| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/27/2005 5:07:26 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Flamewar |
Posted on 04/26/2005 7:53:22 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday 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. ------
I guess it depends on what the defintion of "any", "is".
bring me your tired, hungry and criminals and let them melt here. What is the court thinking... Where is the law that says criminals in other countries are not allowed here.
Carrying anything sharper than a pencil in Japan is violating weapons laws in that country...
First time for everything. I don't agree with Thomas' interpretation. It does not make sense. In the strictest sense of the law, events in U.S. should matter, but not events in other countries. This is the scope of the Constitution -- our country, and only our country. Albiet, if the U.S. had entered into a treaty which required such international interaction or influence, THAT is different.
But in general, if Germany legalizes something, that should have NO INFLUENCE OR EFFECT on legal decisions or the interpretation of U.S. law.
Thomas needs his head examined. In Saudi Arabia "any court" will hand down a conviction to a woman for driving a car, going out in public without being covered head to toe in a black tent, etc., and to anyone for any public display or speech opposing Islam or supporting any religion other than Islam. In China "any court" will convict anybody for handing out flyers expression opposition to the government.
Seriously. In Cuba, it's a crime to even attempt to leave the country.
so muxh for the "international law" comments recently, by SCOTUS in another ruling.
I agree. US courts should not be governed by foreign courts or foreign law.
So Scalia and Kennedy dissented as well
I'd love to know how there can be a 5-3 majority that says "We can't use the decisions of foreign courts" when it applies to gun laws and their effect on convicted criminals, but within the same court, another majority that seems to be hell-bent on using foreign laws and court decisions to justify some of their opinions, like the Texas sodomy case.
Oh I see it says so in the article
And the gun dealer from Texas who was convicted for accidentally carrying a box of ammo into Mexico?
He'd sued to have the BATF consider his petition for restoration of his RKBA. And SCOTUS turned him down.
Does the Mexican conviction no longer count, so that he can own guns again?
In fairness to Thomas, breaking the laws of another country does provide the court with some degree of precedence with respect to an individuals propensity to respect the laws of this country.
ping
Looks like their pro-crime philosophy trumps their anti-gun philosophy.
In some countries merely worshipping as a Christian is a crime. And, has been pointed out, women in other countries can be prosecuted simply for driving a car.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.