Jump to content


Photo

Binderup et al v. Attorney General et al (CA3 - Restoration of Gun Rights)


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,457 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 09 September 2016 - 11:28 AM

As applied challenge to the blanket prohibition on felons owning firearms. The opinion is 170+ pages, I've attached it as there are multiple concurrence and what have you. Three judges held that the presumption that felons may not own a firearm may be rebutted if they are law-abiding citizens after their crimes. Five judges held that there should be no categorical ban on non-violent felons owning firearms. Interestingly, all of the judges in the five judge majority are Republican appointees and 6 of the 7 Democratic appointees were in the dissent. One of the Dems in the three-judge majority crossed ideological lines. Attached is the opinion. I expect the government to petition SCOTUS, which will hear the case.

This was Gura's handiwork.

http://cloud.tapatal...889/144549p.pdf


Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Edited by skinnyb82, 09 September 2016 - 11:31 AM.

NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#2 Jeffrey

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,672 posts
  • Joined: 10-January 08

Posted 09 September 2016 - 01:04 PM

And I thought it was the Democrats that more firmly believe in second, third, fourth...chances.


...and justice for all

YOUR WALLET, the only place Democrats care to drill

#3 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,457 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 09 September 2016 - 01:19 PM

Reading Judge Hardiman's concurrence, I wish Hillary luck in regulating firearms our of existence. Discussing the Heller opinion,

"A nineteenth century authority quoted by the Supreme Court in the paragraph preceding this conclusion should eliminate any doubt regarding the Court’s categorical approach: 'A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional.' Id. (quoting State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616–617 (1840)) (emphases added); see also Bliss v. Com., 12 Ky. 90, 91 (1822) (suggesting that a regulation that 'import[s] an entire destruction of the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves the state' would be plainly unconstitutional). Hence, a law that burdens persons, arms, or conduct protected by the Second Amendment and that does so with the effect that the core of the right is eviscerated is unconstitutional."

The last sentence says if all. Any statute or regulation that burdens the core 2A right is per se unconstitutional as it destroys the right. That's huge.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#4 DoverGunner

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,721 posts
  • Joined: 13-March 13

Posted 09 September 2016 - 02:36 PM

Reading Judge Hardiman's concurrence, I wish Hillary luck in regulating firearms our of existence. Discussing the Heller opinion,

"A nineteenth century authority quoted by the Supreme Court in the paragraph preceding this conclusion should eliminate any doubt regarding the Court’s categorical approach: 'A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional.' Id. (quoting State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616–617 (1840)) (emphases added); see also Bliss v. Com., 12 Ky. 90, 91 (1822) (suggesting that a regulation that 'import[s] an entire destruction of the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves the state' would be plainly unconstitutional). Hence, a law that burdens persons, arms, or conduct protected by the Second Amendment and that does so with the effect that the core of the right is eviscerated is unconstitutional."

The last sentence says if all. Any statute or regulation that burdens the core 2A right is per se unconstitutional as it destroys the right. That's huge.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Skinnyb82

This question is not Rhetorical

So why are the Federal Judges making rulings that are in my opinion Highly unconstitutional



#5 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,058 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 09 September 2016 - 02:54 PM

The last sentence says if all. Any statute or regulation that burdens the core 2A right is per se unconstitutional as it destroys the right. That's huge.

It would be huge if there was any consistency or respect for 2nd Amendment within the judiciary. For every decision like this, there are dozens to the contrary, and SCOTUS will not enforce the 2nd to any more degree than they have. Reading between the lines of the Caetano concurrence, and directly addressed in Thomas' dissent of the Highland Park cert, is that SCOTUS does like like their own precedent and will not enforce it.

I'm glad to see the decision but don't have much hope that it will go anywhere especially after the SCOTUS loss on domestic reckless conduct.
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#6 GTX63

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,032 posts
  • Joined: 19-June 13

Posted 09 September 2016 - 03:08 PM

Just magnifies the importantance of the next round of Federal and Scotus vacancies.



#7 chibooey

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 692 posts
  • Joined: 01-October 13

Posted 09 September 2016 - 05:48 PM

Just magnifies the importantance of the next round of Federal and Scotus vacancies.

 

 

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Totally agree!

 

THIS ELECTION IS THE KEY!   VOTE EARLY, VOTE OFTEN, IT IS THE CHICAGO WAY!


Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did. So throw off your bowlines. Sail away from safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore, Dream, Discover.  

(Attributed to Mark Twain but unconfirmed.)

 

 


#8 DoverGunner

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,721 posts
  • Joined: 13-March 13

Posted 09 September 2016 - 07:54 PM

 

Reading Judge Hardiman's concurrence, I wish Hillary luck in regulating firearms our of existence. Discussing the Heller opinion,

"A nineteenth century authority quoted by the Supreme Court in the paragraph preceding this conclusion should eliminate any doubt regarding the Court’s categorical approach: 'A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional.' Id. (quoting State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616–617 (1840)) (emphases added); see also Bliss v. Com., 12 Ky. 90, 91 (1822) (suggesting that a regulation that 'import[s] an entire destruction of the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves the state' would be plainly unconstitutional). Hence, a law that burdens persons, arms, or conduct protected by the Second Amendment and that does so with the effect that the core of the right is eviscerated is unconstitutional."

