Weird realization. Trump controls the nukes and the entire US army but can’t own a pistol. The fact that every felon is deprived of their second amendment rights seems wacky. Regardless of whether you think Trump should have been convicted it’s hard to imagine that someone who commits business fraud is really a physical danger to society and needs to be deprived of their right to own a firearm.
Take Martha Stuart for example, she’s a felon after convictions of obstruction of justice and perjury in 2004. Again, can you really make a case that she’s so dangerous that she needs to be deprived of her rights?
We already make these kinds of distinctions with misdemeanors. Some misdemeanors are worse than others and should be treated as such. For example the case of Lange v. California said that police can’t always chase a fleeing misdemeanant into their house because some misdemeanors are incredibly minor (like littering). A minor and non-violent offense is not enough reason to override your rights.
Why don’t we make this distinction with felonies? Obviously if you are violent then that’s a great reason to take away your right to own a gun, but felonies are a broad spectrum and it doesn’t seem right to take that standard all the way to the non-violent end of the spectrum.
