Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/10/2002 11:26:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2002 11:27:24 AM EDT by ckapsl]
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Thomas Lamar Bean, the gun dealer who was convicted of a felony in Mexico for inadvertently bringing a box of ammunition across the border. They said that because the ATF had never acted upon his application for relief, he could not say that his application was rejected, and therefore a court could not review his case until he was actually rejected by the ATF. Clarence Thomas wrote the unanimous opinion. There is no mention whatsoever of the Second Amendment in the opinion or its footnotes. I am proud of being an American today - a good man's livelihood has been destroyed, and he has been denied his day in court because of a technicality. You can read the opinion online at: [url]www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/01-704.pdf[/url]
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 11:36:19 AM EDT
AAAhhhhhh....... So now we have a glimpse of the future with licensing. The liebrals don't actually have to ban guns, they only have to get the ATF to not act on applications for firearms licenses, thereby effectively making all gun ownership illegal. You just have to love that.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 12:13:33 PM EDT
You all deserve what is coming.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 12:22:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2002 12:28:28 PM EDT by magnum_99]
What I find more disturbing, and pernicious, is the proposition that Bean is a felon in the U.S. for being convicted in MEXICO of something that is wholly legal in the U.S. Yet, it is taken as gospel that he is indeed a felon. I guess no one attacked on that issue--maybe it's a settled proposition under a treaty or other Federal law, but it just plain sucks. Imagine that you go to some tin-pot dictator country and piss off the local "policia" and end up doing time there for no other reason but the trumped-up charge. Were you denied due process? Damn straight. Under the host country's laws? Maybe not, but certainly if you had been in the U.S. you would have a defense on those grounds. There is ZERO means of ensuring that citizens have access to genuine due process protections in foreign countries (other than the lip service that may be given it be a treaty). Yet Bean is a "felon" and is to be denied his right to posesses arms. Why don't we just say that Mexico's laws are in effect and go ahead and disarm everyone? They aren't allowed to own guns either. This case stinks.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 12:31:20 PM EDT
I don't understand. WHO filed this? If I'm not mistaken, Bean was granted relief by the District court and the 5th Circuit court agreed. Then WHO is challenging this? The ATF??? Soooo... they don't have the appropriations to conduct a simple background check, but they DO have the $$$$ to spend on TEAMS of lawyers to appeal this case to the 5th Circuit court AND the SCOTUS???? Am I missing something here?? [>:/]
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 12:32:32 PM EDT
I have no faith in this court, this Government or this country! I have finished hoping I see the future quite clearly. AW Ban sunsetting? HA!
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 12:39:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: You all deserve what is coming.
View Quote
Unfortunately, you are likely to be proven right. "I Fought The Law And The Law Won." Again.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 12:48:25 PM EDT
Straw upon straw upon straw upon.....
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 12:56:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2002 12:57:22 PM EDT by The_Macallan]
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > Sec. 922. g) It shall be unlawful for any person - (1) who has been convicted in [red]any court[/red] of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; . . . to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/922.html
View Quote
I think we've just found a way for Iraq, China, France, Syria, Uganda, North Korea, Zimbabewe or even the United Nation's new International Criminal Court to INSTANTLY and IMMEDIATELY erase our 2nd Amendment... All any nation would have to do is try (in abstentia) EVERY American Citizen for violating sum bogus bullshit "International Human Rights Law" that they make up and convict us ALL (in asbstentia) in THEIR kangaroo courts and sentence us ALL to 1year and 1day imprisonment (commuted of course) and - VOILA! We would no longer have the RKBA under current US Federal Law. How cute and tidy is that! [bounce] [b]WE[/b] indeed ARE subject to the laws of every other nation. WHOO-HOO!!!
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 1:10:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > Sec. 922. g) It shall be unlawful for any person - (1) who has been convicted in [red]any court[/red] of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; . . . to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/922.html
View Quote
I think we've just found a way for Iraq, China, France, Syria, Uganda, North Korea, Zimbabewe or even the United Nation's new International Criminal Court to INSTANTLY and IMMEDIATELY erase our 2nd Amendment... All any nation would have to do is try (in abstentia) EVERY American Citizen for violating sum bogus bullshit "International Human Rights Law" that they make up and convict us ALL (in asbstentia) in THEIR kangaroo courts and sentence us ALL to 1year and 1day imprisonment (commuted of course) and - VOILA! We would no longer have the RKBA under current US Federal Law. How cute and tidy is that! [bounce] [b]WE[/b] indeed ARE subject to the laws of every other nation. WHOO-HOO!!!
View Quote
Oh really Mac. You don't actually think that is going to happen do you? Not even the staunchest liberal would be willing to do that. It would be the dreaded SHTF that we all know the government wants to avoid.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 1:17:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2002 1:31:51 PM EDT by KBaker]
Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > Sec. 922. g) It shall be unlawful for any person - (1) who has been convicted in [red]any court[/red] of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
View Quote
That's the law that Maryland Attorney General Curran is using in his "Farewell to Arms" campaign to disarm citizens of Maryland. If you had a conviction 21 years ago for something in which [i]there were no sentencing guidelines[/i] (so you therefore [i]could have received[/i] a sentence "exceeding one year") then your right to arms is gone in Maryland. Coming soon to a state near you? Straw upon straw....
