Trump - 2nd Amendment
- Thread starter Wildernesshunter
- Start date
Armed_Chicagoan
New member
I know, and people here are objecting to fixing the law through the legislature and appointing judges who respect the 2nd Amendment as written.44 AMP said:
By that time, if we do it right, the judiciary will be striking down such laws as unconstitutional.44 AMP said:
Even prior to the 7th Circuit decision forcing Illinois to provide for concealed carry a strong majority of the Illinois legislature supported concealed carry despite being controlled by Democrats. What prevented it before was the Chicago Democrat floor leaders refusing to allow a vote on it, and being a few votes short to override a near-certain veto by the Governor. Future restrictions in Illinois are now unlikely even if the courts went the other way, because all those downstate legislators will not vote to repeal.
There's a similar dynamic in Congress, any future restrictions would have to somehow make it through the Senate and convince no small number of Senators from the majority of gun-friendly states to vote for those restrictions. The beauty of our system is that California only gets 2 Senators, the same as Wyoming.
Nothing is forever in politics, but what happens in the next few years would be very unlikely to be undone in the next 40 years. There is no better time than now to act!
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Too true. I thought it was in this thread, but I can't find it so it's in another thread, but on this forum. Just a day or two ago someone from PA posted that he's opposed to any new federal reciprocity law because right now PA "almost" has constitutional carry (which IMHO, as a PA LTCF holder, is incorrect, but sorta close), he didn't see any need for national carry reciprocity. I pointed out that regardless of what happens within PA, if he has a PA LTCF he can pack heat while driving out of the state to the west, but not to the north (NY), east (NJ), or south (MD). And if he doesn't have a PA LTCF and relies on open carry, he can't leave the state at all, plus he has to keep track of where every school is located in his area of operations, so as to avoid the GFSZ law.44 AMP said:
But ... he's comfortable with his status quo, so he doesn't understand why people who travel more and/or live in more restrictive states might want universal reciprocity.
[Edit to add]Correction to statement above -- since unlicensed open carry is still legal in Ohio, the gentleman from PA could still drive west into Ohio, even w/o a PA LTCF. (Unless the Ohio law prohibits unlicensed carry when driving, and I don't know about that.)
Last edited:
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
By that time? Isn't the idea to propose legislation while gun-friendly politicians control the House, Senate and White House? If so, then it must be done in less than two years - and in the next two years, I don't see a lot of expansion of Second Amendment rights via the judiciary. If anything the lower courts are practically in open rebellion against the holdings in Heller and McDonald.Not to mention that the counter-proposal mandating minimum standards and national permits won't come in some far distant future, it will come as an amendment to any national carry reciprocity bill. An amendment that can be blocked in the House probably; but stands an excellent chance of passing in the Senate. And we'll get UBCs as a bonus because that already has majority support in the Senate.
I know some of you guys were here the last time pro-2A forces held all three positions, so you've got to remember how difficult even moderate pro-2A gains were - if the AWB repeal had required a vote instead of sunsetting, it would probably still be in place. And PLCA only passed after the Senate Majority Leader filled the tree - which had even NRA A+ rated Republican Senators complaining from the floor.
Newt, and his contract with America (or was it contract for America??) did include the promise that the REPs would try and repeal some of the gun control laws. And, they did try.
However, despite holding the Presidency and a majority in both houses of Congress, They FAILED!!! But, they DID try. Maybe not too hard, but they did try...
A few short years later, the terrorist attack of 9/11 gave even the anti gun bigots a rather sharp lesson that the greatest threat to American citizen's security was NOT the American citizen with his or her privately owned semi auto military look alike rifle.
Even Michael Moore publically admitted he had been wrong. Once, anyway.
There were NO serious gun control proposals for a couple years after 9/11 and gun control advocates lost both a lot of their credibility AND a lot of their support, including money.
Took close to a DECADE of them beating that horse and banging their drum, dancing in the blood of innocent victims of lunatics WITHOUT any major successful terrorist attacks to regain their support base and push for new restrictions.
And here we are today. The overall attitude about firearms has shifted, and NO ONE who is honest with themselves can say that guns in the hands of American citizens, even the most scary evil black "assault weapons" are the worst threat the American public faces, day in and day out.
Of course, the anti gun rights bigots are no more honest with themselves (in public) than they are with the public in general, so they keep saying the same tired cliché's, without a moment of thought about the actual truth.
However, despite holding the Presidency and a majority in both houses of Congress, They FAILED!!! But, they DID try. Maybe not too hard, but they did try...
A few short years later, the terrorist attack of 9/11 gave even the anti gun bigots a rather sharp lesson that the greatest threat to American citizen's security was NOT the American citizen with his or her privately owned semi auto military look alike rifle.
Even Michael Moore publically admitted he had been wrong. Once, anyway.
