Game Changer

[Wilson Guy]

Hello Gents-

The Court turned us down on the statutory construction argument regarding "two years or less". The Court expressly found that Mr. Binderup's Second Amendment rights were violated by the prohibition as the court found he poses no more of a danger than someone never convicted of a crime.

Yes, if the government does not appeal this decision or prevail on appeal, this opens the door for many prohibited persons with old non-violent convictions to sue for the restoration of their rights.

We have another similar case pending in the Middle District of Pennsylvania for another similarly situated individual. We will see how that one goes too.

The corruption of minors charge stemmed from having consensual sex with a 17 year old girl. There was no violence indicated in Mr. Binderup's case.

Regards,

Douglas Gould

[Noah_Zark]

The corruption of minors charge stemmed from having consensual sex with a 17 year old girl. There was no violence indicated in Mr. Binderup's case.

I've known some 17 yr old girls who could be charged with corruption of an adult . . .

Great job, Mr. Gould!

Noah

[IIIIIREPOIIIII]

Did you miss the corruption of minors part?

That is such a BS blanket charge!

[bosco]

This is great news. I'm sure there is a lot of people like myself that has an old conviction (mine is over 20 years ago) that was non violent and will now have a chance to restore their gun rights.

Well done and keep up the good work!!

[ungawa]

I've known some 17 yr old girls who could be charged with corruption of an adult . . .

Not guilty!

[GeneCC]

The only people I believe who should have a lifetime prohibition on owning firearms are those with violent offenses on their record. Assault and battery. Rape. Murder.

Of course, people like that should also be locked up for life.

No nonviolent offense should ever be considered a prohibitor for owning a firearm.

Including drug possession charges.... victimless crimes are not basis for denial of rights.

[PAMedic=F|A=]

The only people I believe who should have a lifetime prohibition on owning firearms are those with violent offenses on their record. Assault and battery. Rape. Murder.

Of course, people like that should also be locked up for life.

No nonviolent offense should ever be considered a prohibitor for owning a firearm.

False.

Someone may commit assault with just cause. Such as: I fucked you wife in your child's bed well you were in Iraq. If you beat the shit out of me, it would be a crime, but I would deserve it.


If someone has committed a crime serious enough that they can not be trusted with BASIC human rights, such as the right to self defense, then their crime is serious enough that they can not be trusted in public. They should be incarcerated until since time has they have become trustworthy, or they should be executed. The rights are inalienable, sacrosanct, inviolable - and can be diminished from no one, regardless of circumstance.

[rouschkateer]

THANK YOU, Daniel, for opening the door for others to regain the RIGHT as an American to regain the ability to carry legally.

That's a sentence we should never have to type.

I am following up with SAF for my husband, who is also legally barred from purchasing due to a small, non-violent, prior offense.

[Metz]

That is such a BS blanket charge!

Very true. And it was clarified above.

[Action Jackson]

I believe the mentally incompetent, such as Obama and Holder, should be prohibited.