Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Plaxico Burress indicted | Main | Texas: Cash for Clunkers? »

Bill aims to reverse US v. Small

Posted by David Hardy · 4 August 2009 12:22 PM

Snowflakes in Hell discovers Diane Feinstein's latest, S.1526. It would overturn the Supreme Court determination, in Small v. US, that foreign law convictions do not count as convictions that bar gun possession under the Gun Control Act.

It does have two exemptions:

1) If the defendant can show the conviction "resulted from a denial of fundamental fairness that would violate due process if committed in the United States." Uh ... what does that mean? Due process PLUS fundamental fairness? Is denial of a jury trial within this, nor not, since after all a judge can be fundamentally fair? And how do you prove that a conviction "resulted from" any such violation? How do you prove a jury wouldn't have convicted, etc.?

2) conduct that would be legal if committed in the US As Snowflakes in Hell points out, that wouldn't cover Francis Gary Powers, convicted by the Soviets of espionage (which is an offense here), nor others who were similarly charged. And how about our POWs, often charged with "war crimes"?

· Gun Control Act of 68

5 Comments | Leave a comment

bullbore | August 4, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply

What about countries (or states for that matter) where law is based on the Napoleonic system? If you are not innocent until guilty (as with systems based on English common law) is that a lack of fundamental fairness?

fwb | August 4, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply

Of course, we always come back to the "reasonable" part of the Second Amendment as all the lawyers want to claim.

I still don't see any grant of authority for reasonable guns laws and under our paradigm of government if it ain't delegated, the government don't got it. The idea that the government can have reasonable restrictions come from the old world idea of government, the styles of which were repudiated by those who left the old world to found this new one. Regardless of state and local laws, the federal system withholds all powers not specifically granted (See Amdt 10).

Tiocfaidh ar la!

bombloader | August 4, 2009 11:00 PM | Reply

If the Supreme Court continues to take the 2nd Amendment seriously, I wonder if this one could be ruled unconstitutional also. Seems like you would be deprived of a fundamental right without due process if there is no procedure to look into whether your foreign felony is a disqualifier in the US.

Bill | August 5, 2009 8:24 AM | Reply

It's simple: Feinstein needs to KMA, eff off and die. Then the world would be a happier and better place.

Jim D. | August 5, 2009 6:58 PM | Reply

Where does Kennedy come down on "recognizing international precedent"?

Leave a comment