The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Bergeman, 592 F.2d 533 (9th Cir. 1979):
This court is faced with the same problem of ambiguity. The majority has, however, chosen to interpret 922(h)(1) in such a manner that the states would be effectively denied the right to define the criminal status of persons who are charged with violations of their laws and who will be rehabilitated, if at all, under their programs. The interpretation would further interfere with state rehabilitation programs which offer expunction of criminal records in one form or another to promote speedy reassimilation of law offenders as useful members of society and to discourage recidivism. Cf. United States v. Potts, supra at 885 n. 3.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.