Supreme Court Ruling

U

USP45usp

Moderator
Anyone else knew of this case? If not then the RKBA pages and us are falling down on the job, especially since this issue was in the courts (when the gun dealer got tagged in Mexico and had a bullet in his car) ruled that his jail time did keep him from owning firearms.

I take this as good news:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=705167

snip
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that only criminal convictions in the United States and not foreign ones can be used under the federal law that bars a felon from possessing a gun.
Click to expand...
/snipe

Whole story at link above.

edited for this update:

Hmmmmm, now this one is strange:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=8299904

snip
Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy dissented.

"The majority's interpretation permits those convicted overseas of murder, rape, assault, kidnapping, terrorism and other dangerous crimes to possess firearms freely in the United States," wrote Thomas.
Click to expand...

This should make for a good discussion, since the three that dissented are usually on gun owners side.

Wayne
 
This was more about the intent of Congress when they wrote the law. As the ruling alludes to, it would be trivial for Congress to rewrite the law to include some felony convictions from overseas.

This actually is a GOOD thing for traveling american's. Say you are sailing, and you have an emergency and have to pull into a Caribbean port. Low and behold, some banana republic officer finds a spent shell in the crack of the deck.. and arrest you, and you are tried and convicted..

should you loose all your rights in the US?

No.
 
I don't really think this has much to do with gun issues, except in the narrow sense of the verdict.

This has more to do with how US laws interact with foreign convictions and what defines a felony. Apparently, the court felt a "felony" was a US felony.

While a feel for Thomas' dissenting statement, we can't hold US citizens responsible for a foreign justice system's workings.
 
The case is Small v. United States, (03-750) 333 F.3d 425.

From the syllabus:

Petitioner Small was convicted in a Japanese Court of trying to smuggle firearms and ammunition into that country. He served five years in prison and then returned to the United States, where he bought a gun. Federal authorities subsequently charged Small under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which forbids "any person ? convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to possess any firearm." (Emphasis added.) Small pleaded guilty while reserving the right to challenge his conviction on the ground that his earlier conviction, being foreign, fell outside §922(g)(1)'s scope. The Federal District Court and the Third Circuit rejected this argument.

Held: Section 922(g)(1)'s phrase "convicted in any court" encompasses only domestic, not foreign, convictions. Pp. 2-9.
Click to expand...

Court Rules on Foreign Convictions
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.
Click to expand...

In context of US Law, the word "all" cannot mean the entire worlds body of laws.

Up until now, I had hopes for Thomas and Scalia.

Now, in a unique reversal of roles, we now have all Nine Robes who have, at one time or another, advanced the position that US Law must come into accord with foreign law. A truly despicable idea.

Too bad Small was not convicted in a US Court for smuggling, however, I'm happy that the ruling went the way it did, as there are many instances of foreign law that do not give defendants the protections and impartiality that our laws give. In the vast majority of the world, you are presumed guilty and must prove your innocence. And this is precisely why the majority ruled the way they did.
 
OK, here's what confuses me about this.

I always thought the job of the Supreme Court was to determine whether or not laws were Constitutional, if not then convictions based on those laws are overturned. One of the rights enumerated by the Bill or Rights in the right to due process (in the fourth, fifth and sixth amendments). If due process is violated there can be no conviction.

Was Small read his rights? Was he subjected to un-Constitutional search? Did he get a speedy, public trial by jury?

The three dissenters are evaluating the conviction based on the US law, but as they interpret it the law is unconstitutional since the person convicted overseas was likely denied due process. Only the interpretation that "any court" means "any court in the US" has the guarantee of a conviction under the Constitution.

I can understand the lower courts upholding the conviction, their job is to interpret the law as written, not apply the Constitution to those laws.
 
The bigger picture here is why do people convicted of felonies lose some of their rights?

If the person convicted of a felony serves all of his time (including parole), then he should be accorded all of the rights of citizenship after his release, including the right to own firearms. Denying him certain rights makes him a second class citizen and does nothing to make society safer for the rest of us because we all know that if a felon really wants a gun there are plenty of ways for him to get one illegally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top