The last sentence says if all. Any statute or regulation that burdens the core 2A right is per se unconstitutional as it destroys the right. That's huge.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Skinnyb82

This question is not Rhetorical

So why are the Federal Judges making rulings that are in my opinion Highly unconstitutional

 

BUMP for Skinnyb82



#9 TomKoz

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,767 posts
  • Joined: 04-February 10

Posted 10 September 2016 - 06:58 AM

I'll bite.

Because they are liberal progressive pukes who have forgotten history. But mostly, because there aren't enough folks with the balls that our Founding Fathers had.

I wonder what our Founding Fathers would have been doing by now? Didn't one of them talk about needing to water the Tree of Liberty (or something like that) every so often?
Stay Alert ... Stay Alive !!

#10 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,457 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 10 September 2016 - 07:46 AM

The Ambro opinion specifically referenced Hardiman's concurrence, saying they strongly disagree with the Hardiman concurrence on that very point. Judge Hardiman is one of the most vocal 2A circuit judges I have ever seen. He's also one of Trump's potential SCOTUS nominees. He drafted that scathing dissent in Drake v. Filko, the challenge to the New Jersey may (not) issue scheme. He is an originalist like Thomas and Scalia, someone we desperately need on the Supreme Court. One of our favorite circuit judges out of CA7, Judge Diane Sykes, the judge who eviscerated Chicago during orals in Ezell, is also on Trump's short list. One can only hope that we see one of these (or any of the other judges he has shortlisted) be confirmed to the Supreme Court next year. The final sentence of Jefferson's letter to William Stephens Smith is oft quoted, however I believe this is the most meaningful portion: "The people can not be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong [. . .] will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty." Voter apathy, lethargy created by the entitlement state we live in, the schools in which the Communist Manifesto is the #1 book for (what I'm guessing) college macroeconomics and in the top three books on professors' lists of assigned reading on syllabi, the media feeding bovine manure to the masses who eat it and ask for seconds are a direct threat to liberty and the Republic. The Democrats expect that voters be ill-informed, ignorant as to their outlandish actions. I find it to be hilarious that Hillary just had her 47% moment, unloading during a speech, calling Trump supporters a "basket of deplorables," who are "racist," "sexism," "xenophobic," "Islamophobic" and the like to describe Trump supporters, otherwise known as half of this country. The woman's campaign is imploding and she doesn't or can't (the truth sucks, doesn't it?) see it because she is blinded by her own arrogance and hubris. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#11 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,502 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 10 September 2016 - 03:23 PM

According to Obama not hiring ex cons is inherently racist and I would argue that refusing to restore the gun rights of ex cons would equally inherently racist.


Virgin Mobile runs through Sprint towers anyone interested can sign up for virgin mobile through the following link.
https://refer.virgin...usa.com/7eoz3TQ

#12 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,457 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 15 September 2016 - 07:21 AM

According to Obama not hiring ex cons is inherently racist and I would argue that refusing to restore the gun rights of ex cons would equally inherently racist.

+1 times 500

Shows the blatant hypocrisy of the left. You deserve a second chance at everything other than firearm ownership. And these "low-level drug offenders" he has been releasing from federal prison using commutations, they're not low-level (they're only low-level compared to other inmates in federal prison for trafficking, the ones who are in for life due to murder in commission or furtherance of an illegal activity, aka aggravating factors). That's why they're in federal prison, because the volume of narcotics seized met or exceeded the statutory amount needed to make it a federal offense. One guy from Rock Island whose sentence was commuted was caught with several (dozen) kilos of coke. Others, heroin, crack, meth, prescription drugs (ObamaCare is to blame for the opiate abuse epidemic but that's another story). Oh, yes, drug traffickers aren't dangerous people at all. I've met legit traffickers, went to a quinceanera when I was visiting college friends and let's just say I would not consider crossing one of these individuals. If they're not dangerous then what's the problem with allowing them to own firearms once their sentences have been completed. They are allowed to vote, a right that has the potential to do far more damage than any gun could do.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with giving people like Binderup and Suarez a second chance where the offender committed a non-violent offense, one which is a federal disqualifier, and said offender has become a bona fide law-abiding citizen for....long enough to show the crime was an aberration, a mistake chalked up to being a stupid teenager, once-in-a-lifetime thing, and it hadn't and will not happen again (like Messrs. Binderup and Suarez. What I do have a problem with are an indefinite or unlimited amount of chances.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#13 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 155 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 10 January 2017 - 04:43 PM

Here is a link to the cert petition.

 

According to the SCOTUS docket, the response is due on February 6th.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users