Posted on 12/10/2002 12:22:01 PM PST by coloradan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Federal agencies first, not the courts, should decide whether convicted felons can regain their rights to own guns, the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) ruled unanimously on Tuesday.
Felons are barred from carrying guns after their release from prison, but they can ask the government for an exception. The ruling clarified how the procedures work in such cases.
The case involved Texas gun dealer Thomas Bean, who was convicted in a Mexican court of importing ammunition into Mexico. As a result, he was barred from possessing firearms or ammunition, losing his livelihood.
Bean applied to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for relief. The federal agency returned the application unprocessed, saying it was barred from spending any funds to investigate or act on such applications.
A 1992 law stopped funding of ATF investigations of whether felons' gun ownership rights should be reinstated. It was passed after an outcry over a study showing the agency had granted thousands of applications from convicted felons, at a cost of millions of dollars.
Bean had sued, asking a federal judge to conduct an inquiry into his fitness to possess a gun and issue a judicial order granting him relief. The judge ruled for Bean, a decision upheld by a U.S. appeals court.
Justice Clarence Thomas (news - web sites) said the appeals court was wrong. Under the law, judicial review was allowed only after an actual denial by the ATF, Thomas said.
He said judicial review cannot occur without a decision by the agency. Thomas rejected Bean's argument that the government's inability to act amounted to a denial of his request.
Are you serious?
The case involved Texas gun dealer Thomas Bean, who was convicted in a Mexican court of importing ammunition into Mexico.
He didn't import ammo into Mexico, he had some ammo in his car when he drove across the border for dinner and was convicted in a corrupt Mexican kangaroo court.
And you want him to prove he deserves a right granted to him by his creator? In my opinion, people who think like you do are more a risk to American society than Thomas Bean is.
Fella, if you are stupid enough that you would carry a cartridge into Mexico or attempt to prosletize a Muslim in Saudi Arabia, then you are too stupid to own a gun. No, it wouldnt bother me at all. Ever here about cleaning out the gene pool?
There has to be more to this story!
Well let me tell you, fella, that with a mouth like yours, you'd better hope that you're not in line in front of me if you are ever on your way into Mexico. You just might a round planted on you so that you can see what it's like to try and work it out with the Federales!
>:-)
I looked in the constitution for this and I couldn't find it.
Certainly you can. Felons give up the right to association, the right to travel freely, the right to vote -- many rights. In our system of crime and punishment, felons PERMANENTLY give up many rights, since the felonious act (by our definition) brands them forever. We look to the courts to determine which of these rights are to be restored subsequent to incarceration (as in the case being reviewed about "Megan's Law"). There is no inherent argument that says that Rights can't be forfeited in the case of criminality and that there is a constitutional guarantee of restoration.
Well, yeah. The question remains, should he have his firearms rights abrogated because of it? Not only does the government say yes, it says he can't even appeal the decision. There's no venue where he can make a case.
If the 68 law is so obviously unconstitutional, why is it that no one has challenged the constitutionality of it nor has the court granted cert. When federal courts are deciding that American citizens like Padilla dont have the right to an attorney, I think its a real stretch to claim that the 68 law is unconstitutional. The country has the right to defend itself. The constitution is not a suicide pact.
I get upset at both the continuing descent of what it takes to be charged with a felony, which used to be for murder and rape and now includes thousands of non-violent offenses, including merely possessing a gun in some places, and at the concept that people who are considered "so dangerous" that they should never vote or own a gun again being released out of prison, either on parole or freed outright. If these people are so dangerous, lock them up; if not, free then and restore their rights. In no case should the rest of us have to prove we are still non-criminal because the justice department frees criminals to live among us, namely, by forcing us to submit to background checks.
Stolen directly from the pages of the anti-gunners talking points.
Gun control is ALWAYS about disarming the people to the benefit of the GOVERNMENT. It has NOTHING to do with crime control and everything to do with people control. Only people with evil intentions ever consider it a good idea to disarm another person.
Anti-gunners would be well advised to understand how a pro-Second Amendment person views this statement. Allowing oneself to be disarmed is suicidal. Preventing it justifies extreme measures.
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.