Case Summary
**Case Summary: Binderup v. Attorney General, Docket No. 2672841**
**Court:** United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
**Date:** The case was decided on June 26, 2017.
**Background:**
The case of Binderup v. Attorney General primarily revolves around the Second Amendment rights of individuals who have been convicted of non-violent felonies. The plaintiffs, including Binderup and others, challenged the constitutionality of a federal law that prohibits individuals with felony convictions from possessing firearms. The law in question is based on the federal Gun Control Act, which disarms individuals who have been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for over one year, effectively barring many from exercising their Second Amendment rights.
**Facts:**
- Binderup had been convicted of a non-violent felony in Pennsylvania several years prior to the filing of the lawsuit.
- Upon applying to purchase a firearm, Binderup was denied based on his felony conviction.
- The plaintiffs argued that their non-violent felony convictions did not justify a permanent loss of their right to bear arms.
- They contended that the law violated their Second Amendment rights and sought judicial relief to restore their rights.
**Legal Issues:**
- The primary legal issue at stake was whether the federal prohibition on firearm possession for individuals with felony convictions applied to non-violent felons and if such a prohibition was constitutional.
- The case also examined the historical understanding of the Second Amendment and the implications of categorically barring non-violent felons from possessing firearms.
**Decision:**
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Binderup, holding that the law does not apply to non-violent felons in a blanket manner. The court held that individual assessments must be made to determine whether a person’s circumstances or the nature of their felony conviction justified the loss of Second Amendment rights. The ruling emphasized that non-violent felons may not pose a significant threat to public safety and, therefore, should not face automatic disarmament.
**Impact:**
The ruling in Binderup v. Attorney General set a precedent for how courts would evaluate the Second Amendment rights of non-violent felons and highlighted the need for an individualized approach to firearm possession rights. It opened the door for other individuals with similar convictions to challenge firearm restrictions based on their specific circumstances.
**Conclusion:**
The Binderup case underscores the ongoing legal debate regarding the balance between public safety and individual constitutional rights, particularly concerning the Second Amendment. It illustrates the complexities involved in legislating and adjudicating firearm rights in the context of felony convictions, particularly when those convictions are not related to violence.