AG Nominee William Barr on Second Amendment During Confirmation Hearings ~ VIDEO

AG Nominee William Barr on Second Amendment During Confirmation Hearings
AG Nominee William Barr on Second Amendment During Confirmation Hearings

U.S.A. -(Ammoland.com)- On January 15, just a little before 5 p.m. Senator John Cornyn asked Attorney General nominee William P. Barr about his views on the Second Amendment. The question and answer were recorded as part of C-SPAN coverage of the nomination process.

The question and answer, with some more commentary by Senator Cornyn occur from about 4:56:33 to 5:00:04 on the C-SPAN timer.  There is a transcript on the C-SPAN link, but it has a few errors, perhaps introduced by the automated computer transcription process.

For example, the transcript misses the first half of Senator Cornyn's opening sentence, where he says “Mr. Barr, I want to talk about guns,” I have created a more accurate transcript below. It can be checked by watching the video.

Starting about 4:56:33 on January 15, 2019 from c-span.org: 

Senator John Cornyn from Texas:

“Mr Barr, I want to talk about guns, and I want to talk about China in the five minutes we have together. Back in 1992 there was some discussion about your position on Congress' role when it comes to banning certain types of semi-automatic weapons, sometimes people call those “assault weapons”. But In the intervening years, the Supreme Court has now spoken, both in the Heller and McDonald cases, and recognized the Second Amendment confers an individual and fundamental right to bear arms. 

Could you, sir,  bring us up to date from your views in 1992, and how they were affected by Heller and McDonald, and what your views are now on the Second Amendment?”

The Hon. William P. Barr:

“Sure. I think I opposed an assault weapon ban because I felt that was really sort of the aesthetics of the gun.  

Since that time Heller has been decided. Actually, before Heller, I did work on OLC on this issue, and I personally concluded that the Second Amendment creates a personal right, under the Constitution.

It's based on the Lockean notion of the right of self-preservation. It's tied to that. I was glad to see Heller come out and vindicate that initial view that I had. 

 And so there is no question under Heller that the right to have weapons, firearms, is protected under the Second Amendment and is a personal right. At the same time there is room for reasonable regulation. 

From my standpoint, what I would look for, in assessing a regulation, is what is the burden on law-abiding people and is it proportionate to whatever benefit, in terms of safety and effectiveness, will be conferred.

 As I said, just a moment ago, lets get down to the real problem we are confronting, which is keeping these weapons out of the hands of people who are mentally ill. I think all the rest of this stuff is really, essentially rhetoric, until we get that problem dealt with; in terms of regulatory approaches.”

This transcript ends about 4:59:35 on January 15, 2019. Senator Cornyn has some additional commentary after that.

Link to video

A short analysis of Mr. Barr's Second Amendment testimony:

Mr. Barr is a lawyer, and by all accounts, an exceptionally good lawyer. His use of words is very precise.  He references work he did pre-Heller, where he concluded the Second Amendment is an individual right, probably about 1989, when he was the Assistant Attorney General, writing opinions for the Office of Legal Counsel.  Someone will find the actual opinion.

The fact that he came to this conclusion before Heller, is significant, and positive. Before Heller, the vast majority of the legal community dismissed the Second Amendment as essentially irrelevant (based on misleading appeals courts decisions).

Mr. Barr also mentions “the Lockean notion” with is a direct reference to natural law, and the foundation of legal theory for the Republic of the United States. This suggests that Barr is an originalist and a textualist in his interpretation of the Constitution.

The questionable part of Mr. Barr's answer is this:

From my standpoint, what I would look for, in assessing a regulation, is what is the burden on law-abiding people and is it proportionate to whatever benefit, in terms of safety and effectiveness, will be conferred.

Two things stand out. First, Mr. Barr is considering the burden on law-abiding people first, and then considering the potential benefit, second. This sounds like “interest balancing”.

I suggest it is more nuanced. The Supreme Court in Heller specifically denied “interest balancing” as a possibility for anything to do with core Second Amendment rights. Mr. Barr is *not* using the wording of the various appeals courts of “government interest” in his comparison. He mentions “burdens on law-abiding people. That may indicate he puts the interests of those exercising their rights ahead of potential benefits.