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 1:23:40 PM EDT
Very, very dark day. Lack of due process, condemed by a Tresury agency who's purpose is to collect revenue & taxes. Tyrany at it's finest hour.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 1:30:32 PM EDT
They said that because the ATF had never acted upon his application for relief, he could not say that his application was rejected, and therefore a court could not review his case until he was actually rejected by the ATF.
View Quote
The South Carolina state police have already learned that trick! For years, they've been returning concealed carry applications without denying them. They just don't approve them. According to the state law, us peons have no legal recourse until they deny us. I've already spent much more than I can afford on lawyers, and I still don't have a concealed carry permit in this so-called shall issue state. It's sad to see that this crooked game has now been officially blessed by the Supreme Court.z
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 1:41:29 PM EDT
It seems that the SCOTUS is satisfied with the current status quo in regards to laws and regulations pertaining to gun control. It was Justice Thomas (one of the more conservative members) who wrote the majority opinion. An interesting and frightening prospect is the division of opinion between the 5th and 9th circuit court of appeals in regards to whether or not the 2nd Amendment is an Individual Right. If or rather WHEN the SCOTUS takes up this case..fireworks are going to fly! The current trend for the past 25 years by the Federal Judiciary: is that our Individual Rights are not so much Rights but rather they are Priviledges which can be proscribed by law. For proof: compare what Law Enforcecment Authorities can do today that they couldn't do 25 years ago.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 1:45:13 PM EDT
Was it Malthus or Keynes that predicted a continual growth of society and economies and then massive collapse? The other said we'll get to a place of sustainance only? I may be stupid or whatever anyone may say but I believe that there will be in my lifetime complete disarmament of the US population and in my grandchildrens' life a world government and the US will fall into the category of a European type society then a SHTF situation then the total destruction of the human race. It is the COLLECTIVE reasoning of gov't officials that by giving priority to protecting the powers of gov't and their agencies we are being raped little by little. Slowly using every little detail in every fucked up law to the letter and using these precidents to shove it up the ass of true freedom. The system is actually destroying us. One feather is light but a billion is heavy, when do we realize that there are too many feathers? When we collapse under the burden! Buy what you can now store ammo, gear etc. There IS a socialist agenda to overthrow this country from within. It is disguised as rule of law, an "evolving" constitution, legal precident, legal technicality, SAFETY of the masses, need vs. want, and the killer will be the demise of rural culture! Big city ideals will win out. Guns will be seen as a throwback to the old west and the Manifest Destiny days. Remember they can write all the legislation they want and they may someday disarm all of us... someday, but not today. With that know that you or your kids will have to carry on and that they will likely have to be the ones to step up like we did 226 years ago. There's just too many of us for them to do it now but the foundations for it are being laid by those we even believe to be our allies. Money and power are the synonomous with liberty and freedom among socialists. Armed citizens are a threat to that and them. When I was in high school I never belived there was an antigun agenda. When I was in my 20's I never beleived that they could ever disarm us. Now in my 30's I do not believe what is to come can be stopped and that unless revolutionaries take back what has been and will be lost then ours will die as all great nations have through out history. It is the natural evolution of gov't to saturate every aspect of society then choke it dead. The hands are around our neck now and they are tying OUR hands so that when they begin to squeeze we cannot fight back. It is now not a question of if they take our liberty but when and for how long before we take it back. You know the kicker here is that the President actually considered amnesty for all Mexican illegals but would sit idly by and watch a good citizen get fucked over by that cess pool third world nation. We have no friends that are in power. Like the colonists our greivences are going unheard and unresolved.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 1:57:38 PM EDT
Let me just say that I support Bean in all his efforts, but gentlemen, you must loose your emotions when looking at this case. I read the decision in full, and it appears the court had no choice but to rule in favor of the government. The angering thing about this is that the government had the funds to fight the lower courts decision, but refuses to give funds to the ATF so they can even evaluate the restoration petitions. (not that they would approve them anyway) No matter how much we like it or dislike it, these are the facts. The SCOTUS ruled that the code law does not give the Judicial system 100% authority in these decisions. Beans earlier win was based on this fact. This decision is not 2nd ammendment based as it was brought. It is a "who has authority to grant an official restoration under current law argument". Not a civil rights argument. The vilian is as usual the ATF. Do you really think that they'd not get the money they need for granting restorations if they asked for it. My bet is that they were told there's no money for that, and they said "Excellent!" The court makes decisions based on the arguments of the case, period. If they didn't, they'd be considered activist judges. The real suit should have centered around agencies given ultimate decision making power, but never making a decision. It's the same as the '86 FOPA shutting down the MG database. You'd like to make one and would be happy to pay the tax, but they won't take your money, but they'd sure as hell procecute you for NFA tax evasion.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 2:04:01 PM EDT
Exactly, Driftpunch.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 2:12:13 PM EDT
Is upholding the Constitution considered "activist"? Exactly what I mean by my previous comments on legal precident and technicalities. We are all getting a royal fuckin over!
