Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Civil Rights Group Defends Citizen Denied Gun Ownership Due To Old Misdemeanor Charge

October 22, 2010 by  

Civil rights group defends citizen denied gun ownership due to old misdemeanor chargeProtectors of the Second Amendment have filed a lawsuit against Attorney General Eric Holder and the FBI over a law that denies gun rights to individuals with a misdemeanor conviction.

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is acting on behalf of a Vietnam War veteran, Wayne Schrader, who was twice denied the opportunity to own a firearm because of a misdemeanor charge stemming from an altercation that happened more than 40 years ago. Schrader was arrested in 1968 for defending himself against a member of a street gang in Maryland, according to the plaintiff's complaint.

Schrader was denied gun ownership rights on two separate occasions, in 2008 and 2009. The FBI also ordered Schrader, who wanted a gun for personal protection, to surrender any guns he may have owned or face criminal prosecution.

"No fair-minded person can tolerate gun control laws being applied this way," said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. "Mr. Schrader's case is a great example of why gun owners cannot trust government bureaucrats to enforce gun laws."

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Civil Rights Group Defends Citizen Denied Gun Ownership Due To Old Misdemeanor Charge”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • Dan Az

    If you have a felony then you cant own a gun but as far as a misdemeanor goes that would unconstitutional to say the least.A misdemeanor can be just about anything from spiting on the sidewalk to flipping off someone.I feel that this grab of rights is a ploy to set up all americans to be raided of their weapons.when does it stop?This would be a good time for lawyers from the 2nd ammendment rights advocates to take a stand pro bono for the rights of all citizens and put holder back in to the barrio where he came from.

    • James

      Dan, the U.S. Constitution says nothing about who can, and who can’t, possess a firearm. It merely prevents Congress from infringing on the right. If those with midemeanor convictions should retain the right to bear arms, why not those with felony convictions?

      • Patriot

        Because a felony is a much more serious crime than a misdemeanor. In some states if you exceed the speed limit by 20 miles per hour, it’s a misdemeanor. That’s a fairly minor offense that everyone has broken.

        • Dan Az

          Good point!If they get away with it then its time to lock and load.

      • JC

        Oh come on James, until someone commits a crime that is considered a felony and is convicted for it…everyone has the right to bear arms.
        Self defense is not a felony last time I checked.

        • James

          JC, I know everyone has the right to bear arms. The right isn’t dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence, it just says the right “shall not be infringed” by Congress. It’s state law that deprives certain people of the right.

    • JC

      We had better be buying guns…lots of em!
      I’ve never felt LESS secure in my life.
      Read on!

      Well, boys and girls, today the fox is guarding the hen house. The wolves will be herding the sheep!

      Obama appointed two devout Muslims to homeland security posts.

      Obama and Janet Napolitano appointed Arif Alikhan, a devout Muslim, as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swore-in Kareem Shora, a devout Muslim, who was born in Damascus, Syria, as ADC National Executive Director as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC).

      NOTE: Has anyone ever heard a new government official being identified as a devout Catholic, a devout Jew or a devout Protestant…?
      Just wondering.

      Devout Muslims being appointed to critical Homeland Security positions? Doesn’t this make you feel safer already?? That should make our home land much safer, huh!?

      Was it not “Devout Muslim men” that flew planes into U.S. buildings 8 1/2 years ago? Was it not a Devout Muslim who killed 13 at Fort Hood ?
      Please forward this important information to any who cares about the future of our Country.
      Checked this on ; and its


        reply: JC, oct 24,2010

        There is an old saying, “you get what you pay for” or “if you buy junk you get junk”.
        Well we can put another saying in with them, “if you elect a God hating, anti-America, out for no good person to office, then you get a God hating, anti-America, out for no good bunch with them.”
        This may be our last chance! Get out and VOTE, and lets start holding those that are put into office accountable. Treason (anyone who sales out America) use to be punishable by death, in front of a firing squad. Also

  • Rep=Dem=Rep=Dem

    Schrader was only given a $100 fine no jail time.
    The law used against him:
    18 U.S.C. 922 (g) It shall be unlawful for any person -
    (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable
    by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
    The FBI will lose this one.

