The gun control lobby loves to proclaim that its the voice of "common sense" when it comes to our right to keep and bear arms, but the truth is that there's an extremist ideology at the heart of the movement that's anything but middle of the road. 

Take the issue of restoration of rights. Most Americans believe that convicted felons and others who've lost their right to vote should have a pathway to regain that right; either automatically upon the completion of their sentence or through a judicial process of restoration. Those pathways or automatic processes exist in a majority of states, but when it comes to regaining the right to keep and bear arms the situation is far more complex. As the Collateral Consequences Resource Center laid out in a 2020 report, there are wild variances between the states when it comes to both losing and restoring 2A rights, all of which are complicated by the fact that the only federal pathway towards regaining the right to keep and bear arms has been unfunded for decades. 

The Trump administration has been investigating ways to restore the 2A rights of more Americans, potentially including re-funding that federal process, but as Brady head Kris Brown reminded us this week, the anti-gunners believe that once someone's prohibited, no restoration of their right to keep and bear arms should be possible. 

In a post on Substack, Brown blasted the Trump administration for its push to restore the 2A rights of some Americans, including actor Mel Gibson, who lost his ability to legally own a gun after a no contest plea to a misdemeanor charge of domestic battery more than a decade ago. Brown not only objects to individuals like Gibson being able to own a gun, but to any and all prohibited persons regaining their 2A rights; even those convicted of non-violent offenses. According to her, the only reason why any of this is even being considered is to pad the pockets of gun industry executives. 

There are tens of millions of people who are prohibited from buying guns in the United States. That’s a big, big market to this industry with flagging sales. It’s a market that includes people with a propensity to violence that would love to legally purchase firearms. The more people who have been convicted of crimes buy guns, the richer the industry gets. This creates a dangerous feedback loop—where the industry profits from arming 'bad guys', then turns around and convinces Americans to buy guns to protect themselves from the very threat they helped create.

But the cycle doesn’t end there—what starts as a profit-driven scheme to arm dangerous individuals quickly turns into political influence that fuels even more reckless policies. The more money the gun industry has, the more they can throw at politicians. And that means Donald Trump. In his quest to do the gun industry’s bidding and create new markets for guns—in this case the approximately 24 million felons prohibited from purchasing firearms in this country—Trump would literally sign a death sentence for Americans who have already suffered abuse and near death experiences at the hands of perpetrators only stopped from purchasing firearms by the permanent prohibition put in place by Congress and the Brady Background Check system.

I don't think there's majority support in Congress or the courts to automatically restore the right to keep and bear arms to every prohibited person once their sentence has been completed. A process that would allow individuals who don't pose a danger to themselves or others to regain their rights, on the other hand, is needed from both a constitutional and pragmatic standpoint, and Brown's authoritarian impulse is absolutely despicable. 

Without naming any names, I know several individuals who've lost their Second Amendment rights because of criminal activity in their early 20s... all of whom have gone on to rebuild their lives, own their own businesses, and become productive members of the community. Yet 10, 15, and even 20 years after their conviction they are still unable to hunt with their kids or teach them gun safety at a range. They're not even allowed to touch a round of ammunition. And while their spouses aren't barred under federal law from purchasing or possessing a firearm, none of the prohibited persons that I know have any guns in their home because they worry about the potential legal consequences for them and their partner. 

It's not just that Kris Brown doesn't believe Mel Gibson should be able to own a gun. She doesn't think Bryan Range should have access to his Second Amendment rights either, even though he was sentenced to probation decades ago for the misdemeanor offense of falsifying his income on a food stamp application. Anyone convicted of felony drug possession, even back in the days when a small amount of cannabis could land you in state prison, should be deprived forevermore from keeping or bearing arms according to Brown and the other prohibitionists in the gun control movement. 

I personally believe that once you've done your time and completed your sentence, all of your rights should be restored. I recognize, however, that's a minority viewpoint in the United States. The middle ground between my stance and Brown's position is that individuals who've lost their rights should be able to get them back if they've demonstrated they're not a danger; a position that some courts (and Supreme Court justices like Amy Coney Barrett) have endorsed in recent years. Federal law already allows that to happen, but again, the pathway to restoration has been unfunded for decades thanks to the work of anti-gun groups like the Violence Policy Center. 

The gun control lobby's position is clear: once prohibited, always prohibited. No redemption is possible in their eyes or their hearts; and a stupid mistake at the age of 18, even for a non-violent offense like cashing a bad check, should forevermore bar you from touching a gun or a round of ammunition. That's not common sense or constitutional in my book, but an act of cruelty and an abuse of government authority.