Quantcast

What Gun Owners Want From Trump

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Speedo66, Nov 24, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 230RN
    • Contributing Member

    230RN ^ The avatar says it all.

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    6,673
    Location:
    COmmierado
    What Dog Soldier said, and what HKGuns said: ↑

    <off topic>

    The NYT is one big editorial page, as far as I'm concerned. Journalism? Hah!

    I long ago decided there were three things I should largely ignore: Wolves and coyotes baying in the night; temper tantrums from kids; the New York "news" outlets.

    </off topic>

    Terry, 230RN
     
  2. Squire Western

    Squire Western member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2016
    Messages:
    152
    Location:
    Garden Hills, Florida
    This Act is a given in 2017. Perhaps National Reciprocity also, which does not make me as much enthusiastic. What the Fed can give, the Fed can take away.

    Caveat Emptor, the Fed.
     
  3. Prijador

    Prijador Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    127
    "What the Fed can give, the Fed can take away."

    The anti-gun types have shown no hesitation to try and pass Federal laws, (fortunately, they have just failed lately).

    AND nullification of Federal firearm control law has failed in court - as recently as last week. So, right or wrong, the Federal laws matter.

    We should use the tools we have available. We gain NOTHING by pretending Federal law can't apply to firearms (again right or wrong).

    The right to bear arms is a right, and while not given by the government, it should be protected by the government - just like it should protect other rights, e.g. Civil Rights.

    Some back-of-the-envelope math says at least 25% of US citizens live under severe gun control in states like California. That's outrageous.
     
    everydefense likes this.
  4. macadore

    macadore Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2007
    Messages:
    954
    Location:
    San Antonio
    Open the link in an incognito window.
     
  5. theotherwaldo

    theotherwaldo Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,683
    Location:
    In the Wild Horse Desert of Texas
    I want him to allow more imports of classic and antique military firearms.

    Let's see more Korean and Turkish M1s! Czech and Polish Mausers! South American Remington Rolling Blocks!

    -All blocked by "a pen and a phone".
     
  6. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,288
    We have a short time to get things accomplished by a more pro gun side while controlling all branches of federal government.

    We cannot win this fight by only maintaining what we have when dealt this hand. We even have adult the sons of the president on our side with at least one being slated for positions of authority in making positive gun changes.
    You probably won't see something as pro gun in the white house in the rest of your lifetime..
    The antis make inroads when they are in power, maintaining what they have accomplished when the other side is in power so they can then continue the constant creep when they return is a certain long term losing strategy.
    You have to actually fight back by undoing their successes and implementing protections that are a challenge for them to quickly remove when they have slight majorities.


    The types of firearms that can be imported should not be more restricted than what can be purchased domestically.
    922r is a joke, the AWB sunset over a decade ago and we don't need an importation version for long guns like we have now, or the similar restrictions on handgun imports.
    A tariff on imports for domestic protectionism in general might be fine, in line with Trumps rhetoric on other issues, but what can be imported should be no different than what you can buy in the country.

    Parts of the GCA should be rolled back, including the creep in what makes someone prohibited.
    Parts of the NFA should be removed, short barreled stuff was originally restricted to prevent the making of handguns from long guns because hand guns were being banned by the NFA originally.
    Silencers are legally required for automobiles in the nation. Do you know how much louder even less powerful cars were back before mufflers were standard? You couldn't even hear anything else on or near a highway. Roadways were deafening and the complaints of the day are an interesting read.
    Legally requiring people to get hearing damage or wear protective gear rather than allow what is actually a requirement for most other equipment and machinery is outdated. Hunting without hearing protection shouldn't require trading a little of your hearing for each shot, or giving up the ability to hear subtle noises in the outdoors because you have hearing protection on and can't even hear the bear tromping around nearby or your prey breaking leaves or twigs just out of sight. Hearing subtle noises is a big part of how a real predator hunts, and taking that away from humans is reducing how many senses they bring to the table. In home defense where people have largely moved to carbines being able to keep from being deaf is important. When you can't hear the dispatcher you are talking to on 911 and can't hear half of what the police are saying over the course of the next hour because you just fired shots that echoed off your interior walls a foot from your eardrum may have you questioning a law requiring it. To say nothing of the bad guys you may not hear the movements of after firing shots indoors. Being required to flashbang yourself is stupid.


    While I understand states' rights proponents, that ship has sailed. Gonzales vs Raich has been cited numerous times in recent years as a basis for the legitimacy of most federal laws restricting any number of things that have no real direct connection to interstate commerce, merely the indirect impact logic in the ruling. Logic that cites even merely existing impacts the supply and demand and therefore interstate commerce, and can be applied to validate jurisdiction on anything congress passes a law on..
    Federal gun laws will be used to limit gun rights, you might want to take this rare opportunity to have them strengthen gun rights too. National CCW reciprocity, and actually holding states to Heller and creating legislation that says that is exactly what is being done would be a good option. If even the SCOTUS said something 'in common use' was protected why are states being allowed to restrict the most common carbine in the USA, the AR-15? That clearly defies the SCOTUS and could be used to strike down state level 'assault weapon' legislation across the nation immediately. It can't be both the most popular rifle and not in common use at the same time.


