U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: SCOTUS Lets Ruling Stand Protecting Second Amendment Rights Following Non-Serious Misdemeanors
Source:
Breitbart
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern ... s-not-lose-fundamental-rights/
Published: Jun 26, 2017
Author: Awr Hawkins
Post Date: 2017-06-26 18:32:11 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 1059
Comments: 2
On Monday the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) let stand a Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pennsylvania ruling which protects Second Amendment rights following non-serious misdemeanor convictions. The issue revolved around Binderup v. the U.S. Attorney General, a case brought by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) on behalf of Daniel Binderup. He “pleaded guilty in 1996 to a misdemeanor charge related to a consensual relationship he had with a 17-year-old female employee,” receiving “three years’ probation and a $300 fine.” Since the crime could have resulted in jail time of over one year–triggering a “federal gun law blocks firearms possession–Binderup sought protection of his Second Amendment rights. The Third Circuit handed down an en banc ruling in Binderup’s favor and Obama’s Department of Justice responded by seeking a “Supreme Court review.” The result of that review is that the Third Circuit decision stands. Following SCOTUS’ announcement, SAF sent a press release to Breitbart News, saying: The Third Circuit Court’s favorable ruling combined Binderup’s case with another SAF case involving a man named Julio Suarez. He was stopped in 1990 on suspicion of driving while intoxicated. At the time he was carrying a handgun and spare ammunition without a permit. He pleaded guilty in Maryland state court to the charge and received a 180-day suspended sentence and $500 fine. As a result, he also lost his gun rights because the crime could have resulted in jail time of more than one year. Neither man was ever incarcerated. The pro-Second Amendment results of Binderup v. the U.S. Attorney General were accompanied by news that SCOTUS declined to hear Peruta v. California; a case revolving around California’s “good cause” requirement for concealed carry license acquisition. On January 12, 2017, Breitbart News reported SCOTUS was petitioned to review Peruta in hopes of securing a ruling as to “whether the Second Amendment entitles ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in some manner, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.” For now, the Second Amendment community is cheering the ruling in Binderup but remains pensive over Peruta. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: cranky (#0)
It's annoying that the Trump Justice department continued to pursue the appeal.
Mr. Binderup was the 41-year old married employer of a 17-year old girl he was banging. She was both an employee and a minor.
#2. To: cranky (#0)
He “pleaded guilty in 1996 to a misdemeanor charge related to a consensual relationship he had with a 17-year-old female employee,” receiving “three years’ probation and a $300 fine.”
"The charge and his conviction stemmed from a romantic affair that Mr. Binderup conducted with a seventeen-year-old employee of his bakery business. Mr. Binderup was 41 years old at the time of the relationship. Thus, Mr. Binderup (the employer) was 24 years older than his mistress (the employee)."
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]