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.
But, possession of ammunition isn't a crime in Texas - only in Mexico where he was caught. Shall we permanently revoke the Second Amendment rights of those American women who show too much ankle in Saudi Arabia, upon their conviction there are return here?
Possible sentencing disparity. When a prisoner is transferred, responsibility for administering his sentence belongs exclusively to the receiving country. Under most of the bilateral treaties, the receiving country takes over the transferred sentence, but that sentence is then carried out under the laws and regulations of the receiving country, including any provisions for reduction of the term of confinement by parole, conditional release, good time release, or otherwise. Under the French and Turkish bilateral treaties and the COE Convention, the receiving country has the additional option of converting the sending country's sentence, through either a judicial or administrative procedure, into its own sentence; that is, the receiving country may substitute the penalty under its own laws for a similar offense. (There are certain limitations on converting the sentence. The receiving country is bound by the findings of facts insofar as they appear from the judgment, cannot convert a prison term into a fine, and cannot lengthen the prison term.) However, regardless of whether the sentence is continued or converted, responsibility for administering it rests solely with the receiving state.
Are there some countries whose judicial system we credit with fairness and others we don't? Anyone have the list.
WORLD POLICE STATE anyone?
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.
Think again. The controlling authority for being able to buy guns is the Federal Govt. via the "insta-check" system. If that system says you can't (for whatever reason) you can't, legally, buy a gun.
Possession is a different matter. Presumably the Texas State decision would allow him to own a gun in Texas. However if the BATF disagreed with this decision they could still arrest him on federal charges. I don't know if there is a federal "Felon in Possesssion of a Firearm" law, but I bet there is.
This is one of the worst Clarence Thomas decisions I've ever seen.
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.
I don't like this either. The question of the constitutionality of the law was never brought before the court however. Not the USSC or any of the lower ones. Until that happens, we're stuck it seems.
Exactly...
There is. GCA 1968.
This is one of the worst Clarence Thomas decisions I've ever seen.
Disturbingly, the decision was unanimous.
Seems to me that we should not trust Mexico's or any other foreign nation's felony standards. After all, you can commit pedophilia in Thailand and still be considered a legal citizen when coming back. This is ludicrous.
All of which can be taken away by court of law..
Not to mention that it is the COURT which is supposed to interpret the Constitution, not Federal Agencies...
I think they are supposed to judge the LAW as to the LAW's constitutionality, not so much interpret the Constitution..
And regarding your other statement, what about life imprisonment, or the death penalty? What use is it to say that a person is at liberty to go about his business, after the sentence has been served in full?
Then dont commit the crime. Seems simple enough to me but then I've never even been arrested for a misdemeanor much less convicted of a felony. I guess Im not mainstream.
Absolutely, and the sooner the better. If they need a tax department for booze, cigarettes and pot, that's fine with me. But they have no business knowing about my guns.
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.