The events of January 6th have been documented, dissected, blown up all out of proportion, reassembled to be something completely different, then had all of it happen again.
Everyone has their opinions on what transpired, and while I get the frustration and anger, I’m not interested in making a values judgment on the events of that day. Not right now.
Instead, I want to talk about why one person involved in the events of that day got her gun rights restored.
A judge has restored a Texas woman’s right to possess firearms just weeks after she was sentenced for illegally entering the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
U.S. District Court Judge Trevor McFadden issued an order on Thursday granting florist Jenny Cudd’s request to lift a term of her probation that forbade her to own or possess any “firearm, ammunition, destructive device, or dangerous weapon.”
Cudd had asked that the condition be set aside, citing threats she received following publicity about her role in the storming of the Capitol as lawmakers were preparing to certify Joe Biden’s win in the 2020 presidential election.
The judge’s ruling was a rebuke to prosecutors, who opposed the change, and it was the latest setback for prosecutors dealt by McFadden, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump. The decision further cements the judge’s reputation as the most skeptical member of the D.C. District Court bench about the stance prosecutors have taken in the wake of the Capitol riot.
“The Government presented no evidence that Cudd incited anyone to violence,” McFadden wrote. “Nor did it present evidence that she participated in violence. She has no prior criminal history. And Cudd’s bullet proof sweatshirt is consistent with her fear of being attacked at the rally preceding her entry into the Capitol. This says nothing about her danger to others.”
But the question is whether or not Cudd actually faced threats after she reached an agreement with prosecutors.
Frankly, I don’t have a problem believing that.
I mean, look at how many on the left talk about January 6th. They call it an insurrection–despite the fact that those taking part often are gun owners and could easily have made things much messier than they were–and have tried to destroy everyone who showed up even to the protest before things got out of hand.
To ask me to believe that the same unhinged people I see calling for violence against people they disagree with might have threatened Cudd’s life is like asking me to believe that while the sky is blue, sometimes it gets cloudy.
As such, I understand the judge’s decision to reinstate her Second Amendment rights. After all, if she got probation for a non-felony–originally, prosecutors were seeking six months in jail for her–then this is kind of a no-brainer.
Frankly, that the prosecutors would try to deny a non-felon their gun rights knowing that these defendants will be subject to harassment and potential violence seems completely irresponsible. Then again, so are the exceptionally harsh sentences they’re trying to push for those who took part in January 6th.