PDA

View Full Version : SCOTUS Declines To Hear Schrader v. Holder


sholling
11-05-2013, 9:59 AM
Yet more proof that justice and the 2nd Amendment rights of American citizens subjects no longer interests the Supremes.

http://rare.us/story/supreme-court-maintains-passive-stance-on-guns/#sthash.JgULR7ru.dpuf
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-04/firearm-ban-after-assault-left-intact-by-u-s-high-court.html
Gun control lives. On Monday the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from a man barred from owning a firearm because of a 45-year-old misdemeanor assault conviction.

Schrader v. Holder, 12-1443

baggss
11-05-2013, 10:40 AM
While I feel for the guy, the old saying "actions have consequences" seems to apply here. 45 years is a long time though.

BobB35
11-05-2013, 10:40 AM
No surprise here. The SCOTUS has abrogated the rights of Citizens for years.
No different here.


“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”

― Frank Zappa

Think the curtain is being pulled back. The question becomes, how long to the serfs put up with this. The .gov knows what is going to happen, it is just a matter of time, which is why the militarization of the Police and the constant fear mongering is happening.

The courts are no longer the solution. It is just a matter of time before the Progressives think they can get away with taking them all....

mlevans66
11-05-2013, 11:18 AM
They are SCARED to do anything involing the 2A right right now. With the way the sides are building up one more for our side couple topple multiple states like NY, CA and look what happened to ILL. That's why Brown veto'ed the new ban cause he knew if the SCOTUS ruled in our favor they would loose everything in CA. The SCOTUS does not want to make anymore nation changing judgements like the Obamacare law or Homosexual Marriage cause it will come back to them to fix it. If they had of struck down that law and been MORE clear in the Heller case a lot would be different now.

sholling
11-05-2013, 1:22 PM
While I feel for the guy, the old saying "actions have consequences" seems to apply here. 45 years is a long time though.
It was what was then a misdemeanor plea after fist fight. But I guess "actions have consequences" and when the antis change laws to make traffic infractions felonies by changing the maximum sentence from $500 fines to 1 or 2 years in jail you'll turn in your guns for that traffic ticket that you got at 18?

What SCOTUS is doing is no different than those Germans turning their backs on Jews, then gays, then Gypsies, then Sloves, then political prisoners being sent to the camps in the 1930s and 1940s. They are allowing rights and freedoms to be ripped from one small group we're told are "untermenschen" after another, after another. First violent felons, then those with non-violent felonies, then those with politically incorrect misdemeanors, then those whose's misdemeanors are recategorized as felonies, then you and I become the untermenschen.

stix213
11-05-2013, 2:25 PM
I would never have expected the SCOTUS to take this up. If the SCOTUS takes up any issues it will be big picture ones, not corner cases like this.

Plus it seems that the appeals court already offered an avenue to be taken back up with the district court to help this specific individual, rather than going after all common-law assault and battery convictions regardless if they were punished by a small fine as in this case, or 15 years in other cases under the same conviction. So why would SCOTUS want to weigh in?

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/D9BA0E41A24DE16785257AF00053BBAC/$file/11-5352-1414648.pdf


IV.
At several points in their briefs, plaintiffs appear to go
beyond their argument that section 922(g)(1) is
unconstitutional as applied to common-law misdemeanants as
a class and claim that the statute is invalid as applied to
Schrader specifically. Were this argument properly before us,
Heller might well dictate a different outcome. According to
the complaint’s allegations, Schrader’s offense occurred over
forty years ago and involved only a fistfight. Second Am.
Compl. ¶ 10. Schrader received no jail time,served honorably
in Vietnam, and, except for a single traffic violation, has had
no encounter with the law since then. Id. ¶¶ 11–12. To the
extent that these allegations are true, we would hesitate to find
Schrader outside the class of “law-abiding, responsible
citizens” whose possession of firearms is, under Heller,
protected by the Second Amendment. Heller, 554 U.S. at 635.


But we need not wade into these waters because plaintiffs
never argued in the district court that section 922(g)(1) was
unconstitutional as applied to Schrader. See Jicarilla Apache
Nation v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 613 F.3d 1112, 1117 (D.C.
Cir. 2010) (explaining that arguments not raised before the
district court are ordinarily waived). In their complaint,
plaintiffs frame their constitutional claim with reference to
common-law misdemeanants as a class, arguing that “barring
possession of firearms by individuals on account of simple
common-law misdemeanor offenses carrying no statutory
penalties” violates the Second Amendment. Second Am.
Compl. ¶ 22. Indeed, plaintiffs’ counsel conceded at oral
argument that an as-applied challenge with respect to
Schrader was not “specifically elucidated in the complaint.”
Oral Arg. Rec. 15:29–15:34. To be sure, the complaint seeks
some relief on behalf of Schrader specifically, i.e., withdrawal
of his record of conviction from the NICS. Second Am.
Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶ 1. But given that the injunctive
relief plaintiffs seek with respect to section 922(g)(1) is far
broader—an injunction barring the statute’s enforcement “on
the basis of simple common-law misdemeanor offenses
carrying no statutory penalties,” id. Prayer for Relief ¶ 2—and
given that plaintiffs raised no as-applied challenge with
respect to Schrader in their district court briefs, we view this
more specific claim as simply derivative of the broader claim
that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to common-law
misdemeanants as a class. And although plaintiffs referred to
the specific circumstances of Schrader’s offense, they did so
in the context of arguing that common-law misdemeanants as
a class can be expected to share Schrader’s sympathetic
characteristics.

