Ammo For Sale

« « Stick to your gun issues | Home | Gun Porn » »

I was told he was good on guns

Trump’s lawyers are asking SCOTUS to reject the second amendment claim of non violent felons, who committed their crimes 20 years ago:

But the Justice Department under Trump has embraced the same position in this case that was adopted under President Obama: to defend strict enforcement of a long-standing federal law that bars convicted criminals from ever owning a gun, even when their crimes did not involve violence.

I’m not a fan of this move by the Justice Department.

38 Responses to “I was told he was good on guns”

  1. Lyle Says:

    Yeah; Bush 41 was an NRA “Lifetime Member” too, for a very short time.

  2. Sigivald Says:

    This surely can’t be a surprise.

    Trump would have to be not just “good on guns”, but an unbelievably dedicated 2A Warrior to expend any political capital or effort on telling Justice to not defend a law that isn’t unconstitutional on its face.

    (And while I support substantially loosening felon bans, they don’t seem to be prima facie unconstitutional.)

  3. Fûz Says:

    Trump is probably just “yes, AG Sessions, whatever you think is best” and Sessions is simply going along with whatever his LE buddies want.

    Not to diminish Trump’s responsibility here. Maybe our NRA brothers who are so devoted to him for not being Hillary could place a call or two, to Trump and not Sessions, to get Session on board with a key but neglected Trump constituency.

  4. JTC Says:

    They say Justice is blind; I’m afraid under AG Sessions it’ll also be stupid…just one of many blind and stupid L&E positions and promotions to come fom him.

    I don’t like that smarmy little fuck. The most disappointed I’ve been in a Trump pick…and that’s saying something.

  5. SPQR Says:

    This is a hill that no politician would have any part of even looking a tiny bit under the weather upon, much less dying on.

  6. Montieth Says:

    Honest question, but can we get Scotus rulings in cases the DOJ doesn’t appeal?

    The lack of an appeal in Atf v Rock island arsenal is a problem for precident in that case.

  7. HSR47 Says:

    @Sigivald: I would argue that “prohibited person” statutes as they currently exist ARE prima facie unconstitutional.

    After all, it was Thomas Jefferson who wrote the following in an early draft of the VA Constitution: “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

  8. Deaf Smith Says:

    Congress defended many years ago the restoration of civil rights.

    https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1435-post-conviction-restoration-civil-rights

    What is needed is for Trump to get Congress to fund them again. Used to they did background checks to make sure the felons had keep on the strait and narrow and then Congress would vote to restore their rights.

  9. Phil Says:

    Maybe we have to think the other way around. Maybe some of the current non-violent felonies shouldn’t be a felony in the first place. Maybe they could be considered as minor crimes but still treated the same way as felonies for the first xxx years and then treated as minor crimes if there was no other crimes in the probation period, or something like that… I don’t know I’m not a lawyer.

    But the bottom line, it’s just like the “no fly no buy” problem. The problem is not to avoid people on the “no fly” list to buy guns, but more about how people end up on the “no fly” list. By definition the whole “no fly no buy” is not the problem, as long as no American would end up on the “no fly” list by a judge and without a proper due process.

    Here, the whole “no gun for felons” is not the problem per se, it might be the way American become “felon” even for minor crime done 20 years ago.

    Just thinking out loud…

  10. mikee Says:

    I’d get nationwide concealed carry permitting, suppressors, and repeal of the 1986 full auto ban before I’d go for felons getting gun rights back.

    And it would be easier both politically and philosophically to create a “good citizen” program where federal felonies were expunged after X number of years with full restoration of all rights, than to selectively get gun rights back.

    Dems would even back that, if only for the votes from all the criminals who remain in the DNC – one of their core constituencies.

  11. FiftycalTX Says:

    I believe you all have it wrong. If the Trump administration DID NOT APPEAL this ruling, nothing would change. A “conviction” for felony overdue book lending from the library would still result in a lifetime ban. By appealing, there is a CHANCE that SCOTUS will take the reasonable course of action and limit the “felon” exclusion to just “real” felons.

  12. Hist_ed Says:

    The law is crystal clear. The administration is doing what it is supposed to do and enforce and defend the law as it is written. Didn’t we have enough of that over past 8 years? If there is something wrong with the law, then Congress should change it.

  13. Lyle Says:

    I’m with Phill on this one. You can’t cut a fart in some situations without becoming a fellon.

  14. Fûz Says:

    “some of the current non-violent felonies shouldn’t be a felony in the first place.”

    Nailed it.

  15. dustydog Says:

    best case scenario: Justice would have to defend it, just enough to get a Supreme Court ruling.

  16. Jeffersonian Says:

    Well. As Phil pointed out,not all felons are violent felons. To put it in perspective, several states have traffic laws on the books that make certain levels of speeding a felony. Do you really believe it is just and right to forbid a man his god given right to arms because he had a let’s see what this car can do wild hair moment? Discuss.

    And seriously, if a person is deemed too dangerous to society to own guns, why the heck is he not still locked up?

  17. Patrick Says:

    If Justice Kennedy truly is the squish on guns rights, it’s also true that going full “shall not be infringed” might just keep him from retiring.

    There is (apparently) a big push to “prove” to Kennedy that Trump would pick someone respectable to replace him if he were to retire, and that includes positions taken via the Solicitor General and other Executive arms at SCOTUS. Gorsuch was/is a good pick, but his personal history with Kennedy is rumored to have been a big part of the selection – a way to demonstrate affinity. Also, Trump has promised to stick with the list (or close to it) of judges previously disclosed. Again, this is mostly to comfort Kennedy.

