(Former FFL) Thomas Bean Pardoned by Gov Perry (guy caught in Mexico with ammo)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kharn

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
3,999
Location
Maryland
Governor Perry Pardons Former Vidor Gun Dealer Tommy Bean
Wire and staff reports

HOUSTON (AP) - A former Vidor gun dealer was pardoned Friday by Texas Gov. Rick Perry of a felony conviction in Mexico in a case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Thomas Lamar "Tommy" Bean's appeal lost at the high court as he was trying to regain his rights after he was convicted in Mexico for having a box of ammunition that was left in his vehicle when he drove across the border.

Bean and two of his employees were detained March 14, 1998 at the Mexico Customs checkpoint at the Gateway of the Americas Bridge. Bean and two of his employees had gone to Nuevo Laredo to dine after a gun show at La Posada.

"We removed guns, ammunition and other items from the Suburban, but my people overlooked several boxes of ammo," Bean said in a Laredo Morning Times interview last December. "They were in full view of the inspectors. They seized 204 bullets."

A friend and business associate paid $5,000 to an attorney to have the two employees released. Bean was eventually released from La Loma prison in September of 1998 as part of a prisoner exchange with the United States.

"We are elated that it finally got done," Bean's attorney, Larry Hunter, said of the pardon. "What this does is it restores his civil rights on the state level. It will give us the opportunity to go back to the Secretary of Treasury to ask him to reconsider on the federal level.

"At least we have one jurisdiction straightened out."

The Mexican conviction will stand but will be removed from Bean's record in Texas, said Kathy Walt, a spokeswoman for Perry.

"There is a state law that specifically allows a governor to grant a pardon for a violation of a foreign law," she said. "It would have no bearing on Mexico."

Bean, 63, was a licensed federal firearms dealer when he was arrested in Mexico in March 1998. Before crossing the border for dinner, he had ordered his associates to remove any guns or ammunition from the vehicle, but more than 200 bullets in an armrest tray were overlooked.

Bean spent five months in a Mexican prison before he was returned to the U.S. as part of a prisoner exchange program, then spent another month in a federal lockup. Bean, who now sells cars in Port Arthur, said his Mexican conviction ended his days as a gun dealer.

After publicity about Bean's case, Mexico reduced the crime for bringing ammunition across its borders to a misdemeanor, and only a fine now is imposed on first-time offenders, according to court records.

Last year, Bean took his case to the Supreme Court to regain his gun rights - something a district judge ruled he deserved to have restored. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also supported the judge's ruling.

But the Supreme Court shut the door on his efforts, ruling felons can't go straight to court to get their gun rights restored and must go through a federal agency. That agency, however, has been banned by Congress since 1992 from processing requests.

"This whole thing has just been a nightmare," Hunter said. "This whole plight has been because somebody else left some shells in the back of a Suburban."

Felons are barred from owning or possessing guns in the United States if the conviction occurred in this country or elsewhere, but they can ask the government for an exception.

A representative with the U.S Attorney's office in Beaumont could not immediately be reached for comment late Friday afternoon.

U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson's office, which appealed the case to the Supreme Court, also did not immediately return a call from The Associated Press Friday.

08/23/03


***********************
The SCOTUS might have screwed him over, but at least now he's got a chance of getting his life back together. That is, if the ATF works around its Congress-imposed budget restrictions of not restoring anyones rights.

Kharn
 
Hmmm. Interesting. I wouldn't bet against the federal gummint taking the position that gun rights cannot be restored, because the TX governor has no legal right to pardon a conviction obtained outside his jurisdiction - in Mex., despited the state law that says he can (and they'd probably be right, unfortunately). And please tell me, what good does it do to have "state gun rights" restored, if they're not restored at the federal level? You cannot possess any gun according to the feds, and state law can't trump that, so.....

Ya know, that's got to be one of the biggest travestys of justice of our time, that the Congress bans the agency from processing requests, yet the SCOTUS says tough luck, you have to do it this way. Seems to me that he ought to try again to make his way back there, as follows:

1. Apply to federal court to get gun rights back. Trial court agrees.
2. Gummint appeals to circuit court. Circuit Court agrees with trial court; upholds restoration of gun rights.
3. Gummint appeals to SCOTUS. SCOTUS reverses, saying there's no standing until you've exhausted administrative remedies.

OK, FINE. Time for some more steps.

