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.

[45Auto]

As usual the grabbers have tried to paint this with a broad brush: this isn't about "efforts to GIVE felons gun rights", its about funding a review process, a process that happens to be part of statuatory federal LAW i.e., guaranteeing "due process" ala the Bill of Rights. The enemies of freedom have demonstrated, once again, their disdain for Constitutional protections, and their contempt for the average American citizen. One can only hope to live long enough to see some real justice meted out to these treasonous vermin.

[sneakypete]

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the justices, said that Bean could only go to court if his request was denied by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The bureau didn't act on his application.

Somebody should explain to this idiot that Constitutional RIGHTS aren't granted by a office of government.

Thomas said the ATF, not a judge, was best prepared to look into whether an applicant could be a danger to public safety.

Does this idiot also think that RIGHTS are determined by a Committee for Public Safety"? Does he think this is France during the French Revolution?

The justices rejected Bean's argument that the government's inability to act amounted to a denial.

Of course they did. Heaven forbid that any of these ball less political hacks make a actual non-PC decision that supports the US Constitution.

The Bush administration had argued against Bean,

Of course they have. The ball less statists who are afraid of freedom got together and elected their king,and they call him "President Bush".

despite the Justice Department's stance that the Constitution guarantees a right to gun ownership.

This is NOT the sorta-Justice Department stand on the 2nd Amendment,and it is NOT the stand of the Bubba-2 White House. What Janet Ashcroft wrote was "that while the 2nd Amendment is a individual right,the federal government reserves the right to regulate reasonable restrictions on who can own guns,and what type of guns they can own." In other words,according to the Bubba-2 administration,you have a Constitutional Right to own guns as long as they are willing to allow you to own them,and as long as you only want to own the ones they are willing to ALLOW you to have. For some reason the second part of this never gets mentioned.

The National Rifle Association did not file arguments in the case,

Of course not. Even the Gun Control Act of 1968 had the NRA stamp of approval,and it's current president is on record as stating he "hate AK-47's,and see no reason for anyone TO BE ALLOWED TO OWN THEM".

but other gun rights supporters backed Bean. 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.

Somebody needs to tell Mr Nosanchuk that the feral gooberment has no more legal authority to GIVE Mr Bean rights than they had to take them away. If the gooberment can take it away,it is NOT a right. It's a privledge.

Further,someone needs to highlight the FACT that it wasn't a violation of federal law for convicted felons to own guys prior to the Gun Control Act of 1968. That is because it was recogonized that doing such a thing would be un-Constitutional. These conntrol-freak shills used the emotion resulting from the murders of the Kennedy's and MLK Jr to slide this under the door,and nobody has the guts to stand up to them.

[sneakypete]

Does anyone know if the military accepts convicted felons into the ranks?

No,they don't. And beyond that,they now throw out military members who have been convicted or even charged with "domestic assault" because of the new laws that allow the police to steal the guns from anyone charged with this crime.

[sneakypete]

Guess one had better not get caught with that state and local legal firearm by a Fed LEO.

There is already at least one case where the Bubba-2 so-called Justice Dept is doing a federal prosecution on a convicted felon who had a state pardon and bought a new gun at a gun shop. There was a thread about it here on FR a couple of weeks ago.I think it is safe to say it wasn't one of Bubba-1's OR Bubba-2's convicted felon friends. Bubba-1 gave HIS convicted drug-dealing felon friend a federal pardon,so the feds can't go after him.

[Smogger]

Does anyone know if the military accepts convicted felons into the ranks?

No they don't. However, you may be interested to know that if you are convicted of a felony, then the charge is later reduced to a misdameanor, dismissed, and expunged. You have NOT been convicted of a felony for all purposes (including joining the military) EXCEPT you can NEVER own a gun.

[sneakypete]

But history doesn't move in straight lines, and the entire applecart can be overturned in the future, especially if there is a huge terrorist act etc.

