Sure wish they'd make my mind up. 
/s
Posted on 04/27/2005 4:35:29 AM PDT by Mikey
In a 5-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court today ruled people convicted of crimes overseas can own guns in the United States.
U.S. law bars felons who have been convicted in "any court" from owning guns, but Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the majority, reasoned the law should not apply to foreign convictions because courts abroad often have fewer procedural protections for defendants.
Breyer was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
He wrote, "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 argued that Congress can rewrite the law if it intended foreign convictions to apply.
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, argued in dissent that Congress was literal in its intent that "any" court conviction applied.
"Read naturally, the word 'any' has an expansive meaning, that is, 'one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind,'" Thomas said.
The case was heard in November when Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist was undergoing treatment for thyroid cancer.
The court ruled in favor of Gary Sherwood Small of Pennsylvania, who was indicted in 2000 for lying on a federal form when he bought a handgun. Only days after he was paroled from a Japanese prison for violating weapons laws, he answered "no" to the felony conviction question.
Thomas wrote: "After today's ruling, the only way for Congress to ensure that courts will construe a law to refer to foreign facts or entities is to describe those facts of entities specifically as foreign. If this is not a special burden of specificity, I am not sure what is," Thomas wrote.
The court had been asked by the Bush administration to apply the law to people convicted in foreign countries.
This is pure stupidity.
I guess we found the hired guns for the LIEberals.
Pure stupidity.
Some people do not know what "is" is. Now those same people do not understand how many are "any."
When I was in Nigeria, you could have almost anyone jailed (as long as they weren't an 'important' person) for about $200US. Unless they counter-bribed, in which case you'd be out of your $200 and out of luck.
Interesting that the liberal judges came out in favor of more gun rights don't you think?
These people are bording on a jackass alert.
If the law specified "any court" then the meaning is clear. If the simple meaning results in something that seems stupid -- change the law. But the law is the law. Unless, of course, the Supreme Courts wants to push the idea that the law doesn't matter -- perhaps the only thing that matters is the opinion of the Men In Black. They rule us now. This ruling is an important part of that.
This was posted yesterday. Both the decision and the dissent focused narrowly on semantics and whether in the context of the bill "any" could apply to foreign courts.
The liberals made the right decision for the wrong reason and the conservatives came to the wrong conclusion, also for the wrong reason. Both sides ignored the Constitution, but rest assured the decision was proper even if the reasoning was flawed.
Carl! Bad headline. Made it sound like guns were being given to Turkish opium runners. How about "Supreme Court allows firearms for US citizens convicted overseas"?
***This is pure stupidity.***
Careful, now. What this seems to mean is if you are busted for acidently carrying a .22 shell into Mexico and end up in a mexican jail, you can still have your gun rights restored in the US.
Actually, I think this is a good ruling. Foreign courts don't have the same protections as US courts. If you were convicted in a Saudi court would you want your rights abridged in the US? Having said that, all Congress has to do is go back and make the law more specific.
Sure wish they'd make my mind up.
/s
If the Constitution supports what they believe, the Constitution is their guidepost.
If foreign courts support what they believe, then foreign courts are their guideposts.
If foreign courts differ from what they believe, then foreign courts should be ignored.
I see consistency here. And it bothers me.
That's the way I read it too-thinking about the guy who was convicted in Mexico of possession of shotgun shells or something--
(I probably don't have all the details correct but the gist of the story is true)
Because the US Judicial System should validate rulings of Sharia Law.
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.