4. Submit an application to BATFE for same. BATFE will either refuse to accept the tender of the app, or reject it, or fail to process it in a timely manner.
5. Regardless, they have rejected it in some manner. Boom - the administrative remedies are now exhausted. File new suit with same district court (who has shown it's sympathetic to your plight), claiming either exhaustion of admin remedies, or perhaps you'd have to make an argument that the law that prohibits processing of requests by the agency is Unconst. - obviously, there is a surely an extremely strong argument that the catch-22 situation can be remedied. District court will rule in your favor once again.
6. This time on appeal, you have standing, because you've clearly established your catch-22 situation by the formal tendering of the app to BATFE. If necessary, videotape you traveling to the BATFE office, presenting the application, and having them refust to accept it.

But, I'm sure his lawyers know this....
 
Yay for Bean!

The catch-22 situation is a disgusting national travesty.

At least someone (Tx Gov) recognized it, and used what power he had to try to remedy the situation. Sounds like principled action to me.
 
That will teach him to stop going to Mexico for dinner.
 
Futo Ino:
4. Submit an application to BATFE for same. BATFE will either refuse to accept the tender of the app, or reject it, or fail to process it in a timely manner.
5. Regardless, they have rejected it in some manner. Boom - the administrative remedies are now exhausted.
The Government offically 'takes no action' on requests for gun-rights restorations, as Congress has banned ALL spending of money related to that activity as part of the yearly ATF appropriations bill. The ATF basically send back the application unopened, it was neither approved nor denied (I believe they even include a form letter saying that). Thats why Bean sued the first time, because the ATF neither approved nor denied his application, but the courts said 'Sorry, you gotta be denied before we can help.'

If we could get Congress to change the appropriations bill to include $5 for a 'Denied' stamp & ink pad and paid some GS-1 (the lowest paid position in the government, probably $6 an hour) to stamp every application that came in as 'Denied', those affected could sue, but until that time the courts (they claim) cant do anything.

Kharn
 
This could create a really interesting 2nd Amendment case. If the federal government doesn't accept the Texas pardon and considers Bean a convicted felon in all other states, and Bean gets a Texas CCW and carries a handgun in one of those states that accepts the Texas CCW.

Then again, if they do accept the pardon, they have created a precedence of a state being able to restore a federal right to a convicted felon.
 
Incidentally, NJ uses the "neither approved nor denied" trick with it's FIDs on a regular basis.

Same kinda thing: If you're approved, you don't have a problem. If you're denied, there is an administrative appeal process. If they just sit on it, potentially forever, you're SOL, and there is literally nothing you can do about it, as the courts have decided that it's in "the interest of society" that they can take as long as they want with background checks.

Bureacracy: A necessary evil, and sometimes a tool of oppression.
 
What? No comments about how another yucky tilecrawler found a loophole for his scumbag criminal client?

Sort of like civil rights here..many times stops at a misinterpreted second amendment....

WildalllawyersarescumallpolitocosareevilfedsareallthugsAlaska
 
I would like to see verification of this part...

"After publicity about Bean's case, Mexico reduced the crime for bringing ammunition across its borders to a misdemeanor, and only a fine now is imposed on first-time offenders, according to court records. "

Tho not a direct help to Bean; would be of great help to the rest of us.

Picking up a rental car for travel below the border was no guarentee of safety from felony charge and slammer time. If the clean and prep person at the rental outfit missed a cartridge left by a previous renter.

Sam
 
On a whim, I checked up on the federal law regarding pardons, take a look at this:
Link to Findlaw.com source
(20) The term ''crime punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year'' does not include -
(A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust
violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other
similar offenses relating to the regulation of business
practices, or
(B) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a
misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years
or less.
What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined
in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the
proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or
set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil
rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes
of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of
civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship,
transport, possess, or receive firearms.

Now the question is, does he also need a federal pardon, or is a Texas pardon enough to restore his rights?

Also, I believe the way the federal law is written, Mr. Bean is at least capable of owning a firearm made in Texas (for example, he could complete an 80% AR15) as it hasnt participated in interstate commerce (the constitutional provision used to regulate firearms), but I could be wrong and if I were Mr. Bean, I'd get my rearend to a lawyer ASAP to figure out what this means for my gun rights.

Kharn
 
Quote:
"Then again, if they do accept the pardon, they have created a precedence of a state being able to restore a federal right to a convicted felon."

Bean is not a convicted felon. He has not been convicted of a crime in the United States. This pardon is a good thing, as in the war on some drugs, people often get caught up in a political fight between factions of government, when in fact no crime has been committed. IMHO...

Giant
 
He may not be a convicted felon in the US legal system, but he is a convicted felon in Mexico and the US gun laws use that conviction to disqualify him from firearm ownership. The pardon in Texas removes that felony conviction inside Texas as pertaining to firearm ownership. In order for him to possess a firearm outside Texas, the US government would have to accept his state pardon of a felony conviction. That sets a precedence.
 
Good politics to apply for a pardon from GWB... and for him to grant it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top