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.

Subscribe
Notify of
102 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
George Steele
George Steele
2 years ago

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… Read more »

revjen45
revjen45
2 years ago

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

Cayton Edwards
Cayton Edwards
2 years ago

Exactly, I refer to gun owners of America who highlight his past support for gun control.

Rick Hale
Rick Hale
2 years ago

Why didn’t anyone ask him about Red Flag laws (Extreme Risk Protection Orders)?

R Vincent Warde
R Vincent Warde
2 years ago
Reply to  Rick Hale

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.

FB
FB
2 years ago

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.

tomcat
tomcat
2 years ago

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.

R Vincent Warde
R Vincent Warde
2 years ago
Reply to  tomcat

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

Greg K
Greg K
2 years ago

Isn’t this the guy who was in charge during Ruby Ridge and Waco?

Bill
Bill
2 years ago
Reply to  Greg K

No , It was that woman from Florida Janet Reno in both cases.

Greg K
Greg K
2 years ago
Reply to  Bill

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.

Greg K
Greg K
2 years ago
Reply to  Bill

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.

R Vincent Warde
R Vincent Warde
2 years ago
Reply to  Greg K

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…….

Steve Roncone
Steve Roncone
2 years ago

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

Greg K
Greg K
2 years ago

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.

revjen45
revjen45
2 years ago
Reply to  Bill

Janet Reno was a woman?

The Revelator
The Revelator
2 years ago

,

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.

John E DumaryJr
John E DumaryJr
2 years ago

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… Read more »

R Vincent Warde
R Vincent Warde
2 years ago

<<>> 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… Read more »

The Spirit of Freedom
The Spirit of Freedom
2 years ago

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.

Mart3
Mart3
2 years ago

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…..

John Whalley
John Whalley
2 years ago

EXACTLY RIGHT!

John Whalley
John Whalley
2 years ago

EXACTLY RIGHT!

Piper's Colt
Piper's Colt
2 years ago

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.

m.
m.
2 years ago
Reply to  Piper's Colt

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

Hubcap
Hubcap
2 years ago
Reply to  Piper's Colt

Because the politicians are criminals.

Mark R
Mark R
2 years ago
Reply to  Hubcap

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… Read more »

Get a Clue
Get a Clue
2 years ago
Reply to  Mark R

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… Read more »

Ronald Parks
Ronald Parks
2 years ago

The lawyer’s and Politicians creed… “My opinions my vary based on what is expedient to me at the moment”.

Jimbo66
Jimbo66
2 years ago
Reply to  Ronald Parks

Just like some preachers . You have to be incredibly careful of who you hitch you wagon to.

Ronald Parks
Ronald Parks
2 years ago

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.

David M
David M
2 years ago

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.

Free Helicopter Rides For Commies
Free Helicopter Rides For Commies
2 years ago
Reply to  David M

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

Robert Pollard
Robert Pollard
2 years ago
Reply to  David M

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.

Get Your History Right
Get Your History Right
2 years ago
Reply to  Robert Pollard

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,… Read more »

The Revelator
The Revelator
2 years ago

@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… Read more »

The Revelator
The Revelator
2 years ago
Reply to  David M

@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… Read more »

The other Jim
The other Jim
2 years ago

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.

Robert Pollard
Robert Pollard
2 years ago
Reply to  The other Jim

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.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
2 years ago
Reply to  Robert Pollard

@OV and RP, love to show her what crazy party animals that we can be, when the need arises.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
2 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

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

ReasonSpeak
ReasonSpeak
2 years ago
Reply to  The other Jim

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… Read more »

Justice
Justice
2 years ago

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… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
2 years ago
Reply to  Justice

@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.

Justice
Justice
2 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

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.

Oldmarine
Oldmarine
2 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

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.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
2 years ago
Reply to  Oldmarine

@Old marine, Good observation.

Bill
Bill
2 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

What about the Trump family goin to Mar logo every weekend, lots of tax payer money being there.

BamaBubbleHead
BamaBubbleHead
2 years ago
Reply to  Bill

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.

Alfred Somerville
Alfred Somerville
2 years ago
Reply to  Justice

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… Read more »

The Revelator
The Revelator
2 years ago

Put the Fiddle and the Kool-Aid Down.

Heed the Call-up
Heed the Call-up
2 years ago

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.

ArmyVet
ArmyVet
2 years ago

No, that would be in the Anti-Federalist Papers..

The Revelator
The Revelator
2 years ago
Reply to  ArmyVet

@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.

