Gunning for Hillary - The Critical Role NRA Members Played

While not electing Hillary was a good thing for gun rights, it was a basically defensive tactic.

The question I ask and see starting to be written in gun world editorials is whether the current administration will be pro-active on the issues and expand gun rights. That is a great unknown. Behavior will prove the point outside of rhetoric of support.

Cynical me.
 
I'm sure you aren't alone in that concern. Realistically, the legislative front is going to be limited until pro-2A Senators can defeat a filibuster. And right now, I am not seeing the votes for that. I don't see how any acceptable compromises are going to be made to change that prior to 2018.

I expect to see more action on the regulatory/Executive side; but that's a temporary fix at best and can go away just as easily as it was done.
 
Being a political novice, I do not understand the current way the fillibuster works. You simply announce you will do it and that's it!

Why not push forward a pro-gun bill like the Hearing Protection Act and make the opposition stand there for days and paralyze the Senate over it?

See how many Jimmy Stewarts there are! Have Schumer, Boxer and Feinstein put on their Depends and go for it.

Cruz and Paul did this - let the opposition do it for something as sensible as the HPA. Let them rail against suppressors.
 
Hearing protection act is a waste of political capital. Why go for low hanging fruit when you could have much more.

If you want to strengthen the second amendment, pass legislation making it a "civil rights issue".

This would require "two hurdles" to be overcome by legal challenges. First would be the repeal of the second amendment and secondly violation of citizens civil rights. That would make it nearly impossible for future courts to overturn the 2nd amendment and local gun laws would be in violation of civil rights protections.

Look at how lawyers attack current laws....the favored approach is to claim everything is a violation of ones civil rights.
 
Going for HPA as low hanging fruit is the idea. It would start to move progun legislation. Come up with some superduper game changer and folks would go to the wall.

Start incrementally and go for more. One problem with some gun advocates is they go for an all or none, black or white big deal.

The antis are happy to incrementally slice you apart. Incrementalism has worked in some states.
 
I think it's about time the NRA started doing this kind of thing. As a member, I've been saying they should use a less-logical and more emotional approach for years. I'm glad it helped.

As for Trump, I see pro-gun people talk they are expecting him to make the sky turn blue and the birdies sing on gun rights and never do the slightest thing that gun rights people might not like. If he doesn't deliver on those unrealistic expectation, they are going to act like they were betrayed.

I think that's naive. Trump supports guns rights, but it can't be his first priority and he is a deal maker. I expect both some significant positive outcomes on gun rights and perhaps a very few minor disappointments. When I see the latter, my dual mantra would be:

WWHHD: What would Hillary have done? - AND -

TBOTSC: The balance of the Supreme Court (not to mention the lower courts)
 
I would disagree. Gun rights are a first priority to many. Where people take a dump or a rush to redo medical insurance isn't a priority as important as defending and enhancing a fundamental constitutional right.

Lots of folks voted for him just because of the 2nd Amend. He wasn't that attractive a candidate if you looked at him in the abstract without the gun rights threat from Clinton and her other foibles. We've seen plenty of GOP types spout the talk and NOT do the walk. Don't need that again.
 
I have to say that I think he is doing a good job so far and is going to do a good job not just in our 2nd amendment rights but our constitutional rights in general. I will just leave it at that so it doesn't turn too political.
 
I think our expectation that the president would make gun rights his priority was unrealistic. He will probably make his priorities the issues that impact more people the greatest. Employment, health care, safety against people from other countries, etc. are more important to more people than gun rights. Not only is the Supreme Court important for gun rights, it is important for many more reasons regarding fundamental rights and freedoms that the Supreme Court can change.
 
Being a political novice, I do not understand the current way the fillibuster works. You simply announce you will do it and that's it!

Why not push forward a pro-gun bill like the Hearing Protection Act and make the opposition stand there for days and paralyze the Senate over it?
Click to expand...

Traditionally, Senators have enjoyed an unlimited right to debate. This meant bills could be delayed by Senators continuing to speak. Eventually, this caused a rule called "cloture" to be created. The modern version of this rule is that on the motion of 16 Senators, the Senate will vote to cut off debate on the matter before the Senate. If at least 60 Senators agree, then debate is cut off after no more than 30 hours.

There are usually two places to filibuster a bill. You can filibuster the motion to even consider the bill or the motion to vote on the final bill. Sometimes, you can get 60 votes to consider; but not 60 to vote.