Mr. Barr did not come across as a Second Amendment zealot. I would not expect him to do so, in a confirmation hearing.

But consider Ruth Bader Ginsburg's words about the Second Amendment: From armsandthelaw.com:

“If the court had properly interpreted the Second Amendment, the Court would have said that amendment was very important when the nation was new,” she said. “It gave a qualified right to keep and bear arms, but it was for one purpose only — and that was the purpose of having militiamen who were able to fight to preserve the nation.””

William P. Barr wrote the Second Amendment was an individual right almost 20 years before Heller.  That may be the most important thing to understand from the confirmation hearings.


About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

  • 110 thoughts on “AG Nominee William Barr on Second Amendment During Confirmation Hearings ~ VIDEO

    1. Here’s the biggest problem I have with Ginsburg and those of her ilk among “the ruling class” (sic):

      “It gave a qualified right to keep and bear arms, but . . .” is a quote, from her queenlyness.

      What she does not fundamentally understand – or at the least, agree with – is that the government does NOT “give rights” to the citizens, nor does the Bill of Rights, nor the Constitution. Citizens HAVE rights – by nature – and “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the governed” is the role of our government and no other. Her mindset is one of usurpation of sovereignty, which belongs to the people – you know, as in “We The People?”

      The Second Amendment does not confer a right; it confirms that the government instituted under the Constitution has no business – explicitly documented in writing – interfering with or infringing that right or any other of the enumerated, or for that matter, non-enumerated, rights (i.e., the government ONLY is authorized, by the consent of the people, to do the things it is so authorized to do in the Constitution) of the people or the states. See the 9th and 10th Amendments if there’s confusion in your mind, Ruth.

      And that’s why we have to watch them every minute; it is too easy for them to fall into the mindset of being in charge of things, instead of being administrators, acting on our behalf, and exclusively at our license to do so. The swamp clearly lives in a bubble of fantasy where that very real, Lockean foundation, is lost to them. Time to haul out the Declaration and read it aloud so that they understand that a fundamental principle is that of our right “to alter or to abolish” the government “whenever . . . (it) becomes destructive of these ends.” Time to throw a few rats out of the nest and under a bus to get the message across.

    2. Barr is just a 2-bit clone of Roland Freisler.
      https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/william-barrs-connection-to-ruby-ridge-defending-fbi-snipers/
      So it looks like our new AG is a nominee for the Roland Freisler Award for Law in Service to the State. Basically, he believes that the Federal Pigs have the plenary right to kill peons as they see fit.
      Not too far out of line with Freisler: i.e. that state sanctioned killings are not, by definition, murder.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKiqHpbFz68

      1. Most likely because they are largely a state matter. Also, because, rightly or wrongly, there is a ton of support for them, including the administration and the NRA, albeit with reservations.

        1. There are several red flag bills in the house that will pass. Then when the dems take over senate if and when it happens, it will stay dormant until a dem or socialist president cheats their way back in to potus.

    3. There are a lot of posts on this guy but one added thing I think is important is that this guy revealed he has been good friends with Mueller for over 30 years. The second big news in this is that Trump didn’t know this until he heard Barr say it at the hearings. I think that is an “oh sh_t moment” and it is possible Trump has been had again. To bad they are bringing back more swamp creatures rather than getting rid of them.

      1. Time will tell. Considering today’s actions by Muller, things may not be as bad for Trump as the media would have us believe….

        1. The FBI attempted to use the Sawed-off shotgun charge as leverage much before the actual incident. That was 1991ish.

          The Family Health division was involved as early as 1990 or 1991 with Koresh. I think the USPS contacted the Sheriff in 1992…This one may have been all Reno, but Ruby Ridge started on Bush’s watch. Am pretty sure of it.

        2. Just checked it out Bill…Ruby Ridge was August 1992, but started much earlier, and WACO was turned over to the FBI on May 1992.
          Barr was Attorney General from Nov. 91 to Jan. 93.

          1. Re: WACO, the decision to move in on the Davidians was made by Reno. The initial screwed up raid was all ATF, and I doubt that any AG would have known about that op until it went South.

            Ruby Ridge is another matter entirely…….

