Trump - 2nd Amendment

I don't see how we are going to get any pro-gun legislation through Congress for Trump to sign without swallowing a Universal Background Check bill of some kind. There are still a majority of votes in the Senate for Schumer-Toomey-Manchin. Unless McConnell fills the tree, some type of UBC will be offered as an amendment and will get a majority. Without a UBC, the overall bill will likely be filibustered and fall short of 60 votes.
 
Social Media and in turn what many celebrities have to say.
Click to expand...

This amazes me. I know it's true. Still, I'm amazed. when you put some thought into it, you realized what makes an actor great is they are a very convincing at lying.
 
I'm sure trump will be too busy with protesters, litigation and legislative opposition to get any real work done for a while. Remember, a lot of republicans dislike him as well.

One thing for sure, a lot of people think that he can do lots of things. Much of it he can't or won't get accomplished.

Doesn't mean good things still can't happen. Doesn't mean bad things can't happen either.

I see more of the same, as far as gun rights go; some states will get better, some worse but most of the same.

OR and WA will fall to California style gun laws.

I don't think much will happen in this term but more separation and rebirth of a stronger Democratic Party that has learned its lessons.

I'm a moderate and have leaned left at times, but I will not budge on individual rights whether I like them or not.

I would wish for national reciprocity, but I feel that's a pipe dream. UBC and allowances for temporary confiscations by authorities will also continue in many states as well.
 
What I find incomprehensible is how so many college-educated (as well as "uneducated") people could possibly have voted for HRC
Click to expand...

Such backhanded insults are always interesting, the implication being that a person smart enough to go to college should have known better who the better candidate was, but if they voted for the wrong candidate, then maybe they aren't really that smart.

44Amp touched on a lot of the reason why college educated people might vote for the wrong side. I like how he noted the single issue voters, which is the same single-mindedness followed by many pro-gun voters.

Some folks will literally vote for the candidate who is better looking.

However, getting back to this college issue, many college educated voted for Clinton and did not vote for Trump for much more complex reasons. These people simply do not share the same values as Trump people. There are folks who believe guns are bad, socialized medicine is good, high immigration is good, etc. In how they see the world, they believe they are making good decisions, just like we make opposing decisions and believe they are good.

It is important to keep in mind that if all decisions were based solely on non-biased logic that we would have a lot of things turn out differently. However, there are a lot of biases that we employ in our daily lives that are often contradictory to good logic. People often believe that their logic is superior to the logic of the opposition. Here it should be pointed out that such a belief may not actually be logical, but may be emotion or even faith-based.

So when you went to college, did everybody there share your exact same views on politics, morals, religion, cars, medicine, etc.? Did people with views different from your own in college fail to graduate as a result? Of course not. Then why in the world would you find it incomprehensible that people with a college education voted Democratic? Maybe some of your own biases are showing.
 
kozak6 said:
While he isn't an anti, he just isn't really into the 2nd Amendment. Anything more is simply a matter of political expediency.
Click to expand...

This, most definitely. I doubt that he respects the 2A any more than he does the 1A.

And in Rudy's ideal world, only police and military would be armed. At least with Obama and Clinton I knew what they were after, these guys all I know for sure is that I can't trust them.
 
I agree that most leaders are antigun, they only align themselves with the respective parties. If the 2nd amendment stops playing in elections, politician support for the second amendment will go away hastily
 
At the risk of interrupting the pointless pessimistic prognostication pity party and drifting the thread back on track, let's take a look at the effort required to make some of these things happen:

Ending Gun-Free Zones On Military Bases
Pretty easy, since Trump will be Commander in Chief.

National Concealed Carry Reciprocity
I expect this would require some legislation, since CC has been delegated to the states.

Legalizing Silencers
Would require legislation, since silencers are regulated under the NFA.

NICS Background Check Reform
Would require legislation, since NICS came from the Brady bill.
There's plenty of room for improvement here. A National Instant Check System should be instant. If it's so important, dedicate the resources to make it work. It should also be free. Whatever benefits NICS provides benefit society as a whole, not the buyer. So society should pay the cost. Besides, no one should have to pay the government a fee in order to exercise a constitutional right. There's ample precedent with poll taxes.

