Trump

As we noted in an earlier post, I’ve been selected as a co-chair of President-elect Donald Trump’s Second Amendment Coalition team. Our next President is surrounding himself with a lot of good people to help guide his firearms policy in the new administration. So far, the signs are good. With a Republican-controlled House and Senate, and more than a few Democrats who are pro-gun, I’m looking forward to advancing and expanding our 2A rights with meaningful legislation in the new year and beyond.

As the Executive Director of Guns Save Life here in Illinois, I’ve been learning lobbying from a master, Todd Vandermyde, the NRA-ILA contract lobbyist. He’s forgotten more than I’ll ever probably know. He’s teaching me how to play multi-dimensional chess instead of checkers with legislators.

I’ve looked over the comments from the earlier post announcing my role and want to thank you for the kind words. Thank you also to those of you who submitted ideas for what you would like to see happen.

I’ve snapped up a few of those that I believe are more easily defensible to skeptical legislators, along with other ideas. Below is an overview. I’m not going to put all the cards out on the table, but this should give you an idea of some of what I’m going to submit to people far more knowledgeable and skilled in this than I.

I’ve learned enough from the foolish behavior of the anti-gun side not to over-reach. Remember the reasonable person doctrine isn’t what you think is reasonable, it’s what the people you’re trying to convince think is reasonable. Start modest and come back for bigger bites. It’s what the other side has done in whittling away at our rights. Remember also that a whole lot of legislators aren’t anywhere near as informed on the subject as we are, nor are they usually quite as freedom-minded.

We must work together to educate, motivate and then support any Congresscritters and Senators who stand with us to take what they believe are tough votes. Some on the far left are going to vigorously defend the status quo. The mainstream media will attack us day and night, appealing to fears and emotions among uninformed Americans. So we’ll need to educate and inform the general population in addition to elected officials.

A lot will fall likely upon the US Supreme Court. With the replacement for Antonin Scalia and probably at least a couple more members in the coming years, the court should be poised to strike down some gun bans, “may issue” restrictions, and hold all gun control laws to strict scrutiny.  SCOTUS may also serve to protect us from the “gun control by referendum” approach that well-heeled hoplophobes like George Soros and Michael Bloomberg have been using with some success during the past couple of election cycles.

With that, here are some things on my pragmatic short list. Please chime in with additional items or suggestions, within reason.

National Reciprocity (as a step towards national constitutional carry)

All states must give full faith and credit to carry licenses issued by other states just as they do driver’s licenses. For residents of those states with constitutional carry, lobby your state legislators to enact some sort of (optional for in-state carry) state licensing that’s cheap and easy to acquire.

ATF-related:

Remove suppressors (Hearing Protection Act), SBRs, SBSs and AOWs from the NFA Act. Rome wasn’t built — nor was it conquered — in a day. Let’s take the easy ground first, then come back for the full auto stuff and ‘destructive devices’ as part of a complete repeal of the NFA.

In the meantime, reverse the SIG Support Brace determination. Drain the swamp at ATF of anyone even remotely connected with Fast and Furious scheme. Eliminate the “Sporting Purposes Test“. Enough said.

Repeal of Obama Executive Orders

ANY EO’S that have anything to do with firearms and/or ammunition. Ditto for Clinton’s, Bush’s and even Reagan’s.

Investigate and implement some sort of national preemption on gun and ammunition bans until we can appoint strict constructionist jurists to SCOTUS. The feds have long done it for drinking ages, and a host of other regulatory aspects. Why not guns as well? At least until we can get some court rulings that strike down arbitrary bans of guns in common use. If the individual states want to keep their arbitrary gun or magazine bans, or bans on hollow point self-defense ammo, then they can do it without federal monies until SCOTUS drives a wooden stake through them.

This is probably a pretty full plate for our legislative people to begin work. Working together, the National Rifle Association and other national groups like Gun Owners of America, Second Amendment Foundation, the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the American Suppressor Association can make some truly impressive changes if Congress can be prodded into meaningful action. I’m optimistic that a President Trump can make that happen.

Recommended For You

221 Responses to Trump Administration Second Amendment Legislative Listbuilding

  1. Wow! That’s a darned nice start…keep up the good work. And you hit on a big one…drain the ATF swamp, which Obama has larded up with statist holophobes. That’s huge.

    • Honestly, I would have been giddy for a candidate that considered these policies the final phase of the changes. If these are the beginning of the Trump gun policies, that would be more amazing than words can convey.

      Here are some things to add to the list, with the least controversial on the top:
      * Guns at the post office
      * Federal support/program for training armed teachers
      * Federal gun law preemption, with the teeth to punish state/local politicians and bureaucrats that try to ignore it
      * Armed civilians in schools

      • National reciprocity with enforceable Federal preemption would be excellent!

        And bar the states from banning anything that is “in common use” (or the ammo to feed it).

      • Good list. I would like to expand the one related to allowing firearms at the post office. Allow those licensed conceal carriers to carry aboard military bases and stations. There is no reason an individual who is vetted and licensed not to be able to carry in a post office or military reservation.

      • Thank you so much for the encouraging steps you are already taking in defence of 2A! As mentioned, please consider allowing guns at the Post Office, AND allowing conceal carry for letter carriers. As a freedom loving, conservative, gun owning letter carrier, there have been far too many times that I thought, “I sure wish I had my Kimber Ultra Carry! Keep postal employees safe… let us keep ourselves safe! Thank you!

    • Author mentions, “Investigate and implement some sort of national preemption on gun and ammunition bans until we can appoint strict constructionist jurists to SCOTUS.”

      Well, it seems to be that with a Republican Congress, the easy way is the Taxing and Spending Power. See South Dakota v Dole. Bottom line: federal gov can put all kinds of conditions on their money. Want your federal pork? You’ll toe the line on our 2A issues. Don’t want to comply? We’ll tax you blind, and your constituents will kick you out of office. Obama was bludgeoning us with it for years, as have a ton of others, forcing everything from maximum speed laws, drinking age laws to coastal zone management plans down our throats.

      It’s politically expected behavior, and already blessed by SCOTUS.

  2. How can states such as MA and CA regain their rights? I live in WA, and I’m concerned about upcoming legislation from our evil attorney general who wants to ban AR15 rifles and standard capcity mags. I don’t understand how the federal government can intervene on these types of things. Please educate me.

    • Supreme Court rulings will probably be your best bet. The good news is Trump will likley have several picks. So, support your local and state pro gun orgs and NRA to bring cases to federal court.

    • OneGunGuySays: The first and easiest answer is that there are states rights but the federal government – through the Supreme Court – CAN overturn UNCONSTITUTIONAL state laws. As in the case of segregated schools being the law in several southern states: -those states’ right to legislate a violation of the 14th Amendment CEASED TO EXIST. That’s one form of “preemption” where the ultimate or higher authority justly overrides “lower rights.” And it’s a notable footnote: armed force was called up to enforce the 14th Amendment. So too can the 2nd Amendment BE ENFORCED on all states, even “Lordly California.” Ha-ha.

