Law abiding veteran has 2A rights stripped because he punched a guy in 1968.

[Bigfoot]

It was just a misdemeanor and a $100 fine at the time but Maryland has since changed it to a felony.

Right after the fight he served two tours in Vietnam. Uncle Sam had no problem handing him a gun then.

Worse part is the U.S. Circuit court upheld the ruling.

Vietnam Vet Barred From Owning a Gun Because of a Teenage Misdemeanor 45 Years Ago | TheBlaze.com

A 19-year-old sailor stationed in Annapolis, Md., in 1968 was arrested for getting into a fight with an alleged member of a street gang.

Now, more than four decades later, the 64-year-old U.S. Navy veteran has been stripped of his right to own a gun.

Jefferson Wayne Schrader of Cleveland, Ga., has been fighting a losing battle in the courts since 2008 to get his name off the fed's firearm ban list. In fact, just last month, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., upheld a lower-court ruling barring him from owning a firearm.

"It's a depressing thing. A depressing thing," he told TheBlaze in a phone interview, "to have the government treat you like that. It's not, well, it's not a good thing."

And although Schrader — a certified expert with a handgun — served in Vietnam from Jan. 1, 1968, until being honorably discharged in September 1970, the U.S. government believes he is unfit to own a gun because of his teenage misdemeanor.

"Due to a conviction some forty years ago for common-law misdemeanor assault and battery for which he served no jail time, plaintiff Jefferson Wayne Schrader, now a sixty-four-year-old veteran, is, by virtue of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), barred for life from ever possessing a firearm," U.S. Circuit Judge David Tatel wrote in the court's January opinion.

"In rejecting plaintiffs' constitutional claim, the district court relied on the Supreme Court's observation in District of Columbia v. Heller ... that ‘the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,' as well as the Court's inclusion of ‘longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons' within a list of ‘presumptively lawful regulatory measures,'" Judge Tatel added.

In its ruling against Schrader, the fed appeals court cited the Gun Control Act of 1968 signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson, which makes it more difficult for questionable characters to engage in interstate commerce involving firearms.

But we'll come back to that later.

The other gun law that led to Schrader's odd set of circumstances is the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993. This bill laid the groundwork for the FBI's 1998 National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

So when Schrader tried to buy a handgun in 2008, the NICS flagged his 45-year-old misdemeanor – which only now qualifies in Maryland for a sentence of two or more years in prison – and he was disqualified from making the purchasing.

REASON FOR THE BAN

After going more than five decades without any serious trouble with the law, the 2008 background check came as a shock to Schrader.

"I don't know why they're coming after me," Schrader said. "All I did was punch someone in the nose."

So what's the court's reasoning?

The Gun Control Act (remember we said we'd come back to this?) specifically includes a ban on anyone convicted of a crime "punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year."

Okay, but Schrader never had to serve a prison sentence.

This is where it gets interesting. At the time of his arrest, the state of Maryland did not set any maximum sentence for common-law assault and battery convictions.

However, the DOJ reasons that because Maryland would have imprisoned Schrader for more than a year if it had the laws it has today, well, that's good enough to keep him on the banned list.

TODAY

Two years after having his name flagged for the Annapolis fight, Schrader sued to challenge the ban and he has been fighting it ever since. Unfortunately, things haven't gone his way.

"All I can do now is wait and see what my attorney can do," Schrader told TheBlaze.

His lawyer, Alan Gura, a prominent civil rights attorney, says there are still a few options left.

I edited for brevity and added some bold highlights. The full case documents: Schrader v. Holder, 11-cv-5352, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia included in the link.

Another article w personal information. The old guy has a heart condition and hunting is getting more difficult so his wife tried to buy him a lighter shotgun to carry. NICS said no way and now he can't hunt at all.

<broken link removed>

EVER BEEN IN A FISTFIGHT? YEAH ME TOO.. Is this one of the ways Holder is going to get us?

Read More

 

[duane black]

I have not looked into this case other than what you wrote. It's absolute BS. Yes I have been in a fistfight, more than one. I believe he can get this expunged and regain his rights. Judges opinion is absurd, he is not a felon. He has the best firearms attorney this country has seen. ( gura )

It's VERY important to get convictions expunged / set aside while you can.

 

[Father of four]

Judges opinion is absurd, he is not a felon.

It really stinks when people in power get it wrong. Good luck Mr.Schrader on getting your 2nd Amendment Rights back.



SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...unless you punch someone in the nose?

 

[duane black]

I looked at the MD codes in regards to assualt. WOW ! Those people have lost their minds. If you are a MD gun owner, don't get into a fight ! Don't even touch someone that doesn't want to be touched.

Here is my problem.

How the hell can they apply these retroactively. Again, absurd. The judge is a complete and total idiot. Next we are going to be convicted of crimes that weren't crimes at the time of commission. By his logic we should also go back and re punish anyone convicted of said crimes with the new punishment guidelines.

