Update: In a resounding defeat, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled on only the technical language of obscure federal statutes, and determined that an endless failure to act on an application for relief from firearm disability is NOT a denial. Even if this inaction has been in effect since 1992. In large part, this decision was considered a docket-saving measure preventing many thousands of cases seeking restoration after BATF inaction. One wonders now why the Supreme Court bothered with such a technical case over more substantial cases.
No mention of the Second Amendment occurred, even though Justice Thomas wrote the short opinion. This ruling , coupled with the Ninth Circuit decision, has made December less festive for gun owners.
Now the law must be changed if people like Mr. Bean can ever hope to get their rights restored. If lengthy inaction is equated to a denial, then there would be relief. Until then, no federal rights can be restored nationwide.
News Coverage of Supreme Court decision.
U.S. Supreme Court Shoots Down Gun Rights for Felons (Law.com 12/11/02)
Felons cannot ask courts for firearms: Supreme Court upholds gun ban (Washington Post Story 12/11/02)
Supreme Court rules against felons in gun rights case (AP Story 12/10/02)
The sleeper case of the year [never woke up]:
Bean Could Define the Second Amendment
Updated: 12/02/02
With only a few amicus briefs filed in the nation's highest court, the Bean case could surprise everyone and quietly define the Second Amendment as an individual right. SAF was the only one to raise this Constitutional issue, and we forced the federal government to admit in their response brief that the Second Amendment is, in fact, an individual right.
Our hope is that the Supreme Court will analyze the right Bean seeks to restore¾his fundamental individual right of gun ownership and include in their decision the fact that the Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights.
At the very least, the fate of firearm rights restoration will be decided nationwide. SAF, in their brief, also provided an easy-option for the court by citing a federal law overlooked by all other participants, 28 U.S.C. 1337(a) showing that the courts have original jurisdiction in this matter as ALL federal gun control laws rely on interstate commerce for their enactment.
Oral arguments took place on October 16, 2002. They were very narrowly focused on two main issues (1) Was the lack of action a denial and thus allow for judicial review? and (2) Does the BATF funding ban also prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from acting? Sadly, the Second Amendment was not mentioned, nor were other key areas.
If this case is not decided more broadly than indicated by oral arguments, then it is feared that even if Bean prevails, other gun owners will not be able to achieve similar rights restoration as Congress will simply broaden the funding ban to all of the Treasury Department and not just BATF as currently prohibited. Scary possibility!
It is hoped that the U.S. Supreme Court took this case for more than just a mundane issue of, "Was this the proper suit to file?" or "The funding ban only affects BATF, not the Secretary" issues. Time will tell. See more info below:
1. SAF Bean Brief. In response to our brief, the Government admitted that the Second Amendment is an individual right!!!
2. Gov't Bean Brief. In PDF
3. Gov't Reply Brief mentioning the Second Amendment!
4. Gun-Banning VPC amicus brief in PDF
6. Docket information from the U.S. Supreme Court Website.
7. Read the Fifth Circuit Opinion here. (06/20/01)
History of case: A 3-judge panel unanimously affirmed a lower court's ruling where an individual had his rights restored by the district court because the BATF isn't allowed to perform any restoration, even though there is a law allowing for it. Mr. Bean had inadvertently crossed the border to Mexico with 200 rounds of shotgun ammunition and was convicted of a felony for ammo possession. This conviction barred any gun ownership. Since Congress has failed to fund the BATF since 1993 for restoring firearms' rights, Mr. Bean turned to the courts and he won. A great decision. Perhaps the Supreme Court will have dicta supporting an individual right to keep and bear arms in this decision!
8. Earlier News Coverage of Bean case.
Supreme Court Hears Gun Dealer Case (Law.com 10/17/02)
Restored rights to firearms argued (Washington Times 10/17/02)
Court Revisits Question of Jury Selection Bias (& Gun Rights Restoration) (Second Part of Article in New York Times 10/17/02)
Felon's appeal tests law on gun licenses (Miami Herald 10/17/02)
Supreme Court Hears Gun Dealer Case (AP Story 10/16/02)
Gun Dealer's Case Reaches High Court: Right to Bear Arms Is Asserted (Washington Post 10/15/02)
SAF Release on Bean Oral Arguments (10/14/02)
Felon's fight for firearms moves to Supreme Court (Houston Chronicle 10/14/02)
Felons' Gun Rights at Issue at High Court (Law.com 10/03/02)
AP Story. (Boston Globe 1/22/02)
AP Story. (Nando Times 1/22/02)