2nd Amendment Thread

[Bobref]

56 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

SCOTUS has struck down New York’s “may issue” licensing scheme. A big win for the citizens of the handful of remaining states that still have may issue licensing scheme. 
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

This is potentially a huge win for the 2nd Amendment folks. The specific holding of the case is as follows:

“New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.”

Some might call this a formal acknowledgement of the inability of the government to protect its own citizens from the lawless elements in our country. And it’s not just limited to state laws. It includes local ordinances like those cities that use “may issue” laws to limit handgun ownership.

Edited June 23, 2022 by Bobref

[Impartial_Observer]

It should be noted that one of the major proponents of this case was the New York Public Defenders. Their contention was their case load is crammed with an inordinate amount of weapons charges against otherwise non-criminal actors. They maintained that prosecution of such cases is in large part against minorities. 
Big win for the 2A, I believe there are 7 or 8 may issue states that this will affect. There were already several lawsuits pending in various courts pending this ruling. 
Indiana itself used to be a may issue state. The state SC overturned it in the early 70’s. 

[Muda69]

The New York Times Is Surprised To Find Public Defenders Championing the Second Amendment: https://reason.com/2022/08/01/the-new-york-times-is-surprised-to-find-public-defenders-championing-the-second-amendment/

Quote

A group of public defense lawyer organizations recently joined forces with Second Amendment advocates to urge the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate a New York gun control scheme. Now that the scheme has been successfully overturned in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which held that the Second Amendment includes the right "to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home," public defenders have begun citing the Court's ruling to protect the rights of their clients.

This state of affairs has left some New York Times journalists scratching their heads in surprise. As a recent Times headline put it: "Unlikely Fans of Supreme Court Ruling on Guns: Public Defenders." The accompanying article describes the Black Attorneys of Legal Aid, the Bronx Defenders, and other groups as "unexpected" allies of the gun rights movement.

But the alliance seems less "unexpected" when you remember that gun control has a racially disparate impact. As the public defender groups told the Supreme Court in an amicus brief, "New York enacted its firearm licensing requirements to criminalize gun ownership by racial and ethnic minorities. That remains the effect of its enforcement by police and prosecutors today." In other words, Bruen was a win for both gun rights and criminal justice reform.

Likewise, the alliance seems less "unlikely" when you remember that the American civil rights movement has long had a gun rights component. This dates back as far as the abolitionists, such as Frederick Douglass, who declared in 1854 that "the True Remedy for the Fugitive Slave Bill is a good revolver, a steady hand, and a determination to shoot down any man attempting to kidnap."

Douglass continued to preach the virtues of armed self-defense throughout the rest of his life. In 1893, as the noble aims of Reconstruction were giving way to the horrors of the rising Jim Crow regime, Douglass argued that "the liberties of the American people were dependent upon the ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge box." Without all three securely in place, he maintained, "no class of people could live and flourish in this country."

Leading civil rights activists carried on Douglass' position in the 20th century. "I'm alive today because of the Second Amendment and the natural right to keep and bear arms," declared John R. Salter Jr., one of the organizers of the famous sit-ins against segregated lunch counters in Jackson, Mississippi. "Like a martyred friend of mine, NAACP staffer Medgar W. Evers, I, too, was on many Klan death lists and I, too, traveled armed: a .38 special Smith and Wesson revolver and a 44/40 Winchester carbine," Salter said. "The knowledge that I had these weapons and was willing to use them kept enemies at bay."

 

Really like that quote by Mr. Douglass.

[Muda69]

The Rise of "Constitutional Carry" Is a Sign of Failing Trust in Government

https://mises.org/wire/rise-constitutional-carry-sign-failing-trust-government

Quote

Come next January, Alabama will be the 25th state to allow the carrying of concealed weapons without a permit. Alabama will soon join Indiana which in March of this year passed a new statute allowing permitless concealed carry in that state—sometimes called "constitutional carry." In 2021 alone, at least six states passed their own provisions legalizing permitless concealed carry: Arkansas, Iowa, Montana, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah. Essentially, any law abiding citizen over a certain age (usually 18 or 21 years of age) can now carry a concealed firearm in these states. 20 years ago, only Vermont allowed unrestricted concealed carry. Beginning ten years ago, however, more than twenty states adopted new laws deregulating the carrying of firearms. 

