Supreme Court: people convicted of crime overseas can still own gun

SIGN ON Sandiego ^ | 4/26

[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. ------

[ClintonBeGone]

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.

If that was the intent of congress, they could have simply said 'conviced in any court of the United States'. They didn't, so it's not the job of judicial activists to read such langage into the statute.

[iconoclast]

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.

Not at all. Obviously you, like the liberal sector or our SC, feel that any law written means what you think it should have meant, not what it said.

Legislators, at all levels, make mistakes. It is not the SC's charge to correct them!

[ClintonBeGone]

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.

If that was the intent of congress, they could have simply said 'convicted in any court of the United States'. They didn't, so it's not the job of judicial activists to read such langage into the statute. If that's what congress means, they can amend the law to make it clear.

[AmishDude]

Congress certainly meant "any" court. These laws are written by some of the best lawyers (not the Congressman, but their staff lawyers) and lawyers know the implications of their language.

Besides, it's not the courts role to decide this. They have to read what the law says and not try to play as if they are The Amazing Kreskin.

[ClintonBeGone]

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)

So you're in favor of gun laws being written by 5 members of the supreme court, rather than 435 elected members of congress? I see you're a true constitutionalist.

[Southack]

The SCOTUS made the right ruling. As others on this thread have noticed, our Founding Fathers had felony foreign convictions on their records (all convicted in absentia in King George's courts) that would have barred them from owning firearms had this ruling gone the other way.

Another poster made the astute observation that a woman with a car driving felony in Saudi Arabia would be barred from owning a gun in the U.S. had the Supreme Court ruled the other way. Ditto for a felony conviction for carrying a Bible into North Korea.

This was the right ruling, to correctly point out that American Consitutional protections are *NOT* insured in overseas courts, and that therefor convictions overseas in such courts shouldn't extend such tyranny back to our own shores.

Ominously, without Chief Justice Rehnquist to inject sanity into the deliberations, the Court managed to get to the right decision by taking the wrong ideological path, however. Our remaining non-Rehnquist conservatives sided blindly with our Justice Department attorney, whereas the other 5 reactionists simply took the opposite side.

It's good that Rehnquist is back; it's also clear that we will miss him when he's gone.

...And it is more important than ever that we get real *Judges*, not ideological activists, onto this Supreme Court (and soon)...making the current Senate fight over judicial appointments even more important after the *way* that this (fortunately) correct SCOTUS ruling was achieved.

[GrandEagle]

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.
On the surface I would agree with you, however, the judicial standards are so different, and the courts so very corrupt in some of these countries, I would have a hard time even letting them be considered.
Does that mean that some people who shouldn't own firearms be allowed to? Yes it does, but we have established in this country that one is innocent until proven guilty by the accusing party. That is not the case in many "civilized" countries. Try proving you are not guilty of a crime.
Anyway, the discussion revolves around if the "ANY" in "ANY COURT" means any court in the world. I still maintain that that is ridiculous.

Cordially,
GE

[Dead Corpse]

Bullsh*t.

Art III. Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority

This clause in the Constitution clearly limits USSC authority to matters involving US Law established under the US Constitution ONLY. It has no bearing on foriegn judgements, convictions, laws, ect...

[nmh]

Lovely ... .

[Lancey Howard]

Wow. The world has gone upside-down.
The way Breyer worded his opinion makes me wonder if maybe some of these liberal scumbag judges are looking over their shoulders.

[ClintonBeGone]

my FRiend, it is ludicrous to imply that the term "any" would mean any court in the world, or even that the intention of the legislation was to include any court in the world.

Isn't it congress's job to codify their intent?

[ClintonBeGone]

If there is error, it is in the writing, not Thomas' interpretation.

The additional error here is those that focus on the outcome, not the process that got them there. It's a sad day that supposed conservatives would cheer this decision.

[ClintonBeGone]

I think the phrase "any court" in this instance is ambiguous enough

How could it be any more clear?

[ctdonath2]

Sure they could have said that. It's nuts to think they needed to. It's absurd to think Congress meant to deny a woman her 2nd Amendment rights because she got caught driving a car in Saudi Arabia.

By what rationalle does the Bill Of Rights get subjected to the whims of foreign courts???

[AmishDude]

Where is that in the Constitution? Cite chapter and verse.

[Southack]

"If that was the intent of congress, they could have simply said 'convicted in any court of the United States'. They didn't, so it's not the job of judicial activists to read such langage into the statute. If that's what congress means, they can amend the law to make it clear."

You've got it backwards. You don't force tyranny onto the citizens first, and then let Congress correct a simple mistake in language of a law later.

You do it the other way around. When confronted with ambiguity or an outright error (or even just a typo) in a law, you read the law in the best light for citizens and inform Congress to write up a specific tyranny if that's what they truly intended.

Take note: had the SCOTUS ruled *your* way, then a woman convicted by North Korea for importing a Bible or driving a car in Saudi Arabia would be barred from voting or owning a gun in the U.S., all due to the use of the word "any" being interpreted too broadly (i.e. all world courts) instead of being read as "any courts in which the U.S. law reigns supreme."

[B Knotts]

I disagree with Justice Thomas, because the idea of any American court considering the actions of foreign courts is offensive to the principles upon which this country was founded.

Under no circumstances should a law be interpreted in a way that considers the judicial decisions or legislative actions of foreign countries, unless Congress explicitly writes that into the law, and even then, American courts should be wary of allowing it.

[AmishDude]

convictions overseas in such courts shouldn't extend such tyranny back to our own shores.

This is NOT the supreme court's decision to make. Cite me chapter and verse in the Constitution that Congress cannot pass a law that recognizes judicial decisions that take place in another country. Congress has the power to do this and SCOTUS does not have the power to take it away.

[Dead Corpse]

Article III. Section 2.

[ClintonBeGone]

What they did "over there" means nothing...

What so many on this thread fail to appreciate is we have extradition treaties with almost all foreign countries, so we do recongize foreign court proceedings in our laws. However, that isn't the point of this decision. It's simply whether the 'fix' to this law, if one is needed, should be made by 5 justices, or 435 elected representatives.