Court rules against felons in gun case

SJ Mercury News ^ | 12/10/02 | Gina Holland - AP

[NormsRevenge]

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Tuesday shut the door on felons going straight to court to get their gun rights restored, leaving no options for people who claim a conviction shouldn't stop them from being a gun owner.

The justices ruled unanimously that felons must go through a federal agency. That agency, however, has been banned by Congress since 1992 from processing requests.

[glock rocks]

can you enlighten us re:#17 Larry?

[RogueIsland]

Did I read this right? Did this lose his gun rights because he violated Mexican law?

Yup, you read that right.

[Redcloak]

Could be because 18 USC 922(d) says "convicted in any court." ---Would assume Congress meant any U.S. court, but once written as "any," we are apparently lost.

Would "any" include the court in Iran that sentenced Salman Rushdie? If that's the court's thinking, then Rushdie ought not be allowed to defend himself against any Islamakazis that wish to enforce the Ayatollah's Fatwah. (Any liberal lurkers care to defend that aspect of this gun law?!?)

[AdamSelene235]

I think around 3-5% of American males are felons

12% of Americans are now felons according to The Economist.

Incidentally, the definition that Scalia uses for felon is: A serious crime punishable by death.

Less than half of the Americans convicted of felonys ever serve time.

[AdamSelene235]

Did I read this right? Did this lose his gun rights because he violated Mexican law?

Yes, then he was jailed in America for violating Mexican law.

Get it?

I sure as hell don't.

[HiTech RedNeck]

and the entire applecart can be overturned in the future, especially if there is a huge terrorist act etc.

Like an Islamonut sniper spree in 100 major metro areas? Why, why, why don't we see any Freeps about this issue?

Among the juiciest worms in this can, we are ceding our national sovereignty big time by declaring what a "felony" is based on what some other country decides to do to punish it. A stack of Playboys in Saudi Arabia would qualify. Dissing Mohammed in Pakistan would qualify. The definition of what a "felony" committed abroad is, should be normed based upon Federal law dictating the penalty of the same act if in the USA.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

This ruling is a good thing because it dampens the drive to restore the voting rights of convicted felons, the great majority of whom are likely to vote Democrat. My position has been if convicted felons are allowed to vote, they must be allowed to keep and bear arms too.

Do you really want to ignore the issue of what is the right thing to do and instead boil it down to what will give your party more political power? You would fit right in with the power hungry politicians currently infesting most elected offices.

[AdamSelene235]

Among the juiciest worms in this can, we are ceding our national sovereignty big time by declaring what a "felony" is based on what some other country decides to do to punish it.

Explain to me again, how this is not treason?

[William Tell]

Still Thinking said: "...Class C Misdemeanor might be more like it ..."

For keeping and bearing arms? There is no crime here whatever. The only crimes have been committed by governments. Unfortunately, theirs and ours.

[Larry Lucido]

First time I've read the details of this case. Like Gatex in post 20, I would have taken "any" court to mean any U.S. court, not any court in the known universe. Guess I have to see the written opinions to see how the court handled that phrasing. I guess saying "This sucks" isn't going to get Mr. Bean's rights restored.

[gatex]

"Would "any" include the court in Iran that sentenced Salman Rushdie?..."

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals would probably say yes.

[HiTech RedNeck]

If the President can pardon in such a case, can he also "commute." I.e. declare it a misdemeanor.

[45Auto]

This seems to be a direct violation of the 5th Amendment due process clause; and possibly the 1st Amendment 'redress' clause.

[wardaddy]

12% of Americans are now felons according to The Economist.

If that is true and I have no reason to doubt you.....then if one removes children and 90% of women from that pool(since they commit a mere fraction of crime)...then I would guess my surmisal of 3-5% is low by nearly 100% or better.

[AdamSelene235]

This seems to be a direct violation of the 5th Amendment due process clause; and possibly the 1st Amendment 'redress' clause.

No Sh*T.

These people are traitors.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Incidentally, the definition that Scalia uses for felon is: A serious crime punishable by death.

At the time of the Founding Fathers.

[wardaddy]

Sad day in this country when you and I frequently remark that things will surely get better if we only have another cataclysm and then folks will wake up.....sad indeed.

[45Auto]

Mathew Nosanchuk, litigation director for the pro-gun control Violence Policy Center, predicted the court's decision will end an effort to give felons gun rights.

Well, Mr. Nose-chunk there's a real problem with this, because the statue exists in federal law; merley defunding it does not negate its existence. The damn Congress should either re-fund this review process, or go on record with their votes and repeal the damn statute. As it is, there are some real big Constitutional questions here.

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

NR, Couldn't this guy sue the BATF and Treasury for failure to perform duties? Ala Marbury vs Madison. Peace and love, George.

[HiTech RedNeck]

By arguing the way he did, did Bean cede any of these other points to the government already, precluding more appeals? Legal eagles???