Man denied firearms after being convicted in Japan.

[jsalcedo]

Excerpt:

Mr. Small's case is a good example. He was convicted under a federal law prohibiting those with prior criminal convictions in "any court" from owning firearms. But Mr. Small's prior conviction took place in Japan, where defendants have fewer rights than here. He was not entitled to a jury trial. Witnesses against him testified by remote deposition, and he could not cross-examine them. The panel of judges hearing his case changed a few weeks into the trial. The prosecutor forced him to take the stand and testify -- and then used his silence against him. After his arrest, he was interrogated for 25 days without access to counsel. He was not allowed an appeal. And in part on the strength of the conviction thus obtained, he now faces prison in this country.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64555-2005Mar24.html

 

[Bear Gulch]

And they are one of our "civilized" allies?

 

[WT]

Okay, so he was convicted in a US Court for being a felon in possession of firearms.

He was convicted in a Japanese court for commiting a felony over there. The US Courts ruled that his Japanese trial and conviction were valid.

So what's the problem? Hint: don't commit crimes when visiting a foreign country.

 

[Bubbles]

The problem is a lot of countries have "crimes" that we don't, never mind the concepts of "due process" or "innocent until proven guilty".

 

[armoredman]

Correction - do not visit foriegn countries unless backed by a few thousand of your buddies. Lobby for this law to have an escape clause in it.

 

[jsalcedo]

So what's the problem? Hint: don't commit crimes when visiting a foreign country

I'ts like the gun dealer who went dove hunting near the border then decided to go shopping in Mexico forgetting that he had a box of shells in his truck. The guy spent months in a mexican prison and is now a felon for life in the US as well.

Does that fit into your generalization?

Laws recognizing convictions of US citizens made in other countries should always be carefully reviewed because those convicted were not afforded our constitutuional protections.

 

[WT]

Yup, the Texas 'former' gun dealer should have known better. He didn't live that far from the border. It is not unreasonable to expect him to know the laws of a nearby jurisdication - after all, he WAS a gun dealer.

But you are changing the subject now ..........

Don't screw up in Japan. Don't drive faster than 24 MPH in Okinawa.

 

[nico]

So you'd support denying a woman the right to self defense in America because she wore a bikini in Saudi Arabia?

 

[jsalcedo]

because she wore a bikini in Saudi Arabia?

Good example, but she would probably be beheaded.

 

[Glock Glockler]

Yup, the Texas 'former' gun dealer should have known better. He didn't live that far from the border. It is not unreasonable to expect him to know the laws of a nearby jurisdication - after all, he WAS a gun dealer.

1 - Those are BS laws

2 - They are in BS countries

Why are we using convictions of BS laws in BS countries as criteria for our own courts?

 

[model 649]

So what is the value of U.S. citizenship if you can be fried by another country?
Josh

 

[jsalcedo]

Why are we using convictions of BS laws in BS countries as criteria for our own courts?

Thats about the best way to put it Glockler. Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Evil_Ed]

I will point out here that MANY countries legal systems allow trying people in abstentia. All it would take is a country overseas with some pro-UN antigunners to file charges against citizens of the US without their knowledge or any crime being comitted and upon conviction that person would no longer have any right to a gun...think about that and think about every man woman and child in our country being convicted that way...with the precedent these guys are setting every gun owner in this country would suddenly be a felon without ever having done anything illegal by our laws.

 

[Rico567]

Well, I think this thread may go a bit over the top -and that's saying something- for ill-considered and xenophobic remarks. I've been to a lot of other countries, and have neither been arrested, nor have I ever seen anyone arrested. No, they are not "BS countries," just countries. And they have their own laws, and I obey the dictum "When in Rome, be a Roman candle." Ignorance of the law is not an excuse here, nor should it be anywhere in this galaxy. Any casual visit to web sites such as the State Department specifically warns any traveler that if you break foreign laws, you are beyond any help from the U.S. government. The fact that the US exacts penalties for foreign convictions seems like a contradiction of that principle, but is an issue best left to the lawyers. And I stay just as far away from lawyers as I can.
Imposing our standards of law, rights, and procedures on other countries is called "extraterritoriality." It was widely practiced during the 18th and 19th centuries, and it meant that a citizen of an imperial power could commit a crime in a colony, but then be entitled to go back to Merrie Auld England or someplace and be tried by a jury of his homies....and you may imagine the chance for conviction. Things are different now, and if you don't care for things as they are abroad, I have a simple recommendation: don't travel.

