Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Felons' Gun Rights at Issue at High Court
Legal Times ^ | 10-03-2002 | Jim Oliphant

Posted on 10/03/2002 8:17:10 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed

Thomas Lamar "Tommy" Bean is selling used cars in south Texas right now, and to him, that's the fault of Congress.

It's Congress, after all, that won't allow him to regain his license to sell guns. On Oct. 16, his case comes before the U.S. Supreme Court. And if he gets his way, Bean, a convicted felon, will be dealing guns again.

At issue in United States v. Bean, No. 01-704, is a provision in federal law that allows felons to obtain a permit to own and sell firearms. The case has placed gun-rights advocates in the unusual position of disagreeing with Attorney General John Ashcroft's Justice Department and an administration that has been arguably more gun-friendly than any in recent history.

While convicted felons generally are not permitted to own guns, a provision in the federal firearms laws allows someone who has served his time and been released to apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for permission to own a weapon.

But the ATF hasn't green-lighted any felon's request for relief in a decade. It can't. In 1992, Congress eliminated the funds that enabled the bureau to do it and has refused to restore them ever since.

That came after a report prepared by the Washington, D.C.-based Violence Policy Center blasted the ATF, showing that one-third of the felons granted gun privileges by the bureau had been imprisoned for a violent or drug-related crime.

"There were some very dangerous people [regaining gun rights]," says Mathew Nosanchuk, litigation director of the Violence Policy Center. "Congress showed that it wasn't willing to roll the dice."

All of that left Tommy Bean without a remedy and without a business when he got in trouble at the Mexican border in March 1998.

NO TENGO PISTOLAS

Bean, a firearms dealer, was in Laredo, Texas, participating in a gun show. One evening he and three assistants decided to travel into Mexico for dinner. Bean says he directed his assistants to remove any firearms and ammunition from his Chevrolet Suburban.

Upon reaching the border, Mexican customs officers discovered a box of ammunition containing approximately 200 rounds in the back of Bean's truck. Bean, as owner of the vehicle, was arrested on a felony charge of importing ammunition and sentenced to five years in a Mexican prison. As part of an international prisoner exchange agreement, Bean was transferred to the United States six months later and soon released.

In July 1999, Bean petitioned the ATF for relief to recover his license to sell firearms. Bean received a notice that the bureau would not act upon his request because funds for investigating his background under the relief program had been eliminated.

So Bean sued in federal court. U.S. District Judge Joe Fisher of the Eastern District of Texas first ruled that he had the authority to review Bean's petition in place of the ATF. Second, he granted Bean's request, restoring his gun rights.

The case went up to a sympathetic panel on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision, creating a split with other circuits that had come to different conclusions.

"[W]e are faced with the almost incredible plight of Thomas Bean," the 5th Circuit stated in its affirmance, "who, at most, was negligent in not ensuring that his associates completely performed the simple task directed and who served months in Mexican and U.S. prisons for a simple oversight."

The Supreme Court granted certiorari earlier this year.

Before the high court, the Justice Department has taken the stance that a federal court holds no power to make the determination that a felon can regain gun privileges. In doing so, the government cites congressional language in support of its funding ban, saying the decision to grant relief in a given case "is a very difficult and subjective task which could have devastating consequences for innocent civilians if the wrong decision is made." In its brief, the Justice Department says there "is no reason to expect that judicial proceedings could reduce that risk."

Nosanchuk agrees. "It's judicial activism at its worst," he says. "It's really bizarre to think of judges spending their time doing this."

'MOST IMPORTANT CASE IN 60 YEARS'

But Thomas Goldstein, a D.C. lawyer who will argue the case on behalf of Bean, says the case is about providing an avenue for relief for felons who can make a legitimate case for recovering their right to own and sell guns.

"We agree that Congress didn't want a lot of people getting their guns back," Goldstein says. "But these clearly are incredibly deserving cases. They're totally out of luck. A remedy is an important part of the statute."

That the Justice Department would stand in Bean's path at all has angered some gun rights advocates.

