Durbin Shows He Didn’t Read Barrett’s Dissent on Felons Owning Guns
Nonviolent felons, Durbin. Read her opinion.
|
Listen to this article
|
Hey, Sen. Dick Durbin. When you try to mansplain a judge’s opinion to said judge, maybe you should read it.
Durbin could not believe Barrett thinks felons should own guns! Except, you know, she didn’t.
Durbin grills Coney Barrett on the implications of her dissent in a case that would allow felons who haven't committed violent crimes to possess guns pic.twitter.com/aNCvPaFz1Q
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 13, 2020
In a feisty exchange, Durbin pushes Barrett on a felons/voting decision pic.twitter.com/nnTDTqPOx4
— TPM Livewire (@TPMLiveWire) October 13, 2020
Barrett dissented in Kanter v. Barr. It is true she wrote “that the federal government and the state of Wisconsin had failed to show that their categorical bans could be applied against all nonviolent felons or that there was anything in Kanter’s history or characteristics that indicated that he was likely to misuse firearms.”
Did you read what I read? NONVIOLENT thugs. Her dissent did not apply to the “thugs” Durbin kept talking about.
Durbin represents Illinois. How shocking that an Illinois politician is looking elsewhere to blame for the gun violence in Chicago.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Ron Coleman
Comments
Ooooh, someone described a “feisty” exchange.
As to felons having firearms, voting and such, it depends on the felony. There was a time, in Mississippi, when skipping out on a $25 restaurant tab was a felony.
While that is an egregious crime for which restitution is essential, it does not meet the standards for burning down a federal court house in Oregon. Hell arson isn’t even a crime in many states, if done in a mostly peaceful fashion.
Of course federal law is not state law, particularly under the guise of an emergency.
Leave a Comment