For anybody interested... ( from a md attorney website )

Assault in the First Degree

You may be charged with this, the most serious of assault offenses, if you are accused of:

Intentionally causing serious physical injury to another,
Attempting to cause serious physical injury to another, or
Committing an assault with a firearm.
Serious physical injury includes those injuries that cause a risk of death or permanent damage.

First degree assault is classified as a felony and punishable by up to 25 years in the state prison.

Ref: MD. Code §3-202


Second Degree Assault

Less serious than first degree assault, though still considered a serious offense is second degree assault. You could be facing this charge if you are accused of any general assault that does not classify under the rules of First Degree Assault.

In other words, if you touch someone else in an unwanted manner that could be perceived as unwanted, offensive, or potentially harmful (whether or not it causes injury), you could be charged with this offense.

Generally, assault in the 2nd degree is a misdemeanor though it carries a maximum potential sentence of 10 years. However, if the assault was committed on a law enforcement or probation officer, that assault charge will be entered as a felony.

Ref: MD. Code §3-203


Reckless Endangerment

Even reckless endangerment is categorized under the assault offenses in Maryland. This crime is committed when a person recklessly puts someone at risk of death or seriously physical injury.

Using the term "recklessly" in the law means the act doesn't have to be intentional. Perhaps you didn't intend to put someone at risk but you also did nothing to prevent it.

This is considered a misdemeanor offense and is punishable by up to 5 years behind bars.

Ref: MD. Code §3-204

 

[Redcap]

Maryland sucks.

 

[ArgyleAdams]

Constitution of the United States Article 1 Sections 9 & 10. Congress and the states are both prohibited from passing ex post facto laws. Bam!

 

[Father of four]

They find ways to work around The Constitution....Obamacare ring a bell?

 

[Magsbee]

Saw this on FNC today during lunch break....what a crock of crap....it will be tough on this guy though, because that appeals court that made the last ruling is thought of as second highest in the land, under the supreme court. Hopefully some national exposure can help him!

 

[Magsbee]

They find ways to work around The Constitution....Obamacare ring a bell?

EXACTLY!

 

[duane black]

I can't get over the fact that a fist fight has a 10 year sentence.

Boggles the mind, another MD law to put it into prospective.

§ 3-307. Sexual offense in the third degree

Penalty

(b) A person who violates this section is guilty of the felony of sexual offense in the third degree and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 10 years.

 

[Father of four]

Constitution of the United States Article 1 Sections 9 & 10. Congress and the states are both prohibited from passing ex post facto laws. Bam!

The 2nd Amendment says..."Shall not be infringed". We see how far that went with this veteran.

 

[Misterbill]

Welcome to modern America, where that bit in the constitution about ex post-facto laws is considered passe even by the Supreme Court. The Lautenberg Amendment already established this all the way to the SC with it's jihad against everyone who was dumb enough to cop to a DV misdemeanor instead of fighting it.

 

[Father of four]

That judge was wrong just as this judge was...

» Judge Discards Video Evidence of Philadelphia Cop Sucker Punching Puerto Rican Woman Alex Jones&#039; Infowars: There&#039;s a war on for your mind!

and... <broken link removed>

 

[Siuslaw Warrior]

The prison industrial complex is big business in America

 

[RB87]

Constitution of the United States Article 1 Sections 9 & 10. Congress and the states are both prohibited from passing ex post facto laws. Bam!

All levels of government have been doing end runs around ex-post facto laws for centuries now. Its mostly a joke and ignored. See laws regarding civil asset forfeiture (drug cases usually), domestic violence laws and child support laws (paternity fraud). There are men who because of federal child support laws (debt can never be forgiven once assigned by the gov for children-the Bradley ammendment) who are in jail or under threat of jail for not paying for children they didn't sire or adopt.

 

[Nightcrawler]

TheBlaze is hardly a credible news source. A misdemeanor assault charge could have been wiped clean off his record years ago. It doesn't make you a felon 40+ years later if they change the law.

 

[Father of four]

TheBlaze is hardly a credible news source. A misdemeanor assault charge could have been wiped clean off his record years ago. It doesn't make you a felon 40+ years later if they change the law.

OK, so who do you consider to be a "credible" news source? And what do you consider "credible"?

 

[Bigfoot]

TheBlaze is hardly a credible news source. A misdemeanor assault charge could have been wiped clean off his record years ago. It doesn't make you a felon 40+ years later if they change the law.

Well I could've linked an article from MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, NYT but they haven't covered it. Wonder why.

If you don't trust The Blaze then read the court ruling yourself. Are you suggesting that The Blaze altered the text?

Good question F of F, what news coverage do you trust Nightcrawler? A government approved media source I assume?