| 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. ------
Absolutely!
On second thought lets get the names of the court clerks who wrote this opinion and find out who they roomed with in college and law school, and then find out who they slept with the day after they decided to kiss the plaintiff's ass...or his attorneys, cause this one stinks to the level of Chicago judicial misconduct.
Somebody screwed the pooch here, and I don't think it was Bader.
If it was, I pity the pooch.
Taken to its extreme conclusion, some "court" a 3rd world hellhole could, in total, simply "convict" all 300 million Americans for existing.
Whaamoo- no guns allowed whatsoever in the USA
There is no federal common law for SUBSTANTIVE issues. We were discussing a PROCEDURAL practice of the federal courts for which there is extablished precedent. It is not based on a Rule or statute, which is why I termed it common law.
So Clinton, I assume from the resort to the ad hominem attacks that you could not find in the opinion where the court stated that the conditional guilty plea to lying on a federal document was the basis for the illegal weapons possession conviction?
There is no federal common law for SUBSTANTIVE issues. We were discussing a PROCEDURAL practice of the federal courts for which there is extablished precedent. It is not based on a Rule or statute, which is why I termed it common law.
So Clinton, I assume from the resort to the ad hominem attacks that you could not find in the opinion where the court stated that the conditional guilty plea to lying on a federal document was the basis for the illegal weapons possession conviction?
Are you perhaps wanting to pretend it is precedent?
The 'practice' of any court is to hide.
The 'procedure' of any court to hide the practice is what is commonly known as contempt.
Well, big whup. This SCOTUS is in contempt and at least five of them need to be impeached and during the impeachment the SCOTUS should be required to open its 'clerk deliberations' to public scrutiny and each and every low life legal aide there needs to be vetted as to their income, sleeping arrangements and attendance at leather parties and other drag events not associated with NASCAR.
What you termed it, and what it is, are two different things. That's called an error.
The chicken would have a better chance with this group that the Taco Bell chihuahua. You know how AuntBm gets around Mexicans.
Never thought I'd agree with RBG.....
You bring up excellent points. I do not disagree with you. My issue is that the Supremes should not be writing statutes or setting policy. That is the job of the legislature. And yes, "any" means any. This case was granted certiorari because of the divergent opinions interpreting this statute. Clearly, reasonable people have disagreed on this issue. I'd rather it be settled by the elected body than a handful of lifers.
Additionally, people are confusing the implementation of this statue with appliation of "foreign law". Not the case. The real issue of "foreign law" is whether or not the U.S. should do what other counties are doing, i.e. should we aboldish the death penalty because other nations have done so? Should that be allowed to persuade our Supreme Court should a death penalty case be heard again? That is the issue with "foreign law".
amazing.... you two are still foaming at the mouth over an American citizen getting his day in a US Court... and madder then two wet hens because you don't like the ruling. and typically you both resort to petty ridicule and childish hyperbole. you both like to pick and choose the laws that you deem worthy of breaking and not breaking. there have been cases of central and South American gang bangers smuggling both guns and drugs into the U.S, but you either blindly deny it or think it's okay. either way, you never expended any energy being all indignant and outraged over that as you have in this case. your obvious disdain for the law and sovereignty of this Country seems only exceeded by your ignorance of it. you seem to think it's of some great merit to ridicule others for thinking highly of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and other writings of the Founders. do you think others are impressed that you snicker to each other and deride posters who invoke phrases like "common law" and "original intent" and the "Declaration of Independence"?. at 12 years old my children had more understanding and respect for the historical roots of our nations government than you two manage to reveal. and you think that's funny? or impressive?
Texas Federalist was polite and helpful, but as usual with you two, when you don't agree, you just resort to petty and even hateful posts. you both just impress the heck out of everyone i''m sure.
>>That is the job of the legislature.<<
if you go back and read the thread (i'm not sure where) this was discussed. i believe FreedomCalls said their ruling was - unless the legislature clarifies the said law.
meaning - the Justices left room for the legislature to rewrite the law and clarify "any".
maybe FreedomCalls will show you where that post(s) is if you can't find it.
woops.... i confused two posters ... i believe it was Texas Federalist who brought that out....
either way.. it was discussed in the thread.
LOL.. yeah, it's very clear - your fear of an American gun owner is only exceeded by your fear of a Female American gun owner..
LOL.. HONEY
Black's law dictionary defines common law as "those principles, usage, and rules of action . . . which do not rest for their authority upon any express and positive declaration of the will of the legislature." That's exactly what me and another poster were talking about in a conversation that you weren't involved in.
You've posted two posts attacking me since I asked you in post 264 to back up your argument with facts from the opinion. I assume you realize you are wrong and this is your defense mechanism. You must use it a lot. I'm done with you.
>>I've had it with the lunatics who think a gun runner should have any rights anywhere.<<
this case just happened to be about guns. it could just as easily been about something that doesn't scare you so bad... you seem to be willing to throw American soveriegnty out the window just because of the defendent's charge in this instance. think about it - do you really want American citizens to be at the mercy of foreign courts to this extent? i don't.
Is that correct?
Then you want to lock up all the furrerners who come to this country looking for work to be thrown into jail or shot?
Is that correct?
But, you don't want some foreign law messing with your gun runner?
Tell you what, toots. Go to Canada. Take a gun. See you in ten. Please.
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.