In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
What the HE** is going on here BUSH is anti-gun???
Shootist3006
Member Posts: 4,171
Got this story from FOX News
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to consider stopping federal judges from restoring gun rights to convicted felons.
The intervention comes at the request of the Bush administration, angry that a Texas man convicted of a felony in Mexico convinced a court that he should be able to own a gun.
Felons are barred from carrying guns after their release from prison, but they can ask the government for an exception.
Those requests have been stalled, however, for nearly a decade because Congress ordered the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to stop spending money to process them.
In the gun-rights case, the logjam at the ATF has prompted lawsuits, like the case won by a former gun dealer. The Supreme Court will consider whether to reverse Thomas Lamar Bean's victory.
Bean, a well-known businessman, was arrested by Mexican authorities who found a box of ammunition in his sport utility vehicle. The box had been left there by one of his co-workers, court records show, and Bean was convicted after being ordered to sign a confession in Spanish, which he didn't know.
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.
Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson said the case was not about Bean, but other felons who will now expect courts to restore their gun privileges.
"There is a significant risk that persons who pose a real danger to public safety might be rearmed," Olson wrote in court filings.
Each year since 1992, Congress has included in the ATF's budget a ban on using money for background checks, which cost an estimated $3,700 each.
Still on the books is the law allowing people to petition for gun rights, and permitting them to appeal to federal court if they are dissatisfied with the outcome.
Olson said the ATF, not judges, have the resources to handle requests. He said Texas could produce many such cases. In 1999, 80,000 people were convicted in Texas of felonies, he said.
Bean's lawyer told the Supreme Court that Olson's argument "paints an eye-catching image of federal district judges dispensing gun permits like candy to tens of thousands of marauding Texas felons."
Larry C. Hunter wrote in filings that the "hyperbolic claim is provably false." Judges can require witnesses and evidence, he said, and "the in-person adversarial format of a court hearing is ideally suited to credibility determinations."
Since Bean's conviction, Mexico has reduced the charges for importing ammunition to a misdemeanor, Hunter said. 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.
A Texas state court has determined that he is not considered a felon.
Olson argued that someone who is denied gun privileges by the federal government can file suit, but that they cannot sue over inaction. Similar cases have had opposite outcomes in other courts, he said.
Bean served about five months of a five-year prison sentence.
The night he was arrested, he had attended a gun show in Laredo, Texas, and was crossing the border to have dinner in Mexico.
A panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said he was imprisoned for a "simple oversight."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,43639,00.html
Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem.Semper Fidelis
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to consider stopping federal judges from restoring gun rights to convicted felons.
The intervention comes at the request of the Bush administration, angry that a Texas man convicted of a felony in Mexico convinced a court that he should be able to own a gun.
Felons are barred from carrying guns after their release from prison, but they can ask the government for an exception.
Those requests have been stalled, however, for nearly a decade because Congress ordered the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to stop spending money to process them.
In the gun-rights case, the logjam at the ATF has prompted lawsuits, like the case won by a former gun dealer. The Supreme Court will consider whether to reverse Thomas Lamar Bean's victory.
Bean, a well-known businessman, was arrested by Mexican authorities who found a box of ammunition in his sport utility vehicle. The box had been left there by one of his co-workers, court records show, and Bean was convicted after being ordered to sign a confession in Spanish, which he didn't know.
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.
Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson said the case was not about Bean, but other felons who will now expect courts to restore their gun privileges.
"There is a significant risk that persons who pose a real danger to public safety might be rearmed," Olson wrote in court filings.
Each year since 1992, Congress has included in the ATF's budget a ban on using money for background checks, which cost an estimated $3,700 each.
Still on the books is the law allowing people to petition for gun rights, and permitting them to appeal to federal court if they are dissatisfied with the outcome.
Olson said the ATF, not judges, have the resources to handle requests. He said Texas could produce many such cases. In 1999, 80,000 people were convicted in Texas of felonies, he said.
Bean's lawyer told the Supreme Court that Olson's argument "paints an eye-catching image of federal district judges dispensing gun permits like candy to tens of thousands of marauding Texas felons."
Larry C. Hunter wrote in filings that the "hyperbolic claim is provably false." Judges can require witnesses and evidence, he said, and "the in-person adversarial format of a court hearing is ideally suited to credibility determinations."
Since Bean's conviction, Mexico has reduced the charges for importing ammunition to a misdemeanor, Hunter said. 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.
A Texas state court has determined that he is not considered a felon.
Olson argued that someone who is denied gun privileges by the federal government can file suit, but that they cannot sue over inaction. Similar cases have had opposite outcomes in other courts, he said.
Bean served about five months of a five-year prison sentence.