Maestro Pistolero
11-05-2013, 2:29 PM
I would never have expected the SCOTUS to take this up. If the SCOTUS takes up any issues it will be big picture ones, not corner cases like this.

Plus it seems that the appeals court already offered an avenue to be taken back up with the district court to help this specific individual, rather than going after all common-law assault and battery convictions regardless if they were punished by a small fine as in this case, or 15 years in other cases under the same conviction. So why would SCOTUS want to weigh in?

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/D9BA0E41A24DE16785257AF00053BBAC/$file/11-5352-1414648.pdf

So is he going to take another run at it? What would that suit look like?

stix213
11-05-2013, 2:34 PM
So is he going to take another run at it? What would that suit look like?

So that opinion was put out nearly a year ago. I'd think he would know by now if he were going to pursue it. The court seemed rather positive that he would likely get his rights back with a proper case arguing constitutionality as applied to himself specifically, rather than all common law misdemeanor convictions as a class.

My real point is, this case doesn't really seem like SCOTUS material to me, so I don't see the SCOTUS not taking it up as some kind of set back or speaking as to the intent of the court in the same way as Woolard. IANAL though

wolfwood
11-07-2013, 2:23 AM
There is a concept called res judicata in the law. It means that if the legal landscape has not changed a person can not sue twice over the same thing. What the D.C. Court said is that if another person similarly situated sued over this law they would win if a as applied challenge were made. This case involved a facial challenge. That means the person did not ask the Court to address whether the law was unconstitutional when applied person like him. His suit ask the Court to address whether the law could ever be applied to a person in a constitutional manner. In doing so he basically asked the Court to address whether anyone convicted of common law battery could have there gun rights taken away. As this crime included acts such as chopping a guys arms off the Court said yes. I haven't read the opinion in awhile but the the Court had a pretty long list of pretty gruesome acts that were covered by this. Accordingly the Court said there is a important government interest in keeping those types of persons from owning guns.

Nick Justice
11-07-2013, 12:48 PM
Regarding the quote in Stix213's post above, and as wolfwood points out:

The lawyer screwed up. If you don't raise an argument or theory at the first opportunity, it can be considered waived. This was an "as applied" case, not "invalid on its face." See?

"But we need not wade into these waters because plaintiffs
never argued in the district court that section 922(g)(1) was
unconstitutional as applied to Schrader. See Jicarilla Apache
Nation v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 613 F.3d 1112, 1117 (D.C.
Cir. 2010) (explaining that arguments not raised before the
district court are ordinarily waived). In their complaint,
plaintiffs frame their constitutional claim with reference to
common-law misdemeanants as a class, arguing that “barring
possession of firearms by individuals on account of simple
common-law misdemeanor offenses carrying no statutory
penalties” violates the Second Amendment. Second Am.
Compl. ¶ 22. Indeed, plaintiffs’ counsel conceded at oral
argument that an as-applied challenge with respect to
Schrader was not “specifically elucidated in the complaint.”

Next time, use the "as applied" argument AND the "invalid on its face" argument.

We need to approach these cases more carefully, thoughtfully and completely. Stop going for a one-argument "all or nothing" approach. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. Just like the antis have been doing for decades now.

stix213
11-07-2013, 3:12 PM
Ah, thanks for correcting me

baggss
11-07-2013, 7:07 PM
There is a concept called res judicata in the law. It means that if the legal landscape has not changed a person can not sue twice over the same thing. What the D.C. Court said is that if another person similarly situated sued over this law they would win if a as applied challenge were made. This case involved a facial challenge. That means the person did not ask the Court to address whether the law was unconstitutional when applied person like him. His suit ask the Court to address whether the law could ever be applied to a person in a constitutional manner. In doing so he basically asked the Court to address whether anyone convicted of common law battery could have there gun rights taken away. As this crime included acts such as chopping a guys arms off the Court said yes. I haven't read the opinion in awhile but the the Court had a pretty long list of pretty gruesome acts that were covered by this. Accordingly the Court said there is a important government interest in keeping those types of persons from owning guns.

That was a good read. Thanks!