18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) prohibits the purchase and possession of firearms and ammunition by any person convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison. Congress defined the term “punishable by more than one year in prison” to exclude state law misdemeanors punishable by less than two years imprisonment, but include state law misdemeanors punishable by more than two years imprisonment. In other words, if the crime is punishable by two years and a day or more of potential incarceration, an individual is federally stripped of their right to keep and bear arms.
The Plaintiffs were two individuals who had been convicted of state law misdemeanors that fell into Section 922(g)(1)’s purview. Plaintiff Daniel Binderup was convicted of the Pennsylvania misdemeanor of corrupting a minor, which was punishable by up to five years imprisonment, for his consensual relationship with a 17-year-old. Binderup, who had no other criminal record, received a sentence of three years’ probation and was never imprisoned. Plaintiff Julio Suarez had been convicted in Maryland for carrying a revolver without a license – a state law misdemeanor which was punishable by up to three years in prison. Suarez, who had no other relevant convictions in his criminal record, received a suspended sentence and was never imprisoned.
Binderup and Suarez brought challenges to 922(g)(1)’s prohibition against their ability to purchase and possess firearms and ammunition in federal court, arguing that the law violated the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Third Circuit En Banc held that § 922(g)(1) was unconstitutional as-applied and affirmed the District Court’s Decision, which granted summary judgments in favor of Binderup and Suarez.
Third Circuit Precendential Opinion
Case Team: Alan Gura, Douglas Gould
Recent Docket Activity
June 26th, 2017
NOTICE of U.S. Supreme Court disposition at No. 16-847. Petition for Writ of Ceriorari filed by Attorney General United States of America denied on 06/26/2017. Justice Ginsburg and Justice Sotomayor would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari. [14-4549, 14-4550] --[Edited 06/26/2017 by AWI] [Entered: 06/26/2017 03:03 PM]
June 26th, 2017
NOTICE of U.S. Supreme Court disposition at No. 16-847. Petition for Writ of Ceriorari filed by Attorney General United States of America denied on 06/26/2017. Justice Ginsburg and Justice Sotomayor would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari. [14-4549, 14-4550, 15-1975, 15-1976] --[Edited 06/26/2017 by AWI] [Entered: 06/26/2017 03:03 PM]
June 26th, 2017
NOTICE of U.S. Supreme Court disposition at No. 16-983. Petition for Writ of Ceriorari filed by Daniel Binderup, et al. denied on 06/26/2017. Justice Ginsburg and Justice Sotomayor would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari. [15-1975, 14-4549, 14-4550, 15-1976] [Entered: 10/15/2018 11:27 AM]
February 8th, 2017
NOTICE from U.S. Supreme Court. Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed by Daniel Binderup, et al. on 02/06/2017. Supreme Court Case No. 16-983. [15-1975, 15-1976, 14-4549, 14-4550]--[Edited 10/15/2018 by LML] [Entered: 02/10/2017 08:07 AM]
January 6th, 2017
NOTICE from U.S. Supreme Court. Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed by Attorney General United States of America on 01/05/2016 and placed on the docket on 01/05/2017. Supreme Court Case No. 16-847. [14-4549, 14-4550] [Entered: 01/06/2017 02:46 PM]
January 6th, 2017
NOTICE from U.S. Supreme Court. Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed by Attorney General United States of America on 01/05/2017. Supreme Court Case No. 16-847. [14-4549, 14-4550] [Entered: 01/06/2017 02:46 PM]
December 1st, 2016
U.S. Supreme Court Letter dated 11/21/2016 granting Appellant/Cross- Appellee Attorney General United States of America in 14-4549, & 14-4550 an extension of time to and including 01/05/2017 to file petition for writ of certiorari. Supreme Court Application No. 16A510. [14-4549, 14-4550] [Entered: 12/01/2016 11:17 AM]



