by Larry Margasak Associated Press WASHINGTON — Oct. 16, 2002
Thomas Lamar Bean's associates left 200 rounds of ammunition in his car during a dinner visit to Mexico four years ago, costing the Texan jail time and his gun dealer's license.
A federal appeals court ordered that Bean's license be reinstated, but the Bush administration, despite its pro-gun stance, was arguing before the Supreme Court on Wednesday that judges can't restore gun rights to convicted felons.
Bean's lawyer counters that he had no choice but to go to court, since the federal agency that rules on license restorations has been barred by Congress from doing so.
Lawmakers took that action a decade ago, out of concern that too many felons were regaining the right to own guns.
The trouble started for Bean, a businessman with a clean record, when at least one of his assistants failed to follow instructions to remove the bullets from his car prior to a dinner trip to Mexico.
When Bean and his three associates tried to return to Laredo, Mexican border authorities discovered the bullets and detained only Bean. Since carrying ammunition was a crime in Mexico, Bean was held for two months and sentenced to five years in prison. After serving four months in Mexico, he was transferred to a prison in Texas and quickly released on probation.
Bean was a convicted felon and could not even possess a firearm, let alone run a gun business - unless the Treasury Secretary granted an exception. The Treasury agency that handles such matters, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, informed Bean that it could not process his application for a new license because Congress refused to provide money for restoration investigations.
Bean persuaded a federal district judge in Texas to restore the license, and in June 2001 the ruling was upheld by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Bush administration opposes the decision, even though the Justice Department has reversed a decades-old stance and taken the position that the Constitution guarantees a right to gun ownership. The administration argues, however, that the executive branch must make the determination since Congress did not grant courts the independent right to restore gun licenses.
The Bush administration has said the case was not about Bean, but other felons who would expect courts to restore their gun privileges.
In 2000, when he petitioned to get his gun rights - and livelihood - back, the 60-year-old father of two adult children was supported by two police chiefs, a sheriff, a judge, a prosecutor and a Baptist preacher.
Since Bean's conviction, Mexico has reduced the charges for importing ammunition to a misdemeanor. The federal judge who ruled in his favor on the gun privileges also found that the Mexican conviction did not classify him as a U.S. felon.
Other federal courts have agreed with the administration that judges should not be making the license decisions. And a Texas state court has determined that Bean is not considered a felon.
The case is United States v. Bean, 01-704.
It seems that we need to force Congress to fund this process.
This is a disappointment of extreme magnitude.
Our government takes in trillions of dollars in taxes and is suffering from no "inability" to act. They have been proscribed by a lack of specific Congressional funding which is intended to have the observed consequences. For Thomas to allow such an Orwellian decision is a surprise to me. I will have to read the decision in great detail but I am not encouraged by how this is being reported.
I had hoped that the Supreme Court would find that the right to keep and bear arms does not stop at our borders. Those who distribute Bibles in China risk having the US Supreme Court helping China to punish such behavior.
The rights with which we are endowed by our Creator are not stamped "Made in America." The right to self-defense and the right to overthrow a tyrannical government are the rights of people everywhere and not just in the US.
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.
Thomas fails the sanity test with this argument. SCOTUS is supposed to resolve Catch-22s, not validate them.
I think a better challenge would be against this law. Someone is convicted of a STATE felony, yet the feds can act against them at the FEDERAL level. That amounts an additional sentence not covered by the state law, outside the state court.
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)
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.
There has to be more to this story!