In a recent incident, Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung mistakenly reported that former President Trump had purchased a Glock 19 pistol with his portrait on it during a visit to a gun dealer in South Carolina. However, due to Trump’s criminal indictments, he would have committed federal felonies if he had completed the transaction. With Trump now convicted of 34 felonies related to falsification of business records, he is prohibited from owning or buying firearms.
Despite holding a concealed carry permit and owning handguns like the Heckler & Koch HK45 and a Smith & Wesson revolver, Trump must surrender these firearms following his conviction. This development, coupled with his strong stance on the Second Amendment, serves as a reminder of how federal laws can arbitrarily strip individuals of their gun rights.
The legal reasoning behind Trump’s conviction raises questions, as the offense of falsifying business records does not inherently indicate a propensity for violence or endangerment. The broad scope of laws like 18 USC 922(g)(1), which prohibits firearm possession for individuals with certain convictions, has been criticized for its overinclusiveness.
Notable figures like Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Judge Stephanos Bibas have emphasized the importance of considering the danger posed by an individual before depriving them of their Second Amendment rights. The recent case of Williams v. Garland underscored the need for a more nuanced approach to gun rights, particularly in cases involving nonviolent offenses.
The breadth of the “prohibited person” categories under federal law has drawn concerns from organizations like the ACLU, citing issues of equal protection and privacy. This is especially relevant for communities like African Americans, who are disproportionately affected by these regulations.
Recent legal challenges have highlighted the potential dangers of giving legislators unchecked discretion in determining who can exercise their Second Amendment rights. Cases like the Oklahoma ban on gun possession by cannabis consumers underscore the need for a more balanced and evidence-based approach to gun control laws.