 

[Wildalaska]

So what's the problem? Hint: don't commit crimes when visiting a foreign country

Wow..really...never would have thought of that...

But why do we need to obey foreign laws...we are americans, we are superior...

WildbuthteybetterobeyoursoverhererightAlaska

 

[Telperion]

WT, Wild, and Rico567: so by extension you'd also be ok with a foreign country that creates a court to try and convict American citizens in absentia and using that as a basis to deprive them of their rights?

"Any court", after all. Please think carefully about that and get back to me.

 

[Glock Glockler]

The fact that the US exacts penalties for foreign convictions seems like a contradiction of that principle, but is an issue best left to the lawyers. And I stay just as far away from lawyers as I can

So you contract out your thinking to lawyers and don't have a problem with the gross injustice committed here?

 

[jefnvk]

I think they oughta take a look at the crimes on a one-by-one basis. If it was something that is considered a felony here, and they got a fair trial, they oughta be barred. Otherwise, if it was something that would not prohibit them from owning a gun, or there is evidence that tere was no fair trial, don't consider them a felon.

 

[nico]

EXACTLY!! I completely agree that when you're in another country you should follow their laws or face whatever punishment their laws dictate (like that kid who was caned in singapore). That being said, I don't think an American citizen should be denied rights in America based on a conviction that couldn't have been obtained through the American judicial system.

 

[Wildalaska]

WT, Wild, and Rico567: so by extension you'd also be ok with a foreign country that creates a court to try and convict American citizens in absentia and using that as a basis to deprive them of their rights?

If there is no connection with the country (ie the Belgian war crimes farces) then of course not

On the other hand, if a person commits a crime outside the US and flees, absentia trials are appropriate..after all some US jurisdictions allow that, yes?

WildbutiftheusdoesititsokrightAlaska

 

[c_yeager]

I have no problem with people being convicted and sentanced for breaking the law in a foreign country. The problem is that after their sentance has been complete that they are facing further consquences in this country. The U.S. should not be imposing sentances or restrictions on persons who were tried under different standards than our own. It seems an obvious violation of due process.

And no, i would not expect a person convicted and sentanced in the U.S. to face consquences in their home country after their sentance is complete.

 

[Justin]

But Mr. Small's prior conviction took place in Japan, where defendants have fewer rights than here.

This is a bit like saying that the Wendy's Super Value Menu in Communist Cuba has a few less items than here.

 

[Fletchette]

Well, I think this thread may go a bit over the top -and that's saying something- for ill-considered and xenophobic remarks.

Well, I guess that would be me as well.

I've been to a lot of countries too, Rico, but I wouldn't want to live in them. No, not because I am xenophobic (I have several close friends who are naturalized citizens) and it is not because I am a simple-minded nationalist. It is because I truly believe the ideals that this nation was founded on (as opposed to loving the "land" or "culture" or because I was born here). For me, America is not about here nor there; it is a philosophy.

A big part of this philosophy is that every person (U.S. citizen or not) has certain inalienable rights. Those rights are stated in the Bill of Rights. The man in question had several of these rights ignored by the Japanese court system (trial by jury, due process, being forced to testify against himself, etc, etc.). Then he served time for his conviction, and was released. That should have been the end of a very unpleasant experience in a foreign country.

But now, the U.S. government is extending this man's punishment. This is an additional penalty that should not be applied. Why? Because the sovereign government that convicted him (justly or unjustly) released him because they felt his punishment was fulfilled. Furthermore, since his rights were repressed during his trial, in agreeing with the conviction the U.S. Government is de facto agreeing with those that do not recognize these rights.

This is a very disturbing precedent. It is one more symptom of our loss of sovereignty.

 

[makanut]

I've been to some "BS Countries". I'm afraid they exist. Fortunately, at the birth of our nation we were blessed with the likes of Washington, Madison, and Jefferson among others. Does this make the U.S. "better" than the "BS" countries? I don't think so. It just makes us incredibly lucky.

Try putting Fidel Castro and James Madison in the same sentence. There, I just did. It looks awkward, doesn't it? How about George Washington and Robert Mugabe? It looks even more awkward, if that's possible. The concept of individual freedom and liberty came from God-fearing men who defeated a repressive Monarch and did NOT replace one repressive regime with another. Let's refrain from considering ourselves better than other countries, just a whole lot luckier.

 

[Risasi]

I say hear, hear to Flechette. He has extrapolated on the very essense of the Bill of Rights.

I know, perhaps we apply this theorim against the founders of our country? Oh wait just by British law alone they would be hanged. Nevermind, they were criminals in the eyes of another country.