The State cannot - for want of a better word - trump the US Constitution. The Constitution gives the President - even one that is mentally incompetent - essentially unchecked pardon powers. Any legal disabilities arising from a federal conviction are removed by a presidential pardon. A state cannot impose disabilities for a federal conviction that has been the subject of a presidential pardon.
A pardon does not extend prospectively for crimes committed after the date of the pardon. So, for instance, a pardoned felon is obliged, in the appropriate circumstances to truthfully answer an official inquiry whether s/he has been convicted of a felony.
Nevertheless, a presidential pardon removes any legal disabilities from the federal conviction - any deprivation of rights that occurs as a matter of law as a result of being a felon - e.g. the right to vote, right to possess weapons, run for pubic office, etc.
As the judge rightly ruled in this case, a pardon does not change the facts - the pardoned person nevertheless committed the crime. The effect of a pardon is to remove the penalties of the crime.
There are posts in this string concerning whether a pardon would have any consequence in later civil lawsuits for the actions resulting in the conviction. That may be a matter of state law. I have - so far - been unable to find any precedent on the question. If a pardoned person pled guilty to the crime, that would be an admission against interest and presumably admissible in a subsequent civil case. If a pardon person had pled not guilty but was convicted contrary to plea, the question is murkier. I could argue either side of the case and would be happy to do so at a reasonable hourly fee.
There. Wasn't the glib answer better?
= new reply since forum marked as read