[–] derram 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Trump administration asks Supreme Court to reject 2nd Amendment claim by men who lost gun rights over nonviolent crimes - LA Times
'During last year’s campaign, Trump made gun rights a key issue, winning the early endorsement of the National Rifle Assn. '
'Attorney Alan Gura, a gun rights advocate who represents the two men, said he was disappointed but not surprised.“I am not shocked by it. '
'Last month, Trump told an NRA audience in Atlanta that the “eight-year assault” on the 2nd Amendment had come to “a crashing end…. '
'However, the judges did not agree on clear guidelines about when gun rights should be restored. '
'By an 8-7 vote, its judges said the men should have their gun rights restored because they had not committed a serious or violent crime. '
[–] lemon11 2 points -2 points 0 points (+0|-2) ago
If he went for grabbing guns now, by the end of his term, he'd still be behind Barry and Hillary in achieving homicidal legislation, simply as a matter of time.
Anyway, the meat of it is this:
The law is just a way to turn into petite felonies things which may be, but aren't necessarily, punished a certain way. To be charitable to Trump, carving out exceptions to it makes no sense. Either repeal it, fix it to match the actual prison term instead of a hypothetical one, or keep it as is. If he were planning to push to repeal it (or keep it as it), then this is perfectly consistent.
But they didn't comment, so we don't know why Trump pushed against it. So these stories will mostly show the biases of the authors who can't conceive of these possibilities and their good and bad qualities. And if letting the media whip itself into outrage over its own assumptions isn't at least playing 2D chess against a Checkers (Draughts) bot, then I don't know what is.