      My state. Michigan, has an identical law: Michigan law preempts local ordinances where those ordinances violate state law AND/OR the Michigan Constitution. (ref. Sec. 6: Citizens have the right to keep and bear arms for their defense and that of the state.) So NO city or county can become superior to either the State of Michigan’s Constitution or the US Constitution. Example: Ann Arbor Michigan (Democrat dominated for decades) had numerous gun control ordinances but when the preemption act was passed: those ordinances became instantly ‘non existent’ — and the city police ADJUSTED by becoming gun-owner friendly within a fairly short time.

    • @Mark
      As a WA resident, I share your concerns.
      However, from the emails I’ve gotten from the King County republicans (yes, they do exist), it appears the republicans (and their one democrat buddy) retained control of the Senate, so this bill will hopefully die a slow, bureaucratic death, like it did after Sandy Hook.

      To get rid of our existing bad laws though, and to retain our rights from future initiatives bought by Nick Hanauer and Michael Bloomberg, I think we need gun owners across the country to support the legal cases against gun laws, get them appealed up to the supreme court, and win there.

      • Thanks Jason. This is somewhat reassuring. There is still an active bill by Jim Moeller that would not only ban all semi auto rifles, but pistols like Glocks! Crazy. I’m also terrified of any initiative to ban our beloved guns as the people of WA are liberal asshats. (Seattle/Tacoma in particular).

        • We are getting a lot of the same crap here in Oregon. Our lovely Kate Brown wants to “Californicate” Oregon.

        • Wait until some of these anti-gun folks get around to understanding that revolvers are semi-automatic, also (one pull of the trigger, one shot; 6rd magazine)

    • Hey Mark
      My name is Mark also and am in Spokane Valley, in pro-gun Matt Shea’s district.
      The ban you speak of while truly distasteful is quite a long shot for the AG.
      Trump being in the White House isn’t going to help any either. The AG was aligning himself with HRC with the rumblings about these bans.
      The AG knows this is exactly the type of bans that will be targeted by the Trump administration.
      I wouldn’t worry too much about it.

      • Thanks Mark. I hope you are right. I still worry about a future initiative that the sheep will certainly approve. Thoughts?

        • With national nanny Bloombag throwing money around, it’s possible that if it made it to a ballot, it could pass. As you know, it only has to be popular on the west side, where all the population is. What we want on the republican east side doesn’t really matter.

          Remember I-594? The proponents liked to point out that it passed with an overwhelming majority. Well, no it didn’t really.
          It failed in the large majority of Washington Counties, but it did pass in the heavily populated west side counties.
          But honestly, the AG has said he sees little chance of it going anywhere at all.
          Not to worry.

    • Mark:

      What Mr. Boch is suggesting, as a starting point is a withholding of federal money. The feds have used this “carrot and stick” appoach with the states on numerous things.

      The most notable are education and speed limits. Fedgov tells the state that they will impose a reasonable speed limit, and dictates what that is, or fedgov will withhold federal highway funding from the state. This happened in Montana a few years ago. Montana had no speed limit, fedgov told them to impose a 75mph speed limit or they would receive no federal highway dollars. The state caved.

      The same thing can be done with LE monies. No LEA in your state will receive a dime of federal assistance unless you do X. The LEA’s will scream bloody murder to the legislature and the laws will eventually get changed. IIRC, it took about three years in Montana.

      • The amounts do not even need to be significant! Years back, near the close of the national 55 mph speed limit, I read (here in TX) that we got around 3 million in fed hiway funds, nearly drove me nuts. I thought we were talking billions. I started screaming to anyone who’d listen that we needed to tell them to kiss our butts and raise the limit to 85. If you’ve ever driven through TX you know what I mean, if you haven’t, you should try it! TX probably pays $3 million in gas taxes every freaking day, why we’re allowing these goons to dictate stupidity to us for that amount per *year* is ridiculous.

        • What fedgov figured out was that once they start doling out cash like this the states budget around it.

          That means that whether it’s $3 million or $3 billion, if the feds cut the flow that’s the hole blown in the state budget that has to be covered. They’ve got the states dependent and over a barrel. That’s how they get away with this. Education is even worse.

  3. Things I never thought I would see happen… It’s strange, just a week ago we were bracing for a massive assault on our rights, and now we’ve done a full 180. Good luck to you on this. I especially look forward to national reciprocity.

    • I know, right? It’s like the massive hurricane off the coast that never hit. I had been filled with dread that literally changed overnight to be replaced by hope. On the agenda, it’s one hell of a start. Just remember, this may be our only shot to run the ball for a while without more opposition.

  4. Go get ’em, John. I do not envy your work, but I am damn proud to see someone taking up the charge. It’s been a long time since I saw real promise on the horizon.

    That list is an excellent start, and if that’s all the Trump administration can achieve, it’ll be worlds better than the last administration.

    • Yes this!! If an 18 year old can fly around the world shooting machine guns while representing the country I think an 18 year can buy a revolver, 1911, or plastic pistol along with a box of ammo. I also would like to buy be able to buy a handgun or two over the next two years.

      • 18 year olds can buy guns and own guns (subject to state law requirements), but they can’t buy from an FFL.

        Most 18 year olds aren’t flying around the world shooting machine guns while representing the country. In fact, very few are. So the people that you will be empowering are the ones rioting in the street today, and not the troops that deserve your help.

        States should be allowed to determine the age for gun ownership, provided that the age is never more than 21. Regardless of what any state says, I do support an exception from the 21 year old limit to help active, reserve or honorably discharged military.

        • The ones rioting in the streets do not care about nor follow the law, 18 is fine, and makes it simpler. If you are 18 and from NYC or CA, you should be able to buy a handgun with 20-round mags in Texas, that’s what background checks were sold as accomplishing! If that violates NYC or CA law, let them enforce it, and good luck.

  5. Concur, don’t overreach. Let’s get as much low hanging fruit as possible, then come back for the more difficult items.

    • I say overreach, and watch out for poison pill amendments. But the list you have is a good start.

      The problem with trying the slow steady approach, is that Republican legislators seem to run out of steam pretty quickly with a pro-gun agenda, and they’ll need to back off in some districts to hope for reelection. I saw push for everything you can, as soon as you can. Despite predictions that this is the end of the liberal stranglehold on liberty, I doubt that’s true.

  6. Constitutional carry is high on the list, supressors would be great for hunting to say the least, and the magazine ban here in colorado is a joke, it’s not enforced other than the import of them, so why bother, a criminal will have access to 30+ round magazines, why can’t I to protect myself from said criminal? SBR’s could be a potential life saver as an every day truck carry, even more so with “high capacity” magazines, aka standard capacity. Full autos and destructive devices could be fun in the right place, but not everyone has any common sense, could lead to bigger problems. Who cares if you want to shatter your hand with a 3″ 12ga? Taurus judge is a pistol form of a shotgun right?

    • Yeah. Full auto is a whole other ball game. And if they just repealed the NFA even if they started with suppressors and destructive devices and inched their way in, people would still go nuts the second anyone used a fully automatic weapon in a mass shooting. Not even I know if that would be such a good idea. Better to start on fully automatic weapons separately, by lifting the ban on import and manufacturing them but still requiring strict licensing to own them and then ease the restrictions slowly. But that’s like a 20 year plan.