The night he was arrested, he had attended a gun show in Laredo, Texas, and was crossing the border to have dinner in Mexico.
A panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said he was imprisoned for a "simple oversight."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,43639,00.html
Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem.Semper Fidelis
Comments
If I'm wrong please correct me, I won't be offended.
Criminals in this country lose a lot of the rights law abiding Americans enjoy, not just their right to bear arms. I believe at least some lose the right to vote, for example. I don't see any sane person giving guns back to criminals until they earn a good reputation once again, and since we have such a poor record of rehabilitation in prisons, this will be a very tough area in terms of gun rights for the foreseeable future -- and rightfully so.
- Life NRA Member
If dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
If a criminal wants to get a gun to commit a crime, he will get a gun. The only way to stop that is to keep him locked up or kill him.
I'm not afraid of the dark...the dark is afraid of me!
If you want more laws, how 'bout allowing the states to prohibit gun ownership by former felons. The federal government has absolutely no business making any type of laws that restrict gun ownership-the constitution says so.
Happiness is a warm gun
Anyone who commits a felony and lands themselves in prison for more than 365 days or more (hence, a felony) has demonstrated the propensity to commit serious crimes. These felonies are not "mistakes". "Mistakes" are "accidents" that people don't intend to commit. A felony is NEVER a "mistake". A felony is something that someone does in extreme violation of the standards set forth by our society. A convicted felon, IMHO, should never be trusted to hold the power of life and death in his or her hands. He/she has already demonstrated that he/she has the propensity to cross that line set forth by society. It is an extreme character flaw. There is nothing that any convicted felon could do to convince me that their trust can be regained.
If you have a son that gets busted for a DUI at the age of 16 his license will be taken away and he will have to pay a hefty fine. You will ALWAYS be reminded of that incident when you hand the car keys over to that son once his "debt to society" has been paid. You are essentially handing life and death into the hands of your son. How comfortable are you putting an instrument designed specifically to take life into the hands of an ex-felon? Are you willing to stifle those concerns every time a NICS check is run for an ex-felon attempting to purchase a firearm the way you stifle your concerns every time you hand your son the car keys?
We have to recognize that, in life, there are often PERMANANT consequences to our actions. This one is just and fair in my opinion. Then again, how many felons thought about their victims' Constitutional rights when they were violating them?
SSG idsman75, U.S. ARMY
Happiness is a warm gun
"- they shouldn't be lettin' his * outta prison in the first place.
If a criminal wants to get a gun to commit a crime, he will get a gun. The only way to stop that is to keep him locked up or kill him."
The above are my views on the subject.
I'm not afraid of the dark...the dark is afraid of me!
Edited by - 7mm nut on 05/17/2002 17:39:29
SSG idsman75, U.S. ARMY
NRA Life Member for 17 years and proud of it, and yes I vote, give money , call my rep's. as I think must people that are on this forum do, but we are a way short of 80 million plus
Something tells me that the check-bouncing story is a bit inflated. I can't imagine a single place in this country where one bounced check would constitute a felony. You'll have to pardon me for thinking that your friend is yanking your chain.
Part of my job is screening backgrounds and doing background checks. Do you know how many of our youth think that any offenses committed prior to the age of 18 will have absolutely no permanant consequences with regards to their future? It's laughable! They lie about their past and then I go and do a simple police check (nothing too intense here) and find out about the video game they shoplifted when they were 14 years old. Hell, Iowa Courts Online has made ALL court records public over the internet--even some juvenile records. If you don't hold juveniles accountable for their actions by "sealing" or "expunging" their juvenile records, the next generation will just repeat their mistakes. You have to start somewhere.
Instead of questioning whether or not a crime legitimizes the revocation of 2nd Ammendment Rights, maybe we should question whether or not that crime should constitute a felony. If it isn't violent then is it really all that bad? Acts of violence are not the only crimes against society that have long-term impacts. We could "what-if" all day long about what should and what should not constitute grounds for losing one's rights. What if I was a mail carrier and stole every piece of mail that came to you for an entire month? What about if I just steal a bill here and a bill there and ruin your credit rating? That isn't violent but I bet my bottom dollar that you'd take it VERY personally and be GLAD when the purpetrator gets a few years in the big house -- and even when he loses his gun rights.
It's easy to pick and choose which felonies should or should not warrant the loss of permanant rights until you are the victim.
Edited by - idsman75 on 05/18/2002 16:24:19
Edited by - idsman75 on 05/18/2002 17:09:31
1995 I believe. A fellow officer in another town was convicted before becoming an officer years ago. He had not other such convictions or problems. When they passed this monster, bingo! He lost his job and his right to own any firearms. Ain't life a blast?
SSG idsman75, U.S. ARMY