Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: SAF Sues Eric Holder, FBI Over [Vet's] Misdemeanor Gun Rights Denial PRNewsWire.com

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    SAF Sues Eric Holder, FBI Over [Vet's] Misdemeanor Gun Rights Denial PRNewsWire.com

    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...104893594.html
    Quote Originally Posted by PRNewsWire
    The lawsuit was filed in United States District Court for the District of Columbia. SAF and co-plaintiff Jefferson Wayne Schrader of Cleveland, GA are represented by attorney Alan Gura, who successfully argued both the Heller and McDonald cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    "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."
    OK, maybe I'm just a dumba$$, but can anyone explain to me how Maryland's failure to set forth a maximum sentence, for anything let alone a misdemeanor, compromises a person's rights? Furthermore a "crime" commited 32 years ago should not be considered anyway.

    I was under the impression that back then, when men had a fight, they slugged it out and that was it. I didn't realize the nanny state was already seperating men, and sending them to "their rooms" for the night.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    I-ANAL The definition of felony in many jurisdictions is of a condition of the penalty and not of the criminal violation. A felony is a criminal violation for which one may be liable to more than 365 days of punishment. Evidently Maryland's misdemeanor statute allowed punishment meeting the federal standard for felony.

    If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law, then we all can be legally disarmed merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony, as has been done here.
    Last edited by Doug Huffman; 10-14-2010 at 09:03 AM.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    If there is any question as to whether or not a person is a convicted "felon," shouldn't the determination be made in favor of maximizing Liberty?

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Philosophically, sure. Also philosophically; normative and prescriptive statements, characterized by would, should and could, have no intrinsic truth value. I can't imagine a question like "whether or not a person is a convicted felon" in this day and age of ever more intrusive record keeping.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Lancaster County, PA
    Posts
    118
    This is quite good in and of itself and that it adds to the pile of pro-2A litigation. It seems to me that this is just like sales: put out a lot of leads and whatever sticks you reel in. I really wonder what is going to cross the finish line first. We're waiting on Nordyke, Palmer, Sykes, Peterson, Heller 2, Kachalsky, whatever the North Carolina case is, and Woollard. Surely SOMETHING has GOT to win soon.
    Last edited by BillMCyrus; 10-14-2010 at 03:08 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by BillMCyrus View Post
    This is quite good in and of itself and that it adds to the pile of pro-2A litigation. It seems to me that this is just like sales: put out a lot of leads and whatever sticks you reel in. I really wonder what is going to cross the finish line first. We're waiting on Nordyke, Palmer, Sykes, Peterson, Heller 2, Kachalsky, whatever the North Carolina case is, and Woollard. Surely SOMETHING has GOT to win soon.
    The big prize is the level of scrutiny. We need a conflict (differing opinions)amongst the curcuit courts in order to have SCOTUS weigh in. We want multiple cases so that we can pick the one that is most likely to give us the strict scrutiny that we want SCOTUS to deliver.

    So we need a win and a loss. Nordyke will certainly give us one of those, and hopefully early next year we will have another. If this happens we will get another big gun case in front of SCOTUS in 2012, before one of the 5 gun friendly justices kicks the can.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    In accordance with Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(20), a 'Crime Punishable by Imprisonment for more than One Year' does not include *** (B) State Offenses Classified by the Laws of that State as a Misdemeanor and Punishable by a term of ImPrisonment for not more than 2 Years.

    Throughout Several States in The United States, Misdemeanors often have Punishments beyond that 2 Year limitation.

    Examples include, to in which I am Personnally aware: 1. South Carolina (Possesion of a Firearm in an Establishment Licensed to Sell Alcohol for Consumption on-Premises), 2. Pennsylvania (Misdemeanors of The First Degree), 3. Maryland, AND 4, California. There may well be other examples...

    The problem is those States, and maybe a few others, declare a Crime as a Misdemeanor, BUT the Authorized term of Imprisonment exceeds the 2 Year Limitation imposed by Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(20). Under Federal Law, EVEN IF you recieve a lessor Sentence than 2 Years for a Misdemeanor, IT STILL works the Disbaility of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(2) IF it could have well been Imprisonable beyond 2 Years.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by aadvark View Post
    In accordance with Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(20), a 'Crime Punishable by Imprisonment for more than One Year' does not include *** (B) State Offenses Classified by the Laws of that State as a Misdemeanor and Punishable by a term of ImPrisonment for not more than 2 Years.

    Throughout Several States in The United States, Misdemeanors often have Punishments beyond that 2 Year limitation.

    Examples include, to in which I am Personnally aware: 1. South Carolina (Possesion of a Firearm in an Establishment Licensed to Sell Alcohol for Consumption on-Premises), 2. Pennsylvania (Misdemeanors of The First Degree), 3. Maryland, AND 4, California. There may well be other examples...

    The problem is those States, and maybe a few others, declare a Crime as a Misdemeanor, BUT the Authorized term of Imprisonment exceeds the 2 Year Limitation imposed by Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(20). Under Federal Law, EVEN IF you recieve a lessor Sentence than 2 Years for a Misdemeanor, IT STILL works the Disbaility of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(2) IF it could have well been Imprisonable beyond 2 Years.
    Ya gotta love a post full of facts. +1

    The problem here is that the Maryland law did not set a maximum sentence. Therefore, it can be assumed that a sentence of more than two years is possible. If I were arguing this case, I'd examine all the sentences for this particular crime, and, if none exceeded two years, I'd submit that the effective maximum sentence was not long enough to warrant a bar on possession. Furthermore, I'd argue that vague laws should be interpreted against the government and in favor of the citizen.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    eye95:

    As always, I agree with your analysis, and will incorporate your arguements into my own, to supplement, but not supplant, my own arguments on this subject matter.

    Maryland Law 3-204(b) subjects a Person to a 5 year Penalty for Assault by Reckless Endangerment. Needless to say, this is the lowest Classification of Assualt under Maryland Law, with the lowest Penalty.

    In Alabama, this would be Menaceing, a Class B Misdemeanor.

    aadvark
    Last edited by aadvark; 10-15-2010 at 03:36 PM.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Maryland Criminal Code Ann. § 3-203, sets forth the penalty for assault in the second degree, "simple assault" to you and me.

    It says a violator "is guilty of the misdemeanor of assault in the second degree and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 10 years or a fine not exceeding $2,500 or both."

    Pretty harsh, huh?

    But Maryland sentencing guidelines do not provide anywhere near such a penalty, and in my experience, Maryland judges never hand down a penalty for 2nd degree assault in excess of a year.

    But doesn't it make more sense to make assaultive misdemeanants subject to the "bar" more readily than non violent felons?

    So should the feds re-write the law? If not, should this be considered a "felony" or "misdemeanor?"

  12. #12
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by The Donkey View Post
    But doesn't it make more sense to make assaultive misdemeanants subject to the "bar" more readily than non violent felons?
    No.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •