| 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. ------
The crew you are talking to would rather take an immediate position on every issue, whether they thought it out or not, and defend it with all their venom. I call it "Ol' Granpa Syndrome". It's fun. Just shout out random positions on various topics, then if someone exposes your position as nonsensical, personally attack them.
Slither off and come back later with some reason attached to your diatribe or just stay slithered.
Unless of course, you are married to the gun runner in question. In which case good luck. He will soon be back in the pokey, not for this crime excused by the Scrotus, but for repeating what he does for a living...gun running...illegal exportation...yada yada yada...maybe if you are lucky his next customer won't be related to your next door neighbor who finds you just too stupid to share his air...
>>Let's see, you want to allow a gun runner to be able to use his US citizenship to get a visa to visit Japan and smuggle in weapons and ammunition and then after he is released let him come back and be allowed to have his gun running business restored?<<<
you don't GET the case. not my problem. as Texas Federalist pointed out - he could still be charged under OUR laws/courts if there is some bases for it. and though i agree with you that there is much to be desired in our courts these days - i would much rather have them deciding if an American citizens rights need to be romoved rather than a foriegn court deciding that. stripping a citizen of their right to keep and bear arms is a U.S. Federal Decision - not Japans. that was specifically why i posted parts of the Decl of Independence - to show you this very thing was something the war against King George was faught over. that should matter to you.
ps... how do you know he is now "running guns" btw? what's your basis for that assumption? because he had a pistol and ammo? lol
>>>Is that correct?<<<
i want a U.S. court to decide if and when and why an American citizens rights should be removed. if they find that in the case of Mr. Small.... good for them, and bad for him, and ok by me.
>>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?<<<
(rolling eyes) you've totally lost it harrowup. i mean LOST IT. the answer to your INANE question is - no.
>>But, you don't want some foreign law messing with your gun runner?<<
my gun runner? i've never even defended this guy's actions when he was in Japan. He broke Japenese Law.. he paid for it when in Japan. (does Japen have the right to remove an American citizens unalienable rights when that citizen is back on U.S. soil -NO)
to answer your question - i don't want American citizens rights and their removal, while they reside in the U.S., to be at the whim of foreign courts -NO. certain American citizen's rights are unailanable, protected by our gvt. thus the only one who can remove those rights is an American court through due process.
>>Tell you what, toots. Go to Canada. Take a gun. See you in ten. Please.<<
(rolling eyes again) Toots.
you need to get a grip harrowup.
It's amusing how you guys still claim to be pro-2nd Amendment.
I agree with you. The statute could even be changed to allow the person convicted of a federal court to present evidence in his defense in a U.S. court. It would essentially be a retrial of the foreign case, with due process protection, with a penalty if he is found to be guilty as a loss of his right to bear arms. This shouldn't be too much of a burden on the courts since, as Breyer pointed out, there were very few cases under sec. 922 involving foreign convictions.
oops. federal court = foreign crime
i don't see any other way it could be done and remain constitutional. i was under the impression that being's the U.S. Gvt was the protector of certain unalienable rights - only it could remove them, and only by due proccess.
i hope to heck i'm right, other wise we're back at pre-1776 when colonists could be charged in foreign courts and stripped of their rights on American soil. not a pleasant thought IMO.
i see a couple of your posts were deleted by the mods. and i believe they were addressed to me. just wanted you to know i never hit *abuse* and have no idea who did. i think it's a shame they were deleted.
Don't let the facts get in your way...
"...[Small sent]...19-gallon electric water heater, ostensibly as a present for "his Papa-san in Okinawa." 3 Pet. C.A. App. 507-510, 521-525, 598. Small had sent two other water heaters to Japan earlier that year. Id. at 525-527. Considering it unusual for an individual to "go out of his way to bring a water tank from the U.S. as a present," id. at 598-599, Japanese Customs officials X-rayed the water heater upon its arrival and discovered firearms packaged inside. When petitioner appeared at the airport to accept delivery, he confirmed that the water heater was his, whereupon Customs officials served him with a search warrant. Upon opening the water heater, Customs officials discovered two rifles wrapped in black tape, eight pistols, and 410 ammunition shells. Id. at 603-604.""
So, I can be called a liar, a traitor, a quisling and have other posters come into a discussion and tell me they've just gotten back from a trip to my neighborhood and didn't see any of those people [I was] talking about... making a deliberate racist comment and you have the gall to pull a post where I take a shot back?
Go to hell.
i thought this was the case he was tried for in Japan. is this a seperate charge?
>>>Go to hell.<<<
was this addressed to me also? i give up trting to have any kind of decent discussion with you.
Is that correct?
Let's see, you want to allow a gun runner bible smuggler to be able to use his US citizenship to get a visa to visit Japan Saudi Arabia and smuggle in weapons and ammunition bibles and then after he is released let him come back and be allowed to have his gun running bible smuggling business restored?
So the king of the flame throwers is crying cause he got his little feelings hurt over imagined attacks? Haven't you even been bounced from some forums for posting death threats?
--Boot Hill
Playing the race card again, harrowup?
LOL, and based on your conjecture over what some poster may have meant by the phrase "those people"? That's sounds like something the ACLU might try to dredge up. Oh wait, that's right, you already confessed to being a life-long member of that commie front organization.
--Boot Hill
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.