Non-Violent Gun Convictions Deserve Trump’s Attention

AmmoLand ^ | April 4, 2025 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

For decades, this correspondent has considered the possibility of presidential pardons for persons convicted of non-violent offenses which are infringements on the rights protected by the Second Amendment.

In his recent YouTube video, Mark Smith explains his idea for pardons with some details about what was politically possible during the second Trump administration. Smith persuasively argues the Trump administration would be open to pardons for people who have been victimized in prosecutions, which are persecutions of people peacefully exercising their rights.

An individual or organization will be needed who can act as an organizational hub to verify cases and present a list of candidates to the Trump administration. All Second Amendment supporters could nominate candidates to the list of those who should be granted a presidential pardon for non-violent actions which arguably should have been protected by the Second Amendment.

In the video, Smith mentions some qualifications for the list. Not all people who have been persecuted in this manner will qualify for a presidential pardon.

The person has to have been convicted of a federal crime. Far more people have been victimized with state and local prosecutions than for federal crimes. Many are victimized by the process but never convicted.

The conviction must be for a non-violent crime. Mark specifically mentions things like possession of a short barreled rifle, or a silencer, without a tax stamp. This correspondent would add possession of a firearm in a gun free school zone, or perhaps a “straw purchase” of a firearm for someone who has no legal disability from owning a firearm, such as the Abramski v. United States case.

Cases in which a plea bargain was made to avoid prosecution for a violent crime should be avoided. Simple cases are better than complex cases.

[marktwain]

Many of the people who have been convicted of federal firearms crimes should be given presidential pardons.

[George from New England]

What about all the folks that forgot they had a gun in their purse while boarding a plane ???

[TexasGator]

“What about all the folks that forgot they had a gun in their purse while boarding a plane ???”

TSA refers them to LOCAL law enforcement.

[George from New England]

Don’t they deserve a pardon ???

Time to change laws.

[TexasGator]

“Don’t they deserve a pardon ???”

How many are there?

[Racketeer]

If a person is not incarcerated, that person needs to be able to protect themselves and family, including the ability to hunt and enjoy the sport of guns.

Why is this not considered a form of cruel or unusual punishment to deny a free person their inalienable right? Why are some rights denied while others are not? Are certain rights more important than others?

[Big Red Badger]

Here’s a can of worms.

[Big Red Badger]

I just remembered Matt at CRS got railroad over some CardKey mess,,,IIRC.
He might fit.

[marktwain]

Yes, and their are a fair number of others.