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: 8110
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 # 22.
#3. To: Deckard, nolu chan, misterwhite (#0)
There could be reasons for this. For instance, 0bama pardoned all those "non-violent drug offenders" in his last few years in office. Many of them plead down on weapons charges at the same time so they could be called "non-violent offenders" even though they were not by any reasonable standard. So, among those who might seek to restore their firearms rights could easily be those that 0bama pardoned that way. I think there is probably some reason why the Sessions DOJ is taking this position. Sessions could stop the acting SG from pursuing this case if he wanted to. But he doesn't.
Being armed is not violent. By any reasonable standard it's merely a sensible precaution. Especially if you consider that some of these arrests very likely happened in some extremely bad neighborhoods.
By any reasonable standard it's merely a sensible precaution. When armed while in the commission of a felony, the definition of violent crime is a bit nuanced. A "violent crime" only requires a felony (federal definition: crime that carries a possible sentence of more than 1 year), "that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense." No actual violence need occur. The code under which Binderup was pursued does not necessitate a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C. 922(g) only requires a conviction "in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2015/title-18/part-i/chapter-44/sec.-924/ 2015 US Code Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure (Sections 1 - 6005) Part I - Crimes (Sections 1 - 2725) Chapter 44 - Firearms (Sections 921 - 931) Sec. 924 - Penalties 18 U.S.C. § 924 (2015) (A) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or (B) that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2015/title-18/part-i/chapter-44/sec.-922/ 2015 US Code 18 U.S.C. § 922 (2015) (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) who is a fugitive from justice; (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution; (5) who, being an alien— (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))); (6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) who is subject to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
Once again you demonstrate your disregard for the US Constitution and the Bill Of Rights. The drivel you quote is clearly unconstitutional and therefore null and void. The federal government was only granted certain LIMITED POWERS, and none of that crap is mentioned. In addition that malarkey also violates most of the BOR. You're a scofflaw criminal government apologist, and a Deep State NWO advocate. A pox on your D&R tyrant crime family cult.
The federal government was only granted certain LIMITED POWERS, and none of that crap is mentioned. In addition that malarkey also violates most of the BOR. You're a scofflaw criminal government apologist, and a Deep State NWO advocate. A pox on your D&R tyrant crime family cult. And you are a crying sovereign citizen acting with typical infantile stupidity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuMDOp8efhE
Highway robbery! Of course you, and her cuckold husband like it.
hondo68 in action. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2owN7V3RNq4
There are no replies to Comment # 22. End Trace Mode for Comment # 22.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestLast 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.
#4. To: Tooconservative (#3)
Many of them plead down on weapons charges at the same time so they could be called "non-violent offenders" even though they were not by any reasonable standard
#11. To: hondo68, Tooconservative (#4)
Being armed is not violent.
(3) For purposes of this subsection the term “crime of violence” means an offense that is a felony and—
Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure (Sections 1 - 6005)
Part I - Crimes (Sections 1 - 2725)
Chapter 44 - Firearms (Sections 921 - 931)
Sec. 922 - Unlawful acts (g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
#14. To: nolu chan, scofflaw tyrants, D 'n R mobsters, Tooconservative, Deckard, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#11)
“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” (Marbury vs.Madison, 1803.)
#19. To: hondo68 (#14)
Once again you demonstrate your disregard for the US Constitution and the Bill Of Rights. The drivel you quote is clearly unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
#21. To: nolu chan, scofflaw cuck, Badged Bandits, Highway Robbery (#19)
#22. To: hondo68, Heroes in Blue (#21)
Replies to Comment # 22.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]