ShareThis Page
High court considers overseas weapons case |

High court considers overseas weapons case

The Associated Press
| Thursday, November 4, 2004 12:00 p.m

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court considered Wednesday whether people convicted of a felony 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.

The case involves Gary Sherwood Small, of Export, Westmoreland County, who answered “no” to a felony conviction question on a federal form when he bought a handgun in 1998, even though he had been convicted in Japan for violating weapons laws.

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 a Bush re-election might prompt the conservative justice’s decision to retire after 32 years on the high court.

Small, 58, a former Edgewood police officer, 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 yesterday 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.

A ruling is expected by July.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.