Why is this happening now? On its most simple level, these laws are passed because lawmakers and constituents at the state level have advocated for their passage. Moreover, whatever opposition has existed among interest groups and the public has been insufficient to block their passage. 

On a deeper ideological level, increased access to concealed carry is likely the result of a growing feeling among much of the public that they need increased access to firearms for self-protection. In other words, the spread of constitutional carry points to a growing sentiment that state and local authorities are insufficient to provide a reasonable expectation of safety from violent crime, and that private self-defense is therefore more necessary now than in the past. 

Moreover, many of these laws expanding access to concealed carry have been passed over the objections of local law enforcement. Police organizations have been among the most vocal of opponents to new constitutional carry measures, yet Republican lawmakers—a group often happy to fall all over themselves announcing how much they "back the blue"—have passed these laws anyway. It is one thing to support law enforcement officers on a vague philosophical level, of course, but the continued spread of constitutional carry suggests there are limits to this support among even conservatives. Rather, the passage of these laws suggests a growing lack of faith that even well-meaning law enforcement can or will provide meaningful defense from violent criminals when the time arises. 

Declining Faith in Institutions

The survey data continues to point to declining public faith in public institutions, and this includes law enforcement and the legal system. As faith in these institutions falls, the perceived need to provide one's own self-defense naturally increases. As one sociologist puts it, "legal cynicism" leads to greater demand for "protective gun ownership" and "lower levels of police legitimacy are significantly related to a higher probability of acquiring a firearm for protection."

In the worst cases, this can even lead to extralegal "self-help" with a firearm, and this phenomenon has been explored by historian Randolph Roth who notes that declining perceptions of state legitimacy can lead to high rates of violent crime. That is, when the public believes that official coercion will be insufficient to restrain crime, private citizens may feel the need to take matters into their own hands. 

Moreover, crime data in some cases suggests a correlation between gun ownership and high crime levels. Advocates of gun control naturally interpret this correlation as evidence that the presence of guns is the cause of more crime. Yet the causality more likely runs in the other direction: more crime leads to more people arming themselves. Statistical studies are insufficient to prove causality in any case, as a Rand study on gun violence notes: 

Whether [the correlation between guns and crime] attributable to gun prevalence causing more violent crime is unclear. If people are more likely to acquire guns when crime rates are rising or high, then the same pattern of evidence would be expected. ... existing research studies and data include a wealth of descriptive information on homicide, suicide, and firearms, but, because of the limitations of existing data and methods, do not credibly demonstrate a causal relationship between the ownership of firearms and the causes or prevention of criminal violence or suicide.

And, as one New Jersey study concluded after surveying young residents of high-crime areas,

most participants said they carried guns to increase their feelings of safety. “They held a widespread belief that they could be victimized at any time, and guns served to protect them from real or perceived threats from other gun carriers.”

The perceived need for personal protection is likely more urgent and immediate in high crime areas, but the sentiment certainly is not unique to these areas. Suburban and rural advocates for broadening concealed carry frequently invoke the need for personal protection from violent crime as justification for new laws expanding the right to carry in nearly every situation. 

Laws Passed Over Police Opposition 

Although many individual police officers support nearly untrammeled gun ownership by law abiding citizens, many others do not. In the case of Alabama's legislative battle over permitless carry, for instance, "the bills have been roundly criticized by police and gun control advocates, who argue that removing permits poses a safety risk to citizens and officers." The head of Alabama's Sheriff's Association wants to change the Second Amendment to ban concealed carry altogether. And elsewhere "Some of the loudest opponents of permitless carry laws are the police. They spoke out in Indiana, Texas, and Kentucky but that didn’t stop lawmakers from passing “constitutional carry” laws." In Georgia, many law enforcement officers voiced their opposition to conceal carry, much to the delight of the state's Democratic party. In Ohio, constitutional carry has been opposed by the Fraternal Order of Police—the public labor union that provides free lawyers to abusive and incompetent police officers. Even in Republican-controlled legislatures—where professed support for police runs high—police efforts to quash expanded conceal carry have failed repeatedly. 

