"ATF Form 4473 is required for any gun purchase and it has an entire section regarding things that disqualify a purchaser from owning a gun, notably line 21, items c and d:
“c. Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year, or are you a current member of the military who has been charged with violation(s) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and whose charge(s) have been referred to a general court-martial?
d. Have you ever been convicted in any court, including a military court, of a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?”
Currently, we have, running for President, a person who has just been convicted, qualifying them under line d, and, who is facing 3 other indictments, qualifying them under line c.
If they aren’t qualified to own a gun, and, in fact could be arrested for “felon in possession” should he obtain a gun, how on earth does that allow him to be qualified to lead the armed forces as “Commander in Chief”? Why would he be allowed access to the “nuclear football” which is, really, the ultimate gun?
Can we please get some kind of legislation dealing with this? Either barring convicted felons from the office of the President, or, alternately, highly restricting felonious Presidential access to the military and high order weapons?"
I'm opposed to the idea that being charged with a crime should disqualify someone from office. Simply put, it incentivises putting people in jail for political reasons.
No, Trump should be disqualified for treason and insurrection. Of course, that's not happening either.
That's why we have a trial by jury of peers.
An executive branch can issue a pardon, legislative branch can create a law making the crime no longer being a crime and impeach judges.
If those things are not enough, then we have a much more serious problem.
Yes, we do have a more serious problem. Numerous federal judges have been appointed by a treasonous insurrectionist who committed election fraud to take office. The jury of peers will be less effective if there is an obviously biased judge like Cannon.
Judges can't put you in jail if DA doesn't bring charges and a jury won't convict.
Canon is trying to do the reverse, using anything she has at her disposal for the trial to not happen as she knows that this case is pretty much an open shut case.
If being a felon bars you from owning a gun, why should a felon be allowed to command all the guns in the US military?
To play devil's advocate: You could argue that in this case, the entire nation holds a vote over reinstating the right to own the ultimate gun.
The problem with that is, spin doctoring has gotten too good for this jury and you don't even need the majority to win.
Being a convicted felon, can he even vote for himself now? I'm pretty sure Florida doesn't allow felons to vote.
FL defers to the law in the state where the conviction happened, and NY allows felons to vote as long as they are not incarcerated when they need to vote.
Interesting, thanks for the info. I guess we'll see on July 11th.
Some commentators have solid arguments for why he will get incarceration. More believe he won't. Nobody believes he will actually spend any time behind bars, because even if he does get prison time, it will be suspended pending appeal. The appeals process will take so long that he'll be dead before it's over.
The thing I'm thankful for is that the fucker can't legally enter Canada right now.
At least not without a waiver.
Generally, because of his criminal conviction and his intention to run for office, there's a lot of interesting legal questions that will make for new law when we litigate them.
I do like your argument, unfortunately I'm pretty sure most courts will disagree. It's two fold: first of all if you make felons unable to run, you incentivize people to prosecute someone when they wanna run for office. Secondly, this form is pretty straightforward with what possession or acquisition of firearms means. There is not enough wiggle room to stretch that definition to fit the a guy in his role as president being commander in chief over the military. I think no reasonable court would greenlight that argument.
But in general there's gonna be very interesting implications.
And they won't say no
...Because of the implications
Republican congressmen and women and Republican Senators will just say it's a hoax trial and a corrupt justice system. It's not a sane world right now.
If their past behaviour is any guide they could also allow felons to own weapons, or at least carve out exceptions for access to nuclear weapons and advanced militaries.
Oh, well if you sent it, I’m sure they’ll listen…
Oregon Senators and Representatives are remarkably responsive... But we need more people to message their Representatives.
Jordan spitting some logic. Love it. I'll do the same when I sober up tomorrow.
The Constitution clearly lays out the qualifications for POTUS. You can't make legislation that overrides it.
The 2nd Amendment clearly says that the right to own guns can't be restricted and they passed legislation restricting it.
No, the 2nd Amendment clearly says that the right to own guns is for the purpose of a well-regulated militia. The courts are the ones who interpreted that to mean every citizen [1, Heller]. And the courts also are the ones who have afforded such State restriction legislation as being Constitutional [1, Cruikshank].
In any case, it would likely require an amendment to the Constitution to directly change the qualifications for being President.
What if every state adopted a law barring felons from being eligible to be on the state ballot? I'm not American.
It would certainly be challenged at the Supreme Court, so there would be a ruling at some point at that level. Whether or not the Court would affirm such a law, I don't know. But, while highly unlikely every state would do this, it is not unprecedented that every state could enact the same or similar laws (the one that comes to mind is seat belt law, but New Hampshire is still a holdout, for some reason).
