Vet Loses Second Amendment Rights

[PegLeg45]

It may be "legal" but it's BS.....

Vietnam Navy Vet Loses His Second Amendment Rights Due to 45 Year Old Misdemeanor

Sixty four year old Jefferson Schrader just wanted to buy a new shotgun for hunting when this whole mess began.

The Vietnam war vet enjoyed hunting near his home in North GA and wanted to buy a lighter gun, as his old, trusty 12 gauge was getting a bit heavy in his old age.

That’s when the trouble started. Schrader was contacted by the FBI and told he would need to send in his fingerprints to verify his identity. He did so.

Once the background check was completed it was found that Schrader was now considered a felon due to a misdemeanor from his time in the Navy.

Schrader punched a man in the face who had, along with the help of numerous others, attacked himself and his fellow sailors while they were at Annapolis. When in court, Schrader told the truth and was told by the judge he can’t take the law into his own hands. He was convicted a misdemeanor and fined $100.

Apparently in 1993 Maryland changed their laws and Schrader’s incident would now be considered a felony, and as such he has been stripped of his Second Amendment rights.

Even the ATF agent who had to tell Schrader what happened was in disbelief.

Now the Second Amendment Foundation is on the case and Schrader is hopeful a positive resolution can be made.

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/vietnam-navy-vet-loses-his-second-amendment-rights-due-to-45-year-old-misdemeanor/#


Full article here at:

http://www.examiner.com/article/vietnam-vet-loses-second-amendment-gun-rights-over-misdemeanor-from-1968

[twyacht]

Time to retire to another state.

OBTW, I hope Beretta makes good on their threat to leave MD.

Clowns.....

[brushmore]

Wouldn't this be double jeopardy?  Well not exactly being tried twice but I would think being punished twice would come into play here.

[Jrlobo]

Only in Maryland!

[fatbaldguy]

I don't think a conviction for a misdemeanor can be changed to a felony retroactively and without a further court hearing to boot.  Should be overturned on both counts.  Something is rotten in Denmark!

[Sponsor]

[Jrlobo]

No, fbg, something's rotten in MD, a little closer to home than Denmark. Alas, poor Yorick, I knew him well!

[tombogan03884]

It should be an easy case to win.


Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

n ex post facto law (Latin for "from after the action" or "after the fact"), also called a retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed;

[twyacht]

History's a bit** when used in context of the Founders,...ain't it? 

Time for the damn lawyers to enforce it.

[fightingquaker13]

That is complete BS. It is exactly what the ex post facto thing is for. If were a felony then, fine, he's in violation. If it wasn't, you can't retroctively stiffen the penalty. This doesn't pass the giggle test. Screw the Shooting Sports Foundation, go to the ACLU. They would have a field day with this.

[PegLeg45]

Actually, the guy lives in north Georgia. The original legal issue occurred in Maryland when he was in the Navy.