Travis,the next terrorist act will result in Bubba-2 asking for MORE restrictions on gun ownership,not less.

[sneakypete]

And why exactly should a violation of a Mexican law be a felony in the US ???

No habla Senor Bush?

[sneakypete]

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

Yes.

[wardaddy]

Yep....if the Feds want yer ass for guns and you only have state-restored rights then you are going to get 5 years minimum and not at a camp since the crime of felon with a firearm will mandate a controlled-movement prison.

Someone should try to resolve this but since most ex-felons can't vote....most pols won't touch it.

Have you forgiven my faux pas yet?

[Smogger]

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.

Wrong.

1. There is no Federal Law restricting the voting rights of convicted felons. Elections are left to the state so the law is different in every state. Some states have no laws restricting the voting rights of convicted felons, some do, while others say only parolees cannot vote. Understand?

2. Laws that seek to disenfranchise voters convicted of a felony scare the Hell out of me for one simple reason. You want to get rid of your political opposition? Make something a felony. Charge and convict the opposition and they can never vote against you again.

[sneakypete]

Why was Bean arguing that he should have his rights restored? It seems to me that he should have been arguing that he's not a felon under US law

I'm far from a legal eagle,but I THINK this has to do with the NAFTA agreement. I'm not sure of the exact wording,but I'm pretty sure we surrendered.

[sneakypete]

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

We don't have a trade agreement with Iran,and they won't soon be a part of the same country. This is just setting the ground for our accepting Mexican law as part of our legal code.

[sneakypete]

Get it?

Doesn't Bubba-2 look just DREAMY in his new sombrero and serape? And what about that handsome nephew of his,George "The Mexican" Bush? So young,yet allowed to give a speech at the 2000 Republican convention!

I sure as hell don't.

Is it starting to get any clearer yet?

[Still Thinking]

Yes, of course, you're absolutely correct. Note that I had "crime" in quotes in my post. My beef was with the supposed seriousness of the offense if it's a given that they are allowed to regulate it.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Orwell, well, well. What criminal sanctions or gun rights in the USA should have to do with a TRADE agreement, is beyond my understanding.

[HiTech RedNeck]

We don't have a trade agreement with Iran,and they won't soon be a part of the same country. This is just setting the ground for our accepting Mexican law as part of our legal code.

Mexico itself seems to have been conspicuously silent about this particular affair.

[pad 34]

Bean was incarcerated in Mexico for approximately six months before being released to the custody of the United States under the International Prisoner Transfer Treaty. He thereafter spent another month in federal prison before being released under supervision. As a convicted felon, under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) Bean lost all rights to possess firearms. Section 925(c) of the statute, however, provides a means for relief from the firearms disabilities. Upon completion of his period of supervision in July, 1999, Bean petitioned the BATF for such relief so that he might return to his business.

At issue herein is the action and inaction of Congress since 1992. For this nigh decade, Congress has stated in its annual budget appropriation bill that "none of the funds appropriated herein shall be available to investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C § 925(c)."(3) Because the BATF could not use any appropriated funds to fulfill its responsibilities under the statute, it sent Bean a notice that it would not act upon his request due to the congressional action. Bean then petitioned the district court, contending that the BATF's letter denied his petition and exhausted his administrative remedies.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/615167/posts

[sneakypete]

Have you forgiven my faux pas yet?

This is one of those rare circumstances where the smartass answer is the same as the most accurate answer,"what fox paws?"

BTW,I don't carry grudges or arguements from one thread to another. Life is too short,and we both have better things to do that continue to alienante someone who may agree with us on most issues because they disagree with us on one.

[sneakypete]

What criminal sanctions or gun rights in the USA should have to do with a TRADE agreement, is beyond my understanding.

Mine too,actually. My understanding is that this agreement comes from the treaty,that says both countries will respect the legal systems of the other country. Unless I remember it wrong, Bean was allowed to serve his time in the US instead of a Mexican prison because of this.

[wardaddy]

lol