      • As someone who wasn’t alive until decades after Hughes took effect I would be ecstatic to see it repealed. An mg42/mg3 and an hk21 would slate my full auto thirst but I can’t afford 50k a pop

      • Although NFA in it’s entirety needs to be repealed, what Reggie said x 1000! The last thing we need is someone doing a mass shooting with a MG. This will not help our cause. Remove every other item from the NFA, allow imports and purchase of newly manufactured select fire with the current NFA rules. Give this some time and then work on the rest of the cursed NFA. Two other things: Mandatory destruction of the “list” the BATFE has admitted to keeping regarding firearms owners, and firing/prosecuting anyone associated with it. Clean house once and for all with the BATFE. Fire obstructionists and cronies who have been installed over the last 8 years, look at saving money by just getting rid of it. What do they do that some other agency doesn’t already do, or have capability to do? Final point, echoing other posts…rescind negative EOs regarding guns back at least to Reagan, consider right to own for non violent felons who’ve served their time, and use federal funds to punish states who pass laws more stringent than federal gun laws.

      • Reggie, you’re drinking the Kool-Aide. A mass killer using full auto will probably hit *no one* before he runs out of ammo. You are assuming that gun owners are all killers. Evaluate your feelings. You want to own a gun, and don’t see why you shouldn’t. *I* want to own a MG, and don’t see why I shouldn’t. Imagined dangers are used to pretend that neither of us should be able to do something we want.

      • just obey the second amendment as written gun laws / regulations are unconstitutional always have been.
        and that well regulated part means well trained in good working order.

      • This is something I’d say is more reachable. If we can get the shadily passed Hughes Amendment removed it will at least be a step towards the door.

        • From my understanding, an executive order would be all that is needed to remove the Hughes amendment from the 86 bill.

      • Quite seriously, here, still requiring registration *FOR WHAT*? What do you imagine registration can do? Is there magic? What HAS registration done in the past 80 years? Try to name a single thing it has accomplished, and feel free to include all that registering SBR, SBS, suppressors, and so forth has accomplished. Registering is BULLSHIT!! “Shall not be infringed” does not include registration. THINK!

      • Here we go again. John, I will bring up here, and ask you to bring up there, what registration is supposed to accomplish? What do we think it can do? I say, it can do absolutely nothing except facilitate violent, door-to-door confiscation. If you disagree, tell me what you think it *can* do, and see if you can defend that assumption.

  7. Removing the punitive State Department fees for firearms and component exports would also benefit US manufacturers. Currently even the export of a small item incurs the State Deparments $250 fee making it uneconomical for people overseas to buy American made components, forcing them to buy cheaper, lower quality components from Asia who have no such export restrictions.

    • US$ 250 plus at least US$ 350 in air freight because licensed exporters usually don’t employ the services of standard carriers like UPS out of fear of legal complications. Plus import taxes. Since facilitated exports of firearms parts would require major changes to the whole ITAR legal framework, I wouldn’t hold my breath. Trump has a lot of things to do right now, and I doubt that the wishes of the very few European and Australian firearms enthusiasts who are actually knowledgable enough to care about specific parts manufactured in the U.S. are a very high priority on his list. I, for example, have been trying to obtain G3 locking pieces – at roughly US$ 800 to 900 for a piece of hardware that costs only 70 bucks, it’s simply uninteresting.

      • $250 is the State Department fee, that could be waived instantly regardless of ITAR. The fee used to be a percentage of the item but was raised a few years ago for every item. Seems like there are some easy things that could be done that would expand the market for American manufacturing businesses, which is a win for everyone on both ends.

    • Wait. What? We actually have export restrictions? Who the hell passed that law? That’s just… Ok listen. I can understand not allowing advanced weaponry to leave the country. But placing restrictions on exports for items of common knowledge technology makes zero sense and is detrimental to our economy. If this is true, that shit needs to end immediately.

      • Worse, you don’t even have to want to export to fall under the thumb of the State Department’s ITAR office http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/ [see ITAR Reg 121 and 122]. AND IF TRUTH BE TOLD, IT IS POSSIBLE [IT COULD BE CONSTRUED BY SOME] THAT YOU DON’T EVEN HAVE TO BE A COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURER TO FALL UNDER ITAR LEGISLATIVE CONTROL.

        FURTHER, the “tracking” of ITAR filings is likely ‘farmed-out’ to a third party (MUCH LIKE THE IRS’S BS THIRD-PARTY “TRACKING” GROUP THE “URBAN INSTITUTE” WHO, UNDER JAMIE GORELICK, CHOKED UP CHRISTIAN AND PATRIOT NOT FOR PROFIT ENTITY FILING WHILE GREEN LIGHTING JIHADI, muslim, LIBERAL, COMMUNIST, AND ABORTION GROUPS, WHOLESALE) entity that’s ‘handling’ it for the State Dept., and that entity is making your [registrant’s] information available to parties OUTSIDE THE US, all while taking your $2,250 money for information and tracking that you are essentially paying the ATF&E and the F.B.I. to accomplish already.

        A N D . . .
        WE’LL NEVER KNOW THE BULLET WE DODGED WITH TRUMP’S WINNING THE PRESIDENCY. SEE THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY’S “SECURITY STRATEGY FOR COUNTERING VIOLENT EXTREMISM” [16_1028_S1_CVE_strategy.pdf], AND OHOLE’S “EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT” (OCTOBER 2016) “STRATEGIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR EMPOWERING LOCAL PARTNERS TO PREVENT VIOLENT EXTREMISM IN THE UNITED STATES”

        • You might think that’s a defamatory or an inflammatory statement, but if you can sit silent for me being a “deplorable racist” than you can pound (to the elbow) your un-lubed badge in your a_ _.

  8. This is NOT the time to let up or got to sleep! We know Trump policies all come with ab undisclosed expiration date. State Republicans are wimps and the Progressive Socialist Democrats are PISSED!

    P.S. Hey, NRA, how about a family membership? One magazine but enroll all household members. That would be 4 at my house, all registered gun voters and carriers. Twenty million members sounds better than 5.

    • Thats a good idea and I bet they would get more members but you can buy individual ones for your family members and just say you don’t want the magazine.

      • I love NRA, Benefactor member here, but I’m not certain they really care how many “members” they can claim, as much as how much money is flowing in. BUY those memberships, instead of asking for them to be free!

        • BS. “FREE” = has NO value

          As I recall the NRA now has 4 different magazines. I seldom read the ones my kids may or may not receive. Stop being a tightass and buy a membership for some kid. And take him/her to and Appleseed.

  9. That’s an excellent start. I’d also like to add bills that fruther protect already held gun rights, like a law that would forbid congress from enacting an assault weapons ban, or other laws preventing federal agencies from dictating new “rules”, like we saw with the ATFs attempted m855 ban. I think that would be an excellent bulwark against a possible future democrat controlled government.

    • Bill, try to get a grip. Congress cannot pass a law which prevents Congress from changing that law. What you are talking about is an Amendment, like, to the Constitution. They are sort of tough to pass. I am for it, don’t get me wrong, but it’s not the same as “pass a law”.

