← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · hqz
Thread ID: 3976 | Posts: 2 | Started: 2002-12-11
2002-12-11 23:26 | User Profile
[url=http://write_in_tancredo.tripod.com/clarence.htm]http://write_in_tancredo.tripod.com/clarence.htm[/url]
Driving While American
Supreme Court, 9-0, Rebuffs a Gun-Seeking Felon. By Linda Greenhouse, New York Times, December 11, 2002.
Not mentioned in this deceptive New York Times article, but found in the briefs and opinions, most of which are on FindLaw:
This was a case of Driving While American. Bean, the "felon", a Texas gun shop owner, drove into Mexico on a brief trip across the border. Due to a mistake by one of his employees, a box of ammunition was left in his car in plain view.
Mexican customs spotted the box of ammunition upon Bean's return to the border.
Mexican police bullied Bean into signing a confession written in Spanish, which he doesn't comprehend.
It turned out that he confessed to importing ammunition into Mexico, at that time a felony in Mexico but not a crime in the US. He was sentenced to 5 years in Mexican prison.
Had Bean known how to contact a Mexican lawyer, he could easily have bribed his way out of trouble, the usual way to resolve criminal charges in Mexico.
Bean served approximately six months in Mexican prison, then was transferred to a US federal prison under the International Prisoner Transfer Treaty (to transfer career criminals back to Mexico and victimized American tourists to American prisons), where he served another month for an offense which is not a crime in the US. He then spent an additional 10 months under the supervision of a US federal court. (Federal judges regularly complain about their workloads.)
There is a federal law that prevents a convicted felon from owning a gun. Although the key issue in this case should have been whether a conviction in the corrupt courts of Mexico for conduct that does not amount to a crime in the US can constitute a "felony" that trumps the Constitutional right to gun ownership, that issue was not argued by the lawyers or even mentioned by the Supreme Court during oral argument or in the opinion of the Court.
After Bean's conviction, Mexico changed its law so that the offense for which Bean was convicted is no longer a felony.
Pursuant to federal law, Bean applied to the ATF to restore his right to bear arms. The ATF refused to act on his application because Congress has not appropriated funds for the ATF to determine gun right restoration.
Accordingly, Bean sued in federal court. A federal judge granted his request for relief and restored his right to bear arms.
The Clinton Administration appealed to the Fifth Circuit, but Bean won again, by a unanimous decision of the 3-judge court.
The Bush Administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed unanimously, with opinion by Clarence Thomas.
The Supreme Court held that the federal courts can only review a determination by the ATF. Since the ATF failed to act and is unable to act for lack of funding, Bean cannot sue to recover his right to bear arms. Thus, he cannot reopen his gun shop. His only alternative is to bribe a congressman to attach a secret, private rider restoring his rights to an appropriations bill or a Christmas Tree Bill such as the Homeland Security Act.
Possible future application of this decision: An American convicted in absentia of "racism" by the Zimbabwe courts for expressing the opinion online that Robert Mugabe is an ignorant, savage thug and sentenced to be killed, cooked and served for dinner at the Zimbabwe Presidential Palace with a Hollandaise sauce and Chateau Lafite 1959 may be barred from owning a gun in the US.
2002-12-13 03:30 | User Profile
hqz,
I wish the so-called guns Rights types need to read this article. Jorge is not better than slick Willie maybe worse!!!
The Bush Administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed unanimously, with opinion by Clarence Thomas.