(n) It shall be unlawful for any person who is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm or ammunition or receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
That depends, of course, on what the word “receiving” means. All I can do is refer to my one federal criminal case (yes, I know how pathetic this sounds. In my defense, I’m not reliving a long-past glory.), which involved this very statute (though not this very section). My case involved “possession” of a firearm by a convicted felon.
I put “possession” in quotes because it’s a legal term of art in this discussion. It’s the term used by the statute, and the courts have decided it means “custody and control,” not “possessory interest.” To explain: you may take my gun (let’s say), and now have “custody and control” of it. But if I can prove my possessory interest, I can recover the gun, at law, from you. My claim, in law, is superior to, and different from, your possession/possessory claim.
But this statute doesn’t require possessory interest. It just requires “receiving.” Trump taking it from the gun dealer, as he clearly did, is enough. At least according to former federal prosecutor Weissman, and I defer to his superior knowledge.
"But that's not the law. It's not that you can't buy a gun," said Weissmann. "The law is that you cannot — 922(n), to be a nerd. It's that you cannot receive a gun, that has traveled in interstate commerce. That means it's traveled across state lines, and a Glock has traveled across state lines because they're either made overseas or they're made in Georgia, but they're not made in South Carolina."
Now, does that mean Trump’s going to face a new criminal charge in South Carolina federal court? No; not at all likely. But, it is likely Jack Smith is already amending his motion pending before Judge Chutkan:
"So, the issue here is not that he would be charged with that separate offense, it's that while this motion is pending, what Judge [Tanya] Chutkan will have in front of her is not just the [Gen. Mark] Milley statements, but also someone who has flagrantly boasted about doing something. So, to me, he is really daring the court to do something. It's like a child, except it's much more serious because it's somebody who's out on bail on 91 felony counts."Is Trump “daring” the court? IMHLO, no; I don’t think those facts are so clearly in evidence. But I also don’t think “motive” (that favorite term of murder mysteries which really isn’t a legal term) is relevant here. Trump can’t claim he didn’t know about 18 U.S.C. 922n; because he probably didn’t. It didn’t matter to my poor client that he didn’t understand the legal definition of “possession” (he kept saying, correctly, that the gun wasn’t his. We couldn’t get him to understand that didn’t matter.). He went to jail (again), anyway (and yes, to this day I think that was a miscarriage of justice). It simply doesn’t matter what Trump knows.
This particular gun shop has a bit of a history. Interesting that the Trump campaign would choose this particular one to visit.
The Palmetto State Armory supplied the mass shooter in Jacksonville with the AR-15 that was used in the recent racist mass shooting. The weapon even infamously had swastikas etched into it.