  10. Gun Free School Zone Act. Get rid of it! It’s ridiculous to think that any criminal or mentally ill person who is intent on committing murder at a school would change his or her mind because of this legislation. Also, many good, otherwise law-abiding citizens inadvertently and unknowingly break this law simply by having a gun in the car while driving within 1000 feet of a school.

    I think that getting rid of the GFSZA (or at least modifying it) falls in line with national reciprocity due to the part of the GFSZA that only allows in-state CCW holders to carry within 1000 feet of a school. Out-of-state CCW license holders (who are least likely to know where all of the school zones are, and therefore most likely to inadvertently break the law) are not legally allowed to carry in a school zone.

    • Gun free school zones are not designed to improve safety, they are designed to indoctrinate control and compliance at a very young age. Exactly like the vaccine program.

      • Gun free zones cost lives, vaccines save lives that is a huge difference in effect and intent. The lining of your tinfoil hat may need cleaning of you think vaccine programs are about anything other than saving lives (and consequently a metric tonne of money by reducing costly hospital stays for vaccine preventable diseases and preserving the lives of so many future taxpayers).

        • Actually cleaner standards and hygeine reduced the presence of many of the diseases that people claim vaccines saved us from. Don’t get me wrong, vaccines can bw great. However there is a lot of propoganda spread about them.

    • Make the useless Dept of Ed in charge of implementing a mandatory shootings sports program. And fund with grant $ construction of indoor ranges at schools. Tie it to the CMP.

  11. We must allow the importation of collectable historic firearms that Obama banned under executive order. We also need to end gun free zones on military bases and recruiting stations. NICS background checks needs reform. I’m hopeful and very optimistic.

  12. It’s those arbitrary gun or magazine bans, or bans on ammo that is deeply troubling – especially in Liberal strongholds like California. We’re literally wading in waist-deep anti-gun regulations.

    • They are still sitting there in a warehouse, waiting patiently to be repatriated to the USA, where good boys and girls can adopt them into loving homes *everywhere*…

      *snicker*

  13. Sounds OK to me…but why NOT go for the gusto? Congress,senate,president and soon a pro2A SCOTUS. Odumbo sure tried especially knowing he didn’t have any of those the last few years…and call me selfish but Illinois and especially Cook co laws need fixing before I worry about silencers or machine guns.

    • Liberal mid term voters are apathetic at best. Keep them that way, and we stand to pick up five more seats in the Senate in two years, and who knows how many more in the House. Give them something to be angry about for the children, and they might actually remember that there are elections that don’t involve the president.

      I mean, they’ll be angry anyway, but they might think they have a reason for once.

  14. “I’ve snapped up a few of those that I believe are more easily defensible to skeptical legislators, along with other ideas. Below is an overview. ”

    ISN’T THAT THE NRA’s JOB???

    Why don’t you put them on notice that they’ve coolectively abused their power, and sh_t on the Constitution, and their job descriptions long enough. Tell them to retract or pack their sh_t and go home.

    • Quit trying to make friends and start trying to influence people. You already sound squishy.

      Like I said, helo extraction in ~ 86 days.

  15. If it you haven’t heard it enough already, congratulations on your selection for your new position.

    I want to mention one thing that hasn’t been talked about: The future of No Fly/No Buy. I bring it up because both Trump and the NRA expressed support for it. I don’t know why; maybe it was just posturing in an attempt to convince anti-gunners that Trump and the NRA are more open-minded and flexible than the public may have been led to believe.

    In any event, I’ve long held that it would unquestionably be one of the most (if not THE most) catastrophic blows to gun rights in the history of this nation. It would be nice to know that this silliness is now off the table.

    • Just propose the law worded so that it guts the no fly list. Make the names discoverable by the public, require due process to add names, and create a clear and accessible process to remove names from the list. That way, it will never pass, and we can blame it on the other side.

      • That whole argument of No fly no gun thing seems strange. Does it mean that a person can’t get a gun or a plane boarding pass? Because you wouldn’t be able to take one on the other without getting to trouble anyway, right.And if you are not safe enough to get on a plane then you shouldn’t probably be able to purchase a gun, right. Should you already be not able to get to the gun store and airport because you are in jail.

    • John Boch – That onerous ITAR overreach that will cost Dyspeptic Gunsmith’s home business $2500 a *YEAR* in fees MUST be stopped…

      • No matter WHAT a tool DG is, he’s entitled to the same business arena as the rest of us. I will add my own .02 here, that the only reason I’m not an 07 is because of the assinine ITAR fees, with no real workaround like swearing or certifying I won’t export my goods – so I build a lot of toys for myself, instead of building a business around building toys for others…

        • H’mm.

          Personally, I don’t find Dyspeptic to be a ‘tool’.

          Firearm Concierge, on the other hand, can be, but even he warms the sub-cockle region of my cold, black heart with his stories of retail aggravations… 🙂

  16. Having been somewhat involved in the legislative activities of Concerned Veterans for America with regard to VA accountability, I know just how difficult it is to overcome entrenched bureaucrats and their legislator supporters, so I wish you all the best, and fully agree that the incremental process is far more likely to yield results. You have our full support.

  17. Good ideas and I agree wholeheartedly. One other area, please. Transfer much of the funds from ATFE to be used primarily for federal prosecution of gun law violations. Specially target areas such as Chicago, Detroit, Newark, New York City. All of us have complained that current gun laws aren’t being enforced when we know the states are using gun law violations to plea bargain to lesser offenses. Or transfer monies being given to local law enforcement drug agencies and grant it for the specific enforcement and prosecution of gun law violations. By enforcement, I mean, actual use of a gun in a crime, not paperwork violations.

    • I don’t think it’s so much of an issue of transferring funding from ATF. Rather, I think the problem is that America has reached the extent of its appetite to incarcerate minority males. Taxpayers don’t want to pay to build more prisons. Liberal elites don’t wan the ratio of blacks/whites to rise any higher than it already is. Mamma don’t want Jr. to go to prison for any longer than he has to go right now.
      In this climate, legislators won’t pass laws and the criminal justice system won’t enforce laws that send more blacks to prison or send those on their way for a longer time. OK, so, now that that option is off-the-table, what are the remaining alternatives?
      How about racking up guilty pleas from peaceful white people just trying to earn a living, practice their hobbies and protect their families? If only government can terrorize these people into obedience then there won’t be so many guns leaking into the inner-cities where gang members kill one another.
      Part of what we need to do is make it clear that we OFWGs won’t serve as the sacrificial lambs for malum prohibitum violations while government refuses to enforce malum en se violations.
      While government insists on giving armed robbers a slap-on-the-wrist we will arm-up and protect ourselves. We will not submit to persecution because of an ill-conceived scheme of controlling our means of self-defense in the hopeless delusion that somehow that will shut-down the iron road to the ghetto.

      • Repeal all, that means *ALL* drug laws, then we will see whether certain minorities are now law abiding citizens, or whether they go looking for new laws to break.

