Barrett Is Correct On Constitution, Guns & Voting Rights

When you are convicted of a felony, you lose some of your civil rights. The government can lock you up. But not all rights are restricted in the same way. While you are imprisoned, even your personal, natural rights such as free speech and freedom from searches are more limited. Other consequences follow even after a criminal sentence is served. There are historical reasons why American law and the Constitution have not treated all of those consequences the same way. Free speech and the right against self-incrimination, for example, are fully restored once all aspects of a sentence are fully served. Felons’ rights to own guns and to vote are more restricted, but not in the same ways, and not for the same reasons. This is not something Amy Coney Barrett made up, and it does not reflect well on people who are mad at her for taking the law and history in this area seriously.

There has been a lot of talk at Judge Barrett’s confirmation hearings about her dissent last year in Kanter v. Barr, which argued that the Second Amendment places outer limits on the power of the federal and state governments to bar convicted felons from owning guns. Senator Dick Durbin seemed especially incredulous that Judge Barrett might conclude that the power to strip convicted felons of gun rights is in some ways more limited than the power to strip convicted felons of voting rights. Senator Cory Booker implied that this position is somehow racist. There is a fair disagreement over exactly what limits the Second Amendment places on the loss of gun rights on conviction of a felony. But Durbin, Booker, and other critics are simply ignoring the text and history of the Constitution.

About the Author

Dan McLaughlin

Dan McLaughlin is a senior writer at National Review Online and a fellow at National Review Institute.

Featured Tags

When you are convicted of a felony, you lose some of your civil rights. The government can lock you up. But not all rights are restricted in the same way. While you are imprisoned, even your personal, natural rights such as free speech and freedom from searches are more limited. Other consequences follow even after a criminal sentence is served. There are historical reasons why American law and the Constitution have not treated all of those consequences the same way. Free speech and the right against self-incrimination, for example, are fully restored once all aspects of a sentence are fully served. Felons’ rights to own guns and to vote are more restricted, but not in the same ways, and not for the same reasons. This is not something Amy Coney Barrett made up, and it does not reflect well on people who are mad at her for taking the law and history in this area seriously.

There has been a lot of talk at Judge Barrett’s confirmation hearings about her dissent last year in Kanter v. Barr, which argued that the Second Amendment places outer limits on the power of the federal and state governments to bar convicted felons from owning guns. Senator Dick Durbin seemed especially incredulous that Judge Barrett might conclude that the power to strip convicted felons of gun rights is in some ways more limited than the power to strip convicted felons of voting rights. Senator Cory Booker implied that this position is somehow racist. There is a fair disagreement over exactly what limits the Second Amendment places on the loss of gun rights on conviction of a felony. But Durbin, Booker, and other critics are simply ignoring the text and history of the Constitution.