February 26th, 2013

Another Vietnam Vet Who Can’t Have A Gun




The Blaze has a serious story we all should read:



Vietnam Vet Barred From Owning a Gun Because of a Teenage Misdemeanor 45 Years Ago

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.

(snip) Please read entire article at source -



Placing billboards outside of military bases to remind service members of their oath

Please donate and support Oath Keepers mission, every little bit helps!

 Read More Posts

Comments posted belong to the commenter alone, and are not endorsed by Oath Keepers or the administrators for this site. We will remove offensive, racist, or threatening comments.

9 Responses to “Another Vietnam Vet Who Can’t Have A Gun”

  1. 1
    Kevin Brown Says:

    Mr. Schrader, thank you for your services and I pray that justice will prevail on this issues. I don’t see how the courts could legally uphold a decision based on changes in common sentencing. Mr. Schrader was served the common sentence for his crime at the time it was committed, and fulfilled that sentence by paying his fines and fees. Now that the common sentence for the same crime has changed, he is being forced to serve further consequences for a already fulfilled sentence. I am no law student, but doesn’t this fall under some form of double jeopardy or something. If this continues to be held up in court, this will be a very nasty slippery slop for cases to come.

    I once received a sentence for a misdemeanor, that at the time I received it, the fine was at it’s highest ever in common sentencing. Not even a month after I was convicted the fines where reduced as they where found to be to high (which actually happened right after the mayor of my city was found guilty of committing the same crime). With the logic utilized in by the courts in this case, I should receive over $2,500.00 in over paid fines, because the law has changed. That would never fly and what is happening to Mr. Schrader shouldn’t either.

    The current NICS system some major issues and the government is trying to implement stricter “universal” background checks (aka registration). Let’s fix the NICS system to prevent issues like this from happening again and correct the injustice forced upon Mr. Schrader’s (and others like him) rights, before we try to add more stress to an already broken system.

  2. 2
    Cal Says:

    That is NOT what the US Constitution, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights says:

    Preamble to the Bill of Rights:

    Congress of the United States
    begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
    THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
    RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
    ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

    Note: These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and are known as the “Bill of Rights.” The Bill of Rights are unalienable rights – as William Blackstone defined in his “Commentaries on the Laws of England”:

    “Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture. Those rights return when they have served their sentence.”

    Inalienable rights: “a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred”.

    Blacks Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition, (1910), Unalienable is defined as ” Not subject to alienation; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another such as rivers and public highways and certain personal rights; e.g., liberty.”

    Supreme Court, West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette where Justice Robert Jackson delivered the following ruling, “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.”

    In 1966 the Supreme Court ruled “Where rights as secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona

    This was just another unlawful move by the treasonous scumbags within the three branches of the federal government. Muchlike the Milk problem, people getting arrested for using ‘rain water’, not being allowed to give a starving person in a city food or drink .. once again we do nothing.

    I wrote the California governor demanding that Feinstein be removed from office for no longer meeting the LAWFUL requirements of that position. I also gave him and the others here in California the Molon Labe time limit.

  3. 3
    Pilgrims Pride Says:

    How can you be debarred the possession of arms for MISDEMEANOR CRIMES?????

    I think we all accept a ban on felons … although that need rethinking in light of what we know now.


    How did this come to be???

  4. 4
    csaaphill Says:

    Actually no our country lived without banning felons for over 200 years It was only in 1968 that felons were not able to keep their rights. I know I know it’s call for peace and safety so it’s good to do so. Nope were on this slippery slope now because of that law. Repeal gun ctrl act of 1968 and this fine american would not be fighting this battle now.
    Ok argue with me on this but I have sworn not to abide with these laws and millions of others have sworn not to as well so if so that would make us all felons and unable to keep and bare arms. Be warned America you get what you voted for.
    This guy is a hero and should not be at this point. And anyone who doesn’t see the writing on the wall and still argue with me on this won’t see it later either when were all disarmed.

  5. 5
    csaaphill Says:

    Liberty is a hard pill to swallow at times. It would mean allowing for things to happen that most anyone would not wish to happen and think having laws to protect agianst such things are always the best option, but liberty says instead it’s better to be free than to have peace and safety.
    So @Pilgrim even if in theory I agree but liberty is more important.
    America I say please, please, please, think before you put in these slippery slopes.

  6. 6
    Jason Says:

    Who decides a felon? The government. It would be very easy to classify anyone a felon with the millions of laws on the books. Don’t expect gun confiscation to come from one angle. Mental health, felonies, connections with “terrorist organization” I believe they tried to list OK as a terrorist organization. All these items prevent you from even having a gun. That is the worse form of confiscation. They know its easier and safer for them to prevent you from owning a firearm then trying to take it.

  7. 7
    Linda Says:

    Thank You for your service to our country. I hope you will persist in fighting for your rights. Perhaps you might consider joining JPFO, which is a gun rights advocacy organization that is advertised on this site. It was founded by an Orthodox Jewish rabbi, but it welcomes everyone, and it promises an “aggressive defense of your gun rights” if you join. The primary address there is JPFO.org. Rabbi Bendory is called the “Gun Rabbi”.
    If you go there and listen to the short tape on the right towards the bottom of the webpage, I am pretty sure you will agree that Rabbi Bendory is a clear thinker, and quite capable of mounting a good defense for gun users. I hope this helps you. God Bless. Linda

  8. 8
    Michael Penson Says:

    get a gun trust

  9. 9
    Eagle275 Says:

    I know this is an old thread, but I’m retired military and got a misdemeanor 12 yrs ago because a a supposed friend went to a school where my mom was working the polls and was threatening her, he had been banned from hunting on our farm because of some stupid crap he was doing, he was mad, and I called him up and told him I would take him out, so I got charged with communicating threats and harassing phone calls. I did the communicating threat once, phone calls a few times. I wanted to let him know don’t screw with my family. He told some lies in court about what I said, wrote some kind of letter to put on file. He was a convicted felon, was caught selling drugs in college. I thought he he had changed, so I let him hunt, u4ntil he said he wanted to grow dope on our farm. So that’s when all this happened. I was gonna purchase another gun, but now I’m not sure if I should. I have all kinds of guns, and they weren’t taken away, I still hunt.

Leave a Reply

© 2012 www.oathkeepers.org | Oath Keepers Corp Address: 5130 S. Fort Apache Rd - Las Vegas, NV 89148