Amy Coney Barrett: A Proven Pro-Second Amendment Jurist

Judge Amy Coney Barrett Rachel Malehorn / CC BY (
Judge Amy Coney Barrett, IMG Rachel Malehorn / CC BY (

U.S.A.-( The seditious Press has devoted substantial time analyzing and ruminating on Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court list of potential candidates and will continue to do so up to the point of his selecting someone.

Almost certainly, Trump will nominate a woman to replace the late vexatious liberal-wing Associate Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And, that nomination is imminent.

The current consensus is that Amy Coney Barrett, who presently serves as a Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, will be that person, as she is the front-runner.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett

Judge Barrett is young, personable, and extremely bright. When analyzing and deciding cases, Judge Barrett applies the methodology of the late eminent Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom she clerked after graduating from Notre Dame Law School, fist in her class, Summa Cum Laude.

President Trump nominated Barrett, on May 8, 2017, to serve as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Consistent with the methodology employed by the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, her brilliant mentor, Judge Barrett construes the Constitution in strict accordance with its original meaning. In that respect, Barrett is Ginsburg’s polar opposite.

Justice Ginsburg, unlike Judge Barrett, unabashedly and unashamedly interposed her own personal predilections into case analysis. Those predilections invariably informed her decisions, eroding the fundamental rights and liberties upon which a free Constitutional Republic and a sovereign people rest.

The attacks against Barrett coming from the Radical Left seditious Press have just started. Indeed, they have been ongoing for some time.

The seditious Press has constantly slammed Barrett’s stance on abortion. That remains its main concern and that, too, of the Radical Left. They haven’t attacked her yet on her jurisprudential approach to deciding Second Amendment cases, but that is almost certainly coming.

The Arbalest Quarrel has wondered about that: What is Barrett’s stance on the Second Amendment?

Fortunately, we have more than a mere clue, we have verified proof of her position, and that proof is consistent with her jurisprudential, methodological approach to case analysis. Judge Barrett is a firm Constitutional originalist and textualist, in the mold of her mentor, the late eminent Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia.

A fairly recent Second Amendment case, Kanter vs. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019), in which Judge Barrett took part, provides us with a definitive answer.

The Plaintiff in Kanter had pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud, a non-violent crime.

“Due to his felony conviction, he is prohibited from possessing a firearm under both federal and Wisconsin law. At issue in this case is whether the felon dispossession statutes—18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and Wis. Stat. § 941.29(1m)—violate the Second Amendment as applied to Kanter.”

Upon his release from Prison, and payment of restitution, Plaintiff applied to the Attorney General for relief from disability so that he could exercise his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

The 7th Circuit Court Majority pointed out that, “. . . the Attorney General may remove the prohibition on a case-by-case basis if an applicant sufficiently establishes ‘that the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant’s record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest.’”

The particulars of Kanter’s felony conviction, as set forth by the Court Majority that decided against Kanter, are as follows:

“On May 24, 2011, Kanter pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 based on a shipment of the noncompliant inserts to a podiatrist in Florida. Section 1341 carries a maximum penalty of twenty years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Kanter was sentenced to one year and one day in prison and two years of supervised release. He was also ordered to pay a criminal penalty of $50,000, and he reimbursed Medicare over $27 million in a related civil settlement.

Kanter has since served his time and paid his criminal penalty, and he has not been charged with any additional criminal activity. However, because of his felony conviction, he is permanently prohibited from owning a firearm under federal and Wisconsin law.”

The Constitutionality of the Wisconsin law was placed squarely in question. The lower District Court found against the Plaintiff because of his felony conviction and irrespective of the fact that he had served out his sentence and paid full restitution.

Two of three of the Appellate Court Judges, the majority, who ruled against the Plaintiff Petitioner, Kanter, framed the issue as a question whether individuals who have been convicted of non-violent felonies, no less than those who have been convicted of violent felonies, fall within a class of individuals who can never enjoy their Second Amendment right to own and possess firearms.

