Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/15/2002 6:26:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/15/2002 6:47:59 PM EDT by cnatra]
Oct. 14, 2002, 1:16PM Felon's fight for firearms moves to Supreme Court By PATTY REINERT Copyright 2002 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau WASHINGTON -- After a long day at a Laredo gun show, Tommy Bean wanted to take his friends across the Rio Grande to eat dinner in Mexico. But when a routine border check turned up several boxes of ammunition rattling around in his Chevy Suburban, the Vidor car salesman and part-time gun dealer landed in a Mexican jail for arms smuggling. Six months later, Bean returned to the United States in a prisoner exchange and eventually was released. Even though his crime isn't a crime in the United States, he came home a felon, and therefore could no longer own or sell firearms. Bean went to court to get his gun rights back, but now the federal government wants to take them away again. This week, the fight moves to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the justices will hear arguments on whether federal judges have the power to restore felons' rights to own guns. And while the question before the court is very narrow, gun advocates hope the justices will use the case to adopt Attorney General John Ashcroft's view of the Second Amendment -- that the right to "keep and bear arms" is an individual right, rather than the collective right of a militia. If the court were to agree, it would be much more difficult to enforce gun-control laws. Bean's arrest in March of 1998 drew national attention at a time when several U.S. citizens were being detained in Mexican jails on similar weapons charges. U.S. law enforcement officials sought to warn other Americans to avoid taking knives, guns or ammunition into Mexico, which has much stricter weapons laws than does the United States. Possession of a pocket knife or a handgun in Mexico can result in up to five years in prison, while those caught with firearms or ammunition reserved by Mexican law for military use face five- to 30-year sentences and hefty fines. After his arrest, Bean signed a confession written in Spanish, a language he doesn't understand. He eventually was convicted without a trial and sentenced to five years in prison. For six months, he sat in a Nuevo Laredo jail while his family and friends in Texas raised money and hired lawyers to try to bring him home. Once Bean was returned, he set about clearing his name. An avid hunter, he wanted to regain his right to own firearms. He also hoped to eventually reapply for his federal license to sell guns, which he had done previously for fun and extra income. Federal law prohibits felons from carrying guns. In the past, felons could appeal to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to have their gun rights restored. But in 1992, Congress cut ATF's funding to process those requests, effectively killing the gun restoration program. Bean tried to bypass the ATF by going to court. In 2000, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans restored his gun rights, saying Mexican officials had unfairly imprisoned Bean for what the judges considered a "simple oversight," not an intentional crime. [b]The Bush administration's lawyer, Solicitor General Theodore Olson, is expected to argue[/b] that only the ATF has the power to restore Bean's gun rights, and since the ATF's funds were cut, Bean is out of luck. The government contends that Congress deliberately cut the ATF program to prevent hardened criminals from regaining access to guns. The courts have no say in the matter, Olson will argue. Neither Bean nor his attorney, Larry Hunter, has returned the Chronicle's calls seeking comment on the case. But Hunter in the past has characterized Bean, a 61-year-old with [b]no prior criminal record,[/b] as an innocent man trapped in a corrupt Mexican justice system and punished by his own country for a simple mistake. "He is such an innocent victim," Hunter said when Bean's case was accepted by the court. "He's not anywhere near the type of felon this law is targeting." Bean also has drawn support from U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson, D-Beaumont, who helped bring Bean home through the prisoner exchange. "Tommy Bean [b]never broke a law in the United States of America,[/b] and it was accidental that he broke the law in Mexico," Lampson said. "He has been treated unfairly, and I would like to see this whole matter dropped. "The man did a poor job of cleaning out his car," he added. "I have a hard time comparing that to violent gun crimes in the United States. I don't want those people to have guns, but I don't mind at all if Tommy Bean wants to go hunting." ----------------------------------------------- [b]WTF[/b] am I missing here? Someone enlighten me![soapbox]
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 6:34:17 PM EDT
shoulda brought a couple thousand pesos with him.
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 6:38:50 PM EDT
This is about the biggest pile of damn bullshit i've read all week. The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT says this guy doesn't have the right to keep and bear arms because he broke a FUCKING BULLSHIT MEXICAN LAW?!! WTF?
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 6:45:51 PM EDT
[q]WTF!?! Why is the Bush admin. pursuing this ???????[/q] Simple answer...despite the delusional fever dreams of this board to the contrary, the Bush administration isn't your friend. Besides they're waaay to busy setting up the Iraq smokescreen to trouble themselves with any semblance of Justice as it applies to American citizens. Enjoy!
