SUPREME COURT HEARS ITS 93RD GUN CASE
Alan Korwin
Nov. 23, 2004
Does Conviction in Japan Kill an American's Rights?
With Chief Justice William Rehnquist absent for medical reasons, but reserving his right to rule on the case, the High Court heard oral arguments on Nov. 3 in the case of a man convicted of falsifying a 4473 form -- the federal document required when buying guns from licensed gun dealers in America.
Small v. U.S.will be the Supreme Court's 61st gun decision since the often-cited Miller case of 1937. Widely believed to have been virtually silent about guns, six years of research recently yielded Supreme Court Gun Cases, a book by Phoenix-based Bloomfield Press, which uncovered 92 gun cases the Court has handled in its history. Small is the first case since the Dec., 2002 decision in Bean v. U.S., in which the Court denied restoration of the right to keep and bear arms on technical grounds, for a Texas man arrested on questionable charges in Mexico.
Gary Sherwood Small, a Pennsylvania resident, purchased a handgun from a dealer in 1998, and was indicted in 2000 for denying any felony conviction, on his federal paperwork. His lawyer, Paul D. Boas, argues that a conviction in Japan for a gun violation is not within the law's meaning of a conviction "in any court." Whether Congress meant to include foreign courts is unclear, and the word "any" has been interpreted both narrowly and broadly in the past. Justice Ginsburg said during the hearing, "When Congress legislates, it usually is thinking only about the United States," and that foreign convictions are beyond its intent.
Whether Small will lose his right to arms, from a Japanese conviction that might be characterized here as "kangaroo" justice*, will be decided in 2005. It is the latest test of the American right to arms, by a High Court that has recognized those rights for more than 200 years. Small's brief is on our website under "New Stuff."
*Small was arrested at a Japanese airport not in possession of any alleged evidence, held without bail, denied due process, interrogated by police for 25 days straight without a lawyer, prosecution relied on sworn statements with no cross examination or witnesses present, his Japanese lawyer barely spoke English and mainly tried to get him to confess (which he refused to do), he was brought to trial without a jury, his silence to outrageous questioning was held as proof of guilt, more. See the brief, it will shock you.
