John Lott, Amy Cockney Barrel, Crime Prevention Research Center discussed on Dan Proft


Welcome Back to the show. We move from our discussion with Gerard Baker from The Wall Street Journal on Amy Cockney Barrel, at least in part on Amy honey Bear specifically as it pertains to her faith and how she's being raked over the coals by the left hand maidens in the D. C press corps, including a Villanova theology professor at present. In advance of her likely I think nomination tomorrow and confirmation shortly thereafter raked over the coals based on her religious beliefs. That's what's happening at present. But let's take a look at the summit substance of her record on other issues important to Individuals and their concerns about protection of their constitutional rights. Like their Second Amendment rights to help us do that. We're pleased to be joined by John Lott, president of Crime Prevention Research Center, author of the recently Released Gun Control Myths, politicians, The media and botched Studies have twisted the facts on gun control. John, Thanks for joining us can appreciate it great to talk to you took a look at Ah record on secondment rights of some of the short listers on President Trump's Nomination roster. What you find, I think from reading your piece of real clear politics dot com sort of my attitude about this. Let's go with the person who has the clearest record on matter so that we know where he or she is and is thus likely to be going forward. You conclude that Barrett has thie the clearest record in defense of second moment rights. That's really no question mean There are other judges who are under consideration really haven't had these types of cases. They may have a strong belief on this, but it's hard to discern the thing that's clear about Amy. There is not only she written on this topic, but even her worst. Detractors concede that she's extremely bright and that My guess is that has a lot to do with their opposition to her more than anything that they might point to as faras. Her views go. My academic research indicates that the biggest opposition that you find two judges because there's not a huge difference, usually in terms of their political views is how bright they are giving a simple example. And that is, my guess is it's pretty unlikely that you're going to be on any Juries. And there's a simple reason for that. And that is your very articulate, persuasive guy. And if the lawyers who are looking at the case thought that you were even slightly one way or the other likely to come out on the case, they would use one of their strikes against you, as opposed to somebody else who they're more certain is against them, but it won't Be able to go on pull other people on the jury panel. It's the same reason why lawyers object to other lawyers being jurors because they know that the members of the jury pool will give a lot of difference to the views of a lawyer who's a juror you the same thing when you're talking about Circuit Court nominations or Supreme Court justice is the fact that she right Powerful opinions that are very well argued. And in fact, when one reads the Second Amendment case that, uh, this cantor case, she, in fact shows how inconsistent a lot of liberals have been on this issue here, and it makes it hard for even justice is on the other side or judges on the other side of the case to go against the cancer cases interesting because It can cut a couple of different ways to politically I know that wasn't her point. But this 37 page dissent that she wrote in 2019, and it relates to a banning the categorical bans on gun ownership for people with felony records, which is a feature both in Wisconsin, where this case emanated and federal law, she argued, that cannot be reconciled with second point jurisprudence. It's just interesting because you know, a lot of people on the left would say in terms of like criminal justice, reform and people Owing ex offenders to get their voting rights back. You wanting to have them reintegrate into society be productive, and so that would also there'd be a lot of people say, Well, they should have their full complement of constitutional rights back to if they Prove worthy of re entering society peacefully. In some respects, That decision becomes a decision that cuts a lot of ways. Politically. It's not really a second Amendment argument, per se that she's making. She's making an argument with regard to constitutional rights. She's saying that if you have a constitutional right, the government has to provide some evidence that the rule that they have that's going to be violating that right. Is related to what they are hoping to have the outcome. So in this case, she's saying, OK, the government's making the argument that banning people who have a criminal record from having a gun. Build on a gun could be possible. There could be a new argument to be made there. But, she says, You know, it's one thing to go on band people who have a violent criminal history of some type, whether it be a felony or a misdemeanor. But, he says, if you're going to be banning people for all sorts of other reasons when we come back with crime prevention research centers John Lott junior I want.

Coming up next