A gun argument is finally getting to the Supreme Court

Desertdog · October 15, 2002, 04:55 PM

The title given to this story looks like a typical media bias title.
When you read the story you find he broke NO American laws.

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.

RESOURCES
• Texas cases before the U.S. Supreme Court

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.

Also before the court this week will be another Texas case, this one involving a black death-row inmate's argument that Dallas County prosecutors deliberately excluded black jurors from his capital murder trial, depriving him of the right to be tried by a jury of his peers.

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.

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.

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."

In the other Texas case to be argued this week, the justices will hear the appeal of Thomas Miller-El, 50, of Dallas, who was scheduled to be executed last February for the 1985 murder of an Irving hotel clerk. He was granted a stay while the high court considers his case.

Miller-El contends that Dallas County prosecutors went out of their way to keep blacks off his jury. There was one black man, a Hispanic and an Asian on the jury that sent Miller-El to death row. Ten other potential black jurors were struck from the jury pool by prosecutors.

The district attorney's office says the jurors were struck for reasons unrelated to their race.

Both cases will be argued Wednesday and decided by summer.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/topstory2/1616094

Justin · October 15, 2002, 05:12 PM

Quote:

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.

Talk about not being able to see the forest for the trees.

Theodore Olson is basically saying that an innocent man should have his civil rights suspended because he didn't follow the proper protocol to get them back?

Nevermind the fact that the proper protocol for pursuing something like that seems to have been squelched.

Nope, this doesn't seem to bother ol' Teddy one bit, because we must follow the exact letter of the law, even if it means being unjustly punished.

Anyone else have a problem with that?

Standing Wolf · October 15, 2002, 06:04 PM

The A.T.F. is to the nation's Second Amendment civil rights as the A.I.D.S. virus is to health!

spacemanspiff · October 15, 2002, 06:35 PM

reason number 2,005,498 NOT to go to mexico.

Vibe · October 15, 2002, 06:49 PM

LOL. I wonder how the ACLU stands on this one...concidering that an obstacle to the "redress of grievances" is a FIRST amendment issue.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

**tyme** · October 15, 2002, 06:53 PM

spacemanstiff, there's only one reason for me not to go to Mexico. I'm in it already. At least that's what Mexico thinks, and since I'm in Mexico I must think so, too.

Peter Gun · October 15, 2002, 07:23 PM

Since when do we care what the Mexican justice system thinks of a US citizen? Frankly I think we should completely ignore what they might charge anyone with, since their procedures would not hold up in US courts, why should their verdicts? Would we refuse rights to the missionaries that return from arab nations labeled as "felons" for prostheletizing (spelling?)?
Makes me sick.

WYO · October 15, 2002, 10:38 PM

I dunno, spacemanspiff, it looks like a good reason number 1 to not to go Mexico. Then you don't have to beat yourself up worrying about the other 2,005,497.

Should make for an interesting case.

Jim March · October 15, 2002, 10:58 PM

SAF has a lot of good things to say about this case:

http://www.saf.org/BeanCase.htm

WYO · October 16, 2002, 08:38 AM

It's probably a lot better case to get to the Supreme Court than Emerson. This guy has all the attributes of an honest man caught up in an accident that technically made him a felon, as opposed to someone who had a restraining order on him, didn't know or care about the wording or meaning of the order or the importance of the proceedings, and intentionally purchased a firearm under the disability.

The only part that bothers me is that the guy won at the 5th Circuit, and now the S.Ct. grants cert, which sometimes can be read as saying they may disagree with the result. But, sooner or later, we need to have a case decided by the court, and we don't know who's going to be on it in a few years, so now is the time.

Jim, is there a lineup available on a cert vote? What's your take on the deal?

buzz_knox · October 16, 2002, 08:53 AM

If it is futile to pursue one avenue of redress, then arguably one should be able to go to the Courts for relief. That's one of the reasons they are there. Unfortunately, when you're dealing with the national gov't, things get weird. Did the gov't waive sovereign immunity over suits by felons to restore their rights? Did Congress declare a clear intent not to allow felons to restore their rights? Questions like that enter into it.

Halo · October 16, 2002, 09:17 AM

Actually, I think we should learn from Mexico. Their "much stricter" gun laws are why they have no crime there.

Idaho Mike · October 16, 2002, 09:27 AM

I used to live near the Mexican border, now I live near the Canadian border - and for a reason.

