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) — A federal appeals court says a Maryland veteran can’t 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 ...
Move dude.
He’d have to move out of the country, it’s a federal law at issue. (The infamous, and nefarious, Lautenburg amendment.)
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
A fist fight from 40 years ago? This is just an excuse to keep guns out of citizens hands.
Gun control laws are also unconstitutional, FWIW. (Which isn’t much these days.)
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.)
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.
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.
The Lautenburg amendment deals with domestic violence, not other assault convictions.
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.
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?
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.
When did the Lautenberg amendment go into effect?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Free men don’t ask permission.
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.
Cheers!
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.
FMCDH(BITS)
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.
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.