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.

[RatsDawg]

Sometimes I think Bart is more conservative than my congressman Upton.

[Sioux-san]

Stupak actively supported John Edwards for President before he crashed and burned. So, a more liberal guy you won’t find on many issues. He represents an area in northern Michigan where my Mom lives. He’s a Yoopper, too. So, how did he get so liberal????

[Category Four]

I don't care what his party is ... anyone who's for the Second Amendment is OK in my book.

[Darren McCarty]

I got family up north as well. The UP is not that conservative. It is on social issues outside of Marquette, but the main industry there is government. The mines are closed. The timber industry isn't the same. What's left? Prisons. Corrections. That's the dominant industry up there.

The UP isn't as democrat as it used to be. It voted for Dukakis, and later for Bush twice, but still has a lot of its democrat heritage on the state level. Much of that has to do with Dominic Jacobetti and Joe Mack who represented the UP in Lansing. They were the Senator Byrds on the state level.

As for Stupak, he's pro-life, and recently kissed and made up with the NRA so he's popular with them again. On economics, the UP leans center-left. Stupak fits the profile.

[Sioux-san]

Thanks for the information - it all makes more sense now.

[Gilbo_3]

“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 only see a complete disconnect from reality, basically, if a person [convicted 'felon' or otherwise] is deemed too dangerous to be armed [as if they wont be if they want to be] why are they walking around free on the streets with my wife and kids ???

i could see maybe a probation period along the lines of the current parole system, but even thats a stretch regarding human God given self defense...

i have 'felons' in my family, as well as Im sure some of my old runnin buddies from the wild days...Id hate to think that if a coyote was after my 2 yr old daughter that one of them would hafta balance their potential freedom vs saving her life...I know thats pretty unrealistic...but hey its 'the law'...

[Clint Williams]

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."
I only see a complete disconnect from reality, basically, if a person [convicted 'felon' or otherwise] is deemed too dangerous to be armed [as if they wont be if they want to be] why are they walking around free on the streets with my wife and kids ???

The NRA, as wishy-washy as it's ever been if not more, is trying to have it both ways.

The instant you have a ban of any sort on possession, no matter how limited the ban, you have background checks, waiting periods, bureaucracies, bureaucratic snafus AND the camel's nose of "regulation" leading to prohibition fully under the tent.

I say let convicted felons own guns after release -- after all, history shows if they're going to use guns to commit new crimes the prohibition doesn't even slow them down. (All it does is make gun ownership more onerous for law-abiding folks.) BUT... if you have a prior felony gun-related conviction and commit a new crime with a gun, you should be looking at Life Without (parole or any other release other than reversal).

But way too many FReepers, and others who "think" by "feeling," feel this would be a bad idea.

So it will never happen.

Instead, your gun ownership rights will continue to be eroded.

With your consent.

[neverdem]

The Gathering Storm Over Guns

Controlling Doctors’ Decisions

I.F. Stone, Soviet Agent—Case Closed

The Future of the GOP - a symposium

Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[mick]

Hey Williams, good post!

There is always a guy like you in every political foxhole that sees clearer than the rest of us and grabs his weapon and charges forward while the rest of us are still looking out through the fog. I was thinking the same thing but didn't take it to it's logical conclusion or maybe was too cautious to say it.

You are right but I'm afraid the culture has become way too feminized and sensitive to agree with us. But with more guys like you to say these things openly, the more other people will "think" and not just "feel", as you say.

[snowsislander]

Here's my own version of a new federal statute, which I have named "The Federal Firearms Freedom Recognition Act":

The Federal Firearms Freedom Recognition Act

1. Title 18, Part I, Chapter 44 of the U.S. Code is hereby repealed.
2. Title 26, Subtitle E, Chapter 53 of the U.S. Code is hereby repealed.

(Title 18, Chapter 44 is the chapter dealing with federal criminal laws with respect to firearms, and can be found, for instance, here at Cornell. Title 26, Chapter 53 is the chapter of the Internal Revenue Code that is an utter blight on the RKBA; it can be found here at Cornell also.)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[DoughtyOne]

Home invasion fears are somewhat unrealistic too, but I have a very limited view when it comes to who should be unable to defend themselves (and their families) against such an attack.

I do think the infringements should be limited to people who have displayed decisions in the past, that would make them a clear physical threat.

It’s a human right to be able to defend yourself, now, or if society should go south in your area.

[gundog]

Take that right away for a period of time, say ten years...

Not drawing a comparison, mind you, but the last guy I heard vocalize that sentiment was in a gun shop, asking the clerk for enough 9mm ammo to go shoot up a neighboring city's police station. It seems that they'd taken away his weed.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

There is no principled support for the 2nd amendment at upper GOP leadership levels, it is just another bargaining chip, and negotiable as such.

[DoughtyOne]

LOL

[CRBDeuce]

Instead, the NRA will spend as much time and effort supporting a pro-gun Democrat as a pro-gun Republican.

Unfortunately, with a Commiecrat party without scrupples, in a 2 party system, that's how you end up with a 2006 and 2008! And I agree we have ACORN, the NRA (and other gutless RINOs) to thank for all this 'entertainment' for the next 4 years. Just that old saw 'feed the crocodile and you'll be the last one eaten' keeps coming to mind. Never quite seemed to work out that way in the past. Many of us ditched our 'pro-gun' Democrat friends when we found out they're lying about everything else, too!

[ExSoldier]

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

Actually, you have in your mind the image of a traditional law enforcement officer, not one that is a product of the public schools within the last 20 years. Kids today are taught (nationwide) that guns are for the police and the military. Therefore police officers tend to approach the job with a sense of entitlement and elitism. Yes they really do want to bust the bad guys and all that but they feel uniquely threatened by the reality of a lawfully armed citizen.

What is is taught in the public schools? Abortion on demand. Gay marriage. Gay adoption, Socialism. Communism. Fascism. Anything except capitalism, free market concepts and traditional Christ based morality. Conservatism tends to be ridiculed K-12 and at the higher levels of academia, crushed. Toss the traditional "Three R's" right out the window. "Readin, 'Rightin' and 'Rithmatic are gone in favor of outcome based education. The new religion now actually promoted in schools as it seems to be nationally, even globally, is environmentalism. Face it, the world looks a lot less like the visions of the Founding Fathers and a lot more like the Book of Revelation.

In other words, the world is proceeding exactly according to PLAN. It's a plan that can't be stopped and indeed, is nearing total completion. So buckle up. The ride is going to get bumpy.

[stevie_d_64]

...interesting...

[DoughtyOne]

I agree with your comments nearly in total. I must say, I still cannot watch what passes for reasoned thought on the left ‘anti-police’ anti ‘law-enforcement’ anti ‘reasoned sentencing’, advocating putting ‘criminals’ back on the streets, then vote for the Democrats.

I wouldn’t go out and risk my life every shift and vote for the folks who would morn the loss of a dead drug dealer, more than the loss of a good police officer.

[Tribune7]

I’m with Stupak. I think I’ll get a t-shirt made.