Skip to comments.Fed Court Denies Navy Veteran From Owning Gun Due To 1968 Misdemeanor
Posted on 01/12/2013 2:12:05 PM PST by middlegeorgianEdited 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 ...
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.
If the old Squid could get in contact with me, I’d sell him a weapon today...
G. Gordon Liddy said that he did not own any firearms. His wife owns them all, and there is one in every room.
I thought misdemeanor crimes had punishments of a year or less.
Ah, jeez—how did I misread that?
My apologies to coloradan, who was quite right!
True, but my point is a private sale, is what it is....private.
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.”
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.
“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..!
Ex post facto law.
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.
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.
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.
The person who wrote that headline needs to enroll in an adult literacy program.
Maryland “Freak State” PING!
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!
>>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.