Court Takes Case on Felon Gun Owners

[Quetzal]

Court Takes Case on Felon Gun Owners

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether people convicted of crime overseas can be barred from owning a gun in the United States.

U.S. law forbids felons from owning guns, with a few exceptions for antitrust and trade violations. The government has contended that the law covers felons convicted overseas.

Lower federal courts have disagreed over the issue, and the Supreme Court took a case involving a Pennsylvania man to resolve the conflict.

Gary Sherwood Small answered "no" to the felony conviction question on a federal form when he bought a handgun in 1998, a few days after he was paroled from a Japanese prison for violating weapons laws in that country.

more...

Court Takes Case on Felon Gun Owners

[Mr.Green93]

1. If a citizen can not posses a gun in a foreign country

should they be able to here?

[RoeBear]

7. Not sure I understand your question...

Do you mean a US citizen?
For example any US citizen living in Japan is unlikely to be allowed to own a gun.
Do you mean a US citizen convicted of a crime in another country?
Do all countries have two levels of crimes such as our misdemeanor and felony levels?

[Mr.Green93]

9. it was a jab at the Supreme Court

and their using foreign laws and judgments in deciding U.S. cases.

[iverglas]

11. wazzat?

Off topic, I suppose, but I'm curious.

The Supreme Court of Canada often considers cases decided in foreign jurisdictions when hearing Canadian cases -- very often cases decided in the US. The Supreme Court of South Africa considers decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, as have courts in the UK. This tends to happen in cases involving fundamental/constitutional rights, where courts look to others with experience and wisdom in those areas.

Why on earth wouldn't the US Supreme Court do the same?

No jurisdiction's judicial decisions are autoritative in another country, but they can certainly be worth thinking about. The court that considers them may decide that they came out of a common tradition and therefore might carry some intellectual weight, or that they came out of a distinct and different approach and therefore must be distinguished. Either way, it just seems to me that no harm is done, and benefit could be had.

What's the problem?

.

[iverglas]

16. okay, I'm less confused

The reference to "foreign laws and judgments" was in direct relation to the issue of what a "conviction" is for the purpose of firearms laws, I see.

So ... if someone applies to immigrate to the US and has been convicted of multiple criminal offences in another country, the US govt and courts should not consider the "foreign laws and judgments" in question??

Again, I guess it's that "rights" vs. the public interest thingy.

.

[iverglas]

12. the question probably needs to be clearer

The question on the form, that is.

Do all countries have two levels of crimes such as our misdemeanor and felony levels?

I've had to deal with this in immigration cases, where a conviction in one's home country can make one ineligible to immigrate to Canada.

Cdn immigration law specifies conviction for an offence that is the local equivalent of particular kinds of offences in Canada.

For instance, Canada's equivalent of a misdemeanour is a "summary conviction offence", and of a felony, an "indictable offence". And immigration law specifies offences that would have been one kind or the other, and punishable by certain minimum sentences, if convicted in Canada.

Of course, the basis for the prohibition is an issue. I think of prohibiting convicted criminals from purchasing firearms as a matter of protecting the public: people who have demonstrated their proclivity for behaving violently, for instance, should really not have access to firearms. It seems that in the US the issue is one of "rights", and that the "right" to possess firearms is somehow taken away, as punishment rather than for public protection.

So perhaps one could not have this "right" taken away based on something that happened in a foreign country, for which one is not punishable in the US.

But as a matter of protecting the public, I'd think it would be wise to inquire as to whether someone has a record of committing violent offences, no matter where they may have been committed.

.

[RoeBear]

13. Unfortunately...

...we can only take away their right to legally own a firearm we can't control their ability to actually possess a firearm.

[iverglas]

14. well

I wonder what that had to do with either anything I said or the subject of this thread ...

.

[RoeBear]

15. Just when I thought I could have an interesting conversation...

...with you, you start this crap.

[iverglas]

17. strange thoughts

The topic of the thread is a case in which the issue is whether a US citizen's foreign criminal conviction is a bar to legally acquiring a firearm.

My post addressed the question of whether a US citizen's foreign criminal conviction should or can be a bar to legally acquiring a firearm, offering information and thoughts I have on the question.

And you "reply" by saying:

Unfortunately...
...we can only take away their right to legally own
a firearm we can't control their ability to actually
possess a firearm.

And I'm still wondering what that had to do either with the topic of the thread or with what I had to say about it ... and how you could possibly call responding to what someone has said by saying something completely irrelevant to it "conversation".

Now, I'm still curious about a number of things having to do with the actual topic of the thread.

