« House passes resolution to undo reporting of Social Security recipients | Main | Self-defense followed by conviction »
Celebrities who gave up US citizenship
Hmmm... Here's a list of twenty of them. Hope they realize two things.
First, that they have become prohibited persons under the Gun Control Act (18 USC 922(d) and (g)(7) prohibit a person "who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship" from receiving or possessing a firearm).
Second, they are forbidden to hire armed bodyguards. ยง922(h) makes it illegal for a person to possess firearms or ammunition "while being employed for any person described in any paragraph of subsection (g) of this section...."
UPDATE: Yep, this is one of the subsections added to GCA 68 for no particular reason beyond getting even. Another involved making anyone given a dishonorable discharge a prohibited person. The argument was, well, if he couldn't bear arms for his country he shouldn't bear arms to protect himself. The real reasons were that way back when some celebrities were renouncing citizenship (at least supposedly) to protest the Vietnam War.
Another purpose was that Congress wanted to be able to say that Lee Harvey Oswald wouldn't have been able to purchase a firearm under the law they were going to pass, and it was thought (incorrectly) that Oswald had a dishonorable discharge and had renounced his citizenship. (In fact, he had a less-than-honorable but not dishonorable discharge, and while he'd tried to renounce his citizenship he didn't jump through all the hoops correctly).
6 Comments | Leave a comment
I always found it interesting that this is anywhere near constitutional. My quandary is this:
1. A non-US citizen may bear arms (with a few exceptions) in the United States.
2. A US citizen may renounce citizenship for a variety of reasons, including something so benign as avoiding burdensome taxation while extended periods abroad.
3. It is technically possible to regain citizenship after having renounced it.
4. A non-US citizen may have become a US citizen moved back to their native country and renounced US citizenship (e.g., for tax concerns) placing them in the same status as they were previously.
Certainly, renouncing your citizenship is a drastic measure, but there are legitimate reasons to do so -- reasons unrelated to ones traditionally used to bar access to arms. Assuming a US citizen renounced their citizenship for such a benign reason, what reasoning is there to treat such persons any differently than other non-citizens?
In the (admittedly rare) case where someone regains citizenship, how are they treated? This would be especially interesting where their citizenship was renounced prior to their 18th birthday (maybe even by their parents) and regained within 6 months of their 18th birthday.
"Hope they realize two things."
Haha... many people on that list are deceased, eg., Elizabeth Taylor and John Huston.
Given the chronology of that particular category of prohibited person, it seems likely that it was included as a way to get back at people who renounced their citizenship and left the country in order to avoid being drafted for Vietnam.
As such, there's really no good reason to keep it.
To the military, a Dishonorable Discharge is the equivalent of a felony conviction and is treated as such under a lot of other circumstances, such as applying for jobs or security clearances. It shouldn't surprise anyone that the 68 GCA spells out that it's grounds for being prohibited firearms the same way a felony conviction is.
Military discipline doesn't afford the same levels of Due Process to the accused, and discharge from a "voluntary" government service is nowhere near the same as a conviction of a crime punishable by imprisonment.
The whole "Prohibited Persons" doctrine is suspect constitutionally.
I'd be willing to bet most of them skip that last part...