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 6:50:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/15/2002 6:53:05 PM EDT by cnatra]
Originally Posted By Observer: [q]WTF!?! Why is the Bush admin. pursuing this ???????[/q] Simple answer...despite the delusional fever dreams of this board to the contrary, the Bush administration isn't your friend. Besides they're waaay to busy setting up the Iraq smokescreen to trouble themselves with any semblance of Justice as it applies to American citizens. Enjoy!
View Quote
I kind of figured that but is SCOTUS really going to rule with the FEDS here ?? How can he loose his rights if the guy has NEVER committed a criminal act in the USA in his entire life!!
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 6:52:32 PM EDT
I read that and thought it was a bad move for the Bush admin to take such a position. If anything, Ashcroft should be fighting FOR this model citizens rights, standing behind him 100%. I had no idea that a crime comitted on foriegn soil had any bearing on American soil, especially when the supposed crime is perectly legal in the US-of-A. I am very dissapointed.
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 6:56:18 PM EDT
Just out of curiosity, when did a tax revenue beareau like the ATF get to arbitrarily decide what rights US citizens have and don't have? Who the hell are they t tell me a damn thing? I don't get it. Where in the constitution is that power delegated to a bunch of tax agents?
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 7:06:04 PM EDT
this law is a bunch of crap.i feel sorry for the guy since he was a gun dealer he should have known the laws in mex are strict and that they dont fool around with gringos. even i know this.
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 7:09:33 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 9:06:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/15/2002 9:07:37 PM EDT by RipMeyer]
[url]http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#b8[/url] (A10) Q. How can a person convicted of a felony have his or her gun privileges restored? [Back] A. Under the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), convicted felons and certain other persons are prohibited from possessing firearms. (See 18 U.S.C. section 922(g).)[b] The GCA provides the Secretary of the Treasury with the authority to grant relief from this disability where the Secretary determines that the person is not likely to act in a manner dangerous to the public safety. (See 18 U.S.C. section 925(c).) The Secretary delegated this authority to ATF.[/b] Since October 1992, however, ATF's annual appropriation has continuously prohibited the expending of any funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities. This restriction is located in Pub. L. No. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763, which contains ATF appropriations for fiscal year 2001. As long as this provision is included in current ATF appropriations, the Bureau cannot act upon applications for restoration of Federal firearms privileges submitted by individuals. Consequently, we cannot entertain any individual's request for firearms restoration while this prohibition on the processing of such applications remains in place. Furthermore, the restriction contained in Pub. L. No. 106-554 does not change the status of prohibited persons. They are still prohibited from possessing, receiving, transporting, or shipping firearms under Federal law.
Link Posted: 10/16/2002 9:25:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/16/2002 9:27:28 AM EDT by cnatra]
Originally Posted By RipMeyer: [url]http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#b8[/url] (A10) Q. How can a person convicted of a felony have his or her gun privileges restored? [Back] A. Under the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), convicted felons and certain other persons are prohibited from possessing firearms. (See 18 U.S.C. section 922(g).)[b] The GCA provides the Secretary of the Treasury with the authority to grant relief from this disability where the Secretary determines that the person is not likely to act in a manner dangerous to the public safety. (See 18 U.S.C. section 925(c).) The Secretary delegated this authority to ATF.[/b] Since October 1992, however, ATF's annual appropriation has continuously prohibited the expending of any funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities. This restriction is located in Pub. L. No. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763, which contains ATF appropriations for fiscal year 2001. As long as this provision is included in current ATF appropriations, the Bureau cannot act upon applications for restoration of Federal firearms privileges submitted by individuals. Consequently, we cannot entertain any individual's request for firearms restoration while this prohibition on the processing of such applications remains in place. Furthermore, the restriction contained in Pub. L. No. 106-554 does not change the status of prohibited persons. They are still prohibited from possessing, receiving, transporting, or shipping firearms under Federal law.
View Quote
Thanks for the legal history of this law. So I guess a Democratic congress passed this law & Bush Sr. didn't veto it?? Why isn't this changed now? Where have the gun friendly Republicans been on this the past few years? I guess it would be political suicide to advocate the right of some felons to regain their right to own firearms. [b]BUT Tommy Bean has yet to commit a felony in the United States!![/b] So why are his rights being [b]infringed[/b]????
Link Posted: 10/16/2002 3:45:07 PM EDT
bush is pro gun
Link Posted: 10/16/2002 4:51:14 PM EDT
Think of the numbers of foreigners who slip into America get US drivers licenses and have no problem buying any weapon they desire.. To charge a US citizen and punish him for a mexican felony when the felony isnt even a crime in the US ? What Injustice. And if this guy is now caught with a firearm to defend his life and his wifes given his age he will go to jail for another felony? This is outrageous.. Sounds like the global court is here.....