    • Dan Az

      I Hope so,presidence of such an absurd law will become the norm if not fought for and just excepted by the sheepie.We can not let this happen at any cost.

    • katwoman

      Actually the law used against him was a state misdemeanor with a penalty of more than 2 years but the crime he was convicted of had no maximum sentence and so even though it was misdemeanor he could have convicted for more that two years and this arbitrary distinction is what is causing him problems. In my opinion only incarcerated felons or those confined with a GPS tracking device should be prohibited from owning guns that is if you really believe in redemption.

      • http://?? Joe H.

        what about a man/woman convicted of murder with a firearm?? I may be wrong in my thinking, but I believe that any person convicted of murder with a firearm should lose the right to ever own again!!

    • James

      Rep=Dem, In your opinion, does that law violate the Second Amendment? Did Congress infringe on the right?

  • Patriot Scabard

    If you want this type of thing to stop have a treason trials for all leftist/communist in DC. Well, what do you know there goes the entire Obam administration. Let FREEDOM RING once again….

    • sylviam

      Patriot, I do think this person might consider joining the NRA, not to be confused with the OTHER nra. The NRA is *THE NATIONAL RIFLESMEN ASSOCIATION. they have lawyers for this very thing, and will take it to court *WITH THEM, not *for* THEM.
      I am a life time member, and have carried a weapon for 52yrs. They will see that your rights ARE NEVER INFRINGED upon.
      Even the GOV. is shy around the NRA.

      • http://n/a threefiftyseven

        I had been an NRA member since my father bought me mine at eleven until I resigned at 71 yrs. My letter to them was one of disgust because for their lack of real action other their conventions, award parties, celebrity photo opps., etc. instead of opposition to the number one real 900 pound gorilla in New York. The NRA is a Non-Governmental organization or Operative (NGO)of the United Nations. This is the source of the World Disarmament Treaty that O’Bomba Nation is counting on to get around Congress. A Treaty while he still has a Marxist majority in the Senate and a like amount of RINO’s (Democratic rejects with insufficient union support to join the club)in the House. We have been had again after the last attempt at a leftest coup that was squelched. This time they are making it stick, celebrities and all. Wake up sheeple!!!

  • katwoman

    Up until 1968 everyone who was not incarcerated could own a gun. The 1968 gun control laws aree based on racism and fear. Ironically violent has escalated ever since we began trying to keep gun out of the hands of free men. All free men are entitled to defend themselves and their family. I do not think the family of a convicted felon who has paid his time and been released from prison should be victim of crime because daddy can no longer own a gun if he chooses to be law abiding. On the other hand under the current system only those felons who are not law abiding have guns. Think about it!!

    • Robert Smith

      From katwoman: “All free men are entitled to defend themselves and their family.”

      It isn’t an entitlement. It is a responsibility.

      If one is attacked it is your RESPONSIBILITY to make sure there is no “next” attack on someone less able to protect themselves.

      That is what will make for a safer society.


      • JC

        Amen that.

    • Ohio pro-gun rights

      I agree,anyone who is not incarcerated on felony charges should be able to own firearms, but that’s not what our laws say. Some states,(Ohio is one) have a law to restore firearms rights to felons who are not on probation or parole,have served their time,and are not likely to re-offend.
      In Ohio,you have to pay an attorney,and convince a judge that you are now “reformed” and the prosecutor gets the chance to say you should not have firearms rights restored. This system is not fair,because it leaves the decision up to a judge,and a prosecutor,and I think the county sheriff gets a say too. The other problem is cost-hard to afford for someone who has limited job opportunities due to a past felony conviction,that makes a person inelegible for about 80% or more of jobs advertised. ( I know this from personal experience,a 1979 “drug law violation,and a 1995 DUI prevent me from purchasing a firearm,I would have a good chance of getting firearms rights restored in court,but I can not come up with the money.)
      The gun laws need to be changed,if a person goes to jail/prison,does their time,and has been a law abiding citizen since release,they should be able to own firearms.