            1. ATF did not fall under Dept of Justice or the Attorney General during the 90’s. They fell under the Treasury Dept until after 911 at which time they were transferred to DOJ

            2. @Steve While true, the US District Attorneys did get consulted by the FBI for possible future convictions, and they would have been under Barr’s direction.

              @Vincent Yes, but the deceptive BS was before Feb 1993. The FBI presumably under Barr’s guidance set the stage. Again, the FBI has always consulted with the Attorney Generals for major cases.

              To both, the only reason I brought it up–> I remember this guy on TV around that time, but I don’t remember what he was being asked.

    4. 1) if the government can tell you at what age you are allowed to exercise a natural rite then they are in the position of age limiting that right completely out of existence . You can’t purchase a gun until you’re 21 ? What about 51 or 101? 2) if the government has the authority to take your property ( your gun) without due process by calling it a red flag law then they will have the authority to take anything you on under a red flag law. The government would then have the authority to say we have a “red flag financial emergency” and we need to take the money you have in your bank account and your retirement account

      1. <<>>

        Government is definitely not out of line in limiting some of the rights of minors. After the age of majority, I largely agree. Hopefully the courts will too.

        <<<>>>

        First, as a former paramedic I’m familiar with some of the laws, re: mental health commitments (we were responsible for their transport). There is a misconception that if you do not get due process before an action is taken, that is a violation of your due process rights. In some circumstances, due process can indeed come AFTER government action is taken. This is the case with both mental health commitments and temporary restraining orders. So, like it or not, as far as SCOTUS is concerned, issuing a red flag order before you get a hearing is not a due process violation.

        That said, a hearing at which you get to present your case must happen quickly. The CA law that kicked off this whole trend actually required the court to schedule a 2nd hearing within two weeks, before the subject was even served. I’m sure they did this so as to not have the law struck down on due process grounds. They also limited who could apply for an order. Basically just close family and cops. Having worked EMS in CA, my guess is few, if any cops used this law. CA has both restraining orders, which carry a firearms prohibition and temporary mental health commitments (5150), which carry an appealable 5 year firearms prohibition – even if the facility releases you at once. In short, the law was actually sold as something that relatives could use if the cops screwed up and did nothing.

        In 2016, a grand total of 90 orders were issued statewide. Again, the number was low because cops have better options. Of these 90 orders, 81 were reversed at the second hearing – when the subject got to present their case. Given that most of these people probably represented themselves, and that the standard of proof is a majority of the evidence, this is a very high number and is indicative of a great deal of unfounded accusations. Then one must consider that some unknown number of the remaining 10% just gave up and didn’t show up to defend themselves. The rate of justified orders is likely well under 10%.

        Adding more and more people who can apply for these orders can only increase the rate of abuse. If we want to stop these laws, the best approach is to challenge based on the high rate of unfounded orders, not on the grounds of due process.

      2. Well said John E DumaryJr.
        Most do not see it, that America is Not “So Free” as is Falsely claimed. Until they get into a legal jam.

    5. Just think how this story would change if they asked about speech control….. getting permission BEFORE you are allowed to say something… needing a license to speak aloud in public…..

    6. Instead of seeking ways to take away the rights of innocent gun owners, why are these so-called leaders of America not addressing the criminal element of society and putting them in jail? Buy-back programs do not get guns off the street, but maybe out of the closet. Criminals do not purchase guns, they steal them. Can the law-makers not get that through their thick heads. The Red Flag laws criminalize the law abiding, plain and simple. Do not make criminals out of innocent people with these new laws, that do not, and never will, address CRIME.

      1. politicians are not concerned with the how, where, & why of criminals. their “laws” are about disarming the law-abiding – you, the “target”

