Man denied firearms after being convicted in Japan.

[Sir Aardvark]

The Pansy's in charge of the government want us to move closer to a U.N. based system of "World Government", so stupid stuff like this is the price we Americans have to pay for our involvement in things.

I would like to see the rest of the world become more like us Americans, but, I believe that we will end up giving away more than we get, if we truly become a "World Government".

While I'm ranting about this - how many people here know that Death Valley National Monument is actually under U.N. administration?. Really....it is.

 

[Don Gwinn]

Oh, come on. Obeying Japanese laws in Japan and dealing with their justice system on its own terms when you're in Japan are fine, but forcing a man to suffer legal consequences for such a conviction here in America is nuts.

Saying "I follow the rule, when in Rome, be a Roman candle" is almost silly here. No one is saying he shouldn't have abided by Japanese law in Japan. You're telling him to follow the rule "When in Rome, do as the Romans do, because when you get back here the Roman ways will still be applied to you."

 

[mbs357]

I think the main problem here is that his trial was shoddy, and I'm getting the impression that whatever it was he supposedly did he probably didn't do.
Yet because of the way their system works (which, imo, is inferior to ours) he was convicted.

 

[logical]

I hate to see anyone wronged....but I'm struugling with buying that he had a water heater air-freighted to Japan simply to take warm showers. Last I was there, they had that technology available locally.

 

[thorn726]

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

guys, get real here= the guy who got nailed in TX, well there is a pretty obvious admission of guilt, and his only defense is ignorance.
i don't like that guy being denied, at all , but at least there is the stupid law to support it.

The guy in Japan= the real issue here is not whether he got a fair trial or not, but whether he was actually guilty or not- seems like the judge in this case feels he was.

If the guy was convicted of something he actually did, i would have to support the judge's decision (again, only because it is legitimate under current law).

The idea of allowing felons form other countries to be armed and US felons not??

RIDICULOUS.

I suppose you guys like the way a big time drug dealer can move from certain states to others, and suddenly he has no priors???

or a con from TX can move to OK and buy a gun?

a murderer from the UK can just move over and buy a gun??

man holy short sighted

not to mention detail LESS article.

 

[jsalcedo]

I read something about Japanese courts not too long ago.


Correct me if I'm wrong.

There is a 3 Judge panel that presumes you guilty.

Customarily the court believes that the prosecutor would not have brought an innocent person up on charges.

Also the judges frown upon people declaring their innocence and find it distasteful and dishonorable.

If someone admits their guilt and pleads for mercy (even if innocent) the judges are much more lenient than if someone fights on their own behalf.

If the defendant chooses to fight the charges they must prove their innocence beyond all doubt and even then they are not guaranteed aquital.

 

[nico]

the real issue here is not whether he got a fair trial or not, but whether he was actually guilty or not- seems like the judge in this case feels he was.

Tell that to all the prosecutors who've had cases thrown out because they violated the defendant's right to due process.
Besides, how exactly can you determine whether the guy was guilty under the US legal system when the trial was conducted in a way that denied him several rights that are required to be respected in the US justice system.

I suppose you guys like the way a big time drug dealer can move from certain states to others, and suddenly he has no priors???

or a con from TX can move to OK and buy a gun?

Those are pretty lowsy strawmen. It should be perfectly obvious that we're talking about people who are convicted of crimes in other countries and then denied rights in this country. Last I checked, the states weren't sovereign nations with different standards for proving a defendant's guilt.

a murderer from the UK can just move over and buy a gun??

why is the murderer free and why were they allowed to immigrate to this country?

 

[Maverick]

Does Taliban court count too? Hmmm. If that's the case, we are all criminals and deserve death penalty.

 

[2nd Amendment]

Actually the real question is could a conviction have been obtained in the US? Generally speaking when Japan is the subject the answer is no. Certainly not by their methodology, at any rate. Thus holding a US Citizen accountable in the US for a Japanese definition of a conviction is...thick, at best.

Oh, maybe I missed it but I didn't notice any of the defenders of foreign "law" answering the question about the woman in a bathing suit in Saudi Arabia...?

 

[nico]

That's why I think there should be a review of the case by the US courts instead of just a pass. If someone comitted a crime in another country and then gave a confession that was obtained in a way that would have been acceptable in the US, then let them pay the consequences. BUT, denying someone rights in this country based on a conviction that was obtained by forcing him to testify against himself, denying him the right to a lawyer, and denying him the right to face his accusers is ridiculous.

Oh, maybe I missed it but I didn't notice any of the defenders of foreign "law" answering the question about the woman in a bathing suit in Saudi Arabia...?

That's why I posed the question. I don't see how anyone can support the blanket loss of rights for crimes in other countries when "due process" is a foreign idea in other countries and laws are so restrictive.

 

[DRZinn]

I'm certainly no expert on Japanese courts, but I know this much:

- no jury, just a panel of judges
- 99% conviction rate

 

[2nd Amendment]

Exactly. If they arrest you you are guilty. Period. OK, it's their country so they can play by their rules, but claiming we should punish our own Citizens here at home considering such a "conviction" rate is ludicrous.

 

[g_gunter]

Context...context...context!!!!

Quote:
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...

Dear Bro. Wildalaska (and others of like mind):

It has nothing to do with 'superiority' or the requirement to obey [or not] the laws of the lands in which we visit...that's just a red herring.

The laws that are to be applied to us in our own country should be within the context of OUR laws with OUR constitution as the foundation...NOT according to the standards of other nations. If we grant the premise that other nations are the standard by which we are judged then we might as well get rid of the 2nd amendment since, as far as I know, we are the only nation on earth who recognizes and guarantees that right to its people.

All the best,

g_gunter

 

[deanf]

. . . and if you don't care for things as they are abroad, I have a simple recommendation: don't travel

But it's not "things as they are abroad" that's the problem. It's things as they are in this country. Specifically: that your foreign conviction (without our Constitutional protections) is treated the same as a domestic conviction. It's a due process violation.

 

[Byron Quick]

I've got no problem with other countries having their own laws and legal systems. Their country and their problems. It's true that if I don't like the country and its system then I can refrain from going there.

But when a US court deems that a conviction over a matter which is not a crime in the US can be used to deny a constitutional right to a US citizen...friends, I hate to tell you this, but we're the ones who are having to deal with the BS.

You've pretty much got to buy a new vehicle and never allow ammunition in it to go to Mexico safely these days. Last summer I drove to Terlingua, Texas. On the chance that I might go to Mexico, I pulled everything out of the cab, toolbox, and bed of the truck. Packed away almost a case of loose rounds...including rounds for guns that neither I or any of my friends shoot. They were there when I bought the truck. I was looking around seat fixtures with extensible mirrors. I didn't make it to Mexico on that trip. But after I got back, I found more loose ammo in the cab.

And some of the folks here thinks it's perfectly just if I legally lose my rights over inadvertently carrying .22 ammunition into Mexico? To know that some of my fellow citizens' have such a view of the meaning of liberty is much more frightening than the UN, Al Quaeda, or any foreign threats.

To me, the crux of the matter is not the legal system of another country. When I voluntarily go to that country, then I voluntarily place myself under that country's laws if I go as a private citizen. Rather the crux of the matter is whether or not my crime committed in a foreign country is a felony in this country or, as in possessing ammunition, even a crime of any degree.

The rest of the world is welcome to the laws and systems their citizens' find fitting. US courts have no business sanctioning our citizens for actions committed that are not illegal in this country. That they have ruled this constitutional is a travesty of justice. But our system has seen travesties foisted off upon the citizenry before and eventually justice prevailed.