Changes

If the purchaser answers "Yes", the ATF instructs the gun dealer to refuse to make the sale, without running any further background check.<ref>http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Binderup-v.-Holder_Plaintiffs-Motion-for-Summary-Judgment.pdf</ref>

If the purchaser answers "Yes", the ATF instructs the gun dealer to refuse to make the sale, without running any further background check.<ref>http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Binderup-v.-Holder_Plaintiffs-Motion-for-Summary-Judgment.pdf</ref>

On September 25, 2014, a federal district court upheld the government's position that the federal law covered Binderup, but found that the Second Amendment prohibited applying the law to Binderup in this specific case.<ref>http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Binderup-v.-Holder_Order-Granting-in-Part-Dismissing-as-Moot-in-Part-and-Denying-in-Partl-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf</ref>  On September 9, 2016 the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an '''en banc'' opinion upholding the statutory interpretation of the federal law as applying to these crimes if the maximum penalty is three years even if a particular criminal was sentenced to a shorter period.  On the Constitutional challenge, the Third Circuit upheld the federal statute, but found that Binderup's crime was not so serious as to terminate his Second Amendment rights.<ref>http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Binderup_Precendential-Opinion.pdf</ref>  On June 26, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court denied ''certiorari''.<ref>https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/062617zor_8759.pdf</ref>  

On September 25, 2014, a federal district court upheld the government's position that the federal law covered Binderup, but found that the Second Amendment prohibited applying the law to Binderup in this specific case.<ref>http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Binderup-v.-Holder_Order-Granting-in-Part-Dismissing-as-Moot-in-Part-and-Denying-in-Partl-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf</ref>  On September 9, 2016 the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an ''en banc'' opinion upholding the statutory interpretation of the federal law as applying to these crimes if the maximum penalty is three years even if a particular criminal was sentenced to a shorter period.  On the Constitutional challenge, the Third Circuit upheld the federal statute, but found that Binderup's crime was not so serious as to terminate his Second Amendment rights.<ref>http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Binderup_Precendential-Opinion.pdf</ref>  On June 26, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court denied ''certiorari''.<ref>https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/062617zor_8759.pdf</ref>  

The result is to leave the federal law and its interpretation in tact, but to continue the possibility for case-by-case Second Amendment challenges by individuals who are convicted of "non-serious" crimes that are punishable by sentences of two years or less.

The result is to leave the federal law and its interpretation in tact, but to continue the possibility for case-by-case Second Amendment challenges by individuals who are convicted of "non-serious" crimes that are punishable by sentences of two years or less.