        1. The vast majority of “politicians” are former lawyers – let that sink in. The media often refers to politicians as “law-makers” – they write the laws to be passed in Congress. In law, words have very definite meanings AND NOT WHAT THE AVERAGE PERSON THINKS THEY ARE. Did you know there are 3 legal definitions of the term “United States of America”? 3 – not 1 but 3. Which definition will you use in a court case?
          Politicians/lawyers write the laws to have very definitive meanings the average person would never think of. That is why judges tell you, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse”. How in the hell is the average person to know the legal meanings? This is why there are lawyers – by hiring one you become a “ward-of-the-state” literally and legally – being a ward of the state you cannot speak for yourself; your attorney speaks for you.
          Politicians play a very dangerous “Constitutional” game. They creep up to the edge with the laws they write and sometimes cross over just to see what will happen. They tie up courts with nonsense; with delay motions, feigned ignorance of material/evidence etc. Yes they are criminals and it is a damn shame they are allowed to be elected. I was once read the original 13th Amendment, which supposedly was destroyed in the War of 1812, when British troops set fire the White House, forbade anyone with title to hold any government position. Lawyers in this country and elsewhere are given the title of “Esquire” which is a British title of nobility. The current 13th Amendment is apparently a water-downed version of the original.
          In the end, no lawyers should be allowed to hold any government position as they manipulate, lie, steal and cheat. Shakespeare had it right, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”… from “Henry the VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2.

          1. Oh, good grief. How much ignorance can you pack into one post? That’s all revisionist drivel. Use an ounce of common sense. This ‘original 13th amendment’ nonsense is patently ridiculous.

            1) the White House was burned in 1814. The 13th amendment (which abolished slavery) was ratified by the Senate in *1864*, and by the House of Representatives in *1865*.

            2) The Constitution and its amendments are not, and have never been kept in the White House, and, certainly there have always been multiple copies. There’s also a large body of extensive commentary documenting the debates over the wording of the Constitution and the content of all proposed amendments, ratified or not, so even if one particular copy had something happen to it, there’d be no sudden question about the content and exact wording of either the constitution or any amendment, nor any ability to substitute some alternate amendment.

            3) The prohibition against titles is in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution itself — as part of the Emoluments clause — prohibiting the US Government from conferring titles of *nobility*, and American citizens from receiving *foreign gifts, emoluments, offices or titles of any kind* without Congressional approval. The ‘title’s in question are associated with foreign ranks of nobility, (conferring quantifiable status, remuneration and potentially lands and political power within foreign realms) — *not* academic titles granted by colleges and universities that have no legal standing or any associated recompense, status, remuneration or political power.

            4) It’s the *JOB* of Congress to write laws. That’s it’s primary function. So, yes, members of congress are referred to as ‘law makers’. There’s nothing sinister about that. That’s how our government is *supposed* to work.

            5) Those members of Congress who hold law degrees aren’t *former* lawyers. They’re *still* lawyers, even if they don’t happen to be representing individual clients or arguing cases while serving in Congress. Many of them, in fact, return to careers in law upon leaving Congress. That’s also currently true of more than one living former president. Regardless of any of our particular opinions about lawyers, they’re not barred from holding public office. In point of fact, there are many elected positions that require the office holder to *be* a lawyer (district attorneys, attorneys general, and judges, for example).

    7. I am not too concerned about his comments before THIS committee but comments before the committee the last time he was affirmed were deeply concerning. I know that there was a time when “conservatives” were trying to compromise with the left about gun control in the delusion that their end-game was a compromise rather than complete disarmament BUT, while he may harbor no intent to immediately disarm us, I think it’s safe to say that Mr. Barr is NOT passionate about defending our 2nd amendment rights.

    8. His statement …”At the same time there is room for reasonable regulation” , does not balance with “shall not not be infringed”

      1. @Oldvet,

        But when you combine it with his statement that he thinks rights are granted by the Constitution(Through Government is what he means) it makes perfect sense. He is not talking about rights. What he is stating is that he believes that Government allows us to have privileges until they decide its time to regulate it differently.

        Barr is bad news on an exponential level.

        1. @Revelator…Exactly reread I am saying does not balance (his term) means he cannot have his there is room for reasonable regulation because it infringes .
          I have written my senators saying i feel he will be another sessions and a danger to us all even as bad as holder if not worse .

    9. What I dont understand is why all the political dwelling on the 2nd amendment. No other amendment seems such scrutiny. People should be allowed to own any weapon, with any size magazine they want. I would be very careful about giving one inch to any liberal, as it is apparantly that the Democratic agenda is attempting to socialize the country. At some point, it may be necessary to eliminate those who are anti USA, aka Democrats.

