While campaigning in Wilmington, North Carolina on Tuesday, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump Donald John TrumpBiden leads Trump by 36 points nationally among Latinos: poll Trump dismisses climate change role in fires, says Newsom needs to manage forest better Jimmy Kimmel hits Trump for rallies while hosting Emmy Awards MORE, no stranger to caustic remarks about opponents on the campaign trail, issued arguably his most vile remarks to date as follows:

ADVERTISEMENT

"Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment ... by the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."

When I heard the remarks while sitting in my law office listening to CNN, I immediately looked up and thought, Wow, he just suggested that someone should kill Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton Hillary Diane Rodham ClintonBiden leads Trump by 36 points nationally among Latinos: poll Democratic super PAC to hit Trump in battleground states over coronavirus deaths Battle lines drawn on precedent in Supreme Court fight MORE . By nightfall, Trump — to no surprise — replied "give me a break" once his comments became fecund for dissection on the major news networks. Trump supporters took to the airwaves to argue that the candidate was either joking, or simply reminding that Second Amendment adherents are great organizers who could rally the base this November.

Malarkey!

While Trump's words were crude and typically ignorant, the questions being raised by many pundits today are: Should Trump face investigation by the Secret Service for his comments? And/or prosecution in federal court?

The simple answer is "yes" to the former, and "no" to the latter.

Under 18 U.S. Code § 879, it is a crime punishable by a fine and up to five years imprisonment for anyone "who threatens to kill a former president, a member of their immediate family, or a major candidate for president." Under this rubric, Clinton qualifies as a victim both as a former first lady as well as being the Democratic nominee.

The issue, however, is whether Trump's comments were an actual or even implied threat, or merely another in a long line of puerile comments that belie poor manners, but do not signal criminal intent.

On Oct. 22, 2008, barely two weeks away from the historic election of Barack Obama Barack Hussein ObamaDemocratic Senate campaign arm outraises GOP by M in August A federal court may have declared immigration arrests unconstitutional Blunt says vote on Trump court nominee different than 2016 because White House, Senate in 'political agreement' MORE as the first black president of the United States, a California man named Walter Bagdasarian wrote comments on a Yahoo! Finance message board that suggested that "the n----- will have a 50 cal in the head soon" and one should "shoot the n--."

After Bagdasarian's comments were reported to the Secret Service's Los Angeles field office, he was questioned by the agency on Nov. 21, 2008, whereby he admitted to having written the comments under a pseudonym. Upon searching his home, agents discovered that Bagdasarian owned a .50 caliber muzzle-loading weapon. During their search, agents also uncovered emails following Obama's election where Bagdasarian discussed "shoot[ing] the n-----'s car."

Bagdasarian was found guilty by Federal District Court Judge Marilyn Huff on July 28, 2009, but in 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the conviction, holding that prosecutors failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that his comments were a "true threat" against Obama, while further holding that because of that failure, Bagdasarian's comments were protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court outlined the legal test that would likely determine whether Trump would be indicted for his remarks. Essentially, prosecutors would have to prove that an objective person could construe Trump's comments as being an actual threat, while further proving a subjective test that Trump intended his words to be construed as a threat.

Because of the ambiguity, Secret Service agents should definitely interview Trump to ascertain on record what he and his surrogates have already begun to spin, which is that he intended to inspire Second Amendment activists to rally likeminded voters to the polls in key battleground states. While many of us know this to be nothing more than dialectical mendacity framed as an excuse, Trump most likely will avoid indictment because few, if any, U.S. attorneys with jurisdiction on the matter would bring a case that stands zero likelihood of a conviction based upon the ambiguity.

Still, most reasonable Americans are fully aware that Trump's words were a dog whistle that could incite a mentally unstable individual to take murderous action against Hillary Clinton. With our nation only being five years removed from Jared Loughner's murderous attack on a campaign rally for Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.), where Giffords was badly wounded and six people were killed, Trump's cryptic remarks prove, again, that he lacks the temperament and judgment to be an effective leader of these United States.

Hobbs is a trial lawyer and award winning freelance writer who resides in Tallahasee, Florida. Follow him on Twitter @RealChuckHobbs.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.