The continued spread of constitutional carry is, of course, related to the surge we've seen toward more private gun ownership overall. For example, Americans in 2020 and 2021 went on what CNN calls a "gun buying spree" and this included a 58% surge in gun purchases in 2021 among Black men and women. Violent and destructive "mostly peaceful" protests exposed the limited ability of law enforcement to do much other than protect government property during periods of unrest. In the wake of lockdowns, which shut down vital social institutions such as churches and schools, crime surged in the US, and not just in the "usual" places like urban cores. Police legitimacy also suffered a serious blow with the abject failure of local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies at the Uvalde school shooting in May of this year. The officers who chose to do nothing while children were massacred will likely face no serious legal repercussions, and this will further highlight that police officers are under no legal obligation to actually protect the public from violent crime. 

It's no wonder that permitless concealed carry continues to make gains in American states. In the past, many Americans may have simply trusted to the regime to provide "law and order." But that sentiment is apparently becoming more and more rare. 

Indeed it is.

 

[Impartial_Observer]

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

The Rise of "Constitutional Carry" Is a Sign of Failing Trust in Government

https://mises.org/wire/rise-constitutional-carry-sign-failing-trust-government

Indeed it is.

 

Constitutional Carry has nothing to do with trusting the government. It is simply saying you don’t have to pay a fee to they government and beg permission to exercise and right granted to us by our creator. 
 

[Muda69]

27 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Constitutional Carry has nothing to do with trusting the government. It is simply saying you don’t have to pay a fee to they government and beg permission to exercise and right granted to us by our creator. 
 

And doesn't the 2nd Amendment exist because the Founding Fathers didn't trust the government to not infringe on that right? Constitutional Carry laws just better enumerate that right.

 

[Muda69]

Desperate California Anti-Gunners Wreck Junior Shooter Clubs: https://reason.com/2022/08/05/desperate-california-anti-gunners-wreck-junior-shooter-clubs/

Quote

Organized youth shooting is disappearing in California as a result of a new law sold as banning advertising guns to kids but also potentially penalizes any promotion of firearms to minors. Rightfully criticized as a totalitarian attack on gun-oriented speech, the law is also an example of desperation on the part of those opposed to firearms, who lost big in the Supreme Court, see DIY firearms makers slipping beyond their grasp, and are now reduced to lashing out at an entire culture.

"A new California law that bans marketing guns to kids isn't sitting well with some Glenn County shooting teams," ActionNewsNow reported July 29. "Some parents and students say this law could end up costing them their sport."

Glenn County families aren't alone.

"Due to recent legislation from the California State Assembly, and signed into Law by Gov. Gavin Newsom, the USA Clay Target League, DBA USA High School Clay Target League/California State High School Clay Target League, has been forced by law to suspend all operations within California," USA Clay Target League notes on its website. "California Assembly Bill 2571 … provides for a civil penalty of $25,000 for any and each instance of firearm-related marketing to persons under the age of 18. That includes the '… use, or ownership of firearm-related products…' as well as '…events where firearm-related products are sold or used.'"

The law's chilling effect on shooting sports extends to simple speech involving minors and firearms.

"Due to California Bill A.B. 2571, Junior Shooters is no longer available to juniors (Under 18) from the state of California," the youth-oriented publication warns online. "If you are a minor in California, please do not continue, otherwise, welcome to Junior Shooters."

Understandably, the publishers of Junior Shooters are suing the state of California with the assistance of the Second Amendment Foundation.

"The broad-sweeping law applies not only to 'commercial speech' targeting children or encouraging them to engage in unlawful behavior, but to a great deal of political and educational speech, truthful commercial speech aimed at adults, and speech promoting activities that are perfectly lawful to engage in—even by minors in California," warns their motion for a preliminary injunction, which will be heard in federal court on August 22. "Because the law is not tailored to serving a compelling governmental interest, it violates the First Amendment rights to free speech, assembly, and association."