Other good excuses not to go to Mexico are:

1. Foul air, water and food.
2. Pickpockets, border thugs, beggars and corrupt cops.
3. Insanely dangerous driving conditions.
4. Laws against almost everything, but against guns and personnal radio communications in particular.
5. Can't leave your car without a guard watching over it.
6. "Mordita" and other petty bribes just to get across the border.
7. Your regular car insurance is useless.
8. You leave all your protection behind in the U.S. - of any kind.

WYO · October 16, 2002, 09:38 AM

Good point, Halo. It's also why so few people from Mexico want to come to the U.S.

ctdonath · October 16, 2002, 02:55 PM

I doubt the ruling will have anything to do with RKBA. The core issue is whether a felony in another country counts as a felony in this one, particularly when the felony involves an action comprehensively legal throughout the USA. This case could just as easily been over possession of Bibles in China, passing news of certain court proceedings in Canada, jaywalking in Singapore, wearing a cross in Saudi Arabia, etc. (awright, I don't know for sure if those are felonies there, but do know they are serious transgressions). As for what the "perp" loses due to the "felony", could just as easily been a government job, a "three strikes" count, handling of controlled medicines, etc.

SCOTUS will follow any path to avoid an RKBA issue. That this involves firearms is more coincidental than central.

Jim March · October 20, 2002, 12:47 PM

I dunno what's going on here. That's why I just did a link to SAF's stuff.

I do know Clarence has been looking for a gun case for a while now, and may have been tearing his hair out when Emerson and that other one didn't make it in. It's possible Bean was tossed in because the other 8 were sick of Clarence bitchin'

.

October 15, 2002, 04:55 PM	#1
Desertdog Senior Member Join Date: January 23, 2002 Location: Mojave Desert, CA Posts: 261	A gun argument is finally getting to the Supreme Court The title given to this story looks like a typical media bias title. When you read the story you find he broke NO American laws. 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. RESOURCES • Texas cases before the U.S. Supreme Court 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. Also before the court this week will be another Texas case, this one involving a black death-row inmate's argument that Dallas County prosecutors deliberately excluded black jurors from his capital murder trial, depriving him of the right to be tried by a jury of his peers. 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. 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. 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." In the other Texas case to be argued this week, the justices will hear the appeal of Thomas Miller-El, 50, of Dallas, who was scheduled to be executed last February for the 1985 murder of an Irving hotel clerk. He was granted a stay while the high court considers his case. Miller-El contends that Dallas County prosecutors went out of their way to keep blacks off his jury. There was one black man, a Hispanic and an Asian on the jury that sent Miller-El to death row. Ten other potential black jurors were struck from the jury pool by prosecutors. The district attorney's office says the jurors were struck for reasons unrelated to their race. Both cases will be argued Wednesday and decided by summer. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/topstory2/1616094

October 15, 2002, 06:04 PM	#3
Standing Wolf Member in memoriam Join Date: April 26, 2002 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,649	The A.T.F. is to the nation's Second Amendment civil rights as the A.I.D.S. virus is to health! __________________ No tyrant should ever be allowed to die of natural causes.

October 15, 2002, 06:35 PM	#4
spacemanspiff Senior Member Join Date: January 16, 2002 Location: alaska Posts: 3,498	reason number 2,005,498 NOT to go to mexico. __________________ "Every man alone is sincere; at the entrance of a second person hypocrisy begins." - Ralph Waldo Emerson "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Soren Kierkegaard

October 15, 2002, 06:53 PM	#6
tyme Staff Join Date: October 13, 2001 Posts: 3,355	spacemanstiff, there's only one reason for me not to go to Mexico. I'm in it already. At least that's what Mexico thinks, and since I'm in Mexico I must think so, too. __________________ “The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...” (blade runner) “Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...” (continuum) “It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.” (bsg)

October 15, 2002, 07:23 PM	#7
Peter Gun Senior Member Join Date: March 30, 2002 Location: free carry VT Posts: 144	Since when do we care what the Mexican justice system thinks of a US citizen? Frankly I think we should completely ignore what they might charge anyone with, since their procedures would not hold up in US courts, why should their verdicts? Would we refuse rights to the missionaries that return from arab nations labeled as "felons" for prostheletizing (spelling?)? Makes me sick. __________________ Got gun law problems? Move to VT!

