A three-judge panel in Washington upheld a lower-court ruling “which found ‘no constitutional impediment’ to including common-law misdemeanants” within the federal firearms ban. The lower court observed that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” U.S. Circuit Judge David Tatel wrote in today’s opinion.Here is the cost of background checks. Of course, false positives also stop people from getting quickly that they need for self protection.
The federal ban applies to several categories of people including those who are mentally ill or who have been convicted of felonies or certain kinds of misdemeanors. . . .
Jefferson Wayne Schrader, of Cleveland, Georgia, sued to challenge the ban in 2010 after a companion tried to buy him a shotgun and Schrader tried to purchase a handgun in two separate transactions.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation blocked the shotgun purchase when the National Instant Criminal Background Check computer system flagged Schrader’s July 1968 conviction for misdemeanor assault. When informed of the rejection, Schrader canceled his handgun order.
The assault occurred while Schrader, then 20, was serving in the Navy and encountered a member of a street gang who had previously assaulted him, according to his complaint.
Schrader punched his assailant and was convicted of common- law assault and battery and fined $100. The court imposed no jail time. Schrader went on to serve a tour of duty in Vietnam and had no other brushes with the law, except for one traffic violation, he said in his complaint. . . .
1968 Misdemeanor Conviction prevents U.S. Navy veteran from getting gun for self protection
So does this law pass the reasonable basis test? The Supreme Court has struck down many laws based on the claim that there is no rational basis for the law. So does a 45 year ban on gun ownership for someone who probably would never have pleaded to the misdemeanor if he had known what the law was going to be changed to decades later pass the rational basis test?