TexasCHLforum.com

Amy Coney Barret has been touted as a 2A-friendly jurist. And she very well may be.

However, this brief news report concerning a recent non-2A related SCOTUS ruling gives me some pause as to her level of support of our most basic of enumerated rights.

Excerpts from Fox News article. Bolded emphasis mine. Full article linked below.:

The U.S. Supreme Court in a split decision Friday night ruled that houses of worship in California may hold indoor services at 25% capacity, giving a partial win to groups fighting the state’s coronavirus restrictions, according to reports.

The state will be permitted to restrict singing and chanting during services, the court said.

Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas reportedly said they would have lifted all restrictions on churches while the court's three liberal justices dissented.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was confirmed last fall, both favored a middle ground short of lifting all of the restrictions on religious gatherings, according to Politico.

"The state has concluded, for example, that singing indoors poses a heightened risk of transmitting Covid-19," Roberts wrote.

If ACB (and as usual, Roberts) are ok with the State deciding that they can either totally eliminate or severely restrict a basic enumerated right - the very First Amendment in this case - because of "circumstances," then what's to prevent any right being eliminated or restricted as the State desires for any other reason at any time under whatever the State decides is a dangerous circumstance?

Can we count on ACB when the "Big 2A Case" (whatever that me be) comes up? Thoughts?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/suprem ... ome-limits

I see your concern and share it to some degree but my worry is in the justices who are straight up leftists, not [yet anyway] those who are hated by the left.

Justice Elena Kagan, in a joint dissent with Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, called the decision "armchair epidemiology."

Funny- we said that, and got labeled as all kinds of nasty when we questioned discrepancies in the "science." Especially when we mocked fauci a he said no masks... then masks... then no masks... then 2 masks....

If we could get TAM on the bench, that would be ideal but for now our bigger problems lie in the minds of the liberal justices.

I think we can:
The 2019 gun rights case, Kanter v. Barr, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit centered on the right of a Wisconsin man, Rickey Kanter, to own a firearm after he had served a sentence for a mail-fraud conviction. In that case, the appeals court agreed with the district court that keeping felons from possessing firearms is related to the “important governmental objective of keeping firearms away from those convicted of serious crimes,” the decision said.
Barrett dissented in the case, writing that while legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns, 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.”

Based on the above, I'm not worried about her. Roberts on the other hand. . . .

I follow KrisAnne Hall as one of my sources for clarification on the Constitution. KrisAnne cautioned from the beginning that Judge Barrett would not be as Conservative and gun friendly as the Left was making her out to be. I tried to find the specific article from KAH where she articulates that concern but could not. I know that I read it. This link isn't that one but I wanted to identify the person that I'm talking about

KrisAnne cautioned from the beginning that Judge Barrett would not be as Conservative and gun friendly as the Left was making her out to be.

In fairness- NOBODY would be as gun friendly as the left makes them out to be, if nominated by the Trump or the right. Besides, it's not like he skipped over a bunch of 2A activists for her... true 2A friendly judges are in very short supply.

We are clearly long past having justices that make decisions based on the original letter and intent of the constitution.