H1260: Well intentioned? Most likely. Excessive? Absolutely.

Today, the North Carolina House voted to pass H1260 “Amend Felony Firearm Act/Clarify Britt Case”, which is an effort to address the 2009 North Carolina Supreme Court decision in Britt v. North Carolina. 

In that case, the court reviewed a complete and permanent ban on non-violent felons owning firearms and, more specifically, how that ban applied to an ex-felon named Barney Britt. The legislature passed this ban in 2004. 

In 1979, Barney Britt was convicted of a non-violent felony of drug possession with the intent to sell. In the 30 years following his crime, Mr. Britt had not committed any other crimes and had even owned firearms for 17 years, before the 2004 ban prohibited him from doing so. After the prohibition was enacted, Britt complied and surrendered his firearms to authorities. The Court found that the ban was unconstitutional as it applied to Mr. Britt, due in large part to his long personal history of non-violence. 

Following that decision, Daren wrote a spotlight, which showed how the actions taken by the General Assembly in 2004 were excessive in curtailing constitutional rights. Daren’s conclusion was to recommend that “the legislature? take action in the 2010 legislative short session to change the law in response to Britt to prevent other ex-felons from having their constitutional rights violated by this overbroad law.” 

While the House should be applauded for seeking to address the Britt decision, the attempt made in H1260 is still overly excessive, mandating that non-violent felons with a single offense wait a full 20 years after having their rights restored before being able secure their right to bear arms. The permanent ban remains in place for those with two or more offenses. 

While recognizing that curtailing the rights of violent felons may in many cases be appropriate, an outright prohibition on non-violent felons’ right to bear arms simply goes too far. Prior to 1995 (as Daren previously noted), “North Carolina generally placed no such restrictions on non-violent ex-felons.” 

The new recommendation? If there must be a ban, make it a ban on legislative efforts that truly are overly excessive in curtailing the constitutional rights of non-violent felons — or anyone else.