      1. Professor Hans Hermann Hoppe is right, physical removal (of commies) is necessary to preserve a civil society.

      2. That may be because once you lose the 2nd, all others follow. Its the most critical. Hitler, Mao and Stalin had disarmament of the citizens in common. And more recently, Venezuela.

        1. Robert Pollard, your statement is flawed.
          As Hitler loosened up the draconian Firearms laws,and regulations in Germany, for German Citizens in 1938 with the,Reich Waffen Gesetz. At the same time Jews and Gypsies were
          Striped of their German Citizenship with the new Citizenship laws as well.

          In Tito’s Sociallist Yugoslavia, comon citizens could own firearms as well.

          There actually were short periods of time in the Soviet Union after Stalins death, where authorities allowed for Shotguns to be Freely sold and purchased by common people. Then it was all of a sudden stopped.

          Yes in general ,Stalin,Mao,Ho Chi Min,Pol Pot, Honecker, Ceausescu, The Castro’s, The Kim Dynasty Regime The British UK Crown, South Korea,Japan,Canada,Australia,Parts of the USA etc.
          All with minor exceptions have extremly controled acess or Banned and confiscated firearms from the Common people who are subjugated and deemed
          “Un -Trust Worthy”

          In occupied areas by Hitler’s as well as Soviet,Japanese,American and other Allied Forces they also conficsted Banned Firearns from the Subjegated general public- populace.

          1. @Get your History Right

            Except Hitler did not loosen up firearms laws for Jews. After All, it was done for “Their Safety” according to the Nazi’s, just like when they started moving them into sequestered neighborhoods, registering them…. Ect…

            And of course, lets not forget what happened when Communists took over Russia. In 1918, when the Communists began taking over in full after the October revolution of 1917(AKA Red October) the military had a strong presence in town during the revolution. Promises of being left alone if they did not interfere led to registration and confiscation of individual firearms, and later summary executions. The entire Family of Nicholas II was murdered after being held captive, taken to some woods where they were stripped naked and mutilated(including the daughters and son), thrown down a mine shaft, and then later taken and buried in secret..

            Of course after all that, allowing “Certain” soviet citizens the ability to own shotguns is nothing more than a Potemkin gesture allowed only to those the party saw fit, much like they rewarded select individuals with dachas(Second Homes).

            The semantics of “Well not all citizens were disarmed” does not detract from the nature that the right of self defense and bearing arms was universally suppressed in those regimes. It was a privileged basis, not observed as a right.

      3. @David M.

        Do not support a “French revolution” style takeover. Anytime you talk about eliminating others because we disagree you have already lost.

        That is why you have to know what an “American style Revolution” is. It is one done out of defense while recognizing equal rights, even those you are in disagreement with and fighting against. Not all the colonists agreed with the revolution, but they were all Americans afterwards or had their choice to leave and renounce that title to rejoin Great Britain in England. Support self defense and self evident truth, not murder and vengeance. That is the difference.

    10. Barr in 1991:
      “On the assault weapon front, the proposal before us is the DeConcini amendment. And I think … I would support both the Brady Bill waiting period and the DeConcini [semi-auto ban] amendment, provided that they were parts of a broader and more comprehensive crime bill that included … very tough provisions on the use of firearms in crimes and illegal purchase and trading in firearms…”
      And remember, he loves Red Flag Gun Confiscation with no due process.

      1. The part where he said it was o for mentally ill people to be disarmed is key. Then they redefine the term to include everyone that wants to protect themselves with a firearm.

            1. @WB… Be careful down there . If I have it figured right you have water east ,south , and west of you . You could lose your cherished BBQ gun like I lost all of mine in a disasterous water crossing.

