Yes, I had heard about the Schrader case. I wish they would overturn the Lautenberg Amendment (and a lot of others) on two basis -
1. You get a misdemeanor. You get your sentence. You serve your sentence. How can they add anything to that sentence years, even decades later?!? If a firearms prohibition was not part of that sentence in 1950, how the hell can they add it to the sentence almost 50 years later (Lautenberg passed in 1996, I think.)
2. This whole interstate commerce clause crap. How can they use the interstate commerce clause to regulate something that is not presently in interstate commerce? I can't believe the Constitutionality of that hasn't been challenged and shot down. I mean using that reasoning - that if it EVER moved in interstate commerce the Federal government can regulate it - doesn't that basically mean the Federal government can regulate ANYTHING and EVERYTHING? Is there anything anywhere in this country that some part of has not crossed state lines some time in the past? Is that what the founding fathers really intended?
Ooops, OK, Schrader wasn't prohibited under the Lautenberg Amendment, but it is the exact same section of statute and 1. and 2. still apply...