X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
The Supreme Court considered Wednesday whether people convicted of a crime overseas can be barred from owning a gun in the United States, with the argument at times centering on how the absent Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist might rule. On a day President Bush clinched his victory and appeared to avoid legal challenges, the eight justices went about their normal business of hearing arguments and bantered lightheartedly at times. Rehnquist, meanwhile, missed a third day after revealing Monday he is undergoing treatment for thyroid cancer, news that has prompted intense retirement speculation. U.S. law forbids felons from owning guns, with a few exceptions for antitrust and trade violations. At issue in the case is whether Congress meant to include foreign convictions when it criminalized firearm possession by anybody convicted in “any court.” “I’m going to ask a question the chief justice would ask if he were here because he always asked it,” said Justice Antonin Scalia. “If you had to pick your best case in interpreting the word ‘any,’ what would it be?” Government lawyer Patricia Millett responded that the Supreme Court had always given the word “any” a broad meaning to help promote gun safety, before Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg jumped in, citing a case Rehnquist authored that she said suggested otherwise. “When Congress legislates, it usually is thinking only about the United States,” she said, contending that lawmakers never contemplated foreign convictions. “The Chief made the point.” Rehnquist has reserved the right to rule on the cases heard this week based on the written briefs and transcripts of the oral argument. Still, some Supreme Court observers have said Bush’s re-election might speed up the conservative justice’s decision to retire after 32 years on the high court. The case involves Gary Sherwood Small, of Export, Pa., who answered “no” to a felony conviction question on a federal form when he bought a handgun in 1998, even though he was convicted in Japan for violating weapons laws. Small was indicted in 2000 for lying on the form and for illegally owning two pistols and 335 rounds of ammunition. He later entered a conditional guilty plea pending the outcome of the Supreme Court ruling. Small’s attorney, Paul D. Boas, argued Wednesday that the gun law shouldn’t apply to foreign crimes, noting that other sections in the statute referred only to U.S. convictions when it created the exceptions for antitrust and trade violations. “We can’t ignore the entire statutory scheme here, which time and time again refers to domestic matters,” Boas said. To Scalia’s question about the best case that Rehnquist would want to know, Boas said he would have to think about it. “He asked a good question,” Boas jokingly responded. The case is Small v. United States, 03-750. A ruling is expected by July. Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.