            2. Yep, an embarrassing little boating accident, unworthy of reporting, but all my iron went straight to the bottom! Mortifying, just mortifying! ; )

      2. This article is very poorly researched. Barr is as Deep State as it gets and I feel we are being set up once again:
        1. He was the AG appointed by Bush 41 and said nothing when Bush 41 instituted by Executive Order (Congress was not involved) the first and permanent ban on foreign made semi-automatic “assault” rifles.
        2. He was for Heller but apparently also for the loophole that allows the imposition of restrictions for whatever “common good” the politicians deem worthy. C-Span footage from 1991 shows he may have even perjured himself during the recent confirmation. [see Barr’s remarks at the 1:42:23 mark.]
        3. Barr endorsed a comprehensive magazine ban in the early 90s.
        4. During the Clinton administration, the semi-auto ban that Barr supported was signed into law — creating a backlash so extreme that Democrats who supported what became known as the “Barr package” were thrown out of Congress in large numbers for the first time in a generation.
        5. Barr told Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Tuesday that his top gun priority will be gun confiscation orders:
        “I also think we need to push along the ERPOs [or Gun Confiscation Orders], so we have red flag laws to supplement the use of the background check…This is the single most important thing I think we can do in the gun control area to stop these massacres from happening in the first place.”
        6. Lastly, he was AG during Ruby Ridge but denied any involvement, yet evidence surfaced a decade later showing he was on calls before the raid occurred and then spent additional DOJ dollars to defend the FBI sniper against criminal charges.

    11. All politicians are liers and cheats. Their all in it together and the rhetoric that spews from their pie holes is nothing but posturing. The NRA (National Ripoff Association) is a rip off Wayne and his constituents are / have become greedy money grubbing fat cats off of the law abiding Patriots to our country. Trump is not the solution he’s just a money grabber too. This stupid baby game he’s playing with Prozac pelozi is ridiculous. The country needs to be revamped. We are in trouble people if socialist like AOC keep getting elected this country is done. Dumbama got the ball rolling if it’s not stopped Rome will burn…. I’m buying a fiddle.

      1. @Jus, Have you ever seen the list of top name booze that the Air Force is required to provide, when Pelozi is allowed to use USAF air assets, for her and her big donor backers go on a junket? The free booze tap should have been closed on her years ago. I would not call it a stupid baby game. I would call it saving taxpayers’ money.

        1. Your right there… Prozac pelozi has a good ole Time on the American tax payers. Friends and family…come one come all free booze for my buds.

        2. Oldmarine >>> Wild Bil
          I think it would be evident that Pelosi needs to be investigated on her personal spending of Government funds. She is dangerously crazy but I think that Fienstein is more dangerous because she is more cunning and sneaky.

          1. Just wonderin’ since you ask, what about the amounts paid for the Clintons? You might wonder how much more that expense were she to obtain her queenship of President.
            Again, just wonderin’ especially with all the statements concerning financial responsibility that have been bandied about lately.

      2. In other words, you’re going to stand on the sidelines and do nothing(as Nero, according to legend, did-he “fiddled while Rome burned”). All the latest drivel about the “fat cats” in charge at the NRA sounds an awful lot like our socialist enemies whining about the “rich” and proposing to tax them out of existence. Unlike the fence-sitters who refuse to do anything positive while our Republic falls apart around them, the NRA has been actively standing up for the Second Amendment since 1875. Without that great organization, we would have lost our guns, AND all of our rights along with them, a long time ago.While I agree that NRA is due for another “Cincinnati uprising” and some new, younger leadership, I refuse to condemn the number one advocate for our gun rights on the basis of its leaders’ allegedly deep pockets. I agree that the Association needs a new direction, and an infusion of passionate Second Amendment defenders at the top, but that is up to the rank and file, everyday members. Your rhetoric is disturbingly close to those like Pelosi and Schumer, foaming at the mouth about “fat cats” and “money grabbers”(the latter in reference to the only President since the great Ronald Reagan to have, to put it bluntly, the balls to address the NRA national meetings and make an unequivocal stand in support of our firearms rights).

    12. Mrs. Pelosi, the right is “qualified” by the words “shall not be infringed.”

      Mr. Barr, the RKBA is not *given* to us by the 2A, but is *guaranteed* by it. It is a natural, inalienable right. Please read the Federalist Papers.

        1. @ArmyVet

          Good BOR origin reference. Most folks forget that the Anti-Federalists won that argument.

          The Federalist view was that protections were not needed as no one would ever support the idea of infringements of such basic rights.

    13. I suggest that your donations to any political party depend on protecting the second admendment. If your political party does not support the 2nd amendment, let your party know that THEIR donation is going to one of the legal defense funds for the 2nd amendment. You will be amazed at how quickly they see the light!