      • ValDM

        Same for voting rights, too. Felons that have paid their debt can have their voting rights restored in the same fashion.

        • ChuckL

          Val, Perhaps you did not see the story about voting rights in Chicago. They were 14 days late in mailing absentee ballots to military personnel, but they hand carried ballots to those incarcerated in the Chicago jails.

          In Chicago it is the military who are disenfranchised, the crooks vote Democrat.

          • libertytrain

            Yes, however do they really care about the military?

          • libertytrain

            and do not criminals have every right of their’s more than protected?

      • eddie47d

        I agree with both of you.Too many draconian laws that destroys lives forever. We need a stronger redemption process so people can move on with their lives.

        • Allan Halbert

          Seems like if a misdemeanor such as Wayne’s is a reason to deny a constitutional right, using cocaine should be a reason to be denied the Presidency.

          • Robert S

            When I was a kid I forgot to give Tubby More back his marbles. Do you think the authorities know about that?

    • sylviam

      katwoman—This person would have to go back to court & get his *voting, gun* rights back. If he has done everything the law has put before him then the JUDGE will return HIS rights back to him.
      The law is used *for* you and *against* you depending on what your actions as well as your thinking goes. Just because yoyu have served your time does not mean YOU automaticly get your rights back.

      • ChuckL

        So let’s change the law to eliminate the judge’s decision with a fixed period of time after completion of the sentence for a probation. No problems, automatic restoration of rights. I should be happy with a 3 year time limit, and with the power of a judge to declare any misdemeanor during this period to be excluded from consideration immediately after completion or any sentence imposed.

      • http://?? Joe H.

        In todays world, how many convicted fellons here in the US actually serve their time???? Not very many, what with shock parole, time off for good behavior, All sorts of ways guys get to serve less than their sentence!!!

  • s c

    I wonder if Holder [THE horse's ass who helped Bubba Clinton free Puerto Rican terrorists] took the time to check and see if those ‘misunderstood, victims of society’ were guilty of weapons violations. Or, were they arrested and convicted because they liked to spit on sidewalks?
    If weapons charges were involved, and if the charges were more serious than misdemeanors, then it does seem a bit strange that Holder can claim to give a damn about gun ownership. To date, Holder seems to have a rather warped perspective on what’s legal and what isn’t.
    I’d also like to know if those ‘former’ Puerto Ricans have weapons now. Assuming that fair is fair, it would be nice to know that people like Holder practice what they preach and are in positions of authority because they belong there (as opposed to being appointed because “it was convenient”). Food for thought, folks.

    • s c

      Sorry, I meant to say ‘former’ Puerto Rican terrorists.

      • eddie47d

        That is a subject worth debating.16 Puerto Ricans were offered clemency and release from prison for bombings in the 70′s. It was not a popular decision to do so at the time. Clinton and the DOJ demanded that those released would renounce violence and that they could be prosecuted for any future crimes and sent back to prison. 11 of the 16 were released and I believe the other 5 are still in prison.(those 5 said they would resume fighting for Puerto Rican independence and may use violence to achieve those means).

        • JeffH

          So there is no mis-understanding, it was Clinton that authorized their release and offered to commute their sentances and in exchange the 16 must agree not to use violence to pursue their political goals.
          Both the FBI and DOJ were agianst the release of the 16 but it was outgoing WH counsel Charles Ruff, who recommended the move to Clinton.
          It was very clear that certain Democrats and human rights groups spearheaded the effort to persuade Clinton to offer clemency.

          • JeffH

            Now isn’t that a surprise?

  • http://com i41

    How the hell does any Congressal smuck have the rights to carry a gun or even be allowed access to top secret material, check the agencies and see how many questionable smuck are in government. The fact that Whorehound Clinton lost the codes for missles and Carter had a reason, he was eating goobers and overdosed. Cann’t wait till the cholate muslim’s screw ups come to light, maybe he is a pathological liar and and a really was born next to a camel dung fire!

