| 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. ------
US law needs to apply to US law and convictions only. If a US citizen is convicted of a crime overseas, that should be handled in the appropiate country. (IE. Michael Faye getting caned)
No, he's nuts. The upshot of Thomas' reasoning is that a US citizen can have a Constitutional right revoked due to exercising that very same right in a country which suppresses that right.
Basically that means you can't do anything legally because it's illegal somewhere in the world.
This country exists precisely because natural rights are oppressed in other countries. In a nation dedicated to "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness", it's practically treasonous to contend that we should deny a protected right to someone solely for exercising that right in a country that supresses that right.
This is an interesting case. Certainly if I went down to Mexico and they found a cartridge that had rolled under the seat and I was unaware of it, I wouldn't want to have my right to bear arms taken away from me, as some FReepers here have pointed out. I agree with that.
On the other hand, the way the law was written and I guess had been upheld was kind of a better safe then sorry policy. My question now would be, what if I went to Mexico or wherever and was convicted of a violent crime like say, armed robbery. Under the new interpretation, am I still eligible to own a firearm in the U.S.? That I wouldn't agree is such a good idea.
Our law should probably allow for these different circumstances and treat them differently. That should be a matter for Congress to wrangle with.
As to the courts decision, I believe the dissenting opinion was probably the correct one. Even if the law didn't make sense in some cases, in others it would.
Once again we see the differences of the judges which is hardly a suprise anymore. Thomas and Scalia will always interpret the laws as they are written, while the liberal judges make changes to it based on their "ability" to interpret the intentions of Congress and the Constitution.
It's absurd to think Congress meant to apply foreign law, all the way from my speeding ticket in Canada to not voting for Saddam in Iraq (punishment: termination of your family), to the enjoyment of rights in the USA.
so now, immigrants, legal or otherwise, have rights that natural citizens do not...
Since when did "better safe than sorry" and foreign law trump fundamental enumerated rights in this country???
We're not talking murder here, we're talking a very specific suppression of an enumerated right based on suppression of that right elsewhere. If the law as written violates the Constitution, the law is wrong and gets knocked down.
Thomas trying to use the word "any" to extend US court power to other countries is ridiculous. Especially considering they still can't figure out what "infringed" means in regards to the Second Amendments protection in our OWN country.
It used to be I had utmost disdain for the liberals on our High Court. Now I've got contempt for all of them. Impeach the entire Bench.
Nope. Read the article again. This guy is an American citizen convicted of a crime in Japan.
It makes perfect sense.
You cannot argue for strict interpretation only at your choosing.
If there is error, it is in the writing, not Thomas' interpretation.
There's a big difference between using foreign court decisions as a reference tool for areas in which both the law and society are changing and thus presenting new questions, and giving foreign courts' decisions the automatic weight of law.
We're are treading dangerously close to having the hypocrite label apply here.
We bemoan the fact that Congress enacts more and more legislation against our 2nd Ammendment rights. "Enforce existing law", we say.
Now, here, the SCOTUS dissenters try to do just that and we complain.
Yes, it is unfortunate for this guy that he can't own a gun here anymore. But don't compare him to another individual who should have known the laws of a foreign country he is visiting. Don't excuse the "Ugly American" who feels he can ignore foreign law.
He didn't know there was a shotgun shell under his car seat? He damn well should have known.
Are we removing Small's right to self defense? Nope. Small has demonstrated that he will ignore the laws no matter where he is.
I think the phrase "any court" in this instance is ambiguous enough to delve deeper than the text into legislative intent, especially since interpreting "any court" to include foreign courts leads to some inconsistancies within the text of the statute that are irreconclilable, as Breyer pointed out referring to the exceptions applying to certain "Federal or state" convictions. I think Breyer, Ginsberg, and Stevens were right here. Crap.
Chewing gum is a controlled substance in Singapore.
Prostletizing (sp?) a non-official religion is a capital crime in many countries.
Golfing without a license is illegal in Germany.
A single empty cartridge can get you a life sentence in Bahamas.
Voting in Saddam's Iraq was compulsury; voting for the wrong option meant terminating your family.
Yep, any apparently means any to some and not to others.
If there is error, it is in the writing, not Thomas' interpretation.
======
I see. And that is why we had different opinions within the court on the issue? Nice try.
Apparently, like the liberal sector of our Supreme Court, you feel that foreign law and events should influence the decisions of our SC. A very liberal position.
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.