Game Changer

[Wilson Guy]

I am glad to be able to report that a judicial opinion was issued today in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in the matter of Daniel Binderup v. Eric Holder et al.

Mr. Binderup was a prohibited person under federal law due to a sixteen year old conviction for corruption of minors, a misdemeanor of the first degree punishable by up to five years in prison.

An as-applied challenge was brought against Mr. Binderup's prohibition. We argued that the prohibition violated Mr. Binderup's Second Amendment rights. The Judge agreed.

It will be interesting to see if the Federal government appeals. There is now hope for those with minor criminal records for old offenses. We will see where this goes from here.

[jerkin]

Glad to hear it. These lifetime prohibitors are bullshit.

[nfafan]

Glad to hear it. These lifetime prohibitors are bullshit.

Even Canada doesn't have that shit from what I have read.

[knight0334]

Opinion attached

[Tootie]

Great job. So as long as they don't appeal and win is this the door for others to get their rights back?

[jerkin]

Maybe with Holder resigning he will forget about appealing, lol.

[Solaran_X]

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.

[Metz]

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.

Did you miss the corruption of minors part?

[Solaran_X]

Did you miss the corruption of minors part?

I'm talking about in general, not this case in particular.

[jerkin]

I'm glad I read the decision, it's different than any discussion I've read here about it if I am reading it correctly. Basically the plaintiff was convicted of a 1st degree misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of 5 years in prison, however there is no minimum sentence. Now notice how the Federal law reads:

The term “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” does not include --
* * *
(B) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.

Since the charge he was convicted of did not have a minimum sentence the judge ruled that he could, in fact, have been imprisoned for two years or less (which he was, he only got probation) therefore the Federal prohibition does not apply.

He already had his State prohibition lifted before this case so I'm not sure how that works or how this may affect the State prohibition. After reading the judges ruling I don't see how the DOJ could win an appeal, his ruling is consistent with the law.