Careful hitching to that wagon
So, the NRA and The Metrocon Fortnightly are putting a lot of faith into the Trumpster when it comes to guns. I hope they’re right. He did campaign as the most openly pro-gun presidential candidate on the general ballot in recent history.
The NRA is calling for national concealed carry reciprocity and an end to gun free zones.
At The Metrocon Fortnightly, they are calling for reforms on sound suppressors. Yes, that’s correct. National Review has a piece on the benefits of suppressors:
In late September, Trump Jr. gave an interview to an American silencer company called SilencerCo, in which he like my friend pointed out that when he shoots in Europe, the guns he uses are almost invariably silenced. Its about safety, he said. If you had noise levels in any other industry as you [have] in shooting sports, OSHA would be all over the place; people would be going crazy. Silencer regulations, he argued, are arbitrary policies enacted by people who dont know what theyre talking about.
Yup. If we regulated cars like we do guns, everyone would have to drive around with hearing protection.
January 3rd, 2017 at 9:30 pm
1) We, in the pro gun world, are NOT LOSING. In fact, we are winning big time, one municipality and one state at a time. Our ground game is winning new shooters by the thousands every week and we have legislatures backing down and submitting to our demands in at least 35 states and judges everywhere are finally forced to recognize the individual right.
2) No federal law, EVER, has returned or restored liberty to the people. There is not one instance in which central authority has not gathered more power and control and money unto itself.
For these combined reasons, among others, I am very nervous about ‘national carry’. I can think of at least 5 nightmare scenarios if the wording in the law is wrong. This plan is fraught with danger and ill advised. It only takes one little word in a law to wreck everything for everybody. I don’t see a path to improvement through federal edict. We are not losing, why risk involving the US congress at this point?
Fairly, if I were in California then I would be willing to risk it.
January 4th, 2017 at 4:00 am
@Fred: The thing to keep in mind about national reciprocity is that it isn’t just about those 35 states we’re winning in, it’s about the 15 that we’re not.
If the last 30 years of progress on gun rights has taught me anything, it’s that normalizing concealed carry is the single most important political goal for us.
More than anything, the concealed carry movement has effectively re-framed the RKBA as being about self-defense, rather than some farcical “sporting purpose.” If we want to make progress in those ~15 states where we are currently losing ground, we need to re-frame the debate. That being said, we’re not going to be able to do that unless/until the federal government FORCES those states to recognize the right to carry.
With that goal in mind, there are very few ways for us to do this:
* Pass a civil rights bill that empowers the federal government to take action against states that deny the RKBA.
* Pass a bill that requires (either directly or indirectly) every state to recognize the carry documents issued by every other state.
* Somehow get the courts to act to uphold the RKBA.
On the whole, option three is probably the safest for us long-term, but it’s not fast enough to make the needed difference — we need action NOW so that we can get positive social movement over the next 3 years, and there is no way that we’ll get that from the circuit courts that cover those ~15 bad states. Option one might work too, but I have concerns about the potential precedent it could set, as well as the degree to which the courts and/or future administrations could refuse to use it to keep the states in line.
National reciprocity, if properly drafted, is likely the safest of these options, and our best hope for shifting our national dialog on guns in the right direction.
January 4th, 2017 at 11:08 am
My fear of national reciprocity is what happens when Chuck Schumer is Senate Majority Leader in 6 years.
80+ hours of annual training, background checks by the ATF, followed by a background check by the FBI, and then finally your 2023 annual permit being approved in 2025, 14 months after it expired.
January 4th, 2017 at 6:11 pm
@Fred and wizardpc, y’all are correct. The Federal Government has NO delegated powers over the militia, i.e., armed citizenry. It only has delegated power over those who are EMPLOYED in its service. (Article I, Section 8.16) And without delegated power, the Federal Government may do NOTHING. (10th Amendment)
January 4th, 2017 at 10:41 pm
HSR47,
What about the US Attorney General send the FBI to arrest the civil rights violating legislatures and states attorney generals?
Why the F*** would anybody WANT congress to ‘help’ them? Why oh why? 20 trillion dollars in debt, lies upon lies upon lies on a bed of more lies and cheating and corruption. Why oh why do want them anywhere near your guns? What possible good could be worth that risk. Why are you surrendering your God given, inerrant right to your government to legislate? Why oh why?
January 5th, 2017 at 2:47 am
If this were a consistent world, carry permits would be treated like drivers licenses and – now – marriage licenses. And since this bill doesn’t appear to reference the Full Faith and Credit clause… I’m not a huge fan.
Of course, if this were a just world, we wouldn’t need permits to begin with.
As for Trumpster Fire, he still hasn’t recanted his desire to arbitrarily deny rights based on a secret list that isn’t even familiar with due process, so I’ll continue withholding judgement.
January 5th, 2017 at 10:06 am
@Ron W: The 14th was added specifically to require states to recognize and protect the civil rights embedded into the US Constitution. I won’t bore you with the odd details of how we got where we are, but the so-called “Heller Five” firmly placed the 2A in the same realm as 1A (McDonald) when it comes to rights that states must protect. That means when the states do not act, the federal can move to protect.
Congress has passed laws to protect religious expression, free speech and the right to associate. Laws that would similarly preempt gun bans, ownership licensing, registration and/or carry are in the same vein.
All of this ends up in the federal courts no matter what, which is why the Supreme Court matters.
States have no rights. Only humans have rights – states have “powers”. My rights trump state powers when the state is a bad actor. I fully expect the federal to use those powers delegated to it to protect me when the state fails. This is correct and was anticipated by those who drafted the 14th.
January 5th, 2017 at 10:13 am
Also, any standalone bill will fail to leave the Senate. The only way this gets into law is if the GOP amend this onto a spending/authorization bill that the Dems won’t filibuster.
I fully expect the GOP to do what they always do: pass a “Show Bill” from the House and let the Dems take credit for killing it in the Senate. End result is the GOP gets to say to the fly-over rubes, “Too bad. Maybe if you donate more money and elect a super-majority to the Senate…”
In other words, the GOP uses 2A almost exclusively for get-out-the-vote and fundraising. The NRA is complicit because they want their Congress-critters to like them.
If they amend bill spending bills, we can get 2A protections we need. They can do it easy enough because they control the parliamentary process in both chambers. Will they do it?
We’ll see. A lot comes down to whether Trump was selling snake oil or actually being honest when he talked up 2A on the trail. If we only see show bills, I suspect it’s also because Trump really doesn’t want to see the lower caste with guns.