MA DUI prohibition in federal court

[KBCraig]

I searched the forum for "Baginsky" and didn't find this. The conviction was for a Mass DUI, but it looks like the case originated elsewhere.

http://reason.com/blog/2017/01/09/federal-government-files-for-certiorari

. . . . Alan Gura, who won two previous Supreme Court cases for Second Amendment rights, Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010), is one of Binderup's lawyers. The constitutional issue being argued was whether that 922(g)(1) prohibition should cover people whose crimes present no evidence of danger to the public, especially given the post-Heller environment in which gun ownership is recognized as a core constitutional right.

. . . .

The application of 922(g)(1) is being fought by Gura in more cases than just Binderup. Gura is also fighting Baginsky v. Lynch, currently at the District Court for D.C. and awaiting a decision on a federal motion to dismiss. Baginsky's sole conviction barring gun ownership was a DUI conviction in Massachusetts, where that crime is potentially punishable for two and a half years imprisonment (though he actually got less than two).

 

[Palladin]

go get 'em Alan !

 

[terraformer]

No one heard about Baginski because we were keeping it quiet... Oh well, there goes that plan. There will be one more MA related one coming soon.

 

[terraformer]

And just now, a status conference has been set for this month.
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 1/10/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 14 before Judge Rudolph Contreras. (tj)

No decision will be made this week though.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Since the cat's out of the bag, here's the complaint and the government's MTD.

 

[MachineHead]

Since the cat's out of the bag, here's the complaint and the government's MTD.

Is it standard to include a "[PROPOSED] ORDER" with an MTD? Seems a little presumptuous.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Is it standard to include a "[PROPOSED] ORDER" with an MTD? Seems a little presumptuous.

Not unusual at all.

 

[evolved]

So, there is light at the end of the tunnel!

 

[Picton]

Good work, boys!

 

[knfmn]

I would love to see all lifetime prohibitions for crimes go away. Once you've served your time, you should be able to resume exercising your natural rights immediately. It's time to wipe out a bunch of the unconstitutional bullshit that has gotten pushed through and accepted over the past 100+ years. The founding fathers did not have any "excepts" built into the rights enumerated.

 

[tuna]

I would love to see all lifetime prohibitions for crimes go away. Once you've served your time, you should be able to resume exercising your natural rights immediately. It's time to wipe out a bunch of the unconstitutional bullshit that has gotten pushed through and accepted over the past 100+ years. The founding fathers did not have any "excepts" built into the rights enumerated.

+10000000000

Either someone has paid their debt to society and is rehabilitated, or not. If you say someone is too dangerous to allow to purchase a firearm, why are you allowing him out of jail? Bernie Madoff is a great example of this - he did nothing violent, but if he ever gets out of prison his life will be in jeopardy, so why shouldn't he be able to defend himself?

 

[terraformer]

The government filed a motion to dismiss and it was granted in part today on one of two counts alleged. Lets call this the statutory part and its a bit wonkish but lets say that it would help none of us in MA if it was to succeed. The constitutional question of this case goes forward for another day.

 

[Palladin]

not good

 

[terraformer]

not good

No, it's fine. The statutory argument is not strong. Good ridden, lets move on to the real meat.

 

[MuzzleDiscipline]

No, it's fine. The statutory argument is not strong. Good ridden, lets move on to the real meat.

Is it correct to understand that to mean they have reduced the issue to whether or not it is constitutional to prohibit a person for an isolated event?

 

[terraformer]

Is it correct to understand that to mean they have reduced the issue to whether or not it is constitutional to prohibit a person for an isolated event?

Yes, basically that is the case now.

 

[firestorm]

Yes, basically that is the case now.

Thats great if it removes other parts that could cloud the issue.

 

[evolved]

<---- fingers still crossed...

 

[Rob Boudrie]

It is always best for a gun case to concentrate on a single point. Otherwise, if you raise point A and point B, the court can just ignore one point and rule against you on both mentioning only one point.

For example, the court held that an LTC was not protected in MA because it allows carry - and totally ignored the argument that it should be protected because it is the minimum license that allows possession in the home.

 

[RoterTeufel]

bump.

Where is this at?

 

[terraformer]

bump.

Where is this at?

It will be a few months before something changes.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

I would love to see all lifetime prohibitions for crimes go away. Once you've served your time, you should be able to resume exercising your natural rights immediately. It's time to wipe out a bunch of the unconstitutional bullshit that has gotten pushed through and accepted over the past 100+ years. The founding fathers did not have any "excepts" built into the rights enumerated.

+ 1 brother !!!

- - - Updated - - -

It will be a few months before something changes.

thank you for the follow up

 

[Rob Boudrie]

This case does not address the issue of the feds not recognizing a FLRB relief for a MA OUI, since such relief does not restore rights that were never lost.

If the case goes well, that issue will relevant. If not, it provides an attack surface - provided we can find someone who was granted FLRB relief; obtained an LTC; was turned down for NICS (and, the important part), never touched a gun or ammo since their OUI conviction (so the feds cannot counter with a felon in possession charge to neutralize the plaintiff).

 

[42!]

I would love to see all lifetime prohibitions for crimes go away. Once you've served your time, you should be able to resume exercising your natural rights immediately. It's time to wipe out a bunch of the unconstitutional bullshit that has gotten pushed through and accepted over the past 100+ years. The founding fathers did not have any "excepts" built into the rights enumerated.

I would love to see all the lifetime prohibitions for suitability go away.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Today's denial of cert in Binderup means that this case can now move forward. Today's actions include:

• A notice of supplemental authority
• Order denying defendant's motion to stay
• Status report due by 7/10

Game on!