      • BS. TIred of country club treatment of the skulls. HARD LABOR. Feed the SOBs 2 MREs a day, live in Army tents and work them 10hr/day digging ditches 6.5 days a week. No TV other than religious channel and FOX news. Sheriff Joe Arpaio will be in charge.

        Illegal entry/visa overstay will be a Class B Felony.

        Reports are Donald Trump’s transition team is reportedly considering Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, Sheriff David Clarke and outgoing Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio as possible nominees to head up the Department of Homeland Security.

  18. Firstly, congratulations. I missed the first post.

    Second, a few ideas. Some have been endorsed by Trump already:

    – National Reciprocity. This needs to incorporate something to prevent those with a CPL/CCW from being arrested for violating local/state laws on what they posses (based on a cops poor knowledge of their home state laws) or local laws about where to carry. Fines for violating local no-carry zones would be much more appropriate.

    – Suppressors. Think hearing conservation and get them removed from the NFA. Treating them like any accessory would be best, but at worse treat them as a firearm.

    – Short Barreled Rifles. Remove them from the NFA. If need be treat them as pistols. Use the Mares Leg as an example of the same gun being a legal pistol if produced as such or an NFA item if produced first as a rifle (or the pistol ever beeing reconfigured as a rifle).

    • “If need be treat them as pistols.”

      Rifles, pistols, they are all firearms, today all arbitrary measurements seem pretty stupid. Why not just “guns”? Is the stock shorter than this? Is the barrel longer than this? If I point it at you and pull the trigger will you enjoy it? They are all the same, and shall not be infringed. Get over it.

  19. National Reciprocity needs to apply if you have a valid CCW, period. The entire idea that it needs to be from your home state should be scrapped. If you have a permit, it needs to work nationwide. I have a WA, NV, UT, and FL non-resident permit. I live in CA in a county that will not issue me a permit. I should be able to carry in my home state.

    • This x1000. I live in a slave state but have a UT permit. Any permit should be valid in any state regardless of residency.

  20. I vote for overreach.
    Ask for the sun, the moon, and the stars.
    When the progs complain, offer to compromise: We’ll take the sun and the moon now, the progs can keep the stars until next year. Isn’t that what compromise on gun legislation is all about?

  21. I would like to see Military/Military Installation/Federal property carry for those of us in uniform. I can carry at my State’s various armories, but set foot on the federally-controlled training sites and I’m committing a crime.

    • President-elect Trump promised carrying on military installations will be a priority during the campaign.

      John, this policy needs to be disconnected from the licensing/permitting process of the host state. If tied to the host state’s licensing scheme, members stationed in “may issue” states like MD and NJ, or in states like Illinois which refuse to issue licenses to non-resident military members, will be left defenseless on the military installation at which they are stationed. Allowing permitless carry on a military base would be the best option; secondary alternative would be to allow carry with a license from any state.

      • “Allowing permitless carry on a military base”

        Damn, I never even thought of that! Purely excellent, and can be done without even an executive order. He’s the commander in chief, just order the chairman of the JCS to get it done.

      • Don’t forget us civilian employees that work on military bases. As it stands now I am disarmed five days per week. I’m not even allowed to disarm and lock it in my trunk on arrival at work.

  22. John, I’m a prohibited person. I really really really need congress to restore funding for rights restoration. I lost my gun rights to a felony theft charge at the state level (the bar for felony theft is $800.) I have no propensity for violence.

    It’s the only time I’ve ever been in legal trouble in my life. I can’t describe how much it makes me ill realizing I’ll never be able to have a gun again and the legal troubles if my spouse were to try to own a gun in the same house as me. I’ll never get to take my kids shooting. My yearly hunting trips with my brothers are over. It’s sickening.

    The budget change would be an easy change that congress could enact to promote gun rights.

    • With six million felons in the USA, and more being created every day, we need some way to sort the wheat from the chaff, six million is just too many to toss on the trash heap.

    • If you’ve served your time and your probation, and you paid back every dime that you took, I don’t believe that you should be permanently barred.

      But if you haven’t made complete restitution, you don’t deserve our sympathy.

      • Ralph,

        I’ll put this to you since you’re the attorney, and restoration of felon’s right has come up a couple of times in this thread.

        I was under the impression that restoration of rights for state crimes was the purview of the Governor/Board of Pardons & Clemency in the state where the felon resides.

        I do think that gun rights should be able to be EARNED back by non violent felons who have successfully completed their sentences/probation, and made restitution in full.

    • THIS is exactly what I’m looking for in ideas.

      I’m supportive of reformed felons getting their gun rights restored. States vary wildly in policies on this and the feds? Well, you nailed it. They aren’t doing a thing.

      At Guns Save Life, our Felons Get Your Gun Rights Restored page gets a dozen or two visits each and every day from people across America.

      Thank you, sir.

      John

  23. I’d like to see reciprocity nationwide but some states are tough on training and education and others are non existent. People will howl but some training and education should be part of it as long as it’s not unreasonable.
    Analogous to driving licenses. A basic test and demonstration of operation wouldn’t be an infringement in my book and would grease the gears towards acceptance.

    • I too would like to see more training; and, a written test. However, what I would like to see and what I think we should advance as a legislative proposal are distinct.
      My suggested approach is to use the Constitutional power of Congress to “prescribe” the “discipline” for the militia; and, the State responsibility to train. E.g., Eddie Eagle for elementary and 4-rules for Jr High students. (It’s for the children).
      Once we have universal training for the universal obligation to serve in the militia, then, frankly, the issue of training to “keep and bear” is satisfied. We have addressed 2 separate and distinct issues. It is the Right of the People to keep and bear arms. It is the Power of Congress to prescribe the discipline for the militia; and, the responsibility of the States to train as per Congress’s prescription.
      Now, we have covered 2 Constitutional issues. There remains no residual need to make a “training” a prerequisite for a Right.

      • Sorry, guys, you are both advocating infringements, which (in case you did not know) are prohibited by 2A. Let me explain why. When I retired from the military, after 20 years and 3 wars, one of which I participated in the killing, after qualifying expert with handguns and M16 numerous times from 1969 to 1990, after being *required* to carry a concealed weapon in numerous states where it was illegal, when I finally went to get a handgun license, someone felt they had the authority to require me to obtain training at my own expense, and then to demonstrate my proficiency to a snot-nosed kid? Are you kidding me?

        We should accept any training and evaluation that our respective states are willing to pay for. It should cost us nothing, because it is not intended to benefit us. Those who plan to benefit should pay for it. Watch how fast the restrictions disappear! Real quick, we have Constitutional Carry!

    • That would likely have to be struck down by the courts. I think it’s unlikely that the ninth circuit will strike it down, so it’ll probably have to go to the Supreme Court.

      This is currently being challenged by Pena v. Lindley. The case is currently in the ninth circuit court.

      • How about a law prohibiting the sale or possession (interstate commerce clause– wooo- hooo) by LEOs /government agencies AND POLITICIANS of any weapon not available to the general public?

        – Justification for both groups of civilians (LEO and general public) is the same- self defense. Any weapon suitable for self-defense by one is suitable for the other. Any weapon ‘not necessary’ for self defense of one is ‘not necessary’ for self defense by the other.

