Notes from the Resistance
Apparently the defender has a past that disqualifies him from being allowed to defend himself by those absolving themselves of custodial responsibilities. The state’s answer is clear and brief.
Be nice if there were some way citizens under similar forced disability knew what the rules were to get recognition of their rights back…
The request was pretty straightforward. Rather than provide the information, however, the government chose to stonewall on the request. [More]
TTAG notices my latest about trying to get DOJ to define criteria for rights restoration And that’s a good observation they made, because in my first report about my FOIA request last April, I asked:
Under a Bondi DOJ that says it’s committed to “protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens,” will we see dutiful compliance and production of requested documents, or more of the trademark stonewalling the department has become notorious for in prior administrations?
One point of clarification that people who haven’t read the complaint seem to be getting stuck on: There’s no intrusiveness or 4A/privacy conflicts. The complaint, specifically asks the court to “Order Defendant to produce… non-exempt records responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA request.”
As a quick aside, if I were a gun-grabber, I’d be heartened by the juvenile, ugly squabbling in comments over at AmmoLand and similar forums.
DOJ, despite publicizing its championing of rights restoration, officially disagrees. [More]
“What do we have to do to be considered?” seems a simple enough question gun owners who put this administration in office deserve an answer to.
Hunter Biden disbarred in Connecticut after gun, tax conviction complaints [More]
First the paintings and now this. That boy needs a stress reliever.
Maybe Harmeet can get his rights restored to void out the gun-based disqualifier. That is, if we can ever figure out what the criteria are…
Jelly Roll says lifelong gun ban as a felon should have ‘path to redemption,’ wants his right to hunt back [More]
My first question was “Why has anyone heard of this person and why does he get major headlines?” and my second question was “Hunting?“
My third question is “How does he vote?” and I guess he can’t and he won’t take a political stance.
Hey, as long as he can be trusted without a custodian we ought to be cool with him being armed, but if the feds green-light rights restoration, I think the rest of us deserve to know the criteria they expect us to meet.
Why does our “pro-gun Justice Department” fight us on that?
[Via Jess]
As you may know, for some time the Oregon State Police’s Firearms Instant Check System Unit has been denying firearm transfers to people who have had convictions expunged or “set aside”… Attorney Ross Day, (who defended our Foundation against a years-long attack of lawfare) received word from the ATF that it agreed the policy was unlawful. [More]
Can we expect the same cooperation from Democrats controlling the state as they extend to ICE?
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has submitted a comment letter to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in support of a proposed rights restoration rule. [More]
They raise a good point:
However, there are some aspects of the Proposed Rule which do not go far enough. As courts have confirmed, the main requirement for disarming Americans—what must be present before they may be disenfranchised from their Second Amendment rights—is ongoing dangerousness.
You know how I feel about ongoing dangerousness.
You know who ought to be taking the lead on all this, not just with arguments but with bearing the costs…?
Why were those 10 citizens chosen? What do they have that “we” don’t? Or more to the point, what do we also have that they do? [More]
Why, when there’s an easy way, does the “pro-gun” DOJ so often choose the hard way?
From the Department’s perspective, regardless of whether the Second Amendment requires an individualized restoration process for persons subject to 18 U.S.C. 922(g), 18 U.S.C. 925(c) reflects an appropriate avenue to restore firearm rights to certain individuals who no longer warrant such disability based on a combination of the nature of their past criminal activity and their subsequent and current law-abiding behavior while screening out others for whom full restoration of firearm rights would not be appropriate. [More]
The first part is fine. We need to understand how more than a select few can qualify.
As for those “others,” when are they going to learn?
Follow instructions under “ADDRESSES” to submit your comment.
[Via Jess]
Here’s the initial response to my FOIA on rights restoration.
Mel Gibson’s right to own a gun restored by Justice Department [More]
I submitted an AmmoLand article on this a few minutes ago, along with my FOIA request to determine what criteria they used.
