I was told he was good on guns
Trump’s lawyers are asking SCOTUS to reject the second amendment claim of non violent felons, who committed their crimes 20 years ago:
But the Justice Department under Trump has embraced the same position in this case that was adopted under President Obama: to defend strict enforcement of a long-standing federal law that bars convicted criminals from ever owning a gun, even when their crimes did not involve violence.
I’m not a fan of this move by the Justice Department.
May 25th, 2017 at 6:33 pm
Yeah; Bush 41 was an NRA “Lifetime Member” too, for a very short time.
May 25th, 2017 at 6:46 pm
This surely can’t be a surprise.
Trump would have to be not just “good on guns”, but an unbelievably dedicated 2A Warrior to expend any political capital or effort on telling Justice to not defend a law that isn’t unconstitutional on its face.
(And while I support substantially loosening felon bans, they don’t seem to be prima facie unconstitutional.)
May 25th, 2017 at 7:37 pm
Trump is probably just “yes, AG Sessions, whatever you think is best” and Sessions is simply going along with whatever his LE buddies want.
Not to diminish Trump’s responsibility here. Maybe our NRA brothers who are so devoted to him for not being Hillary could place a call or two, to Trump and not Sessions, to get Session on board with a key but neglected Trump constituency.
May 25th, 2017 at 10:33 pm
They say Justice is blind; I’m afraid under AG Sessions it’ll also be stupid…just one of many blind and stupid L&E positions and promotions to come fom him.
I don’t like that smarmy little fuck. The most disappointed I’ve been in a Trump pick…and that’s saying something.
May 26th, 2017 at 1:02 am
This is a hill that no politician would have any part of even looking a tiny bit under the weather upon, much less dying on.
May 26th, 2017 at 2:47 am
Honest question, but can we get Scotus rulings in cases the DOJ doesn’t appeal?
The lack of an appeal in Atf v Rock island arsenal is a problem for precident in that case.
May 26th, 2017 at 3:49 am
@Sigivald: I would argue that “prohibited person” statutes as they currently exist ARE prima facie unconstitutional.
After all, it was Thomas Jefferson who wrote the following in an early draft of the VA Constitution: “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
May 26th, 2017 at 7:21 am
Congress defended many years ago the restoration of civil rights.
https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1435-post-conviction-restoration-civil-rights
What is needed is for Trump to get Congress to fund them again. Used to they did background checks to make sure the felons had keep on the strait and narrow and then Congress would vote to restore their rights.
May 26th, 2017 at 8:41 am
Maybe we have to think the other way around. Maybe some of the current non-violent felonies shouldn’t be a felony in the first place. Maybe they could be considered as minor crimes but still treated the same way as felonies for the first xxx years and then treated as minor crimes if there was no other crimes in the probation period, or something like that… I don’t know I’m not a lawyer.
But the bottom line, it’s just like the “no fly no buy” problem. The problem is not to avoid people on the “no fly” list to buy guns, but more about how people end up on the “no fly” list. By definition the whole “no fly no buy” is not the problem, as long as no American would end up on the “no fly” list by a judge and without a proper due process.
Here, the whole “no gun for felons” is not the problem per se, it might be the way American become “felon” even for minor crime done 20 years ago.
Just thinking out loud…
May 26th, 2017 at 9:00 am
I’d get nationwide concealed carry permitting, suppressors, and repeal of the 1986 full auto ban before I’d go for felons getting gun rights back.
And it would be easier both politically and philosophically to create a “good citizen” program where federal felonies were expunged after X number of years with full restoration of all rights, than to selectively get gun rights back.
Dems would even back that, if only for the votes from all the criminals who remain in the DNC – one of their core constituencies.
May 26th, 2017 at 11:37 am
I believe you all have it wrong. If the Trump administration DID NOT APPEAL this ruling, nothing would change. A “conviction” for felony overdue book lending from the library would still result in a lifetime ban. By appealing, there is a CHANCE that SCOTUS will take the reasonable course of action and limit the “felon” exclusion to just “real” felons.
May 26th, 2017 at 12:24 pm
The law is crystal clear. The administration is doing what it is supposed to do and enforce and defend the law as it is written. Didn’t we have enough of that over past 8 years? If there is something wrong with the law, then Congress should change it.
May 26th, 2017 at 7:08 pm
I’m with Phill on this one. You can’t cut a fart in some situations without becoming a fellon.
May 26th, 2017 at 7:55 pm
“some of the current non-violent felonies shouldn’t be a felony in the first place.”
Nailed it.
May 27th, 2017 at 8:04 pm
best case scenario: Justice would have to defend it, just enough to get a Supreme Court ruling.
May 28th, 2017 at 12:51 am
Well. As Phil pointed out,not all felons are violent felons. To put it in perspective, several states have traffic laws on the books that make certain levels of speeding a felony. Do you really believe it is just and right to forbid a man his god given right to arms because he had a let’s see what this car can do wild hair moment? Discuss.
And seriously, if a person is deemed too dangerous to society to own guns, why the heck is he not still locked up?
May 28th, 2017 at 7:00 am
If Justice Kennedy truly is the squish on guns rights, it’s also true that going full “shall not be infringed” might just keep him from retiring.
There is (apparently) a big push to “prove” to Kennedy that Trump would pick someone respectable to replace him if he were to retire, and that includes positions taken via the Solicitor General and other Executive arms at SCOTUS. Gorsuch was/is a good pick, but his personal history with Kennedy is rumored to have been a big part of the selection – a way to demonstrate affinity. Also, Trump has promised to stick with the list (or close to it) of judges previously disclosed. Again, this is mostly to comfort Kennedy.
I don’t think it’s the only reason, but part of the calculus here might well be to take reasonable (in the yes of Kennedy) positions so that he will be more comfortable leaving.
That said I don’t think we’ll ever see a DoJ voluntarily give up any methods to jail us. So there’s that too. Gura mentions it, and he’s almost always right.
May 28th, 2017 at 9:59 am
Trump has consulted Judge Andrew Napolitano re: his SCOTUS appointments. But reportedly, the judge has reportedly become Trump’s personal favorite should Anthony Kennedy retire and being a pro Liberty Constitutionalist, he’s “good on guns” and correct on guns, as he has written:
“The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us.”
The leftist authoritarians, like Schumer, Feinstein, Durbin and probably some RINO’s in the Senate would go crazy.
May 28th, 2017 at 11:31 am
No, Napolitano will not be a nominee.
May 28th, 2017 at 1:32 pm
SPQR, and neither will Judge Judy.
May 28th, 2017 at 6:47 pm
@SPQR, why not? Although his age is a downside, 66 or 67, I think.
May 28th, 2017 at 7:56 pm
Ah, how do I explain this …..
May 28th, 2017 at 8:07 pm
I’m more likely to be nominated to the Supreme Court than Napolitano.
May 28th, 2017 at 8:26 pm
@SPQR, you must be the recipient of more WH leaks
May 28th, 2017 at 9:15 pm
I didn’t like Sessions when he was one of my Senators. He has yet to do anything to make me like him more as AG….
May 28th, 2017 at 10:29 pm
You know, I’ve asked people over the years why a non-violent felon like Martha Stewart is so dangerous that she should never be able to touch a gun again for the rest of her life.
Nobody ever gives me a satisfactory answer.
May 28th, 2017 at 10:58 pm
@Bill, and should all her other rights be denied for the rest of her life? If not, why shouldn’t all of our personal rights be treated equally?
May 29th, 2017 at 6:08 am
@Ron, no, they should not. Though I would point out that not all of her rights are denied. Certainly, she still retains all of the other rights in the Bill of Rights. The police can’t just barge into her house without a warrant, and she gets to say what she wants, print what she wants, worship where she wants, etc.
In fact, she even retains voting rights in her home state (NY) once she is no longer incarcerated or on parole.
So really, the only right she is no longer allowed to exercise is the right to keep and bear arms, unless of course she’s greased the right palms, which is entirely possible. Which is *ANOTHER* problem with the way it is.
You see, it used to be that felonies were the things you think of when you hear the word: murder, rape, attempted murder, armed robbery, etc. You know, actual violent crimes. So the prohibition of owning guns if you were a felon made sense because in all likelihood, you were a violent criminal.
But we’ve expanded the felonious behavior sphere to encompass innumerable non-violent crimes. The correct answer, of course, it to make them misdemeanors, but that’s really not going to happen, so the 1968 gun control act should be modified to only ban those convicted of a violent felony.
May 29th, 2017 at 12:03 pm
Ron W, nope. It’s just that the political reality today is that a TV talking head has no chance of confirmation. Not to mention his resume is thin with 8 years on the bench of a trial court and no appellate judge experience.
He will not be nominated.
May 29th, 2017 at 2:39 pm
@Bill Twist, good commentary….it’s what happens when we got the lawless making laws.
May 29th, 2017 at 2:50 pm
@SPQR, I think you’re probably right.
I think Trump should consider naming an immigrant to SCOTUS, Justice Alex Kozinski, from the 9th Circuit Court. Like Napolitano, his age, 66, is a bit of a downside. From what I know, he’s also “good on guns” and the rest of the Bill of Rights. Then when the Senate Dems oppose him, call them anti-immigrant bigots.
May 29th, 2017 at 9:59 pm
Ron W:
I like the cut of your jib, and would be quite pleased to subscribe to your newsletter…
SPQR:
Also I think Neapolitano’s “Libertarian Conservatism” runs as deep as it does with the populist Bill O’Reily. Which is to say, how shallow is the ocean? How cold is the Sun?
May 29th, 2017 at 10:38 pm
SPQR,
“…the political reality today is that a TV talking head has no chance of confirmation.
Not counting The Donald?
Okay, more of a tweeting head, but both products of “reality teevee”. Same but different.
May 30th, 2017 at 8:05 am
@Dr_Mike, thanks. Here’s a link with a dissenting opinion on a 2nd Amendment case by Judge Kozinski against the majority of the 9th Circuit:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/silveira/enbanc.asp
An immigrant who lived in Cummunist Romania, he should be added to Trump’s list.
May 30th, 2017 at 1:03 pm
Dr Mike, exactly
JTC, not comparable in process.
Im a big fan of J. Kozinski and have appeared before him. He would be great if he was younger, although also a challenge to confirm. Especially after a silly faux scandal about some off color jokes a few years ago.
May 30th, 2017 at 1:41 pm
@SPQR, “off color jokes”!! I’m sure Schumer and his Democratic colleagues would be shocked and aghast! The real issue of “challenge to confirm” is they fear Liberty–of the People, that is! And, they’re also anti LEGAL immigrant bigots.
May 30th, 2017 at 2:40 pm
@Ron W – Thanks. I’ve been doing this sort of thing for a long time now…..
https://web.archive.org/web/20000303202853/http://planettimes.com:80/features/barrel_twist/index.htm
May 30th, 2017 at 7:56 pm
SPQR, yeah that’s the “same but different” part.
But “process” being irrelevant to “effect”, actually X100, EC being the ultimate “confirmation”.