It Depends Upon What the Meaning of the Word ‘Permanent’ Is

Petitioner contends (Pet. 7-21) that 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to her by subjecting her to “permanent” disarmament based on a years-old conviction for a nonviolent felony. Pet. 15. That contention lacks merit. The Department of Justice recently revitalized an administrative process under 18 U.S.C. 925(c) through which convicted felons can regain their ability to possess firearms. Given that process, petitioner cannot show (Pet. 15) that Section 922(g)(1) subjects her to “permanent” disarmament. [More]

Yeah, well, it would help if you guys who make noises that 2A is not a “second class right” would let everybody know what the non-arbitrary criteria are, but as yet you’ve ignored my FOIA request well past the statutory deadline. Are you going to make me file a complaint and then drag that on forever just like the Democrats? And then further discourage such rightful fact-finding by denying recovery of attorney fees?

Sorry if I can’t knee-jerk spin this as a positive. Because this really doesn’t tell us “how,” and a right delayed is a right denied.

[Via Jess]

Author: admin

David Codrea is a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

Verified by MonsterInsights