Skip to comments.SAF Sues Eric Holder, FBI Over Misdemeanor Gun Rights Denial
Posted on 10/25/2010 5:39:24 AM PDT by Idabilly
Acting on behalf of a Georgia resident and honorably discharged Vietnam War veteran, the Second Amendment Foundation today filed a lawsuit against Attorney General Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation over enforcement of a federal statute that can deny gun rights to someone with a simple misdemeanor conviction on his record.
(Excerpt) Read more at patriotsforamerica.ning.com ...
I had always heard that you needed to have a felony conviction to lose your rights under the 2nd Amendment - since when does a misdemeanor equate with a felony?
Look for a push to deny gun ownership to the mentally ill, AS DEFINED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
There’s a “new” mental illness out there now, called
“Oppositional Defiance Disorder”.
This is characterized by opposition to government authority.
OK, lessee here...this “lawsuit” is about one individual who claims he is a victim of an archaic Maryland state law and the way the State of Maryland chooses to interpret a misdemeanor conviction that dates back to 1968. I don’t think Eric Holder had graduated from High School then, but we’ll let that one pass for a moment.
This looks like rank opportunism to me, and I do not see any threat to my Second Amendment rights, or anyone other than this one individual. In addition, this looks like someone’s personal blog that is masquerading as some kind of patriotic “foundation” that is in reality trolling for donations, contributions, and free publicity by posting this article here at FR.
Sorry billy, but this one doesn’t even begin to pass my sniff test...
Besides, this guy’s middle name is Wayne!!! =:0
This question appears on ATF form 4473: Have you ever been convicted of the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence? There are several situations other than felony convictions that prohibit persons from possessing firearms and ammunition under Federal law.
Sorry, bud, but this sounds just like what the Zero administration will use to try to deny the rights of as many Americans as possible. Why would you doubt it? If you can lose your rights over a complaint (not even a conviction) of spousal abuse, you should take this seriously. We will die the death of a thousand cuts if we aren’t careful.
Oppositional Defiance Disorder.
This is characterized by opposition to government authority.
Whereas a long-recognized mental illness, homosexuality, is now considered a variation of normal...
Remember, FEEELINGS are for liberals! We should stick to facts and consequences.
Secondly, federal law prohibits possession of firearms based upon the length of the sentence that could have been imposed for any crime that one is convicted of. The question that is asked on the 4473 is: Have you ever been convicted of a felony or a crime that you could have received a sentence of more than one year? Because of Maryland's open ended sentence on what otherwise would have been a simple misdemeanor, this individual cannot lawfully answer "no" to that question and therefore is denied his right to possess firearms, which is BS.
"..Congress passed the first blanket prohibition on felons carrying guns in the Gun Control Act of 1968, which made it illegal for felons to possess a gun any under circumstances. The Firearm Owners' Protection Act, passed in 1986, reinforced the ban on felons carrying guns, and also banned people who have been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment from possessing guns...."
If you ever found yourself within the cross-hairs of the ATF/FBI, I'd feel sorry for you too :)
I know someone that has dealt with them, and it ain't no walk in the park. He was charged with Domestic Violence and later pleaded out on Disturbing the peace. We'll that was no big deal - until - Slick Willy signed the Lautenberg Amendment.
"Just pay the fine and you're free to go," the Judge said. Thankfully, there was this loophole that allowed him to reduce this misdemeanor down to some infraction. If he would have never of pleaded down, he'd be screwed. That reduction only applied to certain convictions, Disturbing the peace being one.
Also, you will find that the list of “prohibited persons” includes those convicted of a misdemeanor which has a maximum possible sentence of greater than ten years. Maryland has one or two of those. No one gets the max, but that is not the issue; just the maximum written into the MD law. This point was made by a very good instructor this past Saturday by an attorney on the Cato Institute staff.
>> This looks like rank opportunism to me, and I do not see any threat to my Second Amendment rights, or anyone other than this one individual.<<
They came first for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Any sentence less than one year would be a misdemeanor, no? Felonies are sentences of more than one year. Then you have those "wobbler's" that can be charged as either.
They are now holding people accountable for crimes that were never committed. For example; if a person is charged for a crime, but convicted of another, they hold the person accountable for the charge. If you were charged with murder and later convicted of jaywalking, that doesn't make you a murderer or a felon.
Unfortunately, the federal government has started using "charging papers" a.k.a police reports and Hearsay to deny your God Given rights. If the "element" of violence is anywhere in the subsection of the plea, the witch hunt begins.
That is not the definition of “misdemeanor”, except in the public’s mind. And I am not addressing the other problems you discuss in your post, just this one.
Do you have documentation of the situation you describe - a person being treated as if he had been convicted of the greater crime?
The Universe of MCDV Offenses
The universe of offenses that could constitute MCDVs includes all misdemeanor offenses that contain either the use of physical force, the attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon as an element, so long as the offense is committed against a person with whom the defendant had a qualifying relationship. As a result, offenses that could constitute MCDVs oftentimes encompass such offenses as generic assault and disorderly conduct.
Many misdemeanor offenses that could qualify as an MCDV have disjunctive elements, such that a conviction may be obtained under the applicable provision either with or without the use or attempted use of physical force or the threatened use of a deadly weapon. For example, a state generic assault statute may provide that a person commits an assault either by using physical force against another person or by verbally threatening another person. Assuming the requisite domestic relationship is present, a conviction under the first prong of the statute would satisfy the MCDV definition, while a conviction under the second prong of the statute would not. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(A)(ii); Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 478.11, 478.32.