This article is part of a series on Guns in America that explores the use of firearms in our country and the debate over gun control. This is an editorially independent series sponsored by Tactical Firearms Training Secrets.
–
A 19-year-old sailor stationed in Annapolis, Md., in 1968 was arrested for getting into a fight with an alleged member of a street gang.
Now, more than four decades later, the 64-year-old U.S. Navy veteran has been stripped of his right to own a gun.
Jefferson Wayne Schrader of Cleveland, Ga., has been fighting a losing battle in the courts since 2008 to get his name off the fed’s firearm ban list. In fact, just last month, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., upheld a lower-court ruling barring him from owning a firearm.
“It’s a depressing thing. A depressing thing,” he told TheBlaze in a phone interview, “to have the government treat you like that. It’s not, well, it’s not a good thing.”
The ban list is meant to prevent people of questionable standing, including illegal aliens, drug addicts, people dishonorably discharged from the U.S. military, and fugitives, from buying or selling guns.
And although Schrader — a certified expert with a handgun — served in Vietnam from Jan. 1, 1968, until being honorably discharged in September 1970, the U.S. government believes he is unfit to own a gun because of his teenage misdemeanor.
“Due to a conviction some forty years ago for common-law misdemeanor assault and battery for which he served no jail time, plaintiff Jefferson Wayne Schrader, now a sixty-four-year-old veteran, is, by virtue of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), barred for life from ever possessing a firearm,” U.S. Circuit Judge David Tatel wrote in the court’s January opinion.
“In rejecting plaintiffs’ constitutional claim, the district court relied on the Supreme Court’s observation in District of Columbia v. Heller … that ‘the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,’ as well as the Court’s inclusion of ‘longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons’ within a list of ‘presumptively lawful regulatory measures,’” Judge Tatel added.
In its ruling against Schrader, the fed appeals court cited the Gun Control Act of 1968 signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson, which makes it more difficult for questionable characters to engage in interstate commerce involving firearms.
But we’ll come back to that later.
The other gun law that led to Schrader’s odd set of circumstances is the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993. This bill laid the groundwork for the FBI’s 1998 National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
So when Schrader tried to buy a handgun in 2008, the NICS flagged his 45-year-old misdemeanor – which only now qualifies in Maryland for a sentence of two or more years in prison – and he was disqualified from making the purchasing.
But here’s the weird thing: Schrader has been selling and trading guns for a long time.
“I’ve bought and sold probably, oh, a dozen … maybe 15 guns over a 42 year time period” he said. “I never had a problem with it. I was just surprised it happened at all. The ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] agent said I wasn’t allowed to have any guns.”
“But he said I could keep my black powder rifle. Thank you very much,” he added sarcastically.
TROUBLE
As mentioned in the above, it all started in 2008 when an NICS check flagged Schrader’s name for his 1968 misdemeanor.
The FBI blocked Schrader’s wife, Harriet, from buying him a shotgun for his birthday and then blocked him on two different occasions from buying a handgun.
But let’s back up for a second and revisit his 1968 misdemeanor.
As Schrader told TheBlaze, one evening in Annapolis he and his Navy buddies were attacked by a street gang while walking back to base. A few weeks later, Schrader saw one of his attackers hanging out on a street corner.
“I told the guy driving to stop and let me out,” Schrader said, “and I walked over to him and was going to tell him, ‘You need to come with me, we’re going to talk you over to the police station.’ And he said, ‘Oh, you want some more?’ and stood up.”
As official court documents show, “a dispute broke out between the two, in the course of which Schrader punched his assailant.”
Unfortunately for Schrader, he didn’t see the two police officers “sitting at the red light.”
The sailor was arrested and convicted of common-law assault and battery. He was told he could pay a $109 fine, which included court costs, or spend thirty days in the hole.
He chose the former.
After paying the fine, Schrader went on to serve a 21-month tour of duty in Vietnam and was honorably discharged upon his return.
From that time forward, according to the complaint, he had no scrapes with the law (except for one traffic violation).
REASON FOR THE BAN
After going more than five decades without any serious trouble with the law, the 2008 background check came as a shock to Schrader.
“I don’t know why they’re coming after me,” Schrader said. “All I did was punch someone in the nose.”
So what’s the court’s reasoning?
The Gun Control Act (remember we said we’d come back to this?) specifically includes a ban on anyone convicted of a crime “punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.”
Okay, but Schrader never had to serve a prison sentence.
This is where it gets interesting. At the time of his arrest, the state of Maryland did not set any maximum sentence for common-law assault and battery convictions.
However, the DOJ reasons that because Maryland would have imprisoned Schrader for more than a year if it had the laws it has today, well, that’s good enough to keep him on the banned list.
TODAY
Two years after having his name flagged for the Annapolis fight, Schrader sued to challenge the ban and he has been fighting it ever since. Unfortunately, things haven’t gone his way.
“All I can do now is wait and see what my attorney can do,” Schrader told TheBlaze.
His lawyer, Alan Gura, a prominent civil rights attorney, says there are still a few options left.
“Today is our deadline for filing a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc in the Schrader case,” Gura told TheBlaze in an email on Monday.
“Some misdemeanors are very serious and Congress can address those specifically,” he added later in a phone interview, “but to broadly disarm anyone who has ever been involved in even a minor scuffle, 45 years later, seems to be excessive.”
“We hope that the court rehears the case. We think it’s worthy of that. It raises the types of questions that courts often find they need to rehear. If the court does not decide to reconsider the case then, of course, we will consider the next step, which will be a petition to the Supreme Court.”
A spokeswoman with the U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately respond to TheBlaze’s request for comment.
Here’s the full case: Schrader v. Holder, 11-cv-5352, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia:
–
Here are the other pieces in our ongoing Guns in America series (running every Tuesday) sponsored by Tactical Firearms Training Secrets:
- What Does History Say About When the Gov’t Tried to Restrict Guns in the Past?
- Being Shot Gave This Columbine Survivor Strong Views on Gun Control — Here’s Why He Opposes More Restrictions
Related Contributions on Guns in America
Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter
Featured image Schrader family. This post has been updated to more accurately reflect the laws regarding imprisonment and misdemeanors.


























































































































Comments (344)
wilbstal
Feb. 26, 2013 at 11:08amWell when the war starts im sure some decent Militia person will arm this guy so he can extract some vengence, well desrved this is what happens when Tryanican Goverments go bad this is only the tip of the ice berg
Report this comment
GTeye
Feb. 26, 2013 at 11:04amHe can have his right to own a firearm reinstated by a judge, he doesn’t have to overturn the “ban”.
While the ban is wrong and certainly should be fought, it isn’t his only method of returnng his rights.
(Which never should have been stripped)
Report this comment
wilbstal
Feb. 26, 2013 at 11:02amwont matter soon all state Malitias will run the bad lefty states because federal judges and Obama are way out of control as well as left Wing politicians. Folks are being pushed up against the walls and there is not farther for us to go. When cornered you fight back a Hole politicians cant see this at all.
Report this comment
walnutportconservative
Feb. 26, 2013 at 10:59amThis is not news. Wait and see what they will do to the vets returning from the sand box. They are pushing the diagnoses of PTSD, they bite, because they get some benefits from it… and then… they got them. I know, we have a son who got this purple heart thing. Now they have him too! I would have said… keep your pruple heart! I tried to warn, but this is touchy territory… I mean, I wasn’t the recipient of the RPG. They are ten steps ahead of us. We have no real representation.
Report this comment
wilbstal
Feb. 26, 2013 at 10:58amFederal Judges are backing Obamas communist acts, this will all be changed when the poop starts to hit. Obama has dug up dirt on all federal judges and they are scared doing anti American deeds for Obama and Holder. Everybody will remember all the ones who did what?
Report this comment
NewCreationDave
Feb. 26, 2013 at 10:58amIs it still a free country?
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/7950634/It%27s%20a%20free%20country.pdf
Report this comment
frogg
Feb. 26, 2013 at 10:54amThis is an example of how the Govenment will do anyting possible to violate the 2nd. Amendment!!!! Go ahead and trust them if you want! As for me “give me liberty or give me death” wonder who said that first?? Ha! Ha!
Report this comment
DSTSS2010
Feb. 26, 2013 at 10:51amNext it’ll be reckless driving, then failing to pay parking tickets, then………………….
Report this comment
moreteaplease
Feb. 26, 2013 at 10:44amI’m all for changing the law. But I’m getting pretty sick and tired of The Blaze constantly putting out ‘woe-is-me” veteran stories.
—————————————-
The Blaze is probably doing it to shine a light on the fact that this administration is anti-defense and anti-military I am betting that Obama is salivating over the real possibility of sequestration going into effect because it will punch our defense system in the gut. He has no respect for veterans or our military.
Some of the people in this administration are some of the very people that called Viet Nam vets “baby killers” when they came home.
Report this comment
walnutportconservative
Feb. 26, 2013 at 11:01amI don’t quite see your point?
Report this comment
jungle J
Feb. 26, 2013 at 10:43amyour past seems to always catch up with you…we should be a country without laws so everyone can do their own thing…like a progressive.
Report this comment
common cents
Feb. 26, 2013 at 10:40amTheir goal is to have everyone guilty of something, that way we all will be denied our rights.
That’s why there are thousands of new laws added to the books every year, ever notice that old out dated laws never get removed from the books? this way they can go back and get you for “spitting on the sidewalk” and separate you from your rights. Having said that, everyone who finds themselves a victim of this Tyranny should ignore the so called laws, and proceed with their Constitutionally protected rights despite the possible consequences of Tyranny. If millions of Americans stand up for the Constitution, we will win eventually.
Report this comment
maryann72961
Feb. 26, 2013 at 10:39amIs Bill Ayers or Bernadine Dorn allowed to own a gun. Just asking
Report this comment
michaelharfert
Feb. 26, 2013 at 10:36amGet ready people, this Federal Government will do anything it can to keep you from legally owning a gun!
Report this comment
americansfightingforcommonsense
Feb. 26, 2013 at 10:31amSo, the DOJ says he should not have a gun…hmmm….but it’s ok for illegal immigrants to come in to our country without permission and trample all over our laws.
This president and his DOJ have decided to attack good, honest, hardworking, patriotic, americans and keep them from protecting themselves because of a fist fight 45 years ago that was taken care of by paying a fine? A man that served faithfully in our Navy to protect our nation, now can’t protect his family? A man who had no more run ins with the law, except for a traffic ticket? How can we as Americans stand for this?
“GOD GAVE THIS MAN HIS RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS” Unless he has done something seriously wrong to warrant restricting his rights, then get the HE11 out of his life!
Report this comment
JohnofOregon
Feb. 26, 2013 at 10:29amDHS secretary Janet the thug has written instructions for dhs to go after every middle eastern veteran as a potential terrorist. That order still stands. Socialist always fear the warrior class.
This is nothing new since most democrats use the DeGaul model. Look what he did to the Legion. Communist to the core, democrats despise people who dedicate themselves to higher ideas. Oh, and by the way there is a growing number of moderate republicans like that.
Report this comment
wilbstal
Feb. 26, 2013 at 11:05amyou are correct you hit it on the nail head
Report this comment
In the Shadows
Feb. 26, 2013 at 10:29amThis is happening over and over…As a vet I hear these stories many times at the VFW…From our WWII vets and Vietnam vets…
Times were different in 1940 and 1968…Guys were expected to defend themselves…Not like the body shaving metrosexuals of today
If you were confronted you better fight them off..
But it was not a felony then it should not be held as one now…It is another way to disarm our vets..
The Vets who serve today are being subject to many new laws to call them mentally ill and disarm them..
The older ones are subject to this nonsense…
It is a matter of disarming the guys who would definitely stand against tyranny and subversion of the Constitution..
