In a unanimous 9-0 ruling that might have come out of author Joseph Heller’s Catch-22, the US Supreme Court ruled that convicted felons must go through a federal agency to have their gun rights restored, even though that agency has been prohibited by Congress from processing such requests since 1992.
The ruling in US v. Bean leaves former Texas gun dealer Thomas Lamar Bean stripped of his Second Amendment rights, for inadvertently entering Mexico with a case of ammunition in his vehicle. At the time, that was a felony in Mexico, but the law was so arbitrary in its nature that the Mexican government has—because of the Bean case—reduced the offense to a misdemeanor. Bean’s case became such an issue that even Mexico changed its law.
Bean was convicted for unknowingly bringing a case of shotgun shells into Mexico from Laredo, TX, where he was attending a gun show. He and four associates decided to cross the border for dinner at a Mexican restaurant one evening. Before crossing into Mexico, Bean advised his companions to remove all firearms and ammunition from his vehicle, but one box was inadvertently left, and it was discovered by Mexican authorities. Bean was arrested, charged with a then-felony, convicted and jailed for six months before being repatriated to US soil under a prisoner exchange treaty.
Bean applied to have his rights restored through the proper channels, but for over 10 years, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF)—which is in charge of processing such requests—has not been provided the funds to do so by Congress. Because ATF could not process Bean’s request, he went to court.
A federal circuit court had ruled that it had the power to restore Bean’s rights, and a higher court concurred after the government appealed. Bean then appealed his case to the US Supreme Court.
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed an amicus curiae brief, and was represented before the high court by Cincinnati, OH, attorney William Gustavson. He was not happy with the outcome, telling Associated Press, “If courts can make decisions about whether someone can be executed, it seems to me that they ought to be competent to make a decision about whether somebody can have their rights restored.”
Gustavson told Gun Week that the Supreme Court is saying “the courts will not give you any relief. The result is that no one who has ever been convicted of a felony, no matter how ridiculous the case, like Bean’s case, can ever get their rights restored. We’re not talking about privileges, we’re talking about rights. He was convicted of a crime in another country that is not a crime in the United States, possession of ammunition.
“Not only did Bean lose his rights,” Gustavson added, “he lost his livelihood. It’s just outrageous. I don’t think there is a next step. I think it’s over (for Bean). His life has been ruined and the courts won’t help him.”
SAF Public Affairs Director Dave LaCourse told Gun Week that he is “very disappointed” about the Supreme Court’s ruling. Noting that Bean is truly a law-abiding citizen who was jailed for a foreign offense that would not even be a crime on American soil, LaCourse said Bean is being victimized by what amounts to a funding issue and a technicality in American law.
The court decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, said Bean could only present his case to the court if ATF “denied” his processing request. That never actually happened. ATF merely did not process the request because it has no funding to do so, and has been prohibited from processing those requests by Congress.
In a July 29, 1999 letter to Bean’s attorney, Larry C. Hunter of Vidor, TX, ATF’s Pamela A. Potaczek advised that since October 1992, the agency’s funding appropriation has “prohibited the expending of any funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief from federal firearms disabilities.” She advised Hunter to “contact our office about obtaining restoration of federal firearms privileges for your client if and when Congress acts to remove the restriction currently imposed.”
Bean had argued that ATF’s inability to act constituted a denial, but the justices rejected that notion.
LaCourse said ATF’s position in this case, and the Supreme Court ruling, essentially leaves Bean without his civil rights and no workable recourse.
“What needs to happen,” LaCourse said, “is that the permanent restriction needs to be rewritten as a denial. We need to have Congress rewrite the law so that it states that restrictions for over six months constitute a denial.”
Anti-gunners hailed the ruling, and portrayed it as a means of keeping guns out of the hands of convicted killers and other dangerous criminals.
But Bean is neither. Indeed, when he started the process to regain his gun rights, he was supported by a judge, a prosecutor, two police chiefs, a sheriff and his Baptist preacher.
LaCourse expressed concerns that the Supreme Court simply will not take up a Second Amendment case because that could force the court to define the amendment, and he is confident that the justices would have to declare it protective of an individual right. Such a ruling, he said, would open a Pandora’s box of litigation, and lead to the annulment of scores, perhaps hundreds, of gun laws across the country.
Return to Archive Index