Supreme Court Rules Against Texas Gun Dealer

Reuters ^ | Dec 10 2002 | Reuters (unattributed)

[IMHO]

...the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...

Bozo.

[William Tell]

Dave S said: "Then dont commit the crime. "

How about my crime. I am one of the crazed baby-killers who is guilty of having carried arms in South VietNam. If their present government chose to charge and convict me using an ex-post-facto law and find me guilty in absentia, then you are okay with me losing my right to keep and bear arms? Or will there be some sensible exceptions?

[Dave S]

You can't forfeit a RIGHT, only a privilege.

So life or freedom are "privileges", not rights. Guess there are some people on death row that would be surprised to hear that.

[Dave S]

He drove across the Mexican border with a box of cartridges in his car. No big deal here; landed him in prison there.

To Mexican government it was big deal. Five months in jail.

[Dave S]

the entire point of the case was that the govt. has set it up so it is quite literally impossible for them to do that.

He can go to congress to get special law written for him (after making some contributions), he can get his Senator or congressman to pressure the ATF, or he can work to get congress to change the law.

[GovernmentShrinker]

I didn't say "laws, court cases, or state constitutions" (though some of those may well exist). I said contemporary writings of the framers of the 2nd Amendment/Bill of Rights. Can't recall the cites, but I know I've seen at least two specific examples. It shouldn't surprise anyone that those wise and reasonable men would thought that murderers, rapists, etc. could properly be prohibited from possessing firearms. What they did not envision was that government would expand to the obscene degree it has, and along the way classify all sorts of regulatory technicalities as felonies. And of course, they also didn't suggest or envision that government be allowed to use methods for keeping firearms from felons, which infringed on the rights of every non-felon in the country.

[deport]

Hey Dog....... This involves the 1992 defunding by the Congress of the BATF whereby they investigated the reissuance of licenses,etc. of convicted felons. The defunding has been in every appropriations bill since. Bean asked the BATF to clear him again and they never acted because of no funding.... Then Bean asked the courts to authorize the request. They did and the 5th upheld the ruling.

The SCOTUS ruling is saying that the courts can't take over the BATF functions.... Thus the funding needs to be restored, or another appeal avenue needs to be used.

BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

[Dave S]

Then how do you justify incarceration?

Or execution. Lot of guys on death row in Texas would be ineterested in Former Lurkers legal argument.

[Dave S]

I am one of the crazed baby-killers who is guilty of having carried arms in South VietNam. If their present government chose to charge and convict me using an ex-post-facto law and find me guilty in absentia, then you are okay with me losing my right to keep and bear arms<P. Not going to happen. Thank you for your service.

[William Tell]

Dave S said: "Not going to happen. "

Thanks. I am relieved. But you fail to address how the US will make the determination that I am not a felon in such a case.

[RKV]

Of course you can't recall the sites.

Try these...

No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms."

Thomas Jefferson

"The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

Samuel Adams

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."

Patrick Henry

My reading of the founders leads me to believe that if you are justly convicted and in jail you lose your rights. If you are free, you have your rights. They sure didn't check your file before you bought a gun whatever you say.

[Theodore R.]

Kemp used to talk about "empowering" individual citizens, especially the poor. After he left the Cabinet of the first Bush, he founded a lobby called "Empower America" to accomplish his goals. "Empower" is a word that Kemp frequently uses.

[Abundy]

Haven't read the decision...however, Bean should file a Writ of Mandamus. This action is the appropriate action.

It is an action in Court which allows the Court with jurisdiction to order an administrative Agency to take an action. Basically the Plaintiff must allege that an agency (the BATF) with descretionary authority (the ability to determine if a firearms disability should apply or not) has failed to act upon a proper request (there was and it has failed to act).

Once the Agency rules, then an appeal should and could be taken - 'cause you know they will deny his request.

Again, haven't read the opinion, but, it appears, that by saying the Agency should rule first, Thomas is merely stating that all the avenues have not yet been exhausted and that the Court truly doesn't have jurisdiction until the BATF takes an action. A lower Court with jurisdiction to hear the Mandamus action can most definately order the BATF to rule one way or another.

[El Gato]

The way the law now reads, if you are convicted of any felony in any country, i.e. evangelizing in Saudi Arabia, you can be denied your 2nd Amendment right.

And any of the others too.

[El Gato]

It seems to me that the real Constitutional problem is with the 1992 law,

It's not just a 1992 law. It's a provision in the appropriations act that must be renewed each and every year. It's just that if anyone seriously opposed it's inclusion, the presstitudes would gore the Congresscritter so badly that even a long term incumbent would fear for their relection. After all, look at what they are doing, or at least trying to do, to Lott over much less.

[El Gato]

And a Texas state court has determined that Bean is not considered a felon.

In that case, I assume Bean is able to get his gun license back

That would be fine, if it were a Texas state felony, but it wasn't. Maybe Bean could pay the proper mordida and get a Mexican court to declare he's not a felon, and then he could get his license restored, but I doubt it. I'm sure the BATF considers that once a felon, always a felon, just as they consider once a machine gun, always a machine gun.

[El Gato]

If I went to Iran and was arrested for not having a beard and convicted of being a felon under Iranian law would I lose my rights in the USA?

Apparently so. Although it may only apply to countries that we have a prisoner exchange treaty with. However, I'm sure the BATF, whose mission in life is apparently to disarm as many Americans as possible, would argue otherwise.

[Paleo Conservative]

Given the theory behind the case, I can see how this might be a Constitutionally correct decision.

That's how I read it. I think there ought to be a rather stiff processing fee of perhaps $1,000 for a convicted to apply for a waiver. That ought to weed out unworthy applicants. I'm pretty much unsympathic to convicted felons who want to own firearms. There aren't very many whom I would trust.

I think the court was really saying it is up to Congress to change the law if it wants to.

[El Gato]

Or will there be some sensible exceptions?

What could have been more sensible than this case. What the guy did wasn't even a crime in the US, well no more than a civil penalty type crime, that is illegally importing ammunition, even though he really wasn't importing it, but rather merely possessing it. His real crime in Mexico was probably not having enough cash for the bite due the Mexican immigration officials. Yet he has lost a constitutional right, forever. I think the law needs to be changed to provide for automatic restoration of one's rights, all of them, after the time has been served. That's the way it was prior to GCA '68, at the federal level at least and details varied from state to state.

[Blood of Tyrants]

The point is, pinhead, that even if you are convicted of a felony that isn't even a crime in the U.S., i.e. having a single cartidge in your pocket in Mexico or answering a sincere question about Christianity in Saudi Arabia, that your rights can be stripped of you HERE!

Does that no bother you?