Posted on 01/25/2002 3:43:40 AM PST by tberry
Felons Want Second Amendment Rights Restored
Jeff Johnson, CNSNews.com
Friday, Jan. 25, 2002
WASHINGTON – Under current law, a person convicted of a federal felony loses his Second Amendment right to own and carry a firearm. Many people, including many federally convicted felons, believe that is an absolute, irrevocable part of their sentence. But a provision of the United States code says otherwise.
Under Title 18 Section 925(c), federally convicted felons "may make application to the Secretary [of the Treasury] for relief from the disabilities imposed by Federal laws with respect to the acquisition, receipt, transfer, shipment, transportation, or possession of firearms."
The law details that relief is to be granted only if "the applicant's record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest."
Until 1992, the Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) operated the federal "Relief from Disability" program, reviewing those applications. But Congress inserted language in the annual ATF appropriations bill denying the agency the use of any federal funds to operate the program.
As a result, many of the individuals, who are now being denied reviews by ATF, have turned their attention on the courts, utilizing another part of Title 18 Section 925(c) of the U.S. Code.
"Any person whose application for relief from disabilities is denied by [ATF] may file a petition with the United States district court for the district in which he resides for a judicial review of such denial," according to the original law. "The court may in its discretion admit additional evidence where failure to do so would result in a miscarriage of justice."
Applicants argued that, because ATF was no longer conducting the legally required reviews of their applications, the secretary of the treasury had, by default, denied their applications, making them eligible for judicial review.
Supreme Court Considers Case
Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case regarding whether that judicial review is legal.
Thomas Lamar Bean, a federally licensed firearms dealer, was arrested by Mexican border police in 1998 after crossing into Mexico with one case of approximately 200 shotgun shells in his vehicle.
Bean and three associates had attended a gun show in Laredo, Texas, earlier in the day and, according to court records, the group decided to go into Mexico for dinner that night. Testimony by Bean's companions indicated that he had instructed them to remove all firearms and ammunition from the vehicle before departing, but the shotgun shells were overlooked.
Bean was found guilty of "unlawfully importing ammunition" under Mexican law, a felony at the time. Publicity about Bean's case has resulted in the classification of such actions being reduced to a misdemeanor.
When he was returned to the U.S. six months later, and after spending a month in a U.S. facility, Bean applied to ATF under the "Relief from Disability" program to have his Second Amendment rights restored.
In granting Bean's petition for relief, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals called the case "an almost incredible plight," and found that Bean had been imprisoned in Mexico and deprived of his Second Amendment rights as a U.S. citizen for what was "at most, a simple oversight."
But, according to Violence Policy Center (VPC), no convicted felon should ever be eligible to have his Second Amendment rights restored, regardless of the circumstances.
"It was and still remains the clear, unequivocal intent of Congress that the 'guns-for-felons' program cease operation altogether," according to VPC legislative director Kristen Rand.
VPC worked with anti-Second Amendment members of Congress in 1992 to end the program through the appropriations process after attempts to repeal the "Relief from Disability" provision failed. A VPC press release called the 5th Circuit Court's ruling "controversial."
But John Velleco, director of federal affairs for Gun Owners of America, says Bean's case is a perfect example of why the judicial review was included in the original law.
'All Felons Are Not Equal'
"All felons are not equal," he said. "This is a person who was convicted in the court of a foreign country for a felony that would not have been a felony in the United States."
In fact, law enforcement officials, state legislators and even ATF agents testified as to Bean's "lawful character" at his trial. Velleco says Second Amendment opponents have succumbed to the myth that "guns are bad" and that citizens who want guns are "bad by association."
"It's not 'felons' that we should be concerned about getting hold of guns. It's violent criminals," he said. "If someone is a convicted felon because they wrote bad checks or got in trouble with the IRS, which is pretty easy to do, they shouldn't be deprived of their right to defend themselves."
Velleco also points out what he sees as the irony of the efforts to end judicial review of the relief from disability applications, supposedly to keep violent felons from getting guns.
"If violent criminals want to get a gun, they're going to get a gun," he said. "The strongest evidence to support the people using this appeals process is that they're going through the system to get their rights restored legally."