Sent a note to my Senators and Congressman:
"ATF Form 4473 is required for any gun purchase and it has an entire section regarding things that disqualify a purchaser from owning a gun, notably line 21, items c and d:
“c. Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year, or are you a current member of the military who has been charged with violation(s) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and whose charge(s) have been referred to a general court-martial?
d. Have you ever been convicted in any court, including a military court, of a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?”
Currently, we have, running for President, a person who has just been convicted, qualifying them under line d, and, who is facing 3 other indictments, qualifying them under line c.
If they aren’t qualified to own a gun, and, in fact could be arrested for “felon in possession” should he obtain a gun, how on earth does that allow him to be qualified to lead the armed forces as “Commander in Chief”? Why would he be allowed access to the “nuclear football” which is, really, the ultimate gun?
Can we please get some kind of legislation dealing with this? Either barring convicted felons from the office of the President, or, alternately, highly restricting felonious Presidential access to the military and high order weapons?"
I'm opposed to the idea that being charged with a crime should disqualify someone from office. Simply put, it incentivises putting people in jail for political reasons.
No, Trump should be disqualified for treason and insurrection. Of course, that's not happening either.
That's why we have a trial by jury of peers.
An executive branch can issue a pardon, legislative branch can create a law making the crime no longer being a crime and impeach judges.
If those things are not enough, then we have a much more serious problem.
Yes, we do have a more serious problem. Numerous federal judges have been appointed by a treasonous insurrectionist who committed election fraud to take office. The jury of peers will be less effective if there is an obviously biased judge like Cannon.
Judges can't put you in jail if DA doesn't bring charges and a jury won't convict.
Canon is trying to do the reverse, using anything she has at her disposal for the trial to not happen as she knows that this case is pretty much an open shut case.
If being a felon bars you from owning a gun, why should a felon be allowed to command all the guns in the US military?
To play devil's advocate: You could argue that in this case, the entire nation holds a vote over reinstating the right to own the ultimate gun.
The problem with that is, spin doctoring has gotten too good for this jury and you don't even need the majority to win.
Being a convicted felon, can he even vote for himself now? I'm pretty sure Florida doesn't allow felons to vote.
FL defers to the law in the state where the conviction happened, and NY allows felons to vote as long as they are not incarcerated when they need to vote.
Interesting, thanks for the info. I guess we'll see on July 11th.
Some commentators have solid arguments for why he will get incarceration. More believe he won't. Nobody believes he will actually spend any time behind bars, because even if he does get prison time, it will be suspended pending appeal. The appeals process will take so long that he'll be dead before it's over.
The thing I'm thankful for is that the fucker can't legally enter Canada right now.
At least not without a waiver.
Generally, because of his criminal conviction and his intention to run for office, there's a lot of interesting legal questions that will make for new law when we litigate them.
I do like your argument, unfortunately I'm pretty sure most courts will disagree. It's two fold: first of all if you make felons unable to run, you incentivize people to prosecute someone when they wanna run for office. Secondly, this form is pretty straightforward with what possession or acquisition of firearms means. There is not enough wiggle room to stretch that definition to fit the a guy in his role as president being commander in chief over the military. I think no reasonable court would greenlight that argument.
But in general there's gonna be very interesting implications.
And they won't say no
...Because of the implications
Republican congressmen and women and Republican Senators will just say it's a hoax trial and a corrupt justice system. It's not a sane world right now.
If their past behaviour is any guide they could also allow felons to own weapons, or at least carve out exceptions for access to nuclear weapons and advanced militaries.
Oh, well if you sent it, I’m sure they’ll listen…
Oregon Senators and Representatives are remarkably responsive... But we need more people to message their Representatives.
Jordan spitting some logic. Love it. I'll do the same when I sober up tomorrow.
The Constitution clearly lays out the qualifications for POTUS. You can't make legislation that overrides it.
The 2nd Amendment clearly says that the right to own guns can't be restricted and they passed legislation restricting it.
No, the 2nd Amendment clearly says that the right to own guns is for the purpose of a well-regulated militia. The courts are the ones who interpreted that to mean every citizen [1, Heller]. And the courts also are the ones who have afforded such State restriction legislation as being Constitutional [1, Cruikshank].
In any case, it would likely require an amendment to the Constitution to directly change the qualifications for being President.
[1] - https://supreme.justia.com/cases-by-topic/gun-rights/
What if every state adopted a law barring felons from being eligible to be on the state ballot? I'm not American.
It would certainly be challenged at the Supreme Court, so there would be a ruling at some point at that level. Whether or not the Court would affirm such a law, I don't know. But, while highly unlikely every state would do this, it is not unprecedented that every state could enact the same or similar laws (the one that comes to mind is seat belt law, but New Hampshire is still a holdout, for some reason).
Well said