restoration of rights - The War on Guns

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]

News You Can Wipe With

The Justice Department is releasing plans to create a process for those with criminal convictions to restore their gun this decision sparking alarm that it will return firearms of those of convicted violent crimes… [Watch]

Make sure you take a look at the comments under the Queen City “News” video.

Sir Wilfrid has a question:

[Via Jess]

Workaround Answer Hiding in Plain Sight

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has issued an Interim Final Rule removing the Attorney General’s delegation of authority to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to process applications for relief from federal firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c). [More]

Yep:

Although federal law provides a means for the relief of firearms disabilities, ATF’s annual appropriation since October 1992 has prohibited the expending of any funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief from federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals. As long as this provision is included in current ATF appropriations, ATF cannot act upon applications for relief from federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals.

[18 U.S.C. 925(c); 27 CFR 478.144]

Rendering Chuck Schumer’s appropriations rider against ATF restoring rights impotent by removing ATF from the equation is really smart, and I feel like this is a “Doh!” moment for those of us who never thought of it.. How come no one proposed this before, or did someone, and word of it never escaped the echo chamber?

A Step in the Right Direction

🚨BREAKING🚨

Department of Justice proposes rule to allow federal restoration of gun rights for the first time in 32 years pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 925(c). pic.twitter.com/eFTJ6Brx3Y
— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) March 19, 2025

So, this puts a plus mark in the Bondi record. We’ll see what it really means as things develop. Case in point, how does it override the Schumer funding prohibiton on restoring rights?

Restoration Project

About two weeks ago, Ms. Oyer was put on a working group to restore gun rights to people convicted of crimes, she said. [More]

Four Boxes Diner explains the significance.

See, it’s not “prickly” at all, Mel.

Well, maybe for NRA President “Lautenberg Bob” Barr…

[Via Jess]

HOW THINGS WORK AROUND HERE

Satisfaction Guaranteed

Anyone not happy with anything on this site at any time will get 100% of all money they paid to me refunded, no questions asked. (No gratuities solicited or accepted.)

Comment House Rules

Keep them on topic. Trying to hijack threads really grinds my gears. No spam.
I moderate them so I’ll get to them when I can.
No threats against anyone except me. No fights–this is my place and if things get ugly, I treat unruly visitors the same way as I would in my home. Do not feed trolls–I’ll take out the trash.
Try to keep it clean.
I’m the final arbiter. If you don’t like the rules, start your own damn blog.

WarOnGuns Correspondents

Story tips received via email and social media messages will be credited. Just let me know how you want to be recognized (real name, first name/last initial, or screen name.)

Link Policy

I maintained a WogRoll at the old Blogspot place predicated on reciprocity with like-minded RKBA-related sites. Truth be told, I never got much in terms of site visits to make the effort worth the time. I may try to do something again in the future, but for now, my hands are more than full trying to get a new site started.

Advertising Disclosure

This is a placeholder for now because I have not done ads on the old blog for years. In case I ever start them up here, this will be the policy in effect: The FTC has some fool nonsense rules about ads on blogs or some such and presumes authority over the First Amendment to compel the unfunded mandate that we who earn ad revenues make some kind of disclosure so you don’t think we’re getting paid to say nice things about people or God knows what, meaning they must think you’re stupid, too. I have had a few ads on the old site in the past and may do so again if I think it’s worth a try. Combined, I probably couldn’t buy a box of good cigars each year, let alone a bottle of George T. Stagg, and that is somehow supposed to compromise my morality to force me to say nice things about products and services I don’t mean simply in exchange for filthy lucre. If you believe that, leave now–you’re not smart enough to be here. Bottom line, aside from welcoming a sponsor, I will do no posts related to their products or services, or reviews of what they offer without complete disclosure.

About “The Only Ones”

So named from a comment by DEA agent Lee Paige, who told a classroom full of kids he was “the only one” qualified to be armed and then promptly shot himself in the foot, the purpose of this feature has never been to bash cops. The only reason I do this is to amass a credible body of evidence to present when those who would deny our right to keep and bear arms use the argument that only government enforcers are professional and trained enough to do so safely and responsibly. And it’s also used to illustrate when those of official status, rank, or privilege, both in law enforcement and in some other government position, get special breaks not available to we commoners, particularly (but not exclusively) when they’re involved in gun-related incidents.