Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Georgia In the News' started by rmodel65, Oct 13, 2010.
http://www.facebook.com/SecondAmendment ... 1918505247
This is gonna be a good one.
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.
This is gonna be a good one....
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.
Not a 'fify' but I like that one better and believe it's in closer keeping with the Founder's intentions.
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.
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?
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.
So which federal law imposes a sales restriction on a misdemeanant?
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 $109 including costs as a fine. His other option was 30 days in jail. He had been attacked by a gang member and he fought back.
I just did a blog post on this case and it goes into a lot more detail including the Federal laws in question.
At the time Maryland law had no maximum for this crime. I think they changed this in 2002 and put a maximum of 10 years (if you can believe it).
I think the restriction is not against felonies, but against crimes with maximum sentences longer than a year. Typically, that only includes felonies, but apparently this state had a situation where they had no statutory maximum and the new maximum is 10 years, therefore DQing this guy.
I really wonder what the implications would be of this case (if won, obviously). Would it be narrowly defined to remove prohibitions on open-ended sentence misdemeanors like this guy got arrested for? Or could it possibly be expanded to address bigger prohibitions?
his crime is another form of how our justice system is a pile of @#[email protected]#$. 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.
Sue him good. I like it!