The American Civil Liberties Union was once an organization that stood its ground on civil rights for everyone. Most famously, the defended the rights of neo-Nazis to march in a predominantly Jewish community. It wasn't because they supported the Nazis, but because to defend rights at all, you have to defend them for people you may not care that much for.

But the ACLU generally stayed away from guns. Whether the old school crowd there valued the Second Amendment is neither here nor there, they steered clear of it.

These days, though, the ACLU isn't what it was. Not only are they expressly anti-gun at every opportunity, but they've favored some thing that never would have flown back in the day.

So imagine my surprise when a press release came from the Second Amendment Foundation praising an amicus brief filed by the ACLU.

However, the praise is warranted.

The Second Amendment Foundation is applauding an amicus brief submitted by the American Civil Liberties Union in a Second Amendment case which contends a man named Steven Duarte “did not forfeit his Second Amendment rights because of a past, nonviolent felony conviction.” The case is known as U.S. v. Duarte. 

“This is a remarkable and refreshing approach by the ACLU,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The organization has produced a stunningly detailed amicus brief supporting the Second Amendment. While acknowledging its history of concerns regarding gun-related violent crime, in this case the ACLU properly criticizes federal law for permanently disarming people previously convicted of nonviolent offenses, including misdemeanors where a state legislature has imposed a sufficiently long possible prison sentence to result in a lifetime loss of Second Amendment rights. Thus, as the ACLU sagely observes, someone could be put in prison for ‘the most fleeting, innocuous, or merely constructive ‘possession’ of a firearm’.”

The ACLU’s 40-page brief, Gottlieb noted, is very critical about how the law has been used to punish people who had been previously convicted for the most innocuous offenses. The brief notes, for example, “The government cannot show that applying such sweeping criminal liability to people like Mr. Duarte is consistent with the principles underpinning our tradition of regulating firearms.”

Duarte had previously been convicted of nonviolent offenses such as vandalism and drug possession. As detailed in the brief, the government “never contended that he poses a danger or threat of violence to others.” Yet the statute, 922(g)(1), was used to severely punish Duarte, sentencing him to four years in prison.

“We are delighted the ACLU recognizes the government has wielded a very heavy hand in its enforcement of federal statute 922(g)(1),” Gottlieb stated, “not only against Mr. Duarte, but also against other people. The ACLU makes a compelling argument that the government has failed to justify permanently stripping people of their Second Amendment rights, when they do not pose a risk to society, simply because of a previous conviction that might be punishable by more than a year in prison.

“Bravo to the ACLU for submitting this brief in Mr. Duarte’s case,” he concluded.

And yes, I agree with the ACLU on this.

My personal take is that any felon who's still a threat to society should probably have been sentenced to longer in prison and that if we're going to say their debt to society is paid, then it needs to be considered paid in full. That means their gun rights should be restored.

However, I get that not everyone agrees with that, and violent recidivists are a thing that people want to deal with.

Yet Duarte isn't a violent felon. He's a felon, but there's not a hint of violence in his past so far as I've been able to tell. He's disarmed because we simply opt to keep on punishing people convicted of felonies for the rest of their lives until they approach the state, hat in hand, then say, "Mother, may I?" and "Pretty please?"

Then, depending on the judge in question, they might get their gun rights back or they might not. There's not even a clear standard that can be cleared. It's really just sort of the whim of the judge from what I can tell.

For the record, I don't think the ACLU is suddenly taking a pro-gun position. I'm pretty sure this is just about felons and having their rights restored automatically or something like that. They're just weighing in on this one because it's the case working its way through the judicial system at the moment.

But I'll take what I can get and I'll join with the Second Amendment Foundation in applauding the ACLU when they get it right.

I'm just not going to hold my breath on it happening again.