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 2:19:03 PM EDT
what are you going to do about it? nothing. neither am i.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 2:22:12 PM EDT
Agreed, but that isn't what this particular case is about. A case might be made that by refusing to accept money and paperwork for legal activity, an agency is by default making a legal activity illegal. This catch-22 would probably run counter to the actual law that set up the organization in the first place. The SCOTUS didn't hear a 2nd Amendment issue. It ruled that the BATF had authority under [b]THE LAW[/b] to process the reinstatement, not the SCOTUS. I don't agree with what the BATF is doing, but some other legal action would be required in order to change their ways. This 'Bean' case could be submitted as evidence that the BATF is violating the law it was formed under.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 2:27:03 PM EDT
Sorry brother but there is a thing called"statute of limitation" and if im not mistaken 21 yrs would be far over it, unless of course it involved murder. FREE
Originally Posted By KBaker:
Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > Sec. 922. g) It shall be unlawful for any person - (1) who has been convicted in [red]any court[/red] of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
View Quote
That's the law that Maryland Attorney General Curran is using in his "Farewell to Arms" campaign to disarm citizens of Maryland. If you had a conviction 21 years ago for something in which [i]there were no sentencing guidelines[/i] (so you therefore [i]could have received[/i] a sentence "exceeding one year") then your right to arms is gone in Maryland. Coming soon to a state near you? Straw upon straw....
View Quote
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 2:43:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2002 2:49:17 PM EDT by The_Macallan]
Originally Posted By FREEFALLE6: Sorry brother but there is a thing called"statute of limitation" and if im not mistaken 21 yrs would be far over it, unless of course it involved murder. FREE
View Quote
NOPE! Donald G. Arnold, Vietnam Vet and Maryland Citizen of the year was banned from possessing guns this January because he got in a barfight [b][red]THIRTY[/red][/b] years ago.
'Citizen of the year' denied OK to carry gun By Margie Hyslop THE WASHINGTON TIMES 1/29/2002 Donald G. Arnold is a Vietnam veteran and president of his neighborhood association. He was named a "citizen of the year" by Maryland in 2000 for his work with police in southeast Baltimore to stop drug dealers and make the city safer. None of that mattered, however, when Mr. Arnold tried to renew his permit to carry a gun that he needed in his work as a private detective and security guard. What mattered was that [red]he was convicted in 1969 of a misdemeanor[/red] in a barroom scuffle after a man who spotted his Army jacket called him a "baby killer." [red]Mr. Arnold no longer can carry a gun[/red] on the job, and the restriction, he estimates, has cost him about $10,000 in work he has had to turn down. [red]On the advice of Maryland's attorney general, state police are denying guns and permits and even seizing firearms from people with decades-old convictions.[/red] Federal law disqualifies a person from possessing a firearm if he or she is convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year or of a state offense — including misdemeanors and common-law offenses — punishable by more than two years. But Maryland Attorney General J. Joseph Curran Jr. argues that a 1996 decision by the Maryland Court of Appeals allows state police to disqualify a person from possessing firearms based on the sentence he could have received. "To take somebody's constitutional rights based on 'could have' — I don't understand that," Mr. Arnold said. [red]State police said they soon will begin searching databases for gun owners with disqualifying offenses on their records.[/red] {WHOO-HOO!!!} Maryland state Sen. Perry Sfikas, whose district includes Mr. Arnold's Baltimore neighborhood, said he supports "reasonable gun control" but is baffled by Mr. Arnold's case. "That's not appropriate — Don's a wonderful individual, and he's been an absolute blessing to the communities of southeast Baltimore," said Mr. Sfikas, a Democrat. Mr. Arnold, who was 21 years old at the time of the scuffle, spent a night in jail and the next day went before a judge without an attorney. He was found guilty, received a 60-day sentence — all suspended except the day served — and was placed on unsupervised probation. "No one showed up, nobody gave testimony — if I'd had a lawyer, I wouldn't have been convicted of anything," Mr. Arnold said.
View Quote
Here's another:
One gun owner had a [red]1983 conviction[/red] come back to haunt him. [red]Maryland State Police seized firearms from Larry L. Dicken's home[/red] outside Cumberland in August, even taking with them his hunting rifle. In conducting a background check on Mr. Dicken for a handgun purchase, police discovered that he had been involved in a [b]1983[/b] shoving match over a property line. Although it wasn't Mr. Dicken's only conviction — he had been convicted on two assault-and-battery charges and two assault charges between 1980 and 1983 — the shoving incident prompted police to take his guns. Mr. Dicken acknowledges receiving convictions two decades ago but says he has been on the "straight and narrow" since. [red]Police confirmed they found no offenses on his record after 1983.[/red] Gun disqualification laws impose the same penalties on people with vastly different records, police said. The range of offenses that carry sentences of more than two years is broad. Someone guilty of blasphemy or disorderly conduct, for example, would lose the same rights as someone convicted of assault. Mr. Dicken passed background checks and purchased several handguns before Aug. 24, when [red]state police called saying they needed to visit to verify serial numbers of his guns before they approved his pending purchase.[/red] [red]Two troopers arrived at Mr. Dicken's house in an unmarked car, Mr. Dicken presented the guns, and the troopers told him they had been ordered to seize all his firearms.[/red] They allowed him to contact [attorney Kevin] Kelly and agreed to let Mr. Kelly remove Mr. Dicken's long guns to his own home. But the troopers took all three handguns in the home, including one belonging to Mr. Dicken's wife, Kathy. They argued that Mr. Dicken still would have access to firearms if they left the handgun there. State police later agreed to transfer ownership of the guns to Mrs. Dicken and returned them to her on Oct. 3. Mr. Kelly is sponsoring a bill to prohibit federal firearms disqualifications from being applied in Maryland. "Cases like this demonstrate the huge gulf between the intentions and realities of gun control," said James Purtilo, publisher of Tripwire, the Beltsville-based gun rights newsletter.
