Fargo Republican to Introduce Bill to Ban Violent Felons From Getting Guns Back

In the wake of the fatal shooting of Fargo Police Officer Jason Moszer responding to a domestic violence call at the home of Marcus Schumacher, many have wondered how someone previously convicted of a felony was allowed to possess firearms. There are have been various reports that Schumacher petitioned for his gun rights although the legislator we speak with below said that is unconfirmed.

The bottom line is this: the ATF told both the GF Herald and Valley News Live that Marcus Schumacher legally possessed firearms, whether he petitioned for that right or not. He would have been able to do that because state law differs from federal law in two ways. One, it allows felons to possess firearms 10 years after serving their sentences; and second, a change made in 2011 allows felons to petition judges to get their gun rights back.

In the wake of what happened to Officer Moszer, ND State Representative Blair Thoreson, a Republican from Fargo, says he will introduce legislation to permanently ban violent felons from having the ability to own or possess guns again.

Republican card-carrying members of the NRA aren’t usually quick to introduce bills taking away gun rights but Rep. Thoreson has no qualms about introducing this legislation in the wake of Officer Moszer’s death, because it affects people who consciously have harmed people. Read on for his plans on the bill and his recollections of what happened in 2011, when he was one of a few Republicans to vote against that bill.

HPR: Talk to me about your plans for the next session, to repeal the 2011 law which probably got Marcus Schumacher his gun rights back. Are you going to introduce legislation to close that loophole?

Rep. Blair Thoreson: First of all, there’s been some research and Legislative Council is looking into it for myself and maybe some others too, but I’ve asked them to look, and so far no one has seen that Mr. Schumacher had actually petitioned the courts for his gun rights back. So that’s still in question, whether it happened or not.

But I guess because of what happened, in light of that, people have talked to me about this, it happened right in our part of North Fargo, in the neighborhood, and we’re concerned that people could petition for that if convicted of a felony, after a certain period of time.

I talked to people in the area, people I represent, and contacted Legislative Council, and they are doing research on it to get a bill draft ready which would say -- we’re still not certain of the exact wording, but if you are convicted of a felony and it was due to a violent crime, crime with a weapon, domestic violence or something of that type, that you would then be ineligible to restore your gun rights after that because if you committed a crime of that type, you’ve made a conscious choice, and while I am a big believer in the Second Amendment, I think that if you’ve done something like that, you should sacrifice the right to have a weapon afterwards.

HPR: So really you are of the opinion that North Dakota law, the North Dakota Century Code, shouldn’t differ from federal law, at least in this case, because if you commit a federal crime right now, you lose your gun rights forever -- but according to these N.D. laws, you can get them back after 10 years.

BT: We had that bill in 2011, the bill that was introduced to allow felons to get their rights back. At that time, I voted against that bill. I just prayed it wouldn’t occur, where here we have a case where a felon did use it and a law enforcement officer lost his life because of it. Now it could’ve been anyone else, obviously we mourn because he was killed. But it could’ve been a family member, a citizen in the neighborhood, it could’ve been anyone.

HPR: Do you remember the debate over that bill in 2011?

BT: Somewhat. Unfortunately, in 2011, we still didn’t have the full video which we have now in the chamber. From 2013 on, those floor debates are recorded and archived and still on the website. 2011 is not as far as I can find. I don’t think we had that capability yet. I did go back and am getting the testimony from the Committees. Legislative Council is getting that. I am actually in Bismarck right now. I am going to meet with them tomorrow and kind of go through that to see what the arguments were for making the change.

But I guess even then, there were maybe just 10 or 15 of us in the House who voted against it. But I just didn’t think that was something we wanted, someone who committed violent crime to have a gun back.

I guess the distinction is some people say well, would this be for any felon, if it’s someone who was stealing money or that type of thing or ripping off someone’s retirement fund. I guess for those types of felonies, one could make the case that it wasn’t a violent crime -- so I am looking more at someone who has committed an act against another human being of violence, to ban them from having those rights.