No date has been set for the Supreme Court to hear arguments in the Bean case.
Sounds like the author knows from experience.
It is those person's with a violent past or mental unstability that should not have access to firearms. All violent offenders are felons, but not all felons are violent offenders. Even so, a former violent felon should be able to get a review. If a former violent felon can show themselves to have been rebilitated and no longer dangerous, they should be able to enjoy the right to self-protection like the rest of us.
You do realize that if you have a fifteen-round magazine and wander into certain states with it, you're a felon, right?
So? What do it matter whether the crime was a violent felony, or a plain vanilla felony? The fact remains that these individuals are much more likely to break the law again by committing more serious crimes!
My advice to you is stay the hell out of those States!
Most first time incarcerees are between 17 and 23, mostly young guys who really could give a sh!t less what society and you think of them. On release, with no job prospects (no one wants to hire an uneducated, unskilled worker just released from prison), many young people gravitate to the very dopes they were incarcerated with and put the "lessons" they learned in the Fagan School to what they consider good use.
It's not an excuse, but after all we're talking young, dumb and full of ---. Hey, if these kids were smart they wouldn't have done whatever it was that got them there in the first place.
Therefore, statistically, most first time offenders become recidivists.
Eventually 99% of these dopes meet a girl that actually cares and start a family or just get so damned petrified by what they see as they progress though the system [if you call going from the county jail to state prison progress :O)], that they "straighten out".
It is well known in prison circles that the best cure for all except the professionals and the insane, is called "30", in other words maturity.
Everyone agrees that professionals do not abide by law and will arm themselves under any and all circumstances, and nobody wants the insane to be within 100 yards of a gun.
But should young, stupid people who have outgrown their lawlessness or been cowed into submission be denied the right to protect their families? I don't think so.
Pros and guns:
I was a pallbearer for a Boston "wiseguy" about twenty odd years ago. The funeral parlor was jambed with guys from both sides of the street (cops and robbers. Hey, it was Boston.), and everybody was armed to the teeth.
"Ya neva know who ya gonna run inta at these friggen tings."
All rehabilitation comes from within.
We all have choices to make in the course of our lives. If you choose to be lawless at some point in your life, then you have to pay the price. I have no sympathy for you on that note. Besides, I worked with a felon once. He told me had a shotgun at the house that was purchased in his wife's name. The law didn't stop him from protecting his family, because he lived in a bad part of town!
Of course it matters what the crime was. Felony muder is 25-life. Felony litering $2500 fine and community service. The punishmet should fit the crime.
This is probably a hard concept for a statist to understand.
"Of course it matters what the crime was. Felony muder is 25-life. Felony litering $2500 fine and community service. The punishmet should fit the crime."
"This is probably a hard concept for a statist to understand."
The punishment does fit the crime! If you reject the Laws of Society, and refuse to follow those Laws, then the penalty is very clear!!
It seems to me that a "real Patriot" would be all about Law & Order. Your stance indicates that you favor arming people that represent a potential danger to Society. Since you have seen fit to attach the label of "statist" to me, then I will attache the label of Anarchist to you! I advise you to be a little less condescending in your replies!!
Such "laws" are, by definition and SCOTUS ruling, not the law of the land. The Nazis passed lots of laws; many were incredibly reprehensible.
The ultimate law is the citizen himself, armed with common sense, and otherwise; "laws" passed by Nazi shills (ClintonS, Schumer, Daschle, Gephardt, etc, etc) don't really count.
prambo
G. Gordon Liddy runs the same sort of game, or so he says. My criticism is the selectivity of this type of law enforcement. Your former co-worker and G. Gordon Liddy are exceptions to way real life works. There have been several recent cases where the exact meaning of the word "possession" has been vigorously argued, and "proximation" has been deemed to be all that is needed to prove "possession" and some people have been put away as a felon in possession for up to life.
Looked at another way, Liddy and your friend have been forced to hide behind their respective wive's skirts in order to exercise their own God-given rights.
And, if the cops are winking at your former co-worker's charade, then the chances are about 75%-25% that he's a rat and a low level drug dealer and will get used badly by both sides.
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.