The NRA backs this well intentioned, but flawed act. The fact remains that taking away unalienable rights based upon less than felony behavior without any chance of restoration of the persons rights forever is immoral. This is most especially true when it is an ex post facto application of the law.
All to often the forces of political correctness prevail and mysandry is the order of the day. During my career as a Paramedic I went on so many Domestic Violence calls that it is mind staggering. In ninety percent of the cases there was no visible trauma, and in fact care and transport were refused by the “victim.” Yet, the “offender” was taken to jail and charged with a multitude of various offences.
Most often these people would take the carrot offered by the courts, and plead guilty. Then serve thirty six weeks, three times a week, of so called counseling where they learned that women are incapable of doing any wrong whatsoever. Further, that all men are evil, period. Not to mention the three days that they are required to spend in jail as a “cooling off” period.
Too be honest, women do get arrested for non felony Domestic Violence. The statistics at least at my last perusal reveal that this happens a whopping three percent of the time, and that when that does happen, the male is also taken to jail at least half the time too! He get the treatment noted above while she gets sent to “parenting classes” for twelve sessions, and that is in the very few cases where the charges are not dropped completely. I quit checking those statistics a few years ago because they just never changed more than a point or two over several years time.
Face it, domestic violence is something that should never happen irrespective of who initiates it male or female. However, the cure is worse than the problem. (I’m speaking of non felony situations here, not felony.) In addition to the clear fact that women are using this law as a weapon, along with the police and court system to get revenge for whatever reason without a crime having actually happened.
This new proposed legislation is a step in the correct direction but to be blunt, does not go anywhere near far enough. Read on…
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.