View Quote
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 3:02:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2002 3:04:12 PM EDT by KBaker]
Originally Posted By FREEFALLE6: Sorry brother but there is a thing called"statute of limitation" and if im not mistaken 21 yrs would be far over it, unless of course it involved murder. FREE
Originally Posted By KBaker:
Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > Sec. 922. g) It shall be unlawful for any person - (1) who has been convicted in [red]any court[/red] of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
View Quote
That's the law that Maryland Attorney General Curran is using in his "Farewell to Arms" campaign to disarm citizens of Maryland. If you had a conviction 21 years ago for something in which [i]there were no sentencing guidelines[/i] (so you therefore [i]could have received[/i] a sentence "exceeding one year") then your right to arms is gone in Maryland. Coming soon to a state near you? Straw upon straw....
View Quote
View Quote
You misunderstand. If you, sometime in your past - recent or distant - had a conviction for a crime that [i]could have gotten you[/i] a sentence of "more than one year" - and that includes crimes for which [b]there are no sentencing guidelines[/b] [size=3][b]REGARDLESS OF THE SENTENCE YOU ACTUALLY RECEIVED[/b][/size=3] then you have [i]NO RIGHT TO ARMS IN MARYLAND[/i]. In point of fact, you have no right to arms anywhere in the USA - that's how the law is written - but Maryland AG Curran is [i]enforcing it.[/i] See the [url=http://209.157.64.200/focus/news/719948/posts]case of Maryland's "Citizen of the Year"[/url]. This is the most public case, but there are many, many others like [url=www.times-news.com/stories/2002/january/day17/1293569.html] this one.[/url] Eighteen years after the fact, the JBT's come and confiscate 14 firearms. He got them back after they were registered to [i]his wife[/i] - but if he is seen handling them, I think he gets to go to jail. For [b]five years[/b]. Just wait until the database gets better. Buy some ammo with a credit card, get a visit from the JBT's. (Edited to fix link)
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 3:07:14 PM EDT
Damn, Macallan, you beat me to it!
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 3:30:53 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 3:52:57 PM EDT
No one is forcing those people to live there. If they don't like the gun laws they should move the hell out! [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 4:56:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Originally Posted By FREEFALLE6: Sorry brother but there is a thing called"statute of limitation" and if im not mistaken 21 yrs would be far over it, unless of course it involved murder. FREE
View Quote
NOPE! Donald G. Arnold, Vietnam Vet and Maryland Citizen of the year was banned from possessing guns this January because he got in a barfight [b][red]THIRTY[/red][/b] years ago.
'Citizen of the year' denied OK to carry gun By Margie Hyslop THE WASHINGTON TIMES 1/29/2002 Donald G. Arnold is a Vietnam veteran and president of his neighborhood association. He was named a "citizen of the year" by Maryland in 2000 for his work with police in southeast Baltimore to stop drug dealers and make the city safer. None of that mattered, however, when Mr. Arnold tried to renew his permit to carry a gun that he needed in his work as a private detective and security guard. What mattered was that [red]he was convicted in 1969 of a misdemeanor[/red] in a barroom scuffle after a man who spotted his Army jacket called him a "baby killer." [red]Mr. Arnold no longer can carry a gun[/red] on the job, and the restriction, he estimates, has cost him about $10,000 in work he has had to turn down. [red]On the advice of Maryland's attorney general, state police are denying guns and permits and even seizing firearms from people with decades-old convictions.[/red] Federal law disqualifies a person from possessing a firearm if he or she is convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year or of a state offense — including misdemeanors and common-law offenses — punishable by more than two years. But Maryland Attorney General J. Joseph Curran Jr. argues that a 1996 decision by the Maryland Court of Appeals allows state police to disqualify a person from possessing firearms based on the sentence he could have received. "To take somebody's constitutional rights based on 'could have' — I don't understand that," Mr. Arnold said. [red]State police said they soon will begin searching databases for gun owners with disqualifying offenses on their records.[/red] {WHOO-HOO!!!} Maryland state Sen. Perry Sfikas, whose district includes Mr. Arnold's Baltimore neighborhood, said he supports "reasonable gun control" but is baffled by Mr. Arnold's case. "That's not appropriate — Don's a wonderful individual, and he's been an absolute blessing to the communities of southeast Baltimore," said Mr. Sfikas, a Democrat. Mr. Arnold, who was 21 years old at the time of the scuffle, spent a night in jail and the next day went before a judge without an attorney. He was found guilty, received a 60-day sentence — all suspended except the day served — and was placed on unsupervised probation. "No one showed up, nobody gave testimony — if I'd had a lawyer, I wouldn't have been convicted of anything," Mr. Arnold said.
