Felons Want Second Amendment Rights Restored

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.

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," 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."

This is from an email that I recieved from a friend who is active in 2nd Amendment issues. I think that this is a very well thought analysis and may help to explain why relief is important in certain cases.

Unless they reverse course, the Bush Administration will unwittingly empower foreign tyrants: past, present and future.

Mr. Bean was convicted in a Mexican court of an act that is not a crime in the United States. That Mexican conviction caused Bean to suffer the lifelong loss of his rights and livelihood in the United States. This happened because the Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 USC Sec 178.32(1)is interpreted to recognize "all" convictions by "all courts" domestic and foreign, including Nazi, Communist and Islamic courts. The United States government uses those foreign convictions to deny Americans the exercise of Constitutionally protected rights in America. (ex post facto) (18 USC sec 178.32).

Our governments interpretation of 18 USC Sec 178.32(1) denies 2nd Amendment rights to every American convicted of any felony, at any time, at any place where the sentence imposed could possibly be over one year. This includes foreign crimes which are not crimes in the United States - such as the Mexican case above, or, Americans found guilty of giving away bibles in certain Islamic or Communist countries - even decades ago.

Naturally, a law that sweeping, had a safety valve - a relief from disability" provision (18 USC Sec 925) that allowed Americans to petition the Secretary of the Treasury to have their Constitutional rights restored.

Every year since 1992, Congress has completely shut off that Safety Valve. Telling Treasury that they may not even consider the estoration of rights to any American regardless of merit. At the same time, Congress took away the rights of hundreds of thousands of additional Americans ex post facto, by expanding the disqualifying state misdemeanors to include certain misdemeanors where the maximum penalty was less than one year. Many of those people were convicted becasue years ago it was cheaper to plead to a minor charge that (at that time) didn't mean anything.

The fact that Congress shut off the safety valve, prompted some Federal courts to begin hearing appeals. Now the Bush Administration wants to stop the courts from delivering justice to those Americans who deserve to have their rights restored. Their argument is that no American should have a day in court becasue the courts might restore rights to a bad person. This is a serious ethical and political mistake - it cuts the heart out of core values of American jurisprudence.

While the press only talks about felonies, 18 USC Sec 178.32(1) ALSO denies 2nd Amendment rights to every American who was ever convicted of state misdemeanors where the sentence could have exceeded two years even if there was no jail sentence at all (USC 18 Sec 921(20).

In Pennsylvania, the Federal 1968 law interfaced with state law in an unintended way: because of a lack of misdemeanor grading in Pennsylvania, almost every person who had ever been convicted of almost any misdemeanor committed prior to 1972 (including a single DWI that harmed no one) lost their right to own firearms. This also includes non-violent 1950's era convictions for drag racing and crimes that aren't even crimes anymore such as bastardy. (I wonder if in other states this includes violations of segregation laws?)

Many of these people fell through the cracks, living good lives, unaware that GCA-68 had made them second class citizens. As the "instant check" involves more and more Americans, many good Americans have been shocked to find that they have no gun rights, having lost them ex post facto, for very minor transgressions that occurred decades before. Often these transgressions are decades old minor juvenile convictions that they were assured would remain sealed forever (until the Pennsylvania Legislature unsealed them). I have many times consoled respectable senior citizens who are in shock, having just learned that they have unknowingly been subject to prosecution as a felon in possession of firearms.

Unless the bush administration wakes up, their next shock will be to discover that the Bush administration wants to thwart their attempts to find justice in Congress and in the Federal Courts.

We believe that if Mr. Olsen thinks this through, he will discover that if he argues this case before the Supreme Court, he will, in effect, be arguing to empower the states that sponsored the terrorists who killed his wife.

How safe are any of our Constitutional rights if we allow hostile foreign governments to take them away and deny ATF and our Federal Courts the ability to restore them?

Harry Schneider
Legislative Chairman
Pennsylvania Sportsmen's Association

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.

Poetic justice: You get ensnared in the very trap you are laying for other people.

You do not have the shadow of a clue what law and punishment is all about.

Punishment is not a deterrent, it is justice. You shouldn't execute a murderer to keep him from killing, you execute him because that is the just sentence for taking human life.

You don't imprison a thief to keep him from stealing, to throw him in jail because that is the just penalty for theft.

The can of worms you are opening is to use the criminal justice system for social engineering. You want to make things illegal and imprison people to construct a society to your liking.

That is the heart of tyranny. People who think like you are termites in the house of freedom.

"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."

Again, this is an unfortunate consequence of a person's choice to break the law! I abide by the law, and have no sympathy for people that reject the Laws that govern Society! If a person has (indeed) reformed, then I think that they should be allowed to rejoin Society, once they have served their full sentence. I do not think that they should walk away from the experience totally unscathed. As a consequence of breaking the law you lose your right to vote, and hold public office, and your gun rights! This should serve as a deterrent to some people. If you have been wrongly convicted- get a Lawyer and clear your name!

"Poetic justice: You get ensnared in the very trap you are laying for other people."

Your stupid little Gypsy curse doesn't scare me. I am a Law abiding Citizen, so I have nothing to fear from the Law.

"You do not have the shadow of a clue what law and punishment is all about. Punishment is not a deterrent, it is justice. You shouldn't execute a murderer to keep him from killing, you execute him because that is the just sentence for taking human life. You don't imprison a thief to keep him from stealing, to throw him in jail because that is the just penalty for theft."

Well, Duh! I'm glad that you figured that out all by yourself! I am surprised to learn that (because I don't happen to agree with you on one point of the law) I don't have a shadow of a clue!

"The can of worms you are opening is to use the criminal justice system for social engineering. You want to make things illegal and imprison people to construct a society to your liking."

I'm not opening any can of worms. This Law is already in place, and has been for some time now!

"That is the heart of tyranny. People who think like you are termites in the house of freedom."

I served my country well in the United States Army. I was in George Bush Sr.'s Military during Desert Storm. People like your are Dung Beetles in the outhouse of Freedom!!!

"Again, this is an unfortunate consequence of a person's choice to break the law! I abide by the law, and have no sympathy for people that reject the Laws that govern Society!"

Dear Mr. Perfect, Thank you for that pronouncement. I too am a person that has always believed in obeying the law, but now you can become a felon by unknowingly and unintentionally breaking some law that your Lords and Masters have deigned to be for the good of Society. You can intend no harm and in fact, do no harm, but if you cross that magical line in the sand, you become a felon. It can happen to you as well as the next guy. With 20,000 plus gun laws on the books, I'll bet that I and many others 'break' more than a few everyday. Where is the justice in that, Mr. Perfect?

BTW, when slavery was legal, would you have owned slaves because it was legal? Would you abort a baby in the womb because it is legal? Some things are legal and still not moral. Would you do them anyway? And sometimes you must do an illegal act to show the immorality of a 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.