This is gonna be a good one.
SAF SUES ERIC HOLDER, FBI OVER MISDEMEANOR GUN RIGHTS DENIAL
http://www.facebook.com/SecondAmendment ... 1918505247
http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=344
http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=344
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.
The lawsuit was filed in United States District Court for the District of Columbia. SAF and co-plaintiff Jefferson Wayne Schrader of Cleveland, GA are represented by attorney Alan Gura, who successfully argued both the Heller and McDonald cases before the U.S. Supreme Court..............
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Good for the SAF for holding these folks to the law of the land, ergo the Constitution.
The feds were never empowered to deny someone's second amendment rights. Time to revisit Heller and strike down some Federal laws.
opcorn: This is gonna be a good one.... opcorn:
It really is. I wonder what they're shooting for here. I mean, would this case have broad-sweeping implications (like heller/mcdonald) or would it just let that guy get his hands on a gun? I hope it does the latter, obviously, but I wonder if they're going after something bigger at the same time.smn said:This is gonna be a good one.
Not a 'fify' but I like that one better and believe it's in closer keeping with the Founder's intentions. 8)smn said:[s:3oqh0dti]The feds were[/s:3oqh0dti] No one was ever Constitutionally empowered to deny someone's second amendment rights. Time to revisit Heller and strike down some Federal laws.
Even a felon should have the right to defend his life, if need be.
Yes it is! I'm really excited to see how this turns out.smn said:This is gonna be a good one.
opcorn:
This is the most pumped I have gotten all day! SAF is getting a check from me pretty soon.
Wonder if he has a GWL?
Maybe we can find the guy and find out MP. I sent a link to a local businessman who knows a lot of people around Cleveland to see if he recognizes the name.
Meanwhile, the NRA is endorsing candidates that protect the status quo.
What about prisons?smn said:The feds were never empowered to deny someone's second amendment rights. Time to revisit Heller and strike down some Federal laws.
Just sayin'.
I do think the SAF will win this one, as denying 2A rights for misdemeanors is pretty ridiculous.
When in prison you're in the care and custody of the state/feds. Even from the Heller decision, restrictions on the 2A for felons and mentally ill were not doubted. Misdemeanants were not listed.ookoshi said:What about prisons?smn said:The feds were never empowered to deny someone's second amendment rights. Time to revisit Heller and strike down some Federal laws.
Just sayin'.
I do think the SAF will win this one, as denying 2A rights for misdemeanors is pretty ridiculous.
So which federal law imposes a sales restriction on a misdemeanant?DC v. Heller said:Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
The lead plaintiff in the case is Jefferson Schrader of Cleveland, GA. He is an honorably-discharged Navy vet who had a simple misdemeanor conviction for assault and battery in 1968. He paid $109 including costs as a fine. His other option was 30 days in jail. He had been attacked by a gang member and he fought back.
I just did a blog post on this case and it goes into a lot more detail including the Federal laws in question.
http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2010/10/schrader-et-al-v-holder-et-al.html
At the time Maryland law had no maximum for this crime. I think they changed this in 2002 and put a maximum of 10 years (if you can believe it).
I just did a blog post on this case and it goes into a lot more detail including the Federal laws in question.
http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2010/10/schrader-et-al-v-holder-et-al.html
At the time Maryland law had no maximum for this crime. I think they changed this in 2002 and put a maximum of 10 years (if you can believe it).
I think the restriction is not against felonies, but against crimes with maximum sentences longer than a year. Typically, that only includes felonies, but apparently this state had a situation where they had no statutory maximum and the new maximum is 10 years, therefore DQing this guy.smn said:When in prison you're in the care and custody of the state/feds. Even from the Heller decision, restrictions on the 2A for felons and mentally ill were not doubted. Misdemeanants were not listed.ookoshi said:What about prisons?smn said:The feds were never empowered to deny someone's second amendment rights. Time to revisit Heller and strike down some Federal laws.
Just sayin'.
I do think the SAF will win this one, as denying 2A rights for misdemeanors is pretty ridiculous.
So which federal law imposes a sales restriction on a misdemeanant?DC v. Heller said:Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
I really wonder what the implications would be of this case (if won, obviously). Would it be narrowly defined to remove prohibitions on open-ended sentence misdemeanors like this guy got arrested for? Or could it possibly be expanded to address bigger prohibitions?
his crime is another form of how our justice system is a pile of @#[email protected]#$. Why should a man be charged with assualt when its @#[email protected]#$ obvious he was either attacked or harassed by gang members or someone that posed a threat to him? This happens all the time.
What this shows is a gun grabbing state can declare a maximum sentence of ten years for a misdemeanor which makes it into NCIC so when a misdemeanant from that state applies they get denied.
This will so smack down the feds.
This will so smack down the feds.
Sue him good. I like it!
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing
A forum community dedicated to Georgia firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Nemo
428 Replies
Malum Prohibitum
332 Replies
seajay
136 Replies
Recommended Communities
