• phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    “Until restoration of civil rights” is the important bit. Since NY hasn’t removed his civil rights he doesn’t have to “restore them”.

    • BrokenGlepnir@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I think the important part is that it’s florida that’d be removing them, and the rest of it that I didn’t copy is how florida restores them. This is Florida’s constitution. If we interpreted that way, he can never get them back. Florida took them away and he cannot have them back until NY restores them, which they can’t

      • phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Well that’s the thing Florida doesn’t remove them in the first place if the other state doesn’t. Your interpretation would create a legal catch-22 which doesn’t make sense per the default of people having rights.