​Stenehjem supports tougher gun laws for felons

Stenehjem supports tougher gun laws for felons

Says North Dakota law mirrors federal law but still needs to be changed

By Chris Hennen

As discussion has been sparked in North Dakota about changing our gun laws for felons following the shooting of officer Jason Moszer in Fargo by convicted felon Marcus Schumacher, we decided to ask North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem, also a candidate for Governor for the Republican nomination, for his thoughts on the matter as the state’s chief top law enforcement officer. In the clamor for information following the shooting, it had been reported that North Dakota’s laws for felons owning guns was less restrictive than federal law. However, Stenehjem says ND law mirrors federal law but he wants it stronger. So there is no loophole but that doesn’t mean there won’t be debate and discussion on in the next Legislative session.

HPR: Do you know how Marcus Schumacher was able to own guns, have you learned that?

Wayne Stenehjem: I hope you will understand we are investigating that case at BCI so I just don’t want to comment on it. We’ll be issuing a full report and of course I know what’s going on preliminarily but that investigation will be on going and when it’s done, that will answer the question.

HPR: It seems like there’s two laws in question here, one is the ability for petition for your rights to own guns after you’ve been a felon and the other issue is the North Dakota Century Code allowing a person to own a gun 10 years after a felony. Do you have any opinions on those laws?

Wayne Stenehjem: The first is our statutes that prohibit ownership in certain cases, there are a couple federal statutes and when we enacted our law in North Dakota as I recall, we mirrored federal law. First of all, there is a lifetime ban on possessing firearms for anybody convicted of a domestic violence offense even if it’s a misdemeanor. And then for violent offenses, the time period is 10 years or after you’ve completed your incarceration for a period of whatever probation there may be whichever is longer. The question on that is should there be a lifetime ban or should the Legislature take a look at extending beyond 10 years and I think the answer to that question for me is yes.

HPR: Do you know why the laws in North Dakota are different from federal laws on felons gun rights?

WS: I don’t think our laws are any different except we do have that provision that allows you to petition a court for your gun rights. That bill, it wasn’t our bill and we weren’t involved in it, was originally introduced to allow people who have antique guns or muzzle loaders to keep them and then it morphed into the law that we have on the books that allow you to petition though I am not aware of a case where anybody has actually done that. There may be some but I am not aware of any.

HPR: It was interesting on that bill, it passed in 2011 and it passed overwhelmingly which was kind of surprising to me. Do you remember the debate on that bill at all?

WS: It was quite a while ago. I remember that it was there and I remember that it was introduced because the sponsor of the bill who was Duane DeKrey had I think a constituent who wanted to have a muzzle-loading gun and then it just morphed into this statute though I am not sure how often it’s ever been used because you have to go through some considerable hurdles to convince the Judge that you have the right to possess a firearm.

HPR: I guess the only area where if somebody commits a federal offense they are going to be banned for life……

WS: That’s for domestic violence cases and I am just wondering well why shouldn’t other violent offenses mirror the domestic violence situation.

HPR: And you don’t know why that has been the case previous to this? Why would North Dakota be different?

WS: Different than what? I think our statute mirrors the federal law.

HPR: Oh it does?

WS: Yes, should it be longer than that for violent felonies and I think the answer to that question is yes it should. There are certain situations where it should be longer. We can enact statutes that are more but not less restrictive than the federal law and I think that’s a debate we need to have here.

HPR: As far as misdemeanors, you can apply that as well if it’s a violent offense? You can enact bans on firearms for that?

WS: No I don’t think so. And saying this off the top of my head. I think the federal domestic violence law prohibits us from enacting that statute to restore your gun rights.

HPR: I know you can’t comment on Marcus Schumacher’s case but in his particular case, there was a misdemeanor B offense in 2013 for pushing his wife and there was some question about whether that prohibited him from owning firearms. But as far as misdemeanors involving domestic violence, there’s no bans on owning firearms following those convictions now?

WS: That’s right. One of the things you need to be careful of and the courts need to be aware of is that sometimes you have someone that’s charged with a violent felony and may for one reason or another plea bargain it down to another offense and I think that’s something that a court needs to look at too.

HPR: But obviously this is something you expect to be a vigorous debate in the next session?

WS: I certainly hope so, it should be and I think it will.