An actual old style Mr. Smith Goes to Washington filibuster where a single Senator refuses to yield the floor so a motion can even be made almost never happens anymore. I think the two most recent examples of that were by Sen. Paul in 2013 and 2015.
 
Reading this - I'm willing to bet we get through the Trump years in steady state federally. No positive action on gun rights at the Federal executive or legislative level. Bills will proposed to show the colors but never get anyway as other agendas are 'more' important.

Loss of rights in antigun states will continue and may also increase in purple states.

No major antigun Federal laws. SCOTUS will do nothing proactive to deal with the state bans and obstacles to ownership and carry.

If staying in place is a win and you think it is a win - I disagree. The Maginot line was a win for a bit.

When the political fortunes for President and Congress change (and they will) and rights haven't been expanded, expect loss.

Politics as usual - sucker in the choir and then do nothing. But the other candidate was worse - so accept my real world inaction.
 
That's the system we have. You need 60 votes in the Senate to make positive progress in a particular direction. We may not like it much now; but it was certainly a lifesaver in 2013.

And the opportunities to see some progress on that front aren't bad. You've got 10 Democratic Senators up for re-election in relatively pro-2A states. They are either going to have to make some hard votes or have a convenient election year only conversion to the Second Amendment.
 
That's an interesting what if - with strong control of a 60 ish Senate, will we have a gun legislation heavenly state occur?

I'm not sanguine.

If it were the case:

1. Changes to NFA
2. Free the Post offices
3. Get rid of state bans, crappy carry laws
4. Free tacos and donuts at all IDPA matches. Oh, wait - didn't someone get scared of taco trucks. Guess he didn't come to a TX match.
5. Import bans - bye, bye
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
If staying in place is a win and you think it is a win - I disagree. The Maginot line was a win for a bit.

When the political fortunes for President and Congress change (and they will) and rights haven't been expanded, expect loss.
Click to expand...
It's like football. We got possession deep in our own territory. We have four downs (years) to advance the ball. We may not score a touchdown, but if we don't advance the ball far enough to keep the opposition out of field goal range, once they take over possession we'll be right back on the defensive. I would much rather be defending from their 20-yard line rather than our 20-yard line.
 
Sporting purposes was the baloney of supporters of the 2nd Amend.
Click to expand...
Recent rumblings from the ATF suggest the Bureau itself may be interested in dumping the whole "sporting purposes" baloney as a matter of simplifying policy. An appointee or two can accelerate that without even having to mess with the legislature.

As for "low-hanging fruit," that's a good place to start. We're still in an odd place. Strictly speaking, Heller doesn't appear to protect much of anything according to the lower courts. One new SCOTUS Justice might help that, or it might not. New appointees to federal courts can change the climate, but that's going to be a slow process.

The Hearing Protection Act is a good idea, it's gaining co-sponsors, and the President's son is a big fan.

While not electing Hillary was a good thing for gun rights, it was a basically defensive tactic.
Click to expand...
Agreed. While not getting into partisan politics or the merits of candidates, most people I knew were voting against someone this election rather than for someone. On the gun issue, it became pretty interesting.

Many of the young Sanders supporters tried to tell me he was "basically all right" on guns (meh...), but they blew their lids when Clinton got so vocal on the issue. The millennials are not fans of gun control, and I've heard quite a few older Democrats groaning "why won't the party just drop gun control, already?"

Clinton and Kaine thought they were doing the smart thing by being more vocal on the issue than any campaign in generations. In reality, their advocacy drove moderates away and alienated more than a few in the rank and file.
 
Filling Scalia's seat with a constitutionalist is not a net gain for us. However, Ginsberg may retire after this year and filling HER seat with a constitutionalist IS a net gain for us. Also possible age outs are Thomas (no gain), Breyer (gain), and Kennedy (gain). At the Scotus level we have the potential for 3 net gains if solid constitutionalists are picked.
 
However, Ginsberg may retire after this year and filling HER seat with a constitutionalist IS a net gain for us.
Click to expand...

Ginsberg may have been thinking about retiring when it was assumed that Hillary would name her successor. Now that Trump is President, there's no way she's going to retire and give him a SCOTUS seat to fill.

She'll hang in there until there's a Democratic president or they wheel her out on a gurney under a sheet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top