    14. Here comes more “guilty till proven innocent, then still guilty”.
      Fortunately I lost my guns in an unfortunate boating accident.

    15. Lawyers moving lips = lying. I can see the quote now ‘in the interest of public safety….’ we will strip you of your rights.

    16. Barr scares me. Sounds like Jeff Sessions. And it seems obvious now that Sessions was a Deep State mole. Had been for years. Built a great cover and used it. Hoping Barr is a real American.

    17. Deep state asshole……..but so are almost eveyone who will vote on his confirmation.

      Worked for the bush admin…….can’t be trusted near the constitution.

      Bad candidate, bad choice. Hope he is rejected.

      I did my GOA “representative” contact……..
      did you?

    18. Yet another POTUS plant of pretend 2A support. He will sell out too. That weak political answer says it all.
      It’s becoming harder to respect people who double talk. At least I know where a dem stands. I’d rather fight head on than get sucker punched from behind by someone “who has your back”

      1. Check out Barr’s history involving Ruby Ridge or his support for so called ‘red flag’ laws. He needs to be kicked down the road.

      2. The Democratic Commies plan is to make us all felons in possession of illegal firearm accessories or mags or ammo or any damn thing they can come up with ,don’t give up shit/ don’t tell anybody Anything revealing-the time has come my brothers,, To either put up or shut up ,,ForeverI still can’t believe our president nominated this numbnut left wing Obamaite /what the hell is going on over there in DC?

      3. No doubt about that, justice Ginsburg really needs to check her eyesight or something cus the constitution CLEARLY states, the right of the PEOPLE, not the militia shall NOT be infringed

        1. The 2nd Amendment also states that the militia, not the people, should be well regulated in order to insure a free state. Ever notice that? The militia is to be regulated, NOT the people!

          1. I think that you’ve misunderstood two things.
            Regulated, in those days, meant provisioned, not controlled.
            In Federalist 28 Free Farmer states, ” A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary. The powers to form and arm the militia, to appoint their officers, and to command their services, are very important; nor ought they in a confederated republic to be lodged, solely, in any one member of the government. First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments in the community to be avoided.”
            What he is saying is that the militia is a very local group made up of the local men, of fighting age, and not a force made up of men who are not tied to that specific community, or a standing force. The reasons are obvious for anyone who has seen troops, UN or NG called into an area to enforce laws, questionable or not. They are less likely to shoot “Joe from down the street”, rather than “that guy over there with the plaid shirt.” NOLA gave us an excellent example of this.

    19. More jibberish and double talk from a lawyer. Speaks a lot of words but says nothing. I don’t like him and do not trust him If he gets confirmed, this will be the 2nd strike, in my book, against Trump. The first being the NRA approved bump stock ban.
      I am a life member of both the NRA and GOA. I am still a supporter of the NRA, just not Lapierre and Cox.

      1. 404 Page Not Found

        Sorry, the page you’re looking for can’t be found.
        Here are some useful pages:

        Create a Petition
        Sign a Petition
        Visit Whitehouse.gov

    20. Barr should not be considered for this position because of his disgraceful participation in the defense of fed behavior in the Ruby Ridge debacle. That is all one needs to know. This is another stupid Trump pick that will end up biting him in the ass.

    21. I’m MUCH MORE concerned, when he’s being questioned by Sen. Feinstein before that, and he says,”I also think we need to push along the ERPOs (Extreme Risk Protection Orders), so we have these red flag laws to supplement the use of the background check to find out if someone has some mental disturbance. This is the single most important thing I think we can do in the gun control area to stop these massacres from happening in the first place”. SOME MENTAL DISTURBANCE??? Without ANY quantifiers or qualifiers, that could permanently BAN someone from gun ownership bc of a brief episode of post-partum depression, or a bad reaction to a medication, even a vindictive ex-spouse!

      1. Exactly right and what is very disconcerting is how many Republicans and so called Conservatives / gun owners and Constitutional defenders are either ignoring these comments or are supporting these laws. It’s incredible what I’m seeing.

        This article ignored that whole round of answers to Feinstein. That’s very disturbing and dishonest on Barr’s feelings on not only the 2nd Amendment but the Constitution as a whole. Which, Red Flag Laws violates a ton of the Bill Of Rights and it was ignored in this article. Disgusting.