  • Rick Quill

    In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
    —————————— China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
    Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
    During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
    With guns, we are ‘citizens;’ without them, we are ‘subjects’.
    You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

    Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens
    The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.

    Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

    • James

      Rick Q. Thank You! Your point is well-taken. Is it not a fact that every federal gun law has infringed on the right to bear arms? Is it not thus a fact that all of those federal laws have violated the Second Amendment?

      • JC

        Yep, ALL of them.

  • http://personnellibertydigest Buck Crosby

    Another reason to adopt the fair tax , eliminate the IRS ,which should eliminate the ATF . They aren’t needed and are unconstitutional, the explosives part can go to the FBI as well as any other legitimate activities they are involved in. As for Eric Holder , he is about as American as his boss . Nuff said !

  • Mark Black

    The last couple of comments are not entirely true, in spite of what the public has been told. There’s a loophole, and I’m not certain why. A previously convicted felon is allowed to own firearms, provided that the firearms in question were “manufactured” prior to 1898. They aren’t considered firearms, and can be mailed through the US Postal Service as well without going through an FFL. Considering the number of 6.5×55 mausers, 7.65 Argentine mausers and 7mm Mausers available that were manufactured prior to 1898, a convicted felon has a range of modern calibers available to them if they need a firearm for protection or hunting.

    • independant thinker

      Those you mentioned, while good for hunting, are not practical for self defence.

  • jopa

    A Viet Nam war vet not allowed to oen a gun? There shuld be a law passed that all honorably discharged veterans get to choose two firearms, a pistol and a rifle of their choice and Uncle Sam picks up the tab as a thank you.You can use my tax dollars for that and it will give terrorists something to think about.

  • http://com i41

    That will not happen with The National Marxist Democrat Communist Union Party in control. Might remove too many peophile muslims, illegals, crimminals, and potental party voters. Since the party’s jug eared leader was a drug user and a dealer, and party supports legalization of drugs. With the Chicago radical mob leadership and beleifs of only gun ownership should be crimminals and gangs.

  • Mark Black

    The calibers I mentioned are adequate for hunting, and probably aren’t that practical for self defense, but the point is that convicted felons can’t really be choosers. It’s tough enough to find a firearm that is “documented” to have been maunfactured prior to 1898. That requires research, and packing around documentation if they happen to be stopped and checked. There are lots of Colt .45 single action army revolvers and others out there manufactured prior to 1898, but cost is prohibitive, and they are tough to find.


    If the government can ‘legally’ restrict a Constitutionally supported RIGHT, i.e. 2d Amendment protection of gun ownership for anyone, what restricts them from infringing 1st amendment rights, i.e. Free speech, right to assemble (infringed ALL the TIME), or the practice of religion?

    If this doesn’t illustrate how far we’ve allowed the clowns we call statesmen and legislators to progress towards tyranny, you’ll never understand why the Tea Party spontaneously formed and is struggling against an illegal, unconstitutional, tyrannical bastardization of our liberty, excuse for government.

  • Harold

    Todays government can convict you for a felony for just about anything. We think of Felons as violent criminals. However, you can make a mistake on your taxes and be convicted of a felony. You can make a mistake on a government document and be convicted of a felony. There are 40,000 Federal Felonies out there that many of us never think about. If we give the government any rights to take away guns they will eventually take away guns for any reason on any grounds. Be careful giving our rights away to the government.

  • 14Freedomfighter88

    Get rid off of the FBI, DHS and hundreds of other pro-communist hate-groups.
    Better then, get rid off of the whole US government by an armed revolution. Votes will NOT change anything.


    A misdemeanor and a felony are, as we all know, two totally different things. The anti-gunners will try anything they can to get a way to disarm America. Wayne are you by chance from New Orleans? If we remember back right after “Katrina” they went around and took the weapons from law abiding citizens while the law breakers kept theirs, leaving the guiltless in harms way. I believe even a felony, in some cases,and if no weapon was used, shouldn’t, after a period of time, lose their right to own a gun, but that is just my opinion.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.