Why the Court majority framed the issue in this way is perplexing since the majority never bothered to formulate an answer to it or a resolution of it. This suggests that the Court had tacitly accepted as a given that citizens should never, can never, be absolved of their past misdeeds, regardless of the nature of their crimes, grounded, therefore, on the mere assumption that a convicted felon can never and must never be perceived as rehabilitated or capable of rehabilitation, at least, as to matters apropos of the Second Amendment, namely, matters pertaining to firearms ownership and possession. The Majority, thereupon concludes that felons remain, forever, a threat to public safety.

Having tacitly decided that the Plaintiff Petitioner cannot lawfully own and possess firearms even though, as the Court Majority was compelled to acknowledge, Kanter had paid his full debt to society, the Court pretended to employ a balancing test as between non-violent convicted felons who had paid their debt to society and who subsequently wish to exercise the inalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms, on the one hand, and the State’s desire to promote public safety by keeping guns from the hands of Americans whom the State deems to be—by the very fact of a prior felony conviction—violent felony or non-violent felony notwithstanding—a perpetual threat to society, essentially, then, wholly beyond redemption, at least in the eyes of the Court.

Applying that bald, unsupported assumption to Kanter, the Court said, “Categorical prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons are ‘presumptively lawful,’ even in disqualifying nonviolent felons like Kanter.”

The Court thereupon determined that the government had met its burden in denying Kanter the right to own and possess firearms, even though the government really had not, asserting, nonetheless, that the government has shown that prohibiting even nonviolent felons like the Plaintiff Petitioner, Kanter from possessing firearms is substantially related to its interest in preventing gun violence. The reader should note that the expression, ‘substantially related to an important Government purpose,’ is a court created intermediate scrutiny means balancing test. The Heller Court, in 2008, had considered the tenability of means balancing of interests between a fundamental right a person’s interest in exercising a fundamental right, and the State’s interest in precluding a person from exercising that fundamental right on the basis of some presumed State desire to protect the

How so? The Court majority didn’t say. Obviously the Court Majority didn’t care. The Majority simply determined before the fact that a man convicted of a violent crime can never be permitted to exercise the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, after the fact and the Court constructed its argument to cohere with its predetermined decision.

The dissenting Judge, Amy Barrett, though, did care. She began her dissent with the following perceptive remarks, which demonstrate her erudition, laser-like legal and logical reasoning, and profound respect for the fundamental, natural, immutable, illimitable, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms:

“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 legislature 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.”

Judge Barrett added that Federal law and Wisconsin State Statute “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. Nor have they otherwise demonstrated that Kanter himself shows a proclivity for violence. Absent evidence that he either belongs to a dangerous category or bears individual markers of risk, permanently disqualifying Kanter from possessing a gun violates the Second Amendment. . . .

At this point, however, neither Wisconsin nor the United States has presented any evidence that Kanter would be dangerous if armed. Instead, as the majority notes, ‘Kanter is a first-time, non-violent offender with no history of violence, firearm misuses, or subsequent convictions,’ and he is ‘employed, married, and does not use illicit drugs, all of which correspond with lower rates of recidivism.’”

In her concluding remarks, Judge Barrett, citing the seminal Second Amendment Heller case, made the pertinent points that,

“If the Second Amendment were subject to a virtue limitation, there would be no need for the government to produce—or for the court to assess—evidence that nonviolent felons have a propensity for dangerous behavior. But Heller forecloses the ‘civic right’ argument on which a virtue limitation depends. And while both Wisconsin and the United States have an unquestionably strong interest in protecting the public from gun violence, they have failed to show, by either logic or data, that disarming Kanter substantially advances that interest. On this record, holding that the ban is constitutional as applied to Kanter does not ‘put the government through its paces,’ but instead treats the Second Amendment as a ‘second-class right’ [a point articulated by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas] subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees. I therefore dissent.”

