS! An easy felony charge. Heck, it really is “interesting times”.

    • I’m disappointed in the comments I see on some gun posts that harangue against him as opposed to the Second amendment.
      They think they’d do better with Biden? Fools.

      • Those people are butt-hurt over Trump’s support of the BATFE’s bump-stock ruling.

        I don’t agree with the BSR because I am a strict interpretationist of the 2A, as in ‘What right do you have to even think you can infringe on my right to own pert near whatever the frick I want, and carry said thing wherever and whenever I want.’

        So far, he’s better than any president since 1934 regarding the 2nd Amendment.

  2. Steve,

    That convinced me, Biden all the way! I’m sure he’ll defend the 2A, look at what he accomplished in 47 years.

  3. Let’s have a little history. Most of modern onerous firearms laws started in CA under then Governor Reagan after Black Panthers, exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, open carried at the capitol grounds in Sacramento.

    President Trump may consider other issues more pressing than firearms issues. His second term will give him an opportunity to do more, IMO. The “swamp” has many, maybe the majority, anti-firearms inhabitants with a justifiable fear of an armed populace. He needs to pick his battles.

    • Every firearm purchased during the AntiFA/BLM events this year, every round of ammunition purchased, I see as a vote for President Trump.

      President Harris has vowed to disarm each and every one of us…one bullet at a time.

      • Yup, Ed gets it right. Sure, Reagan reacted locally to the illegal carry of firearms during civil unrest, but all of the various Gun Control acts and movements were pushed during episodes of ‘bad gun use’. The Dems have wanted control over and elimination of the citizens’ right to be armed (and armored) since Woodrow Wilson. Just the fear mongering over gansters using guns illegally (along with moonshiners and other supposed criminals using guns in the commission of felonies) is what was used as a reason for the NFA of 1934. It had nothing to do with FDR being scared of armed citizens, nope, nothing at all…

  4. We forget about the Angevin empire, at least I do. Thanks for the reminder, and Eleanor of Aquitaine was remarkable.

    ACB’s alright too.

  5. ACB looks to be a good constitutionalist, which is a good thing. I know we’ll never get all our gun rights back, but stopping the erosion and knocking off the most egregious laws is a good start.

    The Angevin Empire was a severe threat to the French king. All those little parts that used to be France and now aren’t, or are they? Lots of issues over who owns and who controls the land.

    And then there’s the Vexin, a stab deep into the heart of France. Who controls the Vexin controls the way into Paris.

    Brittany was pert near a Norman territory since the days of William (the Bastard) the Conqueror.

    And all of the continental lands lost due to Richard the Lionhearted’s stupidity and lack of support for John (who was, overall, a good man and a good king, just he got the bad press.)

    History is so fun.

    • The continental land was lost within a generation, as you point out. The richer land… but the barons hated John, and Richards ransom bankrupt the kingdom. Etc.

      • Yup. Everyone blames John, but Richard bankrupted the empire, and his casual and flagrant use of giving favored barons tax-free times sure hurt the royal treasury. And Richard wasn’t exactly John’s friend, either.

  6. The right to self-defense, as Barrett pointed out, is not conditional a previous criminal conviction.
    The restrictions are unconstitutional and have only yet to be found as such by SCOTUS.
    Why should a person who has been convicted of a crime be restrained from outdoor activity where one must have a gun to either protect or provide for oneself?
    Or even urban activity?

  7. JB & SS look like those really cheesy 1970’s used car salesmen. In those days we’d run the other way faster than all get out. Today, people prop up this clown and his cohorts with excitement.

  8. re:
    felon ‘in possession’

    About four decades ago, I was stopped by a Sacramento County Sheriff’s Deputy.
    His only purpose was to acquire information so he could use it to acquire Class 3 weapons and mufflers.
    I heard about the ruse from BATF agents coming to my home to verify safe storage.
    He didn’t contest the charges, got one year in prison, did less than twenty-four hours (one day), immediately received an expunge of the arrest/conviction, and was immediately hired by the US Marshals Service.
    He took a ‘medical retirement’; last I heard, he lives in the Philippines.

    So, please, do not defend ‘qualified immunity’ for our public servants.

    • If there is no qualified immunity, taxpayers will have to pay VAST sums to insurance companies for the same thing.

Comments are closed.