Court Rules on Convict Gun Ownership

[Rose Siding]

WASHINGTON - 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.
....
The Bush administration had asked the court to apply the statute to foreign convictions.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050426/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns

[lenidog]

1. I am curious how they found out that he had a conviction in a Japanese

court to begin with.

[AlCzervik]

5. Probably through the state department.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Guess that means all those IRA 'terrorists' and Islamic 'terrorists'

can continue to buy their high-powered weapons in the USA.

[happyslug]

3. Here is the Opinion:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/26apr20050800/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-750.pdf

[AlCzervik]

4. OMG, if i read the story right...Thomas dissented.

on edit: What the hell is going on here
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.



OK Scalia was just talking about how internationial law shouldn't be used by other justices when researching cases and now all of a sudden he's agreeing with a foreign court?

[msanthrope]

9. You mean that J. Thomas is advocating that we listen to foreign courts?

Call Tom Delay!!!! Impeach him!!!!

[keopeli]

6. Remind me why the NRA supports these guys?

[Zynx]

7. Mmmmm, defeat for Bush....sweet.

[NickB79]

8. Thats the really weird thing

All the gun nuts think Bush is all for the right to own guns, but the Bush administration actually OPPOSED this ruling?

Are freeper heads exploding yet?

[jody]

10. The courts decision seems very logical as they explained

QUOTE
Moreover, because foreign convictions may include convictions for conduct that domestic laws would permit, e.g., for engaging in economic conduct that our society might encourage, convictions from a legal system that are inconsistent with American understanding of fairness, and convictions for conduct that domestic law punishes far less severely, the key statutory phrase "convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" somewhat less reliably identifies dangerous individuals for the purposes of U. S. law where foreign convictions, rather than domestic convictions, are at issue. In addition, it is difficult to read the statute as asking judges or prosecutors to refine its definitional distinctions where foreign convictions are at issue. To somehow weed out inappropriate foreign convictions that meet the statutory definition is not consistent with the statute’s language; it is not easy for those not versed in foreign laws to accomplish; and it would leave those previously convicted in a foreign court (say of economic crimes) uncertain about their legal obligations. These considerations provide a convincing basis for applying the ordinary assumption about the reach of domestically oriented statutes here. Thus, the Court assumes a congressional intent that the phrase "convicted in any court" applies domestically, not extraterritorially, unless the statutory language, context, history, or purpose shows the contrary.
UNQUOTE