October 15, 2002, 06:49 PM	#5
Vibe Member Join Date: October 15, 2002 Location: Arkansas, USA Posts: 73	LOL. I wonder how the ACLU stands on this one...concidering that an obstacle to the "redress of grievances" is a FIRST amendment issue. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

October 15, 2002, 10:38 PM	#8
WYO Senior Member Join Date: February 21, 2001 Posts: 365	I dunno, spacemanspiff, it looks like a good reason number 1 to not to go Mexico. Then you don't have to beat yourself up worrying about the other 2,005,497. Should make for an interesting case.

October 15, 2002, 10:58 PM	#9
Jim March Senior Member Join Date: February 14, 1999 Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA Posts: 7,417	SAF has a lot of good things to say about this case: http://www.saf.org/BeanCase.htm __________________ Jim March

October 16, 2002, 08:38 AM	#10
WYO Senior Member Join Date: February 21, 2001 Posts: 365	It's probably a lot better case to get to the Supreme Court than Emerson. This guy has all the attributes of an honest man caught up in an accident that technically made him a felon, as opposed to someone who had a restraining order on him, didn't know or care about the wording or meaning of the order or the importance of the proceedings, and intentionally purchased a firearm under the disability. The only part that bothers me is that the guy won at the 5th Circuit, and now the S.Ct. grants cert, which sometimes can be read as saying they may disagree with the result. But, sooner or later, we need to have a case decided by the court, and we don't know who's going to be on it in a few years, so now is the time. Jim, is there a lineup available on a cert vote? What's your take on the deal?

October 16, 2002, 08:53 AM	#11
buzz_knox Senior Member Join Date: December 2, 1999 Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse Posts: 4,190	If it is futile to pursue one avenue of redress, then arguably one should be able to go to the Courts for relief. That's one of the reasons they are there. Unfortunately, when you're dealing with the national gov't, things get weird. Did the gov't waive sovereign immunity over suits by felons to restore their rights? Did Congress declare a clear intent not to allow felons to restore their rights? Questions like that enter into it.

October 16, 2002, 09:17 AM	#12
Halo Senior Member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Charlotte, NC Posts: 408	Actually, I think we should learn from Mexico. Their "much stricter" gun laws are why they have no crime there.

October 16, 2002, 09:27 AM	#13
Idaho Mike Member Join Date: July 6, 2000 Location: East Bonner County, Idaho Posts: 94	I used to live near the Mexican border, now I live near the Canadian border - and for a reason. Other good excuses not to go to Mexico are: 1. Foul air, water and food. 2. Pickpockets, border thugs, beggars and corrupt cops. 3. Insanely dangerous driving conditions. 4. Laws against almost everything, but against guns and personnal radio communications in particular. 5. Can't leave your car without a guard watching over it. 6. "Mordita" and other petty bribes just to get across the border. 7. Your regular car insurance is useless. 8. You leave all your protection behind in the U.S. - of any kind.

October 16, 2002, 09:38 AM	#14
WYO Senior Member Join Date: February 21, 2001 Posts: 365	Good point, Halo. It's also why so few people from Mexico want to come to the U.S.

October 16, 2002, 02:55 PM	#15
ctdonath Senior Member Join Date: April 11, 1999 Posts: 1,904	I doubt the ruling will have anything to do with RKBA. The core issue is whether a felony in another country counts as a felony in this one, particularly when the felony involves an action comprehensively legal throughout the USA. This case could just as easily been over possession of Bibles in China, passing news of certain court proceedings in Canada, jaywalking in Singapore, wearing a cross in Saudi Arabia, etc. (awright, I don't know for sure if those are felonies there, but do know they are serious transgressions). As for what the "perp" loses due to the "felony", could just as easily been a government job, a "three strikes" count, handling of controlled medicines, etc. SCOTUS will follow any path to avoid an RKBA issue. That this involves firearms is more coincidental than central.

October 20, 2002, 12:47 PM	#16
Jim March Senior Member Join Date: February 14, 1999 Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA Posts: 7,417	I dunno what's going on here. That's why I just did a link to SAF's stuff. I do know Clarence has been looking for a gun case for a while now, and may have been tearing his hair out when Emerson and that other one didn't make it in. It's possible Bean was tossed in because the other 8 were sick of Clarence bitchin' . __________________ Jim March