Brady: In Theory, Some Prohibited Persons Should Have 2A Rights Restored, But…

The gun control lobby spends almost as much time and energy trying to convince the public that they’re just interested in “reasonable, common sense” measures as it does trying to restrict our right to keep and bear arms. So I wasn’t exactly shocked to see Brady head Kris Brown declare this past week that “Brady is not opposed to the idea of restoring gun rights in principle,” but I was curious to see the fine print attached to that statement.

Brown’s comment came in a Substack post devoted to the DOJ’s proposed rule on re-establishing a process for prohibited persons to apply to have their Second Amendment rights restored; a process that’s existed on paper for decades but has been defunded by Congress for almost as long. And sure enough, Brown’s caveats would essentially render the DOJ’s proposal toothless and would keep the status quo largely in place. 

1. Public safety must come first and not be “balanced” with gun rights. If someone forfeited their gun rights because they broke the law, they are not “ordinary law-abiding citizens,” and the Supreme Court has been clear that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to them in the same way. Congress, likewise, never called for a balancing test in the restoration law. The DOJ should instead reevaluate which offenses should automatically disqualify someone, using the clear public safety standard that Congress already set.

That alone undercuts Brown’s assertion that Brady believes some people should be able to have their 2A rights restored. If DOJ follows the “standard” set by Congress, then virtually every prohibited person would remain unable to access their right to keep and bear arms, no matter the offense that led them to lose their rights. 

1. “Extraordinary circumstances” must be defined. Right now, the proposed rule says that certain people will be presumptively denied unless they can show “extraordinary circumstances.” Are we talking about clear rehabilitation? Years without reoffending? Or could wealth and political influence count? While it is clear that the Attorney General should be afforded some discretion, without a definition, the process risks being arbitrary, inconsistent, or even politically driven. We’ve already seen how that can go — just ask Mel Gibson.

I actually agree with Brown here, believe it or not. If the DOJ is going to establish a new policy for individuals to apply to have their rights restored, that process needs to be as transparent and easy to follow as possible, and defining “extraordinary circumstances” shouldn’t be difficult to do. 

1. Technology should only be used to screen people out, never to approve them. The rule is quiet about the use of AI or algorithms, but the budget projection is clear that there will be substantial investments in technology for case management. Technology can be useful to help filter our clearly ineligible applications, but should never be the sole basis for approval. Restoring access to firearms is a life-and-death decision and must involve a real, thorough, human review.

There’s nothing in the DOJ proposal that indicates AI alone would determine whether someone gets their rights back. To the contrary, the Attorney General would have to sign off on each application before rights are restored. There’s nothing wrong, however, with using AI as a filter; individuals that meet particular criteria can be automatically funneled into the next level of the process, while those who don’t meet those standards would have their cases reviewed individually to determine if they’re eligible for the rights restoration process. 

1. Funding and staffing need to match the seriousness of the task. The DOJ estimates a $20 application fee will help cover the cost of processing requests, but the DOJ’s projections suggest investigators would spend no more than 6 minutes to review and rule on each case. That’s absurd for something this high-stakes where careful and painstaking review before granting any relief is absolutely essential.

How long should it take, and how much should people have to spend in order to apply to regain their Second Amendment rights? If $20 is too little, Brown should be able to tell us what she thinks the price tag should be. I think Brown is also mischaracterizing the time that it will take for DOJ to review this applications. I have no doubt that some of them can and will be dismissed after just a cursory glance; a repeat violent offender recently released from prison after serving an armed robbery sentence, for example, isn’t likely to make it to the next stage of the relief process. Other applicants will undoubtably take longer to investigate. 

My concern isn’t that applicants will be approved without due diligence because there aren’t enough staffers to adequately process requests, but that a lack of staffing would lead to lengthy delays for applicants. Brown’s right about DOJ needing to have enough funding and staff to do a proper job of restoring rights, but we disagree about what is likely to happen if there aren’t enough personnel attached to the program. 

Brown says “a functioning relief process should exist, but it must meet the standard Congress set: a case-by-case review that puts public safety first.” There’s nothing in the DOJ proposal to suggest that won’t be the case, but there’s plenty in Brown’s column that suggests she believes people who wrote a bad check 20 years ago, or lied about their income on a food stamp application should forevermore be deprived of their right to keep and bear arms. It’s easy for Brown to claim that a rights restoration process should be open to some folks, but it’s awfully telling that she won’t actually say what kind of folks she believes should get their 2A rights back. 

Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.

Help us continue to report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.