STUPAK RE- INTRODUCES SECOND AMENDMENT RESTORATION ACT

The Office of U.S. Congressman Bart Stupak ^ | April 29, 2009 | NA

[neverdem]

 

 

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.

[neverdem]

Where's the stupid party? They should have done this when they had the majority.

[bamahead]

They were busy passing internet gambling bans...

[BobL]

“Where’s the stupid party? They should have done this when they had the majority.”

What the Republicans need to understand is that the NRA is not like your typical liberal special interest group, which are basically wings of the Democratic Party and could care less about getting its agenda through, if it means more Democrats taking power.

Instead, the NRA will spend as much time and effort supporting a pro-gun Democrat as a pro-gun Republican. Republicans who go soft, trying to please that non-existent center, will pay the price.

[Dick Bachert]

Sensible legislation. What’s interesting — besides his being a Democrat — is that Stupak is a former cop.

[SunkenCiv]

Bullseye.

[Darren McCarty]

Stupak has come back home on this issue.

[neverdem]

Is that your Congressman?

[DoughtyOne]

You’re absolutely right. And that’s why many of us are absolutely furious with the Republican party these days.

I would go farther than this person suggests though. If a person has committed a non-violent felony where a gun was not involved, it’s not right for them to lose their gun rights in perpetuity.

Take that right away for a period of time, say ten years where they’ve kept a clean record, and restore their rights.

I would particularly address those who used tragically poor judgment in their youth, but have cleaned up their act and have been good decent members of their communities for as much as 40 years or more.

In the interest of open discussion, I am one such individual.

[DoughtyOne]

I don’t understand being a cop and a Democrat at the same time.

[neverdem]

They were busy passing internet gambling bans...

The Poker Players Alliance, which had fought the measure banning banks and credit card companies from servicing Internet gambling firms, targeted Leach and other sponsors with e-mails to its members and publicity in poker magazines. A post-election survey paid for by the gambling group found a net 5 percent swing against Leach attributable to that issue.

But he lost, 51 percent to 48 percent...

Stupid is as stupid does. Seeing him lose was some satisfaction. IIRC, he campaigned for Obama.

[mick]

I agree with you. Persons convicted of crimes that never remotely had anything to do with guns or violence, IE: White collar crimes, should not be denied for life the rights guaranteed under the second amendment for every American citizen, to protect their life and property.

I have always wondered why the second amendment is singled out for non-violent offenses. It would be the same logic, in my brain at least, to deny a person his first amendment rights for life if he is convicted of liable.

[DoughtyOne]

I like your analogy, but I can see a reason to balk at extending gun rights to someone who has used a gun in the commission of a felony. If you wanted to put a 15 to 20 year time limit on that infringement, we’d probably come to an understanding on the issue.

The libs talk a pretty good line when it comes to rehabilitation. According to them, nobody belongs in prison. Then they turn right around and stipulate that people convicted of crimes can never be rehabilitated when it involves guns.

And if you’re a dad and your wife wants you out of the house, idios gun rights. Mamacita has spoken!!!

[SunkenCiv]

Nope.

[SkyPilot]

SECOND AMENDMENT RESTORATION ACT

When was it revoked?

Oh yeah - never.

[mick]

"I can see a reason to balk at extending gun rights to someone who has used a gun in the commission of a felony"

Absolutely agree with you on this point.

And your point about disgruntled wives making trouble for a man's right to own a gun is just another example of the court system's tilt to the women.

And I agree also about the hypocrisy of the left when it comes to rehab for criminals. Which is why, although I agree with you, it grinds me that the first thing the left does for any crime is take away gun rights. Even drunk driving. As if honest hard working drunks don't have a need for protection!!

Further feminizing of the culture...but don't get me started.

[neverdem]

I would go farther than this person suggests though. If a person has committed a non-violent felony where a gun was not involved, it’s not right for them to lose their gun rights in perpetuity.

Take that right away for a period of time, say ten years where they’ve kept a clean record, and restore their rights.

I'd go for restoring firearm rights for all nonviolent felonies when the sentence is complete. The government doesn't guarantee your safety. Repeal the Lautenberg Amendment too, at least the part where your guilt is established by accusation without any evidence.

[DoughtyOne]

We’re on the same page here, and particularly the feminization of the culture.

I’m going off track a bit here, but the local evening news earlier this week addressed the new phenomenon of fights breaking out all the time outside venues, ‘much more than they ever used to.’

The fight movies are being promoted to our youth as if fighting is cool. Then you have HBO shoving that crap off on the youth. You have HDNet doing the same thing.

The point is, the movies are also moving men towards being wimpy crybabies who like to kiss each other.

It’s positively revolting.

More and more movies portray men as simpering idiots, while the women are cast as very intelligent and always the wronged party.

Don’t get me started either... obviously! LOL

[DoughtyOne]

Honestly, I think you’re right. There might be some exceptions, but I pretty much agree. If a person has shown that they are out of control, and truly menacing other people, and they only get convicted of a misdemeanor, I might still take their rights away for a while before it escalates.

[mick]

Amen, Brother !

[grellis]

If you would like to be added or dropped from the Michigan ping list, please freepmail me.