Trump is now a prohibited person

[michaelh1951]

Having been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment of more than a year, Trump has lost his second amendment rights forever.

Does this make sense? Hopefully if he is elected we can help him to understand the unjustifiable severity of so many existing anti-gun laws, and hopefully he will help get a lot of them thrown in the trash can.

It might be an opportunity...I can't think of any time in the past a possible President has been subject to this denial of constitutional rights

[bluesky762]

Also as a prohibited person, isn't it illegal to even be in close proximity to firearms? (same room, same house for example) Maybe his SS detail will have to disarm!

[cz74]

It will be even more interesting, if he is re-elected as POTUS, he can directly call Central Command and start a war, but he himself can never possess firearm or ammunition.

[BAJ475]

It will be even more interesting, if he is re-elected as POTUS, he can directly call Central Command and start a war, but he himself can never possess firearm or ammunition.

You guys are ignoring Bruen. Where is the historical tradition for banning a person for such offenses? He could also sign a bill repealing that part of the US Code.

[RickD427]

Also as a prohibited person, isn't it illegal to even be in close proximity to firearms? (same room, same house for example) Maybe his SS detail will have to disarm!

There is no California or federal statute that prohibits a prohibited person from being in proximity to firearms, nor does any state that I'm aware of have any such statute. The prohibition comes from being in possession of a firearm and the case law defining "possession" has elements of "Dominion and Control" that are not satisfied by simply being in proximity.

A few years back, when the Vice President was convicted of a felony, the Secret Service did have to struggle with the question of whether his protective detail would be required to disarm. The potential problem was not with the Vice President being in proximity to firearms, the potential problem was with the application of 18USC922(h) which made it a felony for an armed person to work in the employment of a prohibited person. A colleague of mine was working for the Secret Service and had a headquarters assignment during this time. He described the agency as being extremely nutted up over the potential of the Vice Presidential detail having to disarm. The issue got resolved when the Secret Service took the position that its agents were employees of the federal government and not of the person they were assigned to protect.

[Russian Bot]

I feel like he will win on appeal just after elections. I've heard mix bag responses regarding who people will vote for now that he was convicted which in my opinion was the goal more than anything else.

[RickD427]

You guys are ignoring Bruen. Where is the historical tradition for banning a person for such offenses? He could also sign a bill repealing that part of the US Code.

The dicta of NYSRPA certainly gives a lot of support to the argument. But there is nothing in the holding of NYSRPA that directly affects any statute prohibiting felons from possessing firearms. It's gonna take separate cases to extend the holding of NYSRPA. That effort is already underway.

Before the President can sign a bill removing the prohibition, the bill has to make it through both the House and the Senate. As the Senate is currently configured, that ain't gonna happen. There's no guarantee that it would even make it through the House. All of which points to the need to not only work for the outcome of the presidential election, we also need to give due attention to the Senate and House races. The Senate is going to be a real challenge since only 1/3 of the Senate seats are up for election.

[BAJ475]

The dicta of NYSRPA certainly gives a lot of support to the argument. But there is nothing in the holding of NYSRPA that directly affects any statute prohibiting felons from possessing firearms. It's gonna take separate cases to extend the holding of NYSRPA. That effort is already underway.

Before the President can sign a bill removing the prohibition, the bill has to make it through both the House and the Senate. As the Senate is currently configured, that ain't gonna happen. There's no guarantee that it would even make it through the House. All of which points to the need to not only work for the outcome of the presidential election, we also need to give due attention to the Senate and House races. The Senate is going to be a real challenge since only 1/3 of the Senate seats are up for election.

You are correct as usual. Unfortunately, there is not much those of us in Idaho can do other than continue to do what we have been doing since 2010.

[Sputnik]

Perhaps the Rahimi case or one of the others challenging these various prohibitions will make this a moot point.
Personally I think this whole dog and pony show sham conviction should be tossed with prejudice.

[RickD427]

You are correct as usual. Unfortunately, there is not much those of us in Idaho can do other than continue to do what we have been doing since 2010.

What Idaho has been doing for the past 20+ years has been quite exceptional. We really need for the rest of the country to follow Idaho's example.

[Oceanbob]

TRUMP AS A CONVICTED FELON CANNOT ENTER THESE 34 COUNTRIES.

• Argentina
• Australia
• Brazil
• Cambodia
• Canada
• Chile
• China
• Cuba
• Dominican Republic
• Egypt
• Ethiopia
• Hong Kong
• India
• Indonesia
• Iran
• Ireland
• Israel
• Japan
• Kenya
• Macau
• Malaysia
• Mexico
• Morocco
• Nepal
• New Zealand
• Peru
• Philippines
• Singapore
• South Africa
• South Korea
• Taiwan
• Tanzania
• Tunisia
• Turkey
• Ukraine
• United Arab Emirates
• United Kingdom
• United States

[MountainLion]

Having been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment of more than a year, Trump has lost his second amendment rights forever.

While your statement is not completely wrong, it ignores some important details.

To begin with, the moment he was indicted for a felony, he was prohibited from obtaining guns or ammo 18USC922(d) and 18USC922(n), or take ones he already owns across state lines 18USC922(n). So he has been de-facto prohibited for at least a year, maybe more. The prohibition of possession in 18USC922(g) only took effect once he was convicted. But let's look at the practical question: Trump is a resident of Florida. I think to have a gun in New York or any other state he visits, he probably would have had to violate those sections.

On the other hand: If he appeals the current sentence, and wins on appeal, he is no longer considered convicted, and he regains his 2A rights (subject to the limitations from other cases and indictments).

[Scooooter7]

I do not believe the term convicted applies until the sentencing actually occurs.

[RickD427]

I do not believe the term convicted applies until the sentencing actually occurs.

Technically, you're correct. In the Enron scandal Ken Lay was found "Guilty" at trial, but died before sentencing. That impacted the ability of his various victims to file lawsuits because they could not use the criminal trial outcome to show that he was "Guilty."

[michaelh1951]

While your statement is not completely wrong, it ignores some important details.

To begin with, the moment he was indicted for a felony, he was prohibited from obtaining guns or ammo 18USC922(d) and 18USC922(n), or take ones he already owns across state lines 18USC922(n). So he has been de-facto prohibited for at least a year, maybe more. The prohibition of possession in 18USC922(g) only took effect once he was convicted. But let's look at the practical question: Trump is a resident of Florida. I think to have a gun in New York or any other state he visits, he probably would have had to violate those sections.

On the other hand: If he appeals the current sentence, and wins on appeal, he is no longer considered convicted, and he regains his 2A rights (subject to the limitations from other cases and indictments).

I guess I didn't make my point clearly. It wasn't a question about exactly when he became "prohibited" nor about whether there was any way to undo this. I was trying to make the point that perhaps he will see how a person can lose his constitutional rights for rather small, non-violent offenses, and at the hands of vindictive prosecutors and judges. Perhaps, should Trump be elected and have a supportive majority in congress, correcting this will be among his "clean up the mess" priorities.

We need someone in control to take our rights seriously, rather than taking seriously the goals of the anti-gunners as is now the case. That, I hope, will be another consequence of Trump's current legal situation.