Page 1 of 1

This is huge...

Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:00 am
by onerifle
....What is surprising is how the justices lined up... :shock:


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3154074

April 26, 2005, 10:05AM

Supreme Court rules in favor of gun owner
Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled today that people convicted of a crime overseas may own a gun in the United States.

In a 5-3 decision, the court ruled in favor of Gary Sherwood Small of Pennsylvania. The court reasoned that U.S. law, which prohibits felons who have been convicted in "any court" from owning guns, applies only to domestic crimes.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the majority, said interpreting the law broadly to apply to foreign convictions would be unfair to defendants because procedural protections are often less in international courts. If Congress intended foreign convictions to apply, they can rewrite the law to specifically say so, he said.

"We have no reason to believe that Congress considered the added enforcement advantages flowing from inclusion of foreign crimes, weighing them against, say, the potential unfairness of preventing those with inapt foreign convictions from possessing guns," Breyer wrote.

He was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that Congress intended for foreign convictions to apply. "Any" court literally means any court, he wrote.

"Read naturally, the word 'any' has an expansive meaning, that is, 'one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind,'" Thomas said.

He was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy.

Small had answered "no" to the felony conviction question on a federal form when he bought a handgun in 1998, a few days after he was paroled from a Japanese prison for violating weapons laws in that country.

Small was indicted in 2000 for lying on the form and for illegally owning two pistols and 335 rounds of ammunition. He later entered a conditional guilty plea pending the outcome of this case.

The Bush administration had asked the court to apply the statute to foreign convictions.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist did not participate in deciding the case, which was heard in November when he was undergoing treatment for thyroid cancer.

The case is Small v. United States, 03-750

Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 12:11 pm
by Kalrog
That is how I would expect the justices to line up. Strict/literal interpretation vs. living document thing. Although I think that this one was intended to be a US felony only thing - we have no business looking at other countries laws for any reason.

Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 12:54 pm
by HighVelocity
I'm glad this has been settled. :)

Question - anyone remember this?

Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 9:53 am
by BobCat
There was an FFL that used to have a table at the Spring gun show, whose company name was Tommy's Guns. This was a few years ago.

Apparently he went to Mexico - just over the border for dinner? - and got arrested for having abox of .22 in his truck. This is all from memory, apologies if I've messed up the details.

Anyway, he lost his gun rights and FFL and, within the last year or two, seems to me went to court to get reinstated; and lost.

Do any of you recall this, and have any information? Maybe I've got it all wrong but it seems to me having ammo is a felony in Mexico but not here, and that felony charge is what cost him here in the US.

Any info appreciated.

Regards,
Andrew

Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 10:01 am
by Paladin
Great news!

I see no reason for US citizens to loose their constitutional rights for convictions in other countries. Many overseas laws are stupid in the first place.... I still remember the case of the US citizen who was convicted of a felony in Mexico for having a box of ammo in the back of his truck. And the court is correct that other countries don't have the same standards as our courts.

Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 9:57 am
by Baytown
Bobcat, I remember what you are talking about. His case, I may have this wrong, was based on the fact that he had appealed to the ATF for his rights to be reinstated. That was a provision under the GCA of 68 (I think, if I'm wrong, don't slap me too hard), but the funding for the appels process does not get funding anymore. There is an appeals process if the ATF says "no". The guy went to court, but the court ruled he could not appeal because the ATF did not say "no", they just never gave him an answer.

Am I close to being right on that one?

Glenn

Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:14 am
by BobCat
Glenn,

Honestly I don't recall. It all just seemed so unfair and goofy to me that I got mad without retaining any of the details. I used to go to his tables at the show and he had lots of nice stuff. My friend bought a new (but real old) Rem. 700 in .35 Whelen from him. Beautiful rifle and it printed real well.

To loose your rights over a box of .22 - that just drives me nuts! To loose your rights over something that isn't even illegal where you normally are - that's one reason I don't go anywhere, I don't like their laws but feel constrained to obey them, as long as I'm in their state/country.

Someone on here must recall this case. I'll find time to do a search and post the results if I find anything out. Seems like this Supreme Court case would have supported his position.

Regards,
Andrew

Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:17 pm
by MoJo
Baytown wrote:Bobcat, I remember what you are talking about. His case, I may have this wrong, was based on the fact that he had appealed to the ATF for his rights to be reinstated. That was a provision under the GCA of 68 (I think, if I'm wrong, don't slap me too hard), but the funding for the appels process does not get funding anymore. There is an appeals process if the ATF says "no". The guy went to court, but the court ruled he could not appeal because the ATF did not say "no", they just never gave him an answer.

Am I close to being right on that one?

Glenn
Yes you are pretty close to right. It's a dead issue since this last ruling. The "Beaumont Enterprise" had a story about this yesterday Mr. Bean will get his firearms rights back now.

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:58 am
by BobCat
MoJo,

Thanks! Based on your info I found the link to the story:
http://www.southeasttexaslive.com/site/ ... 2588&rfi=8

Good news!

Purrrs,
BobCat