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. ------
That's not the point. You claimed that US shores wiped all things clean. They do not and SCOTUS can rule on international issues.
I just convicted you of felony misinterpretation of law in my court here at FreedomCall manor in my duly established court. Can you now not own guns? You said: "'Any' means 'any'" right?
Which foreign courts are valid and which are not? For crimes committed in the West Bank, are Palestinian courts valid or Israeli? How about Sharia courts in moslem countries? How about Cyprus? Which courts are valid - the Greek ones or the Turkish ones? Are the Zapatista courts in Chiapas valid? How about the tribal courts in Waziristan? Which court system is the valid one in Kashmir -- Chinese, Pakistani, or Indian?
Or do you mean only "any court" in predominately white countries?
We can't ask why, remember?! We just have to apply the law as written. We can't presume that a simple human *error* has transpired in writing law. Instead, per you, you are barred from owning a gun because the Alabama Militia Court has convicted you of a felony for fraternizing with the enemy on-line.
And "any court" means "any court" in the law, which you have to unquestionably apply.
< /mocking >
A Felony in Japan means you are a felon in Japan under Japanese law. Period. This does not mean that your actions were a felonious offense under US Law and by the US Constitution. Period. End of story.
Title 18. There's no definition.
They are obligated to correct Congress' mistakes if the mistake results in an unconstitutionality as it did in this case. Ruling that "any" applies to foreign courts would deprive U.S. citizens of due process of law.
Of course, the phrase any court, like all other statutory language, must be read in context. E.g., Deal v. United States, 508 U. S. 129, 132 (1993). The context of §922(g)(1), however, suggests that there is no geographic limit on the scope of any court.2 By contrast to other parts of the firearms-control law that expressly mention only state or federal law, any court is not qualified by jurisdiction. See 18 U. S. C. §921(a)(20) (excluding certain Federal or State offenses from the definition of crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year); §921(a)(33)(A)(i) (defining a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence by reference to Federal or State law).3 Congress explicit use of Federal and State in other provisions shows that it specifies such restrictions when it wants to do so.It is quite simple. Congress could have said Federal and State but didn't because they wanted foreign courts to apply.
I think it is a stretch to say it is deliberate.
Breyer does not assert unconstitutionality.
Precisely. The SCOUTUS could have done two things: it could have interpreted "any" to mean "all possible courts, worldwide, public and private" and then declared the law unconstitutional because all possible public and private worldwide courts do *not* insure Constitutional due process, OR
SCOTUS could have simply said that Congress made an error, that Congress could correct that error if so desired, and in the meantime tossed the one defendent's conviction.
I do not. The lawyers that write these laws know precisely what they are doing.
It is if the mistake results in unconstitutional action. Here a U.S. citizen would be deprived of due process of law resulting from a foreign conviction, therefore the statute is unconstitutional as written. It is the SC's charge to correct unconstitutional legislation. That's what they are there for.
Your intellectual lack of acumen disappoints me. If "any court" means "any court," then Sharia Law Courts in Iran count, as do Confederate Courts in Alabama, as do militia courts, as does the Earth Liberation Front's terroristic court. Either "any" means "any" or it doesn't. Either "court" means "court" or it doesn't. Notice that the law didn't specify "legal" courts or public courts or private courts or U.S. courts. If the law has to spell *everything* out as you maintain, then Sharia courts and Alabama Militia Courts count just as much as foreign courts.
If they did, the law would have been written much clearer. Like any legal document, there are many unanticipated ambiguities that were not anticipated when the law or document was drafted.
See Post # 170. He doesn't have to based upon how he read "any."
Now the push must be to declare this a victory for INDIVIDUAL gun ownership rights. No militia mentioned here.
Aye. The Court is clearly acknowledging individual rights to bear arms here.
Breyer doesn't have to. READ POST #170!
The Fifth Amendment: No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Foreign courts do not provide due process.
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.