View Quote
Here's another:
One gun owner had a [red]1983 conviction[/red] come back to haunt him. [red]Maryland State Police seized firearms from Larry L. Dicken's home[/red] outside Cumberland in August, even taking with them his hunting rifle. In conducting a background check on Mr. Dicken for a handgun purchase, police discovered that he had been involved in a [b]1983[/b] shoving match over a property line. Although it wasn't Mr. Dicken's only conviction — he had been convicted on two assault-and-battery charges and two assault charges between 1980 and 1983 — the shoving incident prompted police to take his guns. Mr. Dicken acknowledges receiving convictions two decades ago but says he has been on the "straight and narrow" since. [red]Police confirmed they found no offenses on his record after 1983.[/red] Gun disqualification laws impose the same penalties on people with vastly different records, police said. The range of offenses that carry sentences of more than two years is broad. Someone guilty of blasphemy or disorderly conduct, for example, would lose the same rights as someone convicted of assault. Mr. Dicken passed background checks and purchased several handguns before Aug. 24, when [red]state police called saying they needed to visit to verify serial numbers of his guns before they approved his pending purchase.[/red] [red]Two troopers arrived at Mr. Dicken's house in an unmarked car, Mr. Dicken presented the guns, and the troopers told him they had been ordered to seize all his firearms.[/red] They allowed him to contact [attorney Kevin] Kelly and agreed to let Mr. Kelly remove Mr. Dicken's long guns to his own home. But the troopers took all three handguns in the home, including one belonging to Mr. Dicken's wife, Kathy. They argued that Mr. Dicken still would have access to firearms if they left the handgun there. State police later agreed to transfer ownership of the guns to Mrs. Dicken and returned them to her on Oct. 3. Mr. Kelly is sponsoring a bill to prohibit federal firearms disqualifications from being applied in Maryland. "Cases like this demonstrate the huge gulf between the intentions and realities of gun control," said James Purtilo, publisher of Tripwire, the Beltsville-based gun rights newsletter.
View Quote
View Quote
For you tinfoil hat lovers out there.. US Constitution Article I Section 9 Clause 3 [red]"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed".[/red] "We don't need no stinkin' Constitution!!
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 6:11:13 PM EDT
Clarence Thomas is a very conservative justice, that doesn't mean that he's activist and looking to rule one way or the other based on traditionally conservative agendas.It means that he doesn't try to change the law with his rulings when the law and the constitution are already clear on the subject. I am certain that Clarence Thomas and the rest would love to find a way to rule in this guy's favor, but if the law says that they do not have jurisdiction to do that, then they don't have jurisdiction to do it and he's got to go back and find terms that would allow them to act. Someone needs to bring suit against the BATF that they are not doing their job impartially, that they are allowing an institutional bias to impede their duty. There is ample evidence of that, someone just needs to have the standing to make such a case and the the pocketbook to bring it far enough.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 9:12:26 PM EDT
Come on you all! You say that fun shows now suck, the shooting ranges are overrun with perrazzi and bolt action toting elitists who kick you out, and all of the good guns are banned. Face it, the "gun culture" has lost and it is time to get the early start on a new hobby. For example, I just got back into baseball card collecting. I am hoping that the Ichiro and Barry Bonds cards I just got will be worth thousands in 30 or 40 years. It is a fun hobby where no one gets hurt.
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 9:14:27 PM EDT
Someone needs to bring suit against the BATF that they are not doing their job impartially, that they are allowing an institutional bias to impede their duty.
View Quote
Can you even do that any longer? My lawyer said the right to file a writ of mandamus against the federal government was recently suspended. He mentioned that when I was with a friend of mine that wanted to look into filing one against Chief Robert Stewart of the South Carolina state police wrt processing concealed carry permits. That would have been a waste of time, because at the time, the crook was even ignoring a public order from the governor to stop holding-up renewals of permits. The lawyer gave us several examples of the chief's ignoring of court orders. If a small-time crook in a state government can get away with that, what hope do would we have against the BATF?z
Link Posted: 12/10/2002 10:36:53 PM EDT
The agencies normally follow the wishes of the executive in these matters. Remember under Clinton there were virtually no prosecutions for porn. Clinton made it clear to Reno that he didn't want anyone prosecuted for porn, which is one of the reasons why he was the darling of Hollywood. If Bush or Aschroft were for restoration of firearms rights and such, you can damn well be sure the BATF would oblige. It looks like this is not the case.
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 5:04:20 AM EDT
The plus side of this is that it is another piece of evidence to fight against registration.
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 5:20:57 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: You all deserve what is coming.
View Quote
So what do YOU deserve?? [>:/] Who are you?
