U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Bean Case (2nd Amendment Rights restoration case)

Second Amendment Foundation via U.S. Newswire ^ | 10-15-02 | Dave LaCourse, Second Amendment Foundation

[deport]

U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Bean Case This Wednesday
U.S. Newswire
15 Oct 8:30

U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Bean Case This Wednesday: Court Will
Define Second Amendment Rights Restoration Nationwide, Says SAF
To: National Desk
Contact: Dave LaCourse of the Second Amendment Foundation,
206-979-4262; Web site: http://www.saf.org

WASHINGTON, Oct. 15 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The nation's highest
court will hear the Bean case on Wednesday, Oct. 16. This case will
decide whether people federally disqualified from firearm
possession can ever regain the right to own a firearm through
federal means. The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed an
amicus brief in the case.

"This has all the makings of a blockbuster case," said Dave
LaCourse, Second Amendment Foundation's (SAF's) Public Affairs
Director who will attend the oral arguments tomorrow. "Mr. Bean is
a good person caught in an unjust system who has quietly won his
rights back before all four judges who have heard his case. Bean
should force the high court into recognizing the need for second
chances as the lower courts are divided."

Mr. Bean's plight began as he and some friends decided to go to
Mexico for dinner. Mr. Bean, who had a federal firearms license
(FFL), told his companions to remove any ammunition in the vehicle
before crossing the border, but a third party failed to remove a
case of shotgun shells. Mr. Bean was arrested and was convicted of
a non-violent felony violation of Mexico's law for possession of
ammunition that would be legal for a law-abiding adult to possess
in this country. The concerns about this particular case forced the
Mexican government to reduce the penalty for this crime from a
felony to a misdemeanor--but only after it was too late for Mr.
Bean.

Congressional funding bans on Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms (BATF) monies have prevented the federal restoration of
the rights of any persons prohibited from owning firearms. In
short, the government claims that Mr. Bean and others like him have
no chance for relief. Yet corporation funding is still allowed!

"The lack of funding is creating miscarriages of justice, and
that is a perfect reason for the courts use their authority in
cases like Bean's," said LaCourse. "Nobody is even attempting to
claim that Mr. Bean is any threat, yet the Government continues to
try to bar the restoration of his firearms rights and his
livelihood as well."

SAF's brief focused on two crucial areas. First, that despite
the funding ban, the federal courts continue to have jurisdiction
for review for several reasons. SAF noted that the funding ban is
on the ATF, not the Secretary of the Treasury, who has the power
over rights restoration. In addition, the brief cites Kitchens v.
Department of Treasury (9th Circuit, 1976), where the court noted
that District Courts have original jurisdiction to consider the
application for relief from disabilities under 28 U.S.C. 1337(a) as
a "civil action or proceeding arising under any Act of Congress
regulating commerce" since federal gun laws are enacted under
interstate commerce powers. The U.S. Supreme Court previously
alluded to such relief in Lewis v. U.S. (1980) in footnote 2 of the
dissent.

Second, the SAF brief focused on the fact that the fundamental
right Mr. Bean is seeking to restore is the individual right to
keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. Supreme Court cases,
Constitutional history and key quotes were all used to support this
conclusion. In response, the Government admitted that the Second
Amendment is an individual right, but claimed that eliminating all
avenues of rights restoration was also constitutional. This is one
of first times the federal government has supported the Second
Amendment's individual right to keep & bear arms before the U.S.
Supreme Court. See http://www.saf.org for more details.

"Mr. Bean should prevail in his effort to restore his
fundamental individual right to own a firearm," concluded Dave
LaCourse. "We also hope the that high court defines the Second
Amendment right he seeks to restore."

http://www.usnewswire.com
-0-
/U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
10/15 08:30

Copyright 2002, U.S. Newswire

[deport]

Another article on the subject:

Bean case goes before high court

BETH GALLASPY , The Enterprise

10/16/2002

At stake is Vidor resident Tommy Bean's right to own and possess firearms.

Tommy Bean

WASHINGTON - From a block away the inscription above the main entrance, "Equal Justice Under Law," distinguishes the Supreme Court building from the dozens of other imposing white edifices on Capitol Hill.

Parties in fewer than 200 cases each year walk up the 34 steps from First Street and under that inscription for oral arguments before the nation's highest court.

This morning, Vidor residents Tommy Bean and Larry C. Hunter will join that elite company. Though a rare opportunity, it's one they would have preferred passed them by.

At stake is Bean's right to own and possess firearms. The 63-year-old, who is part owner of a used car dealership in Port Arthur, had his right to own guns restored by a federal district judge in 2000 after a felony conviction in Mexico for accidentally taking 206 bullets across the border.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision in 2001. However, the U.S. Solicitor General appealed to the Supreme Court contending that district judges do not have the authority to restore gun rights to convicted felons.

The Supreme Court's decision will determine if Bean can continue to pursue his love of hunting with firearms. In 1998 and 1999 before his gun rights were restored he used an old-fashioned black powder rifle instead.

Hunter, 50, a Vidor lawyer, has represented his hunting buddy Bean from 1998 efforts to have him freed from Mexican prisons through his gun rights case. Hunter will be at the counsel table today in his first appearance before the Supreme Court. But he plans to leave the 30 minutes reserved for Bean's argument to co-counsel Thomas Goldstein of Washington, who has experience before the court.

