Second Amendment Restoration Act

[Rich-D]

For Immediate Release
April 29, 2009 Contact: Nick Choate
(202) 225-4735
STUPAK RE- INTRODUCES SECOND AMENDMENT RESTORATION ACT

WASHINGTON – U.S. Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Menominee) has introduced legislation to restore the gun rights of individuals convicted of minor, non-violent crimes. H.R. 2153, the Second Amendment Restoration Act, ensures states have the discretion to restore individuals’ gun rights after conviction of minor crimes. The National Rifle Association (NRA) has endorsed the legislation.

“The Second Amendment provides for the right to bear arms and individuals should not forfeit that right due to convictions for minor crimes,” Stupak said. “I appreciate the support of the NRA as I attempt to clarify that individuals convicted of minor crimes decades ago should not be subject to lifetime bans on gun ownership.”

Federal law prohibits individuals convicted of felonies from owning guns. Federal law also gives states the discretion to determine which state crimes are treated as felonies. Due to the way the courts have interpreted some of the most antiquated state laws, some individuals who were convicted of minor misdemeanors at the state level are treated as felons for the purposes of gun ownership, prohibiting them from owning a gun.

The Second Amendment Restoration Act would make it clear that a person with a conviction for a minor, non-violent crime, whose civil rights were never taken away, should not be treated any more harshly than a convicted felon whose rights were restored. It would also allow states to give individuals limited restoration of rights. Federal law currently allows for states to restore all or none of an individual’s gun rights but nothing in between.

The issue was brought to Stupak’s attention by a constituent who, now in his mid-50s, was convicted in 1971 of entering a non-occupied building. He was 18 at the time and the building was a deer camp. He completed his probation in 1972. In 2003, he applied to the county gun board to have his right to own a firearm restored. But because the 1971 crime he was convicted of was a minor, non-violent crime, he is still denied the right to own a handgun under Michigan law and therefore no gun rights can be afforded to him.

“To be absolutely clear, the NRA believes it is both constitutional and appropriate to disarm convicted felons,” NRA Director of Federal Affairs Chuck Cunningham wrote in a letter of support for the bill. “However, we also believe that no person should lose the right to arms due to convictions for minor, non-violent crimes, especially those that occurred many years in the past.”

“I am a strong supporter of our Second Amendment rights,” Stupak said. “The vast majority of gun owners are responsible sportsmen and women who like to hunt and shoot for sport. These activities are essential parts of our economy and our cultural heritage. I have consistently urged my colleagues to work for effective ways to curtail violent crime in America, but not by simply passing gun laws that unfairly penalize responsible gun owners.”

The NRA’s letter of support is available at: http://www.house.gov/stupak/NRAletterHR2153.pdf.


Rich

[d90king]

I think this is something that is long past due in certain instances. Keeping in mind that a simple divorce involving a PFA can restrict your rights for ever even though there were no basis for it in the first place.

[BluegrazzGuy]

I think it is reasonable to restore this right to those who have been convicted of non-violent felonies provided there is a waiting period following the end of the sentence or probation. Maybe 5 to 7 years. I guess that would be up to the states under this proposal.

[Rich-D]

Pa lists on it License to Carry Application the violent crimes and non violent crimes (Most require a 2nd offense) that bar one from a license. Petty Offenses do not!

http://www.co.venango.pa.us/Sheriff/license_to_carry.pdf


Rich

[Aguila Blanca]

I think it is reasonable to restore this right to those who have been convicted of non-violent felonies provided there is a waiting period following the end of the sentence or probation. Maybe 5 to 7 years. I guess that would be up to the states under this proposal.
Five to seven YEARS of not being allowed to defend yourself or your family -- because of a NON-VIOLENT crime?

What possible justification can there be for that? IMHO restoration of rights should be automatic upon completion of sentence.