Allow Importation of Collectable Historical Firearms
This should be easy, since IIRC they were kept out by executive order.

BTW, this list came from somebody's blog, not Trump and should have been cited as such.

http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/11/09/five-fast-gun-law-reforms-president-trump-will-make/
 
A National Instant Check System should be instant. If it's so important, dedicate the resources to make it work. It should also be free.
Click to expand...

The national instant check is free. (Not sure about various states that use their own systems.)

The fee if for the dealer's TIME, which is not free.

The problem is the system only allows dealers to run the checks. So you have a system that requires you to use a non-governmental employee to comply with the law. You (and I) are choosing to buy a gun, so we should pay for it. That's what they figure, as far as I can see.

I don't agree with that, but I doubt we will get much traction trying to change it. Can't seem to get the govt to agree that they should pay my auto insurance, either, since THEY are the ones who require me to have it...

some silly constitutional thing about the right to travel is not the right to drive an automobile on public highways, or something...:confused::rolleyes:

Look, Trump said a lot of things, things we wanted to hear, promised to change a lot of the things we want changed. EVERY POLITICIAN DOES THAT!!!!


he also said a lot of things that rather upset a number of people. Personally, I think that was intentional, rather than "just" bigoted, racist, being a bully, or any of the other negative opinions. I think he did it to shake people up and get them off balance. No better way to "prove" he wasn't part of the system.
Of course, that's just my pet theory, means nothing, really.

There is the direct power that the office of the President wields, and then there is the considerable influence that is not official power. A skilled person can do a lot with both. Trump has shown enough "skill" to win the election.

We'll just have to wait a bit to see what else he can do.
 
The national instant check is free. (Not sure about various states that use their own systems.)

The fee if for the dealer's TIME, which is not free.

The problem is the system only allows dealers to run the checks. So you have a system that requires you to use a non-governmental employee to comply with the law. You (and I) are choosing to buy a gun, so we should pay for it. That's what they figure, as far as I can see.

I don't agree with that, but I doubt we will get much traction trying to change it. Can't seem to get the govt to agree that they should pay my auto insurance, either, since THEY are the ones who require me to have it...
Click to expand...

The dealer is a licensed agent of the Federal Government. I'm not advocating that he shouldn't be paid for his time, just that the party that receives the benefit (society) should pay the cost.

Again, you shouldn't have to pay to exercise a constitutional right. Which sinks your auto insurance analogy.
 
natman said:
National Concealed Carry Reciprocity
I expect this would require some legislation, since CC has been delegated to the states.
Click to expand...
It would require legislation, but with Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate, it might be possible if there aren't too many cowards on the R side of the aisle. The law would be basically parallel to the LEOSA, which tells the states that regardless of their laws, qualified LEOs and retired LEOs can carry in their jurisdictions. Just substitute holders of carry permits or licenses from their state of residence, and it's done.

Except for Vermont, which doesn't issue permits even optionally. The best solution would be to get Vermont to create a licensing program (optional). If that's not possible, the statutory language could be crafted to include a carve-out for residents of states that don't issue carry permits.

The basis on which the feds could do this is the interstate commerce clause. It's certainly not much of a stretch to argue that when a resident of one state spends time (and money) in another state, interstate commerce is affected. That gives the feds a basis on which to justify intervening.
 
With the shifts already underway from campaign trump to president elect trump, we will see. He has already begun acting less like the brash Donald Trump looking to pick a twitter fight and has begun to talk in somewhat of a presidential tone. This is fine, I welcome this. Let's hope the pro-2a campaign platform wasn't an act. And I don't know that we will see cans taken off the NFA list. It would be nice but I'm not holding my breath on that one. It would be filibustered in the senate so fast that our heads would spin... Maybe Elizabeth warren could read Dr seuss for us :)
 
National Concealed Carry Reciprocity
I expect this would require some legislation, since CC has been delegated to the states.
Click to expand...

