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.

Supreme Court to Consider to Felon Gun Rights

rick_renorick_reno Member Posts: 186
Court to Consider to Felon Gun Rights By GINA HOLLAND Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - 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. That logjam 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. Congress each year since 1992 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." The case is United States v. Bean, 01-704. --- On the Net: Supreme Court: http//www.supremecourtus.gov Appeals Court decision: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/00/00-40304-cv0.htm 2002-01-22 15:16:49 GMT

Comments

  • turboturbo Member Posts: 820 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    This is a bad move.A felon is unable to vote, as he lost his ability to vote with all the other law abiding folks when he was convicted of a felony.A person must have his citizen standing restored before his right to own, much lesspossess a gun can be given him.And a person has to petition the courts to have these expounged from his record..No sense to this, matter.It's like putting the cart ahead of the horse.
  • Judge DreadJudge Dread Member Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    To piss in the street is a felony or misdemeanor? That means someone will not be able to use guns if he had to take "it" and was not able to hold it longer..... He may also be charged for endangering public health by the release of biological waste (Weapon of mass destruction).New anty-terror law. HE HE HE !
    _%_S
  • YankeeClipperYankeeClipper Member Posts: 669 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The legeslature passes laws thinking they will be enforced with common sence. But in a police station, law office or a court room, no common sence existes.
  • kazookazoo Member Posts: 45 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Is it actually possible to get your gun rights restored in this day and age of intense anti gun sentiment? I hadnt really thought about it before but I would assume that there are a lot of people out there who would like to do just that, ten or twenty years after a felony conviction ,but figure it's no use to try.
  • daddodaddo Member Posts: 3,408
    edited November -1
    The man simply forgot about the ammo in his vehicle- this could happen to any of us, anytime. The man threatened no lifes - didn't rob, steal, ect. To take away your guns in this manner is ridiculous. Soon- the government will make it a felony to sneeze,and then will have all of our guns- thats the way they do it! I surely don't want violent felons owning guns, but what threat is this man to us?
Sign In or Register to comment.