A police officer shot by a suspect convicted of previous homicide has people questioning gun restoration laws
To D&C this seems like the most tragic circumstance that could have been prevented, we do believe that the second you murder someone else or if you have a history of violent felonies, you forfeit your right to have a gun.
Read more thoughts on this after this article.
The fatal shooting of a Fargo police officer responding to a domestic disturbance has spurred efforts to clamp down on North Dakota’s gun restoration laws, which researchers say are among the most forgiving in the nation.
The suspect in the Feb. 10 shooting death of Officer Jason Moszer was convicted of negligent homicide for shooting a Grand Forks man in 1988, but state laws did not disqualify Marcus Schumacher from having his gun rights restored.
A lawmaker who represents the district where the shooting took place is proposing a bill prohibiting violent felons from possessing firearms.
Federal law prohibits someone convicted of any federal felony from owning a gun. The restoration process for felons convicted of state crimes is varied, complicated and in some cases as specific as allowing the use of shotguns, rifles, muzzle loaders and antique weapons, but not handguns or concealed weapons.
Only a handful of states, including North Dakota, automatically restore gun rights
— even to violent felons — after sufficient time has passed without requiring petitions or pardons, said Margaret C. Love, a Washington pardon lawyer who has researched restoration laws. She said felons in more than half the states can usually get back their gun licenses, although typically not for violent crimes.
“North Dakota laws are not typical, but they are also not unique,” Love said. “New Mexico and Louisiana have schemes that are similar to North Dakota’s, and there are a number of states that don’t limit long guns at all for anyone.”
Bruce Quick, a prominent Fargo defense attorney, said any changes in the law should be specific about the types of crimes that would prevent a felon from legally getting a gun.
“I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to limiting it to murder convictions,” Quick said. “… Just simply saying that with any felony of violence there is no restoration, I think is a bad idea.”
We understand that our forefathers created the Second Amendment with the specific word, “Shall not be infringed,” but things were different back then in that society would not tolerate evil people. They took care of the bad apples in society in a different way than we do now.
So I think it’s extremely reasonable to deny someone their right to a firearm depending on the severity of crime. Murderers, rapists and violent people should have their rights revoked when they make the choice to victimize other. It seems that would prevent future crimes and make for a safer society.
Maybe you have a different opinion, we would love to hear it in the comments!
