BELLEVUE, WA –-(Ammoland.com)- The Second Amendment Foundation has quietly won a significant federal court victory in a Pennsylvania case in which the judge has ruled that a man convicted of a serious misdemeanor crime several years ago, but who has demonstrated that he “would present no more threat to the community” than an average law-abiding citizen, may not lose his Second Amendment rights under a federal gun control statute known as 922(g)(1).
The ruling, by Judge James Knoll Gardner for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, says that application of that statute to the plaintiff, Daniel Binderup, “violates the Second Amendment.”
“This case could provide a building block upon which similar cases in which people are convicted of non-violent misdemeanors might be challenged because they have lost their right to keep and bear arms as a result,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “Under existing federal law, many people convicted of state-level misdemeanors have lost their Second Amendment rights, essentially because they’ve been lumped together with convicted felons.
“One should not lose his or her constitutional rights for certain non-violent indiscretions that occur once in a lifetime,” he added.
Following his guilty plea in 1998, Binderup lost his Second Amendment rights and disposed of all of his firearms legally. In November 2013, he filed a complaint against Attorney General Eric Holder and B. Todd Jones, director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. SAF provided legal support through attorneys Alan Gura and Douglas T. Gould.
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
I was attacked by the BATF…Charged as a convicted felon in possession under 922 g 1 and the there is and was evidence that was altered by the ATF, A denial form from a gun store that purformed the back ground check was altered by them after they secured a copy of the original…falsified evidence went before a Grand Jury to get an indictment…Who is watching this…Hope someone sees it, My case was under this Very Judge mentioned in this Article.
While any regulation curtailing in any way the right to bear arms is unconstitutional, the expression,”a man convicted of a serious misdemeanor crime several years ago, but who has demonstrated that he “would present no more threat to the community”than an average law-abiding citizen, may not lose his Second Amendment rights under a federal gun control statute known as 922(g)(1).”, means the past offender is recognized to be competent and respeonsible to excersize his undertaking of his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. This basic idea of individual empowerment and accountability is what our Constitution is all about. The progressives… Read more »
There are far too many “crimes” that can debar one the use of arms. Victimless crimes should NOT be disabling. In my county it is a felony to shoot a feral cat, even a wild,homeless nuisance cat. Shooting is legal in msst areas, but not cats. Some bleeding heart cat lover got that one pushed through. As a felony “crime” one’s right to arms would be gone if convicted. Crimes that are merely technical violations that harm no one directly, or even indirectly, must NOT be used to deny one’s right to arms. This is a great step toward resolving… Read more »
That is absolutely correct, “Unalienable rights” cannot be taken away by law, or under the federal Constitution at least, they cannot be infringed.
Further, there is not actually any real evidence to show that prohibiting felons from owning a firearm (which only recently came into effect with the “assault weapon ban” anyhow) has had any impact on the crime rate either. This is probably because convicted felons typically just get their guns illegally, and carry on with further crimes – if they are so inclined – anyway.
If our rights are truly inalienable, then none of them should be lost, not even for a felony.
2nd A., “…shall not be infringed.” Where in the US Constitution does it say anyone must permanently lose their Rights after being convicted of a crime? Once a person has “paid they’re debt to society” where does it say your right to keep and bear arms is gone forever? Where do the state and federal governments find such power enumerated in the Constitution?