Perhaps the conviction in Japan was for committing an act that would not be an offence in the US. Arguably, it should not be treated as a conviction for the purpose of legal firearms acquisition.

On the other hand, I might well argue that being convicted of an offence involving illegal dealings (acquisition, transfer, use ...) with firearms, no matter where the act was committed, is a bit of a red flag when it comes to whether the convicted individual is a good candidate for permission to possess firearms.

That's because I regard the private possession of firearms as a matter of legitimate public interest. And I am of the view that there are many good reasons why, in the public interest, many individuals ought not to possess firearms. And I therefore am of the view that individuals seeking permission to possess firearms should have the onus of demonstrating that it is not contrary to the public interest for them to do so.

And someone's proclivity for disobeying laws regarding firearms, as demonstrated by a conviction for doing that, wherever it happened, would, in my opinion, be a relevant factor in determining whether s/he should be permitted to possess firearms. Not necessarily a determining factor, but certainly a relevant factor.

On the other hand, someone who believes that possessing firearms is a "right", and that exercise of that right may only be interfered with as a form of punishment for committing a crime, would likely be of a different opinion.

I don't see that opinion as making much sense, because I don't believe that people "lose" their rights when they are convicted of crimes. The sentences that are imposed by courts may take away their ability to exercise certain of their rights for a certain period of time. People really may not simply be denied the ability to exercise random rights, willy-nilly, because they have been convicted of crimes.

In Canada, having a conviction for a criminal offence is not a bar to being issued a firearms licence, interestingly enough. It is one of the factors that a firearms officer must consider when deciding whether it is in the public interest to deny a licence. A conviction for a firearms offence in Japan would be a consideration (assuming that our forms ask the right questions, which I don't know, of the applicant discloses the information) -- based on the public interest, not some sort of punitive concept of denying people with criminal convictions their "civil rights".

I'm always up for a real conversation, y'see.

.

[RoeBear]

2. No mention of the NRA...

...I wonder if they are staying out of this one?

[FatSlob]

8. I doubt the NRA has taken a position.

They have always been opposed to felons w/ guns, IIRC.

[MrBenchley]

10. EXcept when they've been trying to re-arm them...

and let's not forget the felons they've got on their board....

And let's not forget how they spoke right up when it turned out Smith & Wesson had an actual convicted armed robber as chairman...oh that's right, they didn't say a frigging thing.

[FatSlob]

18. Obviously because it didn't matter to them,

The guy was being removed. Nice common sense.

[MrBenchley]

19. Hey, the NRA has felons on its board...

what else is new?

P.S.: Smith and Wesson's armed robber is still on their board...he's just no longer chairman.

[FatSlob]

20. It is fine for him to be on the board

It is not fine for him to own or posess a firearm. Please cite for me the felons on the board of the NRA, if they do have them, I will very seriously consider resigning my membership. Thanks.

[MrBenchley]

21. Yeah, who needs honesty on a corporate board?

"Please cite for me the felons on the board of the NRA, if they do have them, I will very seriously consider resigning my membership"
You mean the crap they pull regularly isn't enough?
Board member Manny Fernandez pleaded guilty in 1983 to criminal possession of a machine gun.
Board Member Robert Hodgdon's Hodgdon Powder Co., Inc. agreed with Olin Corp. to pay $250,000 in damages to settle charges brought by the U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division that the companies had conspired to rig bids to purchase surplus gun powder from the Department of Defense.

[FatSlob]

22. Where can I find more info

about Fernandez?

[MrBenchley]

23. It's called a search engine, fat slob

try Yahoo or Google....

[FatSlob]

24. Appeal to google

nice courtesy.

[MrBenchley]

25. Gee, fat slob

courtesy is as courtesy does.

[HFishbine]

3. Question

Isn't the issue of whether or not felons can own guns a matter of state law? I'm pretty sure that some states allow felons to own guns. Vermont and Montanna come to mind and I think there are others.

[Narf]

4. When did States rights become a concern of this government?

Anytime the feds can stick their noses into our business they don't miss the chance.

[RoeBear]

5. No guns for felons in MT or VT ...

form 4473 asks "Have you been convicted in any court of a felony?".

http://www.atf.gov/forms/4473/

[HFishbine]

6. Yes and no

That form merely collects the information to "determine whether you are prohibited under law from receiving a firearm."

Certain states allow for the restoration of rights of convicted felons after a certain period of time, thus allowing them to possess firearms. (Posession of hand guns and conceled carry laws vary.)

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/FederalGunLaws.aspx?ID=60

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/statelaws/24thedition/index.htm