Foreign criminal convictions and US gun laws?

[Frank Ettin]

Nonetheless, those are sovereign nations operating under their laws -- which they are entitle to do. Anyone visiting becomes subject to those laws.

The issue is are they codified laws or something pulled out of regilious test or political situation to create a crime to fit after an "arrest" has been made.

None of which is really any of our business.

 

[akodo]

Does it really matter what he did? He knowing BROKE THAT NATIONS LAWS and then fled illegally.

Yes, because many nations have really Fed up laws.

Maybe he was handing out bibles. Maybe he helped a woman escape who was going to be stoned to death for calling a guy on a cell-phone. Maybe he named a stuffed bear Mohammed.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...many nations have really Fed up laws...

And that doesn't matter. They are sovereign nations and entitled to their own laws and ways of doing things.

 

[F-111 John]

ATF Publication 5300.4, September 2005:

(15) The term "fugitive from justice"
means any person who has fled
from any State to avoid prosecution for
a crime or to avoid giving testimony in
any criminal proceeding.

 

[Owen Sparks]

The term "fugitive from justice"
means any person who has fled
from any State to avoid prosecution for
a crime or to avoid giving testimony in
any criminal proceeding.

Does that mean a US state like Vermont or a country like the state of Israel?

 

[tarosean]

Yes, because many nations have really Fed up laws.
Maybe he was handing out bibles. Maybe he helped a woman escape who was going to be stoned to death for calling a guy on a cell-phone. Maybe he named a stuffed bear Mohammed.

True, but we have to abide by them regardless of our views.

we are not privy to what the "contraband" is/was. Could just as easily be heroine, guns, bombs, or other things, as you put it...

"smuggling and possessing contraband with the intent to distribute in a foreign country."

I certainly wouldn't want a part of this nor would I advise the "friend/person" of an answer.

 

[Owen Sparks]

If you did not agree with the gun laws in Illinois would you still be expected to obey them if you went to Illinois? After all, they do violate the Constitution just like many Islamic laws do.

 

[alsaqr]

And that doesn't matter. They are sovereign nations and entitled to their own laws and ways of doing things.

Very true.
For many years i worked in the mid east and Africa. i have no sympathy for a person who wilfully violates the laws of a foreign country and gets caught.

 

[F-111 John]

Does that mean a US state like Vermont or a country like the state of Israel?

Throughout ATF publication 5300.4 the use of capitalized "State" means a state of the United States.

 

[Owen Sparks]

So a conviction of a crime in a foreign country does not count no matter the crime? Even if it is for proselytizing, murder, smuggling Bibles or homosexual child rape you do nort have to admit it on form 4473?

 

[F-111 John]

So a conviction of a crime in a foreign country does not count no matter the crime?

I am not a lawyer. All I know is what I read on the internet. I have read the ATF's publication 5300.4 (well, searched the pdf for certain keywords,) and found this on page 35:

Editor’s Note:

Foreign offenses no longer qualify as
crimes punishable by imprisonment for a
term exceeding 1 year. The regulation will
be changed to reflect this.

I also looked up Small v. United States on Wikipedia (I know about the source, but I find it pretty good as a start) and I suggest you read it as well then draw your own conclusions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_v._United_States

To me, by my own twisted logic, if indeed foreign convictions are not prohibitors, then foreign warrants would not be prohibitors either. If a foreign government submitted an extradition request to the US government, and the US government agreed, then I would presume a US warrant for one's arrest would be issued and you would then become a prohibited person.

 

[gc70]

Any organization has internal rules, policies and procedures. They are binding only on employees.

A regulatory agency like ATF may adopt regulations. When properly adopted, those regulations have the force of law. In order for a governmental agency's regulation to be thus have the force of law, it must be adopted pursuant to specific statutory authority and within the scope of the statutory authority. It must also have been adopted through a formal rule making process that involves publication of the proposed regulation, including citation to the statutory authority for the regulation and purpose to be served. Public comment is allowed for a period of time, and often public hearings are held, before the regulation in final form is adopted.

