By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
Two top officials at the Second Amendment Foundation submitted a letter to the Department of Justice supporting a proposed “rights restoration rule” now under consideration, and have included several recommendations about the proposal covering a range of topics.
The 14-page letter was signed by SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut and Kostas Moros, SAF director of Legal Research and Education. It was sent to Kira Gillespie, deputy Pardon Attorney at the Department of Justice.
According to a SAF news release, the organization supports the proposed rule “as a significant step toward restoring the Second Amendment rights of millions of Americans who have been unfairly denied their constitutional protections due to nonviolent convictions.”
However, SAF notes, the gun rights group “urges the DOJ to refine the rule to ensure that individuals convicted of other non-dangerous offenses are also eligible for rights restoration on a case-by-case basis.”
Among those cases might be that of Patrick “Tate” Adamiak, the sailor now serving time in a federal prison for firearms violations which, according to extensive reporting by award-winning journalist Lee Williams, now serving as editor of the SAF Investigative Journalism Project, appear to have been fabricated.
ADAMIAK CASE DEPENDS UPON APPELLATE ATTORNEY
In their letter, Kraut and Manos observe, “Another example is Patrick Tate Adamiak’s arrest, prosecution, and incarceration. Adamiak an avid collector of historic military memorabilia, was charged with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) for possessing PPSh parts that were entirely disassembled, cut in half, and inoperable.
“Despite having honorably served our nation for over a decade in the United States Navy,” the letter continues, “under the current drafting of the rule Adamiak would be unable to seek relief from his federal firearms disability, which was imposed on him for a box of inoperable parts. Such a result is unconscionable.”
There are other examples where changes can be made, which are detailed in the letter. Chief among them is the prohibition placed on people using marijuana, which remains a controlled substance under federal law.
“The comment letter highlights concerns about the blanket ineligibility for individuals convicted under specific subsections of the current law,” the SAF statement says, “such as marijuana users who pose no danger when not under the influence, individuals who have recovered from past mental health adjudications, and those convicted of possessing machine guns without violent intent.
“The primary drug that rears its head in this context is marijuana,” Kraut and Moros write, “which has been legalized in 40 states for medicinal purposes and 24 states for recreational use. While cases are ongoing, several circuit courts have fully or partially ruled against the government and the enforcement of the federal prohibition. Someone using marijuana while their firearms are safely stored away at home, and only handling the firearms after they are no longer under the influence, is not inherently dangerous. Indeed, many Americans drink recreationally and do so while owning firearms. Individuals seeking relief from Section 922(g)(3)’s prohibition, at least as it relates to an underlying offense involving marijuana, should not be subject to a flat bar on applications.”
SAF also believes that rights restoration should be available to those convicted of possessing firearms after having been adjudicated mentally defective or been committed to a mental institution, provided of course that it has been proven that they are no longer mentally unwell, the organization says.
“Once their mental health has fully recovered, there is no ongoing danger from their possession of firearms and thus such individuals’ rights should be restored if they can document their recovery – such as having a mental health professional evaluate their mental state and determine whether they can possess firearms without being a danger to themselves or others,” Kraut and Moros state.
Whether SAF’s input will influence the administration’s proposal remains to be seen. But it should be noted this is the first time in memory the Justice Department has taken a serious look at reforming a system which many believe has unfairly stripped rights from citizens without providing any relief from disabilities.
