Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: sdpatriot

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.


306 posted on 04/27/2005 10:57:51 AM PDT by Texas Federalist (If you get in bed with the government, you'll get more than a good night's sleep." R. Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies ]


To: Texas Federalist

oops. federal court = foreign crime


307 posted on 04/27/2005 10:58:50 AM PDT by Texas Federalist (If you get in bed with the government, you'll get more than a good night's sleep." R. Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies ]

To: Texas Federalist

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.


308 posted on 04/27/2005 11:17:12 AM PDT by sdpatriot (remember waco and ruby ridge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson