Blumenthal, Murphy Host Press Call on Supreme Court Blocking Gun Violence Prevention

[WASHINGTON, D.C.] – U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) today hosted a press call to discuss the Supreme Court’s limiting of commonsense protections for all Americans against gun violence, and Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s extreme record on gun violence prevention.

“I will make this issue front and center during next week’s hearing to show how Judge Barrett’s extremist, hard-right view of the Second Amendment will do real harm to real lives in real ways. Judge Barrett’s jurisprudence would undercut and even block efforts to achieve universal background checks, emergency risk protection orders, safe storage laws, an end to the immunity from liability that gun manufactures have and other commonsense measures to reduce gun violence. That is a real danger, clear and urgent, to millions of Americans across the country who want gun violence protections,” remarked Blumenthal during the call.

“Amy Coney Barrett is a radical. She is seeking a position on the Supreme Court to legislate her radical views into existence, and when 90% of Americans want felons to be kept from buying guns, it is unfathomable that we would consider putting somebody on the Court who is going to strike down that restriction. I join with all my colleagues in arguing this case to the fullest. We need to explain to the American public how radical Amy Coney Barrett’s views are on guns,” said Murphy.

Blumenthal and Murphy were joined by gun violence prevention advocates Coni Sanders, Judi Richardson, and Vic Bencomo.

In just three years on the 7th Circuit, Barrett has come out against commonsense gun safety laws. In a dissenting opinion, Barrett went far beyond Supreme Court precedent in writing that laws barring certain felons from possessing guns are unconstitutional. Barrett argued that non-violent felons should be permitted to possess firearms and falsely claimed the government had failed “to show that disarming all nonviolent felons substantially advances its interest in keeping the public safe.” Two Republican-appointed judges disagreed, pointing to several studies showing that some non-violent offenders go on to commit violent offenses, and made clear that these laws are “substantially related to the important government objective of keeping firearms away from those convicted of serious crimes.”

In the same dissent, she reiterated her Second Amendment extremism, going so far as to say that states and the federal government could take away felons’ right to vote, but not their right to own weapons.

-30-