Supreme Court: people convicted of crime overseas can still own gun

SIGN ON Sandiego ^ | 4/26

[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. ------

[GrandEagle]

Isn't it congress's job to codify their intent?
Referring to post #70
I'm sure they would have if they had ever dreamed that this would even be in question. Some things just don't require saying. Much like the fabricated "separation of church and state" non-clause of the Constitution. At the time it was beyond reason that anyone would twist the 1st amendment to the extent that it had been twisted.
The mere fact that we are even having this conversation shows just how successful the globalist have been.

It is apparent that your opinion is firm, and that is ok. I rarely disagree so firmly with a fellow FReeper, but I really am speechless that this is even an issue.
With that I'll wish you well, hope you have a great day, and disengage from the conversation.

Cordially,
GE

PS: I've also GOT to get back to work!

[Dead Corpse]

Sections 8,9, and 10 of Article 1 contain no such power for Congress. Please cite the article and section that contains the Congressional power to hold a US citizne infamous for a crime committed outside thier jurisdiction and outside of US Law.

[EagleUSA]

Cite me chapter and verse in the Constitution that Congress cannot pass a law that recognizes judicial decisions that take place in another country.
======
The issue is not whether the Congress can GENERATE LAWS based on whatever, but the correctness of the SUPREME COURT to INTERPRET U.S. LAW BASED ON EVENTS OR LAWS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES. These two very distinctly different issues and functions are being confused here. The discussion is about the SC's decisions, NOT ABOUT THE MAKING OF LAWS. At least that is my point.

[ClintonBeGone]

This clause in the Constitution clearly limits USSC authority to matters involving US Law established under the US Constitution ONLY. It has no bearing on foriegn judgements, convictions, laws, ect...

So this means you support doing away with questions on immigration forms that ask whether someone has been convicted of rape or murder in a country other than the US?

[iconoclast]

Haven't you heard of laws being declared unconstitutional?

Please point to where this law violates the Constitution.

[ctdonath2]

Wrong question. Congress can only do what the Constitution explicitly permits. Show me in the Constitution where Congress can subject citizens' rights to the laws of oppressive regimes.

[Southack]

"This is NOT the supreme court's decision to make. Cite me chapter and verse in the Constitution that Congress cannot pass a law that recognizes judicial decisions that take place in another country. Congress has the power to do this and SCOTUS does not have the power to take it away."

Congress *does* have the power that you refer to above, and the Judicial Branch *can't* take it away.

But that's not what was done here. The Judicial Branch *does* have the authority to review (and try) individual cases, and on an individual case basis the Judiciary can say that it believes that Congress wrote up something that it didn't intend to actually apply tyrannically against a U.S. citizen.

Which is precisely what the SCOTUS did. The SCOTUS made the correct ruling, including noting that if Congress REALLY DID intend to include this level of tyranny in the law that it could simply reword the law to say so.

That's precisely the correct action to take. Protect the individual citizen from the tyranny of a presumed Congressional mistake, while notifying Congress that you will apply their tyranny if that's what they really want (i.e. if there was actually no error in the law).

This is a rare case of the SCOTUS / federal court system actually doing the right thing without being an activist court (e.g. Roe v Wade, which contradicted clear federal and state statutes and had no actuall legal basis of support).

It may look like judicial activism, but by informing Congress that the SCOTUS *will* apply the "any world court" version if Congress really wants it, the SCOTUS made the right call.

[AmishDude]

When confronted with ambiguity or an outright error (or even just a typo) in a law, you read the law in the best light for citizens and inform Congress to write up a specific tyranny if that's what they truly intended.

You do not. You read it as it is written, otherwise you can make up anything as to what Congress' real intent is. This is the slippery slope that puts us right in the area of judicial activism. Congress could have very easily used language other than "any" and specifically did not. It is not SCOTUS' role to be an editor.

Take note: had the SCOTUS ruled *your* way, then a woman convicted by North Korea for importing a Bible or driving a car in Saudi Arabia would be barred from voting or owning a gun in the U.S.,

I don't know that voting applies in this case, but even if it were, the outrage is with the legislature and it's their job to fix it. Do not give this power to the courts.

[ASA Vet]

By what rationalle does the Bill Of Rights get subjected to the whims of foreign courts???

The same rationalle that allows a selected Amendment right to be stipped from ex-cons.
Ex-Cons aren't part of "the people," so it's not enfringement.
See how easy it is?

[ClintonBeGone]

Sure they could have said that. It's nuts to think they needed to. It's absurd to think Congress meant to deny a woman her 2nd Amendment rights because she got caught driving a car in Saudi Arabia.

The entire point of the conservative movement is that we DON'T know what their intent was, so we focus on the language as written. Your point, like the other points on this thread belong in the forum for policy debates - the congress - not in discussing a court holding that should have simply been decided on the language of the statute.

And if the defendent in this case wasn't challenging the constitutionality of the statute - only the interpretation of the word 'any', these constitutional points are meaningless.

[Dead Corpse]

So this means you support doing away with questions on immigration forms that ask whether someone has been convicted of rape or murder in a country other than the US?

Go away troll. You know DAMN well that asking a FORIEGN national what crimes in the home country they have committed is entirely different from the issue.

[ctdonath2]

Amendment II.

The guy in question was denied a Constitutionally enumerated right for exercising that right in another country. Just because a right is illegal somewhere else doesn't mean it's lost here. This country was created so people could exercise rights which are suppressed elsewhere.

[ClintonBeGone]

Go away troll. You know DAMN well that asking a FORIEGN national what crimes in the home country they have committed is entirely different from the issue.

How so?

[AmishDude]

Article III, section 2 specifically refers to several legal issues outside of the border. Ambassadors, in particular.

[iconoclast]

separation of church and state

That's an after the fact insertion into the law .... the same as what you are arguing for in this instance.

[Southack]

"You do not. You read it as it is written, otherwise you can make up anything as to what Congress' real intent is. This is the slippery slope that puts us right in the area of judicial activism. Congress could have very easily used language other than "any" and specifically did not. It is not SCOTUS' role to be an editor."

The word "any" could be interpreted, legitimately, two ways.

The first way is that "any" means a conviction from absolutely any court (no limits), including private courts such as those run by the Earth Liberation Front (who "convicted" Secretary Rumsfeld, Haliburton, and impeached President Bush and VP Cheney). That's what you are advocating above.

The second way is to read "any" as meaning "any legal U.S. juridiction court" which would include military tribunals, courts in U.S. territories such as Guam, etc.

The SCOTUS chose to read the law as using "any" from the second way above, but noted that if Congress intended for any private or foreign court to apply, that it could specify such in a re-written law.

[AmishDude]

The Constitution gives SCOTUS the power to review cases with respect to law.

MvM gives SCOTUS the power to review law with respect to Constitutionality.

Nothing gives the SCOTUS the power to review law for "errors".

[Southack]

"Nothing gives the SCOTUS the power to review law for "errors"."

That's "Common Law."

Just as a jury gets to decide, so too do justices get to make individual calls. We're not a world of robots.

Judicial Activism, however, is when that individual call is abused to become precedent changing (e.g. Roe v Wade), instead of merely protecting a single defendent from a unique set of circumstances.

You need to know the difference.

[Texas Federalist]

How could it be any more clear?

I personally think it is very clear. I think the plain maening of the statute refers to any court in the U.S. the latter part being implied by it's context. I am giving Clarence Thomas the benefit of the doubt in saying it is ambiguious, which I think is a stretch in itself. But CT clearly ignores the context in which the words are placed, and uses a dictionary definition of the word "court" which arguably could include my family meetings.

[AmishDude]

Foreign courts have previously been recognized with respect to immigration hearings, for example. I am sure they count with respect to the official legal definition of "court". A group of people passing a judgement does not.