  24. Repeal the NFA. If not able to remove the entirety, at least remove silencers and the short barreled restrictions while making it legal for law abiding citizens to make machine guns again.

  25. If you want to be seen as compromising on national reciprocity, institute minimum training standards. Someone from a constitutional carry state, who can freely carry a firearm with ‘no training’ is now having an NRA certified pistol course with range time. A lack of a federal permit does not invalidate local laws, but the federal permit’s existence can be argued to elevate safety.

    Similarly with suppressors; insisting a test barrel noise reduction of no more than 40dB, and a minimum noise of 100dB with standard ammo will cover basically all current suppressors. But when it legally makes the noise of an orchestra, the Hollywood silent killer myth can be killed off.

    I’d think SBR’s should be regulated like a handgun. and would love to see a Democrat pinned down on identifying a SBR vs a 16″ pinned and welded rifle, vs a ‘firearm’, vs a pistol.

    I know to a purist these may seem awful infringements, but for my 2 cents they make things much more likely to happen.

  26. I am borrowing this from another:

    “Immediate executive action to require the US military to sell all spent brass shell casings for remanuafacture rather than president Obama’s order that it can only be sold for scrap would be a good one to do right away too. this would make a real difference in ammo prices. Especially as the military gears back up and trains in the comming build up..”

    Hopefully, this qualifies as non-controversial.

    • I agree. The amount of disdain that the government treats it’s citizen in relation to military surplus is sickening. As taxpayers, we already paid for it, can’t we also have the chance to buy it back too?

      M16 and M4 uppers are torch cut instead of sold even though they’re commerically viable parts. Any number of Class 3 FFLs would gladly buy the machine gun lowers for resale to others who can own post-samples, or to take the parts off and then just scrap the aluminum lowers and sell the parts. There’s a huge industry of world governments that sell their machine gun parts to american importers and hobbyists convert them into semi-auto guns, and yet our own government wont give us the same opportunity.

      After years of not letting us buy surplus humvees, we finally can as off-road only vehicles, but we’re not to be trusted to be allowed to buy the uparmored humvees. If it’s an armored humvee the armor has to be removed and scapped before it can be auctioned to civilians.

  27. I’ll catch some flak for this (even around here), but I’d like to see the eventual elimination of the prohibition on felons owning guns. Start with a mechanism that allows certain people to apply, and eventually broaden that to everyone, and then finally to the automatic restoration of gun rights once one is off paper.

    I’d approach this in a couple of ways. Trump is a pragmatist, so even though he clearly intents to take a hard line on crime, you can point out that said law does NOTHING to prevent those with offensive intent from acquiring firearms. The other, bigger reason for this, though, is an idealistic one. That particular rule turns self-defense into a privilege, not a right, and has also created an acceptance (even among most gun people) for the idea that some people shouldn’t have guns, as determined by the government. This mentality is HUGELY dangerous to anything we deem to be a fundamental human right.

    Additionally, I’d point out the mentality behind this law, that government has a duty to restrict the freedoms of those it deems a threat. However, what single thing is responsible for more human deaths than anything else throughout history? Ideas. Ideas have killed more people (directly and indirectly) than anything else ever devised by humans. So, based on that, you could actually make a pretty strong argument that government has a duty to heavily restrict the exchange of ideas, particularly among those it has deemed dangerous. Food for though, for everyone here.

    • The law to allow some people apply (non-violent felons) is already in place, it’s just that a Democrat congress 23 years stripped it’s funding and nobody has bothered restoring it since then. It’s actually a pretty low hanging fruit for a Trump administration and Republican congress to restore funding.

      ACLU and many leftists are on board with rights restoration. It’s part of the broader social justice movement getting people back their full citizenship and a pathway to rehabilitation.

    • +1 for path for gun rights restoration once punishments completed and penalties re-payed. Remove prohibited persons list for those non-violent felony convictions which involve no firearms. Committing a violent felony with a firearm still results in getting on the prohibited list for no less than 20 years. A 40y/o is far less likely to be engaged in violence than a 20y/o.

  28. I would be willing to compromise on National Reciprocity as follows: I would be willing to take additional training & test for a “NATIONAL RECIPROCITY” endorsement to my Texas License to Carry, preferably with a companion uniform set of laws / regulations for carrying while outside my state of residence. The training would teach / inform me of the interstate (uniform) laws & rules .. kill two birds with one stone 😉

    • Yes, agreed! Especially for those like myself who like to privately collect, trade, and sell cutlery. Sometimes like to EDC without running into an anti-cutlery LEO…There tools, or “man-jewelry” if you will…Should be no problem unless a person is involved in the commission of serious capital crime….I also like to collect decent quality swords from ancient history…From a time when men were men…And firearms were rare and in there infancy….Some states outlaw the sale of collectable daggers, or dirks…All should be Constitutionally protected—unless used in the commission of a serious capital crime…Not just collecting, or even self-defense in extreme conditions…(re: Like the Connecticut teenager who used a Replica Samurai sword /Katana to slash, injure, and repell a home invader…Or the ancient arms weapon instructor who stopped an armed home invader with “a spear”! Impaling them thorough the shoulder temporarily to stop and repell the attacker..!)

  29. First, and foremost, thank you for communicating with us, the PotG. Your efforts will mean nothing if they are percived as the product of a smoke-filled-room.
    Second, I applaud your prudent approach. We ought not overreach in the first few steps. Even so, we ought to be aggressive in pursuing that which likely could be accomplished in the first couple of years of the Trump administration.
    Third, the guiding light ought to be: What would have the greatest impact on awakening the culture to understanding the 2A?
    Clearly, on principle, we could pick some narrow issue with unassailable arguments; e.g, the NFA’34 AOW regulation. Yet, what could such an issue buy us? In contrast, y’all could consider National Reciprocity. Champion the case of Shaneen Allen (Philadelphia, PA). Even a weak NR Federal statue (on a well-founded principle such as full-faith-and-credit vs. a weak principle such as interstate-commerce) would result in an enormous impact on the last few Won’t-Issue States and their anti-2A cultures.
    Fourth, expose the lack of efficacy of existing gun-control laws. E.g., the overwhelming category of gun-deaths is suicide. How do gun-control proposals – such as magazine capacity limits – promise to have a statistically-significant impact on the overall problem?
    Fifth, bring the Federal bureaucracy under the rule-of-law. The ATF is widely recognized as a rouge agency. (To be fair, several of its functions behave responsibly; these ought not be tarred with a broad brush). What of Fast-&-Furious? Why is the US Government running guns down to Juarez to arm the Sinaloa cartel; while, at the same time, scrupulously enforcing the laws that deprive the Michoacan Autodefensas of the means to an effective defense of their families? I am prepared to concede that US policy might be either wrong or unenforced. We ought not to accept that it is contrary to our (Constitutional) principles, AND wrong; AND unenforced.
    Finally, if and to the extent that we are to have gun-control, it ought to emphasize malum-en-se laws and DE-emphasize malum-prohibitum laws. Why should an armed-robber’s felon-in-possession crime be plea-bargained away while an OFWG is compelled to plead guilty to loaning his (2A-able) friend a gun?

