Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fed Court Denies Navy Veteran From Owning Gun Due To 1968 Misdemeanor
CBS DC ^ | 1/11/2013 | unknown

Posted on 01/12/2013 2:12:05 PM PST by middlegeorgian

Edited on 01/12/2013 3:46:02 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]

WASHINGTON (AP) ó A federal appeals court says a Maryland veteran canít own a gun because of a misdemeanor assault conviction more than four decades ago.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Friday turned away an appeal from 68-year-old Navy veteran Jefferson Wayne Schrader, who sued after failing a 2008 background check.


(Excerpt) Read more at washington.cbslocal.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; US: Maryland
KEYWORDS: banglist; govtabuse; guncontrol; maryland; secondamendment; tyranny

1 posted on 01/12/2013 2:12:15 PM PST by middlegeorgian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: middlegeorgian

Move dude.


2 posted on 01/12/2013 2:13:55 PM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mylife

He’d have to move out of the country, it’s a federal law at issue. (The infamous, and nefarious, Lautenburg amendment.)


3 posted on 01/12/2013 2:16:42 PM PST by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: middlegeorgian

rights require no permits

permits mean someone gave you permission... and that same someone can deny your G-d given second amendment rights

gun permits are, by definition, unConstitutional


4 posted on 01/12/2013 2:16:42 PM PST by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: middlegeorgian

A fist fight from 40 years ago? This is just an excuse to keep guns out of citizens hands.


5 posted on 01/12/2013 2:17:01 PM PST by middlegeorgian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sten

Gun control laws are also unconstitutional, FWIW. (Which isn’t much these days.)


6 posted on 01/12/2013 2:18:56 PM PST by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: middlegeorgian

Behold the power of the Lautenburg amendment. “Reasonable, modest, common-sense” restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. Something more than 40 years ago, that carries a smaller fine than a speeding ticket, prohibits someone from owning a gun for life. (At least, after the law was passed. And it was retroactive.)


7 posted on 01/12/2013 2:22:33 PM PST by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: middlegeorgian

As far as I’m concerned, anyone too dangerous to own a gun is someone too dangerous to walk free.

We need to go back to keeping dangerous criminals in prison and handing guns back over to inmates they release.


8 posted on 01/12/2013 2:25:46 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: middlegeorgian

We should point this out...it was forty years ago as a sailor. In most states, you would have been released to the commander, and no state paperwork done.


9 posted on 01/12/2013 2:26:14 PM PST by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: middlegeorgian; All

The Lautenburg amendment deals with domestic violence, not other assault convictions.


10 posted on 01/12/2013 2:30:09 PM PST by Anoreth (It's not a great party until someone loses rank.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: middlegeorgian

Since we’re no long a nation of laws (laws for thee, but none for me crap), he should just go buy one off the street like the gang-bangers do.


11 posted on 01/12/2013 2:34:43 PM PST by lgjhn23 (It's easy to be liberal when you're dumber than a box of rocks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: middlegeorgian
Equal Protection Of The Law

n. the right of all persons to have the same access to the law and courts and to be treated equally by the law and courts, both in procedures and in the substance of the law. It is akin to the right to due process of law, but in particular applies to equal treatment as an element of fundamental fairness. The most famous case on the subject is Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) in which Chief Justice Earl Warren, for a unanimous Supreme Court, ruled that "separate but equal" educational facilities for blacks were inherently unequal and unconstitutional since the segregated school system did not give all students equal rights under the law. It will also apply to other inequalities such as differentials in pay for the same work or unequal taxation. The principle is stated in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution: "No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

the state has deprived this man of his right to keep and bear arms despite the fact that millions of other Americans with misdemeanor assault convictions rightfully retain their legal right to keep and bear arms. How is this equal protection of the law?

12 posted on 01/12/2013 2:35:05 PM PST by RC one (.From My Cold Dead Hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: middlegeorgian

A fist fight from 40 years ago? This is just an excuse to keep guns out of citizens hands
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Not trying to give anybody any ideas, but those that have been diagnosed PTSD-Military and receiving a VA pension may fall under this kind of idiocy.

Remember from a few years back when they were giving boys, who were acting like boys in school, Ritalin or whatever ‘control drug’ was in fashion, were denied access to enlisting.


13 posted on 01/12/2013 2:35:09 PM PST by xrmusn (6/98 "It is virtually impossible to clean the pond as long as the pigs are still crapping in it")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: coloradan

When did the Lautenberg amendment go into effect?


14 posted on 01/12/2013 2:39:13 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: coloradan

I do think calling $1000 in 1968 money less than a speeding ticket is pushing it a bit—that would be well over $6000 today.


15 posted on 01/12/2013 2:39:52 PM PST by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
.. and fined $100
16 posted on 01/12/2013 2:45:00 PM PST by tomkat (HELL NO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: middlegeorgian

I know a man who left the scene of an accident back in 1939. Everyone knew the accident was not his fault but he still got prison time.

Then he was let out and given a gun to kill Nazis with Patton’s Third Army. He became a productive citizen and never had trouble with the law.

He owned a gun off and on until 1968 when he became ineligible due to the 1968 Gun control law.


17 posted on 01/12/2013 2:45:19 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Click my name! See new paintings!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: middlegeorgian

This is only the beginning. Once the full background check regime is in place, our “representatives” will tighten the noose until no one can pass a background check. The have their national licensing system now.


