Administration urges SCOTUS to reject 2A claim (Sessions vs. Binderup)

JRLB

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
542
Likes
409
I'm not surprised. Repubs and dems are the same coin just different sides.
 

Reptile

NES Member
Rating - 100%
98   0   0
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
16,259
Likes
6,033
Not good optics to support the gun rights of a 41 year old glazing the 17 year old doughnut at the bakery.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
3,190
Likes
2,795
Location
Worcester, MA
Although these are not the best plaintiffs, this is the disturbing part: "Although the two men pleaded guilty to misdemeanors, their crimes could have been punished by more than a year in jail".
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
2,394
Likes
697
Location
Mass
Not good optics to support the gun rights of a 41 year old glazing the 17 year old doughnut at the bakery.
Screw optics, how about the second amendment protects a RIGHT. Rights should not be removed for minor crimes, if he raped her then convict him of it. If not, and it was probably a matter of her being above the age of consent since statutory rape seems like an easy kill there, then why are we taking his rights?
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
2,394
Likes
697
Location
Mass
Although these are not the best plaintiffs, this is the disturbing part: "Although the two men pleaded guilty to misdemeanors, their crimes could have been punished by more than a year in jail".
Yeah I think this is the misdafelony case that has the potential to fix the mass first time DUI no jail time but permanent rights loss BS.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
3,009
Likes
668
Location
Near Worcester
quote of the century:

Attorney Alan Gura, a gun rights advocate who represents the two men, said he was disappointed but not surprised.
“I am not shocked by it. The government never likes to have its authority limited,” said Gura, a Virginia lawyer who brought the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia vs. Heller,
 
Rating - 100%
29   0   0
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
13,745
Likes
2,158
quote of the century:

Attorney Alan Gura, a gun rights advocate who represents the two men, said he was disappointed but not surprised.
“I am not shocked by it. The government never likes to have its authority limited,” said Gura, a Virginia lawyer who brought the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia vs. Heller,

That pretty much sums this whole thing up.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
60   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
71,474
Likes
33,323
Lol, so much for Trump being pro RKBA. How long did that last, 100 or so days? [rofl] Gives lip service at NRA, now is telling SCOTUS to screw gun owners. The plaintiffs may be half scumbag but the rights being protected here are more important than that.

Of course within a few hours a few resident statism apologists will post in this thread about how "if these guys wanted their rights they shouldn't have broken the lawr" or some garbage like that. If their crimes are that heinous they should have been punished more appropriately- not subjected to the whims of extrajudicial punishment that is carried out without explicit due process protections.

-Mike
 

cockpitbob

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
12,312
Likes
4,535
Location
North of Boston
Is this normal for the WH to be lobbying the SCOTUS? I remember the uproar when Obama admonished the SCOTUS on some topic. I thought the SCOTUS was supposed to be such a separate branch of the .gov that they are almost isolated. They don't talk to or lobby Congress or the WH and vise versa.
 

Chevy 2 65

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2013
Messages
15,319
Likes
6,119
Location
Somewhere in the sands of time
Is this normal for the WH to be lobbying the SCOTUS? I remember the uproar when Obama admonished the SCOTUS on some topic. I thought the SCOTUS was supposed to be such a separate branch of the .gov that they are almost isolated. They don't talk to or lobby Congress or the WH and vise versa.
yes, but don't be fooled. it's for sure happening and always will.
 

JRLB

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
542
Likes
409
It's that statist ***hole Sessions and the justice dept that's doing this, not necessarily the WH.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
60   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
71,474
Likes
33,323
It's that statist ***hole Sessions and the justice dept that's doing this, not necessarily the WH.
Uhh, it is the WH, because Trump appointed the piece of shit, and could also likely give him directives on it that he probably would obey.

