Mel Gibson and a small handful of others will get their gun rights restored. A lot of people are upset about this, of course, and they’re elevating the former attorney who refused to comply with directives handed to her as some kind of martyr because of it.
Now, I can respect people standing on principle, but I find it funny how few people in the federal government–a field where your personal politics should be secondary to your mission to execute the directives of Congress and the president–would rather lose their jobs than do what they’re told.
Anyway, with Gibson getting his rights back, it seems some are asking questions, according to this headline that reads, “Trump’s Ties to Mel Gibson Raises Questions.”
Justice Department attorney Elizabeth Oyer was recently dismissed after refusing to support the restoring of actor Mel Gibson’s gun rights. Gibson is subject to a lifetime firearm ban after being convicted for domestic violence in 2011. The case has drawn widespread attention due to Gibson’s close ties to President Donald Trump.
Federal 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) allows individuals with firearm bans to petition for rights restoration. Regarding Gibson, Oyer said, “Giving guns back to domestic abusers is a serious matter that, in my view, is not something that I could recommend lightly, because there are real consequences that flow from people who have a history of domestic violence being in possession of firearms.”
Oyer added, “He then essentially explained to me that Mel Gibson has a personal relationship with President Trump and that should be sufficient basis for me to make a recommendation and that I would be wise to make the recommendation.”
Oyer claims this isn’t about politics, but safety.
Now, I’ll note that this report doesn’t actually mention any of the questions being raised, but I’m going to argue that it should raise them. Just not the ones Oyer might prefer.
For example, the report claims that the process was defunded in the 90s after it was criticized following some committing crimes after having their rights restored. One question that should be raised is just what percentage of those souls who got their rights back committed crimes following it, compared to those who haven’t?
Or, and hear me out here, why does it matter?
Our rights are our rights. While a case can be made to strip rights for felons for a period of time following their conviction, but how can you justify defunding the system meant to restore rights to individuals who have done as they’ve been asked?
Yes, some will commit additional crimes, but guess what? We’ve seen plenty of felons commit violent gun-related crimes without their gun rights being restored. Some people are just going to commit crimes because they have a criminal nature. They don’t need their rights to be restored in order to do that.
But a lot of people made a one-time mistake. They shouldn’t have their rights revoked for life, especially when you can see that they still have most of their other rights and can get their voting rights restored far more easily than their gun rights.
And if you’re going to tell me that the Second Amendment isn’t a second-class right, then do tell me just how that can be true when it’s the only right people couldn’t get restored?
Then we have the fact that Hunter Biden violated federal gun laws, was convicted, and then got a pardon because his daddy was president. That should keep raising a lot of questions, but it’s funny how many people bought the hype that Hunter’s prosecution was political, despite it being carried out by Biden’s Department of Justice.
Why was that fine with some people but Gibson getting his gun rights restored–over a misdemeanor, mind you–somehow the bridge too far?
So yeah, there are a lot of questions that should be raised, it’s just none of the questions most folks asking stuff seem interested in.
Read the full article here
