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.
Bozo.
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?
So life or freedom are "privileges", not rights. Guess there are some people on death row that would be surprised to hear that.
To Mexican government it was big deal. Five months in jail.
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.
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
Or execution. Lot of guys on death row in Texas would be ineterested in Former Lurkers legal argument.
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.
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.
And any of the others too.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.