Incidentally, in her dissent, Judge Barrett cited, with approval, to Judge Thomas Hardiman’s Second Amendment analysis in the oft-cited Second Amendment case, Binderup v. AG of United States, 836 F.3d 336, 357 (3d Cir. 2016) (en banc) (Hardiman, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgments). Judge Hardiman is at present a U.S. Appellate Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Judge Hardiman is also on President Trump’s shortlist to sit on the High Court, as he was when President Trump ultimately decided to go with Judge Neil Gorsuch, in 2016, just weeks into President Trump’s first term in Office. Judge Hardiman was the first runner-up. President Trump recognizes the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court in preserving the structure of our Nation in the form the founders conceived for it. Nominating a jurist to sit on the High Court was one of President Trump’s first acts as President, and one that he had promised the electorate; a promise he kept.

As a staunch defender of the Second Amendment, Judge Hardiman would, as with Judge Barrett, make an outstanding Justice, and he would be the ideal replacement for Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, a Bill Clinton nominee, who is 82 years old, the oldest Justice on the Court, in the event that President Trump nominates Judge Barrett to take the seat on the High Court, vacated by Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, upon the Associate Justice’s recent death.

Both Judge Hardiman and Judge Barrett utilize the jurisprudential methodology of the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia when analyzing and deciding cases, and they share the same reverence for the U.S. Constitution and for the Bill of Rights, as conceived by the framers of the Constitution.

Of course, the Radical Left Democrats and other Soros funded Marxists don’t give a damn about fundamental rights or logic. They are inherently nihilistic, stubborn, irascible, irrational, obtuse, smugly self-righteous, and abjectly hateful. And they have other plans for our Nation, for our Nation’s Constitution, and for our Nation’s citizenry. And, in the near future, their aim is to do their damnedest to thwart the confirmation of any further Trump nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court followed by attempts, by hook or by crook to defeat a Trump victory in November. If successful in that endeavor, they plan to resurrect Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the form of another liberal-wing activist jurist—perhaps, Merrick Garland, whom Barack Obama sought to sit on the High Court to replace Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, after the late Associate Justice’s untimely and mysterious death.

Arbalest Quarrel

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit:

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I think it is wrong to say Judge Coney Barret is “pro-second amendment.” She is far better than that. She is a constitutional originalist, and when analyzing both the constitution and statutes she looks to the intent of the document. That is a rare humility these days, because any other view transforms the jurist into a potentate whose mere words create law, and that is a hard power to deny oneself. If President Trump is re-elected, he will likely have two more justices to appoint. Thomas will retire, and his brilliance will be greatly missed, but Trump has shown he… Read more »


@TSD – Agree. A judge biased toward gun rights, who writes opinions based on emotional arguments to support that bias, will be more likely to be overturned by future Supreme Court justices and to be ignored by lower courts. It is not enough to rule in our favor on individual cases. We need strong-clear-indisputable opinions – followed up with forcing lower courts to follow those opinions.

On this topic the constitution is clear. Following the law should suffice to toss majority of existing gun control and stymy all current democrat “common nonsense” proposals.

uncommon sense

How about “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

uncle dudley

Now that president Trump is about to announce another supreme court judge a democrat congressman is talking about term limits on federal judges, I wonder if he will also include term limits on congress members in his bill.
Seems like if they feel judges need to be limited in time served, they should also feel that way about the house and senate.

uncommon sense

Congress already has term limits. They’re called elections. It’s not their fault morons vote for the same morons; that’s their right to do so anyway.


And we have honest elections ? Funny thing they seem to keep finding ballots along the roads or in peoples cars. Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc. Until we have honest elections maybe term limits are the answer ? IMO!


It should have been done when they passed term limits for Presidency of the USA.


When looking at the screw ups of the Founders, the Judicial branch is a shining example of a screw up. Very quickly in our history, Judicial Appointments became a Political Plum to be whimsically handed out, and both sides have been guilty of this. Lifetime Appointments should have been anathema, as that smells suspiciously like nobility, but they allowed it to happen. Article III was a fuster click from the very beginning.


I’m very pleased that she’s the nominee. Attaboy President Trump. Fill that seat!

I’m 60. I’ve been a voter for 42 years. I also will proudly state, that I’m a One Issue Voter, said issue being the candidates stance upon the 2nd Amendment. Generally speaking, if they strongly support the 2nd, they’re usually conservative or moderate on the other issues.

uncommon sense

RINO Trump doesn’t strongly support the 2A.


@uncommon – In comparison to biden he does.


Get her sworn in!


Judge Barrett’s support oft he 2nd Amendment is one of many reasons that the dumb ass liberals hate her. They also hate her Catholic Faith.


@camo – As a nonbeliever, I despise those who attack anyone based on their faith. Well, maybe if they are scientologists or others who refuse to believe that “god helps those who help themselves” – and of course those who would forcibly impose their faith upon others, or use “faith” as an excuse for their actions (jihad, lynching, etc.). In those cases i object to their actions rather than their faith.


@PS – I agree that cases need to be filed, however such cases wind through the courts very slowly. The current crisis is already upon us. By time any new cases is ruled upon, we will be well into preparing for the next crisis – assuming our great country still exists. Current children throwing temper tantrums will continue regardless of who wins the election. In this case by children I mean immature people regardless of age. If Trump is elected I expect we will see militias stepping up in partnership with LEO to protect lives and property. Violence will occur… Read more »


@PS – Agree, but I’m too not dedicated or altruistic enough to risk spending the rest of my life I need prison. You may accurately label me a wimp, but i’m not sneaky enough to hide my resistance or tough enough to defy entirety of LEO alone. No desire to die in order to gain a ten second spot on TV news – that no one watches anymore.

Rob Pincus

The logic that she used to get to her opinion in the Kanter dissent wasn’t really “Pro-Gun”…. she just got there based on the lack of historical precedent for preventing gun ownership to felons.
She has been very clear in her explanation for that opinion that she thinks restrictions on ownership are okay if the Government can show evidence that someone MAY be a danger: ie- Red Flag Laws.


Never forget President Eisenhower nominated Earl Warren to the SCOTUS. Warren was touted as a Constitutionalist. Of course, in practice, he was very liberal. Eisenhower later claimed it was his worst mistake as POTUS. You flip a coin and you take your chances….

uncommon sense

Yet RINO Trump has done more gun control than Obama. Don’t believe me, believe leftist Donnie’s own words: Q   What are you going to do about the problem of automatic and semiauto- — THE PRESIDENT: You have to talk up. Q   The gun problem. What are you going to do about it? What — how are you going to address it? THE PRESIDENT: We’re talking to a lot of people, and a lot of things are in the works, and a lot of good things. And we have done much more than most administrations. And it does — it’s not — really not talked about very much,… Read more »

The other Jim

Yes agreed. The article title “A Proven Pro-Second Amendment Jurist” is false. She could be on the Court 40-50 years. It is extremely important that there would be other clear examples/precedent on her being without any doubt a judge that follows the simple and clear language of the second amendment. Kanter is not enough. If the article title was “Judge Roger T. Benitez is a Proven Pro-Second Amendment Jurist” I would I would happily agree. She is not a “Proven Pro-Second Amendment Jurist”.


Responsive to Rob Pincus, Thank you for bringing up a point that is a sticky wicket and one which AQ has struggled with. The problem is this, as we see it: Fundamental rights ARE ABSOLUTE. The constraints that legislatures and courts place on them are based, at best, on pragmatic considerations and, at worst, on personal biases against them based on a distaste for the fact that the framers would have ever codified them in the first place, which leads inexorably to whittling the right away to nothing. Such is most clearly manifest in attempts to make the right of… Read more »


Good choice but the libtards will try to put her though h e l l and the lies they will come up with… I pray she is strong.


@2many – How many men you think they will find, willing to claim she raped them in high school? Maybe they will find women (#believe) to claim the same, but repubs wouldn’t believe it and LGBTQ+ would be offended at making this an issue.


Barrett also sided with governors that decreed mandatory lockdowns. She is a pro-big government/big business statist. She’s be another Roberts on the Supreme Court. Barbara Lagoa is a far better choice. The first Latino on the Supreme court, and a genuine conservative. The left would also have a harder time attacking her than Barrett. .


Another thing. Collins and Murkowski would be more likely to vote to confirm Lagoa.


Responsive to Mike Ross, Thank you for your comment. AQ hasn’t had time to do comprehensive research on Barrett, given time constraints. Of course we were aware of Judge Barrett’s pro-life stance. She makes a solid case on that score as there is nothing in the Constitution that so much as suggests a fundamental right to kill unborn infants. But, that pro-live position WOULD suggest that Judge Barrett scrutinizes the BOR carefully and is loath to tread on rights that ARE fundamental to man’s inherent nature, as God-given rights. It was in that vein we directed our attention as to… Read more »

uncommon sense

Pretty sure she’s on record saying that judges should recuse themselves in cases that involve their religious beliefs.
She’s another “Roe v Wade is the law of the land and must stand” type, like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
If you thought RINO Trump was nominating conservatives, think again.

uncommon sense

Considering RINO Trump has done MORE socialism and gun control than Obama, and still wants even more, RINO is pretty spot on, cultist rube.

No wonder Donnie, the lifelong NY liberal conman and democrat donor, loves the poorly educated. Look at you go.

Have you seen the national debt, $3+ trillion annual deficit, unfunded liabilities, nanny state policies, more government meddling in the marketplace than under Obama, etc.? Nah, you just believe cultist propaganda and live in a Trump worship echo chamber.

Common sense is an uncommon virtue. You are proof, cultist.


If u like Obama so much, go stay with him and get off of here.

uncommon sense

Pointing out the fact that RINO Trump has done more gun control than Obama does not make one an Obama lover, you cultist fool. I’m just stating facts. It’s not my problem that truth upsets you. Truth doesn’t care about your feelings, cultist.

If you love gun control so much, what are you doing on an allegedly pro-2A website?

uncommon sense

Sorry, but a judge who says government has the legitimate authority to close businesses and prohibit people from leaving their homes, or going to church, or assembling, etc. is not a constitutionalist.

The only thing I project is truth.

And lifelong NY liberal conman Trump, who has done more socialism and gun control than Obama is indeed the very definition of RINO.

Last edited 2 years ago by uncommon sense

@PS – You do get around, don’t you? You used to be in Colorado with no intent to ever leave. A couple days ago you were in Antarctica, yet you recently attended a sermon in DC. Do you have Star Trek style transporters? Mind sharing the technology? Would eliminating cars and airplanes alleviate environmental concerns or do your transporters produce worse side effects?


@uncommon – We need constitutional judges who rule based on law rather than their personal beliefs. Takes teeth right out of much of the slander tossed when people disagree with particular rulings and results in rulings that stand. She would be completely correct to recuse herself from cases where her conflicts prevent her from ruling based on the law. Doing otherwise destroys moral authority to rule on anything. From what I’ve read, in most cases she is sufficiently capable of separating her personal feelings and beliefs from her legal work. Beliefs will always create some bias and color anyone’s world… Read more »

uncommon sense

I can agree with much of this. But she did not rule in favor of the Constitution when she rubber stamped lockdown orders. That’s statism.

As for the last part, there is a danger presently, as many fools are being tricked into supporting a constitutional convention, where everything will be on the table, including trashing the current document and starting from scratch. They don’t realize that the very people they think are abusing the current Constitution would be responsible for writing an entirely new one.


@UC – Your last sentence cuts to the core of the issue.

Dave in Fairfax

Uncommon Sense,

I think her comment was more that judges who have problems with the death penalty should recuse themselves from capital cases.

While you statements about Trump tend to be fairly accurate about his stands on guns, I’ve noticed that you have a problem with perfection being the enemy of good.
If you are only willing to support perfect candidates for offices you’ll have a hard time findiong anyone to vote for. Other than yourself, of course.