Of course, A.B. 2571 wasn't sold as an attempt to prohibit passing an appreciation for shooting sports from one generation to the next. It was peddled instead as a restriction on marketing guns to kids, as if there's a danger of tiny tots disguising themselves as their parents to get through the background checks at sporting-goods stores.

"California has some of the strongest gun laws in the country and it is unconscionable that we still allow advertising weapons of war to our children," Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D–Orinda) huffed in a press release when Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the measure into law on July 1.

But the actual law goes well beyond restricting targeted advertising. Its language could easily be construed to encompass youth shooting teams, firearms publications, and activist organizations. Arguably, A Christmas Story might not pass muster over young Ralphie's hankering for a Red Ryder BB gun. That's why legislators were warned by legal experts that their bill didn't just tread into territory protected by the First Amendment, it stomped all over that ground.

"A gun magazine publisher, for instance—or a gun advocacy group that publishes a magazine—would likely be covered as a 'firearm industry member,' because it was formed to advocate for use or ownership of guns, might endorse specific products in product reviews, and might carry advertising for guns," cautioned UCLA's Eugene Volokh in testimony that dubbed the measure "unconstitutional."

The courts will do what the courts will do, of course. But A.B. 2571 resembles a likely piñata for any judge who cares about protections for free speech, without even getting into the Second Amendment implications. So why would gun-hating California lawmakers waste time, effort, and taxpayer money on legislation seemingly doomed to go down to ignominious defeat?

Well, the Supreme Court's recent decision in Bruen capped off a tough stretch for gun-rights opponents that began in 2008 with Heller. Many of their favorite restrictions now look legally vulnerable if not outright impermissible under the Constitution's Second Amendment. On top of that, years of threatening to prohibit popular firearms helped launch a DIY culture of enthusiasts who make guns at home using techniques resistant to regulation. Anti-gunners target unfinished 80 percent firearm receivers only to have innovators respond with zero-percent receivers. And bans on using 3D printers, computer numerical control (CNC) machines, or traditional workshop tools to manufacture firearms are largely unenforceable against people who set out to evade control. So, authoritarians are reduced to desperation and overreaching.

"The problem with this bill is the same problem as the Texas anti-abortion law it mimics: it creates an end run around the essential function of the courts to ensure that constitutional rights are protected," the California ACLU objected to the state's recent application to guns of the ill-considered approach in Texas's law, passed before Dobbs overturned Roe's protections for abortion. "Specifically, this bill creates a 'bounty-hunter' scheme that authorizes private individuals to bring costly and harassing lawsuits designed and intended to intimidate people from engaging in a proscribed activity without requiring—or even permitting—the government to defend the law the defendants are alleged to have violated."

As with the Texas law it copies, California's anti-gun bounty law is widely seen as excessive and dangerous even by many of those who sympathize with its intent. Likewise, a prohibition on "advertising" firearms to minors that criminalizes sports teams, censors publications, and targets an entire culture seeks to escape protections for established liberties in a sweeping attack that has already inflicted collateral damage.

Wounded animals are dangerous, of course, and that's what anti-gun authoritarians resemble at the moment. With dwindling means to impose their will, and their prey escaping their grasp, anti-gunners are lashing out at more people and freedoms than ever before. They're going down to defeat, but they'll take some victims with them.

 

[temptation]

Apparently another group of folks forgot to read the gun laws posted…so irresponsible.

https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/police-responding-to-mall-of-america-after-reports-of-shots-fired/

[DanteEstonia]

On 8/5/2022 at 6:41 AM, Impartial_Observer said:

granted to us by our creator

You were created by an amendment? 

[swordfish]

https://www.wndu.com/2022/08/18/mom-fatally-shot-home-intruder-defend-kids-she-says/?fbclid=IwAR3Cz_tLUDqMCAhm7sFefZitPM0BcHNVDDcZzqBx-ifFwGzOcMCbyffalOI

MILWAUKEE (WTMJ) - A family of three is now traumatized after they say a strange man broke into their home, and the mother fatally shot him while defending her children, she claims.