Link Posted: 10/16/2002 5:00:12 PM EDT
This has been discussed before but maybe not on this board. The general consenous is that the AG is obligated to represent the federal government in court. Don't read anything into that alone. The key is how they will represent the federal government. BTW, SAF.org is getting behind Bean on this. Alan feels that this will be a SCOTUS test for the 2nd amendment being an individual right. If SCOTUS rules as such, it would be illegal for congress to withhold funding for this.
Link Posted: 10/16/2002 5:11:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 1_153_370_371_407: bush is pro gun
View Quote
Bush is a politician.
Link Posted: 10/16/2002 5:15:10 PM EDT
Come on people havent you all figured it out yet! There is no border between Mexico and the United States! Mexico is considered another state of the United States! Gatta think like a liberal to understand this atrocity that is being done to this man who is a victim of politics and political correctness! The goal of the gun control movement is to totally disarm the populace.
Link Posted: 10/17/2002 8:58:36 PM EDT
[b]Govt. Lawyer Argues Against Second Amendment Rights For Felons By Robert B. Bluey CNSNews.com Staff Writer October 17, 2002 (CNSNews.com) - When Thomas Lamar Bean was convicted of a felony four years ago he had no choice but to surrender his Second Amendment right to bear arms. But when Bean went to restore that right, as he and all felons may do, he was told by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) that the agency was no longer accepting applications under a congressional order. Bean took his case to a federal judge, which he considered the likely next step. But after the judge approved his application, the U.S. government stepped in and said the court erred by restoring Bean's right to own and carry a gun. The case, heard Wednesday by the U.S. Supreme Court, could have broad implications on the right of millions of Americans to bear arms. In any event, it will at least clarify how, and if, felons can get their Second Amendment rights restored. The Justice Department maintains the federal judiciary has no place ruling on applications like the one submitted by Bean, in the absence of an investigation by the ATF. Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler said a judge should only intervene once the ATF officially rejects an application, which did not happen in Bean's case. But Bean's attorney, Thomas C. Goldstein, argued that ATF's refusal to even look at his client's application amounted to a rejection. Based on that logic, Goldstein said Bean took the appropriate action by asking a federal district court to hear the case. At the center of the debate is a congressional mandate that restricts the ATF from spending money on investigations regarding felons' applications. Under a 1965 law, felons can ask the ATF to restore their Second Amendment rights as long as they no longer pose a danger to society. But in 1992, facing financial concerns and fears that violent criminals might gain access to weapons, Congress barred the AFT from spending money to investigate applications from felons -- essentially halting the program. At the time, the ATF was spending an average of $3,700 per investigation and processing between 3,000 and 4,000 cases per year. Wednesday, Goldstein tried to convince Supreme Court justices that the congressional restriction did not apply to the secretary of the Department of the Treasury, whom Bean addressed in sending in his application. If the court buys into that reasoning, it could determine that the ATF's refusal to take action amounted to a denial. But Goldstein at times found some of the justices skeptical of his argument. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg doubted the treasury secretary would be inclined to act on an application when such a review was typically delegated to a subordinate division like the ATF. Ginsburg also questioned whether courts had the authority to review such applications. "It would be extraordinary for district courts to take up these matters," she said. "Why would Congress give them that authority?" Goldstein acknowledged that federal trial courts should not be the first step in the application review process. But he said the ATF's refusal to take action was a denial and the court was merely acting from that base. Kneedler countered that Congress did not give the treasury secretary or the courts the authority to act on an application. Kneedler warned that courts would have "extraordinary power" if the justices sided with Bean. Justice Anthony Kennedy speculated about whether Congress had only intended to restrict ATF from carrying out the investigations and whether another agency under the Department of the Treasury could assume those powers. Under that same premise, Justice John Paul Stevens asked Kneedler what would happen if the treasury secretary and ATF officials conducted the investigation on the weekend while not on the job. "The order would still be done in the ATF's official capacity," Kneedler replied. With no one at the AFT or treasury department able to make those decisions, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor asked Kneedler whether the refusal to address applications amounted to a de facto denial. "Congress said the ATF is barred from acting on an application," Kneedler responded. "Congress only intended that the courts review agency actions." Since the ATF took no action, Kneedler said, the lower court should not have approved Bean's application. Now the justices must decide if courts have the authority to restore the Second Amendment rights of felons. Even though the Bush administration is typically aligned with supporters of the Second Amendment, the case illustrates a subtle shift in the administration's stance by opposing the rights of some individuals, albeit felons, to bear arms. But Bean is not a typical felon. He was convicted under Mexican law when he crossed the border in Texas one evening after a gun show in 1998. When Mexican police stopped his car, the officers found 200 rounds of ammunition that had been inadvertently left in his vehicle. He was charged with smuggling ammunition. After spending six months in a Mexican jail, he was released to the United States under a treaty. His charges were reduced to probation, but because he was convicted of a felony under Mexican law, he had surrendered his Second Amendment rights and lost his license as a gun dealer.[/b] The case is United States v. Bean. E-mail a news tip to Robert B. Bluey. Send a Letter to the Editor about this article ------------------------------------------------ GAWD I hope SCOTUS doesn't hang us out to dry on this one!!!
Link Posted: 10/17/2002 9:09:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 1_153_370_371_407: bush is pro gun
View Quote
Keep telling yourself that. It will ease the pain when he signs a more restrictive AWB into law in 2004.
Link Posted: 10/17/2002 9:14:24 PM EDT
"Congress said the ATF is barred from acting on an application," Kneedler responded. "Congress only intended that the courts review agency actions." Since the ATF took no action, Kneedler said, the lower court should not have approved Bean's application.
View Quote
That's a pretty tenuous argument. Seems to me that inaction is action. He should have just stayed in the Mexican jail. Mexican jails aren't really that bad, if your family can cough up the few hundred a month to get you a semi-private apartment. I had a friend that decided he'd bounty hunt in TJ, while carrying his pistola. What a maroon.
Link Posted: 10/17/2002 9:15:01 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/17/2002 9:48:15 PM EDT
If Saddam Hussein were to try and convict all Americans of conspiracy to overthrow him, we'd ALL lose our RKBA? Interesting.
Link Posted: 10/18/2002 3:16:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By piccolo: If Saddam Hussein were to try and convict all Americans of conspiracy to overthrow him, we'd ALL lose our RKBA? Interesting.
View Quote
that sounds like just the [b][i]loophole[/i][/b] they've been looking for
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 10:19:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/11/2002 10:21:17 PM EDT by cnatra]
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court blocked felons from going straight to court to get their gun rights restored, rejecting arguments Tuesday that those people have nowhere else to go. Justices didn't get into the constitutional arguments. In a brief decision, they ruled unanimously that courts can intervene only after the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has rejected a request. However, Congress already has barred the ATF from considering such requests. The high court's message for a Texas man who wanted to get around the ban: too bad. The case had stirred up gun rights supporters, who contend that Thomas Bean and others convicted of nonviolent crimes should not permanently lose their gun rights. The Bush administration argued against Bean, despite the Justice Department's position that the Constitution guarantees a right to gun ownership. Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the court's most conservative members, wrote the decision. He said the ATF, not a judge, was best prepared to look into whether an applicant could be a danger to public safety. The ruling mentions the ATF ban but offers no opinion of it. The Supreme Court could be drawn into a larger gun rights case soon. An appeals court ruled last week that the Second Amendment does not give Americans a personal right to own firearms. The ruling, by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, is expected to be appealed. [b]Bean, a gun dealer, was convicted of violating Mexican law after officers found 200 rounds of bullets in his car during a dinner trip across the border four years ago. Bean can return to lower courts to argue that the Mexican conviction does not classify him as a felon in the United States.[/b] Felons are prohibited by federal law from carrying guns, but they can ask the government for exceptions. When Bean tried to get back his gun rights, and his livelihood, he was supported by two police chiefs, a sheriff, a judge, a prosecutor and a Baptist preacher. Because the ATF wouldn't review his case, he sued. A lower court restored Bean's firearms license, but Tuesday's decision reversed that. Each year since 1992 Congress has included in the ATF's budget a ban on using money to do background checks for felons, which cost an estimated $3,700 each. Nelson Lund, a conservative law professor at George Mason University, said the court's decision moves the debate to the Capitol. "Congress created this situation, and they can fix it, which they may do when the Republicans have control of both houses and the presidency," Lund said. Mathew Nosanchuk, litigation director for the pro-gun control Violence Policy Center, predicted the court's decision will end the effort to give felons gun rights. "I don't think any member of Congress wants to be standing up in favor of restoring gun privileges to convicted felons," he said. The National Rifle Association did not file arguments in the case, but other gun rights supporters backed Bean. "If courts can make decisions about whether someone can be executed, it seems to me that they ought to be competent to make a decision about whether somebody can have their rights restored," said William Gustavson, a lawyer for the Second Amendment Foundation. The case United States v. Bean, 01-704 [url]www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/01-704.pdf[/url]
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 10:28:01 PM EDT
Maybe this quagmire is a blessing in disguise. Hopefully this and the recent conlict between 2 lower courts will force SCOTUS to finally address this collective right BS. "We" are supposed to be favored 5-4 in the court but man if they did hear this and rule the 2nd applies to the individual that would unravel every gun law on the books! Imagine the sheeple?
Link Posted: 12/12/2002 3:32:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By cnatra: WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court blocked felons from going straight to court to get their gun rights restored, rejecting arguments Tuesday that those people have nowhere else to go. Justices didn't get into the constitutional arguments. In a brief decision, they ruled unanimously that courts can intervene only after the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has rejected a request. However, Congress already has barred the ATF from considering such requests. The high court's message for a Texas man who wanted to get around the ban: too bad. The case had stirred up gun rights supporters, who contend that Thomas Bean and others convicted of nonviolent crimes should not permanently lose their gun rights. The Bush administration argued against Bean, despite the Justice Department's position that the Constitution guarantees a right to gun ownership. Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the court's most conservative members, wrote the decision. He said the ATF, not a judge, was best prepared to look into whether an applicant could be a danger to public safety. The ruling mentions the ATF ban but offers no opinion of it. The Supreme Court could be drawn into a larger gun rights case soon. An appeals court ruled last week that the Second Amendment does not give Americans a personal right to own firearms. The ruling, by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, is expected to be appealed. [b]Bean, a gun dealer, was convicted of violating Mexican law after officers found 200 rounds of bullets in his car during a dinner trip across the border four years ago. Bean can return to lower courts to argue that the Mexican conviction does not classify him as a felon in the United States.[/b] Felons are prohibited by federal law from carrying guns, but they can ask the government for exceptions. When Bean tried to get back his gun rights, and his livelihood, he was supported by two police chiefs, a sheriff, a judge, a prosecutor and a Baptist preacher. Because the ATF wouldn't review his case, he sued. A lower court restored Bean's firearms license, but Tuesday's decision reversed that. Each year since 1992 Congress has included in the ATF's budget a ban on using money to do background checks for felons, which cost an estimated $3,700 each. Nelson Lund, a conservative law professor at George Mason University, said the court's decision moves the debate to the Capitol. "Congress created this situation, and they can fix it, which they may do when the Republicans have control of both houses and the presidency," Lund said. Mathew Nosanchuk, litigation director for the pro-gun control Violence Policy Center, predicted the court's decision will end the effort to give felons gun rights. "I don't think any member of Congress wants to be standing up in favor of restoring gun privileges to convicted felons," he said. [red]The National Rifle Association did not file arguments in the case, but other gun rights supporters backed Bean.[/red] "If courts can make decisions about whether someone can be executed, it seems to me that they ought to be competent to make a decision about whether somebody can have their rights restored," said William Gustavson, a lawyer for the Second Amendment Foundation. The case United States v. Bean, 01-704 [url]www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/01-704.pdf[/url]
View Quote
GOA was beside Mr. Bean from the beginning... [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=158784[/url]
Link Posted: 12/12/2002 5:40:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/12/2002 5:46:21 AM EDT by The_Macallan]
Originally Posted By liberty86:
[red]The National Rifle Association did not file arguments in the case, but other gun rights supporters backed Bean.[/red]
View Quote
GOA was beside Mr. Bean from the beginning... [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=158784[/url]
View Quote
[b]FUCK the NRA! [pissed][/b]
Link Posted: 12/12/2002 6:00:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Originally Posted By liberty86:
[red]The National Rifle Association did not file arguments in the case, but other gun rights supporters backed Bean.[/red]
View Quote
GOA was beside Mr. Bean from the beginning... [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=158784[/url]
View Quote
[b]FUCK the NRA! [pissed][/b]
View Quote
That's been my position since day one. [:D] They are a cash machine for insiders. Nothing more.
Link Posted: 12/12/2002 6:14:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By lokt: shoulda brought a couple thousand pesos with him.
View Quote
Gold Hat: Oiga, senor. We are Federales. You know, the mountid poliss. Dobbs: If you're the police, where are your badges? Gold Hat: [b]Badges? We ain't got no badges! We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinkin' badges![/b] [img]http://www.darryl.com/badges/madresmall.jpg[/img] Looks like not much has changed since back then....
Link Posted: 12/12/2002 6:22:52 AM EDT
Someone accused George H. Bush of not vetoing the GCA 68?? One problem there. GH Bush was President 10-12 years ago. Not 34 years ago. Try around the time of LBJ (a democrapic president whose family (wife in particular) made a lot of money of off the Nam war).
Top Top