By: Kayleigh Hamilton

This story about a man being stripped of his rights is disgusting.

There is no reason he should be prevented from owning a gun.

But that didn’t stop the bureaucrats from denying him his gun rights.

There may be nothing that is more dangerous to the Constitution than an out-of-control bureaucrat who is willing to use their power for bad purposes.

Gun rights are supposed to be universal, but in some liberal states, they end up falling into the hands of government agents who don’t like guns.

One man in New Jersey was recently denied a gun permit for a completely outrageous reason. They tried to say he’s an alcoholic, even though he has been sober for 30 whole years.

As soon as he heard about this, he was naturally infuriated, and took his case to court, thinking it would get resolved there.

But the court sided with the bureaucrats who took away his gun rights.

Now this man who does not drink alcohol and hasn’t touched a drink in 30 years will be prevented from owning guns because the state of New Jersey thinks he’s an “alcoholic.”

According to Bearing Arms, “A New Jersey court has upheld the denial of a gun permit to a man who admitted he’s an alcoholic, even though he says he hasn’t had a drink in 30 years.”

“According to the appellate court, the East Brunswick Police Department was right in rejecting the man’s application after he checked the box indicating he was an alcoholic. According to MyCentralJersey.com, the man’s run-ins with the law more than 30 years ago also led to their decision to deny the permit application.”

The key problem here is the definition of “alcoholic.” It is commonly said that someone who is an alcoholic once never stops being an alcoholic, even if they give up drinking.

That’s because drinking never ceases to be a temptation for people in that situation. They simply learn how to manage the temptation.

Apparently in New Jersey, this means these people are stripped of their gun rights for the rest of their life.

The article continues, “What would have happened if the applicant simply lied on his application form and said he wasn’t an alcoholic? Would that eight-day period in 1992 have been enough for the East Brunswick police to reject his gun permit application?”

That seemingly would have been the only way this man could have avoided having his Second Amendment rights taken away.

He lost them not by being a criminal, but by having a personal struggle 30 years ago that he has long since resolved.

But evidently, the bureaucrats who work for the state of New Jersey will never stop punishing him for it.

Liberal states will never stop looking for ways to prevent their citizens from owning guns, even if they have to go to extremes to make it happen.

It remains to be seen if this man will appeal his case to a higher court. If he does, maybe they can put a stop to this unjust law.