A mother of two, who asked not to be identified, was showering before work Monday morning when she heard her children, ages 12 and 14, screaming from the living room.

Still dripping wet, she says she ran to her bedroom, grabbed her gun and faced down a strange man, who she claims broke into her home. She says the man charged, undeterred by her dogs, and she shot him in self-defense.

“It all happened so fast — an adrenaline rush,” she said.

Community activist Bushraa Rahman helped clean up the home after authorities removed the body.

“She was scared because her children were there with her. So, she did what any mother would do. She defended her children,” Rahman said. “It was an act of self-defense.”

Police have not identified the man. The mother says he appeared to be in his late 30s and was acting erratically.

Following the shooting, police arrested the mother then released her several hours later after questioning. They referred the case to the district attorney’s office for review.

“In today’s day and age, with mental health and everything else that’s taking place in the world, I mean, you better protect yourself. To be honest, you have to,” Rahman said.

The mother says her children are traumatized after the incident, and the family intends to move out once they find a new place to live.

She says she bought the gun 10 years ago after finding a man sleeping under her son’s bed. She says she hoped she’d never have to use it.

Scary event - she gets the "atta girl" for having the means and being able to effectively protect herself and kids.

 

 

[swordfish]

[Impartial_Observer]

3 hours ago, swordfish said:

The $64,000 question:

When civil war breaks out, which side is Russia backing? The Chinese?

[temptation]

7 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

The $64,000 question:

When civil war breaks out, which side is Russia backing? The Chinese?

You mean the $10 thousand million dollar question…

[swordfish]

Yep - Sad story of a cop "accidentally" killing his best friend with a gun pointed at his friend's head and pulling the trigger twice.  

I don't care who it is, or why it is, you NEVER point a gun at someone unless you plan on killing them.  NEVER.  AND you NEVER pull the trigger "jokingly"!!  Sorry - This guy, as sad as it seems to me, deserves every bit of punishment coming to him for his negligence/incompetence. 

https://nypost.com/2022/12/06/cop-andrew-lawson-pulled-trigger-twice-before-killing-call-of-duty-pal/

A Florida deputy “jokingly” pulled the trigger on his gun twice before fatally shooting his roommate and best friend — a fellow cop — in the head after the pair played “Call of Duty,” according to an affidavit.

Brevard County Sheriff Wayne Ivey called Saturday’s deadly shooting “an extremely dumb and totally avoidable accident” in a video announcing the arrest of Deputy Andrew Lawson.

Lawson, 23, made his initial court appearance Monday to face a charge of manslaughter in the death of Austin Walsh.

Walsh, also 23, died at the scene early Saturday in the apartment he shared with Lawson in Palm Beach.

An affidavit obtained by the station ClickOrlando stated that Lawson and Walsh had taken a break from playing the popular shooting game “Call of Duty” and were chatting when Lawson grabbed a Glock 34 9mm semi-automatic pistol.

Lawson said he believed that the gun was unloaded when he “jokingly” first pointed it at Walsh and pulled the trigger. The weapon did not fire.

Lawson then manipulated the gun by pulling the slide back and pulled the trigger again, claiming he also was joking, according to the sheriff’s office

This time, the Glock fired a single shot that struck Walsh in the head, killing him.

Lawson called 911 shortly before 1 a.m., telling a dispatcher that he had just shot his best friend.

Officers who responded found Lawson waiting outside his home and detained him. Walsh was discovered dead in the hallway outside a bedroom.Lawson reportedly said he fired the gun “jokingly,” thinking it was not loaded.

Lawson said “he still believed the firearm was unloaded but should have known the magazine containing ammunition was possibly in the firearm by the weight of the gun,” the affidavit stated.

Ivey said Lawson was “distraught” and “devastated” when first responders arrived, and he fully cooperated with the investigation.

“Folks, this unnecessary and totally avoidable incident not only took the life of an amazing young man and deputy, but it has also forever changed the life of another good young man who made an extremely poor and reckless decision,” Ivey said.

