Gun-rights bill fails in panel
Measure would have allowed restoration to some felons
A bill intended to restore firearm rights to people with certain nonviolent felony convictions failed in a tight roll call vote in a House panel after more than two hours of discussion Tuesday.
House Bill 1013, sponsored by Rep. Vivian Flowers, D-Pine Bluff, saw support and opposition from members of both parties in the House Committee on Judiciary in a 9-7 vote. To pass, the bill needed the support of the majority, or at least 11 members, of the committee.
Several supporters testified the bill was needed to allow first-time offenders who received nonviolent felony convictions years ago to petition for the right to carry firearms for hunting or self-defense. Currently, people with felonies who wish to carry firearms must receive a pardon from the governor, which some supporters of the bill testified was difficult to obtain.
Opponents, including officials with the Arkansas Attorney General’s Office and the state Department of Public Safety, raised several concerns, including how the bill might create an additional route in state law for people with felonies to have their convictions sealed and conflict with the governor’s constitutional power to grant pardons.
The bill would allow a person convicted of certain nonviolent felonies to file a petition in court no earlier than 10 years after the completion of their sentence to have their conviction “discharged, dismissed, and sealed.” Flowers said the bill required felony convictions to be “discharged, dismissed and sealed” so a person could possess firearms without violating federal law.
The legislative intent clause of the bill notes that criminologists “studying recidivism have found that fel
ons usually have to stay out of trouble for about a decade before their risk of committing a crime equals that of other people with no criminal record.”
Flowers noted that under her bill, people with violent and nonviolent felony convictions could still apply for pardons from the governor within less than 10 years of completing their sentences.
The bill would not allow people to petition to have multiple felonies “that have no causal connection” to be discharged.
“If a person got in trouble at 19 and didn’t learn their lesson and then they got in trouble again at 23, two different nonviolent felony convictions, that person would not be eligible to restore their rights under this law,” Flowers said.
The bill, however, would apply to a person with a single conviction that included multiple nonviolent counts, Flowers noted.
Flowers said she began working on the bill two years ago after hearing from people with nonviolent felony convictions who hoped to have their firearm rights restored for hunting or self-defense purposes. She referred to one man who was arrested at least 20 years ago for possession of an illegal substance and is still unable to use a firearm to defend his family.
Flowers said around two dozen other states provide a pathway outside of a pardon for people with nonviolent felonies to have their firearm rights restored.
Dylan Jacobs, with the office of the Attorney General, described the bill as a “criminal justice bill” that would significantly alter how state law treats the sealing of criminal records. Under Flowers’ bill, Jacobs said, the state would apply the current standard for sealing misdemeanor convictions to felonies.
Arkansas law already includes the Comprehensive Criminal Record Sealing Act of 2013, he noted, which allows circuit courts to seal certain felony and misdemeanor offenses. Rather than replacing this act, Jacobs said he understood Flowers’ bill would provide another avenue for people to seal another set of felony convictions.
Jacobs also raised concerns that the proposed law would create separation of powers issues between the governor and courts. He argued the bill would serve as “an end run around the governor’s authority to review and grant” pardon requests.
Jacobs noted Flowers’ bill was also “pretty explicit in how it directs the courts to deal with sealed records.”
“It’s quite possible that it would be struck down by the courts as unenforceable, in particular because of the provisions about removing records from the docket sheet specifying exactly what can and can’t show up when someone goes and views records of a criminal docket,” he said.
Since the bill excludes specific felony convictions rather than listing the convictions it would apply to, Jacobs said he couldn’t be sure of all the felony offenses the proposed law might address.
“There’s a section of the 2013 act that lists pretty clearly which offenses are eligible to be sealed. The bill here is everything but a long list,” he said. “I don’t know how many of you have seen the code books of the criminal law. They’re very thick. There’s a lot of them. I don’t know what all the offenses are in there certainly.”
The language of the bill includes a list of at least 29 offenses, including homicide, kidnapping and robbery, that the legislation would not apply to. Some nonviolent felonies, including felony fleeing and residential burglary, are also included in the list. Flowers said the bill included additional language intended to address felonies that may not yet be in state code.
Tim Loggins, executive vice president of Gun Owners of Arkansas, spoke in favor of the bill and noted that the section of the Arkansas Constitution providing the governor with the authority to grant pardons doesn’t appear to grant the power solely to the governor.
“I’m pretty sure the folks that wrote our Constitution would have wrote ‘the sole power’ instead of ‘the power,’” he said.
Loggins also pointed to Article 2 of the state Constitution, which details the rights of citizens, including the right to bear arms, and concludes in Section 29, which states “everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of the government.”
While Mike Hagar, secretary of the state Department of Public Safety, said the pathway to restoring firearm rights may need to be expanded, he said he was concerned the bill would “turn that four-wheeler path that needs to be widened out into an interstate system.”
Tammy Bare voiced her support for the bill, saying she didn’t feel safe living alone in an apartment complex and wished she could carry a firearm for self-defense. Harold West said that after being convicted of a felony he was unable to take his grandchildren hunting.
Scott Bradley, executive director of the Arkansas Sheriff’s Association, spoke against the bill alongside Gary Sipes, executive director of the Arkansas Association of Chiefs of Police. When a person applies for a pardon for a felony conviction, Bradley and Sipes said, local law enforcement was required to sign off on the application. Under Flowers’ bill, Bradley said it appeared police and sheriff’s offices would not be consulted.
Bradley noted that before deciding to oppose the bill, his association had previously voted to remain neutral.
Matt Durrett, a prosecuting attorney and president of the Arkansas Prosecuting Attorneys Association, said he didn’t oppose the spirit of the bill but was concerned about how it might allow for sealing additional felony convictions and limit a judge’s discretion on whether a petition should be granted for discharging convictions.
Durrett said his association had worked with Flowers on the bill.
In all, eight people signed up to speak for the bill and at least six were present to testify against it, according to the committee sign-up sheet.
In closing, Flowers emphasized the bill had bipartisan support. She said she worked with other lawmakers on the bill and pre-filed the legislation to allow time for various groups to suggest amendments.
“Everyone says they agree with the idea, they agree with the spirit, they work on the bill. And the day before we present I get a call, several calls. That’s political,” she said. “Some of the very people who helped me with the language two years ago, last year, sat at the end of the table and expressed concerns that I had not heard about yet.”
During the meeting, the committee also approved an amendment to the bill. Flowers said the amendment was needed to strike language outlining how a petition would restore voting rights, which is already covered by state law and the Arkansas Constitution. The amendment also addressed felony traffic offenses and a requirement for prosecutors to file petitions under certain conditions.