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 5:29:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By mattja: The agencies normally follow the wishes of the executive in these matters. Remember under Clinton there were virtually no prosecutions for porn. Clinton made it clear to Reno that he didn't want anyone prosecuted for porn, which is one of the reasons why he was the darling of Hollywood. [red]If Bush or Aschroft were for restoration of firearms rights and such, you can damn well be sure the BATF would oblige.[/red] It looks like this is not the case.
View Quote
Bingo!! The Chief Executive is just that. He issues orders to ATF through his Treasury Secretary. Hope all you republican voters are proud of your boy once again.....
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 5:34:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86: The Chief Executive is just that. He issues orders to ATF through his Treasury Secretary. Hope all you republican voters are proud of your boy once again.....
View Quote
If that's true, it's an example of Bush's milquetoast "moderate" conservatism. [puke] But I'd bet chances are that Bush has never even heard of Thomas Lamar Bean or his case against the ATF. What has the NRA or GOA done to "remind" him about this case?
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 5:58:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Originally Posted By liberty86: The Chief Executive is just that. He issues orders to ATF through his Treasury Secretary. Hope all you republican voters are proud of your boy once again.....
View Quote
If that's true, it's an example of Bush's milquetoast "moderate" conservatism. [puke] But I'd bet chances are that Bush has never even heard of Thomas Lamar Bean or his case against the ATF. What has the NRA or GOA done to "remind" him about this case?
View Quote
No one should have have to "remind" Bush of anything. He sets policy. Doesn't matter if he knows about bean or not, it's the policies that count. But, this from a guy who says a bill is un-constitutional, then signs it......
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 6:27:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/11/2002 6:37:09 AM EDT by liberty86]
Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Originally Posted By liberty86: The Chief Executive is just that. He issues orders to ATF through his Treasury Secretary. Hope all you republican voters are proud of your boy once again.....
View Quote
If that's true, it's an example of Bush's milquetoast "moderate" conservatism. [puke] [blue]But I'd bet chances are that Bush has never even heard of Thomas Lamar Bean or his case against the ATF.[/blue] What has the NRA or [red]GOA[/red] done to "remind" him about this case?
View Quote
Copy of a GOA Texas alert, and letter from GOA president Larry Pratt to then Governor George Bush.. [b]Attention Texas Gun Owners: Fellow Texan in Mexican Jail needs your help! Gun Owners of America Fax Alert 8001 Forbes Pl., Suite 102 Springfield, VA 22151 (703) 321-8585 Fax: (703) 321-8408 June 5, 1998 Please read the sample letter below for details. GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt has already sent a copy of it to the Governor. Please take immediate action to help a fellow gun owner regain his freedom from the Mexican Jail in which he has been wrongly imprisoned. Actions: Using the sample letter, draw up your own and send it along to the Governor right away. Contact the Governor's Office by phone or fax. The numbers are as follows: Phone: 512-463-6000 or 512-463-1762 Fax: 512-463-1849 June 5, 1998 The Honorable George W. Bush Office of the Governor Box 12428 Austin, TX 78711 Dear Governor Bush: I am writing to request relief for Thomas Lamar Bean, a resident of Vidor, Texas. From information supplied to us by some of our Texas members, Mr. Bean is facing a five-year sentence in a Mexican prison because he is accused of having entered Mexico with a box containing about $30 worth of ammunition of assorted calibers. The box was in open view, and the quantity clearly indicates that there was no intention on Mr. Bean's part to engage in smuggling ammunition into Mexico. Mr. Bean is truly an innocent man. Please use your good offices under the provisions of the prisoner exchange program, or any other means available to you, to obtain the release of Mr. Bean. And kindly let me know what you are able to do so I can keep our members informed. Thank you very much for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Larry Pratt Executive Director [/b] GOA does a lot more than just send out mass mail for donations.....
