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.

[Husker24]

What difference does it make if he broke Mexican law?

[sneakypete]

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

Since I don't read Mexican newspapers or watch Mexican tv,I have no idea what they are saying about it. I know the US media have done their damndest to ignore it. Neither one of us would have ever heard about it if we weren't politically active and involved in gun rights. Ask around with your non-political neighbors and relatives and see how many of THEM have heard about it. I can guarantee you they have heard every detail about J-Lo's impending marriage,since the media think this is more "newsworthy" than little things like maintaining our sovereign status.

[AdamSelene235]

What difference does it make if he broke Mexican law?

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Why is it that when you use Italics to denote quotes from another freeper that your intent should be understood but when I do the same you mange to attribute the other freepers quote to me? Try reading reply # 13 and then my response in reply # 27.

[Smogger]

Why is it that when you use Italics to denote quotes from another freeper that your intent should be understood but when I do the same you mange to attribute the other freepers quote to me? Try reading reply # 13 and then my response in reply # 27.

Uh... cause I screwed up? :P

[watcher1]

if they can't simply outlaw guns, they will outlaw gunowners...it'll take a bit longer but in the end the results will be the same....and they'll have all these tasty stats about "felons with guns" to march out when need be.

That's exactly what they are doing

[supercat]

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)"

Why doesn't he file a writ of mandamus to have the BATF redirect some of the "none of the funds" that are currently used for collecting gun registration lists.

[pad 34]

Why doesn't he file a writ of mandamus to have the BATF redirect some of the "none of the funds" that are currently used for collecting gun registration lists.

I don't know, I'm not a jurist, just an angry gun owner.

[watcher1]

Even in a socialist rathole like Canada a reformed felon can own a gun
It's routine for the government of Canada to issue a "certificate of rehabilitation" to any felon who has been law abiding for 4 years or longer.
The application process is not overly complicated nor time consuming
With this certificate and ex felon can apply for a Firearms Acquisition Certificate ( FAC) with the FAC he can buy and own a gun

In this respect Canada treats it's citizens better than we do.
BTW You can legally own a handgun in Toronto or Montreal. Try that in Chicago, or New York

[wardaddy]

I remember traveling cross border at Glacier in '76 or so and the Marlin 444 was no problema but you needed a permit for our handguns. They were quite nice about it. Our guns were waiting when we came back across at Vancouver about a month later.....as was a "borrowed towels" bill from the Crowfoot Inn in Calgary...lol

Leave it to Canada to be willing to give an ex-criminal a chance for redemption concerning gun rights while we meantime look for easier ways to violate such folks and throw them back in jail....if only if they are defending their families or business.

This is the purpose the ATF was served.....hard to imagine now...but once they would interview a felon who had finished parole or probation and restore full or limited RKBA for hunting or self defense. After Congress quit funding this then one could only apply to a Fed judge or get a pardon. Now only the pardon remains.....and the penalties for breaking this law continue to escalate.

[HiTech RedNeck]

If this is true, then the US can't punish anyone at Mexico's or Canada's behest, treaty or no treaty.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Have we ever had SCOTUS force funding of any other defunded law?

[AdamSelene235]

If this is true, then the US can't punish anyone at Mexico's or Canada's behest, treaty or no treaty.

Well, they locked him up for violating Mexico's Napoleonic Code. And they are still punishing him by stripping him of his rights.

The Feds are above the law, dontcha know.

[Travis McGee]

I totally agree, but at some point laws passed in DC will not reach out to the hinterland. That is, after major acts of terrorism.

[Bob J]

TONIGHT! 6pm PDT/9pm EDT Unspun With AnnaZ and Mercuria
An interview with MICHELE MALKIN!

Click HERE to listen LIVE!

Call in! 1-868-RadioFR!

Click HERE for RadioFR Archives!

Click HERE for the RadioFR Chat Room!

[Travis McGee]

Man, you hit the nail on the head! That's one of the worst trends we are facing.

[nightdriver]

Whole lotta cops are convicted of felonies too (domestic violence, etc) does this apply to them too?

[alphadog]

"I THINK this has to do with the NAFTA agreement"

The Constitution cannot conflict with itself..."All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null, and void Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

Therefore no agreement, (treaty) can suspend a person rights...what they are trying to suggest, is that "convicted in any court" has some legal horsepower...this is just "newspeak"...I'd be sueing

[wardaddy]

I have no idea but I think there have been decisions from SCOTUS forcing equitable funding especially in matters of race and gender.

[sneakypete]

The Constitution cannot conflict with itself..."All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null, and void Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

I won't argue with you because I think you are right. I'll just say,"Good luck getting the so-called Justice Department to bring charges against itself and the White House."