When someone finishes a prison sentence, we say they’ve paid their debt to society. Paid. That’s the past tense of “pay.” It means they’re finished.
The problem is, they’re not. Felons continue to pay by not having some of their constitutionally protected rights, such as the right to vote, but also the right to keep and bear arms.
Many are fine with that, simply because so many felons offend again, but that really only applies to violent felons. If a computer hacker continues to offend, he’s still not a physical danger to anyone.
But even then, some are fine with it, and it’s not a hill I’m willing to die on.
What about non-violent offenders who cleaned up their act, though?
Under 18 USC 922(g)(1), which Congress enacted in 1968 as part of the Gun Control Act, it is a felony to receive or possess a firearm if you have been convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year of incarceration. It doesn’t matter if it was a violent crime, how long ago it was committed, or what sentence was actually imposed.
Several federal appeals courts have said that disability may be unconstitutional as applied to specific nonviolent offenders. But until recently, the only recourse for people who could not afford such litigation was a federal or state pardon—an iffy prospect.
Another provision of the Gun Control Act, 18 USC 925(c), was supposed to offer an alternative. It authorizes the attorney general to restore gun rights when “the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant’s record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety,” provided “the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest.”
That power historically has been delegated to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). But a congressional spending rider originally enacted in 1992 barred the ATF from using any part of its budget to consider applications under Section 925(c).
Attorney General Pam Bondi, who says she is acting in response to President Donald Trump’s February 7 executive order “Protecting Second Amendment Rights,” thinks she has found a way around that restriction. In an interim final rule that took effect in March, she rescinded the ATF’s authority over Section 925(c)
applications, which she says will now be handled by the Office of the Pardon Attorney. The Justice Department’s FY 2026 budget proposal included funds for a Firearm Rights Restoration Initiative within that office.
Democratic critics of Bondi’s initiative, including legislators who ordinarily worry about disproportionate criminal penalties and the lifelong ancillary consequences of conviction records, complain that she wants to “help violent criminals regain firearms.” In a June 18 letter to Bondi, six Democratic lawmakers said she is flouting the will of Congress, which “intended that those most likely to commit crimes—particularly those with prior convictions—do not regain access to firearms.”
The problem is that Congress hasn’t actually said any such thing.
As noted, there’s a provision for people to get their gun rights back–something passed by Congress–but that effort was defunded as part of various budgets where there are a ton of things, and no one approved of everything included.
If this had congressional support, why was there never a bill formally killing the gun rights restoration provision?Â
The reason is that it would never fly, and those lawmakers damn well know it. They had to put a provision in the budget because that was the only way they’d get it to slide by. It was a BS move, but it also tells us that Congress has no will to actually make it impossible for any felon to get their rights restored over time.
Reason starts this piece with a story about a Utah social worker who bounced a check and is now a convicted felon because of it; therefore cannot own a firearm, despite the fact that she’s cleaned up her act and is working toward the betterment of society as a whole. Who benefits from her not owning a gun?
Who benefits from the countless others in similar boats, who made a mistake and have paid for it, then learned and are walking the straight and narrow?
Anti-gun lawmakers are claiming Bondi will re-arm violent criminals, but she’s expressly said they won’t be considered. Further, violent criminals are re-arming themselves easily enough via the black market. They don’t need Bondi for that.
Yet millions of Americans don’t have their Second Amendment rights, even as they did exactly what we ask of those convicted of a crime to do–namely, to rehabilitate and not offend again–and these people want to continue punishing them.
How much of that can you do while still pretending to be shocked that so many end up re-offending once again?
Editor’s Note: President Trump, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
