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.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/indicted-trump-asks-to-buy-a-glock-at-campaign-stopwhich-would-be-illegal

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:

1. Trump did attempt to buy the gun.

2. The dealer did make him fill out a form 4473.

3. Trump truthfully answered the Form 4473.

4. 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:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Atf_form_4473-firearms_transaction_record_5300_9revised_0.pdf

Amicus briefings:

https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/perspectives-events/publications/no-date/amicus-briefs-in-the-supreme-court

"...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."