Vincent Brady
Vincent Brady
2 years ago

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!

Will
Will
2 years ago

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

Charles Moore
Charles Moore
2 years ago
Reply to  Will

What a coinkidink; I lost mine in a cave-in whilst spelunking in Lake Michigan when I last visited Arizona!

joefoam
joefoam
2 years ago

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

m.
m.
2 years ago
Reply to  joefoam

from the vietnam era: “he stood on the steeple & pissed on the people, but the people could not piss on him, amen”

Renfro
Renfro
2 years ago

So much for Trump draining the swamp.

Green Mtn.Boy
Green Mtn.Boy
2 years ago
Reply to  Renfro

Adding swamp scum will never drain the swamp.

Hoplite
Hoplite
2 years ago

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.

John Galt
John Galt
2 years ago

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?

Scott Buchanan
Scott Buchanan
2 years ago
Reply to  John Galt

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

Yes, I most certainly did.

Matt in Oklahoma
Matt in Oklahoma
2 years ago

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”

Freeman
Freeman
2 years ago

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.

GregTorchia
GregTorchia
2 years ago

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?

John
John
2 years ago

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

William McAtee
William McAtee
2 years ago
Reply to  John

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!

Dave in Fairfax
Editor
Dave in Fairfax
2 years ago
Reply to  William McAtee

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… Read more »

Ben
Ben
2 years ago

Ale sure to let your reps and sen Vote NO on this guy. GOA has canned emails you can use. Where is the NRA?

tom
tom
2 years ago

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.

VH
VH
2 years ago

White House Petition created for the Unconstitutional Red Flag Laws click on the link below

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/unconstitutional-red-flag-laws

Please share the petition website link.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.– John Adams

“We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” ― Benjamin Franklin

Dave in Fairfax
Editor
Dave in Fairfax
2 years ago
Reply to  VH

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

VH
VH
2 years ago

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/unconstitutional-red-flag-laws

petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/unconstitutional-red-flag-laws

VH
VH
2 years ago

Unconstitutional Red Flag Laws
I just started a petition on the White House petitions site, We the People. Will you sign it? https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/unconstitutional-red-flag-laws

Vietnam Brown Water Navey Veteran
Vietnam Brown Water Navey Veteran
2 years ago
Reply to  VH

@ VH The link you posted will not open. Could it have been taken down?

Gerald Brennan
Gerald Brennan
2 years ago

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.

Jennifer
Jennifer
2 years ago

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… Read more »

T
T
2 years ago
Reply to  Jennifer

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.

Wilford Pennington
Wilford Pennington
2 years ago

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.

Brian
Brian
2 years ago

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 .

Stephen Nixon
Stephen Nixon
2 years ago
Reply to  Brian

Which is why they are trying so fervently to squelch our 2A rights.

Larry Hasbro
Larry Hasbro
2 years ago

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… Read more »

Scott
Scott
2 years ago

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.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
2 years ago

Scary answer. There is a couple of cases gap in his knowledge of the BOR, and the Second Amendment in particular.

Brandon White
Brandon White
2 years ago

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

Heed the Call-up
Heed the Call-up
2 years ago
Reply to  Brandon White

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.

Joshua
Joshua
2 years ago

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.

Baldwin
Baldwin
2 years ago
Reply to  Joshua

“No one or no thing can ever separate us from these natural rights.” Except politicians and judges

Jerry
Jerry
2 years ago

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.

The Revelator
The Revelator
2 years ago

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.

Nottinghill
Nottinghill
2 years ago
Reply to  The Revelator

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.

Daisy Edberg
Daisy Edberg
2 years ago
Reply to  Nottinghill

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

Grigori
Grigori
2 years ago
Reply to  Daisy Edberg

HUH? Try again. This time in English, please.

The Revelator
The Revelator
2 years ago
Reply to  Nottinghill

@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.

Nottinghill
Nottinghill
2 years ago
Reply to  The Revelator

@Rev: You are absolutely and unfortunately correct.

JMR
JMR
2 years ago

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.

m.
m.
2 years ago

barr supported the ruby ridge woman & baby shooters?

Nottinghill
Nottinghill
2 years ago
Reply to  m.

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.

Daisy Edberg
Daisy Edberg
2 years ago
Reply to  Nottinghill

Becareful there watching n keeping score we can win doing it legal

GregTorchia
GregTorchia
2 years ago
Reply to  Daisy Edberg

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