SAF Sues Eric Holder, FBI Over Misdemeanor Gun Rights Denial

[Bold Lib]

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/saf-sues-eric-holder-fbi-over-misdemeanor-gun-rights-denial-104893594.html

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.

In July 1968, Schrader, then 21, was found guilty of misdemeanor assault and battery relating to a fight involving a man who had previously assaulted him in Annapolis, MD. The altercation was observed by a police officer, who arrested Schrader, then an enlisted man in the Navy, stationed in Annapolis. The man he fought with was in a street gang that had attacked him for entering their "territory," according to the complaint.

Schrader was ordered to pay a $100 fine and $9 court cost. He subsequently served a tour of duty in Vietnam and was eventually honorably discharged. However, in 2008 and again in 2009, Mr. Schrader was denied the opportunity to receive a shotgun as a gift, or to purchase a handgun for personal protection. He was advised by the FBI to dispose of or surrender any firearms he might have or face criminal prosecution.

"Schrader's dilemma," explained SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, "is that until recently, Maryland law did not set forth a maximum sentence for the crime of misdemeanor assault. Because of that, he is now being treated like a felon and his gun rights have been denied."






This is what is wrong with government and gun control. Government takes the stand of "how can we deny gun rights to this person". and goes from there.

[lawodevolution]

1. True

And I hope the gov has plenty of petroleum jelly

[MichaelHarris]

2. It's really cool

how the article takes a man found guilty in a court of law and then paints him to be innocent because he fought with a "gang member". Now with a little digging deeper and actually reading we see what really happened after we dig through all of the right-wing crap written about this story.

"In July 1968, Schrader, then 21, was found guilty of misdemeanor assault and battery relating to a fight involving a man who had previously assaulted him in Annapolis, MD"

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/10/13/2310605/saf-sues-eric-holder-fbi-over.html#ixzz12PACFRls

Seems the guilty in a court of law Schrader, went on a retaliation mission. Seems he got his ass kicked one weekend and went looking for the guy who did it later on. Wonder what he would of done if he had that shotgun or handgun when he went looking for the guy who kicked his ass.

See, when you read a story in the gun forum you should really research it. Seems a lot of people like to spread disinformation here. No great surprise really. These guys actually think there are over 2 million defensive gun uses a year in America. LOL that's more than in Iraq and there's a war going on, hahahahahahah. 2 million, we didn't even have that many assaults last year, what are they pulling their guns on cockroaches?

[Bold Lib]

3. What's really cool (or typical) is that you missed that he was guilty of a MISDEMEANOR

but is being treated by the Feds as if he was guilty of a felony. So, do you think that a person guilty of a misdemeanor should loose the affirmed fundamental right to arms?

TWO MILLION defensive gun uses every year by lawful gun owners.
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html

[MichaelHarris]

4. I don't care what

he's guilty of, bottom line is he IS GUILTY. The community where he wants a gun say's that's enough. Just be honest in your posting, you tried to paint him innocent in you O.P.

Now look at the situation he was in. He got beat up and went back later to assault someone. That's proven. What would he have done with access to a gun when he went back? If you're dumb enough to go back to the scene of your ass-whipping then you're too stupid to own a gun.

[lawodevolution]

6. So he just has to be guilty of something

Anything, maybe you think a speeding ticket should ban someone from owning a gun no wait I bet you support a total gun ban anyway

[MichaelHarris]

15. nice try

a speeding ticket doesn't involve violence. Why would I ban guns? I own 5 or 6.

[shadowrider]

18. Sure you do. I believe you. Yup. n/t

:sarcasm:

[kwikrnu]

31. Non-violent felonies don't involve violence either...

...are you in favor of non-violent felons owning guns? I am, everyone should own guns.

[cleanhippie]

36. Yeah, sure you do.

And pigs flew out of your ass too, right?

[SteveM]

46. Oh, the vision of that! Laughing all the way!

[Euromutt]

8. What he was found guilty of is the very crux of the matter, whether you care about it or not

The Gun Control Act of 1968 was intended (among other things) to prohibit persons with a felony conviction from possessing firearms; this man does not have a felony conviction, he has a conviction for a charge that was explicitly stated to be a misdemeanor. The only reason this guy is currently prohibited from possessing a firearm is because, apparently, until recently Maryland state law neglected to explicitly state a maximum sentence for a misdemeanor, the DoJ has chosen to interpret the provision of the GCA that a person convicted of a crime punishable by over a year's imprisonment is prohibited from possessing firearm, because a misdemeanor on Maryland could theoretically be punished with a sentence of more than a year, even though it's pretty much universally understood throughout the U.S. that a misdemeanor is punishable by at most a year in jail.

And jeez, this guy's conviction was 42 years ago. What, you never did anything stupid and/or illegal when you were in your late teens or early twenties?

[PavePusher]

12. Can we finally use the word "loophole" with some accuracy here? n/t

[pipoman]

9. I find it shocking that I am on a liberal/progressive board...

go back and read your post...absolutely freeper like in it's tone and content...astounding

[shadowrider]

13. Nothing astounding about it as witnessed by many anti-gun comments

from many posters.

I'm simply amazed by the hypocrisy of many here who attack the RW for their opposition to gay marriage, gay rights, abortion etc. etc. yet they attack the 2nd amendment and gun rights just as fervently, if not moreso. But I guess that's ok, after all, it's EVIL GUNZ.

[MichaelHarris]

16. I'm real anti-gun

I hate all 6 of mine

[cleanhippie]

37. Self deprecation is so unbecoming. You should seek help.

Self-deprecation is the act of belittling or undervaluing oneself. Self-deprecating speech and thoughts can be indicative of low self-esteem, and both are commonly associated with major depressive disorder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-deprecation

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. How can we be certain you won't 'snap' and kill someone with them?

Ever gotten into a fight?

[rrneck]

39. You own more guns than me.

Why do you need such an arsenal?

[PavePusher]

11. I want to own slaves. (Caucasian ones only.)

The community where I want to own slaves say's that's enough of a reason.

Cool, right?

[Euromutt]

14. The Bible says that's okay

Lev 25:44 says that your slaves are to come "from the nations around you," so it should be perfectly permissible to keep Canadians as slaves.

[PavePusher]

23. I dunno.

Those northerners don't last too long in the heat down here...

[Bold Lib]

24. Of a Misdemeanor NOT a felony. BIG difference. The fact that you don't care has been obvious

for a very long time. Fortunately we have a constitution that protects our rights from those that "don't care".

[SteveM]

45. Ol' HaHaHaHaHaHaHa is back...

"I don't care what he's guilty of, bottom line is he IS GUILTY."

You probably don't care if a person convicted of a misdemeanor during the Civil Rights era must keep paying for his/her "sins," esp. if it involves purchasing a gun.

"The community where he wants a gun say's that's enough." Community? What community? Sounds like the FBI. That your idea of a "community?"

You should not stand in judgment of the "stupidity" of others, given your past history.

[lawodevolution]

5. Gun control supporter has now decided that he is GOD and

Knows for a fact that this guy would have killed someone had he been in possession of a gun. But you fail to understand that he likely still had a gun anyway.

Also many assaults are not reported when no one is hurt

[shadowrider]

10. Your muscles hurt from all that stretching?

Nowhere does it say he went on a "retaliation mission". It says he fought with a guy who previously assaulted him.
Could have been a random encounter with the bad guy.

As usual, you anti's blame the victim.

Nothing new.

[MichaelHarris]

17. hahahaha

random encounter with a guy who previously kicked his ass, LOL. Good one!

[shadowrider]

19. I didn't say it was, I said it COULD HAVE BEEN. You ever go to the mall

and run into someone you don't get along with? If you have, should I accuse you of a "retaliation" or "stalking" mission, or just a chance encounter?

[MichaelHarris]

21. need a

shovel for that hole you're digging?

[Euromutt]

26. I cannot but notice that you're not responding to my posts, Michael

I wonder why that is.

[oneshooter]

27. Maybe he is "skeered" of the truth? n/t

[Euromutt]

30. Eh. I don't pretend to know "the truth"

I am pretty good at pointing out the flaws in other people's arguments, especially the bits that aren't actually supported by the available evidence.