HPR: Rep. DeKrey, the sponsor of that bill in 2011, has said the bill passed overwhelmingly?

BT: It did, it passed the Senate unanimously; and in the House it had, I want to say it was maybe 17 votes against and it was kind of an odd coalition if I remember right. I could probably look it up online but I don’t have a computer in front of me at the moment. But Duane DeKrey was the sponsor and there weren’t a lot of us who voted no. It just didn’t sit right with me. I am very pro-Second Amendment, allowing people to possess and use weapons, but if you’re a felon who’s done something violent you shouldn’t have that right.

HPR: I know the gun lobby is very protective of their rights. Sometimes they say it’s a slippery slope where if you pass one, it’s just going to snowball. Was it one of those types of things where they were putting a lot of pressure on these guys?

BT: They may have been, I am trying to remember. I’ve always had a strong rating from the National Rifle Association, I pay membership dues to the NRA. No, I am not a hunter, I just believe that they are right in most cases. I believe that they did lobby in support of that bill, but in that case, I did differ. I will reach out to people from the NRA or any other organization that represents people supporting the Second Amendment, saying I understand that and I am with you, but I think we should all be able to agree that in this case, if they’ve been convicted of a crime like this in the past, they’ve pretty much forfeited that right.

HPR: So is it your sense that because of what happened, unprecedented for a law enforcement officer to get shot as Officer Moszer did, and we saw the response from across the country as well as in the state, is it your sense that something like this will get broad support and pass pretty easily?

BT: I would hope it would get broad support, I don’t see opposition but this is just the very beginning of the process. Obviously we’re still a year away from the next Legislative session, well, about 10 months. We’ll introduce the bill, the first thing is the committee process where they can amend it. I am willing to work with people if there are certain things they want to change. I haven’t even seen a draft yet, I need to get that first and then I’ll be happy to take it around to whoever wants to see it and make suggestions. Sometimes you draft a bill and you have to go through quite a few rewrites before you even introduce the first version of it, and we’ll see where the process goes from there.

But my hope anyway is to get sponsors who are from both sides of the aisle politically, people who are more conservative, people that might be more liberal. I don’t want to make it about one specific person, obviously this kind of crystallized the issue, what happened, but we just don’t want to see it happen again to anyone in the State of North Dakota.

HPR: The other thing I had heard about Marcus Schumacher was not only did he have a gun, he had a bunch of guns -- it was an arsenal, was the term that was used, so it wasn’t just one or two.

BT: I guess someone could say well, he’s been a law-abiding citizen, but I believe he just had a conviction. And that’s the other thing I am not completely certain of in this case. He had some kind of an issue with domestic violence several years ago, so that would’ve been within the 10-year limit or period of time.

HPR: I heard that was a misdemeanor conviction in 2013, probation for pushing his wife. I’ve heard conflicting reports on that. One report I read said you are banned for five years from owning or possessing guns after a misdemeanor involving violence, and another report said there is no ban. It could depend on the type of misdemeanor you are convicted of as well.

BT: That’s the exact thing I asked Council to research because I am not 100 percent on what those time periods are, too. The first step in the process is to get a document which shows here’s where people would be able to restore their rights or lose them, so we can spell that out. Then when we can get that bill draft put in, obviously it would probably remove that in most cases where if it was a violent felony or some type of a felony using a weapon or beating up someone, a spouse or family member, that type of thing, then those kinds would go away but I guess the first step is just clearly defining when those time periods kick in.

HPR: Good luck on this. I appreciate you returning my call.

BT: Sure, I appreciate you making the call. Again I want to make it clear this is because people are doing something of a criminal nature which then would impact their rights. I believe we have constitutional rights but once you make that conscious decision to do some heinous act, you lose those rights, is the way I feel.

HPR: So this wouldn’t affect law-abiding citizens?

BT: Absolutely not. I will defend their rights day after day, but again in this case, it was someone who had done something very wrong, and whether he had them illegally or legally did it again. I want to make sure that they legally cannot possess weapons and then something would happen.