# What comprises Trump's "eight-year assault on your Second Amendment freedoms"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 28, 2017, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-comprises-trumps-eight-year-assault-on-your-second-amendment-freedoms/785460 "2017-04-28T22:53:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-comprises-trumps-eight-year-assault-on-your-second-amendment-freedoms/785460/161 "2017-05-04T14:40:39Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > It must be hellish to live in your world. Not really. I don’t live in a constant fear for my life, so I don’t need to carry a gun around with me. I do feel sorry for all the people who are terrified to leave their homes without having a gun, though. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-comprises-trumps-eight-year-assault-on-your-second-amendment-freedoms/785460/162 "2017-05-04T14:41:28Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Not really. I don’t live in a constant fear for my life, so I don’t need to carry a gun around with me. > > I do feel sorry for all the people who are terrified to leave their homes without having a gun, though. You still haven’t explained how you can trust anybody. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-comprises-trumps-eight-year-assault-on-your-second-amendment-freedoms/785460/163 "2017-05-04T14:43:37Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Not really. I don’t live in a constant fear for my life, so I don’t need to carry a gun around with me. > > I do feel sorry for all the people who are terrified to leave their homes without having a gun, though. While we are on the topic of people snapping, how many times in your life would you have “snapped” and killed somebody if you’d had a gun? ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-comprises-trumps-eight-year-assault-on-your-second-amendment-freedoms/785460/164 "2017-05-04T14:44:54Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > Why not just say that everybody is a good guy until they are a bad guy? Nobody can be trusted at all. Ever. Yet we trust them with guns. (I’m okay with that, in general, but let’s not pretend there’s a distinction between “good guys” and “criminals.” Every criminal was once a “good guy.”) ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-comprises-trumps-eight-year-assault-on-your-second-amendment-freedoms/785460/165 "2017-05-04T14:49:07Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Yet we trust them with guns. (I’m okay with that, in general, but let’s not pretend there’s a distinction between “good guys” and “criminals.” Every criminal was once a “good guy.”) Yes, that is true. However, I find the “one bad day away…” idea asinine every time it gets brought up in the context of gun control. If we are all “one bad day away” from being killers, then nobody can be trusted with anything dangerous, ever. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-comprises-trumps-eight-year-assault-on-your-second-amendment-freedoms/785460/166 "2017-05-04T15:49:58Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > > [@k9bfriender](#): > > > > Just removing the “gun show loophole” would cut these down fairly dramatically. > > > [@](#): > > > > Cite? > > [According to a recent ATF report, there is a significant diversion to the illegal gun market from FFLs. The report states that "of the 120,370 crime guns that were traced to purchases from the FFLs then in business, 27.7 % of these firearms were seized by law enforcement in connection with a crime within two years of the original sale.](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html) > > Actually, you should read the whole article, it contains quite a bit of information that it seems you do not think exists. Nor seeing how that is speaking to the “gun show loophole?” ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-comprises-trumps-eight-year-assault-on-your-second-amendment-freedoms/785460/167 "2017-05-04T15:54:39Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > You still haven’t explained how you can trust anybody. I think you misunderstood. I was sarcastically responding to your sarcastic comment of “Nobody can be trusted at all. Ever.” when I said that there was no way to tell that someone was a danger until they started killing, this was in response to your argument that in order to prevent people killing, then we would have to take guns away from everyone. > [@Scumpup](#): > > While we are on the topic of people snapping, how many times in your life would you have “snapped” and killed somebody if you’d had a gun? Not even once, but I could see a path that could end that way. If you lost your job, your family, your friends, your personal financial security, and you started out being somewhat mentally unstable, a mass shooting may be in your future. > [@Scumpup](#): > > Yes, that is true. However, I find the “one bad day away…” idea asinine every time it gets brought up in the context of gun control. If we are all “one bad day away” from being killers, then nobody can be trusted with anything dangerous, ever. It’s not one bad day, it’s a bad week, a bad month, a bad year. Most of the time, the warning signs are there, long before they go on a murderous rampage. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-comprises-trumps-eight-year-assault-on-your-second-amendment-freedoms/785460/168 "2017-05-04T16:04:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Nor seeing how that is speaking to the “gun show loophole?” I apologize, I would have thought you were aware of the fact that, the gun show loophole actually has little to do with actual gun shows, in fact, even less, as most of the people selling at gun shows are actually ffls these day, but is instead the practice of selling a gun from one private individual to another, in which case, the first individual is not responsible for running a background check, like an ffl would. This means that you could sell your gun to a criminal, or someone who otherwise would be legally prohibited from buying a gun, with no liability on your self. > [@from the article](#): > > Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-comprises-trumps-eight-year-assault-on-your-second-amendment-freedoms/785460/169 "2017-05-04T16:16:32Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Actually, you should read the whole article, it contains quite a bit of information that it seems you do not think exists. Actually, I did, and it doesn’t mention the gun show loophole or gun shows _at all_. It runs down through a list of the most common means for criminals to obtain guns, and “gun show loophole” didn’t make the cut. What conclusion could you draw from its omission? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-comprises-trumps-eight-year-assault-on-your-second-amendment-freedoms/785460/170 "2017-05-04T16:30:31Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I apologize, I would have thought you were aware of the fact that, the gun show loophole actually has little to do with actual gun shows, in fact, even less, as most of the people selling at gun shows are actually ffls these day, but is instead the practice of selling a gun from one private individual to another, in which case, the first individual is not responsible for running a background check, like an ffl would. This means that you could sell your gun to a criminal, or someone who otherwise would be legally prohibited from buying a gun, with no liability on your self. > > > [@](#): > > > > Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. I am aware of that, but the snippet you quote is about straw purchasers, who would not be needed if the seller is not running a background check. . . so there’s still nothing in the article about the gun show loophole of private sales. The straw purchaser is a legal buyer from an FFL who is so named because he’s a “strawman,” not the actual purchaser. And if you’re thinking that closing the gun show loophole would make straw purchases illegal – they are already illegal, for reasons having nothing to do with private sales. So: what the heck are you talking about? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-comprises-trumps-eight-year-assault-on-your-second-amendment-freedoms/785460/171 "2017-05-04T16:36:07Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I apologize, I would have thought you were aware of the fact that, the gun show loophole actually has little to do with actual gun shows, in fact, even less, as most of the people selling at gun shows are actually ffls these day, but is instead the practice of selling a gun from one private individual to another, in which case, the first individual is not responsible for running a background check, like an ffl would. This means that you could sell your gun to a criminal, or someone who otherwise would be legally prohibited from buying a gun, with no liability on your self. You might want to get your vocabulary sorted out. “gun show loophole” refers to private-party sales _at gun shows_. It is not a significant source of “crime guns”. Straw purchases refers to (one form of) illegal sales _at an FFL_. What it _sounds_ like you want is “universal background checks”, which is a broader proposal than ‘closing the gun show loophole’, but still does nothing to prevent straw purchasers. ETA: Are you now prepared to concede your original claim that “Just removing the “gun show loophole” would cut these down fairly dramatically” or are you going to continue citing unrelated pieces of information? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-comprises-trumps-eight-year-assault-on-your-second-amendment-freedoms/785460/172 "2017-05-04T16:38:59Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > There are mass shootings nearly every day. These are not perpetuated by stable individuals. There are people killed individually every day, once again, not by stable individuals. > > Just removing the “gun show loophole” would cut these down fairly dramatically. Hardly- less than 100 since 1982: > **[US mass shootings, 1982–2024: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/)** > > The full data set from our in-depth investigation into mass shootings. Not only not\* nearly every day\*, nor nearly every week, but not even nearly every month. There’s no such thing as the “gun show loophole”, and iirc no mass shootings were performed with a gun bought at one. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-comprises-trumps-eight-year-assault-on-your-second-amendment-freedoms/785460/173 "2017-05-04T16:40:20Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Because there is no way to tell if someone is a danger to those around them until they start killing. > > [According to a recent ATF report, there is a significant diversion to the illegal gun market from FFLs. The report states that "of the 120,370 crime guns that were traced to purchases from the FFLs then in business, 27.7 % of these firearms were seized by law enforcement in connection with a crime within two years of the original sale.](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html) > > Actually, you should read the whole article, it contains quite a bit of information that it seems you do not think exists. Those seem to be mostly "straw man sales’ which do need some more enforcement. But are already illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-comprises-trumps-eight-year-assault-on-your-second-amendment-freedoms/785460/174 "2017-05-04T16:50:58Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > You might want to get your vocabulary sorted out. “gun show loophole” refers to private-party sales _at gun shows_. It is not a significant source of “crime guns”. Straw purchases refers to (one form of) illegal sales _at an FFL_. > > What it _sounds_ like you want is “universal background checks”, which is a broader proposal than ‘closing the gun show loophole’, but still does nothing to prevent straw purchasers. > > ETA: Are you now prepared to concede your original claim that “Just removing the “gun show loophole” would cut these down fairly dramatically” or are you going to continue citing unrelated pieces of information? He’s suggesting that “gun loophole” and universal background check mean the same thing. They don’t but I’ll happily concede it for this discussion, since even if he’s talking universal background check a straw purchase could still happen. And if he’s saying it would criminalize the straw purchaser giving the guys to the true purchaser — that’s already illegal. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-comprises-trumps-eight-year-assault-on-your-second-amendment-freedoms/785460/175 "2017-05-04T17:33:14Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Actually, I did, and it doesn’t mention the gun show loophole or gun shows _at all_. It runs down through a list of the most common means for criminals to obtain guns, and “gun show loophole” didn’t make the cut. What conclusion could you draw from its omission? > [@Bricker](#): > > I am aware of that, but the snippet you quote is about straw purchasers, who would not be needed if the seller is not running a background check. . . so there’s still nothing in the article about the gun show loophole of private sales. > > The straw purchaser is a legal buyer from an FFL who is so named because he’s a “strawman,” not the actual purchaser. > > And if you’re thinking that closing the gun show loophole would make straw purchases illegal – they are already illegal, for reasons having nothing to do with private sales. > > So: what the heck are you talking about? > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > You might want to get your vocabulary sorted out. “gun show loophole” refers to private-party sales _at gun shows_. It is not a significant source of “crime guns”. Straw purchases refers to (one form of) illegal sales _at an FFL_. > > What it _sounds_ like you want is “universal background checks”, which is a broader proposal than ‘closing the gun show loophole’, but still does nothing to prevent straw purchasers. > > ETA: Are you now prepared to concede your original claim that “Just removing the “gun show loophole” would cut these down fairly dramatically” or are you going to continue citing unrelated pieces of information? I was using this definition. > [@](#): > > [Gun show loophole, gun law loophole, Brady law loophole (or Brady bill loophole), private sale loophole, and private sale exemption are political terms in the United States referring to sales of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun shows, dubbed the “secondary market”.[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole) I did not think that I was the first one to use the term “gun show loophole” to refer to the secondary market of private, non-ffl sellers who do not run background checks on the people to which they sell guns. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Hardly- less than 100 since 1982: > [US Mass Shootings, 1982–2024: Data From Mother Jones’ Investigation – Mother Jones](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data) > > Not only not\* nearly every day\*, nor nearly every week, but not even nearly every month. > > There’s no such thing as the “gun show loophole”, and iirc no mass shootings were performed with a gun bought at one. [According to the Tracker’s data, which defines a mass shooting as an incident in which at least four people are killed or wounded, there were 372 mass shootings in the U.S. in 2015, killing 475 and wounding 1,870.](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2015-the-year-of-mass-shootings/) More than one a day. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Those seem to be mostly "straw man sales’ which do need some more enforcement. But are already illegal. > [@Bricker](#): > > He’s suggesting that “gun loophole” and universal background check mean the same thing. They don’t but I’ll happily concede it for this discussion, since even if he’s talking universal background check a straw purchase could still happen. And if he’s saying it would criminalize the straw purchaser giving the guys to the true purchaser — that’s already illegal. Okay, so it is possible that I do not understand the difference between the gun show loophole, in which a private person can sell a gun to another private person without a background check, and a strawman sale, in which a private person can sell a gun to another private person without a background check, except maybe in the second case, that the gun was specifically bought for the second person, and in the first case, the gun was one you just happened to have for sale. The fact that the second case is illegal is all well and good, but the fact that you do not need to run a background check on a person before you sell them a gun is a loophole that does put guns into the hands of people who are legally proscribed from having them. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-comprises-trumps-eight-year-assault-on-your-second-amendment-freedoms/785460/176 "2017-05-04T17:38:23Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > The fact that the second case is illegal is all well and good, but the fact that you do not need to run a background check on a person before you sell them a gun is a loophole that does put guns into the hands of people who are legally proscribed from having them. Sure, I agree with that. What I don’t agree with is your claim here: > [@k9bfriender](#): > > There are mass shootings nearly every day. These are not perpetuated by stable individuals. There are people killed individually every day, once again, not by stable individuals. > > Just removing the “gun show loophole” would cut these down fairly dramatically. I accept for this discussion that “gun show loophole,” and “private sale loophole,” and “lack of universal background check,” all mean the same thing. I still don’t agree with your “dramatically” claim. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-comprises-trumps-eight-year-assault-on-your-second-amendment-freedoms/785460/177 "2017-05-04T17:41:06Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I > > [According to the Tracker’s data, which defines a mass shooting as an incident in which at least four people are killed or wounded, there were 372 mass shootings in the U.S. in 2015, killing 475 and wounding 1,870.](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2015-the-year-of-mass-shootings/) > > More than one a day. > The fact that the second case is illegal is all well and good, but the fact that you do not need to run a background check on a person before you sell them a gun is a loophole that does put guns into the hands of people who are legally proscribed from having them. Few people accept that definition. Most people dont look upon a gang battle as a “mass shooting”. I used Mother Jones, which is pretty darn independent. That is true. But of course, pretty much you have to do that- considered a Dad giving his young man his first .22 rifle, handed down in the family. Or a widow of a police officer, shot down in duty, who wants to give his service pistol to his partner. Those would require going thru a FFL dealer, who normally charge pretty big bux for that service. Strawman sales have been illegal since 1964 or so, and the ATF doesnt do much about them, in fact they seem to actually encourage them. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2017, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-comprises-trumps-eight-year-assault-on-your-second-amendment-freedoms/785460/178 "2017-05-04T19:36:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure, I agree with that. What I don’t agree with is your claim here: > > I accept for this discussion that “gun show loophole,” and “private sale loophole,” and “lack of universal background check,” all mean the same thing. > > I still don’t agree with your “dramatically” claim. I am operating off of this quote > [@](#): > > Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. Now, I have discovered before that things in the media are incorrect, but this seems to me, that if you could eliminate straw purchase sales, then you would have less gun crime. And, ti does seem to me that the ability to transfer a gun from one person to another without a background check is what makes straw purchase possible. I mean, if I walk up to you, and say, “Nice gun, give you $3k for it.” that’s not a straw purchase, as you did not buy it for the intent of selling it to someone that you knew was ineligible, but you still could well be selling it to someone who is, so I don’t see the difference. Requiring background checks for all weapon transfers (and I would consider carrying a CCW to be essentially an instant background check), would make strawmanning much harder, as the only difference, from what I understand, between that and a private sale is the intent and knowledge of the seller. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Few people accept that definition. Most people dont look upon a gang battle as a “mass shooting”. Okay, I can accept that you don’t look at it this way, and not having a poll, I couldn’t contradict you on how most people look at it, but I see people getting shot. If your point is that they deserved it, or brought it upon themselves or something like that, I can understand why you would think that way, but I would not agree. > [@](#): > > I used Mother Jones, which is pretty darn independent. I see on a different article on the same site > [@](#): > > Crimes primarily related to gang activity, armed robbery, or domestic violence in homes are not included. So, yeah, differences in counting. they decided to not count the bulk of the murders done with guns. I can see why they did that, because they are highlighting the mass shooters that are mentally unstable, and as they also said in the article, > [@](#): > > A majority were mentally troubled—and many displayed signs of mental health problems before setting out to kill. This is where the legally acquired weapons, which constitute the majority of mass shootings need to be curtailed a bit. I don’t know the best way of going about it, but in many of these cases, there were pretty obvious warning signs ahead of time, that should have made people restrict their access to dangerous objects that could harm those around them. > [@](#): > > That is true. But of course, pretty much you have to do that- considered a Dad giving his young man his first .22 rifle, handed down in the family. Or a widow of a police officer, shot down in duty, who wants to give his service pistol to his partner. Those would require going thru a FFL dealer, who normally charge pretty big bux for that service. And, as I said, I would consider a CCW to be as good as a background check for private sales or transfers. I am not sure exactly if that’s always the case, though. When my grandfather died, he left his rifles to my father. I don’t know that he didn’t go through an ffl to transfer them, but as he is rather vocal about everything he does that is any sort of inconvenience, I don’t see why he would not have. Maybe my dad’s just breaking the law, I dunno. > [@](#): > > Strawman sales have been illegal since 1964 or so, and the ATF doesnt do much about them, in fact they seem to actually encourage them. That seems a problem to me. Do you know why that would be? Speculation here, but is it because there is no real difference between a strawman sale, and a private sale, other than the intent and knowledge of the seller, and knowledge and intent are probably the two hardest things to prove? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2017, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-comprises-trumps-eight-year-assault-on-your-second-amendment-freedoms/785460/179 "2017-05-31T18:32:43Z")
It is interesting that in it’s first test of Gun Rights, the Trump Admin came down firmly on the same side as the Obama admin: > **[Trump administration asks Supreme Court to reject 2nd Amendment claim by men...](https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-guns-trump-20170525-story.html)** > > Trump administration lawyers are urging the Supreme Court to reject a 2nd Amendment claim that would restore the right to own a gun for two Pennsylvania men who were convicted more than 20 years ago of nonviolent crimes. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2017, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-comprises-trumps-eight-year-assault-on-your-second-amendment-freedoms/785460/180 "2017-05-31T19:04:13Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > It is interesting that in it’s first test of Gun Rights, the Trump Admin came down firmly on the same side as the Obama admin: > > [Trump administration asks Supreme Court to reject 2nd Amendment claim by men who lost gun rights over nonviolent crimes](http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-guns-trump-20170525-story.html) Meh > [@](#): > > The decision is in keeping with Justice Department tradition to defend federal laws in court, even if the administration may not be enthused with the statute. As a rather hard-core gun rights activist, I’m mildly disappointed. I’d rank my disappointment somewhere between the feeling I get when my steak is overcooked and it raining on a Saturday. ETA: but kudos to Gura for apparently finding an edge case of non-violent misdemeanors “punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” to challenge. I hope he wins. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-comprises-trumps-eight-year-assault-on-your-second-amendment-freedoms/785460.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-comprises-trumps-eight-year-assault-on-your-second-amendment-freedoms/785460.md?page=10)