The sheriff said Walsh had been with the agency since he was 18.

“Austin was such a great kid, and our hearts are broken over his loss. He will be deeply missed by our agency, our community and our prayers are with his family,” Ivey said.Walsh had been with the Brevard County Sheriff’s Office since he was 18.

In court Monday, Lawson’s bond was set at $15,000. He is required to move in with his mother and have no firearms or ammunition in his possession.

[Muda69]

Mel Gibson Controversy Highlights a Bigger Scandal: Many Americans Lose Their Gun Rights for No Good Reason

https://reason.com/2025/03/12/mel-gibson-controversy-highlights-a-bigger-scandal-many-americans-lose-their-gun-rights-for-no-good-reason/?itm_source=parsely-api

Quote

Elizabeth Oyer, a former public defender who was appointed as the Justice Department's pardon attorney in April 2022, says she was fired last Friday because she refused to sign off on a recommendation to restore Mel Gibson's gun rights. The movie star and director, who supported Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election and was recently designated as one of the administration's three "ambassadors" to Hollywood along with Jon Voight and Sylvester Stallone, lost the right to own firearms because of a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction.

Oyer presents the episode as a conflict between public safety and political favoritism, and The New York Times framed the story the same way. But the incident also illustrates how difficult it is for people who have lost their Second Amendment rights as a result of criminal convictions—a category that includes the president himself—to regain those rights, even when there are no grounds to think they pose a threat to public safety.

In March 2011, Gibson pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor battery charge involving his girlfriend, and Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Stephanie Sautner sentenced him to 36 months of probation. Although Gibson's deal with prosecutors allowed him to avoid jail time, his plea triggered an ancillary penalty under 18 USC 922(g)(9), which makes it a felony for anyone who "has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" to receive or possess a firearm. Another provision of the same law, Section 922(g)(1), sweeps more broadly, imposing the same lifelong disability on anyone who has been convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year of incarceration, no matter how long ago it was committed and whether or not it involved violence.

As Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted in an opinion she wrote as an appeals court judge, the constitutionality of the latter prohibition is doubtful. Barrett dissented from a 2019 decision in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit upheld the application of Section 922(g)(1) to a manufacturer of therapeutic shoes and footwear inserts who had pleaded guilty to mail fraud. History "demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns," she wrote. "But that power extends only to people who are dangerous."

The Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen added heft to that argument by clarifying that gun control laws must be "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation" when they impinge on conduct covered by the "plain text" of the Second Amendment. In 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled that Section 922(g)(1) failed that test as applied to Bryan Range, a Pennsylvania man who had pleaded guilty to food stamp fraud, a state misdemeanor that was notionally punishable by up to five years in prison. Based on similar reasoning, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit last year overturned the Section 992(g)(1) conviction of Steven Duarte, a California man who had lost his gun rights because of a nonviolent criminal record.

Without such judicial intervention, "prohibited persons" like Range and Duarte have little recourse. Under 18 USC 925(c), they theoretically can ask the attorney general to restore their Second Amendment rights. The attorney general has the discretion to do that based on a determination that "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 and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest." But that responsibility has been delegated to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), which Congress has barred from considering such applications.

"Although federal law provides a means for the relief of firearms disabilities," the agency explains, "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."

If the ATF cannot act on such applications, can people with disqualifying criminal records seek relief in federal court? No, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in the 2002 case United States v. Bean.

That case involved a firearms dealer, Thomas Bean, who in March 1998 drove to Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, for dinner with three associates after visiting a gun show in Laredo, Texas. Before crossing the border, Bean asked his assistants to remove the guns and ammunition he had in his SUV, but they overlooked a box containing 200 rounds. Bean said he did not realize that the ammunition was in the car or that driving into Mexico with it was a crime. He nevertheless was convicted of illegally importing ammunition into Mexico and sentenced to five years in prison.

