458
Trump breaks yet another law
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2023
458 points (95.6% liked)
politics
19148 readers
2017 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.
I did not know that. I am sadly not surprised.
There's no gun registration in Florida, and it's illegal to have a registration list.
Most states don't have any registration requirements.
Literally looser gun laws than the Wild West. Pure insanity.
God Bless the NRA! /s
Liberals: "The Christo-fascists are coming!"
Well, yeah. They're already here and they're talking violence. Hell, the FBI already counts rightwing violence as their #1 threat.
Liberals: "We need a government registry of who owns what guns!"
Like an "undesirables" list? Count me out.
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.
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?