    • Agree. Taken to its logical conclusion, our 2A should mean that if Winchester, or a single person, wants to hand or mail a pistol or a rifle to anyone on the planet, that is fine by every level of U.S. law. If Mexico or Russia doesn’t like that, let them pass and enforce their own laws, we won’t do it for them.

  30. ATF-related:
    “Remove suppressors (Hearing Protection Act), SBRs, SBSs and AOWs from the NFA Act. Rome wasn’t built — nor was it conquered — in a day. Let’s take the easy ground first, then come back for the full auto stuff and ‘destructive devices’ as part of a complete repeal of the NFA.”

    This would be long overdue and thebonly thing I could add would be an NFA amnesty and removal of additions to the NFA since 1986.

  31. Good to see Obamas EOs on the chopping block. Obama effectively banned everything that was imported directly from Russia, get rid of that BS and bring in more surplus ammo and REAL Saiga AKs, not these Frankenstein abominations from IO and others.

  32. I dont know about removing AOW’s from the NFA. I mean, a gun designed as a cell phone doesn’t sound like something I’d want already panicky cops shooting bystanders thinking they have a gun, but who are actually just recording their actions after they pull over a black guy in a Chrysler.

  33. “Drain the swamp at ATF ….”

    Yes, clean house of anyone involved with F & F, and double-plus scrub out any one or thing involved with the cover-up, slow-walk, or whatever else you want to call their working hard for years to keep F & F under wraps, diffuse responsibility, deny it ever happened, etc. Anybody who delayed, obfuscated, mislead, or obstructed after the fact is out, out, out.

    The thing is, you have to go after the regulatory apparatus, golem-like run amok.

    Reinstate their inspector general (Oh, they had one? Couldn’t tell.), commission an investigation or three, and put them first in line (or maybe a four-way tie with EPA, Health & Human Services, Dept of Education) for a revised approach to regulations: strict adherence to publish and comment; required statement of adverse impacts; referral back to the specific authorizing law; and request for authorization via line-item budget allocation and amendment to the statute for anything expensive, ambiguous, or both.

    Along with investigating F & F, and the whitewash, have the IG review every regulation over the last 8 years, plus any regulation nominated for review by the people. Put up a web site for suggestions. Start with the 4-5 that have been featured articles here.

  34. I do need a handgun for both my kids in their cars, and in daughter’s apartment. Daughter will be able to obtain one in April, as that’s when she turns 21. But, in the meantime, the only choice is some sort of rifle, with no place to conceal or lock it securely, while she is out. Landlords don’t like holes in walls or floors.

    By the way, I have been told that I can grant permission for both to have a handgun in the apartment and in their cars. Until I call the Austin DPS to check if the word on the street is accurate. It would be nice to see that people who tell you what the law is actually know what the law is. Um, my 18 year old can’t have a rifle in the car? He can buy, but how’s he supposed to get it home? There are no clear answers. Would like to see that handled.

    • Wow! And you’re in Texas? Who told you your 18 year old can’t have a rifle in his car? I’ve been in Austin a lot of years, and I’ve never heard that, for anyone. To my knowledge, all laws affecting rifles in Texas have to do with hunting. In the ’70s, UT students in Austin hung their rifles in the back window of their pickups, and that stopped when they started being stolen, not because of any new law. IANAL, but you need to check with one, as I am not convinced that your kids (or anyone else) would be breaking any law keeping a handgun in the car, that was a recent change to TX law, unlicensed car carry.

  35. I believe there should be an initiative to re- enforce our U.S.Constitutional-Bill of Rights by making it a “Capital Crime” for any Politicians/Law Enforcement/Government agency/Private organizations/Businesses, to “infringe” upon in anyway…Any amendment pertaining to the people…The 2nd amendment included…This would help build trust within our Republic….

  36. ITAR enforcement should be removed from the State Department. The State Department has been a swamp filled with traitors, thieves and spies since before WWII.

    1. Give ITAR export permitting to Commerce.
    2. Remove ITAR regulations on gunsmiths and gun makers who make sporting-only guns.
    3. Lower the fees/licensing costs for manufactures of dual-use or military-use weapons.

    Now, here’s another agenda item:

    Define, once and for all, what it means to “manufacture” a gun. Right now, within the ATF (never mind the idiots at State), we have the following situation:

    If I, as a gunsmith, buy a rifle receiver, buy a barrel, stock, trigger group, etc – and assemble them into a gun, and then sell it at a later moment to a customer (ie, I assembled a bolt action rifle on spec), I’m a “manufacture” and I need a Type 07 FFL (and I need to pay the ITAR fee/license BS).

    If I, as a gunsmith, buy buy a rifle receiver, buy a barrel, stock, trigger group, etc – and I then sell the receiver (and only the receiver) to the customer, who then brings it back to be at a later time (with me still holding the barrel, stock, trigger group) and assemble them into a gun, and I then bill the customer for gunsmithing services, I’m NOT a manufacture according to the ATF (and I can do this under a Type 01 FFL) – but I am a manufacture according to the State Dep’t.

    As far as I’m concerned, this should be the definition of firearms manufacturing:

    At the point where a serial numbered (and therefore tracked) part of a gun is made, THAT is the point of manufacture. All additions/changes/repairs thereafter are NOT manufacturing of a gun. When a lower receiver is made and serial numbered, that is manufacturing. When a bolt action receiver is made and numbered, that is manufacturing. When a 1911 frame is made and numbered, that is manufacturing. When the outside cylinder of a silencer is made (which is where the serial number is), that is manufacturing.

    Any machining, changes, dis/re-assembly of parts onto the serial numbered part of a gun is NOT manufacturing for the purposes of the ATF and ITAR.

    I want ONE definition of “manufacture of a gun” made and enforced across all of the ATF, FBI, State Dep’t/ITAR, and the TTB, and I want it to coincide with the manufacture of the serial numbered parts that are what is tracked by the ATF, FBI, ITAR and TTB.

  37. My personal suggestions:

    – Create a federal concealed carry permit for federal employees to be able to carry on federal installations like military bases. This could be done by executive order as it applies only to the executive branch of government.

    – Repeal the Hugh’s Amendment.

    – Create and publicize a tax credit for people buying gun safes and gun locks in order to make them more affordable. Possibly extend this to gun safety classes with the NRA and other reputable organizations. This should help reduce the number of deaths and injuries because children and other incompetent person will have reduced access to weapons.

    • I would love to be able to carry on the federal compound I work at; nearly everyone that works there has had to undergo multiple intensive background checks just to get a job, so I don’t see what grounds anyone could oppose carry for us. I won’t hold my breath though, as that seems like a pipedream at best.

  38. These suggestions are good starting points, and then when the gun muggles are slapped in the face with several years of data showing that relaxing these gun laws didn’t lead to lawlessness in the streets, we can push for even more. The next four years are our best chance in decades to push back the encroachment on our rights, let’s make it count.

  39. Gas Plasma Rifles in the 40 Watt Range or we vote the whole crowd out in 2 years and 4 years.

    With Skynet spinning up, we all need to be ready for the first Terminators coming back through time.

    It is hard enough figuring out which nude lunks appearing under LA underpasses are Cyberdine T-800’s….

