“[Donald] Trump goes GUN shopping with Marjorie Taylor Greene: Former president poses with a $829.99 9MM GLOCK with his face on the grip in armory tour,” the Daily Mail gasps. “If Trump had bought the glock, [sic] there would have been questions about the legality of him buying it.”
What questions?
“The GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(n) also makes it unlawful for any person under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship, transport, or receive firearms or ammunition.”
Then again, there’s the Texas judge’s Quiroz ruling:
“A U.S. law banning those under felony indictments from buying guns is unconstitutional, a federal judge in West Texas ruled Monday.”
“If I were him, I wouldn’t let anyone photograph me holding a gun without the advice of counsel. I wonder if that will be used against him,” I noted on The War on Guns. “But by assuming he would have tried to buy it at the SC gun shop without having it go to an FFL in his state, they apparently missed the main question.”
The answer to the speculation was quick to come, with Special Counsel Jack Smith calling Trump out in a footnote to a larger goal seeking to muzzle him from speaking out in his own defense under the “legal” pretext that doing so “intimidates” potential witnesses, the prosecutor, and the court. Clearly, the former president’s enemies believe they should dominate the narrative the public hears leading up to trials and the election by supplying the media with their version of events.
“The defendant either purchased a gun in violation of the law and his conditions of release or seeks to benefit from his supporters’ mistaken belief that he did so,” Smith argued, citing posts on Truth Social. “It would be a separate federal crime, and thus a violation of the defendant’s conditions of release, for him to purchase a gun while this felony indictment is pending. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(n).”
But Smith had already upped his game with what appears to be a damning observation:
“The spokesman subsequently deleted the post and retracted his statement, saying that the defendant ‘did not purchase or take possession of the firearm’ (a claim directly contradicted by the video showing the defendant possessing the pistol).”
Again, per ATF:
“The Gun Control Act … makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to … possess firearms or ammunition…”
Smith is contending in his court filing that even without purchasing the Glock, Trump committed a felony gun law violation by holding it.
The question remaining is what federal prosecutors will do about it.
If they go after him on it, Democrats know such a charge would almost certainly make it to the Supreme Court. Considering all the complications the Bruen text, history, and tradition standard is throwing in the path of gun prohibitionists in the inferior courts, such charges – like those against Hunter Biden – could very well find such edicts unlawful violations of the Second Amendment. And as long as they’re opening up Pandora’s box, it might be instructive to research Founding intent and what “gag order” First Amendment abridgments existed against those under indictment at the time the Constitution was written, debated, and ratified.
Trump (and liberty advocates) could end up winning “bigly” * and that may not be something Democrats want to risk.
* (He actually said “big league,” but Democrats inventing and spreading lies to then exploit with Alinsky Rule 5 ridicule is SOP.)
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
from https://ift.tt/lwz2PfU
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment