Supreme Court agrees, non-violent offenses don't strip your 2nd Amendment Rights...

[JimBowie1958]

Yep.....even the Supreme Court realizes that it is the violent, repeat offenders who are the problem.....they let stand a lower court ruling restoring the gun rights to non-violent criminal offenders....


Maybe if the anti-gunners cared more about stopping actual, violent criminals....we could lower the crime rate even more than we have....


Supreme Court agrees non-violent misdemeanor crimes may not strip 2A rights

This week, the court declined to take up an appeal sought by the Obama-era Justice Department in the cases of Binderup v. the U.S. Attorney General and Suarez v. the U.S. Attorney General. Four Justices were needed to grant the petition but only two, Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, felt the court should hear the case.

Last September, a 15-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pennsylvania disagreed 8-7, siding with Binerup and Suarez in a lengthy 174-page decision. In the end, that panel cited the relatively minor sentences passed on the two men as the reason to disregard their crimes as being serious enough to void their gun rights.

Binderup pleaded guilty in 1996 in Pennsylvania to a misdemeanor charge of corrupting a minor — a 17-year-old he was in a relationship with — to which he received three years’ probation and a $300 fine rather than the maximum of five years in prison.

Suarez pleaded guilty in 1990 to unlawfully carrying a handgun without a license in Maryland, which could have resulted in as much as three years in prison but instead received an 180-day suspended sentence and $500 fine.

While neither spent a day in jail, both lost their firearms rights under a federal law that treats those convicted of state misdemeanors which can be punished by two or more years in jail as prohibited firearms possessors.

In the decades since their voluntary pleas, both men have been crime free and wanted to obtain legal guns to defend themselves and their families within their homes, forcing them to take up the matter in the courts.

So i wonder if this will negate the provision in federal law that strips gun rights from those charged with domestic violence crimes since it does not require a conviction?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yep.....even the Supreme Court realizes that it is the violent, repeat offenders who are the problem.....they let stand a lower court ruling restoring the gun rights to non-violent criminal offenders....


Maybe if the anti-gunners cared more about stopping actual, violent criminals....we could lower the crime rate even more than we have....


Supreme Court agrees non-violent misdemeanor crimes may not strip 2A rights

This week, the court declined to take up an appeal sought by the Obama-era Justice Department in the cases of Binderup v. the U.S. Attorney General and Suarez v. the U.S. Attorney General. Four Justices were needed to grant the petition but only two, Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, felt the court should hear the case.

Last September, a 15-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pennsylvania disagreed 8-7, siding with Binerup and Suarez in a lengthy 174-page decision. In the end, that panel cited the relatively minor sentences passed on the two men as the reason to disregard their crimes as being serious enough to void their gun rights.

Binderup pleaded guilty in 1996 in Pennsylvania to a misdemeanor charge of corrupting a minor — a 17-year-old he was in a relationship with — to which he received three years’ probation and a $300 fine rather than the maximum of five years in prison.

Suarez pleaded guilty in 1990 to unlawfully carrying a handgun without a license in Maryland, which could have resulted in as much as three years in prison but instead received an 180-day suspended sentence and $500 fine.

While neither spent a day in jail, both lost their firearms rights under a federal law that treats those convicted of state misdemeanors which can be punished by two or more years in jail as prohibited firearms possessors.

In the decades since their voluntary pleas, both men have been crime free and wanted to obtain legal guns to defend themselves and their families within their homes, forcing them to take up the matter in the courts.

So i wonder if this will negate the provision in federal law that strips gun rights from those charged with domestic violence crimes since it does not require a conviction?

Either SCOTUS would need to rule directly on it, or the Congress would have to end the law.

 

[2aguy]

Nonsense, Blaylock, none of the Bill of Rights amendments are absolute.

The state has a legitimate right to set certain standards regarding the purchase, owning, and bearing of firearms.

SCOTUS was correct in ruling that non-violent misdemeanors should not void one's right to purchase, own, and bar firearms.

