Gun law ensnares unmeant targets

Offenses committed long ago – such as drag racing and drunken driving
- keep some Pennsylvanians from buying firearms.

By Amy Worden, INQUIRER HARRISBURG BUREAU. Dec 26, 2000

http://inq.philly.com/content/inquirer/2000/12/26/front_page/SGUNS26.htm

HARRISBURG – Firearms have been part of George Bellum’s life for
most of his 51 years. He got a hunting license as a teenager, he collects
antique weapons, and he enjoys target shooting with his children on his
central Pennsylvania farm.

Today, Bellum, a law-abiding tree farmer from Bloomsburg, cannot
touch his guns. In fact, he cannot even legally own one – because he
was convicted of drunken driving more than 20 years ago.

Bellum, like hundreds of others, is trapped in a netherworld that may
be unique to Pennsylvania: People who once got caught drag racing
or stealing a loaf of bread are being swept into a net cast for dangerous
felons.

Federal law prohibits anyone from buying or possessing a weapon who
was convicted of a crime that carried a penalty of more than one year in
prison.

Several lawmakers say they are exploring legislative remedies.

When Bellum pleaded guilty to driving under the influence in 1975, the
crime was punishable by up to three years in prison. The law was
changed in 1976, but that did not help Bellum. “People can’t believe
that something that happened so long ago can keep them from hunting
or buying a weapon for protection,” said Ronald Stanko, a deputy attorney
general and administrative law judge who ruled on Bellum’s case.

He said the state Attorney General’s Office had handled 300 petitions
in the last 18 months from people who tried to purchase weapons and
were rejected after background checks turned up old crimes.

“We are inundated,” Stanko said.

Drag racing, larceny, and driving under the influence are the three main
offenses that once carried sentences of more than a year in prison.
Penalties for first offenses for these crimes are now greatly reduced
and would not prohibit gun ownership.

“I’ve had cases where people stole beer, some label that isn’t even
made anymore, or went drag racing back in the days of the ’56 Chevy,
and now they find they can’t own a weapon,” Stanko said.

A National Rifle Association official said he had not heard of another
state with a similar situation. “It seems like an anomaly to me,” said
Bill Powers, an NRA spokesman. Stanko and other judges who have
heard these cases say the law is unfair, but they believe their hands
are tied.

“There is no flexibility in the way we can rule,” Stanko said. “The problem
with the current law is the way it’s written: There are no exceptions.”

Bellum discovered that old crimes can come back to haunt you when
he tried to buy a gun in 1998 – the same year state police began
conducting criminal background checks under the federal Uniform
Firearms Act.

The check turned up Bellum’s 1975 DUI conviction, and his purchase
application was denied. He has gone to court twice in two years
petitioning to be allowed to purchase a firearm, and twice he has lost.

Late last month, when an appeals court panel turned down Bellum,
judges saw the inequity in the law. “Arguably, this result is unfair to
those individuals convicted of DUI prior to 1976,” Judge Joseph
McCloskey of the Commonwealth Court wrote.

By contrast, the maximum penalty today for first-time drunken drivers
is 48 hours in jail. “You have to have four DUIs before you lose your
right to own a weapon,” said Nelson Zullinger, secretary of the state
Board of Pardons. Zullinger has seen hundreds of petitions similar to
Bellum’s in recent years.

“We have seen an increase in filings because of the people who have
been rejected by the instant gun checks. Many have owned guns legally,
or so they thought, for years,” he said. Though the Board of Pardons
does not keep records by type of crime, filings doubled after 1998, when
the background checks went into effect.

In Bellum’s case, the Commonwealth Court opinion went on to say
that anyone whose application is denied could apply to the U.S.
Treasury Department through a process under which felons may
be granted exceptions to own firearms.

But according to the Treasury Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms, the agency has been unable to process any applications
since 1992 because of a lack of funds. Bellum cannot afford to appeal
to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, so his last hope would be a pardon
by the governor – a process that with an investigation and hearings could
take years. Bellum’s lawyer, Michael Lynn, said his client probably would
not request one for that reason.

“This calls for legislation. It is not fair,” said Merle Phillips
(R., Northumberland), who is on the Uniform Firearms Act
Advisory Committee and has commissioned a study of the
act to see whether it is applied equitably.

But he said that reopening a highly charged issue such as gun control
would be like throwing sparks into a tinderbox: It would almost certainly
spark a wave of competing amendments and could revive battles over
gun control that no one wants to get involved in.

Phillips said he did not have an amendment drafted but would like to
enact a time limit to clear Bellum and other once-youthful scofflaws.

“These things happened when they were young,” he said. “They have
been tremendous citizens. They should not have to suffer for what they
did years ago.”