Is this normal for the WH to be lobbying the SCOTUS? I remember the uproar when Obama admonished the SCOTUS on some topic. I thought the SCOTUS was supposed to be such a separate branch of the .gov that they are almost isolated. They don't talk to or lobby Congress or the WH and vise versa.
I don't think it's "illegal" per se but it's probably precariously close to some kind of line. Telling the supreme court what to do always had horrible optics surrounding it, regardless of who did it and why they did it.

-Mike
 
Rating - 100%
28   0   0
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
2,330
Likes
2,726
Location
Non-ya
The whole prohibited person thing was written to prevent a certain ethnic group from obtaining firearms!

Shall not be infringed applies to everyone!
Criminals are free men once they serve their time and the right to bear arms shall not be taken from free men!

The founders of this nation were very weary of a standing Federal army.
That is why they wrote the second amendment to guarantee the individual right to keep and bear arms!
They always intended the people be armed and outnumber the standing army as they wanted to avoid what the British had done to their own people!
 
Last edited:

Dennis in MA

NES Member
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
20,461
Likes
11,686
Thankfully:

A) We have momentum on our side for strengthening 2A rights.

B) We have a conservative majority on the court.

C) What Trump or Sessions wants the Court to do is irrelevant. It would be analogous to the SCOTUS to tell Trump to get busy filing some tax legislation ASAP.


Before I was a gun owner, I had a real problem with curtailing rights of people convicted of crimes. At some point, your debt to society is over. Either that or you should be imprisoned for life, however short we are able to make that.

You can decide on an entire class of people based on "well that guy SHOULD have been charged with rape but wasn't." Tough! You can't pick and choose who gets what right on an individual basis.
 
Rating - 100%
29   0   0
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
13,745
Likes
2,158
Lol, so much for Trump being pro RKBA. How long did that last, 100 or so days? [rofl] Gives lip service at NRA, now is telling SCOTUS to screw gun owners. The plaintiffs may be half scumbag but the rights being protected here are more important than that.

Of course within a few hours a few resident statism apologists will post in this thread about how "if these guys wanted their rights they shouldn't have broken the lawr" or some garbage like that. If their crimes are that heinous they should have been punished more appropriately- not subjected to the whims of extrajudicial punishment that is carried out without explicit due process protections.

-Mike

He is pro 2A when it fits the statist agenda not when it restricts .gov power.

Also, this is a longstanding tradition in DC not to scuttle the ongoing lawsuits from previous admins.
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
6,130
Likes
1,434
Location
Presidential ANTIFA Protection Bunker
It's that statist ***hole Sessions and the justice dept that's doing this, not necessarily the WH.
Despite my obvious dislike of Trump, I tend to agree with this.

Trump isn't a gun guy and of course a lot of his 2a support was/is obviously political posturing. We should also see this type of thing coming any time someone says they're the, "law and order" candidate.

However, I definitely think Sessions (whom I admittedly dislike even more than Trump) is behind this. He is a typical statist RINO and he's whispering in Trumps ear bigtime on this.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
3,406
Likes
819
Location
Help I'm steppin' into the twilight zone
Not cool, not cool at all. It really burns my toast that one of the reasons they gave to continue screwing with the 2A is because it would clog up the courts to change now. Well, gee, aint that a shame. Maybe if you ass hats didn't illegally remove people's constitutional rights in the first place you wouldn't be afraid of clogging up the courts to fix it. So if we find hard evidence that a guy on death row is innocent we should not re-open his case because it would clog up the court so we just go ahead and execute him?
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
3,190
Likes
2,795
Location
Worcester, MA
This is just a matter of sucky plaintiffs. There is a saying that "bad facts = bad law". There will be better cases coming up to address this issue. But for the misdemeanor convictions being treated as felonies, I am surprised this case is as far along as it is.
 

EddieCoyle

Consigliere
Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
137   0   0
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
20,939
Likes
7,092
Location
Northern, MA
Despite my obvious dislike of Trump, I tend to agree with this.

Trump isn't a gun guy and of course a lot of his 2a support was/is obviously political posturing. We should also see this type of thing coming any time someone says they're the, "law and order" candidate.