The Second Amendment is absolutely clear on the matter of to whom the right to keep and bear arms belongs. It does not belong to the states.

Your deflection is noted. You have moved from a states rights conservative to a progressive big government liberal position. Your logic insists then that the federal government and its branches should make all decisions concerning the interpretations of the Bill of Rights.

You are now philosophically a big government progressive.

Any moron, if he wants to find out if the Amendments are absolute, can human sacrifice as part of his religion or carry a weapon into a government building and refuse to disarm when ordered to do so.

No...dipshit....there is a check and balance...when the federal government violates individual Rights, the States have to act, when the states violate individual Rights, like they did when the democrat party kept blacks from voting with poll taxes and literacy tests, the federal government has to step in...

That is how our system was set up...doofus....

 

[2aguy]

Yep.....even the Supreme Court realizes that it is the violent, repeat offenders who are the problem.....they let stand a lower court ruling restoring the gun rights to non-violent criminal offenders....


Maybe if the anti-gunners cared more about stopping actual, violent criminals....we could lower the crime rate even more than we have....


Supreme Court agrees non-violent misdemeanor crimes may not strip 2A rights

This week, the court declined to take up an appeal sought by the Obama-era Justice Department in the cases of Binderup v. the U.S. Attorney General and Suarez v. the U.S. Attorney General. Four Justices were needed to grant the petition but only two, Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, felt the court should hear the case.

Last September, a 15-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pennsylvania disagreed 8-7, siding with Binerup and Suarez in a lengthy 174-page decision. In the end, that panel cited the relatively minor sentences passed on the two men as the reason to disregard their crimes as being serious enough to void their gun rights.

Binderup pleaded guilty in 1996 in Pennsylvania to a misdemeanor charge of corrupting a minor — a 17-year-old he was in a relationship with — to which he received three years’ probation and a $300 fine rather than the maximum of five years in prison.

Suarez pleaded guilty in 1990 to unlawfully carrying a handgun without a license in Maryland, which could have resulted in as much as three years in prison but instead received an 180-day suspended sentence and $500 fine.

While neither spent a day in jail, both lost their firearms rights under a federal law that treats those convicted of state misdemeanors which can be punished by two or more years in jail as prohibited firearms possessors.

In the decades since their voluntary pleas, both men have been crime free and wanted to obtain legal guns to defend themselves and their families within their homes, forcing them to take up the matter in the courts.

So i wonder if this will negate the provision in federal law that strips gun rights from those charged with domestic violence crimes since it does not require a conviction?

It will have to go to court...also, this puts the kabosh on a no fly list ban.....

 

[ShootSpeeders]

We need to redefine what a felony is. Right now it's a crime for which you could have gotten a year or more in prison. That's a very low bar and should be raised to say 15 years.

 

[Preacher]

Yep.....even the Supreme Court realizes that it is the violent, repeat offenders who are the problem.....they let stand a lower court ruling restoring the gun rights to non-violent criminal offenders....


Maybe if the anti-gunners cared more about stopping actual, violent criminals....we could lower the crime rate even more than we have....


Supreme Court agrees non-violent misdemeanor crimes may not strip 2A rights

This week, the court declined to take up an appeal sought by the Obama-era Justice Department in the cases of Binderup v. the U.S. Attorney General and Suarez v. the U.S. Attorney General. Four Justices were needed to grant the petition but only two, Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, felt the court should hear the case.

Last September, a 15-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pennsylvania disagreed 8-7, siding with Binerup and Suarez in a lengthy 174-page decision. In the end, that panel cited the relatively minor sentences passed on the two men as the reason to disregard their crimes as being serious enough to void their gun rights.

Binderup pleaded guilty in 1996 in Pennsylvania to a misdemeanor charge of corrupting a minor — a 17-year-old he was in a relationship with — to which he received three years’ probation and a $300 fine rather than the maximum of five years in prison.