Regulatory agencies routinely interpret laws without going through the process of adopting new regulations. In VALIC II (513 U.S. 251 - 1995), the Supreme Court reiterated the judicial deference given to a regulatory interpretation that "fills a gap or defines a term in a way that is reasonable in light of the legislature's revealed design."

And interpretive actions by regulatory agencies do not necessarily need to be publicly published. In this report, the GAO evaluated a non-public regulatory interpretation, noting that a regulatory agency "has discretion to determine how it will convey its decisions" and only criticizing the agency because "the criteria it uses to determine when and whether to publish its decisions are unclear."

 

[henschman]

OP, it would help to know what country we are talking about and what specifically he was convicted of smuggling. Also, do you know whether he was reported to Interpol?

On a personal note, I think the deference some of you are willing to show to tyrannical foreign governments is sickening. If a law is a violation of a person's rights, it deserves to be broken... it doesn't matter where this occurs. No one has the "right" to violate the rights of others. Let no more be said of the "right" of governments to dispose of their subjects as they please. That is the essence of tyranny.

Now I will agree that any time you break a law, you should recognize the possible consequences and be prepared to accept them.

As for me, I will always take the side of smugglers. It is a purely victimless crime that does not violate the rights of anyone. The whole notion of "contraband" is something that belongs in a prison setting, not a free society. Your friend has my respect and admiration for choosing to make his living through free trade and voluntary cooperation rather than through force as his persecutors do; and for showing the courage to escape whatever hellhole he came from. I hope he does not suffer any negative consequences here in our country for doing so. His lawyer did an especially brave thing by arranging his escape. Regardless of how corrupt of a society they were in, that sort of thing is really putting your neck on the line for your client.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Regulatory agencies routinely interpret laws without going through the process of adopting new regulations. In VALIC II (513 U.S. 251 - 1995), the Supreme Court reiterated the judicial deference given to a regulatory interpretation that "fills a gap or defines a term in a way that is reasonable in light of the legislature's revealed design."...

But your cite here relates to a different type of action by a regulatory agency. The agency was not adopting a regulation generally having the force of law and applicable to the public at large.

In the case you cite, a business entity was applying to a regulatory agency for permission to engage in a particular course of conduct. The business entity was subject to the jurisdiction of the agency, and the agency's permission was required by law. The agency in acting on the application of the business entity interprets applicable law to decide whether or not, or on what terms, to allow the conduct.

Regulatory agencies basically have two types of functions: quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial. In their quasi-legislative role, they adopt regulations which have the force of law and have broad applicability. Agencies adopt regulations as I've described.

Regulatory agencies also perform quasi-judicial functions. These functions include such things as issuing licenses, authorizing or declining to authorize acts of entities licensed by them or subject to their jurisdiction, and adjudicating charges of misconduct by persons or entities subject their jurisdiction. Examples of quasi-judicial regulatory agency action include: a medical board revoking a physician's license for a breach of professional obligations; a department of insurance issuing a company a license to operate an HMO; a department of consumer affairs licensing real estate brokers fining a real estate broker for an unlawful failure to properly maintain a trust account; or the ATF rejecting an application for an FFL.

These are quasi-judicial because they involve determining the facts of a particular matter, identifying and interpreting the applicable law and making a decision by applying the law to the facts. In most cases, an adverse quasi-judicial act of a regulatory agency is subject to multiple levels of appeal. For example, the physician unhappy about losing his license to practice medicine usually first has a right to an administrative hearing conducted by the agency. If he's still unhappy, he can seek judicial review.

The citations you've provided relate to an agency acting in its quasi-judicial role.

 

[gc70]

But your cite here relates to a different type of action by a regulatory agency. The agency was not adopting a regulation generally having the force of law and applicable to the public at large.