These socialist must disarm the people who will stand against their rise to complete power and control…
Report this comment
JohnofOregon
Feb. 26, 2013 at 10:35amUnder health reform, congress will use vet medical records to revoke the second amendment rights. The Feds are going to contract out clinic services to the states. This is where it’s going to take place. The Feds can directly attack veterans but the states will be able to. The first wave will be ALL combat zone vets will subject to examinations and home searches.
Congress voted to do this…it’s called Obama care.
Report this comment
walnutportconservative
Feb. 26, 2013 at 11:03amThis is already taking place… wake up!!
Now what will we do about it.
Report this comment
urrybr
Feb. 26, 2013 at 10:21amHe can’t have guns because Eric Holder is busy giving them to drug cartels. Good heavens!
Report this comment
Inform
Feb. 26, 2013 at 10:19amBut wait. Felons can get their rights restored, but a misdemeanor conviction cannot?
Report this comment
DZ-015
Feb. 26, 2013 at 10:14amFrom reading the decision, it is apparent that this man’s legal team was seen as making a serious mistake by not raising an argument which might have resulted in a decision in his favor. Courts love to point out such things, as it is an ego trip. It is also something which our Chief Justice ignored when he chose to overlook the fact that Congress insisted that Obamacare’s penalty for not buying health insurance was not a tax. Had he followed the reasoning in this gun possession case, he would have said that Congress could have passed the mandate as a tax, but since they didn’t, the law had to fail until Congress called it a tax and passed it as such. Of course, his insistence that it was a tax meant that the case was before the court prematurely, because no one had yet been forced to pay the penalty. This is why reading a legal decision, including this one, can give one a headache.
Report this comment
BSdetector
Feb. 26, 2013 at 10:14amCome visit chicago, Jefferson, where you can get anything you want with no background check!
Report this comment
wilbstal
Feb. 26, 2013 at 10:08amwell if comes to cheating to get your rights each man has to do what he thinks is best Liberal laws only help Liberals keep control over real Americans, If you want to live like that by all means knuckle under. Others want real freedoms
Report this comment
RaydocX
Feb. 26, 2013 at 10:08amUhm, i thought juvy records were purged, and could not be breached by even the courts.
Another perfect example of why the founders included the Natural Right of firearms ownership… the Government oversteps its bounds. We the People are supposed to remind our elected officials we are the boss, not they. But They have managed to turn ‘vote yourself free stuff’ into a guarantee of their continued power… at least until their poor planning brings the entire country down.
I guess then anyone with means and opportunity will be able to have a firearm.
Sad that the government trusted this man with one while serving them, and still pretends otherwise once he is again a civilian. Sad, but not a surprise.
Report this comment
TreeTrimmerJim
Feb. 26, 2013 at 10:07amWe the People are the ultimate arbiter of this. With sufficient public press the politicians will react to save their backsides.
We the People allowed this situation to happen in the first place. We are the victims of a mandatory government education which often avoids teaching our history.
Read our children’s text books …. challenge a fact in the book… your child will still answer a question with the text book’s version because the child wants a good grade. Move a few years into the future that child becomes a parent…. what do you think happens when its time to teach their child?
That is how we get New Deal and Great Society legislation…. ignorance taught in mandatory attendance government schools.
Report this comment
moreteaplease
Feb. 26, 2013 at 10:03amHowever, the DOJ reasons that because Maryland would have given him two or more years if it had the laws it has today, well, that’s good enough to keep Schrader on the banned list.
————————————-
The liberals doing what they do best….moving the goal posts.
Report this comment
Ollie123
Feb. 26, 2013 at 10:02amI think it’s time to say, dam the torpedos, full speed ahead. This is just another blatant disgregard of our 2nd amendment right to bear arms, “no infringments” His being denied the ability to carry arms is lawless, and flys in the face of our constitutional rights, don’t register your guns, you already have the rights to bear arms, he is not a mentally distrubed person. This makes absolutely no sense and needs to be attacked.
Report this comment
Cavallo
Feb. 26, 2013 at 10:38amHow about also ex post facto, and double jeopardy. Being punished twice for the same crime by a law that applies to deeds performed in the past.
Report this comment