Last weekend, an auction held at his Florida home saw the item, described as “a one of a kind Trump Glock from the 45th President of the United States Donald J. Trump,” go up for bidding during a charity event. Pictures circulating on social media show the gun being presented at the auction, with news website Meidas Touch saying that bidding for the item began at $10,000.
However, the transaction could land the former U.S. president in considerable trouble, given that federal law prohibits those under indictment from transacting firearms. Trump is embroiled in active legal proceedings, having testified at a civil trial over the New York investigation into financial fraud at the Trump Organization. The former president has denied all wrongdoing and repeatedly said that the ongoing federal and civil cases against him are part of a political witch hunt.
Ok ok we fucking get it, US government. Trump is clearly above the law.
All we can say with certainty is he gets special treatment, well beyond what any other nobody-defendant would receive. If he avoids all charges in his growing number of cases, then I’m with you that the evidence clearly indicates he is indeed above the law.
That’s close to the same law they indicted Hunter Biden on.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Narrator: … and nothing continued to happen.
It makes me less sad when I imagine this came from a Douglas Adams book.
I thought this was some sort of weeks old story being posted…
But is the gun that he’s selling the same gun he “totally did not buy, we swear”
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/09/25/donald-trump-gun-glock/70965018007/
Edit: perhaps not https://www.meidastouch.com/news/exclusive-trump-gun-auctioned-off-at-mar-a-lago-likely-violation-of-indictment-release
This is probably a legal nothingburger.
It’s a big deal if Trump was personally selling the gun. But it’s almost certainly for sale by a corporation, or other legal fiction, that he owns or has an interest in. This is one reason we have the idea of a corporation. The corporation is a “person”, not the CEO, board of directors, etc. and can’t be held accountable, as a whole, for the actions of a single man. I know that sounds corrupt as hell, but how would you like to lose your job, or be held legally accountable for the actions of your superiors?
And if you don’t like it, and I mostly don’t, I invite you to read the first section of the US Code.
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-, bla, bla, bla,
the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;"
Guys, I doubt he listed the thing on eBay under his personal account. Feel me?
IANAL, so I hope someone more educated than I has an angle to nail him on this. I’ll take every coffin nail I can get on this man.
His Corp is under fraud indictment in NY.
Just piling on all the shitty and questionable things he does is helpful at least to promote awareness of same.
Maybe. But was it registered to him? He has to transfer that right? That probably still counts.
Ah, I see you’re under the impression that Florida requires firearm registration. While that would seem like a sensible measure, they do not.
I did not know that. I am sadly not surprised.
There should still be a federal background check form (ATF form 4473) listing the seller and the buyer. If he bought it entirely on a private sale, then that form can be bypassed, but that also means he didn’t buy it under his corporation.
That was my thought. We know from statements made directly by trump that he purchased the gun relatively recently. Was it ever actually in his name? Based on the forms that I’ve had to fill out for purchasing both rifles and handguns, make it explicitly clear purchasing a gun for someone else isn’t cool. If it can be proven that someone else bought the gun for him, or he bought it with the intention of selling it, he can end up in more hot water. At the moment, it can be assumed either of those happened, but it can’t be proven.
Rock solid point there! Regardless of who’s selling it, who’s was it to begin with? Hadn’t looked at that angle.
It’s been brought to my attention through other comments here that Florida may not have the same registration as my home state. I’m pretty sure the form is a federal form though, or at least the background check required is federal. I’m not sure if an open investigation/indictment would show on those compared to something someone was tried and found guilty of. For where I’m at, the only way to transfer a handgun without registering it is if it were to go from parent to child, or vice versa.
Either way, I’m happy to see another twig on the fire under his dumbass, but I do like my guns and I really hope this doesn’t get twisted into something to fuck that up more
If that was a valid workaround, couldn’t any criminal just create corporations to own their guns?
Well, yeah? We do it daily.
Say I want a suppressor. OK, there’s some weird legal shit here.
I can do the paperwork and pay my $200. That can is only good for that particular gun, and only as long as I own it.
So I create a trust, another legal fiction like a corporation, and put the gun inside that trust. Yes, it’s a legal “bucket”, kinda like a corporation. (That’s really sloppy, but you get the idea.)
Now I can pass the trust onto my heirs, and they get to keep the gun/suppressor combo.
Yes, it’s really that dumb. And yes, it works that way.
deleted by creator
So does that help for Trump’s situation? I saw ATF rule 41f closed some loopholes around NFA items by requiring background checks on people using trusts to receive NFA weapons, but does it help with plain old pistols too, if a natural person isn’t allowed to have them?
18 USC § 922 (d)(1)
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person, including as a juvenile
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
For those wondering.
EDIT: This is incorrect. It is 18 USC § 922 (n) as indicated by my reply to @Neato and thanks to them for pointing out my error.
Doesn’t that just say you can’t sell a gun to someone under indictment. Not the other way around?
You’re right, it’s 18 USC § 922 (n) that covers the other way around.
(n) It shall be unlawful for any person who is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm or ammunition or receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
I totally got ahead of myself pasting the related law. Thank you for your keen eyes.
deleted by creator
He’s again violated his conditions of release.
Among the agreed-upon conditions, Trump must not violate any laws in Georgia or elsewhere, he must appear in court as directed, he must not communicate about the facts of the case with fellow co-defendants – except through his legal team – and he must not intimidate co-defendants or witnesses. The order stipulates that such intimidation – “no direct or indirect threat of any nature” – includes posts on social media or reposts of posts made by others on social media.
Revoke
Another thing that won’t be punished. It was a perfect auction.
Best auction in the history of auctions!
Trump sucks. Tell me something I didn’t already know 10 years ago
It’s interesting, isn’t it, that this and other “witch hunts” keep turning up so many witches.
If they were going to go after this, he’d already be gone after when he handled the trump Glock in that gunstore
I’m choosing to believe maybe they want to convict him first, then hit him with the gun charge as more salt in the wound.
Or use the gun charge if they can’t nail him on anything else. What’s the maximum sentence for that?
Looks like up to 10 years, but this is from 2013 so it could be different now:
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ut/legacy/2013/06/03/guncard.pdf
At the top, 922 (n).
Why would the law apply to the anointed one? The right thinks no one should hold baby hands to account for anything.
This is my shocked face when nothing comes of this… :-/
Nothing’s gonna happen
Nothing ever does…
Glock will sell for more.
I thought the story was that he never actually accepted this firearm, but here it is in his possession. Who filled out the 4473 for this?
