The lack of prosecutions occurred even under Barack Obama, during the time when the democrat party was in charge of congress. Going by the figures in the presented article, there were even fewer prosecutions during the administration of Barack Obama, and than administration of George Bush.
And they occured under Bush and Clinton and Bush Sr and now they occur under Trump. They were NOT strongly enforced under ANY administration
One could reasonably argue a political bias on the part of those that identify as republicans. But what argument could reasonably be made on the part of those that identify as democrats? They are the ones calling for strict firearm-related restrictions to be implemented, so why are they not pursuing prosecutions and conviction with the same dedication? What possible excuse could be presented by them to explain their unwillingness to even try and obtain the indictment of those arrested for illegal possession of a firearm, when they were the ones who implemented such laws in the first place?
So republicans are not the "law and order" party? They just get to decide not to pursue prosecutions and blame the democrats? Really? LOL
Answer the question as it was presented to yourself. What possible excuse could be presented by those that identify as democrats, for not pursuing firearm-related charges against those that violate the restrictions they called for enacting into law?
easy, its why the Democrat party adopted gun control in the mid 60s after Nixon ripped into them for coddling violent street criminals. It allowed the Dems to pretend they were DOING SOMETHING about crime without upsetting their large constituency that (correctly in some cases) saw any call for a crack down on street crime as targeting inner city black youth
The EXACT same reason that republicans won't do it. Trump could change all this tomorrow BY HIMSELF. Why won't he?
What is that reason? If it is actually know, then give it. Anything other than that is just useless chatter being presented by one who cannot and will not give a straight answer.
And if it would save even one single life, is it not worth it? Or is it being stated that saving lives is simply not a worthwhile investment? If it is simply too costly to actually enforce the various firearm-related restrictions that are already in place, implementing new restrictions is not going to be a viable discussion. If the current restrictions are simply too costly to enforce, there is no reason for them to exist, and they should be repealed immediately.
Trump can only direct the executive branch to enforce federal law, and may be budget limited. Trump likely can't even spell ATF.