I did brief research on this legal matter. I think we should make a difference between the two concepts: conviction (to decide and state officially in court that somebody is guilty of a crime) and indictment (an official statement accusing somebody of a crime).

Donald Trump has not been convicted yet, so he can purchase a weapon if we interpret the Federal Law plainly.

Under the main federal gun law, 18 U.S.C. 922, does not appear to prohibit people under indictment from simply buying or possessing weapons... ATF Identify Prohibited Persons.

The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:

convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

who is a fugitive from justice;

who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);

who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

who is an illegal alien;

who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;

who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or

who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

From the next section of the article you linked to:

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.

Further, the GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) makes it unlawful to sell or otherwise dispose of firearms or ammunition to any person who is prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms or ammunition.

As the news article says:

That law is why anyone buying a gun from a licensed dealer must fill out what's called an ATF Form 4473, which asks: “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?”

Answer “yes,” and no gun shop can legally sell you a gun. Trump, who is facing criminal charges across the eastern seaboard, would have to answer in the affirmative.

Trump would have had to lie on the form (much like Hunter Biden lied on his) to buy a gun.

Of course, perhaps this is all moot and Trump never bought a gun. Perhaps his spokesman was lying. This was probably just propaganda to appease the gun nuts.

True, it says so.

But, according to some district courts, such a section is unconstitutional:

“[a]lthough not exhaustive, the Court’s historical survey finds little evidence that § 922(n) — which prohibits those under felony indictment from obtaining a firearm — aligns with this Nation’s historical tradition. As a result, this Court holds that § 922(n) is unconstitutional. The Court said that the “Second Amendment is not a ‘second class right. In addition, the decision casts substantial doubt on whether 18 USC § 922(g) – which prohibits people convicted of felonies from possessing guns or ammo – is still constitutional in light of Bruen.
Bruen held that “when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government… must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms….” https://lisa-legalinfo.com/2022/09/26/district-court-decision-questions-everything-in-18-usc-922-update-for-september-26-2022/

So, let's see what the judges decide regarding this issue, and not some vacuous journalists. :smile:

Yeah, I think that's the ruling that Hunter Biden's lawyers are using in their defence.

Trump and GOP Rep. Gosar suggest Joint Chiefs boss Mark Milley deserves death.

Also Trump Goes Full Deranged, Suggests Charging People He Doesn’t Like With Treason

Bet he'd love to be a dictator.

Milley, broken with a moral panic, went around the back of duly elected president and informed the CCP about Trump in order to cool tensions. He violated his oath, ran contrary to the will of the people, and arguably committed treason.

Milley, broken with a moral panic, went around the back of duly elected president and informed the CCP about Trump in order to cool tensions. — NOS4A2

Claims that Milley made ‘secret’ calls to Chinese leaders exaggerated, sources say

A defense official familiar with the calls said that description is “grossly mischaracterized.”

The official said the calls were not out of the ordinary, and the chairman was not frantically trying to reassure his counterpart.

The people also said that Milley did not go rogue in placing the call, as the book suggests. In fact, Milley asked permission from acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller before making the call, said one former senior defense official, who was in the room for the meeting. Milley also briefed the secretary’s office after the call, the former official said.

“We discussed beforehand and after his call with his Chinese counterpart,” the person said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive topic.

In an interview Wednesday, Miller told POLITICO that Milley almost certainly told him he was going to call his Chinese counterpart, but he didn’t recall getting a detailed readout of the call after.

“Looking back, I imagine there was a perfunctory exchange between us and our staffs about coordinating phone calls and messages for the day,” he said. “I don’t recall the specifics and it certainly wasn’t in a detailed or more formal way. It was more perfunctory/routine.”

A Joint Staff spokesperson said all of Milley’s calls with his counterparts, including those with Chinese leaders, “are staffed, coordinated and communicated with the Department of Defense and the interagency.”

“His calls with the Chinese and others in October and January were in keeping with these duties and responsibilities conveying reassurance in order to maintain strategic stability,” said Col. Dave Butler.

He violated his oath, ran contrary to the will of the people, and arguably committed treason. — NOS4A2

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

I really hope you're not suggesting that making a phone call warrants the death penality.

Thanks, unnamed official.

He gave aid and comfort to the enemy behind the back of the president. He admitted to it in his book.

Enemies are subjects of a foreign government that is in open hostility with the United States.

Thanks, unnamed official. — NOS4A2

In an interview Wednesday, Miller told POLITICO that Milley almost certainly told him he was going to call his Chinese counterpart

He gave aid and comfort to the enemy behind the back of the president. — NOS4A2

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F.Cas/0026.f.cas/0026.f.cas.0018.2.pdf

The term “enemies,” as used in the constitutional clause defining treason (Const, art. 3, § 3), applies only to subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us

Clearly I was speaking about the unnamed official, not the named one.