[MichaelHarris]

32. Me "skeered"?

I'm not the one who is so afraid that they have to take a weapon with them every time they leave the house. In my opinion that's the ultimate in "chicken shit".

[shadowrider]

33. I don't take my weapon because I'm "afraid". I take it because I'm prepared n/t

[Euromutt]

34. "Skeered" or not, you're avoiding responding to my posts

You just did it again.

[shadowrider]

35. Maybe he/she adjusted their settings and can't see them?

Or maybe it's a classic case of avoidance. Wouldn't be the first time.

:shrug:

[Bold Lib]

40. Yeppers, not responding to any of Euromutt 's posts. "skeered" would be the correct term. n/t

[MichaelHarris]

41. or

he's on ignore.

[Bold Lib]

42. And that brings us right back to "skeered".

[MichaelHarris]

43. not at

he's a guy who consistently breaks DU rules and the gungion Mod does nothing about it so he and a few others are on ignore, nothing at all about being afraid.

You do realize we are talking about words online right? You guys won't even go into public with a weapon. That is the ultimate in insecurity.

[Euromutt]

50. I really have to wonder what I'm observing here

Is it the Gun Control Reality Distortion Field™ at work, or was our friend Michael utterly delusional before he entered the Gungeon?

Well, glad to know I was having some effect at battering down his seemingly impenetrable cognitive armor, if he had to put me on "ignore" so as to avoid seeing my posts.

[Bold Lib]

52. His inability to form cogent arguments was his own undoing.

You did not get bored with his inane statements or get side tracked by his deflections off topic. He could not compete and his faith was shaken - it skeered him. Ha Ha Ha.

[Bold Lib]

51. Funny post. All suspicions confirmed. Have a nice day now.

[SteveM]

49. "Ignore" is Insteatooshunalized "skeered."

[PavePusher]

44. Exercising a Civil Right is now equivalent to being "chicken shit"?

That says a lot about you... none of it lauditory.

[SteveM]

48. Yep. Still avoiding questions in favor of the usual...

punking tactics.

[SteveM]

47. Never does. He tries to laugh at his own jokes, but it's nervous laughter.

[Euromutt]

20. Shadowrider's surmise has as much evidence to support it as your assertion...

...that Schrader "got his ass kicked" and "went back later to assault someone." There's nothing in the press releases to that effect, that is entirely your own conjecture, and have as much reason to dismiss it as you do to dismiss Shadowrider's hypothesis. At least Shadowrider acknowledged that his surmise was merely a possibility, as opposed to what definitely happened.

[Pavulon]

22. I assume he is not rich and white. If he was he would have had an attorney

get the charge dismissed or fixed it so it was never on the docket.

[Euromutt]

25. With a name like Schrader, I'd guess he was white...

...but if he was an enlisted man in the navy, he probably wasn't rich.

[Pavulon]

28. More of a hack at the rules. Generally rich kids have parents

fix this stuff. That way it just goes away. Still a stupid reason to loose a right. In some states you can regain you right to own weapons after a felony conviction.

[Euromutt]

29. Do bear in mind the guy was convicted three months before LBJ signed the GCA into law

And even then, you can hardly fault the guy for failing to realize that the federal DoJ might decide to treat a misdemeanor conviction as if it were a felony conviction because state law didn't explicitly say "this is a misdemeanor and therefore not punishable with lengths of sentences requiring a felony conviction."

[Euromutt]

7. Oh damn, I see what the problem is

The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits anyone from possessing a firearm "who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year." If Maryland state law didn't explicitly set an upper limit for a jail/prison sentence for misdemeanor assault and battery, then theoretically misdemeanor assault and battery in Maryland was "punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year," even if nobody was ever actually punished with a jail sentence of over a year.

Yeah, that's a bit of problem with wording there. We all know the GCA is supposed to prohibit convicted felons from possessing firearms, and a misdemeanor isn't a felony, but the GCA doesn't literally say "felony." Strange, though; you'd think Maryland state law would have a provision somewhere stating what the maximum sentence is for a misdemeanor. The Revised Code of Washington, for example, states that the maximum punishment for a misdemeanor is up to 90 days in jail and/or a fine of up to $1,000 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.20.021).

[Bold Lib]

53. bump, for those that missed it.