Wyoming v. Feds
Wyoming will appeal in federal court to try to defend a state law that allows some people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence to regain their right to own firearms.
U.S. District Judge Alan Johnson ruled earlier this month that the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives was correct to reject the 2004 Wyoming law.
[snip]
Although states may restore a convict’s right to own guns by expunging a domestic-violence conviction, the federal firearms agency had protested that Wyoming’s law didn’t suffice. The law leaves alive the possibility that state courts could still use the original misdemeanor conviction to enhance the penalty for any subsequent convictions.
The consequences:
The federal firearms agency had warned Wyoming that if it persists in allowing people with misdemeanor violence convictions to buy guns, that the federal government would no longer recognize more than 10,000 concealed-carry permits issued by the state as a substitute for federal background checks for firearms purchases.
There also exists, at the federal level, a means to appeal to have firearms rights restored. However, that program is not and never has been funded.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Keep in mind that if a whole slew of people can be denied their right to bear arms due to a violation of a minor Federal law, that is a bonus for the nanny-staters and anti-gunners.
Kinda like if you grant amnesty to a bunch of criminals and require them to pay fines, they are still – essentially – convicted and may not be able to arm or defend themselves. And they would be dependent upon The State to do that. And they would then be more willing to give their privacies to The State. And they would be more likely to question someone’s desire to have their own firearm. Especially given that *they* can’t have one.
But it’s not anything big to worry about. It isn’t like there is a pending law to grant amnesty (with fines and such) to uncounted millions of criminals or anything….
(I know, it’s a stretch. But I wonder if anywhere in the 300+ page document if there is a clause which will prevent these people from being able to arm themselves….?)
June 2nd, 2007 at 8:55 am
In MI after you have served your sentance, you have your “rights restored” by default. Due to this, people convicted of MCDV crimes have their firearms rights restored after completeing their sentance.
There was a recent case where a MI resident was being prosecuted for posessing firearms after a MCDV conviction, and the judge threw it out based on the “rights restored” language in state law. The name of the case escapes me, but it was sometime last winter.