points to the 1995 amendment to North Carolina law that retroactively barred Burleson from possessing firearms, and argues that at the time nked to the restoration itself, § 921(a)(20) necessarily excludes state-law restrictions enacted after that restoration has been effected. “[I]t cannot be that ‘such ... restoration’ includes laws that had not been passed at the time the restoration occurred.” Id. And that reading is confirmed by use of the present tense in the phrase “expressly provides,” the “plain meaning” of which is that courts must determine the effect of a restoration of civil rights “at the time it is granted and cannot consider whether the defendant’s civil rights later were limited or expanded.” See United States v. Cardwell, 967 F.2d 1349, 1350-51 (9th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Congress could have enacted a statute
recognizing rule that state law governs the substance of claims in bankruptcy proceedings holding texas law governs the procedural matter of preservationoferror requirements even if another jurisdictions law governs substantive issues holding that law at time of restoration governs  921a20 inquiry holding texas law governs procedural matters holding state law governs disputed ownership of lands