However, I definitely think Sessions (whom I admittedly dislike even more than Trump) is behind this. He is a typical statist RINO and he's whispering in Trumps ear bigtime on this.
Maybe Trump can talk to Sessions's boss.
 

tuna

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
7,684
Likes
9,162
Location
Far North New Hampshire
Well, let's see how this plays out in court. At least it shouldn't be a tie. I'd feel better if Ruthie dropped dead and was replaced before this came up.

I've always said that there should be no limit on a man not in jail from owning a firearm. If he's THAT dangerous - either put him down, or keep him locked up. If parole boards had to think about these animals being able to legally obtain guns (because they know these guys won't get a gun, it's against the law, right?) as soon as they step out of prison, maybe they wouldn't be so quick to release them.
 

JRLB

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
542
Likes
409
Despite my obvious dislike of Trump, I tend to agree with this.

Trump isn't a gun guy and of course a lot of his 2a support was/is obviously political posturing. We should also see this type of thing coming any time someone says they're the, "law and order" candidate.

However, I definitely think Sessions (whom I admittedly dislike even more than Trump) is behind this. He is a typical statist RINO and he's whispering in Trumps ear bigtime on this.
I'm not a Trump guy either. I think he's a giant turd sandwich. I agree Sessions is likely behind this. He doesn't need any prodding from Trump.
 

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
32   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,887
Likes
2,530
The solicitor general's job (he was asked by SCOTUS to file a reply when AG sessions failed to do so) is to fight to retain whatever laws/regs that the legislature and executive branch put in place. This has nothing to do with Trump. Anyone who is stating that this SG's response reflects the policy wishes of the Trump admin is shoveling fake news...

Oh, and you can bet that's why documents filed with the court months ago are now just being touted as Trump hating on the 2A. Someone wanted to make gun owners hate Trump right about now. Mission Accomplished, if this thread is to be believed...
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,294
Likes
3,993
Location
My forest stronghold
For the sake of continuity, this really should have been added to the existing Binderup thread.

This isn't surprising at all given that this is the certiorari stage. It's highly unusual for the government to NOT defend it's laws and you typically only see it with very public and political issues. A good example is when the Obama administration failed to defend DOMA. And, at this point, the government isn't actually defending the law, they're just trying to keep SCOTUS from taking the case. We'll get a better sense of where the Session DOJ and Trump administration stand if SCOTUS actually grants cert. and they actively try to defend that law. But, I do believe they'll continue to defend it.

Although these are not the best plaintiffs, this is the disturbing part: "Although the two men pleaded guilty to misdemeanors, their crimes could have been punished by more than a year in jail".
No, actually Binderup is a very good plaintiff. If you want to challenge these types of prohibitions you're not going to be able to do it with an Eagle Scout. By definition your plaintiffs are going to be from the scratch and dent crowd.

Is this normal for the WH to be lobbying the SCOTUS? I remember the uproar when Obama admonished the SCOTUS on some topic. I thought the SCOTUS was supposed to be such a separate branch of the .gov that they are almost isolated. They don't talk to or lobby Congress or the WH and vise versa.
This isn't lobbying. The federal government, represented by the Attorney General and the President are parties to this law suit. During the certiorari stage, the direct parties (here Binderup and the Federal Government) try to convince the court to take the case and grant cert. or not. Others, who are not direct parties to the case also weigh in trying to sway the court one way or the other by filing amici briefs. Comm2A has filed a number of these with the Supreme Court over the years, both on our own are in concert with other state organizations.

If SCOTUS grants cert., this cycle starts all over again with the direct parties and amici all filing a new set of briefs.

As others have pointed out, this is a critical issue for Massachusetts because of the Commonwealth's longstanding efforts to exclude as many people as possible from the Second Amendment. Even now, we're waiting on the First Circuit for a decision in a very similar case - Morin v. Leahy.
 
Top Bottom