SAF/Gura: Schrader v. Holder - Misdo possession bar

[hoffmang]

Some may recall when Schrader v. Holder was filed by SAF/Gura in DC. The MSJ was filed last week after the Richards oral argument.

The case seeks to force DOJ/FBI/ATF to not bar people convicted of common law misdemeanors that didn't have well defined penalties. It's step one in rolling back the class of folks prohibited from the 2A. Mr. Schrader was given a ticket for a fight when he was 20 and has since been disallowed from purchasing firearms.

-Gene

[freonr22]

[Andy Taylor]

Go after them!

[resident-shooter]

Lets own those noobs

[69Mach1]

Fight the Good Fight.

[spgripside]

When it rains, it pours.

[MP301]

Im not a legal eagle. Could winning this effect the Lauteburg Amendment in some fashion?

[CSDGuy]

Im not a legal eagle. Could winning this effect the Lauteburg Amendment in some fashion?

I'm no legal dude either... but reading the MSJ should be a pretty good primer on this.

In any event, I doubt it. (If Lautenberg is the misdemeanor DV language...)The person in question was convicted about 40 years ago of what's basically misdemeanor battery, and at the time, there was no sentencing range... and all he received was a $100 fine, which he subsequently paid. Because there was no legislated sentencing range given, they're supposed to look at the actual sentence. In other words, he's a misdemeanant who is being treated as if he was convicted of a Felony for purposes of owning a firearm because he could have been sentenced to more than one year of confinement.

It's about getting Federal Law (and enforcement agencies) to "recognize" that common law misdemeanor convictions aren't an automatic lifetime prohibition on firearm ownership.

One step at a time.

Interesting read, I must say.

[safewaysecurity]

Man, Gura is a beast. We give him a full plate and by the time it hits the table he's asking for more. How does he go about remembering the details of each individual case yet argue them so well? Just glad he's on our side.

[SunTzu]

Thanks for the update. Dont forget Don Kilmer has his case about MDV in california. Would Love to know how that is going, It can be found on Madison Society web page.

[Purple K]

Hit the Courts from every angle, keep the anti's reeling.

[yellowfin]

...ANOTHER one to wait on. Just like last week's lottery ticket and a refund on a defective parachute after skydiving.

[chris]

go get'em.

[MP301]

Thanks for the update. Dont forget Don Kilmer has his case about MDV in california. Would Love to know how that is going, It can be found on Madison Society web page.

I must have missed that one....So much to keep track of.. I love it!

EDIT: found the case on the Madison Society's website. Im wondering, since I usually follow 2a litigation at least by reading the CGN 2A secition, why I have not heard of this lawsuit. I hve been *****ing for years about how screwed up the Lautenberg amedment is...and how you can restore gun rights as a felon, but not for this one misdemeanor crime.

Go get em Don!

http://www.madison-society.org/laws/Enos-v-Holder.pdf

[krucam]

Shameless lifting of my posting on MDShooters...

Plaintiffs (SAF/Gura) filed their Brief in Support of their MSJ today, opposing Defendant's opposition to that same MSJ.

Item 14 on the Docket.

Gura devotes a lot of time rebutting the Defendant's recent arguments using the 4th Ckt's Coleman case. Coleman basically upheld Felon in Possession analogy to Misdemeanor crimes punishable with terms of one year or more. He does a very good job of dismantling Coleman, finishing up by mentioning Heller/McDonald post-date Coleman.

He takes the "presumptively lawful prohibitions" verbiage from Heller that the Defendants misread (misunderstood), takes it to the case of Common Law misdemeanors (relevant in this case) and proposes that Defendants would likely take it to Traffic Citations if they could....since only Law Abiding people should be able to have a gun...this is what we have to work against...

In a nutshell:
Pg 12/27

the government invokes perfectly circular logic[b]

Emphasis added.

You can feel him getting "warmed up"
Pg 13/27
Crap...I'm left handed!...

He then works on the Scrutiny argument, correctly claiming that Strict is appropriate here due to Core right of possession is being withheld from Schrader. Strict should be a slam dunk in this one.

Fun read. Section 922(g)(1) will hopefully take a beating soon...

But wait...there's more....

Today, SAF/Gura filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority to the Court.

Item 15

It advises them of last week's decision in Dearth v Holder, a reverse/remand back to the DC District, where DC District granted a "lack of standing" argument in their initial decision.

Here, Defendants are using a 'Standing' argument against Schrader as he is a GA resident. Gura uses the Dearth decision to essentially moot the Defendants standing argument. Great caselaw.

Also today, Gura filed a request to file an Amended Complaint. The Defendants are opposed to this.
Item 16