DOJ fighting to deny veteran right to own a firearm based on 40-year old misdemeanor

[NRA Member]

They will release 2000 criminal illegal aliens because they don't have money to house them ? But they have funds to waste on this? This is a Federal Government that is out of control!!!


DOJ fighting to deny veteran right to own a firearm based on 40-year old misdemeanor

More prosecutorial indiscretion

Really, why does our government waste its resources on cases like the fight to prevent Jefferson Wayne Schrader from purchasing a firearm?

This case demonstrates what happens when a bureaucracy deprives someone of a right just because the bureaucracy can, and then the full force of the U.S. government goes to bat against the individual for no reason other than it can.

The case is Schrader v. Holder. In a January 11, 2013 decision, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the government’s position, but the question is why is the government exercising such a ridiculous discretion?

The rest of the story and a video :http://legalinsurrection.com/

[bluedog46]

Pandering to illegals gets liberals the latino vote like obama halting deportation of "dreamers".

Many vets are conservative so Obama don't expect to get their votes.

Its all about games and it is sick.

Heck we have vets who cant get care tehy need and we send God knows how much money to syria and egypt. That is pathetic.

[jeepin]

I can't do the link on my phone to read the article. What crime is the guy accused of?

Truthfully if someone is convicted of a crime that makes them prohibited, weather they are a vet or not shouldn't matter, their actions do.

If someone is trying to make an example of this guy because of his veterans status then there is an issue

[NRA Member]

I can't do the link on my phone to read the article. What crime is the guy accused of?

Truthfully if someone is convicted of a crime that makes them prohibited, weather they are a vet or not shouldn't matter, their actions do.

If someone is trying to make an example of this guy because of his veterans status then there is an issue

The link will work now!

[t1066]

I can't do the link on my phone to read the article. What crime is the guy accused of?

Truthfully if someone is convicted of a crime that makes them prohibited, weather they are a vet or not shouldn't matter, their actions do.

If someone is trying to make an example of this guy because of his veterans status then there is an issue

The link will work now!

Why not just say what it was? Here is the relevant text from the article:

The short version is that Schrader got into a fistfight when he was in the Navy in 1968. Schrader was convicted of a misdemeanor and received no jail time.

That conviction prevented Schrader from clearing a background check for shotgun and handgun purchases in 2008 because federal law prohibits anyone convicted of a crime which carries a potential penalty of more than two years from owning a firearm. Maryland law at the time in 1968 carried no maximum penalty for a misdemeanor, but the feds construed the lack of a maximum penalty as being a potential penalty more than two years.

[GunLawyer001]

This is the law, he was convicted of an unclassified misdemeanor that was punishable by more than 2 years at the time. He can't be approved for a gun purchase now.

The fault is in the law, which has no expiration dates. I regularly handle clients with prohibiting convictions from the 1960's and 1970's. Pennsylvania has a variety of mechanisms for overcoming these prohibitions, but none of them is "hey, he's a veteran and it was a while ago so let's ignore it".

The law sucks. The fault is not with the VA or the Justice Department, it's a Congressional thing. Change the law, make every violent felony a lifetime prohibitor, but put an expiration date on the prohibitions for all lesser offenses. Even 10 or 20 years would make sense, there's no reason why a larceny conviction from shoplifting in 1965 should still bar a person today, or clutter up the court system with people having to get relief.