Binderup v Sessions

[KLB]

There is another case before the USSC that involves the 2nd Amendment, Binderup v Sessions. Looks like Sessions has picked up the torch from Lynch and is fighting to overturn the 3rd Circuits decision to restore the RKBA to Mr Binderup, who was convicted of having consensual sex with a 17 year old in 1998, misdemeanor corruption of a minor. He was sentenced to three years of probation .

Federal Government Files for Certiorari to Supreme Court Over Its Loss in Second Amendment Case Binderup - Hit & Run : Reason.com
Sessions v. Binderup - SCOTUSblog

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Sessions better knock that **** off or he will have the NRA, GOA, etc. on his ass.

 

[KLB]

Sessions better knock that **** off or he will have the NRA, GOA, etc. on his ass.

Sessions is a big government law and order type.

 

[T.Lex]

Sessions had no choice. The "office" is being sued, so whoever is in the office at the time is who the party is. It looks like cert was actually filed in early January 2017, prior to the inauguration.

Now, Sessions - and the solicitor general - does have a choice in whether/how to litigation it. They could ask that the case be dismissed. Or, they might be continuing it to see how the court rules and get an answer on this. If it goes the wrong way for gun owners, it still allows the opportunity for a legislative fix.

 

[HoughMade]

....If it goes the wrong way for gun owners, it still allows the opportunity for a legislative fix.

Which is better in the long run. Depending on the whims of people in unfashionable black robes...and prosecutors, is dicey. Though, freeing up restrictions on "sex offeneders", which it how it would be portrayed, is seldom popular with the electorate.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Which is better in the long run. Depending on the whims of people in unfashionable black robes...and prosecutors, is dicey. Though, freeing up restrictions on "sex offeneders", which it how it would be portrayed, is seldom popular with the electorate.

It's always easier to find one group to single out, then another, then another, in essence, Niemöllering a society out of its lawful access to its rights, than to take on a whole society at once. So yes, we first remove access to the RKBA to "former felons", which is convenient, since in some places, they have no vote. That went well, so let's take on another group, the "sex offenders". Few in number as compared to society as a whole, and no one wants to step up to defend them. Never mind that all they might have done is to urinate on a wall and be seen doing so, for it to count as the sex crime of exposing oneself/public indecency. The next target was "domestic abusers", even if that's only a misdemeanor crime in some places.

I'm not saying there aren't good reasons that some in those groups need to be segregated from society as a whole. I'm not saying that they're "pure as the driven snow" after their time is served. I'm saying that once they've served time, they should be made whole, and if they cannot ever be trusted again like the rest of us, they should not be among the rest of us.

I'm hopeful that they will either MTD it or that they will assign an attorney to the case who will argue it to the best of his/her ability, but bring up points that move the Court to decide correctly, in favor of rights... if the Court even grants cert.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Sessions had no choice. The "office" is being sued, so whoever is in the office at the time is who the party is. It looks like cert was actually filed in early January 2017, prior to the inauguration.

Now, Sessions - and the solicitor general - does have a choice in whether/how to litigation it. They could ask that the case be dismissed. Or, they might be continuing it to see how the court rules and get an answer on this. If it goes the wrong way for gun owners, it still allows the opportunity for a legislative fix.

Good info, thanks!

 

[edporch]

There will be those who disagree, but I believe that even criminals who've served their sentences shouldn't have their right to self defense stripped from them, UNLESS there's reason to believe they'll commit violent or criminal acts with a firearm.

There are many crimes that have a sentence of over 1 year that aren't violent crimes.

For example, I have a friend of over 35 years who's considered a felon who can't own a gun.
This because of DUI's he got several years ago.

YET, he's one of the most non-violent people I've ever known.
I've never even seen him visibly pissed off in all the years I've known him, let alone commit any violence against anybody.
It's STUPID that he's considered an "unfit" person to own a firearm.

 

[KLB]

There will be those who disagree, but I believe that even criminals who've served their sentences shouldn't have their right to self defense stripped from them, UNLESS there's reason to believe they'll commit violent or criminal acts with a firearm.

There are many crimes that have a sentence of over 1 year that aren't violent crimes.

For example, I have a friend of over 35 years who's considered a felon who can't own a gun.
This because of DUI's he got several years ago.

YET, he's one of the most non-violent people I've ever known.
I've never even seen him visibly pissed off in all the years I've known him, let alone commit any violence against anybody.
It's STUPID that he's considered an "unfit" person to own a firearm.

I agree with you. I am another that does not believe that a free man should be a second class citizen.

There is another case, added onto this one I believe, of someone convicted of a DUI trying to get his rights restored as well.

 

[edporch]

I agree with you. I am another that does not believe that a free man should be a second class citizen.

There is another case, added onto this one I believe, of someone convicted of a DUI trying to get his rights restored as well.

I believe my friend could use the present laws to get his right to own a gun back.
I've even told him that.
But he doesn't have a lot of disposable income at this point to pay an attorney.

 

[KLB]

I believe my friend could use the present laws to get his right to own a gun back.
I've even told him that.
But he doesn't have a lot of disposable income at this point to pay an attorney.

That is sad. A right should not be dependent upon being able to pay for it.