Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Weapons Possession topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate accepts House amendment to allow petition process after certain motor-vehicle-theft convictions, then repasses the bill
Summary
After extended floor debate about equal-protection and public-safety implications, the Senate receded from its position and concurred with the House on House Bill 11 71 (adding motor vehicle theft to offenses that trigger a possession-of-weapons-by-previous-offender prohibition), then repassed the bill.
House Bill 11 71, which adds motor vehicle theft to the list of offenses relevant to the offense of possession of weapons by previous offenders, drew prolonged debate on the Senate floor over whether the Houseamendmentcreating a petition process after 10 years raised equal-protection concerns.
Senator Hendrickson (sponsor in the Senate) described the House amendment as allowing an individual convicted of a qualifying first-degree motor vehicle theft (a third or subsequent offense) to petition a court to restore firearm possession rights 10 years after final disposition or release from supervision. Hendrickson urged the Senate to "recede from its position" and concur with the House amendment, saying the attorney general's office had reviewed the language and found it "defensible and winnable."
Other senators pressed constitutional and policy questions on the floor. Senator Doherty noted equal-protection concerns and said he would vote no. Senator Ball explained that the House amendment made the offense unique among other Palpo-eligible offenses and said he supported the Senate committee amendment in committee but would vote no on the floor action.
The Senate voted to recede from its position and concur with the House amendments (clerk recorded 28 ayes, 7 noes). The Senate then voted to repass HB 11 71; the clerk recorded final passage on the floor with a vote of 26 ayes and 9 noes.
Senators explicitly recorded the differing views: supporters said the petition mechanism addresses long-term rehabilitation and law-enforcement concerns in some communities; opponents raised constitutional equal-protection risks and said the change would treat motor vehicle theft differently from other offenses with similar collateral consequences. The transcript records multiple exchanges about the bill's history in prior sessions and the work of sentencing and criminal-justice commissions that informed prior deliberations.
