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. ------

[AmishDude]

Sounds precedenty to me.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Where the issue is complete elimination of a basic Constitutional right, I think the Supreme Court would be on firm ground to overrule this law even if it explicitly said "including foreign courts". The Constitution guarantees due process, period -- not due process unless the conviction is imposed by a foreign court in which case, tough noogies, Congress can just yank your Constitutional rights whether you had due process or not, and even if you've never even been accused of doing anything which would be illegal in the U.S. One of the key jobs of the Supreme Court is to nullify unconstitutional laws passed by Congress.

[F.J. Mitchell]

I missed that part-exactly what was the aleged felony this non-felon was convicted of in another country?

[jordan8]

Why on earth would Bush, Thomas, and Scalia support this? In most countries in Europe you can go to prison for speech crime that is not only legal in the U.S. but constitutionally protected.

[Texas Federalist]

If that was the intent of congress, they could have simply said 'convicted in any court of the United States'. They didn't, so it's not the job of judicial activists to read such langage into the statute.

No. They did not say "in any court in the world" and it is not the job of judicial activists to read such language into the statute. So there.

The point is, the language is ambiguous and should be read in the context of the statute as a whole, which leads to absurdities if it is interpreted as "in any court of the world".

[Texas Federalist]

Please point to where this law violates the Constitution.

Clearly, Amendment II and also the Due Process Clause of Amendment V. Since a foreign conviction is not subject to the due process constraints of the U.S. Constitution, Congress cannot take away a constitutionally protected right based on a foreign conviction.

[AmishDude]

You can be convicted of a crime in New York for something that is legal in (most of) Nevada.

[Texas Federalist]

Clarence did not use an "official legal definition" of the word "court". He cited the dictionary.

[ClintonBeGone]

No. They did not say "in any court in the world" and it is not the job of judicial activists to read such language into the statute. So there.

They didn't have to. "Any" means all. Additional language is redundant. You may write that way, but it's not the way laws are generally written. The burden is on you and the other liberals to put forth a compelling point to refute the plain meaning of the term "any".

[Modernman]

You can be convicted of a crime in New York for something that is legal in (most of) Nevada.

Sure, but NY has no jurisdiction to prosecute you for engaging in such activity while you are in Nevada.

[Southack]

"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."

But how do you know?! The law says "any" court, so clearly the law means that the Earth Liberation Front's trial of Secretary Rumsfeld and impeachment of President Bush counts. After all, the law says "any court."

It's not up to the Court's to decide intent, remember. They have to robotically apply the law as written, and "any" means "any."

< /mocking >

PS: I think you may be finally beginning to grasp that "any" really doesn't mean "any." One more step and you'll understand why this SCOTUS ruling was correct!

[AmishDude]

But the feds can deny your right to own firearms for it.

[Texas Federalist]

The burden is on you and the other liberals to put forth a compelling point to refute the plain meaning of the term "any".

And you and the other Scalia-humpers need to examine the doctine of "textualism", which requires you to read words in context - not in isolation.

[AmishDude]

According to the article, Thomas only consulted the dictionary for the term "any".

[Southack]

"The burden is on you and the other liberals to put forth a compelling point to refute the plain meaning of the term "any"."

Oh, I agree. "Any court" means "any court." So it's clear that Congress means to include the Earth Liberation Front's felony trial of Secretary Rumsfeld and impeachement of President Bush...meaning that both Rumsfeld and Bush are barred from owning firearms or voting.

Any means any, right?!

< /mocking! >

[ClintonBeGone]

Clearly, Amendment II and also the Due Process Clause of Amendment V. Since a foreign conviction is not subject to the due process constraints of the U.S. Constitution, Congress cannot take away a constitutionally protected right based on a foreign conviction.

He was charged with lying on a federal gun application form. He plead guilty to the charge and decided to challenge the definition of 'any'. There is no due process issue.

[GrandEagle]

The burden is on you and the other liberals to put forth
LOL!! Sometimes ya just gotta laugh!
Just think, had the decision gone the other way, our nations enemies in Iraq could pass a law making it a felony to vote Republican. Then, everyone who votes republican would be guilty of a felony and therefore not eligible to vote. That would void all Republican votes since they were cast by felons. The Democrats win, we apologize for removing Saddam, send him back to "right the wrong", and the war is over. Just think of the possibilities!

[Modernman]

How so? If you hire a prostitute in Nevada, you have committed no crime. Nevada won't prosecute you and NY does not have the legal jurisdiction to charge you with anything.

[ClintonBeGone]

Oh, I agree. "Any court" means "any court." So it's clear that Congress means to include the Earth Liberation Front's felony trial of Secretary Rumsfeld and impeachement of President Bush...I>

It could even include one of your militia's common law juries. Imagine that!

[AmishDude]

"Court" has a definition that includes sovereignty. Your ELF example may resemble a courtroom proceeding, but it's nothing more than a meeting of people.