We heard it here first. Lawyers get to determine what an “enemy” is.

Clearly I was speaking about the unnamed official, not the named one. — NOS4A2

You were being facetious, implying that we shouldn't trust the reporting because the official was unnamed. I'm pointing out that the Defense Secretary corroborated the anonymous official's claims.

We heard it here first. Lawyers get to determine what an “enemy” is. — NOS4A2

Judges get to.

You’re just quoting disparate paragraphs from all over the internet. You’re not pointing out much. None of it gets into what Milley said to the Chinese.

Sorry, but judges aren’t the commander in chief of the armed forces.

Sorry, but judges aren’t the commander in chief of the armed forces. — NOS4A2

They are the ones who interpret the meaning of the words in the constitution.

You’re just quoting disparate paragraphs from all over the internet. You’re not pointing out much. — NOS4A2

I'm pointing out that there's every reason to believe that he followed standard procedure. He's not guilty of treason and certainly not deserving of the death penalty.

It isn’t standard procedure to tell a general in a foreign army that he would warn them should the US attack.

Judge rules Donald Trump defrauded banks, insurers while building real estate empire

A judge ruled Tuesday that Donald Trump committed fraud for years while building the real estate empire that catapulted him to fame and the White House.

Judge Arthur Engoron, ruling in a civil lawsuit brought by New York’s attorney general, found that the former president and his company deceived banks, insurers and others by massively overvaluing his assets and exaggerating his net worth on paperwork used in making deals and securing financing.

Engoron ordered that some of Trump’s business licenses be rescinded as punishment, making it difficult or impossible for them to do business in New York, and said he would continue to have an independent monitor oversee the Trump Organization’s operations.

There's no question that Individual-1 committed tax fraud ... — 180 Proof

As I wrote last year (click on my handle for context), another jackboot has dropped today:

https://youtu.be/dOhxBCOMtWU?si=We7y3-pvOADosoh1 :clap: :grin:

@Benkei @NOS4A2 ...

What a shocker.

This lawsuit should have happened decades ago. He’s been a degenerate fraud since at least the 80s, after all.

:up:

Fraud is a crime but prosecutors refused to pursue the case. I wonder why? “Liable” is becoming the common theme because guilt escapes you. New York is a banana republic. See what SCOTUS says. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Fraud is a crime but prosecutors refused to pursue the case. I wonder why? — NOS4A2

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-could-letitia-james-civil-lawsuit-against-trump-turn-criminal-1745479

"The Attorney General of New York does not have the authority to bring a criminal case against these defendants for this conduct in New York, not does she have the authority to bring a federal criminal case.

"It is not uncommon for a state official working on a civil case to make a referral to the relevant state and federal criminal authorities when the official's investigation uncovers evidence of a crime.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-sued-by-new-york-attorney-general-fraud-2022-09-21/

The lawsuit was civil, meaning it did not involve criminal charges. But James said she was referring allegations of criminal wrongdoing to federal prosecutors in Manhattan and the Internal Revenue Service for investigation.

So she has authority to bring a civil case but not a criminal case but referred the case to those who do have the authority.

“Liable” is becoming the common theme because guilt escapes you. — NOS4A2

The term "liable" was used because it's a civil case, not a criminal case.

See what SCOTUS says. — NOS4A2

I don't think SCOTUS has jurisdiction over this. I believe the New York Court of Appeals would be the last resort.

I know what a civil and criminal case is and the difference between liable and guilty. No need to scurry around and gather disparate quotes and authors, which I never read in any case.

... which I never read in any case. — NOS4A2

When dealing with NOS this should be kept in mind! He has no interest facts or in discussing issues. He is a shill for Trump.

He claims to know the difference a civil and criminal case but also claims that:

... prosecutors refused to pursue the case. — NOS4A2

This is like saying a baseball team refuses to play basketball.

:up: :up:

This is like saying a baseball team refuses to play basketball.

When dealing with Fooloso be prepared nonsensical analogies and other sophistries.

You can't think of any reason why criminal prosecutors would refuse to pursue a case?

No need to scurry around and gather disparate quotes and authors, which I never read in any case. — NOS4A2

Yeah, I've known for a while that you don't discuss these matters in good faith. My replies to you are never really replies to you. I'm providing a public service as a fact-checker for others who read your posts.

One-sided stories, churnalism, contextomy, card-stacking. Propaganda as a public service.

Explaining that the AG doesn’t have authority to bring a criminal case in this matter but referred it to those who do is propaganda? I don’t think so.

But you trying to suggest that she does but chose not to because she lacks sufficient evidence certainly is propaganda.

I didn't say she chose not to bring a criminal case. I said "prosecutors refused to pursue the case". You even quoted it. Is this your idea of good faith?