IMO this is the last thing we need .Again IMO it would a small jump to registration with the feds having "EVERY ONES" info. I'll ask this how many things have the Feds got into and went well. They have a wonderful reputation for screwing things up royally as we have seen with many,many programs through time. All too often things get added to bills being pushed through Congress as did happen with the affordable care act (OBAMA CARE). IMO CCW is best left to the states. Think of the nightmare of trying to get this through with regards to the following cities and their respective state. New York and the NYC area, in the state of New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, Washington DC, Chicago, Illinois. Again IMO it will never happen
 
Don P said:
IMO this is the last thing we need .Again IMO it would a small jump to registration with the feds having "EVERY ONES" info.
Click to expand...
How do you conclude that the feds will have everyone's info?

Trump's position paper calls for national reciprocity, not a federal carry permit. "Like a driver's license." Does the federal government have the information of every driver and what cars they own?

The legislation needed is exactly parallel to the LEOSA. I don't think the feds maintain a database of every cop and retired cop who is covered by the LEOSA.

I don't understand the paranoid resistance to something we've all been saying for years is the way it ought to be.
 
What worries me is mandating federal standards to get to the national reciprocity permit.

Currently all I need for a permit in my state is the fee, a clean record and a smile. Now odds are extremely good that whatever standard they come up with I would likely already meet it. But my wife and kids may not.
 
I don't understand the paranoid resistance to something we've all been saying for years is the way it ought to be.
Click to expand...
I'm not paranoid resisting to the change. I'll pose this can retired LEO carry in NYC, the state of NJ without issue. The retired LEO's I know do not even think of going into the North East carrying a firearm. How about the states that do not want to reciprocate with other states because of training not meeting their standards. Who will set the standards that all the states will agree to for the nation wide CCW. For some time SC did not want to reciprocate with my home state FL. because they stated our training criteria was not up to their standards. One hell of a can of worms here for nation wide CCW. Do you really think the states, commonwealths, of NY, NJ, MA, IL, CA and others that reciprocate with very few other states are going to get on board with open arms and offer no resistance??
 
Don P said:
I'll pose this can retired LEO carry in NYC, the state of NJ without issue.
Click to expand...
The answer is, "Yes." In most cases.

It has been tested in court, when the NYPD arrested a PA constable for carrying in the Big Apple. He was vindicated in court. The fact that some stubborn cops don't understand (or don't like) the law doesn't change the law. There are places where motorists are still hassled for "driving while black." It happens -- that doesn't make it legal.


Old Bill Dibble said:
What worries me is mandating federal standards to get to the national reciprocity permit.
Click to expand...
Trump's position paper does NOT call for any federal standards or a "national reciprocity permit" (whatever that is). He calls for each state to give full faith and credit to carry licenses/permits issued by other states. Period. Which happens to be exactly what we've been saying for years should happen.

Just like a driver's license. That's TRUMP's simile, not mine.

From Trump's position statement: http://secondamendmentsupporters.co...p-releases-statement-on-the-second-amendment/

NATIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY. The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. If we can do that for driving – which is a privilege, not a right – then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege.
Click to expand...
Do you see anything in there about federal standards, or a "national carry permit"?
 
Last edited:
Omitting the definitions part, this is what the LEOSA says:

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—

(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.
Click to expand...

How difficult is it to change that to cover "civilian" carry permits?

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is not prohibited under federal law and who is carrying a license or permit to carry firearms issued by any State or political subdivision thereof may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—

(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.
Click to expand...
Done. Stop being obstructionist. There are plenty of Democrats who are ready and willing to do that for you.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
Trump's position paper does NOT call for any federal standards or a "national reciprocity permit" (whatever that is). He calls for each state to give full faith and credit to carry licenses/permits issued by other states. Period. Which happens to be exactly what we've been saying for years should happen.

Just like a driver's license. That's TRUMP's simile, not mine.
Click to expand...

The main problem with that is that standards or bureaucratic impediments, if you like, can vary wildly from state to state regarding Concealed Carry (CC) permits. In general, the states in the far West and Northeast will oppose having the same CC standards currently held by other states.
 
National reciprocity achieved through Congress instead of by interstate compact will be the death of constitutional carry in any form. Not to mention that the chances of a national reciprocity bill not mandating some minimum standard are zero - and any compromise between NY, CA (around 25% of U.S. population) and the rest of the nation is going to result in stricter standards.

Not to mention that ANY legislation that goes through Congress will be subject to amendments - and we are not going to like all of those amendments. At best, we'll get an NRA-approved UBC out of the deal and it could go worse than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top