Orange skivvie skid mark wants to but doesn't buy a Glock

1
Former President Donald Trump appeared to consider purchasing a Glock handgun Monday during his stop in South Carolina, spokesperson Steven Cheung tweeted Monday.

The gun appeared to be a special Trump-edition Glock, with his face printed on the gun. Trump and his campaign made a stop at Palmetto State Armory to look at guns after meeting Team Trump volunteers at the campaign’s South Carolina office. (RELATED: Donald Trump Gives First Reaction After Surrendering In Georgia)

A Trump spokesperson clarified to the Daily Caller that Trump said he wanted to buy one of the guns. He did not actually purchase one.
https://dailycaller.com/2023/09/25/dona ... -carolina/
18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(1) makes it a federal crime to sell a firearm to a person who is under felony indictment.

And 18 U.S.C. § 922(n) makes it a federal crime for a person under indictment to ship or transport a firearm.
https://x.com/TheStevenCheung/status/17 ... 63300?s=20

https://x.com/bradheath/status/1706382582252699648?s=20

Can man flubs again. Talks it up big then discovers he can't. Fuck him. Looks like the Deep State gave him a public wedgie.

Oooh, my bad: but wait! There's more.
Sept 20 (Reuters) - A federal law prohibiting people under felony indictment from buying firearms is unconstitutional, a federal judge in Texas has concluded, citing a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that significantly expanded gun rights.

U.S. District Judge David Counts, an appointee of Republican former President Donald Trump, reached that conclusion on Monday in dismissing a federal indictment against Jose Gomez Quiroz, who had been charged under the decades-old ban.

Counts cited the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in June declaring for the first time that the right to "keep and bear arms" under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment protects a person's right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.

Counts said that while the U.S. Supreme Court decision did not erase societal and public safety concerns about guns, it had "changed the legal landscape."
https://www.reuters.com/legal/americans ... 022-09-20/

Well, I'll be a blue-nosed gopher.

CDFingers
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world

Re: Orange skivvie skid mark wants to but doesn't buy a Glock

4
CDFingers wrote: Mon Sep 25, 2023 6:33 pm
Former President Donald Trump appeared to consider purchasing a Glock handgun Monday during his stop in South Carolina, spokesperson Steven Cheung tweeted Monday.

The gun appeared to be a special Trump-edition Glock, with his face printed on the gun. Trump and his campaign made a stop at Palmetto State Armory to look at guns after meeting Team Trump volunteers at the campaign’s South Carolina office. (RELATED: Donald Trump Gives First Reaction After Surrendering In Georgia)
18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(1) makes it a federal crime to sell a firearm to a person who is under felony indictment.

Emphasis added, of course.

Does this mean I have to swear off Palmetto State as a vendor for any stuff I might want going forward?
Eventually I'll figure out this signature thing and decide what I want to put here.

Re: Orange skivvie skid mark wants to but doesn't buy a Glock

5
And the feds appealed Counts decision to the 5th Circuit and it was argued in February 2023.
A U.S. appeals court panel on Wednesday appeared skeptical of federal prosecutors' bid to revive a Texas man's conviction under a federal law barring people under indictment for felonies from buying guns, which a lower court judge declared unconstitutional. The dispute over the decades-old law has divided trial-level federal courts since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling last year finding that the U.S. Constitution's 2nd Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense. The 6-3 decision also established a new standard that any gun control measures must be in line with the nation's "historical tradition" of gun regulation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles Fowler of the Western District of Texas told a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the law was consistent with the "strong tradition" of restricting the rights of people accused of serious crimes while they await trial.

"Although the 2nd Amendment may not be a second-class right, it also doesn't hold some kind of superior status" compared to other rights that are restricted for criminal defendants, he said. Timothy Shepherd, a federal public defender representing the defendant in the case, Jose Gomez Quiroz, countered that there was nothing specific in the historical record to support the law. He said that if there had been a "credible individualized fear" that Quiroz posed a danger, he could have been detained rather than released on bail. Circuit Judge Stephen Higginson pressed both sides about how the court could make a decision when there had been no discovery in the trial court about the historical basis for the law, suggesting instead that it could be remanded.