Earlier this year, lawyers for both parties submitted legal briefs summarizing the background, their legal arguments and prior decisions in support. The briefs follow the strict guidelines of the court including color-coded bindings - light blue for the first brief of the Solicitor General, the petitioner, with yellow for the reply brief, light red for Bean as respondent, light green for the Violence Policy Center brief supporting the Solicitor General and dark green for the briefs of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America and the Second Amendment Foundation supporting Bean.

From 10 to 11 a.m. today, lawyers will get their final chance to convince the nine justices of their reasoning as Bean, his wife, his daughter and her husband look on.

By June, the court will make a decision.

Bean, a native of Newton County near Bleakwood, said this past week that hunting and fishing have been part of his life since childhood even though his father and brother were not interested. A 9-point trophy from a deer-hunting trip near Alpine adorns his office wall. A week ago Sunday, he went dove hunting.

Before his 1998 conviction, Bean said, Mexico was one of his favorite hunting destinations. Now it would take handcuffs and a couple of strong men to drag him back.

Bean was a federally licensed firearm dealer in Laredo for a gun show in March 1998. He and three men working with him planned to cross the border for dinner, but in clearing Bean's Suburban of guns and ammunition overlooked five boxes of bullets.

Bean spent more than five months jailed in Mexico before being transferred to a U.S. prison. The penalty for the offense he was convicted of has since been reduced to the equivalent of a misdemeanor.

Bean said he does not understand government arguments that allowing a judge to restore his gun rights would set a dangerous precedent. "It would be on a foreign conviction," he said. "I'm just a country boy that's got a high school education. All I want to do is be able to hunt."

Reach this reporter at:

(409) 833-3311 ext. 425

bgallaspy@beaumontenterprise.com

[AdamSelene235]

I'm confused. How do you get jailed in an American prison for a crime committed in Mexico?

[Fiddlstix]

Bump
To read later

[FreeTally]

This is a crazy situation that I really never understood. The guy was convicted in Mexico of something totally legal in America.

[TeleStraightShooter]

the Violence Policy Center brief supporting the Solicitor General

This Bean dude did a really violent deed!
[/sarcasm]

[dd5339]

Ping!

[Iconoclast2]

The crazy part is that the Bush Administration appealed the case.

[deport]

I'm confused. How do you get jailed in an American prison for a crime committed in Mexico?

Don't ask me to start lying...... but it has something to do with a swap out provision between Mexico and Texas whereby a person in jail in Mexico can be transferred to the Texas system and serve his time. I say Texas system, it maybe a federal system. Mr. Bean served several months in Mexico before being transferred as I understand it.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Why will the supremes take this case and not Emerson?

Why does the Bush administration talk second amendment and
then pressure the court not to act in Emerson?

[Joe Brower]

[Petronski]

I don't trust them. I don't like this one bit.

[AdamSelene235]

Don't ask me to start lying...... but it has something to do with a swap out provision between Mexico and Texas whereby a person in jail in Mexico can be transferred to the Texas system and serve his time. I say Texas system, it maybe a federal system. Mr. Bean served several months in Mexico before being transferred as I understand it.

So let me get this straight an American citizen has been jailed in an American prison for a "crime" in Mexico that was protected by the Bill of Rights in America?

What the hell are we doing enforcing Mexico's Napoleonic code in Texas.

The Prison-Law Enforcement Industry is getting waaay out of hand.

Someone should hang for this.

[deport]

I don't know the details but I'll assure that Mr. Beam was very happy to cross the border to a Texas prison rather than stay in the Mexican system.

[AdamSelene235]

I don't know the details but I'll assure that Mr. Beam was very happy to cross the border to a Texas prison rather than stay in the Mexican system.

Understandable. Texas should have been very happy to release him. Ever hear of deprivation of rights under color of law?

[mvpel]

Because, Emerson, in the words of an attorney friend of mine, was a dirtbag who threatened his wife with a gun.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

For all that I have read, the Emerson case appears cut and dried as a case of deprivation of Constitutional rights without due process. Outside of your post, I haven't seen anyone call him a dirtbag.

Wasn't his wife cheating on him with some dirtbag attorney?
I thought he was under a restraining order that he didn't even know about. She came to his office. Should he have fled the building?

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Also, he was aquitted of the threatening charges and only the possesion of a firearm when you unknowingly have a restraining order against you was the charge that was left.

[JeeperFreeper]

There's a treaty between Mexico and USA allowing American citizens convicted in Mexico of Mexican crimes to serve their time in the American prison system. In return, the convict has to accept the Mexican punishment and conviction as it stands in Mexico. The treaty was designed to get Americans out of the Mexican penal system.

[Ancesthntr]

The crazy part is that the Bush Administration appealed the case.

This may actually be good. You see, if the USSC rules in Bean's favor, they will have ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right, and this will be the law nationwide. Bean's case is particularly good because he didn't commit any crime in the US, and his actions would've been completely protected had he not crossed the border. The guy has no criminal record. On top of that, you have the government arguing that rights can't be restored because of lack of funding, yet it has plenty of funding to slap him in jail for attempting to buy a post-1898 firearms (pre-1899 firearms are not considered to be firearms under federal law, except for machine guns). This is close to the perfect case, and we may thank Bush & Co. for bringing it if the result is in Bean's favor. If it goes against him and the Republicans control the Congress, we could easily see a bill to restore ATF funding for this purpose. I don't see the USSC stating that there is no individual RKBA under the 2nd Amendment.

[deport]

As I've said before, I don't know the details of how this arrangement was made whether between the Federal Gov't and Mexico or the State of Texas and Mexico. I'd suggest you look all that up and then maybe you can get some of your answers. I truly don't have them.