| 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. ------
Way to go sparky. Just when I thought some of you newbies couldn't get any dumber.
...We're not talking murder here...
It wasn't clear to me that we necesarrily weren't either. If not, then please explain.
It seems to me that what the court just said is that no conviction in a foreign court of a crime forbidding ownership of a gun in that country (and that might include murder and armed robbery I suppose) should hold any sway over a citizens right to bear arms in this country.
Smoke screen...
Did small break US Law? Yes, he lied on his gun application.
Enforce existing laws, or change them.
What is legal or illegal in other countries is not relevant to this argument.
He was not a Felon under US law. Period.
The Constitution trumps subordinate laws.
Our laws are based on the Constitution, not on the whims of other nations.
Any law which flippantly subordinates enumerated Constitutional rights to foreign laws which ban those rights is plainly null and void.
Rule of law does not extend to invalid laws. Any federal law enacted outside the authority of the Constitution is invalid.
Not having the complete decision before us it is impossible to say with certainty, but I do not believe your line of thought had anything to do with his decision.
He simply ruled on the law as it was written. If there is enough objection, then change to the law is the only path to pursue.
So the very same InJustices who feel they may base their decisions on foreign court decisions, worry that a felon convicted in a foreign court may have been unfairly convicted and deserves the benefit of the doubt, when it comes to that felon owning a gun in the USA ?
The decisions by this US Supreme Court and others during the past thirty years is so reminiscent of the Judges played by Archie Campbell on HeeHaw and Flip Wilson and Sammy Davis on other shows, it would be funny as hell, if that wasn't exactly where they are taking this country.
What a person does, who a person is and what a person wants to do are very important considerations to the legal establishment in this country.
If not, throw out all immigration laws.
Welcome any and all individuals into this country - no restrictions.
What they did "over there" means nothing...
hmm my initial response to this would be GOOD.
Otherwise someone convicted of say "Using inappropriate language" about gays, which could be a "Federal" type crime, could be prevented from owning a weapon.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the SC knocked down judgments, not laws.
No, Small didn't lie. It's absurd to think that "all" included anti-Constitutional decisions rendered by non-US courts on the other side of the planet.
To cover every conceivable strained & twisted variant of any intended statement would result in completely unreadable documents. We'd never get anywhere. Oh, I'm sorry, by "unreadable" I meant "would require an international lawyer weeks to understand", and by "never" I meant "would require many meetings of numerous committees of specialists operating at great expense, as opposed to you standing at a store counter filling out a one-page form". Oh, oops, there's a bunch of other words there which, if pondered upon at length, would result in a huge amount of discussion, arguments, anger, confusion, etc.
Look: unless otherwise clearly specified, laws only apply - in both consideration and consequence - within US jurisdiction. If Congress meant "any court in the world", they should have specified as such; it's just plain nuts to think they meant that when they didn't say it. Law is complicated enough without thinking it automatically includes every conceivable arguable interpretation ever.
Haven't you heard of laws being declared unconstitutional?
That is correct.
The SCOTUS is an appellate court and reviews the findings of lower courts
The felony was in Japan. Under Japanese Law, he is a convicted felon. The Law he broke was not a US Law. In fact, owning a firearm here in the US is a Constitutionally protected Right. Inside the US borders, US Citizens are protected.
You with me so far?
Now, other countries don't have the same laws we do. Their laws, and legal protections for their citizens, END at their border. Same as ours. What is illegal there, may not be illegal here. And vice versa... Understand?
So, how can our Supreme Court have the authority to enforce a criminal prosecution, not based on US law, nor in a US court, against a US Citizen? Answer, they CAN'T. Period. End of Story.
Trying to confuse the issue by bringing up foriegn nationals BREAKING US LAW by coming here illegally is an entirely different matter and well within US Law.
Got it?
That "felon" is plainly not one under US law. Punishing someone for doing what's legal here is just plain nuts.
It's very simple. Congress said "any". Probably in an effort to err on the side of not giving firearms to criminals. Certainly criminality in Cuba can range from real crimes to political crimes. But Congress said "any" and the Supreme Court is not obligated to correct Congress' mistakes.
This is a tough one. On one hand I agree with the majority, but on the other hand there are instances the would or should warrant the dissenting opinions.
I think if a person is convicted of a felony in a foreign court that has a corresponding felony statute here, i.e. armed robbery or murder, what ever felony it may be, then they should lose the right to own weapons.
However if they are convicted of a felony in another country that is not a violation of felony statutes here, then they should be allowed to own a weapon.
It would need to be a case by case basis, which would create a nightmare for the courts or which ever agency would have to do the reviews. There is no easy answer for this conundrum.
The writ of the USSC and Congress ends at the border.
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.