Not long ago—last October to be more precise—Anchorage attorney and gun rights activist Wayne Anthony Ross was telling Flashlight how difficult it was to gather political support for specific group of people for whom Second Amendment rights were compromised—felons. (See the Press October 28 cover story “Hidden Punishment” at tinyurl.com/Hidden-Punishment.) The problem, in the eyes of Ross and other gun activists, is that Alaska laws restricting gun rights don’t match very cleanly with federal laws that extinguish a person’s gun rights whenever a state restricts those rights, even just a little.

A felon convicted in state court may have their rights re-instated so they can hunt or carry a firearm in bear country, but state restrictions on their right to carry a concealed weapon turn into a straight-up ban under the federal law.

Ross wants changes to Alaska criminal law. He says changing some state laws would help certain felons—the nonviolent kind, mind you—to avoid prosecution in federal court for illegally possessing firearms under a U.S. law. When Ross first shopped the idea to the Alaska legislators, he got little traction. In fact, at the time he hadn’t found an elected official to sponsor the bill. “They see the problem,” Ross said last fall, “but nothing’s happened so far.”

So Flashlight was bit surprised when we bumped into Ross last weekend and he told us a bill had been introduced, and has not just NRA support but support from legislators. We saw him at an NRA banquet at Wasilla’s sport arena—don’t snicker, it’s a family event. (And yes, an NRA banquet is what you might expect: prime rib and seafood, door prizes, gun auctions, gun raffles, gun accessories as prizes and laser-printed copies of the Second Amendment incorporated in the table decorations. And everyone, women and children included, dresses a bit like Heath Ledger in a romantic cowboy movie.)

Ross was excited about the gun rights bill’s progress so far. We asked about sponsors, and he rattled off the names of people he expected to support it. He promised to fax us a copy Monday morning. We thanked him and left to grab a gimlet from a bartender who needed the drink order translated to: “vodka martini with lime.” (This being a new millennium, “gimlet” is an antiquated word while “apple-tini” was being promoted a menu board as the evening’s special.)

We returned to work this week and learned that restoring gun rights to felons—as provocative as that sounds at first blush—is trendy in Juneau. Four bills address the issue this year. Mat-Su Republican Senator Charlie Huggins has a bill specific to concealed-carry restrictions. A longer but similar concealed-carry bill was introduced in the senate by Anchorage Democrat Hollis French. On the house side, Scott Kawasaki, a Fairbanks Democrat, has his own concealed-carry bill. The most comprehensive bill, the one Ross and the NRA are pushing hardest, carries the name of the Alaska House Judiciary Committee as sponsor, and addresses restoration of rights for convicted felons.

Cynics might note that politicians can use a committee-introduced bill to avoid backlash if the bill’s public image turns sour. House Judiciary Chair Jay Ramras says that’s not the case this time. He says the legislature sets a deadline for individual members to sponsor bills, and this one just missed that deadline. He says Representative Bill Stoltze (whose district stretches from Palmer to Peters Creek and likely includes a lot of homes with gun safes) brought the bill to the committee because the deadline for personally introducing the bill had passed.

The committee adopted a sponsor statement for the bill and is so far the only place testimony has been heard. The sponsor statement is mostly factual, revealing its spin just a handful of times by describing convicted felons as “ex-felons”—an artfully politic way to say someone did a crime and served their time.

Flashlight suspects this bill won’t move very fast (complex issues rarely move through the legislature with a quickness), but a look the House Judiciary Committee’s work shows that supporters have been shoring it up. The record includes a letter from NRA attorney Brian Judy explaining that a legislative fix is simple, but “the reason it is necessary is quite a technical and complicated interaction between state law, federal law and a U.S. Supreme Court decision…”

While voting rights advocates use the word “dignity” when advocating for felons, Judy writes, “with respect to the restoration of firearms there is not only the issue of dignity but of life and death.” He adds that in rural Alaska, possessing a firearm is necessary for gathering food and protection in the outdoors.

The gist of the U.S. Supreme Court decision is that unless a state restores all of a convict’s gun rights, federal law prevents the convict from possessing a weapon. This is problematic when purchasing guns that require background checks, or winning one in an NRA raffle for that matter. Alaska law grants all but a few rights for felons in three categories: people pardoned by a governor; people for whom the conviction was set aside; and, non-violent felons who have their rights reinstated ten years after serving their prison time and other obligations of the criminal sentence.

The committee bill allows Alaska to continue restricting gun rights for certain felons. There are provisions for restoration of rights after a decade of unconditional release (“unconditional” meaning probation and parole are complete), and the bill excludes criminals convicted of what the state calls “offenses against a person.” Those felony crimes run a gamut from murder and manslaughter to rape, kidnapping, human trafficking, stalking, sexual assault, online enticement of a minor and indecent exposure in the first or second degree.

Ramras says is confident in that language.

“There are specific statutes that separate the violent offenders out,” he says.

The sponsor statement, credited to the House Judiciary Committee, finishes with a statement that seems to recognize the uphill battle involved in advocating on behalf of felons, and of educating legislatures on a complex legal interaction: “We appreciate your input and assistance in determining the direction of this important policy decision.”

Ramras says testimony has been compelling and heartfelt. The committee heard from Alaskans who haven’t had their gun rights restored under federal rules, despite state laws that allow them legal access to firearms. (No recordings or transcripts of the hearings were available in time for this story.)

“We heard from people who are now 60 years old who are law-abiding citizens and they have had their gun rights taken away,” Ramras says. The committee heard, he says, “heart-wrenching stories from people who are abiding by the rules, and the rules they have to play by include the requirement that they are not allowed to possess a gun.”

scott@anchoragepress.com