Bean was transferred to a Texas prison that September and released the following month. Although he ended up serving just seven months of his sentence, the conviction meant he was no longer allowed to possess firearms, a disability that was especially burdensome in light of his occupation and especially unfair given the nature of his offense. But when Bean asked the ATF about restoring his gun rights, he was told the agency was not allowed to consider his application. And since there was no agency decision to challenge, the Supreme Court concluded, Bean could not ask a judge to restore his rights either.

Given that situation, people with disqualifying criminal records have little hope of regaining their Second Amendment rights. Generally speaking, the only way they can do that is by obtaining a state or federal pardon, and the odds against that are long. Which brings us back to Mel Gibson.

A couple of weeks ago, Oyer told the Times, she was assigned to a working group charged with identifying people who deserved to have their Second Amendment rights restored despite criminal records that made it illegal for them to own guns. "It was an unusual assignment for the office of the pardon attorney, which typically handles requests for clemency" and recommends candidates for pardons or commutations, the Times notes. By way of explanation, it says the project "has been championed by some on the right who maintain that not all people with criminal convictions are dangerous or deserving of such a ban."

Contrary to the implication of that gloss, critics of this policy are not limited to right-wing gun nuts. In Duarte's case, for example, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) noted that Section 922(g)(1) is "an extraordinarily broad statute that does not target dangerousness or propensity to commit violence." The ACLU said the government had failed to show that the provision's "categorical application to people convicted of nonviolent offenses" is "consistent with our history and tradition." It added that the law is "a major contributor to mass incarceration and disproportionately impacts people of color."

Even a left-leaning organization that is not known for defending the Second Amendment, in other words, can see there is something screwy with permanently taking away people's gun rights when they have no history of violence, based on crimes (such as growing marijuana or selling drugs) that may not even involve an identifiable victim, let alone the use or threat of force. Oyer herself evidently sympathizes with that critique. The Times reports that she came up with a list of "95 people she considered worthy of consideration, made up principally of people whose convictions were decades old, who had asked for the restriction to be lifted and for whom Ms. Oyer's office thought the risk of recidivism was low."

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche's office "whittled the 95 candidates down to just nine," the Times says. Blanche's underlings also suggested an addition.

"They sent it back to me saying, 'We would like you to add Mel Gibson to this memo,'" Oyer told the Times. To Oyer, the Times says, that request was "worrisome on multiple fronts." While "the other candidates had all undergone a significant amount of background investigation to measure their likelihood of committing another crime," that was not true of Gibson. "Giving guns back to domestic abusers is a serious matter," Oyer said, and "is not something that I could recommend lightly, because there are real consequences that flow from people who have a history of domestic violence being in possession of firearms."

Oyer also "was vaguely aware of a highly publicized episode in 2006 when Mr. Gibson was caught being verbally abusive and antisemitic to a police officer who had stopped him on suspicion of driving under the influence and recorded at least some of the exchange." She ultimately decided that she could not in good conscience recommend restoring Gibson's gun rights, a position she says resulted in her dismissal.

Like Oyer, I have no idea whether Gibson still poses a threat that justifies barring him from owning guns, and the way his case was treated is unseemly, to say the least. But it is certainly true that millions of Americans—probably including the 86 candidates whom Blanche's office nixed, all of whom Oyer thought posed no such threat—have lost their gun rights for no good reason. And that injustice is compounded by a congressional dictate that effectively nullifies the promise of potential relief for people deemed unlikely to "act in a manner dangerous to public safety."

Trump's own disqualification from gun ownership underlines the irrationality of this policy. He lost his Second Amendment rights based on 34 felony convictions that involved falsification of business records. Although he received no formal penalty at all for those offenses, they still triggered Section 922(g)(1) because they were theoretically punishable by more than a year in prison. The upshot is that a man entrusted with control of the nation's vast military might, including its nuclear weapons, is not allowed to own a gun, which makes no sense no matter what you think about the legally dubious case that resulted in those convictions.

While the loss of that right might not matter much to someone with armed, taxpayer-funded protection, the same cannot be said of ordinary people who are legally barred from possessing firearms even though they have never done anything to suggest they are inclined to violence. The scandal of Gibson's special treatment pales by comparison with that travesty.

 A travesty indeed.