    22. Old Ruth thiinks the 2nd amendment only pertained at the birth of this nation. I wonder if the 1st amendment only pertained to someone speaking directly to someone and not using TV or social media. Of course, neither of these existed at the time. Old Ruth, when you gonna leave us? Oh, and freedom of the press, only as long as it’s printed with a quill pen.

    23. Our government is almost at the point our founding fathers warned us about in the constitution it’s not going to be long until our government turns tyrant and the people will need to cleanse it with the blood of Patriots Thomas Jefferson quote, our guns are the only thing standing in the way of these crook politicians it’s up to us .

    24. Barr is a two face. Not to be trusted. Hes already pushing regulations using the mentally ill. Right theyre is your answer on barrs thoughts and feeling and the route he will definitely take for a stronger regulations on law abiding citizens. Barr will flip like a fush outta water. Granted people with mental problems should not have guns but how about those who have mental issues that arent violent or suicidal that might of had a brife problem mentally at one time time now gone. Could be divorce, family member death . You get my point. Will this person be disqualified

    25. When I took the Oath of Enlistment upon entering the Army (a long time ago), part of it was “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC”. Those same exact words are in the Oath of Office that our “Illustrous” Senators and Congressmen take. They seem to have forgotten that and would rather make Changes to suit their personal desires. Barr’s comments, while I read as being more positive relative to 2A still have lots of “weasel wordy political overtones” that are not as comforting.

    26. We need to face it at some point we’re going to have to put a line in the Sand and say we have a right to protect ourselves and we will fight to keep it if not the Democratics are going to strip us of our rights

      1. Brandon, Jefferson stated that even without an enumerated right, our natural right to defense is unalienable and cannot be taken from us. Unfortunately, until these unconstitutional laws are thrown out, we may be considered criminals by our government for believing in and exercising our natural, inalienable rights.

    27. I find it interesting that a supposed educated person like Ginsburg would even say publicly that the Constitution “Gave a qualified right” when she knows damn well that the Bill of Rights conferred nothing and only protected known natural God given rights from government abuse. We are born with these rights conferred to us by our creators. No one or no thing can ever separate us from these natural rights.

    28. Typical politician
      Talks out of both sides of his mouth. Don’t trust him at all after his interactions with gungrabber Feinstein. If their lips are moving they are spreading BS.

    29. WARNING!!!!!!! DO NOT TRUST THIS GUY.

      Two answers tell us who he is.

      “and I personally concluded that the Second Amendment creates a personal right, under the Constitution.”

      “At the same time there is room for reasonable regulation.”

      The Second Amendment does not create the right since it does not come from the Government or constitution, but comes from God or the natural law of self defense.

      The second Amendment is a restriction on government, preventing and banning it from attempting any “Reasonable Regulation”. Shall not be infringed means SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

      1. I do not!
        My household have mailed our letters to congress to ‘oppose’ his confirmation.
        Enough of these AH bureaucrats and the BS that comes with them all.

        1. I warned you all they would try n do this it will lead to a civithis one cant be used when they gave a handicapped blind man a carry permit they shut the door on thisi warned you its not just dems its liberals follow me help me or watch n seei

        2. @Nottinghill

          I’ve been getting texts from the DC republican office, and have been sending them replies sharing just what I think about them.

          They are pushing just as hard as the Democrats to keep people sedated and stupidly obedient at this point. The majority of those we are writing or calling are not on our side, they are just as much against us as the left.

    30. Yea……No I oppose him.

      Repulicans are nothing but promises, unfortunately his record shows us is isn’t very pro gun. His lip service now will not matter in the future, he will do nothing to restore our full rights, and will most likely further infringe on them.

      1. Mass Assassinations from 1963 -1969
        Ruby Ridge
        Waco
        OK City
        WTC Attack #1
        WTC Attack #2, UA FLT #93, the Pentagon (9/11)
        Bengahzi
        “We the People” have been force fed crap for a long, long time have we not?
        Can u say, sh!t shows of America.

          1. Watch out Ammoland is banning people/Don’t trust anybody in the government – only trust all your brothers n sisters in arms.Verified of course

    Leave a Comment 110 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *