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)
AmericaMustBeFree
Feb. 26, 2013 at 12:50pmEric Holder?? That says it all right there!! If he had his way everyone would have their guns removed!
Report this comment
Daddy Hawg
Feb. 26, 2013 at 12:35pmThe laws was passed post incident and therefore an ex post facto law. This is illegal in most state Constitution and definitely in the US Constitution. Why hasn’t his lawyer bought this up to the court.
Report this comment
PeteOH
Feb. 26, 2013 at 12:30pmWHERE are the honest lawyers? Where is the MEDIA? SCOTUS in the later 1960s ruled that governments, specifically the police, are NOT required to provide for individual protection.. Only the “common defense” and that they can’t be held responsible for someone’s death. Again in 2005, SCOTUS ruled basically the same way in a case out of Colorado. SCOTUS is very clear that individuals are responsible for their own protection. The SECOND Amendment ends with “shall not be infringed” and the EIGHTH Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment (A life long ban on an indiviual NOT a threat to others is wrong!). Also, Courts in the US embrace “DOUBLE JEOPARDY”… Basically stating that you can’t be tried or punsihed twice for the same offense (convicted, sentenced and served for an offense and THEN a lifetime ban is wrong!). ADD IT UP!… If SCOTUS says that police have no duty to protect individuals, if SCOTUS says that individuals are responsible for their own protection and the Gov’t strips away your right and even ability to protect yourself and family, then this is conflicting and WRONG?! WHERE ARE THE LAWYERS!!!! Someone answer
Report this comment
coolillow
Feb. 26, 2013 at 1:17pmAlan Gura is the attorney in this case. (Heller and McDonald). He’s the best.
Report this comment
Gargent_Furball
Feb. 26, 2013 at 12:27pmBear Arms… 2nd amendment… Democrats way of thinking get some Barbersol and shave your arms. Ha
Report this comment
fibon1618
Feb. 26, 2013 at 12:20pmI feel his pain. I was turned down because I got a citation for having half of a joint when I was 19.
15 years ago.
Report this comment
Force2bewreckin
Feb. 26, 2013 at 12:19pmYou don’t need the governments permission to own a gun. Be free and if someone tries to infringe on your rights take them to court. Force the issue and put it in the public eye. As the people see the hypocrisy they will come to your defense. It will force the cowards hiding in the shadows to put their name on something therefore exposing the enemy. We need to make people take a side so we know who the scoundrels are.
Report this comment
environmentalandawake
Feb. 26, 2013 at 12:13pmThere is a bigger story here folks. First off he is being restricted of his rights in a pre-determinative nature, something the Constitution was to gaurd against. Second, the fact that the Brady Crap was written 30 years after the incident suggests EX-POST FACTO…..We need to wake up, because all they have to do now is define what it means to be illegal and take your rights away for some traffic ticket 30 years ago…..after all if you are willing to break a speeding law then surely you would shoot someone. He needs some real representation, and some support from us—-”We The People!”
Report this comment
SilentReader
Feb. 26, 2013 at 12:11pmThis is ludicrous! Of course, what isn’t, these days, with criminals and traitors at the helm and gunrunning in Benghazi to the vile al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood enemy via Turkey and gunrunning during Fast and Furious to the drug cartels in Mexico where Americans have been murdered with impunity.
Of course, these “Progressives” and NATO-Clinton (progressing us toward a Fabian Socialist tyranny and death by government, that is) were gunrunning in Bosnia as well. Now they’ve turned Bosnia and Kosovo into a terrorist haven, run by the KLA (UCK) Albanian Muslim drug and weapon trafficking terrorists and the Mujahedeen and the Wahhabis.
Now we have a traitor, John Kerry, as Secretary of State, who received monies from the KLA Albanian drug thugs during his campaign when he ran for President some time ago.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1248970/posts
If Congress had any courage at all they would have already started the impeachment proceedings, and they wouldn’t have confirmed traitor John Kerry as Secretary of State either, or even considered confirming Chuck Hagel
Vote them all out!
