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]

Indeed. But the point is that you can be convicted, in New York, of a crime that is not a crime elsewhere and, by virtue of that conviction, lose gun rights, voting rights, etc.

[Texas Federalist]

I'm going to convene my jury of He-Man Masters of the Universe figures in my self-proclaimed "court of justice" and convict Clinton be Gone of the felony of worshipping false gods (Scalia). Then he can't own a gun under his interpretation of the statute. LOL!!

[ClintonBeGone]

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.

I can't find any context that would arrive at a different definition for 'any court' than ALL courts.

[ctdonath2]

He was convicted of exercising his 2nd Amendment rights, which are totally prohibited in Japan and Constitutionally protected here. Details are given in the beginning of the SCOTUS ruling, linked to above.

[ClintonBeGone]

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

And where would one go to find one of these there 'offical legal definition' books? I suspect if one existed, this case wouldn't be before the court.

[Southack]

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

Our last Alabama Militia Court, in between sips of whiskey, convicted all Americans who paid federal income taxes of felony treason.

Ergo all Americans are now barred from owning guns.

I mean, "any" means "any!"

< /sarcasm >

[ClintonBeGone]

Indeed. But the point is that you can be convicted, in New York, of a crime that is not a crime elsewhere and, by virtue of that conviction, lose gun rights, voting rights, etc.

Does that mean if Modernman married himself one of those young asian brides and brought here back to the US, he would be in the clear?

[ctdonath2]

Both are subject to Constitutional constraints for "due process", which has been tested and results in some things being legal in one state and not in another.

In both states you can, at least in theory, appeal to SCOTUS for Constitutional due process. A conviction in Japan does not.

[Southack]

"I can't find any context that would arrive at a different definition for 'any court' than ALL courts."

Exactly. Next week our Alabama Militia Court is going to convict you of a felony for fraternizing with the enemy on-line. Enjoy your loss of all rights. After all, "any court" means "all courts."

[ClintonBeGone]

Our last Alabama Militia Court, in between sips of whiskey, convicted all Americans who paid federal income taxes of felony treason.

How are they holding court duing that clown convention down on the Arizona border?

[ctdonath2]

One may acknowledge "guilt" under an invalid law, then challenge the invalid law and demand the conviction be tossed because the law is invalid.

[Southack]

"How are they holding court duing that clown convention down on the Arizona border?"

We've got a foolproof method of getting a full jury of 12; we simply hold our Alabama Militia Court trials at the shooting range.

Oh, you were found guilty, by the way, so no more guns or voting for you.

After all, "any court" means "any court." No restrictions. All courts. Worldwide. Private and public. Every court.

Any means any. Any means all.

[Texas Federalist]

The definition of the word "court" is what's important, and the context is that the law appears in the U.S. Code, and a definition which includes foreign courts leads to absurd results. As Breyer mentioned, in creating an exception allowing gun possession despite a conviction for an anti-trust or business regulatory crime, §921(a)(20)(A) speaks of “Federal or State” antitrust or regulatory offenses. If the phrase “convicted in any court” includes foreign convic-tions, the words “Federal or State” prevent the exception from apply-ing where a foreign antitrust or regulatory conviction is at issue.

[AdamSelene235]

The SCOTUS made the right ruling.

Yes, but its unbelievable that such a ruling is needed in the first place.

[AmishDude]

In the US code. Remember that this phrase is in section 992(g)(1) of US code.

[Modernman]

Indeed. But the point is that you can be convicted, in New York, of a crime that is not a crime elsewhere and, by virtue of that conviction, lose gun rights, voting rights, etc.

The situation involving two American States is different. The Constitution requires that States recognize others States's court decisions. So, even if prostitution and gambling is legal in Nevada, Nevada will still recognize a NY conviction for those crimes.

However, there is no such Constitutional requirement that American courts recognize foreign convictions.

[Dead Corpse]

So, you can show where by Treaty or Ambassadors are denied their Constitutional Rights upon return to the US? Or are you saying this guy in particular was an Ambassador or subject to a Treaty?

Get a grip. Better yet, buy a clue as you obviously don't have one.

[AmishDude]

Those specific words are actually written in the code. Why are they not repeated in section 922?

[ClintonBeGone]

In the US code. Remember that this phrase is in section 992(g)(1) of US code.

What title of the US code? Generally, statutes contain definitions which preceed the law being enacted, unless it's an amendment. I would love to check this section to see, but I highly doubt there is a definition for 'any' or 'any court'. If there was, this case wouldn't exist today.

[ClintonBeGone]

In the US code. Remember that this phrase is in section 992(g)(1) of US code.

What title of the US code? Generally, statutes contain definitions which preceed the law being enacted, unless it's an amendment. I would love to check this section to see, but I highly doubt there is a definition for 'any' or 'any court'. If there was, this case wouldn't exist today.