Press "Enter" to skip to content

Trump Is Coming for Your Guns! Also Disdains Constitution

Barack Obama is a Constitutional scholar. As President, contrary to eight yeas of hollering from folks trying to sell you more guns, Barack Obama never came to take your guns.

But Donald Trump might:

“I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida … to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.

“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said [Brett Samuels, “Trump: ‘Take the Guns First, Go Through Due Process Second’,” The Hill, 2018.02.28].

Senator Jeff Flake, no big Trump loyalist, tries to cover for Il Duce:

“Anything we have introduced in the Congress respects due process,” Flake said. “It was a bit astonishing to hear the language there, and people around the table were shaking their heads, but you can chalk that up to that he misspoke. Let’s move ahead. It was a lot of excitement afterward that he might actually lead on this, and we need that” [Ayanna Alexander, “Flake on Trump’s ‘Take the Guns’ Remark: ‘He Misspoke’,” Politico, 2018.03.01].

Darn right he misspoke: no President, no elected official who swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, should speak so dismissively of the due process guaranteed to every person on our glorious shores by the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

But this is what happens when you elect an idiot President. This guns comment isn’t just a mental lapse; it’s another statement showing Trump’s consistent disdain for the United States Constitution, which he treats like an inconvenient roadblock to exerting his will.

Recall Trump’s snide swipe at Hillary Clinton in 2016:

Hillary wants to abolish — essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick… (crowd booing) If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don’t know [Donald Trump, speech as transcribed by Time, Wilmington, NC, 2016.08.09].

So, Second Amendment people, now that you are the targets of what we First Amendment hawks have gotten from Trump since before his election, now that Trump has expressed his desire to essentially abolish the cherished Second Amendment, is there maybe something you can do?

Related Viewing: Stephen Colbert is as flabbergasted at the Donald’s unconstitutional blurtage as I am:


  1. Richard Schriever 2018-03-01 12:31

    You can’t fix stupid – and the Trumpicorn demonstrates every day – and usually several times every day – he is an simple-minded dolt. Always has been and always will be.

  2. Nick Nemec 2018-03-01 13:03

    Trump didn’t misspeak he repeated himself at least three times. It really comes down to the fact that he has no understanding of or respect for the law or procedure. Chauncey Gardener is president.

  3. Roger Cornelius 2018-03-01 14:01

    Trump’s gun control meeting was the definition of surreal.
    The only laws Trump seems to understand are bankruptcy protection laws.
    In my fifty plus years of following national politics, I have never experienced anything remotely close to the daily chaos of this White House. Even Nixon’s Watergate scandal was tame considering what is now going on in Washington, D.C.
    The 2n Amendment is what it says, nothing more, nothing less and is not open to interpretation by the NRA.

  4. John Kennedy Claussen, Sr. 2018-03-01 16:08

    Since President Trump has this distain for due process when it comes to guns, then perhaps he should resign right now, then after his resignation we will investigate the allegations by many women against the President – as due process takes a secondary backseat to any #MeToo allegations – …..Because it would only be fair and logical according to the President’s thinking, right?

  5. John Tsitrian 2018-03-01 16:36

    Not that shocking. Isn’t Trump’s comment consistent with “civil forfeiture” actions that take assets away from suspects without due process? I’m eminently correctable on this.

  6. mike from iowa 2018-03-01 16:42

    Drumpf has always had a problem with due process when court rulings don’t go his way.

    Drumpf teed off on his own AG Perjurer Sessions, again. How did we get stuck with this after the grace and beauty of the Obama Administration?

  7. bearcreekbat 2018-03-01 17:10

    John makes a good point. Property suspected of having been used to commit crimes and suspected proceeds from criminal activity can be seized and held by law enforcement. The “due process” provided in such cases requires anyone claiming the property to commence an action for it’s return, with the burden of establishing that the property or proceeds did not involve criminal activity.

    Under a similar, but perhaps stronger, public safety rational if there is a reasonable basis to suspect that a gun will be used to commit a crime, law enforcement should be able to seize the gun and hold it until the owner filed an action in court and satisfied a judge by a preponderance of the evidence that no crime, nor danger to the public, was planned. Such a seizure could be triggered by social comments, family warnings, videos, or other danger signs.

  8. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2018-03-01 17:39

    Interesting point about civil forfeiture. Trump’s due process comment seems to go further, infringing a Constitutional right before anyone has been arrested for a crime, before any crime has been committed.

  9. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2018-03-01 17:39

    Roger C, would it be fair to say that the difference between the Nixon and Trump administrations is that Nixon’s people were highly competent?

  10. bearcreekbat 2018-03-01 18:01

    First problem for me – After listening to the BS sprouted by Trump for so long, I generally have an adverse reaction to whatever he says or proposes. But this idea seems to be a good one, once the details are worked out.

    In civil forfeiture on a box of money found in the trunk of a car, the action is not against the person, but it is against the thing-money and all it requires is a reasonable suspicion that the thing may be involved in criminal activity.

    A gun is a thing, and if there is a reasonable suspicion that it may be involved in a completed crime, an attempt to commit a crime, a conspiracy to commit a crime, a planned crime, or something similar, then it appears our Constitution’s due process requirement (as interpreted by most courts) may well permit seizure so long as any owner or claimant has notice of the seizure and an opportunity to challenge the seizure before an impartial decision maker, such as a hearing examiner or judge.

  11. o 2018-03-01 18:49

    Maybe this is the test cast to see if the Second Amendment ought still be interpreted as a (near) absolute, individual right? Give the Supremes another shot at getting it right this time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.