If your record is expunged, it's supposed to be like it never happened. You've got a clean record and can go about your merry way. That's why people want their records expunged in the first place.
But is it really an expungement if you continue to be punished for those crimes?
That's the question a case in Wisconsin wanted answered, just for the state Supreme Court to dodge the issue entirely.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to rule on a case after hearing oral arguments, where they called into question the legality of the case’s foundation.
Scot Van Oudenhoven was convicted in Calumet County of misdemeanor battery against the mother of his child in 1994. Under federal law, that crime is considered a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” and prevents Oudenhoven from owning a gun unless his conviction is expunged or set aside.
In 2019, it was expunged. That is, all records held in the state related to his trial and conviction were hidden from public view. Each state has its own definition of expungement, and Wisconsin views it extremely narrowly. It does not necessarily return someone to their pre-conviction status in terms of civil rights, which is exactly the question brought before the court.
Later, Oudenhoven was blocked by the Wisconsin Department of Justice from purchasing a firearm. The department found that expungement did not vacate the effects of his conviction, and he still cannot own a gun, whether the record is publicly available or not.
The appeals court affirmed the department’s finding, and Oudenhoven brought it to the state Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in February.
Despite accepting the case, allowing it to be briefed by the parties and hearing oral arguments on its merits, the Wisconsin Supreme Court dismissed the case on Tuesday “as improvidently granted.” In other words, they erred in accepting the case in the first place and would not consider it further.
That's some BS right there.
Look, I get that Wisconsin views the issue differently than elsewhere, but if you're going to have an expungement process, why are you continuing to punish people for that conviction in the first place? It's ridiculous.
They could have addressed the issue one way or another. Everyone did the things required to get a ruling. They presented the arguments and the court just went, "Oh, our bad. We thought you were someone else."
Absolutely pathetic.
Maybe it's just me, but if the record isn't expunged, it's not an expungement, and if he can't buy a gun, it ain't expunged.
You can dress it up however you want, but the truth is that if someone is still a danger, they shouldn't get an expungement in the first place, so this is just stupid on so many levels. It's not about right and wrong to some of these people, but about punishing anyone they can for wanting to exercise their Second Amendment rights for as long as possible.
It wasn't that because of his conviction, he was considered a risk. That argument went out the window when he got the record expunged. More than 30 years of keeping his nose clean show that he's not a threat.
But that's not what it was about, and now we have the evidence to show it.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member