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.
I think the law is flatly Unconstitutional, and would be found to be so by the Supreme Court. But this particular case didn't hinge upon the Constitutionality of this law per se, so this Supreme Court felt it out of place to express any opinion to that effect. To have done so would have been judicial activism.
Bozo.
Why then is it that our government allows abortion, does not allow one to pursue happiness even if it harms no other, and why do they allow corporations to slowly poison us to death?
In theory perhaps, but not in practice..
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?
Well obviously not if they're dead..
I agree completely. If a person is not locked up, then they should be free. Creating a large and growing group of second-class citizens is a dangerous practice.
If a person cannot be trusted to refrain from crime despite having a gun, then they should be locked up.
Following your suggestion would allow us to completely eliminate the FFL system, which system is unConstitutional and unhealthy for our freedoms.
The same can be said about gun ownership, but you quite clearly said that is a right. What's your point?
Whatever.
If that is the justification for the ruling by SCOTUS, then I would be very pleased with them but very disappointed with Bean's lawyers and the lower courts. The lower court would have to issue a writ to command that the Treasury Department do that which Congress has prohibited.
I would think such a writ would normally command that the Treasury Department do that which it is legally obliged to do. The Constitution obliges it not to infringe Bean's right to keep and bear arms. Congress obliges it not to investigate. Perhaps the court can carry out the investigation and then issue the writ.
I still have some reading ahead of me.
Yeah, can't have any of THAT protecting the Second Amendment! No wonder it was 9-0.
For purpose of state and local elections, that's up to the states, just as minimum voting age is. In many states felons can of course petition, usually the courts, to have their rights restored. IIRC, the principal in this case did just that in Texas Courts, but unfortunately state courts have no jurisdiction over federal agencies, like the BATF or over Congress.
Exactly. And if the Guvmint thinks the War on Drugs is tough to enforce and hazardous to the lives of law enforcement officials, wait till it gets a load of the War on Guns. That said, I'd be very surprised if they upheld the recent totalitarian decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Schlemils.
This case didn't have any Second Amendment aspect considered, AFAIK.
I totally agree, and I could not have stated your points more concisely.
The Supreme Court will probably hear a case pretty soon due to the disagreement between the rulings of the 5th Circuit and the 9th Circuit on the nature of 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.