Indiana Expunction as a Restoration of Firearm Rights

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,969
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    I'm lost. :dunno:

    Don't forget everyone learns from INGO. Please elaborate or give us a link to the discussion of this.

    When implemented, the DoJ did not recognize Indiana's "little bit pregnant" expungement statute as a valid restoration under 18 USC §921(20)(B) thus an expunged Indiana felony could be prosecuted under 922(g)(1), inter alia.

    Indiana's General Assembly modified its statute in early 2015. In October of 2015 the Department of Justice via Donald Sorrano, SAC, Columbus, Ohio, wrote to Lt. Pete Wood of the ISP (Wood is the "prosecutor" in Larry admin hearings) advising that the feds DO recognize an expunction order from Indiana as a valid restoration of civil rights.

    This letter is now being circulated in the popular gun culture mostly from TFT, but I have been giving it out for my seminars for NBI and IPDC.
     
    Last edited:

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,969
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    Good god, it is like I am at the office. Kirt?

    I have no idea who "Kirt" is. I had not heard this name until I moved to Lafayette. Apparently it is some ancient Scottish name, but it is not my name.

    Anywho, I do not understand what you are asking.
     
    Last edited:

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,969
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    Kirt,
    18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20)
    “Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms”

    It does not matter if the expunction was from 2013, 2014, or 2015. ALL three versions explicitly restore the three core civil rights as required under federal law. If a state restores (1) the right to vote, (2) the right to hold public office and (3) the right to sit on a jury and does not limit the right to own firearms, then the state has fully restored the rights and there is no federal firearms disability.

    Originally, the feds said that it was not true expungement (under federal standards). Then Senator Brent Steele asked if the same statutory language would nevertheless be sufficient to qualify as a restoration (a different avenue from expungement) for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20).

    The addition of "to be a proper person under IC 35-47-1-7(2) in 2015 is just a requirement for firearms licensing none of which negatively affects the state's restoration of rights.

    So...the restoration language from the 2013, 2014, and 2015 expungement statute restores firearm rights.

    The feds agree now…

    ___

    ALL three versions explicitly restore the three core civil rights as required under federal law.

    2013 Version: “The civil rights of a person whose conviction has been expunged shall be restored, including the right to vote, to hold public office, to serve as a juror, and, to the extent not prohibited by federal law, to own or possess a firearm.

    2014 Version: The civil rights of a person whose conviction has been expunged shall be restored, including the right to vote, to hold public office, to serve as a juror.”

    2015 Version: “Except as provided in section 6(f) of this chapter, the civil rights of a person whose conviction has been expunged shall be fully restored, including the right to vote, to hold public office, to be a proper person under IC 35-47-1-7(2), and to serve as a juror.”
    ___

    I have no idea what you are asking. Can you re-state your question please?
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,969
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    Kirk, I apologize :( for misspelling your name. My question is, do you interpret the "letter" from Donald Sorrano as stating all three versions (as shown below) explicitly restore the three core civil rights as required under federal law and restores firearm rights.
    ___

    2013 Version: “The civil rights of a person whose conviction has been expunged shall be restored, including the right to vote, to hold public office, to serve as a juror, and, to the extent not prohibited by federal law, to own or possess a firearm.

    2014 Version: The civil rights of a person whose conviction has been expunged shall be restored, including the right to vote, to hold public office, to serve as a juror.”

    2015 Version: “Except as provided in section 6(f) of this chapter, the civil rights of a person whose conviction has been expunged shall be fully restored, including the right to vote, to hold public office, to be a proper person under IC 35-47-1-7(2), and to serve as a juror.”
    ___

    No problem, I've been called worse. People see "Kirk" but they only have heard "Kurt" so they blend the correct name with the incorrect name and I get this strange hybird.

    It's not a "letter"; it's a letter.

    No, all 3 versions were not a proper restoration. The first two versions were modeled on that goofy Wyoming statute to make law enforcement happy and I kept telling them about Wyoming Crank and no one would frickin' listen to me (yeah, I know, same as always). Since the first two were not the intent of the General Assembly, there was a third which was enough for the feds.

    Why Indiana did not pass a true expunction statute as in the Southern states was based on the premise of the Republican leadership wanting to make ISP and IPAC happy. It got us less than optimal results and a bunch of frustration.
     

    Vigilant

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Jul 12, 2008
    11,659
    83
    Plainfield
    No problem, I've been called worse. People see "Kirk" but they only have heard "Kurt" so they blend the correct name with the incorrect name and I get this strange hybird.

    It's not a "letter"; it's a letter.

    No, all 3 versions were not a proper restoration. The first two versions were modeled on that goofy Wyoming statute to make law enforcement happy and I kept telling them about Wyoming Crank and no one would frickin' listen to me (yeah, I know, same as always). Since the first two were not the intent of the General Assembly, there was a third which was enough for the feds.

    Why Indiana did not pass a true expunction statute as in the Southern states was based on the premise of the Republican leadership wanting to make ISP and IPAC happy. It got us less than optimal results and a bunch of frustration.
    Im still confused as to the third iteration, does the granting of the expungement automatically make you a proper person, or does it have to be spelled out in the court order you are a proper person? As far as whether the first two worked or not, the DOJ obviously didn't think so!
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,969
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    I disagree. All three versions of the expunction statute restore firearm rights by reinstating all three core civil rights required under federal law...not the expungement itself.

    Disagree with the feds all you want. Let me know how that works out for you.

    What I am telling you is that the feds did not treat Indiana Expunction Order 1.0 or 2.0 as a valid restoration because of Wyoming Crank. With Expunction Order 3.0 we have now have a restoration under federal law and the letter that YOU posted makes this clear.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,969
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    What has really changed? Just like Wyoming, you still can have your expungement unsealed and used against you with "Expunction Order 3.0". Also, why are people being issued LTCH that have 2013 expungements if they are not a restoration? Not only do I know two people who have LTCH issued in the past year with 2013 expungements, they also get an instant proceed on a NICS check. Federal law is on there side. A letter from some ATF agent doesn't carry weight like the actual federal code does.

    Kirk, name one case where someone was prosecuted for owning a firearm when they had an expungement from 2013 or 2014.

    You are asking for the differences in the 3 different expungement statutes?
     
    Top Bottom