In the case you cite, a business entity was applying to a regulatory agency for permission to engage in a particular course of conduct. The business entity was subject to the jurisdiction of the agency, and the agency's permission was required by law.

In the example cited, businesses asked the agency for an advisory opinion on a new and novel interpretation of two existing laws that were, respectively, nearly 70 and 140 years old. Although the agency provided its interpretive response as individualized conditional approvals, the laws and regulations involved did not require agency approval of the activities in question. The agency did not go through a formal rulemaking process, but made an internal determination that longstanding laws did not say precisely what they had been understood to mean for decades. Moreover, the agency chose to keep the determination non-public rather than publishing the new legal interpretation.

However, the point is that regulatory agencies do make non-public, internal interpretations and adopt policies and procedures for applying laws and regulations. The vast majority of such regulatory determinations will not be challenged in court because it is either not economically viable to do so or the courts' deference to agency expertise dims the prospects of a successful challenge. Those internal regulatory determinations may not be legally binding in a strictly technical sense, but they might as well be insofar as their real-world impact on those who must comply with the regulations.

 

[Frank Ettin]

In the example cited, businesses asked the agency for an advisory opinion...the laws and regulations involved did not require agency approval of the activities in question....

Advisory opinions of a regulatory agency are within the scope of an agency's quasi-judicial function. They will involve matters over which an agency has jurisdiction. Basically a request for an advisory opinion is asking the agency, "what would you do in the event of X?"

...the point is that regulatory agencies do make non-public, internal interpretations and adopt policies and procedures for applying laws and regulations...

But only in connection with their quasi-judicial functions in connection with which they have jurisdiction only over those entities/licensee directly subject to their regulatory authority.

Thus internal interpretations might play a role in an ATF decision to reject an application for an FFL or to revoke an FFL for misconduct. And such determinations are subject to judicial review if the affected entity choose to pursue the issue. And the ruling of a court on such a question will be based on applicable law, including regulations adopted by the ATF through the rule making process.

On the other hand, if two private citizens are prosecuted for violation of federal law relating to interstate transfers of firearms, the prosecution will be conducted in federal court by the U. S. Attorney, not the ATF. The ATF has no prosecutorial jurisdiction over private citizens. And ATF internal interpretations of the law would be inapplicable. However, the question of state of residence will be determined in accordance with the ATF regulations adopted through the formal rule making process (subject to possible challenge as being outside the scope of the authority conferred by Congress, or on the basis of defects in the rule making process or as unconstitutional).

...The vast majority of such regulatory determinations will not be challenged in court because it is either not economically viable to do so or the courts' deference to agency expertise dims the prospects of a successful challenge....

Whether or not to seek judicial review of an agency quasi-judicial action is up to the party adversely affected. As with any such decision, it will involve consideration of the possible costs, risks and benefits, as well as the likelihood of success. That's the same kind of analysis that goes into deciding whether or not to appeal an adverse judicial determination.

...Those internal regulatory determinations may not be legally binding in a strictly technical sense, but they might as well be insofar as their real-world impact on those who must comply with the regulations...

Welcome to real life in the Twenty-First Century. This is all part of the challenge and cost of choosing to engage in a heavily regulated business. It's a fact of life for insurance companies, security dealers, banks, physicians, lawyers, taxi operators, pharmacies, gun dealers, etc.; and companies and people successfully engaged in those pursuits learn to deal with it effectively.

Some might think this level of regulation is wrong, and I won't disagree. But it is what it is. These things can be changed legislatively.

 

[Kleanbore]

I think this one was answered by Frank in Post 16:

Of course what would really matter if you were charged with making a false statement on a 4473 is whether or not a judge rules that it's reasonable.

Some questions are complex enough to warrant proper legal advice. This is probably on e of those questions. The OP's acquaintance should engage his own qualified lawyer rather than looking for legal advice from strangers in cyberspace.

 

[Robert]

Best thing for him to do is consult a lawyer with experience with this kind of issue.