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

[firestorm]

I would rather have someone with an old OUI than a history of porking the underage.

While technically a minor if she was above the age of consent, which according to a writeup of this elsewhere I found she was, then why are we worried about it? People above the age set by the state to consent to such things should be able to do what they please yes? The whole corrupting a minor thing reeks of "He didn't break a real law, we need to get him with something" especially when it comes with lifetime firearms prohibition.

Bad enough when peoples lives are ruined over a fake rape allegation pushed by the parents of a consenting girl, or statutory rape nonsense where someone winds up a sex offender because he had sex with his high school girlfriend and both were under age of consent.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

While technically a minor if she was above the age of consent, which according to a writeup of this elsewhere I found she was, then why are we worried about it? People above the age set by the state to consent to such things should be able to do what they please yes? The whole corrupting a minor thing reeks of "He didn't break a real law, we need to get him with something" especially when it comes with lifetime firearms prohibition.

Bad enough when peoples lives are ruined over a fake rape allegation pushed by the parents of a consenting girl, or statutory rape nonsense where someone winds up a sex offender because he had sex with his high school girlfriend and both were under age of consent.

The particulars are highly relevant here when it comes to Pennsylvania law. Interesting timing because the Volokh Conspiracy highlighted another Pennsylvania under age case earlier this week: When you can legally have sex with a 17-year-old, can you be prosecuted for possessing lewd nude photos of her? For those who don't want to read the write-up, the answer is 'yes'. If she's old enough to have sex with you, you can have nude pictures of her .

 

[Coyote33]

Wait, wasn't another Trump thread closed because of the Trump Mega thread? Why is this one still going? Also, please just merge them all together. Not only does it make the tracking easier, it makes them more "fun" and "interesting", when things get co-mingled.

 

[crazymjb]

Sessions sucks, I'm not sure why anyone is surprised.

Mike

 

[EddieCoyle]

Wait, wasn't another Trump thread closed because of the Trump Mega thread? Why is this one still going? Also, please just merge them all together. Not only does it make the tracking easier, it makes them more "fun" and "interesting", when things get co-mingled.

Junior Moderator.

This is about a SCOTUS case.

 

[MAGA99]

Fake news.

 

[EddieCoyle]

Fake news.

Do you have something to back up this assertion, or are you just trolling?

 

[MAGA99]

Do you have something to back up this assertion, or are you just trolling?

Source = LA Times

Fake news

Obama pressures other branches, non-story. Someone thinks that trump might have thought about talking to someone, he's pressuring other branches, run the story.

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-guns-trump-20170525-story.html

Saw this on my phone this morning. I'm not as avid a follower of the courts as some here. Thoughts?

Interesting read, thanks for posting.

I am in agreement with those that say that time served should mean rights restored. We are defending the right not the man.

 

[drgrant]

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...

I see what you are getting at- how the news source slightly mischaracterized this by omission; but what if they simply failed to respond? Let's pretend for a moment that we had a president better than trump; that thought that this law was offensive and the AG thought the law was offensive; could they simply step aside or not file a response? Or issue a response that they believed the law was unconstitutional?

-Mike

 

[browncoat]

I see what you are getting at- how the news source slightly mischaracterized this by omission; but what if they simply failed to respond? Let's pretend for a moment that we had a president better than trump; that thought that this law was offensive and the AG thought the law was offensive; could they simply step aside or not file a response? Or issue a response that they believed the law was unconstitutional?

-Mike

They could, just as Obama had the justice department not only fail to defend but actually argue against federal law.

Sent from my m8whl using Tapatalk

 

[Carl in Ct]

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...

This is a point I had not considered. Interesting.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

I learned many years ago that oftentimes incoming administrations have found themselves in situations where they have had to defend court cases that they felt were wrong especially when they are on the government side of the case. I believe Obama found himself on the wrong side of a few court cases when he started as president. I think it's a relic of the very slow nature that courts work at. I also don't believe that Trump won't be able to no show or somehow jeopardize the government position. He is still obligated to fully defend the government position.

 

[firestorm]

I learned many years ago that oftentimes incoming administrations have found themselves in situations where they have had to defend court cases that they felt were wrong especially when they are on the government side of the case. I believe Obama found himself on the wrong side of a few court cases when he started as president. I think it's a relic of the very slow nature that courts work at. I also don't believe that Trump won't be able to no show or somehow jeopardize the government position. He is still obligated to fully defend the government position.

I'm not sure they are obligated, but at the same time if they don't it will not simply wipe out the law. Remember that if they drop their appeal and let the lower court's ruling sit it only applies to those in that district and even then will probably require other lawsuits from those that want the protection of it. If they bring it to SCOTUS and the government loses, then it applies nationwide.

I have no reason to believe that this administration cares this much, but its possible that having it go to the supreme court and then the government making a crappy or nonsense argument would be a better way for them to lose a case they didn't want to defend in the first place.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

I have no reason to believe that this administration cares this much, but its possible that having it go to the supreme court and then the government making a crappy or nonsense argument would be a better way for them to lose a case they didn't want to defend in the first place.

I'm pretty sure that they can't do that. That's why Obama was ticked off having to defend some anti-leftist cases when he first became president. I believe that also happened to Clinton as well in the 90's.

 

[wahsben]

Govt.wants power. The more the better. The 2A is about keeping that power in check. In my lifetime which spans over 6 decades I've never known the govt. to fully support the 2A. They keep ignoring the shall not be infringed part.

 

[endus]

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.

Sorry! I did search but didn't see it. My bad.

Thanks for your input, always appreciate the professional perspective!

 

[enbloc]

Odd name Bindherup...

 

[Coyote33]

Junior Moderator.

This is about a SCOTUS case.

OK, sorry, my mistake.

I saw "Administration" in the title, and the referenced article entitled "Trump lawyers ask Supreme Court to reject 2nd Amendment claim by men who lost gun rights over nonviolent crimes", and thought it was about Trump.

 

[GlockJock]

BTW: I called this six months ago: http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...p-Megathread?p=5355062&viewfull=1#post5355062

Jeezuz did you ever....Many of us probably saw your post and said "Meh, he's either drinking or he's just Fruit Loops" or whatever....and now here we are, with half our torso under a bus...

 

[cmcgraw2]

Busy day for the RKBA


U.S. top court rejects appeal of felon gun ownership ruling

The justices let stand a lower court's 2016 ruling that suggested denying felons whose crimes were not serious the right to own guns violated the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, which protects the right to "keep and bear arms." That ruling, which allows individuals to challenge the prohibition as applied to them, was a blow to gun control advocates, while the Trump administration called it a threat to public safety.

Liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have granted the appeal to hear the case.

 

[JAD]

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?

One of the tricky things is that Pennsylvania 1st degree misdemeanors, which is what this case involves, are not "minor crimes" that happen to be prohibitive because of minor differences in definition (like the plethora of Massachusetts misdemeanors which are prohibitive because because of the potential for a 2.5 year sentence vice a 2 year sentence). Pennsylvania gross misdemeanors are punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment and while some do correspond with crime that are traditionally misdemeanors (e.g. simple assault) many others do correspond with crimes that are traditionally felonious in other states (e.g. child endangerment, 3d offense midtier DUI/ 2d offense top tier DUI, carrying a concealed firearm without a permit, certain forms of sexual assault, etc....)

 

[firestorm]

One of the tricky things is that Pennsylvania 1st degree misdemeanors, which is what this case involves, are not "minor crimes" that happen to be prohibitive because of minor differences in definition (like the plethora of Massachusetts misdemeanors which are prohibitive because because of the potential for a 2.5 year sentence vice a 2 year sentence). Pennsylvania gross misdemeanors are punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment and while some do correspond with crime that are traditionally misdemeanors (e.g. simple assault) many others do correspond with crimes that are traditionally felonious in other states (e.g. child endangerment, 3d offense midtier DUI/ 2d offense top tier DUI, carrying a concealed firearm without a permit, certain forms of sexual assault, etc....)

Well then fix the laws. If they are so different, then they should not all be disqualifiers. I don't agree with the felon in possession BS anyway, but that's a thing that isn't going to be fixed in my lifetime. The issue is you should not lose your rights over minor nonsense, if they want to use those laws to take people's rights then split the minor stuff into another category and let it go that way. It sucks they have it set up like that, but that's the fault of those who write the laws and they generally don't care about the rest of us when they do it.

 

[42!]

Well then fix the laws. If they are so different, then they should not all be disqualifiers. I don't agree with the felon in possession BS anyway, but that's a thing that isn't going to be fixed in my lifetime. The issue is you should not lose your rights over minor nonsense, if they want to use those laws to take people's rights then split the minor stuff into another category and let it go that way. It sucks they have it set up like that, but that's the fault of those who write the laws and they generally don't care about the rest of us when they do it.

Of course in MA we take away your rights even if you've never been convicted on anything, SUITABILITY. So it's a little hard for me to see this case, where they were convicted, as have ever having had a chance.

 

[firestorm]

Of course in MA we take away your rights even if you've never been convicted on anything, SUITABILITY. So it's a little hard for me to see this case, where they were convicted, as have ever having had a chance.

Yeah but things like this are the way to get change. This is the same nonsense that makes a first offense DUI into a felony for firearms purposes but does not allow an appeal to get your rights back because you never lost voting rights due to it being a misdemeanor. The feds will not give back your rights unless you have lost all of them and they can give back all of them, this is a step in the right direction.

I don't know how this works though, it was refused cert so it is not binding outside the third circuit where the last decision was, right? Does that do any good for those outside the third, as in can someone sue in say the first circuit and cite this case as a precedent?

 

[drgrant]

Of course in MA we take away your rights even if you've never been convicted on anything, SUITABILITY. So it's a little hard for me to see this case, where they were convicted, as have ever having had a chance.

I doubt this case has anything to do with Suitability. At least you can simply move away from that bullshit. Or sometimes even to just a different town in MA.

Suitability clause sucks in MA, but it's not a life-ender. PP status etc, is definitely 1000 times worse.

-Mike

 

[42!]

Ah the "just move" solution. Well I've been looking for over a year but haven't landed anything in NH yet. So it's not so easy, my resume is posted on NES as well, do you, or anyone have a job for me?

I doubt this case has anything to do with Suitability. At least you can simply move away from that bullshit. Or sometimes even to just a different town in MA.

Suitability clause sucks in MA, but it's not a life-ender. PP status etc, is definitely 1000 times worse.

-Mike

eta: Yes I know it has nothing to do with suitability. It's just hard to focus on a case where there was a conviction when MA is taking rights without one.

 

[Spanz]

(like the plethora of Massachusetts misdemeanors which are prohibitive because because of the potential for a 2.5 year sentence vice a 2 year sentence). Pennsylvania gross misdemeanors are punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment ....)

Maybe THIS is what the SCOTUS should take up, the huge variation in minor offenses, pleaded down because they are b.s. or very minor....should NOT have the maximum potential sentence count. Like you get hauled in for DUI, they make you take a drivng course, but they COULD have jailed you for 2 years IF you were John Dillinger, so for the rest of your life you are screwed.

Exactly WHEN did God come down and decide to circumvent your constitutional rights for minor offenses?