Bang / Guns
See other Bang / Guns Articles
Title: Trump Administration Seeks To Deny Gun Rights To Non-Violent “Criminals”
Source:
The Daily Sheeple
URL Source: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/trum ... o-non-violent-criminals_052017
Published: May 28, 2017
Author: Dawn Luger
Post Date: 2017-05-29 06:15:06 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 9277
Comments: 31
Donald Trump was endorsed by the NRA (National Rifle Association) and he assured his voters he’d protect their second amendment right to keep and bear arms. Considering his new desire to keep non-violent “criminals” from owning guns, this flip-flop on values needs to be known. Scouring through conservative alternative media left much to be desired on this, while the left-leaning outlets are having a heyday. The truth is more important than partisan politics, so it bears mentioning that this won’t sit nicely in the belly of those on the political right. But Sessions vs. Binderup is a big deal to anyone who seeks freedom from the continued oppression of the federal government. Trump administration lawyers are urging the Supreme Court to reject a 2nd Amendment claim that would restore the right to own a gun for two Pennsylvania men who were convicted more than 20 years ago of nonviolent crimes. –LA Times One of the two men, Julio Suarez, has had his case consolidated with that of David Binderup. Both were convicted of nonviolent crimes and seek to have their gun rights restored. Their “crimes” are described as the following: Daniel Binderup, for whom the case is now named, had a consensual sexual relationship with a 17-year-old in 1998. He was sentenced to probation for three years under a misdemeanor conviction in Pennsylvania for corruption of a minor. Julio Suarez, the other person challenging the government in the cases now consolidated, was convicted of possessing a handgun in a car without a license to carry [permission from the government] in Maryland in 1990. –Reason The federal government believes these incidents bar both men from legal gun ownership forever because, in Binderup’s case, it was a misdemeanor for which he could have been (though was not) given over two years’ incarceration. In a complicated September 2016 decision from an en banc panel of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals (in which different elements were signed on to by different batches of judges), the Court declared that the offenses of Binderup and Suarez were not serious enough to strip them of their Second Amendment rights. How dare Suarez not beg permission from the government before exercising his rights. But the fact that he and Binderup are not violent, and did nothing more than violate feelings based laws, they have lost their right to bear arms. This simply proves that the “snowflakes” aren’t only on the left. So much for Trump and his administration “protecting the second amendment.” They seek to permanently deny self-defense rights to these two men, simply because their “crimes” could have resulted (but did not) in jail time. Attorney Alan Gura, a gun rights advocate who represents the two men, said he was disappointed but not surprised. “I am not shocked by it. The government never likes to have its authority limited,” said Gura, a Virginia lawyer who brought the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia vs. Heller, which resulted in the Supreme Court’s first ruling upholding an individual’s constitutional right to have a gun for self-defense. “They could dismiss the appeal at any time. But I have no reason to expect they will.” This has “nothing to do with disarming dangerous felons,” he said. Last month, acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall, representing the Trump administration, filed another brief urging the court to hear the appeal. He said the lower court’s ruling “if allowed to stand … will place an extraordinary administrative burden” on federal judges since people with a criminal record may go to court and seek an exception to the law. “The 3rd Circuit’s conclusion that the Constitution mandates that untenable result warrants further review,” he told the justices. He also urged the court to reject Gura’s separate claim that the law should not be stretched so far. It’s becoming blatantly obvious that all politicians are liars. Trump is not an exception, and those making excuses for his disgusting behavior regarding this case are wearing their statist partisan beer goggles. Politicians are the ones stripping the rights and freedom from the American people, not those Trump insists on bombing overseas. Maybe this will open a few eyes to the lengths the federal government will go to oppress the public. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 20.
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
Yeah. He was 41 at the time. Pervert. Anyways, here's the bottom line: 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) "describes convictions that, though classified as misdemeanors in a state court, met the traditional definition of a felony. Both crimes fell within that traditional definition, even though their ultimate sentences did not." Therefore, as felons, they were barred from owning weapons. That still stands. But the court made an exception for these two losers, saying that their convictions "were not serious enough to strip them of their Second Amendment rights." Wall is correct. This ruling means that tens of thousands of people may go to court now to seek an exception to the law as written.
Yeah. He was 41 at the time. Pervert. The age of consent was 16. It was not statutory rape. The 17 year old worked in Binderup's bakery. He was convicted for corrupting a minor. His crime carried a maximum term of five years. He was given a fine of $300 and three years probation. Pennsylvania law considered it a misdemeanor. Federal law holds that any conviction in any court of a crime punishable by more than one (1) year imprisonment is disqualifying for gun possession. Note: the 3rd Circuit decision was 8-7.
Correct. But now the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals is saying that if a sentence of more than one (1) year imprisonment is not imposed, then the defendant may appeal. How many times have we read about felonies reduced to misdemeanors under plea bargaining with a sentence of time served, a small fine, community service or probation?
They held the Federal statute unconstitutional. I think that SCOTUS will grant cert and reverse the 3rd Circuit. Petition for Cert of petitioner Loretta Lynch at page 10: In a “fractured decision,” App., infra, 41a, a bare majority of the en banc Third Circuit held a longstanding federal statute unconstitutional as applied to respondents—and opened the courthouse doors to an untold number of future challenges by other individuals based on their own particular offenses, histories, and personal circumstances. The court of appeals’ decision contradicts the historical understanding of the right to bear arms and this Court’s assurances that the Second Amendment does not cast doubt on felon-in-possession laws. It also departs from the decisions of other circuits. Indeed, the Third Circuit “stand[s] entirely alone” in finding Section 922(g)(1) unconstitutional in any of its applications. Id. at 108a (Fuentes, J.). Finally, the decision below threatens public safety and poses serious problems of judicial administration because it requires judges to make ad hoc assessments of the risks of allowing convicted felons to possess firearms—a high-stakes task that Congress has already determined cannot be performed with sufficient reliability, and one for which the judiciary is particularly ill-suited. This Court’s review is warranted. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From the Reply Brief of Jefferson Sessions at pp. 2-3: Second, respondents assert (Br. in Opp. 20-21) that although Section 922(g)(1) has been on the books for nearly half a century, the question presented incorrectly describes it as “longstanding” because it was not in force when the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791. That assertion cannot be reconciled with Heller and McDonald, which emphasized that their Second Amendment holdings did not “cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626 (2008); see McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 786 (2010) (plurality opinion) (same). 2. Respondents’ brief in opposition acknowledges (at 29) that the Third Circuit’s decision conflicts with decisions of the Tenth Circuit, which they concede has “rejected the availability of as-applied Section 922(g)(1) challenges.” See United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037, 1047 (10th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 970 (2010). And respondents’ supplemental brief correctly recognizes (at 2) that a recent Fourth Circuit decision “deepened [the] circuit split” by rejecting the Third Circuit’s approach. But respondents incorrectly seek to minimize the extent of the circuit conflict and the degree to which the Third Circuit is an outlier. a. Like the Tenth Circuit, the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits have foreclosed as-applied Second Amendment challenges to Section 922(g)(1). Respondents err in arguing otherwise (Br. in Opp. 29-30).
There are no replies to Comment # 20. End Trace Mode for Comment # 20.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"Daniel Binderup, for whom the case is now named, had a consensual sexual relationship with a 17-year-old in 1998."
#13. To: misterwhite, Deckard (#1)
"Daniel Binderup, for whom the case is now named, had a consensual sexual relationship with a 17-year-old in 1998."
#16. To: nolu chan (#13)
Federal law holds that any conviction in any court of a crime punishable by more than one (1) year imprisonment is disqualifying for gun possession.
#20. To: misterwhite (#16)
Correct. But now the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals is saying that if a sentence of more than one (1) year imprisonment is not imposed, then the defendant may appeal.
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
1. The question presented is whether respondents “are entitled to relief from the longstanding federal statute prohibiting felons from possessing firearms, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), based on their as-applied Second Amendment claim that their criminal offenses and other particular circumstances do not warrant a firearms disqualification.” Pet. i. Respondents do not deny that this case squarely presents the question whether and under what standard Section 922(g)(1) may be held unconstitutional as applied to specific individuals based on their offenses and other circumstances. Instead, respondents criticize (Br. in Opp. 18-21) two aspects of the phrasing of the question presented. Neither criticism has merit, and neither is relevant to the need for this Court’s review. First, respondents assert (Br. in Opp. 18-19) that the use of the word “felons” in the question presented is wrong because their offenses were state-law misdemeanors. But like all offenses covered by Section 922(g)(1), respondents’ crimes are properly described as felonies because they were “punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.” Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S. 124, 130 (2008); see, e.g., Black’s Law Dictionary 736 (10th ed. 2014). This Court thus routinely describes Section 922(g)(1) as a “felon-inpossession” statute even though it encompasses some offenses that States label “misdemeanor[s].” Logan v. United States, 552 U.S. 23, 27 (2007); see, e.g., Voisine v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2272, 2276 (2016).
Replies to Comment # 20.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]