Firearms; possession following conviction of certain crimes, penalty. (HB48)
Introduced By
Del. Marcus Simon (D-Falls Church)
Progress
✓ |
Introduced |
✗ |
Passed Committee |
☐ |
Passed House |
☐ |
Passed Senate |
☐ |
Signed by Governor |
☐ |
Became Law |
Description
Possession of firearms following conviction of certain crimes; penalty. Prohibits any person who is convicted of stalking, sexual battery, or assault and battery of a family member that results in serious bodily injury from possessing, transporting, or carrying a firearm or any other weapon for a period of five years following his conviction. A violation would constitute a Class 6 felony. The bill also provides for the forfeiture of any weapon possessed, transported, or carried in violation of the prohibition. Finally, the bill provides for a process by which a violator may petition the circuit court for a reinstatement of his rights to possess, transport, or carry a weapon. Read the Bill »
Outcome
Bill Has Failed
History
| Date | Action |
|---|---|
| 12/03/2013 | Committee |
| 12/03/2013 | Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/08/14 14101057D |
| 12/03/2013 | Impact statement from VCSC (HB48) |
| 12/03/2013 | Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice |
| 01/07/2014 | Impact statement from DPB (HB48) |
| 02/03/2014 | Assigned Courts sub: Criminal Law |
| 02/03/2014 | Subcommittee recommends laying on the table |
| 02/12/2014 | Left in Courts of Justice |
Comments
Delegate Jim Scott proposed the exact same bill in 2013 HB1410, it failed.
I understand that the intent of Delegate Elect Simon’s 2014 HB48 is also to align with current Federal law.
These were my concerns with last year’s bill and now with this year’s version.
1-Sexual Battery is a misdemeanor in Virginia and this bill proposes a felony punishment. We can’t create restrictions against certain citizens who have a misdemeanor convictions that threaten a new felony!
There was supposed to be a “re-draft” of the 2013 version that would have made it a new misdemeanor crimes for those convicted of Sexual Battery, for this very reason, but the redraft was never posted nor voted on by the sub-committee.
2-There is no start date (July 1, 2014) for this bill to become law. This bill would be retroactive for citizens who are 1, 2, 3 or 4 years since a conviction. If they are gun owners or hunters they will be unknowingly committing a felony because we know the Commonwealth will not notify them ahead of time of the change in law.
By not having a start date this bill is a violation of ex post facto.
An ex post facto law (Latin for "from after the action" or "after the fact"), also called a retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.
In the United States, the Congress is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution. The states are prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 1 of Article I, Section 10. This is one of the relatively few restrictions that the United States Constitution made to both the power of the federal and state governments before the Fourteenth Amendment.
There was supposed to be a “re-draft” of the 2013 version that would have added a start date of 2013, for this very reason, but the redraft was never posted nor voted on by the sub-committee.
3-After the 5 year time frame has come and gone a citizen will have to file a petition, hire an attorney and go through the courts to get their right to own a gun back. If they have not been convicted of a new crime in that 5 year time frame why doesn’t the state just automatically return their rights on the 5th anniversary?
By requiring a petition to be filed we are wasting the courts time as well as the financial costs to the state and the citizen.
The top two reasons should not only be supported by most Firearms groups and owners but by any Constitutional and Civil Rights Groups.
Criminal laws (ex post facto does not apply to civil laws) that have violated ex post facto and have been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court only were because they were “administrative” not “punitive”.
Well, #1 and #2 above……… are 100% punishment!