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 6:35:21 AM EDT
Please note, NRA has lobbied very hard FOR "Project Exile, and in fact , (AS usual), helped write it! [b]Project Exile Seasoned with Salsa by Larry Pratt When Tom Bean headed over the Mexican border at Laredo, TX in March of 1998 he was just planning to enjoy dinner after a hard day's work at a gun show. He got back to the U.S. about six months later, having been incarcerated in a Mexican jail all that time. Aye, yai yai! Before leaving the gun show, Bean instructed his assistants to remove all firearms and ammo from their Chevy Suburban because he knew that Mexico is one of those anti-gun paradises that ends up favoring corrupt cops and a flourishing criminal element. At the checkpoint, one of the sharpeyed Mexican border police spotted a solitary box of ammo that had inadvertently been left in the back of the vehicle. Although Bean's "accomplices" were released, he was convicted of a felony for having illegally imported ammunition. Probably Bean's biggest transgression was to not have had enough cash on hand to bribe the arresting officers. Thanks to the International Prisoner Transfer Treaty, Bean was released from the Mexican jail in which he had spent six months. But then he spent another month locked up in the land of the free and the home of the brave! When finally released, Bean was informed that he had lost his civil rights, including his right to defend his life with a firearm. Since the anti-gunners have prohibited the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to restore the rights of deserving ex-felons, Bean was stuck. So he went to court to get his rights back. Happily, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (where the Emerson case awaits a decision involving whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms) ruled that Bean's rights must be restored. Because of the viciousness of antigun liberals such as then-Rep. Charles Schumer of New York, Tom Bean was deprived of his livelihood for three years since he was unable to renew his federal firearms license needed for his firearms business. The BATF tried to keep Bean from getting his rights restored in court. They argued, quite against the letter of the law, that Bean should not have access to the courts to seek redress. The BATF was operating in the spirit of Operation Exile and its renamed version, Project Safe Streets. This was zero tolerance enforcement of a gun law -- even though it was not even a U.S. law! And in the meantime, the Mexican felony had even been reduced to a misdemeanor as a result of all the publicity surrounding this miscarriage of justice. [red]Gun Owners Foundation was pleased to be able to assist Bean during his ordeal.[/red] Unhappily, we may expect more of these sad situations because of the current emphasis on enforcing all the gun laws. It's bad enough when we see unconstitutional domestic gun laws being enforced, but this was not even a U.S. law. Arguably, the International Prisoner Transfer Treaty provided the supposed "justification" for upholding such an outrageous non-American gun law. Using treaties to violate the Constitution is a frequent subterfuge to "legitimize" unconstitutional laws of all kinds. The Project Exile mentality seeks to punish all "gun offenses" with zero-tolerance. When Tom Bean lost his rights because of a box of bullets that were inadvertently left in his suburban, Gun Owners Foundation helped Bean get his rights restored. The Second Amendment is not immune to this form of attack, and the "let's just enforce the gun laws we have" mantra of Project Exile only increases the threat to our liberties. I like Mexican food, but I do not like Project Exile -- even with salsa. [/b] As can be seen above, GOA actively assisted Mr. Bean. What did NRA do?? They helped WRITE the law under which Bean was prosecuted!
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 6:42:52 AM EDT
From what I understand, Mr. Bean signed a consent to transfer his felony to the USA. He did this to get out of the Mexican jail. This was probably his second mistake (the first being not to search his vehicle before crossing). I do believe that SCOTUS was wrong in the ruling. However the cheif vilians are not BATF but our congress who purposely voted to remove money from the BATF budget for this.
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 7:55:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/11/2002 7:56:50 AM EDT by The_Macallan]
Originally Posted By stator: From what I understand, Mr. Bean signed a consent to transfer his felony to the USA. He did this to get out of the Mexican jail.
View Quote
I didn't hear that before. People are forced to do all sorts of shit like this to get out of Mexican jails.
Originally Posted By stator: This was probably his second mistake (the first being not to search his vehicle before crossing).
View Quote
Wrong. His FIRST mistake was actually wanting to GO to Mexico!! [shock] WTF does ANYONE want to go to a third-world, unashamedly corrupt cesspool like Mexico for anyway??? You cross the border - you lose ALL your rights IMMEDIATELY. NO F@CKING WAY am I EVER going to go down to that filthy, rotten, crooked, corrupt, poverty-stricken, hellhole no matter WHAT their beaches are like. If it ain't in America, I don't need it. I really do feel sorry for Mr. Bean and I do think he was railroaded by the ATF which is just as corrupt as his Mexican jailers, but THIS is why I don't leave this country and THIS is why I oppose Mexican immigration so much - I don't want ANY semblence the rotten aspects of Mexican society brought into our country. [;D]
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 8:06:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By stator: From what I understand, Mr. Bean signed a consent to transfer his felony to the USA. He did this to get out of the Mexican jail. This was probably his second mistake (the first being not to search his vehicle before crossing).
View Quote
I don't know if that would have made a big difference to his case. The section of US Code that outlaws the possession of firearms by a convicted felon reads "... a person convicted [b]in any court[/b]..." and the courts have read that to include foreign convictions. Now, in some cases that may make some sense. For instance, if a person was convicted of a violent felony in Canada, most of us would be willing to accept the validity of that conviction. But to blindly accept foreign convictions for non-violent crimes? And convictions for actions that are not even crimes under United States laws? If someone was convicted of a felony in Iraq for speaking against Saddam Hussein, and he survived and fled to the US, would we consider his conviction to be valid and prohibit him from owning a firearm (assuming he entered the country legally)? What rubbish!
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 9:18:27 AM EDT
if someone holds a gun to your head and says "sign this confession" does it mean you are guilty of the crime you confessed? hell no. facing time in a prison in the land of human trash isn't much different than having a gun to your head. and why the FUCK does the USA honor these "felony transfers?" This guy is getting fucked over big time and the Bush admin isn't going to do jack shit to fix the policy that is fucking this guy. I think I'm going to vote democrat in the next election. Bring on the collapse this country is fucked.
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 10:53:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/11/2002 10:56:56 AM EDT by magnum_99]
Originally Posted By 1_153_370_371_407: [size=5]if someone holds a gun to your head and says "sign this confession" does it mean you are guilty of the crime you confessed?[/size=5] hell no.
View Quote
Apparently it does.
facing time in a prison in the land of human trash isn't much different than having a gun to your head. and why the FUCK does the USA honor these "felony transfers?" This guy is getting fucked over big time and the Bush admin isn't going to do jack shit to fix the policy that is fucking this guy. I think I'm going to vote democrat in the next election. Bring on the collapse this country is fucked.