[PhantomAce]

I tend to agree with Aquila.
Unless a weapon (gun, knife, or other) was used or threatened in the commission of the crime, or unless it was a non-weapon violent crime (rape, etc...) then it seems to me that a person that has completed their sentence should have the reasonable right to defend themselves just like everyone else.
What is the point of forbidding someone convicted of marijuana possession, for example, from owning a gun to defend themselves and/or their families for the rest of their lives?
Just my humble opinion though.

[Rich-D]

In Pa, Controlled Dangerous Substances that have in excess of a two year prison term, would bar one from gun possession. So, mere possession of Marijuana is not a bar, dealing in Marijuana is.

Rich

[PhantomAce]

Rich:
Thanks for the welcome! Been reading since site was launched, just never registered until this evening.

On to the subject at hand:
A good example would be people convicted of possession prior to easing of the laws. Back when I was younger, possession of Marijuana was a felony in NV, regardless of amount. So, theoretically, someone convicted of having a joint in possession way back when that got a hard judge, could be forbidden from owning a firearm now.

Think about it, if you got popped for having a joint when you were 18, is it reasonable to still forbid you from defending yourself, your wife and kids when you are 40?

[d90king]

Think about it, if you got popped for having a joint when you were 18, is it reasonable to still forbid you from defending yourself, your wife and kids when you are 40?


Those are the types of things that you should not need a pardon for to get your rights back IMHO.

[BluegrazzGuy]

Unless a weapon (gun, knife, or other) was used or threatened in the commission of the crime, or unless it was a non-weapon violent crime (rape, etc...) then it seems to me that a person that has completed their sentence should have the reasonable right to defend themselves just like everyone else. What is the point of forbidding someone convicted of marijuana possession, for example, from owning a gun to defend themselves and/or their families for the rest of their lives?
I don't know of any state where simple possession of marijuana is a felony and that's what we're talking about. Felonies are meant to be serious crimes and have serious consequences. I've seen the devastation even a white collar scam artist can wreak on the elderly, the gullible, and the desperate. I believe in giving people a second chance but they have to earn it. The recidivism rate is too high to simply trust those who have abused society's trust without some time period to assess their good behavior.

So, it doesn't bother me a bit that they forfeit some of their rights for a while.

[Rich-D]

I don't know of any state where simple possession of marijuana is a felony and that's what we're talking about.

It was in many States, until the 80's! So folks with a conviction during that time period have a Felony Record!

Rich

[kenhwind]

It was in many States, until the 80's! So folks with a conviction during that time period have a Felony Record!
Not only that if you do smoke maryj, you would have to lie on the ATF 4473 to purchase a firearm.

[PhantomAce]

BlueGrazzGuy:
I chose that example specifically from close experience.
In Feb-1980 my older brother, a HS senior at the time that had turned 18 just 2 months before, was out on a Friday night here in Las Vegas with a HS friend (another Senior) that happened to still be 17 at the time.
Brother got pulled over for a traffic "violation" (was the light yellow, or red?).
His friend's jacket was laying in the back seat of the car, so, technically, that made possession that of the driver (my brother), not the jacket owner (his friend).
In the inside pocket of the jacket was an 1/8th of weed.
Brother was arrested, charged with felony possession, as well as "contributing to the delinquency of a minor".
He got out of it, but it took a VERY good attorney, lots of cash, AND the lucky chance that witnesses were willing to testify as to "how" my brother really got "those bruises" after the cops found the weed.
If the charges would have stuck, he would not legally be allowed to own a gun in this state even to this day, almost 30 years later.

kenhwind:
I used to smoke weed myself, many years ago. But, I haven't had a hit in over 20 years now. I personally think pot should be legal, but it simply became too much of a risk to get caught with it, too much to lose.

[kenhwind]

I used to smoke weed myself, many years ago. But, I haven't had a hit in over 20 years now. I personally think pot should be legal, but it simply became too much of a risk to get caught with it, too much to lose.
Been there and done that, and I agree. The reason I posted was that in FL possesion of Pot even if it is a misdemeaner disgualifies a person to buy a firearm. I learned that from a dealer that had a conditional sale on a Star pistol. No sale and apparently that was why.