| | Barrett's other significant opinion, her dissent in ''Kanter v. Barr'' (2019), regarded the issue of gun-ownership rights for convicted felons. The majority upheld a lower-court decision that Kanter (the plaintiff), who had earlier been found guilty of mail fraud, was automatically disqualified from owning a firearm; in her dissent, Barrett argued that Kanter's crime, though a felony, was nonviolent, and to lose one's gun-ownership rights regardless of the nature of the felony was based neither on the wording of the [[Constitution]] nor on standards of common sense. Furthermore, she added, it ought to be the rule that, even if felons, citizens retained their constitutional rights by default, unless or until their rights were curtailed by government action (rather than automatically losing them by falling into a designated category).<ref>https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/18-1478/18-1478-2019-03-15.html</ref> | | Barrett's other significant opinion, her dissent in ''Kanter v. Barr'' (2019), regarded the issue of gun-ownership rights for convicted felons. The majority upheld a lower-court decision that Kanter (the plaintiff), who had earlier been found guilty of mail fraud, was automatically disqualified from owning a firearm; in her dissent, Barrett argued that Kanter's crime, though a felony, was nonviolent, and to lose one's gun-ownership rights regardless of the nature of the felony was based neither on the wording of the [[Constitution]] nor on standards of common sense. Furthermore, she added, it ought to be the rule that, even if felons, citizens retained their constitutional rights by default, unless or until their rights were curtailed by government action (rather than automatically losing them by falling into a designated category).<ref>https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/18-1478/18-1478-2019-03-15.html</ref> |