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.
This is how I read it also. The plaintif was trying to show that the ATF's failure to act was the same as a refusal. It was ruled that it is not the same. I hate to say this, but I believe the ATF is not at fault here. Congress is...
The problem is one of procedure; the court ruled correctly and very narrowly, however, its not clear what, if any, recourse Bean has now. I think the court's decision directs Bean to petition the Secretary of the Treasury DIRECTLY instead of going to the ATF. I'm not sure if that is what Bean did prior to taking this to the Texas courts.
Then how do you justify incarceration?
Part of me agrees, but the other part tries to apply logic here - since Congress has denied funding for this process, then Congress has in effect decided Bean's case, and Thomas engaged in nit-picking to get around that fact.
Then, IMO, Thomas should have ruled that, by defunding the ATF to perform this service, Congress basically REMOVED that power from the ATF, and has made a de facto decision for every felon in the country. That would have forced Congress to immediately either fund the program or change the law, giving affected parties a true recourse.
Playing mind games with the Bill of Rights is a horrible idea - this decision could be a recipe for some horrific legislative tyranny if you think about it - Congress can now, for example, require a permit for anyone to run a newspaper, create a review agency, and then deny that agency funding to approve permits. SCOTUS tells a party bringing suit that their case hasn't been heard by the agency, and that is that - no more newspapers. Both the 1st Amendment and 2nd Amendment are fundamental rights, but SCOTUS has shown the way to abridge those rights through legislative catch-22s.
The more I think about it, the more I think this was a really, really bad decision, because it sought judicial purity at the expense of logic - in other words, it was patently absurd.
Until there's no one left to rob.
The only dirtbag I see is the poster parroting left-wing smears against a good conservative.
A little more info on this case and the Treaty allowing for the transfer of Bean to the American Penal System.....
The following is an excerpt from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals dated June 20, 2001
BACKGROUND
The facts of this case illustrate in caps underscored why Congress added the relief provision to the Federal Firearms Act, giving certain convicted felons an avenue to regain the right to possess a firearm. They are set forth in great detail in the trial court's opinion; we merely summarize them here.
In March 1998, Bean, a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms licensed firearms dealer, was in Laredo, Texas, participating in a gun show. One evening he and three assistants decided to cross the border into Mexico for dinner. He directed his assistants to remove any firearms and ammunition from his vehicle, a Chevrolet Suburban, before crossing the border; however, a box of ammunition containing approximately 200 rounds inadvertently was left in the back. The box was in plain view and Mexican customs officers saw it when they sought to enter the Mexican Port of Entry at Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, Mexico. At the time importing ammunition into Mexico was considered a felony.(1) The three assistants were subsequently released but Bean, as the owner of the Suburban and the ammunition, was charged and convicted of the felony of unlawfully importing ammunition.(2)
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.
The district court, in its detailed Memorandum Opinion, discussed the statute, congressional actions, the various circuit opinions on this issue, including our decision in United States v. McGill,(4) and determined that it did, in fact, have jurisdiction to hear Bean's appeal. In granting Bean's petition it further found that the facts of this case underscore why § 925(c) permitted not only judicial review, but judicial supplementation of the record to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
(inset and bold are mine for the above paragraph)
Pure BS.
PS--I'm really disappointed with C. Thomas.
Liberty is not a right, and can be taken away if judged to be guilty of a crime..
So much for my good opinion of Clarence Thomas. What a neat ploy to remove people's rights. Simply de-fund the agency mechanism for action, then the rights are denied WITHOUT ANY AVENUE OF APPEAL, despite the fact that the law requiring such agency action remains on the books.
Without the funds, the ATF simply doesn't do ANYTHING. And since they didn't actually deny Bean's petition, the courts are powerless to review. Its up to that scum-bag Congress to FIX this if they can ever get their collective heads out of their collective a**es. The way things are now, if you are convicted of any offense around the world, your Constitutional rights to keep and bear is forfeit. The whole thing stinks of the corruption of 8 years of Bill The Rat and his RAT party. Congress is abdicating its responsibility under the Constitution.
One correction - Bush 41 was president in 1992.
In that case, I assume Bean is able to get his gun license back, and that this case was more about Federal Administrative Law and rules of procedure. The same question could have been posed to the court using facts that are completely unrelated to any constitutional rights.
I haven't read the case yet, but I think this is a pretty narrow ruling, and one that wouldn't be terribly controversial except that it does involve Second Amendment rights.
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.