At least four trial court judges have said the law is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court's ruling, while at least three had upheld it. "Who's doing the history that's dividing courts?" Higginson asked, later saying that if "judges are just throwing their hands up, they do need to do some work." Both sides resisted the suggestion of a remand. "There is something troubling about remanding to give the government a second opportunity when a man's liberty is at stake," Shepherd said. Quiroz was indicted in a Texas state court for burglary, a felony, and later for bail jumping when he attempted in late 2021 to buy a handgun. That resulted in his federal indictment.

U.S. District Judge David Counts, an appointee of Republican former President Donald Trump, last September dismissed the case in light of the Supreme Court's ruling, which had come on the day of Quiroz's conviction. Counts cited the high court's conclusion that the right to bear arms was not a "second-class right." Wednesday's 5th Circuit panel also included Chief Circuit Judge Priscilla Richman and Circuit Judge Carolyn King. Higginson and King were appointed by Democratic presidents, while Richman was appointed by a Republican.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigatio ... 023-02-08/

18 USC 922 (d)(1) and what follows is what is listed on the ATF 4473 form.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Orange skivvie skid mark wants to but doesn't buy a Glock

8
He got the media attention and walked away with people chattering about him committing another felony. It makes great headlines and the media ate it up. It's what Trump always does, the media and his opponents obsess on him so he feeds them, it's what he did in 2016, 2020 and he's doing it in this campaign. He'd go crazy if people ignored him.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Orange skivvie skid mark wants to but doesn't buy a Glock

9
I've been thinking this over and I've come to the conclusion this was likely a calculated move on the part of his campaign.

Something tells me they knew about that Glock being in store prior to showing up. It's probably why they picked that store in particular. I'm sure the timing with the ruling regarding felony indictments and gun purchases and this visit was no accident, either. That is, his campaign knew what could've resulted in another felony indictment just 1 week ago is now a legal gray area, thus allowing Trump to pretend he loves guns and pander to gun owners with an IQ which hovers around room temperature on their best day.
The following statement is true: the previous statement was a lie.

Re: Orange skivvie skid mark wants to but doesn't buy a Glock

13
Ylatkit wrote: Tue Sep 26, 2023 7:19 pm
Mutt wrote: Tue Sep 26, 2023 3:23 pm Not gonna lie, it's one of the ugliest guns I have ever seen.
Yeah, but even if all that snot were cleaned up, it would still be ugly-- it'a a Glock.
Aesthetically, I'm a CZ guy. I tend to think of Glock as "Block." Yeah, they are utilitarian, but they're FUGLY. Having iDJT's visage on one just makes it BFugly.

(Butt Fucking Ugly)

And, I don't know what company is producing those Glocks with iDJT's ugly face on them, but they deserve to lose their ability to sell guns. Palmetto State Armory also deserves to lose their FFL credentials over this one.
Eventually I'll figure out this signature thing and decide what I want to put here.

Re: Orange skivvie skid mark wants to but doesn't buy a Glock

14
NonServiam wrote:I've been thinking this over and I've come to the conclusion this was likely a calculated move on the part of his campaign.

Something tells me they knew about that Glock being in store prior to showing up. It's probably why they picked that store in particular. I'm sure the timing with the ruling regarding felony indictments and gun purchases and this visit was no accident, either. That is, his campaign knew what could've resulted in another felony indictment just 1 week ago is now a legal gray area, thus allowing Trump to pretend he loves guns and pander to gun owners with an IQ which hovers around room temperature on their best day.
I think you are right on all accounts. Campaign stop for Trump to grift as always. The MAGA RWNJs that buy $400 ARs on PSA; will eat this shit up with a spoon. Likely it’s a pretty calculated and smart business move.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests