"Daniel Binderup, for whom the case is now named, had a consensual sexual relationship with a 17-year-old in 1998."

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.

"They see a person with a gun, they'll take the gun away"

Stop, Frisk, confiscate Guns

Trump voters elected him to infringe on the second amendment, and he's keeping his campaign promise....

Trump calls for police to take guns during stop-and-frisks

“Basically, they will, if they see — you know, they are proactive and if they see a person possibly with a gun or they think may have a gun, they will see the person, and they will look, and they will take the gun away,” Trump said in an interview with "Fox and Friends."

“They will stop, they will frisk, and they will take the gun away, and they don’t have anything to shoot with.”

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.

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.

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

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.

"So, among those who might seek to restore their firearms rights could easily be those that 0bama pardoned that way."

Correct. Though this ruling only gives them the opportunity to petition to a higher court. No guarantees, especially if their original charge was a felony.

"Being armed is not violent."

It is if you're a drug dealer.

This ruling means that tens of thousands of people may go to court now to seek an exception to the law as written.

Good! You have a problem with that?

... the lower court’s ruling “if allowed to stand … will place an extraordinary administrative burden” on federal judges...

Tough shit! Do your fucking jobs and uphold the Constitution!

"Being armed is not violent."

It is if you're a drug dealer.

Or a drug warrior?

No, being armed is not inherently violent. It's a defensive posture, not offensive.

"Daniel Binderup, for whom the case is now named, had a consensual sexual relationship with a 17-year-old in 1998."

Yeah. He was 41 at the time. Pervert.

What part of the word "consensual" is it that is giving you problems?

If you don't think 17 year old girls are sexually aggressive,you must have REALLY hated high school.

I recently went to a friends house for dinner,and his 17 year old daughter was wearing a short dress,and purposely flashed me several times when no one was paying attention by lifting it up above her waist.

I have know this girl since she was about 6 years old,so the only effect it had on me was to seriously creep me out,but I suspect I would have had a different reaction if I hadn't known her and her family,and we had been alone.

AND......,she will be 18 next month,which means she will be "legal" in the alleged minds of the law. She won't be an iota more mature mentally or physically,but the legal system had to pick a number out of the air to establish a cut-off date,and they picked 18. Probably because that was the voting age.

No, being armed is not inherently violent.

It is if you're a drug dealer.

Being armed is not violent.

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)

(3) For purposes of this subsection the term “crime of violence” means an offense that is a felony and—

(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
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

18 U.S.C. § 922 (2015)

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—

(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.

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.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/osg/briefs/2017/01/13/binderup_pet.pdf

The 310-page Petition for Writ of Cert was filed January 5, 2017 as Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General, et al., Petitioners v. Daniel Binderup, et al.

"Daniel Binderup, for whom the case is now named, had a consensual sexual relationship with a 17-year-old in 1998."

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.

“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” (Marbury vs.Madison, 1803.)

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 age of consent was 16. It was not statutory rape.

I called him a pervert, not a rapist. Worse, he was her employer.

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.

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?

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...

Because the DA and police are overreaching, lying, fabricating false evidence, .have no case, and a jury would never believe their lying snitch witnesses and paid informers?

Because the DA and police are overreaching, lying, fabricating false evidence, .have no case, and a jury would never believe their lying snitch witnesses and paid informers?

No, because limp-wristed prosecutors want to chalk up a victory for themselves and their career by reducing the charges down to anything the defendant will plead guilty to.

This way, everyone wins. Except the public, of course.

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.

And you are a crying sovereign citizen acting with typical infantile stupidity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuMDOp8efhE

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.

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:

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

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:

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).

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).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2owN7V3RNq4

Trump voters elected him to infringe on the second amendment, and he's keeping his campaign promise....

Actually we elected him to put you lying democrats in concentration camps.

Actually we elected him to put you lying democrats in concentration camps.

Hondo is not a democrat or a republican.

Hondo is not a democrat or a republican.

AKA Stonehead will never understand that.

AKA Stonehead will never understand that.

Hondo is lying. He is a democrat.

I understand he supported Gay Johnson for years and years and years.

Despite the fact that he is for faggot pretend marriage. Despite the fact that he wants open borders. Despite the fact that

Faggot Johnson said planned parenthood does a lot of good.

Hondopehead supports the faggot who said "Individual liberty includes supporting gay marriage. (Jun 2016)"

Hondfag also supported faggot johnson who said "Workplace discrimination against gays is like race in 1960s. (Jun 2016)"

Hond faggot must have really liked this comment from the faggot fromer governor " No, bakers can't deny a wedding cake to same-sex couples. (Apr 2016) "

Hond fag also likes when gay johnson says "Support principles embodied in the Equal Rights Amendment. (Feb 2001)"

Hondfag supports this shit "Men of color four times as likely to end up behind bars. (Jun 2016) Too many unnecessary laws leads to too many in prison. (Jan 2016)"

What is this nonsense that fag Johnson spouts that hondope supported for years and years "Mass shootings result from War on Drugs "shoot first" notion. (Jul 2016)"

Here is what the faggot was saying in 2000 when Hondo was in love with him. "Kyoto Treaty must include reductions by all countries. (Aug 2000)"

Hondopehead emobodies all the principals of the demonic democratic party. Except Hondope is a bit to the left of them so he doesn't vote for them yet. He votes further left.

If a 41 year old fucked my daughter. He would end up in a river.

I guess the righteousness of that act would depend on how old your daughter is,and who seduced who.

Got a little news tip for you,AKA,females can be VERY sexually aggressive. Even females that are someone's daughters.

Despite the fact that

Faggot Johnson said planned parenthood does a lot of good.

Planned Parenthood DOES do a lot of good.

Granted,they reduce the number of drones available to tip your preacher every Sunday,but I see that as a good thing,also. Cults shouldn't be encouraged.

Hond faggot must have really liked this comment from the faggot fromer governor " No, bakers can't deny a wedding cake to same-sex couples. (Apr 2016) "

No, I hate it! It sounds like something that your gay loving, gun grabbing fagot Willard Mitt Romney would say.

YOU vote for the gay, gun grabbing Republicans!