My understanding of the order of operations here is Steven Cheung initially reported Trump as having bought the gun.
https://twitter.com/TheStevenCheung
This lead to a quick flood of articles rightfully documenting that such an action would be a felony.
Cheung then apparently deleted the Tweet and the campaign formally stated Trump did not buy it.
But what actually happened in the background? Here is my theory:
-
Trump did attempt to buy the gun.
-
The dealer did make him fill out a form 4473.
-
Trump truthfully answered the Form 4473.
-
Trump was denied the purchase based on box 11b of Form 4473!!
Trump--through Cheung--is able to masterfully accomplish the act of buying the gun without buying it (the media took the bait and gleefully published the stories). Large swaths of the public will now be left with the impression that he did brazenly buy it.
But most importantly, he can now say his rights were violated by this law, just like Hunter!
Is it not inevitable that unlike the primarily Black men who were prosecuted and then pardoned by Trump for gun possession (Lil Wayne, Kodak Black, Weldon Angelos), Hunter as a White, money-laundering liberal would get special treatment and a Supreme Court hearing? And that Trump would file an amicus briefing based on how his rights were violated, first by unwarranted suppression of his 1st amendment rights, and through prosecution of that his 2nd amendment rights?
And that the SC would ultimately rule not just in Hunter's favor, but more broadly on the unconstitutionality of the Gun Control Act?
Here's the "US code":
https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-921.html
Form 4473:
Amicus briefings:
"...to be effective, an amicus brief must bring something new and interesting to the case. This might be better research, an explanation of the connection between the particular case and other pending cases, an improved discussion of industry practices or economic conditions, a more penetrating analysis of the regulatory landscape, or a convincing demonstration of the impact of the case on segments of society apart from the immediate parties."
I like this.
It's a theory, yes, but well thought out.
It's quite possible he's taking the air from the argument from the commies by getting he and Hunter justice.
Reminds me of the two buttons meme... which button will they push when this happens?
*sticky request
There'd be a beautifully symphonic disparity between Trump's Eagle Scout purchase being blocked by a 4473 from political prosecution and Hunter's abject, treasonous, drug-addled, felonious lifestyle getting a total pass from the law as it's administered.
And yet, both of their 2nd amendment rights were clearly violated.
Another fun precedent that could be set here: is it ok to lie to the government when it's committing an unconstitutional act, as Hunter did?
===
Hunter could be a foundation for fixing a lot of issues because he's a sort of worst case scenario, but aside from the treason no one was really hurt by what he did.
Put another way: There is no emotional component for conservatives w/respect to Hunter. Thus neither side is going to be motivated to offer a mOar-government response here.
Normally the cabal orchestrates situations so that at least one side is advocating for mOar government with an emotional charge involved. When the "Hunter" card is played, both sides diffuse and the court can do its thing.
I like this a lot.
FWIW that is an outdated 4473.
The updated one has a couple tricky questions that have prevented many from purchasing that day.
They are questions 21. b & c.
Also that Glock is a G19 G4 Trump .45th addition which is absolutely gorgeous. And I'm not a big Glock fan..
My intentions at the time of purchase could change 10 years later- how will the ATF prove INTENT to sell to a prohibited person (isnt this a straw purchase?)
I've always mused that it would be ironic if Hunter was the one who ultimately helped us with 2A. In their zeal to defend him at all costs, they might actually use the Constitution. "Shall not be infringed..."
Sticky for sparking a 2A curiosity Anon.
u/#yesss
Well he is the Master at Chess, and is always steps ahead. I remember a time or two Trump would do somethig,say something, or make a move and I would say Why the hell did he do that it was stupid. And then days later it would all make sense.
Sometimes years/decades later!!
Whats in bic 11b ?
It asks if you are under felony indictment.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Atf_form_4473-firearms_transaction_record_5300_9revised_0.pdf
Ah thanks.
That opens up a huge can of worms if you have a sealed felony indictment and do not know. They can't get you for perjury in that case, but I bet they would go after you once the indictment is unsealed.
Good way to test if you are a sealed indictment though, I'm sure? Or would they let you have the gun to preserve its secrecy?
Interesting question(s). I guess it would depend on what the sealed indictment is for. Murder? Maybe not.
Whts going on? I saw a snippet of GEOTUS holding a glock supposedly. Whats the implication here?
enter text
Judge rules you can buy under felony indictment.
You had me until you played the race card. Being white does not equal being a Biden.
u/#howdareyou
Have any theories panned out
If we had a flair search that'd be a fun thing to monitor. A few off the top of my head.
Vaccine passports.
That a "vaccine" for a respiratory virus would inevitably require boosters.
Lab leak hypothesis.
The GME stock thesis (didn't moon yet but was validated as a going concern).
Michelle Obama is a man (not official but feels like we're right on the cusp of this one).