The Supreme Court yesterday ruled on an interesting case. The case originated in Westmoreland County (county east of Pittsburgh). The complainant was a man who was charged with lying on a gun background check sheet. I really need to give all of the details, so here we go.
The guy was thrown in jail in Japan on weapons charges. He served something like five years in prison before being released. When he came back to Westmoreland County, he went to purchase firearms. When filling out his background check, he came across a question that asked about prior convictions and/or jail time, to which he replied "no" - clearly a lie, right? It was discovered that he had spent time in jail in Japan, and the federal government prosecuted.
At issue here is a law written by Congress that states that gun ownership is illegal for those who have spent time in jail, or been convicted of charges in "any court". So, aspiring law students, what seems to be the issue here?
Well, if you answered gun rights, you would be incorrect. The more broad issue is ex-convicts, and their rights under the law (I think these would qualify as civil rights). Basically, the court, under a 5-3 decision, decided that Congress did not intend for the law to encompass international law and court, so the guy won, and can own guns. The majority wrote that, if Congress meant international court, they could simply re-write the law. The minority argued that "any" court means literally "any"- as in all, one, some, European, Mexican, etc.
The amazing thing is that the minority in this case was the block of three conservative justices - Thomas (who wrote the dissent), Kennedy, and Scalia. Rehnquist did not hear the case because of his thyroid cancer.
I'm not sure how I feel about this decision. On one hand, I don't think it's a good idea for ex-cons to own guns; I get the feeling Congress doesn't think so either, which is why they passed the law in the first place. On the other hand, are other criminal justice systems equal to those in America? They can be better, they can be worse, but is it fair to discriminate based on where a crime was committed? You robbed a bank in France; you can own a gun. You robbed a bank in Saudi Arabia; you cannot own a gun. That doesn't seem fair.
The inequality of justice internationally is the reason that the majority opinion cited (written, I think, by Breyer). I think on this one I still have to side with the conservatives.
It is interesting, though, that the very people who try to tear down the Second Amendment ( re: liberals) are defending those rights for people with this decision. Maybe politics isn't as divisive all the time as people think. Thoughts?