Suarez pleaded guilty in 1990 to unlawfully carrying a handgun without a license in Maryland, which could have resulted in as much as three years in prison but instead received an 180-day suspended sentence and $500 fine.

While neither spent a day in jail, both lost their firearms rights under a federal law that treats those convicted of state misdemeanors which can be punished by two or more years in jail as prohibited firearms possessors.

In the decades since their voluntary pleas, both men have been crime free and wanted to obtain legal guns to defend themselves and their families within their homes, forcing them to take up the matter in the courts.

Want to hear some bullshit?
In 2005 I was charged with Criminal Damage to Property (sisters BF and I got in argument I kicked his car several times leaving dents like 3,000$ damage) I was offered and pled guilty and was given 3 years probation or off as soon as I paid to fix the car AND was given first offenders act which means it gets erased from record once I was done. Tried to buy a gun legally an fed gov blocked me but state of Georgia where it happened says I am free and clear to do so. I was told I can try and appeal it all but the government office I needed to send it to wasn't funded anymore so I never bothered. NEVER been arrested for another VIOLENT crime since then...few misdemeanor crap for tickets and not paying fines etc but still can't get one legally. I refuse to let government tell me what I can and can not do.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Want to hear some bullshit?
In 2005 I was charged with Criminal Damage to Property (sisters BF and I got in argument I kicked his car several times leaving dents like 3,000$ damage) I was offered and pled guilty and was given 3 years probation or off as soon as I paid to fix the car AND was given first offenders act which means it gets erased from record once I was done. Tried to buy a gun legally an fed gov blocked me but state of Georgia where it happened says I am free and clear to do so. I was told I can try and appeal it all but the government office I needed to send it to wasn't funded anymore so I never bothered. NEVER been arrested for another VIOLENT crime since then...few misdemeanor crap for tickets and not paying fines etc but still can't get one legally. I refuse to let government tell me what I can and can not do.

So i take it your initial crime was classed as a felony and yet you never did any prison time?.!! That BS needs to end. Felony is supposed to mean a serious crime and certainly not a crime so minor it didn't even warrant a day in prison.

 

[Preacher]

Want to hear some bullshit?
In 2005 I was charged with Criminal Damage to Property (sisters BF and I got in argument I kicked his car several times leaving dents like 3,000$ damage) I was offered and pled guilty and was given 3 years probation or off as soon as I paid to fix the car AND was given first offenders act which means it gets erased from record once I was done. Tried to buy a gun legally an fed gov blocked me but state of Georgia where it happened says I am free and clear to do so. I was told I can try and appeal it all but the government office I needed to send it to wasn't funded anymore so I never bothered. NEVER been arrested for another VIOLENT crime since then...few misdemeanor crap for tickets and not paying fines etc but still can't get one legally. I refuse to let government tell me what I can and can not do.

So i take it your initial crime was classed as a felony and yet you never did any prison time?.!! That BS needs to end. Felony is supposed to mean a serious crime and certainly not a crime so minor it didn't even warrant a day in prison.

Yes. Because it was over so much damage money wise it was a felony. I believe I could have been given 3 years I remember looking it up. I agree 100%.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Your deflection is noted. You have moved from a states rights conservative to a progressive big government liberal position. Your logic insists then that the federal government and its branches should make all decisions concerning the interpretations of the Bill of Rights.

You are now philosophically a big government progressive.

Any moron, if he wants to find out if the Amendments are absolute, can human sacrifice as part of his religion or carry a weapon into a government building and refuse to disarm when ordered to do so.

Not agreeing to allow any part of government to usurp a power that the Constitution explicitly denies to all levels of government and reserves explicitly to the people, makes me “philosophically a big government progressive”? The closest I can come to making any sense of this is to see it as a form of the principle expressed in Orwell's triplet…

Freedom of slavery!
War is peace!
Ignorance is strength!​

In fact, that first pairing, “Freedom is slavery!”, is almost exactly what you just said, in different words.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Blaylock and 2aguy recognize the Big Government progressive philosophy (using government to make social, economic, cultural, political etc. changes) they are embracing, sure, I agree with you. NYC should not have that power.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

We need to redefine what a felony is. Right now it's a crime for which you could have gotten a year or more in prison. That's a very low bar and should be raised to say 15 years.