18 posted on 01/12/2013 2:54:42 PM PST by Chainmail (A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: middlegeorgian

This is only the beginning. Once the full background check regime is in place, our “representatives” will tighten the noose until no one can pass a background check. The have their national licensing system now.


19 posted on 01/12/2013 2:54:52 PM PST by Chainmail (A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: middlegeorgian

Free men don’t ask permission.


20 posted on 01/12/2013 2:59:02 PM PST by elkfersupper ( Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: middlegeorgian

You know, this kind of thing doesn’t make sense.

Either someone is a danger to society or he isn’t.

And if someone is a danger to society then he should be taken off the streets altogether.

But if someone’s acts do not justify his being taken of the streets, then he should be left alone to enjoy the same rights as any free citizen.


21 posted on 01/12/2013 3:00:17 PM PST by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: middlegeorgian

If the old Squid could get in contact with me, I’d sell him a weapon today...


22 posted on 01/12/2013 3:02:38 PM PST by SgtBob (Freedom is not for the faint of heart. Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SgtBob

G. Gordon Liddy said that he did not own any firearms. His wife owns them all, and there is one in every room.


23 posted on 01/12/2013 3:10:29 PM PST by Psalm 144 (Capitol to the districts: "May the odds be ever in your favor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: middlegeorgian

I thought misdemeanor crimes had punishments of a year or less.


24 posted on 01/12/2013 3:16:51 PM PST by VanShuyten ("a shadow...draped nobly in the folds of a gorgeous eloquence.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tomkat; coloradan

Ah, jeez—how did I misread that?

My apologies to coloradan, who was quite right!


25 posted on 01/12/2013 3:26:42 PM PST by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144

True, but my point is a private sale, is what it is....private.

Cheers!


26 posted on 01/12/2013 3:27:33 PM PST by SgtBob (Freedom is not for the faint of heart. Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: coloradan

The Lautenberg amendment is the one that denies firearms possession to a person classified a “domestic violence offender,” regardless of the penalty. The fellow in the OP is covered by a different clause in the federal morass of infringement on the RKBA; “has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.”


27 posted on 01/12/2013 3:36:06 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: middlegeorgian

Can Mr. Schrader get his record expunged?


28 posted on 01/12/2013 3:39:51 PM PST by novemberslady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: novemberslady
-- Can Mr. Schrader get his record expunged? --

He can ask.

Keep in mind, this isn't just the court ruling (which is obnoxious), but there is a federal prosecutor on the other side, pushing the argument that this man is not fit to possesses a firearm.

There are literally hundreds of cases like this, and quite a few where the courts beclown themselves. They get away with it because they have the power.

I am of the firm view that the federal courts are deliberately intellectually corrupt when it comes to the RKBA. Unfaithful to the law, etc.

29 posted on 01/12/2013 3:44:45 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
I did an expungement for someone a couple of years ago.

It wasn't difficult, just tedious.

Maybe the prosecutor is really out to get him.
30 posted on 01/12/2013 3:52:04 PM PST by novemberslady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: xrmusn

“Remember from a few years back when they were giving boys, who were acting like boys in school, Ritalin or whatever ‘control drug’ was in fashion, were denied access to enlisting.”

Wow..They use to give that stuff out like penny candy..!


31 posted on 01/12/2013 3:58:11 PM PST by unread
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: middlegeorgian

Ex post facto law.


32 posted on 01/12/2013 3:58:30 PM PST by Spirochete (Sic transit gloria mundi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eva
When did the Lautenberg amendment go into effect?

I seem to recall that this law was made retroactive, so it doesn't much matter.

Not that it's right, but that's the way it is.

33 posted on 01/12/2013 4:01:01 PM PST by cayuga (The next Crusade will be a war of annihilation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: middlegeorgian
Rent-a-Gun-

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to rent and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

34 posted on 01/12/2013 4:05:57 PM PST by bunkerhill7 ( yup!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: middlegeorgian
A fist fight forty years ago.......I guess he'd be lucky he still had his fists in today's bat-shit crazy country.

FMCDH(BITS)

35 posted on 01/12/2013 4:05:59 PM PST by nothingnew (I fear for my Republic due to marxist influence in our government. Open eyes/see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spirochete
Ex post facto law.

And that's why the bill's sponsor, everyone in Congress who voted for it and all the judges who approved it should be hung from lampposts.

36 posted on 01/12/2013 4:47:20 PM PST by cayuga (A gov't that can take your AR-15 can take anything else it wants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: middlegeorgian

The person who wrote that headline needs to enroll in an adult literacy program.


37 posted on 01/12/2013 5:26:54 PM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: middlegeorgian; Abundy; Albion Wilde; AlwaysFree; AnnaSASsyFR; bayliving; BFM; ...

Maryland “Freak State” PING!


38 posted on 01/12/2013 9:14:28 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Happy New Year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: middlegeorgian

I despise the way the elite gets to choose what citizens can protect himself and his family and who cannot. This is not how it’s supposed to happen. I don’t see any qualifiers or rather disqualifiers in the 2A!


39 posted on 01/13/2013 6:06:08 AM PST by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cayuga

>>When did the Lautenberg amendment go into effect?
>
>I seem to recall that this law was made retroactive, so it doesn’t much matter.

It very much does — any Law which alters punishments already given (sentencing) to a greater amount is an Ex Post Facto law.
See Caulder v. Bull.


40 posted on 01/13/2013 5:29:44 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson