msnbc No evidence that Trump followed the normal process of pardoning people. Guest mentioned

[Ms. Toad]

9. It is definitely uncharted territory

But prior to the creation of exclusionary rules, fashioned because all else had failed to prevent law enforcement from violating the rights of defendants, there was no effective remedy to address the unconstitutional acts that violated the rights of defendants.

You would also need to make the argument that the violation of the constitutional rights of an individual is not inherently criminal - so it is not an act against the United States, but against an individual and therefore not covered by the second amendment. Yes, what Arpaio did was criminal (criminal contempt), but the criminal contempt was imposed as punishment not for criminal acts - but for infringing the constitutional rights of indivduals (civil, rather than criminal).

Not likely to go thorugh under this Supreme Court, but I could make a legal agument that passes the laugh test.