foreign conviction does NOT mean loss of gun rights

skidmark

New member
U.S. Supreme Court: people convicted of crime overseas can still own gun in U.S.
By HOPE YEN Associated Press Writer

(AP) - WASHINGTON-The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that people convicted of a crime overseas may own a gun in the United States.

In a 5-3 decision, the court ruled in favor of Gary Sherwood Small of Pennsylvania. The court reasoned that U.S. law, which prohibits felons who have been convicted in "any court" from owning guns, applies only to domestic crimes.



Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the majority, said interpreting the law broadly to apply to foreign convictions would be unfair to defendants because procedural protections are often less in international courts. If Congress intended foreign convictions to apply, they can rewrite the law to specifically say so, he said.

"We have no reason to believe that Congress considered the added enforcement advantages flowing from inclusion of foreign crimes, weighing them against, say, the potential unfairness of preventing those with inapt foreign convictions from possessing guns," Breyer wrote.

He was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that Congress intended for foreign convictions to apply. "Any" court literally means any court, he wrote.

"Read naturally, the word 'any' has an expansive meaning, that is, 'one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind,'" Thomas said.

He was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy.

Small had answered "no" to the felony conviction question on a federal form when he bought a handgun in 1998, a few days after he was paroled from a Japanese prison for violating weapons laws in that country.

Small was indicted in 2000 for lying on the form and for illegally owning two pistols and 335 rounds of ammunition. He later entered a conditional guilty plea pending the outcome of this case.

The Bush administration had asked the court to apply the statute to foreign convictions.

2005-04-26T14:40:22Z
 
Gary Sherwood Small of Pennsylvania.
Was that the case where he violated some law in an airport in Japan and they didn't give him a fair trial? (or something like that?)

I wonder how the Bush administration would feel about Francis Gary Powers (if he were still alive) getting a gun after his felony spying charges the U.S.S.R. convicted him of for "spying" for the U.S.?
 
Reality check

"I wonder how the Bush administration would feel about Francis Gary Powers (if he were still alive) getting a gun after his felony spying charges the U.S.S.R. convicted him of for "spying" for the U.S.?"

News flash, Ace - flying over a sovereign nation without its permission in a classified recon mission to photograph its defenses IS "spying." :rolleyes:

Logically, Thomas and the other 2 dissenters are correct. There is nothing difficult to comprehend about "any." Arguments to the contrary are about as valid as Bubba's famous evasion, "Well that depends on what the definition of 'is' is." :barf:

The other 5 justices seem to have based the majority opinion on the issue of due process; rather, the utter lack of same in many other countries, Japan among them. The Japanese have little concept of the individual, still less of individual rights generally and the presumption of innocense particularly. The Japanese system PRESUMES GUILT and proceeds accordingly.

So, from a linguistically logical analysis, the conviction should stand. However, from a due process point of view, the decision makes sense.

Hey, weren't some comlaining that the court shouldn't be looking at foreign law? Well, this should make them happy! ;)
 
I used quotes on "spying" just in case there was anyone who disagreed with the use of that word in describing what Powers did. But since you brought it up, I agree with the definition that he was spying.
 
great.. so Saddam could legally own a firearm in the US, but some kid caught passing around a blunt at a Harvard frat party couldn't...
 
Interesting. I heard (TV news) that the Supreme Court ruled just the opposite? As I have later read, this initial report was totally incorrect and the ruling was in favor of lawful ownership of firearms in PA.
 
Last edited:
Nonsense

"...so Saddam could legally own a firearm in the US, but some kid caught passing around a blunt at a Harvard frat party couldn't..."

Spare us the hyperbole. As he is neither an American nor in this country on the appropriate visa, Saddam could not legally possess a gun in this country.

As for your poor, benighted frat boy, a first offense/non-distribution weight bust won't even get you jail time OR preclude you from getting a license in Massachusetts.

You may now return to your kegger... :rolleyes:
 
All rules still apply, as in you have to be a legal alien and then apply for citizenship (since illegals can't go and buy guns and legal aliens are somewhat restricted).

I think this is a victory. In this world, things that are legal in the good ol' USA are illegal and you can be found guilty of a felony without due process.

Also, for someone to come over here and jump through the hoops to do it legally, why not give them a fresh start?

And, allot of "gun owners" and "protectors of the 2nd amendment" here sound allot like the vpc and brady bunch.....

Wayne
 
great.. so Saddam could legally own a firearm in the US, but some kid caught passing around a blunt at a Harvard frat party couldn't...
He'd have to get into the USA first and they generally don't allow felons to enter.

In effect, the SCOTUS doesn't want to vouch for the due process of foreign governments.
 
In addition to their due process, what about some of their laws themselves. So someone imprisoned for exercizing their free speech as happens in Europa now - for more than one year - should be barred from purchasing or possessing a firearm?

What about some contractor in Angola who defies the almighty African Union or U.N. and carries a pistol or rifle around to protect himself and get's caught and incarcerated?

Then there are simple cases of corruption - in about every third world - where you might wind up in prison for nothing, just so your arresting officials can fleece you of your money and possessions.
 
LAK expressed the idea that I had. Just what constitutes a felony in other parts of the world? In a lot of cases, laudable behavior to you and me would be felonious, especially in certain Communist and other sorts of Dictatorship or general Corruption countries -- which are the majority of countries out there.

When the very act of exercising your God given rights as a human being are felonious, and in many cases that is the case, then the whole issue of foriegn felonies becomes laughable.

And then there's the case of soveriegnity. We are soveriegn with our own courts and body of law, and so are they. And the twain shall not meet. Our consideration of their felonies gives them tacit approval, and that just shouldn't be.
 
Back
Top