There were NO serious gun control proposals for a couple years after 9/11 and gun control advocates lost both a lot of their credibility AND a lot of their support, including money.
Took close to a DECADE of them beating that horse and banging their drum, dancing in the blood of innocent victims of lunatics WITHOUT any major successful terrorist attacks to regain their support base and push for new restrictions.
And here we are today. The overall attitude about firearms has shifted, and NO ONE who is honest with themselves can say that guns in the hands of American citizens, even the most scary evil black "assault weapons" are the worst threat the American public faces, day in and day out.
Of course, the anti gun rights bigots are no more honest with themselves (in public) than they are with the public in general, so they keep saying the same tired cliché's, without a moment of thought about the actual truth.
Gun rights are a hockey puck on an asphalt rink.
Each team uses a feather duster for a hockey stick.
Each side takes turns whacking at it with the feather toward the far away goals but not making much distance either way... it will probably keep going that way unless someone brings a front end loader.
There's my nonsensical post for the day.
Each team uses a feather duster for a hockey stick.
Each side takes turns whacking at it with the feather toward the far away goals but not making much distance either way... it will probably keep going that way unless someone brings a front end loader.
There's my nonsensical post for the day.
Armed_Chicagoan
New member
"By that time" means anti-gun legislators have the upper hand in Congress and have the White House, however due to SCOTUS appointments and circuit appointments such legislation is struck down as unconstitutional.Bartholomew Roberts said:
Think 4-10 years down the road.
The mid terms are close at hand, two years; also people will start campaigning for the general election. If you thought this one was hot, just wait, there's an angry electorate 2016 will pale in comparison to 2020. Every move of the new president will be watched with scrutiny, the slightest mistake will get maximum airtime.
Old Bill Dibble
New member
Good I hope they blow everything out of proportion and manufacture news. This will backfire on them like it has all year. The credibility of most News Agencies these days is near zero.
It's not unusual for the President's party to take losses in the midterms. We saw that in 2010. There were also dramatic upsets in 1994 and 2006.
That said, there are 33 Senate seats on the block in 2018. Thing is, 25 of those are occupied by Democrats, and the ones occupied by Republicans are considered fairly secure.
The "dramatic upset" in 94 was a backlash against the Democrat's short sighted arrogance. They were so SURE they were right and everyone would agree, they neglected to account for those who didn't.
The 94 AWB.
For the first time in decades, the Democrats pushed, and passed a major gun control law, the summer before an election.
The miscalculated badly, both on how deeply upset that law made so many people, and on how long it would take for people to forget about it.
And while the news media gave credit for the upset to Newt and the Contract with America, Clinton admitted to his party elite that the reason they lost control of congress WAS the AWB. Which proves that even Clinton could tell the truth, if he chose to...
The 94 AWB.
For the first time in decades, the Democrats pushed, and passed a major gun control law, the summer before an election.
The miscalculated badly, both on how deeply upset that law made so many people, and on how long it would take for people to forget about it.
And while the news media gave credit for the upset to Newt and the Contract with America, Clinton admitted to his party elite that the reason they lost control of congress WAS the AWB. Which proves that even Clinton could tell the truth, if he chose to...
Aguila Blanca
Staff
He told the truth one other time, too. When he testified that, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."44 AMP said:
Aguila Blanca said:
If we are to use the LEOSA as a model and just substitute holders of carry permits, then we must also require Training as does the LEOSA.
For Retired Officers to carry under the LEOSA they must meet certain Firearms training requirements.
Qualified retired law enforcement officers[edit]
In 18 USC § 926C(c),[11] "qualified retired law enforcement officer" is defined as an individual who:
separated from service in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer;
before such separation, was authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and had statutory powers of arrest or apprehension under section 807(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice);
before such separation, served as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 10 years or more; or separated from service with such agency, after completing any applicable probationary period of such service, due to a service-connected disability, as determined by such agency;
during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the standards for qualification in firearms training for active law enforcement officers, as determined by the former agency of the individual, the State in which the individual resides or, if the State has not established such standards, either a law enforcement agency within the State in which the individual resides or the standards used by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State;
has not been officially found by a qualified medical professional employed by the agency to be unqualified for reasons relating to mental health and as a result of this finding will not be issued photographic identification; or has not entered into an agreement with the agency from which the individual is separating from service in which that individual acknowledges he or she is not qualified under this section for reasons relating to mental health and for those reasons will not receive or accept photographic identification;
is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance;
and
is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.
Additionally, the individual must carry either:
photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual separated from service as a law enforcement officer that identifies the person as having been employed as a police officer or law enforcement officer and indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training as established by the agency to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm;
or
photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual separated from service as a law enforcement officer that identifies the person as having been employed as a police officer or law enforcement officer; and a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides or by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State that indicates that the individual has, not less than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State or a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State to have met the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training, as established by the State, to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or if the State has not established such standards, standards set by any law enforcement agency within that State to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.