    California has been known to set trends that the rest of the nation adopts within a decade or two. Well the gun trends are not good, and if you want to see them headed off such places need to be required to respect the Constitutional rights of its citizens. Right now they merely embolden others to get worse and adopt whatever legal interpretation they want to do what they want anyways.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2016
    everydefense and HexHead like this.
  7. orpington

    orpington Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2014
    Messages:
    658
    Repeal of the GCA of 1934 and 1968. No FFL nonsense! Buying a firearm ought to be about as regulated as buying 5 lbs of flour at the store. I am not a criminal so why should I be treated as such?
     
    stoky and susieqz like this.
  8. JPDeacon

    JPDeacon Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    30
    "Sorry, there is nothing typically balanced coming from the NYT. I refuse to click on that link."

    For what it's worth....me too.:(
     
  9. HexHead

    HexHead Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    3,442
    Location:
    TN
    His positions on the 2nd amendment were pretty well laid out on his website during the campaign. Probably still there.
     
  10. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,662
    Location:
    Virginia
    In this thread, we have it exactly backwards. The real question is not "what gun owners want from Trump," but rather, "what does Trump want from gun owners." Obviously, he wants gun owners' continued support. How does he get that? We have to realize that -- if we speak with one voice -- we have the upper hand in this negotiation. After all, Trump is all about "the art of the deal."

    That "one voice," by default, has to be the NRA. That's the point of contact between gun owners and the Trump administration. The NRA has to come up with a realistic, coherent agenda to put before the administration and Congress -- and it has to do so quickly. The NRA-ILA is good at lobbying. Let's see them earn their keep. Instead of resting on their laurels, they should be burning the midnight oil right now.
     
    Speedo66 likes this.
  11. Zeke/PA

    Zeke/PA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    2,306
    Location:
    Southeastern Pa.
     
  12. 1911WB

    1911WB Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2004
    Messages:
    239
    Location:
    Central Colorado
    I want the new President to cancel the UN sponsored Treaty to make our gun dealers & sales subject to international control. In fact I don't want any of our country's internal policies/practices subject to international control. Bill
     
  13. I6turbo

    I6turbo Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,404
    I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE how President-elect Trump is handling the dishonest, despicable mainstream media. Just putting his message out there in tweets and sound bites, and sticking their dishonest, agenda-driven whining right up their collective tuchus. LOVE. IT.

    I think President Trump will try to make lasting changes to restore the country toward the path that made it the greatest nation in history, and this goes beyond 2A stuff. I don't think he will foolishly settle for executive orders, rule-making by politically-weaponized government agencies (Justice Department, Treasury, EPA, IRS, HUD, CFPB.) or other measures that can easily be overturned when the power shifts again in the future. Therefore, I'm optimistic that he and the Republican congress will be very proactive in trying to undo the ratchet effect of the leftward shift that the country has endured for the past many years. Not since Reagan replaced Carter have I held as much optimism.
     
  14. Kendal Black

    Kendal Black Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    1,648
    On a broad level of looking at things, I would like a sea change in attitudes in the executive branch. I want regulations and laws evaluated on their real benefits. I would like that to reach farther than just to the gun laws.

    Looking at rulemaking and lawgiving in that new light would reveal that some of what we are doing is not useful, and has, therefore, unrepaid costs, both money costs, and societal costs in compromised liberty.

    One of the costs of having laws which are not useful is an erosion of respect for laws in general, even the beneficial ones that make good sense. That, it may be, is a problem with human nature rather than an indictment of the government, but government must work with the material it has. That material is people, who are astonishingly prone to resent even well-intentioned efforts that hamper them to no purpose.

    So it is a good thing all around, and not least for those who must enforce the rules, if the rules are revisited from time to time, reconsidered, and checked that they have not turned into rules for rules' sake.


    [​IMG]
     
  15. AirForceShooter

    AirForceShooter Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    2,788
    Location:
    Central Florida
    A 2A friendly SCOTUS Justice.

    AFS
     
  16. Olderbutwiser

    Olderbutwiser Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Messages:
    33
    Location:
    Eastern, TN
    I'd like to see Pres Elect push for Interstate carry permit. Would probably be difficult getting all of Congress to get together on it. Most democratic Congress members would try to build brick walls in the wording. But it would be nice.
     
  17. yokel

    yokel Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,235
    The outcome was a rejection of the country’s political establishment. More than that, it was a repudiation of the centralized, elite-driven information network that wrongly believed it still held a monopoly on public opinion. The result of this year’s presidential election is a stark indicator that the dominance of The New York Times and MSNBC has passed, and that the new barometer of the public mood is social media—which Trump understood better than any of the analysts and commentators who predicted his defeat.
     
    230RN likes this.
  18. I6turbo

    I6turbo Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,404
    And he was running against what is perhaps the single most undeserving candidate for president to ever represent one of the major parties.
     
    stoky and orpington like this.
  19. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    -"Sporting purposes" to be interpreted by agencies as "lawful recreational purposes" when it comes to import and domestic firearms policy (applies to "AP" ammo classifications, 922r, importable sporting configurations, time-delay bans on firearms originally sourced from previously banned nations like Russia, bans on 'assault shotguns' like the USAS or SPAS12, bans on barrels for 'assault weapons')
    -Executive Order and other voluntary import bans rescinded (barring any extraneous factors like unrelated sanctions)
    -Promotion of the Hearing Protection Act (assuming said promotion helps its chances)
    -Promotion of legislation to change "sporting purposes" to the much broader and objective "lawful purposes" term in the relevant gun law statutes (there was such a bill in the House earlier this year, but the name escapes me and I think it was withdrawn)
    -Promote legislation to specifically exempt the common >.50" shotgun gages from DD regulation (20ga, 16ga, 12ga, 10ga) --AOW and SBS configurations would still apply
    -Direct the Attorney General and ATF Director to do a feasibility study on a machinegun amnesty's abilty to rectify mistakes & missing records in the Registry. Direct independent GAO or IRS audits of this registry for the first time in history.
    -Direct the ATF --with independent GAO oversight-- to develop a plan to modernize and accelerate the process for NFA approvals, with a target date of approval six weeks after application submission. Form 1 application is nearly as bad as getting an oil pipeline approved at this point.
    -Direct the relevant officials to re-start sales of surplus military arms & equipment in accordance with domestic gun laws & ITAR (i.e. machinegun receivers scrapped, but parts kits saleable
    -Direct the Secretary of State to add "small arms, related equipment, and procedures" to the list of technologies specifically exempt from ITAR oversight, since they cannot pose a legitimate existential/strategic-level threat to our powerful nation or its military. Encourage congress to make this change permanent via amendment to ITAR

    Simply taking away the authority to freely designate huge classes of popular firearms and ammunition as "unsuitable for sporting purposes" would essentially nullify nearly all federal AWB-type statutes apart from the NFA and Hughes Amendment banning newly-produced machineguns. This can be done "on day one" without approval from anybody else, so there's no excuse in Trump not doing so if he wishes to truly do something for American gun owners. The other stuff shuts off most of the avenues future anti-gun presidents would be able to use to harm us without ample congressional help.

    Who, Jeb? :) there were certainly a good number of that set this year, weren't there? :D)

    TCB
     
  20. Elkins45

    Elkins45 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2009
    Messages:
    5,128
    Location:
    Northern KY
    Hearing Protection Act would be sweet, but more than anything I want SCOTUS appointments that understand the plain language of the Constitution.
     
    230RN likes this.
  21. Lycidas Janwor

    Lycidas Janwor Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2014
    Messages:
    652
    Location:
    Basket of Deplorables
    First, the press is not part of the "political" system. It's supposed to exist outside of that system and the 1st Amendment protects the press from the "political system." It's true that the MSM has been corrupted by the political system in that it is not objective in its reporting and that it favors one party over the other. That said, we exist in a time where you can get your news from various internet sites. I generally triangulate my news via the web. If there's a big story, I'll check out, at least, 3 different sites to see what each one says about that story. So while yes, the MSM is garbage, we live in a time and age where you don't have to rely on them to get your news.
     
  22. stoky

    stoky Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    Wyomin!
    Abolish all the TLA's (even if they've added a letter or two), starting with the A's.
    After that, make all federal mala prohibita laws null and void.
    [​IMG]
     
  23. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,662
    Location:
    Virginia
    I see a lot of us getting waaay ahead of ourselves. Let's keep our expectations at least somewhat within the realm of reality.
     
  24. greyghost01

    greyghost01 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2014
    Messages:
    174
    Location:
    Kolorado
    I appreciate the fact our Supreme court is not going total anti gun this is #1
    The second thing is in my opinion they need to do away with permits of any kind, The 2nd amendment is all any American needs, It does not say a darn thing about permission or paying anybody for the right to keep and bear, which in my inturpatation means have and carry, Its my right period, I don't need a permit or permission to protect myself or loved ones, This would be a huge victory and end all the different states BS
     
  25. HexHead

    HexHead Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    3,442
    Location:
    TN
    You don't need the government's permission to exercise any of the other Amendments, so why the 2nd. Gun laws needs to be viewed through a lens using strict scrutiny. No "interpretation" of what they thought the Founders had in mind when they wrote the Constitution. Words mean things and it should be strictly applied based on what it says, not what liberals feel it should say.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice