if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
Felons and Firearms
by Lee
The irony here is delicious.
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.
All of the court’s liberals, the ones who believe that international opinion should play a part in American SCOTUS decisions (Kennedy and O’Connor have both explicitly stated as such) decided that international convictions don’t count. And what of the hard-line, gun-toting conservative justices?
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.
It’s worth noting that the Bush administration had wanted international convictions to count against firearms ownership. I think this is reasonable. The fact that it is international is immaterial, because the law being applied is strictly constitutional and within our framework of laws. It’s just ironic how the liberals are willing to ignore laws that keep guns out of the hands of convicted criminals when it suits their purpose. For what it’s worth, I can understand their reasoning, but I do think that there can or should be a way that someone convicted of a felony overseas could petition the US government for an exemption, if they can show that they were denied fundamental rights during their trial. But the fact that someone is a felon overseas should count here. If you go to Europe, kill someone with a firearm, get paroled 30 years later, and come to America, this should preclude you from owning a firearm, period.
Comments
They got in trouble for using international opinion instead of the Constitution and precedents of US courts. This is similar. They are ignoring US law and precedent. SCOTUS is in dire need of some Spring Cleaning.
I think the problem here is looking for a hard and fast rule to be applied to all.
What about if you go to Malaysia and end up in court for dropping chewing gum, or spitting? Should that automatically exclude you from gun ownership?
OTOH, if you end up on assault charges overseas, then they probably should apply.
However, when you consider how Mickey Mouse so many of the worlds courts are, I don’t think the US courts should be so quick to give them legitimacy in the US system.
What about if you go to Malaysia and end up in court for dropping chewing gum, or spitting?
I thought that was just a Singapore issue - is Malaysia the same way (or similar)?
So now it is OK for us to look to overseas courts?
As evidence of prior bad acts, yes. As a principle overriding the US Constitution? No. We have all sorts of laws that govern behavior in other countries, sex tourism for example. The distinction in this case is that it is the US government passing a law that says that they wish to include felony convictions in other countries. In the first SCOTUS ruling they ignored constitutional law in favor of “inernational opinion.”
As far as I’m concerned overseas courts don’t exist as far as US legal matters are concerned unless specifically alluded to by treaty.
MemberVRWC - Gah, yes, it’s Singapore, not Malaysia..
So the meaasge is if you want to keep your guns and committ a felony, do it overseas?
As typical demoncrats they need the definition of “any” apparently.
If liberals ban gun ownership for oversees crimes then how are terrorists supposed to get weapons once they are here? That’s just plain inconveniant. Damn conservatives and all that public protectin’!!!! </sarcasm>
As far as I’m concerned overseas courts don’t exist as far as US legal matters are concerned unless specifically alluded to by treaty.
I see then convictions of a felony in your opinion should not preclude gun ownership in this country and I guess should be NO reason to bar entry?
Hey if an Alien felon can own a gun here, then whatever they were convicted of in a foreign court should have no bearing on whether or not they can enter.
Actually I think they should be accorded the same due process that a felon convicted here has to go through, with the exception that instead of an appeal for reinstitution of Full Civil Rights by the Governor of the State in which the offense was comitted, they might appeal to the Governor of the State of residence or such other Authority as Congress may appoint to oversee such matters.
"However, when you consider how Mickey Mouse so many of the worlds courts are,”
lol
And i bet you think coz that diry bomber dude - US citizen- and those in guantan. are facing real fair and balanced courts.Still, why let a lack of evidence get in the way of increasing the threat alert from taupe to off white.
No, it’s because they are operating like they had been deliberately drawn that stupid.
Or maybe you think that a good sentence for a rape victim is to be stoned to death? Or to have a father who guns down his daughter for talking to a stranger set free by the courts? Or what about the court that sentenced an innocent girl to be raped as a punishment (her accuser later recanted)?
Real “fair and balanced courts”? No, they’re Mickey Mouse bullshit, and you are defending them as a moral equivalent to American courts.
However, I was right. You found a way to top off your last “Most Stupid Sentence in History” with a real doozy.
Next entry: Just Like Luke
Previous entry: Let the Flame War Begin
So now it is OK for us to look to overseas courts?
I thought the Supremes got in trouble awhile back for referencing international courts.
Man this is confusing, can I get a chart that says when something is prohibited and when it is not. This flip-flopping is getting confusing.
/sarcasm off