Over 20-years ago, 2 Pennsylvania men were convicted of non-violent crimes. Due to their convictions, both men have been forbidden to own or be in possession of firearms. The White House has asked the Supreme Court to look into the cases of the two men and restore their 2nd Amendment rights.
Trump administration lawyers are urging the Supreme Court to reject a 2nd Amendment claim that would restore the right to own a gun for two Pennsylvania men who were convicted more than 20 years ago of nonviolent crimes.
The case of Sessions vs. Binderup puts the new administration in a potentially awkward spot, considering President Trump’s repeated assurances during the campaign that he would protect gun-ownership rights under the 2nd Amendment.
But the Justice Department under Trump has embraced the same position in this case that was adopted under President Obama: to defend strict enforcement of a long-standing federal law that bars convicted criminals from ever owning a gun, even when their crimes did not involve violence…
There is no doubt that President Trump is a champion for Second Amendment rights, but he also seems to want to see laws enforced, which places this action in question. What crimes should warrant a person losing their right to bear arms? Should there be a distinction between violent and non-violent convictions or just keep it for all felony convictions?