Non-Violent Felons Can Now Buy, Possess Guns in Biden's State of Delaware and New Jersey

Third Circuit En Banc Panel Used Amy Coney Barrett's Dissent in Kanter v. Barr (2019)

Last June, I published “Trump’s Supreme Court Appointments on the Second Amendment: Implications for Property Rights and Public Policy.”

That was June 1, 2022, weeks before the Bruen decision later that same month (the day before Roe was overturned).

In it, I cover Amy Coney Barrett’s 2019 dissent in, Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019) at 451 ff (Barrett, J., dissenting).

The Third Circuit En Banc panel just struck down portions of federal law that prohibited all felonies qua felonies (or the equivalent of felonies) from automatically putting a person in a prohibited category regarding firearm use, possession, receivership, ownership, etc. The decision was Range v. Garland, available here (see page 13 for a reference to Barrett) https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/212835pen.pdf.

When Barret wrote her dissent in Kanter, she was in the minority (that’s what makes it a dissent). Yet, now her reasoning is helping to guide law in Democrat land, including persuading Biden-appointed judges that she got it right.

My piece I referenced in the first paragraph has a lot of staying power. I urge you to read it if you haven’t yet. It will put you ahead of the curve on this issue compared to folks who have no idea what’s going on.

For more advanced Second Amendment work in Constitutional Law, visit The Republican Professor podcast . The YouTube channel has a “Constitutional Law” playlist with several Second Amendment resources available .

Justice delayed is justice denied. But not today in Delaware, at least (and in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, the Third Circuit’s jurisdiction).

Have a great day,

Luke