That doesn't really do it. All government then needs to do is increase the penalty fora given crime, and it can create new felonies.

I think that a felony needs to be defined by its actual or intended impact—as a crime that causes Or is intended to cause significant, genuine, tangible harm.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your deflection is noted. You have moved from a states rights conservative to a progressive big government liberal position. Your logic insists then that the federal government and its branches should make all decisions concerning the interpretations of the Bill of Rights.

You are now philosophically a big government progressive.

Any moron, if he wants to find out if the Amendments are absolute, can human sacrifice as part of his religion or carry a weapon into a government building and refuse to disarm when ordered to do so.

Not agreeing to allow any part of government to usurp a power that the Constitution explicitly denies to all levels of government and reserves explicitly to the people,makes me “philosophically a big government progressive”? The closest I can come to making any sense of this is to see it as a form of the principle expressed in Orwell's triplet…

Freedom of slavery!
War is peace!
Ignorance is strength!​

In fact, that first pairing, “Freedom is slavery!”, is almost exactly what you just said, in different words.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yep.....even the Supreme Court realizes that it is the violent, repeat offenders who are the problem.....they let stand a lower court ruling restoring the gun rights to non-violent criminal offenders....


Maybe if the anti-gunners cared more about stopping actual, violent criminals....we could lower the crime rate even more than we have....


Supreme Court agrees non-violent misdemeanor crimes may not strip 2A rights

This week, the court declined to take up an appeal sought by the Obama-era Justice Department in the cases of Binderup v. the U.S. Attorney General and Suarez v. the U.S. Attorney General. Four Justices were needed to grant the petition but only two, Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, felt the court should hear the case.

Last September, a 15-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pennsylvania disagreed 8-7, siding with Binerup and Suarez in a lengthy 174-page decision. In the end, that panel cited the relatively minor sentences passed on the two men as the reason to disregard their crimes as being serious enough to void their gun rights.

Binderup pleaded guilty in 1996 in Pennsylvania to a misdemeanor charge of corrupting a minor — a 17-year-old he was in a relationship with — to which he received three years’ probation and a $300 fine rather than the maximum of five years in prison.

Suarez pleaded guilty in 1990 to unlawfully carrying a handgun without a license in Maryland, which could have resulted in as much as three years in prison but instead received an 180-day suspended sentence and $500 fine.

While neither spent a day in jail, both lost their firearms rights under a federal law that treats those convicted of state misdemeanors which can be punished by two or more years in jail as prohibited firearms possessors.

In the decades since their voluntary pleas, both men have been crime free and wanted to obtain legal guns to defend themselves and their families within their homes, forcing them to take up the matter in the courts.

Yawn

 

[JimBowie1958]

Blaylock and 2aguy recognize the Big Government progressive philosophy (using government to make social, economic, cultural, political etc. changes) they are embracing, sure, I agree with you. NYC should not have that power.

View attachment 136050

Damn, a whole army of Moochelles.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Supreme Court agrees non-violent misdemeanor crimes may not strip 2A rights

Yawn

Whassa matta pumkin, the words too big for ya?

Not enuff pickshurs?

roflmao

 

[ShootSpeeders]

We need to redefine what a felony is. Right now it's a crime for which you could have gotten a year or more in prison. That's a very low bar and should be raised to say 15 years.

That doesn't really do it. All government then needs to do is increase the penalty fora given crime, and it can create new felonies.

I think that a felony needs to be defined by its actual or intended impact—as a crime that causes Or is intended to cause significant, genuine, tangible harm.

"significant, genuine, tangible harm.". Pretty vague, don't you think,?