Should convicted felons have their civil rights restored once their sentence, including any and all probation and other supervised release, is completed? Their debt to society is paid. They are returning to normal life, or at least, they should be. In most states, there is a process for petitioning to have one's rights restored: The franchise, for example, serving on a jury, holding political office, and so on.
What about the Second Amendment? These things are generally done at the state level, and that's how it should be, but should convicted felons, once their sentence is complete, their debt paid, also be able to get their Second Amendment rights restored? It does happen, and I'm inclined to say, yes, it should be possible. Here's why, and I'm going to tell you.
For one thing, once a convicted felon has served their time, as a matter of principle, should be restored to full citizenship. That's not to say they should have their record wiped clean; recidivism is a thing that happens, and if a goblin re-offends, their record has to be taken into account in sentencing, one would think. But the Second Amendment, in many jurisdictions, that's going to take a different level of argument.
In one legal case, Kanter v. Barr, in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, the argument was made that non-violent offenders shouldn't lose their Second Amendment rights at all.
It didn't work. The decision from the 7th says in part:
Kanter pleaded guilty to mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1341, based on his submission of bills to Medicare for non-compliant therapeutic shoes and shoe inserts. Due to his felony conviction, he is prohibited from possessing a firearm under both federal and Wisconsin law, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and Wis. Stat. 941.29(1m). He challenged those felon dispossession statutes under the Second Amendment, as applied to nonviolent offenders. The Seventh Circuit affirmed judgment upholding the laws.
But after the sentence is complete? A non-violent offender, in particular, should be able to have all of their civil rights restored. All of them, including the right to keep and bear arms.
Different jurisdictions have their own processes for this. Here in Alaska, the restoration of firearms rights is not terribly complicated; for state-level crimes, non-violent felons are prohibited from owning concealable firearms for ten years from the date of unconditional discharge. After 10 years, the right is restored without any further action. Violent felons, on the other hand, are permanently banned from owning a concealed weapon, barring a pardon from the governor or having the conviction set aside by the court. Mind you, that's just one example, and Alaska is a very Second Amendment-friendly state. In other, bluer states, I'm sure the process is more complicated.
Read More: This Is Big: Trump Admin Fights Back, Now Challenging D.C.'s Assault on Gun Rights
Watch: Scott Bessent Crushes Anti-Trump Media Narratives When Asked About CBP MN Shooting Incident
This decision, in many places, is made by a judge. I'm not a great legal scholar; in fact, I'm not a legal scholar at all, but I do have some ideas on what a judge, faced with just such a decision, may want to consider.
First: What was the original crime? The decision would be, should be easier for a white-collar criminal accused of cheating on his taxes, than on a triple ax murderer - yes, those are extreme examples, but still. Recidivism, as noted before, is a thing, and while a bad guy with crime on his mind will always find a weapon, there's no reason to make it any easier - or worse, involve a gun shop owner who made a perfectly legal transaction, to see the guy's face in the crime reports a week later. The seller would bear no responsibility, of course, but boy, if that wouldn't make you feel horrible.
Second: What does the former convict look like now? Is he clean-cut, clean-shaven (for the record, I'm neither, but then, I'm not a convicted felon) with a steady job? Has he married, started a family? Is that family there to support him? Or is he clearly hungover, strung out, and disheveled? I'm not sure to what extent a judge can go by instinct on these things, but I can't help thinking it plays a part.
It's a complicated problem. And, honestly, for once, I'm going to say that in most places, the system in place is probably for the best. Each case, each petition, judged on its own merits. Blanket solutions in matters like this rarely work out well.
I’ve long thought that a felon, once their time is served, should be able to go through a process in which their full civil rights are restored – all of them, including the right to own a gun. I’ve also long thought that this should probably be a higher hurdle for people convicted of violent crimes. Violent felons should be scrutinized rigorously through this process, but sometimes people do change, and there are cases in which former thugs have changed their ways and gone on to become upstanding citizens.
But in this case, where the crime was a white-collar crime, I’m inclined to think that another form of strict scrutiny applies; that being, is this person a danger to themselves or others? If the answer to that is no, then I can’t see the stripping of their constitutional rights. Any of them.
