Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz was asked another softball question about gun ownership and the Second Amendment on Monday, this time from the hosts of The View. While most of Walz's answer was nothing more than a regurgitation of his campaign talking points claiming that gun owners have nothing to fear from the candidate who previously supported banning handguns and declared the Supreme Court shouldn't find that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, one jab at Donald Trump highlighted the draconian stance that the Harris/Walz ticket has taken on who, exactly, possesses the right to keep and bear arms.

Walz made one more shady dig at his Republican opponent Donald Trump, telling the co-hosts, “The Republican nominee can’t pass a background check to get a gun,” referring to Trump getting convicted on 34 felony counts in his hush money trial early this year. 

“We understand the Second Amendment and lawful gun owners, folks who have been doing this for 50 years like I have, we understand that there’s not a single thing that we’re proposing that takes away your right to be able to own that firearm, to be able to have it in your possession,” he continued. “But it does go a long ways to making sure that folks who shouldn’t have it, don’t have it.”

Clearly Walz believes that Trump's felony convictions for the non-violent crime of falsifying business records should prevent him from lawfully possessing a firearm, though the Minnesota governor still believes felons should be able to cast a vote. Just last year Walz signed a bill allowing felons to have their voting rights restored after they complete their sentence, though their ability to legally own a firearm is still prohibited under Minnesota law. 

Walz's stance is right in line with Biden/Harri's DOJ, which has argued that a lifetime prohibition on gun ownership is entirely appropriate for anyone convicted of a felony or criminal offense punishable by more than a year in prison, even non-violent crimes. That argument has its share of critics, however, including multiple judges on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which seems poised to once again rule in favor of a Pennsylvania man seeking to get his 2A rights restored almost 30 years after he pled guilty and received probation for falsifying his income on a food stamp application. 

The Third Circuit previously ruled in favor of Bryan Range, but the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the appellate court after it issued the Rahimi decision. The appellate court held oral arguments in the Range case for a second time earlier this month, and the panel seemed skeptical of DOJ attorney Kevin Soter's position that only "serious crimes" result in a lifetime loss of the right to keep and bear arms. 

However, Soter’s position appeared to find little acceptance from the bench. One judge after another hammered Soter with growing irritation as they sought his definition of a “credible threat” to others’ physical safety — the threshold under Rahimi to justify disarmament.

“Let’s say that Pennsylvania decided that jaywalking or failing to return library books is a felony,” U.S. Circuit Judge David J. Porter, a Donald Trump appointee, said. “Would those offenders be permanently disarmed under Rahimi?”

Soter said that while that offender would be disarmed upon conviction, they could seek mechanisms such as expungement or a pardon to regain their Second Amendment rights later.

“That’s a very steep hill to climb,” one judge muttered.

Later, U.S. Circuit Judge Thomas M. Hardiman asked Soter to point out any evidence in the record suggesting Range poses a credible threat of physical violence.

As Soter began to explain that Congress has treated Range’s crimes as worthy of disarmament, Hardiman interrupted to again ask plainly where the record indicates a credible threat of physical violence.

Soter continued, briefly mentioning Range’s criminal history before being again interrupted by an exasperated Hardiman.

“I’m not asking you to describe the record,” Hardiman, a George W. Bush appointee, snapped. “I’m asking you to cite in the record. Where in the record does he show himself to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another?”

“By being convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year,” Soter replied before Hardiman interrupted him for the third consecutive time.

“So everybody who is convicted of a crime that’s punishable by a year and a day or more, ipso facto follows that that person poses a credible threat to the physical safety of others?” Hardiman asked. “That’s your argument?”

That's not just Soter's argument. It's Tim Walz's argument as well. 

What makes Walz's stance even more remarkable is that he could very well have been a prohibited person if he'd had just one more drink 29 years ago. In 1995, the same year that Range pled guilty to his misdemeanor charge, Walz himself took a plea deal after he was arrested for DUI in Nebraska. According to prosecutors, Walz's blood test showed a BAC of .128, but he was allowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of reckless driving instead of a DUI. 

Under current Nebraska law, a .15 BAC is considered a felony-level offense. Does Walz believe that if he'd had one more drink that night he should have lost his Second Amendment rights forever? More importantly, does he believe that justice is being served when individuals like Bryan Range are prohibited from possessing a gun because of a non-violent offense 29 years ago; one that, unlike Walz's own transgression, didn't put anyone's life at risk? 

Not surprisingly, Joy Behar, Whoopi Goldberg, and the rest of the hosts on The View never asked Walz that question or brought up his own legal troubles decades ago, for which I'm sure Walz is grateful. Second Amendment supporters, criminal justice reformers, and the millions of Americans who've been convicted of non-violent felonies and have served their time, however, should be aware of Walz's position and the lengths that a Harris/Walz administration would go to keep them from restoring their right to lawfully possess a gun.