Report this comment
LBJDIDIT1963
Feb. 26, 2013 at 12:11pmWe the People need to ban this Government! Ban the spending, ban the borrowing, ban the excessive travel, ban the excessive entertainers, ban giving arms to infidel Governments like Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood! BAN THEIR INFRINGEMENT on our BILL OF RIGHTS! I would trust this soldier with my life and that of my children than a thousand of the wussies running around in the White House!
Report this comment
bryan1969
Feb. 26, 2013 at 12:09pmgive these jackasses some time and we wont even be able to leave our homes cause everything will be to dangerous for us so we will be told to stay in our homes and wait for the government to fix everything
Report this comment
Coulterr
Feb. 26, 2013 at 11:56amI call Bull! This man was convicted of a misdemeanor in 1968 and paid a $109 fine. 45 years later the state has reclassified the crine as a felony. Because the Federal Government is now saying the NEW law is a felony, this man cannot own a firearm. Now, tell me again how the Federal Government is not trying to disarm us. And what’s that little thing called the Constitution say about being prohibited from passing and applying ex post facto laws (clausae 3 of Article I, Section 9)?
Report this comment
LBJDIDIT1963
Feb. 26, 2013 at 12:13pmCan we re-classify possession and use of Cocaine as Treason?
Stoner Obama would get licked out!
Report this comment
sparky239
Feb. 26, 2013 at 11:53ammore stupidity from your government …a criminal with a felony record can get a gun legally any other time why not this guy???at least he is a vet and has no criminal back ground..ignorant judge needs to go as well and take his license to practice away from him ,bet he throw a fit..
Report this comment
ellietoo
Feb. 26, 2013 at 11:52amThis is illegal besides being very sad. Yes, it’s guns right now but if this kind of judicial activism will soon encompass every area of our lives. Those who have no interest in owning a gun are sitting this one out. Soon something in their lives will be touched. Wake up Americans.
Report this comment
garbagecanlogic
Feb. 26, 2013 at 11:52amSo, let me get this straight, he can serve his country in war time (conflict as the politicians called it), but he cannot own a gun – despite having owned and bartered for them for years. Our government at work. Where is his congressmen on this matter?
Praise Be To Obama. Psalm 109:8
The U.N. Out Of The U.S.
The U.S. Out Of The U.N.
Report this comment
Glock29
Feb. 26, 2013 at 11:48amI would think he can get his record expunged if this was the only crime he ever committed. Many states allow one minor record like this to be expunged and usually cost $2,000 to $4,000 to get it completely removed just like it never happened. I know a couple of people that had this done and it will allow him to check no on the federal forms and should be removed from the NICS check but might take awhile for the red tape.
Here is a link to Maryland expungement laws.
http://www.courts.state.md.us/courtforms/joint/ccdccr072br.pdf
Report this comment
environmentalandawake
Feb. 26, 2013 at 12:15pmTrue, but expungment doesn’t take him off the Federal list…..That’s how it is in most states
Report this comment
coolillow
Feb. 26, 2013 at 1:12pmCan’t be done. The attorney tried. Even looked into a pardon. Nope. That’s why the court case.- Jefferson’s wife.
Report this comment
Glock29
Feb. 26, 2013 at 5:39pm@ Jefferson’s wife….Sorry to hear that expungement is not an option, there are a lot of people who have something hanging over their heads that they did when they were young and stupid and it haunts them their entire life even though they have a clean record for 30 to 40 years means nothing. One thing I would suggest is move to a friendly 2nd amendment state anyway even if it doesn’t help Jefferson now….Maryland has pretty draconian gun laws and I could not deal with them. Also start an online fund to help with legal cost, many of us would chip in to help.
Good luck!
Report this comment
Beachmastermax
Feb. 26, 2013 at 11:48amCan’t own a gun? Lease one.
Report this comment
Beachmastermax
Feb. 26, 2013 at 11:44amI would be prepared to defend my home and my family. If they want to arrest you for that, then that is on them. Don’t comply.