    I don’t think it’s the only reason, but part of the calculus here might well be to take reasonable (in the yes of Kennedy) positions so that he will be more comfortable leaving.

    That said I don’t think we’ll ever see a DoJ voluntarily give up any methods to jail us. So there’s that too. Gura mentions it, and he’s almost always right.

  18. Ron W Says:

    Trump has consulted Judge Andrew Napolitano re: his SCOTUS appointments. But reportedly, the judge has reportedly become Trump’s personal favorite should Anthony Kennedy retire and being a pro Liberty Constitutionalist, he’s “good on guns” and correct on guns, as he has written:

    “The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us.”

    The leftist authoritarians, like Schumer, Feinstein, Durbin and probably some RINO’s in the Senate would go crazy.

  19. SPQR Says:

    No, Napolitano will not be a nominee.

  20. rickn8or Says:

    SPQR, and neither will Judge Judy.

  21. Ron W Says:

    @SPQR, why not? Although his age is a downside, 66 or 67, I think.

  22. SPQR Says:

    Ah, how do I explain this …..

  23. SPQR Says:

    I’m more likely to be nominated to the Supreme Court than Napolitano.

  24. Ron W Says:

    @SPQR, you must be the recipient of more WH leaks

  25. aerodawg Says:

    I didn’t like Sessions when he was one of my Senators. He has yet to do anything to make me like him more as AG….

  26. Bill Twist Says:

    You know, I’ve asked people over the years why a non-violent felon like Martha Stewart is so dangerous that she should never be able to touch a gun again for the rest of her life.

    Nobody ever gives me a satisfactory answer.

  27. Ron W Says:

    @Bill, and should all her other rights be denied for the rest of her life? If not, why shouldn’t all of our personal rights be treated equally?

  28. Bill Twist Says:

    @Ron, no, they should not. Though I would point out that not all of her rights are denied. Certainly, she still retains all of the other rights in the Bill of Rights. The police can’t just barge into her house without a warrant, and she gets to say what she wants, print what she wants, worship where she wants, etc.

    In fact, she even retains voting rights in her home state (NY) once she is no longer incarcerated or on parole.

    So really, the only right she is no longer allowed to exercise is the right to keep and bear arms, unless of course she’s greased the right palms, which is entirely possible. Which is *ANOTHER* problem with the way it is.

    You see, it used to be that felonies were the things you think of when you hear the word: murder, rape, attempted murder, armed robbery, etc. You know, actual violent crimes. So the prohibition of owning guns if you were a felon made sense because in all likelihood, you were a violent criminal.

    But we’ve expanded the felonious behavior sphere to encompass innumerable non-violent crimes. The correct answer, of course, it to make them misdemeanors, but that’s really not going to happen, so the 1968 gun control act should be modified to only ban those convicted of a violent felony.

  29. SPQR Says:

    Ron W, nope. It’s just that the political reality today is that a TV talking head has no chance of confirmation. Not to mention his resume is thin with 8 years on the bench of a trial court and no appellate judge experience.

    He will not be nominated.

  30. Ron W Says:

    @Bill Twist, good commentary….it’s what happens when we got the lawless making laws.

  31. Ron W Says:

    @SPQR, I think you’re probably right.

    I think Trump should consider naming an immigrant to SCOTUS, Justice Alex Kozinski, from the 9th Circuit Court. Like Napolitano, his age, 66, is a bit of a downside. From what I know, he’s also “good on guns” and the rest of the Bill of Rights. Then when the Senate Dems oppose him, call them anti-immigrant bigots.

  32. Dr_Mike Says:

    Ron W:

    I like the cut of your jib, and would be quite pleased to subscribe to your newsletter…

    SPQR:

    Also I think Neapolitano’s “Libertarian Conservatism” runs as deep as it does with the populist Bill O’Reily. Which is to say, how shallow is the ocean? How cold is the Sun?

  33. JTC Says:

    SPQR,

    “…the political reality today is that a TV talking head has no chance of confirmation.

    Not counting The Donald?

    Okay, more of a tweeting head, but both products of “reality teevee”. Same but different.

  34. Ron W Says:

    @Dr_Mike, thanks. Here’s a link with a dissenting opinion on a 2nd Amendment case by Judge Kozinski against the majority of the 9th Circuit:

    http://www.keepandbeararms.com/silveira/enbanc.asp

    An immigrant who lived in Cummunist Romania, he should be added to Trump’s list.

  35. SPQR Says:

    Dr Mike, exactly

    JTC, not comparable in process.

    Im a big fan of J. Kozinski and have appeared before him. He would be great if he was younger, although also a challenge to confirm. Especially after a silly faux scandal about some off color jokes a few years ago.

  36. Ron W Says:

    @SPQR, “off color jokes”!! I’m sure Schumer and his Democratic colleagues would be shocked and aghast! The real issue of “challenge to confirm” is they fear Liberty–of the People, that is! And, they’re also anti LEGAL immigrant bigots.

  37. Bill Twist Says:

    @Ron W – Thanks. I’ve been doing this sort of thing for a long time now…..

    https://web.archive.org/web/20000303202853/http://planettimes.com:80/features/barrel_twist/index.htm

  38. JTC Says:

    SPQR, yeah that’s the “same but different” part.

    But “process” being irrelevant to “effect”, actually X100, EC being the ultimate “confirmation”.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges


bisonAd

Categories

Archives