Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
The Court of Appeals released its opinion (unreported, but available on the court website) in Hockenson v. State. I find it troubling.
I grant there’s a difference between having a fundamental right in the first instance, and petitioning to have that right restored after commission of a crime. But the explanation given by the Court of Appeals reveals an anti-gun mindset which explains why Second Amendment jurisprudence lags so far behind First Amendment cases.
The guy was 19 when he committed an assault and got 5 years of probation. It’s been 15 years since the offense during which he completed his probation, served in the military, married, has a child and holds down a full-time job. If anybody could be said to have ‘turned his life around,’ it’s this guy. But since there are no set standards to determine “good cause” to restore your rights, the court is free to act on whim.
In this particular case, the trial court denied the request because the ‘violent facts surrounding the conviction do not demonstrate the maturity of judgment necessary for the court to find a significant level of comfort with restoring his rights.’ Well, duh. He was a dumb kid. He did a dumb thing. If you’re only going to look at what happened at the time of the crime, ignoring everything that has happened since, then nobody can ever have his rights restored. The trial court’s rationale is idiotic but since there are no standards (and the judiciary is composed entirely of Liberals appointed by Democrats who carefully avoid setting standards that would ensure equal justice for all), the Court of Appeals lets the ruling stand.
It’s particularly galling to compare this case with Democrats’ insistence on freeing killers and restoring their rights, not because of anything the felon has done to turn his life around, but solely because they want to pump up the number of likely Democrat voters.
But Hockenson served in the military, is a shooter, and is raising his kids, so he’s probably Republican. Not a priority.
As Kevin Williamson points out in The End Is Near – it’s really absurd that we give judges as much untrammeled authority as we do, since so many of them are idiots.