"The Bush administration is taking the most radical anti-gun position possible in the most important Supreme Court [gun rights] case in 60 years," says Harry Schneider, the chairman of the Pennsylvania Sportsmen's Association, on the "Keep and Bear Arms" Web site.

But others are pragmatic. Alan Gottlieb, president of the Second Amendment Foundation, which has filed an amicus brief in the case in support of Bean, says the Justice Department had no choice but to back a congressional action.

"Like it or not, DOJ has to support the law," Gottlieb says. In fact, Gottlieb says, the Justice Department brief provides case law that he claims supports Bean's contention that federal courts have the power to restore gun rights.

Gottlieb says his organization views Bean as the perfect vehicle for taking this issue before the Court. "You've got somebody who was not a danger to society," he says. "We really think we are going to win."

The Second Amendment Foundation is also asking the Court to affirm that gun ownership is an individual right granted under the Constitution. "We want it -- even if it's in dictum," Gottlieb says. "I think they probably will do it."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; Mexico; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; espionagelist; freetrade; geopolitics; govwatch; nwo; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 last
To: TheDon
Prior to the Gun Control Act of 1968, there was no federal prohibition on possession by felons who had served their time. This was not true in all the states of course, but that was when the federales decided that "one strike and you're out" was great public policy when it came to owning the tools of self defense.
21 posted on 10/03/2002 9:45:18 AM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Oberon
In other words, a bureau of political appointees should not be required to be answerable to a federal court? I don't like that precedent one bit.

If you don't like that precedent, what do you think the Supremes would think of it? Think they would agree to such a thing? No way.

I think the DOJ purposely chose this case because they KNEW that they couldn't win it. If the Supremes decide to hear this case, there is essentially no chance that they will find that they don't have the right to review BATF activity or inactivity, especially when the BATF actions are based on foreign law. The Supremes will then have opened the door to let every two bit judge in every town restore gun rights based on judicial review.

"bad cases make bad law," goes the saying. In other words, particularly compelling fact patterns can cause courts to issue rulings that they might not have otherwise issued. Those rulings then become precedent, and change the law.

I think the DOJ is on the pro-gun rights side on this, and they're just playing a game to advance gun rights. Too bad Mr. Bean has to get caught in the middle.

22 posted on 10/03/2002 9:57:30 AM PDT by Jubal Harshaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Now its hard enough for us non felons to own firearms, and the law already gives us enough problems from gun grabbers, but keep this is mind, if this guy wins his case, it will make it easier for us. I hate to do this, but I feel we have no choice but to back him up. If even a convicted felon can recieve a licience to sell firearms, then it should be much easier for a non felon to buy them.
23 posted on 10/03/2002 9:59:18 AM PDT by Sonny M
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RicocheT
"I know the Constitution is for all of us..."

You sure don"t sound like it. There is no gray area in the 2nd amendment. Like it or not, once a felon has paid his debt to society by serving his sentence and making whatever restitution is required by his sentence, then his rights should be restored...all of them.

I don't disagree with you philosophically, but if we don't uphold all of our rights, to the letter, it will lead to the kinds of "living document" interpretation that has gotten us into this mess in the first place.

24 posted on 10/03/2002 10:00:35 AM PDT by wcbtinman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba; TheDon
If they can't be trusted with guns, they can't be trusted in society, since the recidivists WILL get guns if they want to.

There is no good reason to deny them the right to self defense.

Agreed, with one provision:

If a convicted felon regains his RKBA and is later convicted of ANY firearm related crime, he receives the death penalty .... no appeal ..... no exceptions.

25 posted on 10/03/2002 10:05:02 AM PDT by Freebird Forever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

TAKE BACK THE SENATE!

VOTE OUT THE DEMS!

DONATE TODAY!!!.
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
Become A Monthly Donor
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

26 posted on 10/03/2002 10:07:29 AM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
Ping.
27 posted on 10/03/2002 10:12:51 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wcbtinman
The rationale is that lifetime suspension of firearms rights is part of the required payment of debt to society. I think this would be justified if all "felonies' were actually serious crimes. But you can get a felony conviction these days for doing the wrong kind of jaywalking.
28 posted on 10/03/2002 10:25:56 AM PDT by Anotherpundit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
This should be interesting. I'm not sure whether to believe DOJ has their hands tied on this one or not.
29 posted on 10/03/2002 12:05:36 PM PDT by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Freebird Forever
I agree wholeheartedly with that statement.

