House Judiciary adopts interim study on a bill that narrowly fell short last session
The House Judiciary committee on Thursday reopened debate on whether some nonviolent felons should regain their firearm rights after a period of demonstrated rehabilitation, with supporters arguing the state’s current lifetime prohibition is overly broad and punishes people long after they have rejoined society.
Rep. Scott Richardson of Northwest Arkansas presented his interim study proposal, ISP 2025-045, calling it a continuation of work that began last session. The bill aims to restore Second Amendment protections for a specific group of offenders: people convicted of nonviolent felonies who have completed their sentence and remained crime-free for a substantial period.
“Does the punishment fit the crime?” Richardson asks
Richardson, who has fielded “no less than a hundred phone calls” about the bill since session ended, told colleagues the measure is meant to create a narrow pathway for restoration — not a blanket reinstatement.
His argument hinges on proportionality:
- If a person has committed no violent offense,
- has served their sentence,
- paid all fines and court costs,
- and has remained law-abiding for 10 years,
then, he said, the lifetime loss of firearm rights no longer fits the original wrongdoing.
“These are nonviolent people. Why are we taking their gun rights away in the first place?” Richardson asked. “If they’ve returned to what we consider societal norms, should we continue to restrict that right for the rest of their life?”
He also pushed back on the idea that governors’ pardons make legislation unnecessary, noting pardons are rare and discretionary, while the legislature has the constitutional responsibility to define and calibrate criminal punishments.
Questions on deterrence, consistency, and other states’ models
Members pressed Richardson on how the proposal fits with the belief that the loss of rights serves as a deterrent.
Rep. Tippi McCullough voiced concern that allowing some felons to regain gun rights could “open the door to cherry-picking” which crimes carry lifelong consequences. Richardson countered that deterrence makes sense for violent offenses but is misaligned for nonviolent addiction- or substance-related crimes.
“Criminals are going to do criminal things,” he said. “The only people this is keeping from their firearms are law-abiding people — and that’s who we probably shouldn’t be punishing.”
Rep. Jon Eubanks noted that states like Florida already offer a formal restoration process, and many states do not permanently remove gun rights for nonviolent felonies at all. Richardson said his research found 28 states with restoration pathways, and 15 that never strip firearm rights in these cases.
Committee moves the study forward
Members questioned technical issues raised last session — including State Police concerns about updating state and federal databases — but Richardson said some of those problems had been resolved.
With no witnesses present and no further objections, the committee voted to adopt the interim study. Adoption allows Richardson to continue revising the bill and working toward a version that can pass when the legislature reconvenes.