To obtain a carry permit, some states require firearms training some do not, some don't even issue permits, so if we are going to use the LEOSA as a model that requires training, who is going to set the standards and the Requirements for a Nation Reciprocity agreement or law?
This is the rub. Various states (and localities) having required standards of varying degrees is a long established principle, permits, of some kind, for carry of a handgun (in some places) goes back over a century. It IS the established order of things, and states that have them are not going to willingly change because the state next door, or across the country, has a different opinion of the minimum requirements.
This is NOT the same as marriage licenses, or driver's licenses. There are mechanisms in law that ALLOW the states to have their own requirements.
I see no way that national carry can happen without either a fiat from the Fed (which has constitutional issues) or the states agreeing on their own, and I do not believe those states that require permits and training are going to accept anything that does not include a recognizable minimum standard of training.
This might be possible, but it would effectively be the death of "constitutional carry", the idea that no permit, other than the US Constitution is necessary.
Personally, I do not think this is a worthwhile trade. It is also something that once given up, we will never get back.
Additionally, I don't see any GOOD for the general public coming from special, preferential treatment in law for police, and former police officers.
In my opinion, NO ONE, not policeman nor politician, nor anyone else should have special rights and privileges under the law, SIMPLY because they did X number of years in their JOB. Not unless EVERYONE has those same rights & privileges, in which case, they aren't "special.
Being a LEO is a JOB, nothing more, or less. Certainly deserving of a degree of respect, but in the end, it's still JUST A JOB. And, unlike the military, it's a job that they can quit, anytime they feel like it.
Explain to me, if you can, the morality of a retired cop (who may never even have drawn his gun in the line of duty) is allowed nationwide carry, when a veteran, drafted and sent to VietNam, who was in actual combat, is not?
OR the Coast Guard sailor who risks his life, routinely, at sea to rescue others? Or the Firefighter, who risks his life EVERY TIME there is a fire...how are they, and all the rest of us, somehow NOT WORTHY, of what a retired cop is???
All I see is a serious double (or triple) standard at work. Not EQUAL treatment, under the law.
SO, therefore, I think that the LEOSA is the WRONG standard to put forward.
All things considered, I don't see national carry, AS CURRENTLY DISCUSSED, to be a good thing, overall.
Yes, it is a subject many people can relate to, and one that does impact some people's lives directly, but, like the full auto enthusiasts, the people affected, and those who would benefit directly are a SMALL MINORITY of the people.
Currently a very vocal minority, but still a small fraction of the people, and I see no good for the bulk of us coming from having to give up yet another fraction of our rights, in order to benefit a vocal few.
Thoughts??
I concur 110%^^^^^^^^^^. I tried to make the same point but didn't have the finesse to get it across as you have done. A can of worms that is best kept sealed. As you stated 44 AMP it almost sounds like to me nationwide carry would be something like OBAMA CARE. Benefit a few and screw the majority
Aguila Blanca
Staff
You brought training into the discussion, I didn't. I cited the LEOSA in response to someone's asking how federal law could override states' rights. I simply pointed out that this is exactly what the LEOSA does when it says "Anything in any state's laws notwithstanding, ..." And surely there's enough precedent on the applicability of the interstate commerce clause that using it as the basis would be difficult to overturn.Steve4102 said:
I in no way suggested or proposed that the training provisions of the LEOSA be applied to interstate CCW reciprocity. My understanding of Trump's position is that he's calling for nothing more than universal reciprocity ... and that's what I think should happen. (Short of abolishing carry permits and recognizing the Constitution, of course. Not likely to happen in my lifetime.)
Old Bill Dibble
New member
Having more than 25 years in law enforcement and military and served in "actual combat"
more than equal time as either I feel somewhat qualified to answer that question. Morally it depends. Morals are not universal and based on culture and tradition. In this case the officer has assumed risk and made enemies domestically due to the nature of his work and no other factor. People that may wish to settle a score or kill police can be found anywhere. So if you believe that service to the state entitles her to extra protections as provided for by law then yes. That is the point of the law. Drawing a weapon has nothing to do with it.
You appear not to believe that.
Military members are much less at risk from threats domestically due to their service.
I am not sure what that point is here other than a rant? Certainly not on topic.
I have never seen a fire chase down a firefighter years after the fire and try to knife him. Nor I have I ever heard of one threatening to off a firefighter's family to keep them from testifying in court.
There may be an argument for Coasties. I don't know enough about them to know how much individual risk they assume.
Old Bill you make your case well IMO. Being a cop is not a simple job. The daily responsibilities and activities of the job are such that you remain a cop at the end of your shift, whether you like it our not. Not allowing an off duty or retired police officer the right to conceal carry is to put him or her at risk. Of course, the same applies most of the rest of us.