One of the common characteristics of anti-2A zealots is their incredible arrogance, their unwavering and condescending belief that they have the moral and legal high ground when it comes to guns.

Now, of course, they have neither the moral nor the legal high ground when it comes to any of their pushes for gun control and gun bans, as anyone who as looked into the statistics around gun violence in context (as in, not cherry picked) can easily see. Then again, anti-2A people tend to have no rational thoughts on the subjects that they’re convinced about, and they have zero self-awareness to recognize and acknowledge when they’re wrong.

That same anti-2A blindness tends to characterize many (most?) of the judges appointment by Democrat administrations, and, too often, those appointed by Republican administrations, too, and that blindness seems to be what we’re seeing in a circuit court that is, at the time of this writing, evenly split between Democrat and Republican-appointed judges. Cam Edwards writes,

Melynda Vincent was convicted of the non-violent felony offense of bank fraud after writing a bad check for almost $500 at a grocery store back in 2008. Though she was eligible for a prison sentence, a judge instead ordered Vincent to a term on probation, and over the past fifteen years she’s gone from being homeless and battling a drug addiction to serving as a social worker helping others to turn their own lives around. Vincent first sued to have rights restored in 2020, but the lawsuit was thrown out by the courts, so she refiled after the Bruen decision was handed down.

Her attorneys have argued that under the history, text, and tradition test laid out by the Supreme Court in Bruen, the modern law that imposes a lifetime ban on possessing firearms and ammunition is unconstitutional, but the Tenth Circuit panel ruled against Vincent on Friday, opining that the Supreme Court’s decisions (including Heller and McDonald as well as Bruen) don’t invalidate  the Tenth Circuit’s precedent upholding the federal statute in question.

Let’s be blunt: This ruling by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals is insane (as in, literally, insane because it tries to twist the Bruen ruling to get the outcome that they want instead of dealing with the reality of the Bruen ruling).

It’s absurd that a non-violent offender, especially after turning their life around, is denied their Second Amendment rights, and it’s unconscionable that the 10th Circuit Court goes out of its way to try to invalidate a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States to get their own way.

This ruling needs to be appealed, and this lady needs to have her rights restored to her instead of them continuing to be violated.