You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

2
-2

[–] lemon11 2 points -2 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:

However, both offenses triggered the federal ban. Since 1968, federal law has prohibited people from owning a gun if they have been convicted of a “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” Although the two men pleaded guilty to misdemeanors, their crimes could have been punished by more than a year in jail.

Gura argued it was absurd to stretch the federal law to cover state misdemeanors that did not result in a jail sentence. He also argued that because the 2nd Amendment protects a constitutional right, judges should waive the ban for people who were convicted of minor, nonviolent offenses in the past and have had a law-abiding record since then.

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.