View Quote
Exactly what I was saying about 15 posts earlier before everyone decided to play lawyer and declare that the deicison was correct on legal grounds. Well, it may be [i]technically[/i] correct on the point of law before the court, but the circumstances of the case are no less bullshit. Honoring a felony conviction from another country that absolutely does not offer the same due process guarantees as the U.S. nor even a semblance of fairness in particular with respect the corrupt [i]paradiso[/i] of sunny [i]Mey-he-co[/i] is utterly absurd. I think the analysis that this law [i]de facto[/i] amounts to the loss of Bill of Rights guaranteed rights without due process is essentially correct. (Well, maybe not according the red-diaper doper babies on the 9th Circuit Court). I for one am getting real sick of this shit. It happens with increasing regularity. It happens with nary a word out of any so-called "conservative" politician because they are too damned afraid to be seen as weak on crime rather than stand up for the rights of American citizens. I'm getting more and more pissed....I have to go now. I'm not feeling well.
Link Posted: 12/11/2002 11:25:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: You all deserve what is coming.
View Quote
Shut up little Red Ridinghood before this wolf swallows you whole.
Link Posted: 12/12/2002 4:25:09 AM EDT
in pretty much any case where its _______________ vs. The United States _______________ is fucked
Link Posted: 12/12/2002 5:52:50 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/12/2002 6:23:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/12/2002 6:25:01 AM EDT by stator]
He had to sign it because the USA would not have been able to continue his punishment which they did including probation. If he did not sign, because of due process, the DOJ would have to file charges against Mr. Bean from scratch. I doubt that they would be sucess over a box of shotgun shells which is legal in TX and the case would have to be tried there. BTW, this prisoner exchange was a treaty that was started because of the idiots going down in MX and getting arrested over drugs and other stuff. It works both ways. However, when we send down the MX illegals, MX does nothing. So the BP makes the mules sign a paper stating admission of guilt and consent for prison on the next offense (mules are ones carrying drugs and other contraband). Otherwise, they get a free trip back to the southern side of the border in a van with a "hope you have better luck next time". The going rate for passage is $2,500 as of this month in California. This is from a border town inland from TJ to LA. The going rate for LA to the bay area is $300. If I get laid off, I think I will get into the LA to BA taxi business as this is a milk run. EDITED FOR THIS: The $2,500 fee applies until you get across... not for each failed crossing.
Link Posted: 12/12/2002 6:27:10 AM EDT
I posted a while back about the fact that one of my fathers friends was arrested in Laredo for having a few rounds of .45acp underneath the seat. Three days later my Father handed over an envolope with 12 grand to the judge. 5 hours later they where drunk on this side of the border thinking how they hell he was going to pay every body that pitched in for the "FINE" back.. looks like it was money well spent.
Link Posted: 12/12/2002 12:05:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/12/2002 12:15:37 PM EDT by cnatra]
Originally Posted By stator: However the cheif vilians are not BATF but our congress who purposely voted to remove money from the BATF budget for this.
View Quote
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. [b]But in 1992, Congress cut ATF's funding to process those requests, effectively killing the gun restoration program.[/b] [red]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.[/red] [b]The Bush administration's lawyer, Solicitor General Theodore Olson, is expected to argue 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.[/b] 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 no prior criminal record, 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 never broke a law in the United States of America, 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."
Link Posted: 12/12/2002 12:12:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DriftPunch: Let me just say that I support Bean in all his efforts, but gentlemen, you must loose your emotions when looking at this case. I read the decision in full, and it appears the court had no choice but to rule in favor of the government. The angering thing about this is that the government had the funds to fight the lower courts decision, but refuses to give funds to the ATF so they can even evaluate the restoration petitions. (not that they would approve them anyway) No matter how much we like it or dislike it, these are the facts. The SCOTUS ruled that the code law does not give the Judicial system 100% authority in these decisions. Beans earlier win was based on this fact. This decision is not 2nd ammendment based as it was brought. It is a "who has authority to grant an official restoration under current law argument". Not a civil rights argument. The vilian is as usual the ATF. Do you really think that they'd not get the money they need for granting restorations if they asked for it. My bet is that they were told there's no money for that, and they said "Excellent!" The court makes decisions based on the arguments of the case, period. If they didn't, they'd be considered activist judges.
View Quote
It's not the BATF it's congress. The Solicitor general makes that very case. The INACTION mandated to the ATF by Congress is a DEFACTO denial of his ability to appeal to have his rights restored. The INACTION = a DENIAL The 5th Circuit ruling was correct & should have been left alone BUT the BUSH administraion appealed it.
Link Posted: 12/12/2002 12:13:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: I don't understand. WHO filed this? If I'm not mistaken, Bean was granted relief by the District court and the 5th Circuit court agreed. Then WHO is challenging this? The ATF??? Soooo... they don't have the appropriations to conduct a simple background check, but they DO have the $$$$ to spend on TEAMS of lawyers to appeal this case to the 5th Circuit court AND the SCOTUS???? Am I missing something here?? [>:/]
View Quote
The Bush administration's DOJ, John Ashcroft & Theodore Olson
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top