Report this comment
Bigdogs504
Feb. 26, 2013 at 11:35amSo…. just how is it that you can limit something than cannot be infringed??? Answers to questions like this must be why law school is considered so difficult.
Report this comment
NVFreeMan
Feb. 26, 2013 at 11:33amATTENTION FELLOW PATRIOTS: I propose we start a new program: “Arm-a-Vet”. If you personally know and can vouche for a veteran who has been denied their 2nd Amendment rights (i.e. family member, close friend, or long-time neighbor), buy/give them a firearm. Just make sure they understand to keep quiet about it.
“Where justice is unjust, resistance is one’s duty.”
Report this comment
gryffn
Feb. 26, 2013 at 11:28amMove to Montana for the Montana Firearms Freedom Act.
The law declares that firearms manufactured in the state of Montana after October 1, 2009, and which remain in the state, are exempt from United States federal firearms regulations, provided that these items are clearly stamped “Made in Montana” on a central metallic part.
You can 4-wheel through Helena with an AK strapped to your back.
A hunter’s and gun nut’s paradise.
Report this comment
RestoreCapitalism
Feb. 26, 2013 at 11:24amThey will look for more and more ways to prohibit gun ownership. For any reason or no reason.
Report this comment
Charbet
Feb. 26, 2013 at 11:20amMr. Shrader,
Thank you for your service to our Country! I am so tired of seeing our Veterans being treated like this! ‘That guy’ in the WH nor any of his minions could hold a candle to this Veteran or any other! If you can move out of that state do it!
Report this comment
coolillow
Feb. 26, 2013 at 11:27amThank you for thanking my husband Jefferson Schrader for his service. He appreciates it!
Report this comment
gryffn
Feb. 26, 2013 at 11:19amMove to Montana for the Montana Firearms Freedom Act.
The law declares that firearms manufactured in the state of Montana after October 1, 2009, and which remain in the state, are exempt from United States federal firearms regulations, provided that these items are clearly stamped “Made in Montana” on a central metallic part.
Report this comment
BarackInsaneNobama
Feb. 26, 2013 at 11:11amThis is why I will never move from Idaho I am happy with our gun laws! I am 20 almost 21 I personally own 3 rifles (SKS, mini-14 Tac, .22 and a 7mm) I also have my 12guage wingmaster, and I bought mhy wife her.38 handgun awhile ago for personal protection, It took a bit toh get her to get trained and actually carry it on her hip(open carry untill she turned 21 in december now it always concealed with one in the chamber. About amonth ago I bought my Sig SAUR .45 ACP, I open carry ANY where
I go, even when HI visit the capitol building, in June I will get my Cocealed but willmost likely still open carry, so peopleknow I am armed and will protect myself, my wife, and my felow americans, even if they gave me crap for holding then 2 seconds later there life was in danger, I will be joining Boise Police Dept in about 2 years, I do ride alongs and I also have done their feild training course 3X and so has my wife, we are both very trained. Jist of my story is I got a DUI last April and DWPx2 and they carry2 year sentences, the only thing it has affectedis my wallet andh getting into the Academy and Police force. I will have to wait 2 more years, because I want to be a patrolmen(which is fine with me) because in Boise, Id you have to have 64 Credit hours on Police training and/or an Associates in Criminal Law, I will get both, because I have time. I already have 24 credit hours and 1 year left for my associates cus I am part time, I currently am a Security Guard for U.S Bank.
Report this comment
Xiccarph
Feb. 26, 2013 at 11:10amDon’t ever expect “justice” from the justice system, especially on the east or west coasts of the USSA.
A favorite Founding Father quote that needs extensive application these days…
When laws become unreasonable, it is the duty of reasonable men to ignore such laws.
By your frakkin’ firearms privately, stay away from the System, avoid the media, don’t do anything that attracts attention, and study the phrase “…loose lips sink ships”. Happy shooting!
Report this comment