Last September, during a visit to a gun dealer in Somerville, South Carolina, Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung falsely reported that the former president had purchased a Glock emblazoned with his image. 19 pistols, causing chaos. At the time, Trump faced four criminal indictments that would have made him guilty of several federal felonies if he had indeed completed the transaction described by Zhang – the purchase itself, plus two related to falsely representing himself as a qualified buyer. related felonies. Now, a New York jury has convicted Trump of 34 felonies involving falsifying business records, and he is prohibited from owning and purchasing firearms.
Trump, who has a concealed carry permit, owned at least two handguns before his conviction: a Heckler & Koch HK45 pistol and a .38-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver. as new york post points out that Trump must now surrender these guns and any others he acquires or transfer them to someone legally allowed to possess them (such as one of his sons). The fact that Trump, who describes himself as “a very strong believer in the Second Amendment,” has lost the right to keep and bear arms may cheer even more opponents who welcomed his conviction. But no matter how you feel about Trump, this detail is a reminder that federal law arbitrarily strips people of their Second Amendment rights for reasons that have nothing to do with public safety.
Putting aside the shaky legal reasoning that allowed New York prosecutors to convert hush payments into 34 felonies, falsifying business records, even to aid or conceal “another crime,” is not the sort of thing that marks someone as vulnerable or vulnerable to harm. The crime of murder. UCLA law professor Adam Winkler noted that 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(1) prohibits anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison from The provision is “overly inclusive” of people receiving or possessing firearms because it includes many people without a history of violence.
“Many felonies are not violent at all and do not raise special suspicion that the offender poses a threat to public safety,” Winkler wrote. “Perjury, securities law violations, corruption, obstruction of justice and a host of other felonies do not indicate a danger. Tendency. It’s hard to imagine how banning Martha Stewart or Enron’s Andrew Fastow from owning guns would promote public safety.”
So does Trump. Even if you believe the dubious “election fraud” claims that a New York jury apparently accepted, disguising hush-money reimbursements as fees for legal services puts Trump in the same position as white-collar criminals like Stewart and Fastow. Although Trump joked that he “could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone” without losing any votes, even his fiercest opponents don’t think he would commit such a crime.
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in a 2019 dissent as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that history “proves that the Legislature has the authority to prohibit dangerous persons from possessing firearms.” “But this power only applies to those dangerous“In that case, Barrett concluded that a mail fraud conviction did not justify permanently stripping a defendant of his right to bear arms.
Three years later, Barrett joined the majority opinion New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Brunn, clarifies the constitutional test for gun control laws. “When the Second Amendment expressly covers personal conduct, the Constitution presumes to protect that conduct,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority. “To justify its regulation, the government cannot simply assume that the regulation promotes important interests. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the country’s historical tradition of gun control. Only when gun regulations are consistent with the country’s gun regulations, the government To prove that the regulation is consistent with the country’s historical tradition of gun control.
Apply the test to 2023 cases Scope v. Attorney GeneralThe 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has since restored the gun rights of a Pennsylvania man convicted of food stamp fraud. Although the crime is a misdemeanor under Pennsylvania law and does not result in any prison time, it is theoretically punishable by up to five years in prison, triggering Section 922(g)(1).
Likewise, even if the appeal is unsuccessful, Trump may not serve in New York. But the fact that first-degree falsification of business records is punishable by up to four years in prison is enough to make him a “prohibited person” under Section 922(g)(1).
The Third Circuit concluded that the Second Amendment requires more to be done to deprive someone of their gun rights. “Essentially, the administration’s claim that only ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens’ are protected by the Second Amendment devolves power to legislators to decide who to exclude ‘the people,'” it said. “We reject this approach because this ‘extreme deference gives the Legislature unreviewable power to manipulate the Second Amendment through choice of labels.'”
The appeals court cited an opinion by Third Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas, who joined the majority opinion scope. In a 2020 dissent, Bibas argued that the blanket ban established by Section 922(g)(1) “conflicts with the historic limitations of the Second Amendment,” which “protect us from felons, but only if They are dangerous. He noted that because of the “arbitrary and manipulative nature of felony labels,” many felonies today are “far less serious than common law felonies.” Like Barrett, he emphasized that “the touchstone is history.” Danger”.
Currently applying scope later that year williams v. garlandU.S. District Judge John Milton Younge ruled that disarming a Philadelphia man convicted of drunk driving was inconsistent with the Second Amendment. Although the crime is a misdemeanor, it triggers Section 922(g) because it is punishable by up to five years in prison.
The policy embodied in this provision is relatively new. The original ban, established by the 1938 Federal Firearms Act, only applied to violent crimes such as murder, manslaughter, rape, kidnapping, robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. In 1961, Congress expanded the ban to cover nonviolent crimes punishable by more than one year in prison.
Even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which maintains that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual’s right to bear arms, has expressed concern about the breadth of the current “prohibited persons” category. Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said in 2018 that these provisions “often have no basis in evidence, reinforce negative stereotypes, and raise significant equal protection, due process, and privacy issues.” One reason progressives should care about these provisions is problematic: African Americans are particularly likely to be disqualified under Section 922(g)(1), even if they have never committed a violent crime, because they are particularly likely to have felony records .
Last year, in an Oklahoma case involving a federal ban on marijuana consumers possessing firearms, U.S. District Judge Patrick Wyrick emphasized giving lawmakers broad discretion to decide which Americans deserve The Dangers of Second Amendment Rights. “Imagine a world,” he said, in which a state “could make mowing lawns a felony so that it could strip all newly deemed ‘felons’ of their right to own a gun.”
Wyrick presented this very hypothetical scenario to government lawyers. “It’s worth noting,” he said, “that when this mowing hypothetical argument was presented and asked whether this approach was consistent with the Second Amendment, the United States said ‘yes.'” So, in the federal government’s view, The state or federal government can deem anything a felony and then deny those convicted of a felony—no matter how harmless the act—the basic right to own a gun.