One strike after getting out and your toast.

If you are an ex-felon, and you commit a crime with a gun, you are TOAST!! PERIOD!!

The 2nd amenedment applies to ALL persons, and if you have payed your debt to society, your rights should be restored.
30 posted on 10/03/2002 12:18:09 PM PDT by Aric2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Freebird Forever
Like having a bayonet lug on his rifle? How about just obeying the law for a change... " the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". That means ALL of the people, ANY arms, and no infringements AT ALL!

Molon Labe !

31 posted on 10/03/2002 12:22:44 PM PDT by TERMINATTOR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Before the high court, the Justice Department has taken the stance that a federal court holds no power to make the determination that a felon can regain gun privileges.

Are you always so pleasant?

32 posted on 10/03/2002 2:22:14 PM PDT by m1911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RicocheT
I'm not going to bat for a convicted felon.

Then you'll never go to bat for a 2nd Amendment case. If you haven't been convicted, you can't challenge the law.

33 posted on 10/03/2002 2:24:06 PM PDT by m1911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Freebird Forever
"If a convicted felon regains his RKBA and is later convicted of ANY firearm related crime, he receives the death penalty .... no appeal ..... no exceptions."

I hope you mean violent crime, and not merely having the wrong buttstock installed on his rifle or another one of the growing tide of "firearms-related crimes."
34 posted on 10/03/2002 3:53:40 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RicocheT
If a felon can't be trusted with a gun they should never be let out of prison.
35 posted on 10/03/2002 7:46:41 PM PDT by Ajnin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
Bean was convicted of a felony in a foreign country for a practice that is perfectly legal here.

Oh,there are people in federal prisons now who have even less reason to be there than Bean. Did you know that in some states it is legal for a former felon to possess firearms? Did you know that thanks to the NRA and their RINO friends (Project Exile),the feral gooberment is now prosecuting these people who are otherwise totally legal under federal regulations that make them felons? The feds are even hiring additional prosecutors to handle the increased work load,and Bubba-2 has increased their budget so they can do this hiring.

36 posted on 10/03/2002 8:45:24 PM PDT by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: wcbtinman
I don't disagree with you philosophically, but if we don't uphold all of our rights, to the letter, it will lead to the kinds of "living document" interpretation that has gotten us into this mess in the first place.

You're right. The truth is it's not even about guns or gun rights. It's about the rights of individuals,period. NO government has the moral or legal right to deny someone the basic human right of self-defense. Is a former felon's family less worthy of being protected than your family? Is his life any less valuable to him than yours is to you?

37 posted on 10/03/2002 8:49:55 PM PDT by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Freebird Forever
If a convicted felon regains his RKBA and is later convicted of ANY firearm related crime, he receives the death penalty .... no appeal ..... no exceptions.

I agree. If he forgets and walks into a bank or post office with his gun,or he has a rifle in his trunk when he's stopped for speeding or drunk driving,he and his whole family should be immediately executed. (sarcasm)

What's with you people who want the type of tool used to have any effect on crime punishment? You sound as bad as the gun-grabbers. Is a man beaten to death with a shovel any less dead than one shot with a gun?

38 posted on 10/03/2002 8:53:23 PM PDT by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RicocheT
It's hard enough to preserve Second Amendment rights for non-felon citizens, I'm not going to bat for a convicted felon.

The definition of "felony" has been extended to the point of incredulity. Consider how many are labeled "felons" for the simple practice of exercising their consitutional and natural right to keep and bear arms? In other words, if you exercise your right to keep and bear arms, except as specifically proscribed by a bewildering blizzard of federal and state laws, then you are a felon. My opinion is this: if ones does not support 2nd Amendment rights for this gentleman, then one does not support the 2nd Amendment, period.

39 posted on 10/03/2002 8:54:50 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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