prior convictions could not be used to support a § 922(g)(1) charge because his civil rights had been automatically restored under Colorado law by the time of his arrest, and because state law permitted him to possess handguns. The district court disagreed with Hall on his claim that his civil rights had been restored. R. Vol. VII at 29-30. Noting a split in the circuits, the district court sided with the First Circuit in holding that a convicted felon’s civil rights can be “restored” under § 921(a)(20) only through an affirmative act by the state, specific to the felon, and not by mere operation of law. See United States v. Ramos, 961 F.2d 1003, 1008 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 364, 121 L.Ed.2d 277 (1992). But see United States v. Thomas, 991 F.2d 206, 212 (6th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 607, 126
holding that a person has standing to bring suit under the civil rights act if she or he can show that she or he was punished for trying to vindicate the rights of minorities holding that jones act claims can be brought either in admiralty or at law holding that state can restore civil rights either affirmatively or automatically individually or generally holding that the private right of action available to individual indigents can be used either affirmatively or defensively holding that the state must affirmatively act to curtail the individuals freedom such that he or she can no longer care for him or herself