  40. @John Boch, not sure you are reading all the comments but I hope so and would like to offer a suggestion.

    For national reciprocity enter a provision somehow that recognizes constituonal carry across state lines so people who are not required to have a license in their home state to carry can do so on a DL or other ID proving residence in a constitional carry state.

    This gives people from Vermont, which never has and probably never will have a carry permit the ability to stop getting out of state permits. It also incentivizes the growing number of constitutional carry states a reason to scrap their permit system all together.

    Certainly lots of details to work out there but a good end state I think. At least until mandated national constitutional carry is put in place.

  41. I’d say until HPA passes, the NFA branch should be told to shut up and sell stamps. Does there really need to be 6 months or more between my paying for a stamp and getting it? The background check is already done. It should be a matter of a web form and a credit card.

  42. How about using/enforcing the 2nd Amendment as intended? All this other crap is stupid.

    When you play any other way, you already lost.

  43. Stop the Unconstitutional disarming without Due Process
    of our Vets with PTSD
    and those on Social Security Disability who have been deemed incompetent to handle their own money

  44. I’d aim high in true Trump fashion, and comprise if absolutely necessary, rather than aiming low, comprising in your head before even taking it forward for evaluation/vote. Don’t bargain in your head before the actual bargaining has begun. Remember, Cuomo and his henchmen passed drastic gun legislation at the midnight hour without open debate in the NY legislature. They played hardball and won for the anti’s.

    The other part of this to keep in mind is that, while we Republicans own everything now, the House, the Senate, the presidency, and SCOTUS, they won’t in the future. The time to act is now, as far as you can push, because it will only get worse going forward in terms of power at hand. It has to get worse, because it can’t get any better. So strike while the iron is hot. The House has new members every 2 years, and new Senators come in at the mid-term elections as well.

    Couch the proposals in reasonable jargon, but push hard, and repeat as many times as is necessary that we have not only the 2nd Amendment, but a voters’ mandate currently, because the election did center heavily on gun policy. To the victor go the spoils.

    I have another suggestion for another post regarding safe zones.

  45. Any chance you can get the new attorney general to challenge state laws that are effectively bans on classes of arms disguised as feature prohibitions? It’s a long shot but I figured I’d ask.
    More realistic, but possibly more problematic, can we bring back the kitchen table FFL? I think they still exist in some states but the commercial space requirement in certain jurisdictions needs to be preempted.

  46. The incrementalist approach is not the way to go. That method of thinking is what has doomed “Conservative” thought on policy since its inception and the main reason conservatives have actually conserved nothing.

    The starting point is “Shall Not Be Infringed” and then negotiate from there. Fold the ATF, repeal the NFA, National Constitutional Carry, with Federal Monies withdrawn from any state that dares to place restrictions on any of the above.

  47. Regarding safe zones, which are truly the unsafest zones around as we all know, there was one state that had a “reasonable” approach to these controversial places:
    you can have as many gun free zones as you like so long as you have everyone going through metal detectors to ensure no guns are in fact on the premises, and so long as you supply sufficient armed guards inside the premises to keep innocents safe, now that they are unarmed. This is how courthouses or statehouses are usually run. I feel safe in a courthouse building, particularly since the sheriff’s office is there as well. However, I don’t feel nearly as safe in a school, a post office, a Chipotle or any commercial establishment that bans guns, particularly if state laws back up those bans. If they want gun free zones, make sure they are truly gun free with guards as a safeguard to deter against an assault past the metal detectors and locked doors, which can happen in a mass shooting.

    This can be presented as a reasonable solution that is hard to argue against. It satisfies our interests, and it is not likely to be utilized much if at all due to the expense involved. It’s simply cost prohibitive except in places like courthouses, where I do think it makes good sense.

    Like a courthouse, there should also be secure storage mandated for those who come to the safe zone with a concealed weapon on their person. They can without hassle or disparagement be offered a storage locker for their gun till they leave. Without this, it becomes impossible to carry through the day, as you certainly don’t want to leave your gun in the car, nor do you want to drive home and leave it there every time you need to go to the post office, school, etc.

    I do think this is a worthwhile proposal, and one that solves many issues while still seeming reasonable. How can they argue against it. The anti’s get gun free zones if they are willing to make them truly gun free for both law abiding and criminal citizens. It’s the likeliest way to get rid of most unwarranted safe zones, while still keeping an open door for the truly needed safe zones, like courthouses and statehouses.

    • Agree! When burger joints have to pay for armed guards, security checkpoints, storage facilities and so forth, instead of a window sticker, perhaps they will rethink the importance of their silly rules. If not, they’d better have a really good product, because getting into the joint next door will be a lot less hassle, and their burgers will be cheaper, without pretending they’re a location of international importance.

  48. Great start!

    I would include a specific addition that (future) energy weapons are considered arms and fully protected under the Second Amendment. Just planning ahead for the next 200 years.

  49. The Feds control the States with money. For example, if a State failed to raise the drinking age from 18 to 21, then they lost their federal highway money. Every state fell into line. The Feds can do the same thing with oppressive firearm laws in the States – repeal them or lose your federal money.

  50. I’ve suggested this before on some boards and met with resounding silence, but I still think it’s worth considering. Let’s do away with all this background check every time someone wants to buy a firearm. Since driving licenses are universal and the system already exists in most cases for law enforcement to access the databases, just add one data field in each state like they do for people that need glasses or are organ donors. Make the default blank which means you are of age and there is no reason to deny you your right to keep and bear. Innocent until proven guilty. Task the states and the FBI with building the list of prohibited persons and putting that in the DMV databases. Also for private sales, there should be in each state a publically accessible website where you can type in the driving license number and get a response, prohibited, restricted (age, etc.) or no restriction, and no record of that inquiry is kept. Basically it would mean that every single citizen that is not on a prohibited list is pre approved to purchase firearms. You could add concealed carry to the list if needed.

    • Could be helpful. I recently discovered that TX has special drivers licenses for those under 21, not only says “under 21” on it but is printed so it has to be held 90 degrees turned from the normal card, impossible to mistake. Something similar could be used as you describe. However, before we go too far with that idea, you have to explain just what background checks have accomplished in the past 20 years, not including throwing taxpayer money into the crapper. Just do away with it altogether, would be even simpler.

  51. One other more minor issue is that there is a trend to disarm anyone (male, generally) who is simply accused of domestic violence. On the face of it, it seems reasonable, especially to the Left, however they are now able to take away guns from men without there even being a trial to convict the person of domestic abuse. In other words, these men are now guilty until proven innocent, which goes against our justice system historically.

    If the accusations of domestic abuse were few, far between, and near 100% truthful, I could actually see disarming the accused, but this is not the case these days. One of the first moves for women getting divorced is now to accuse the husband of domestic violence (note Brad Pitt’s recent investigation by the FBI after Angelina accused him of child abuse aboard their private flight) in order to strip the father of custody and disadvantage the husband at trial (also not Johnny Depp’s being accused of abusing Amber Heard before the 8 million dollar settlement). I’ve personally seen a woman call the police when the husband merely touched the wife, and get her way, since this technically can be construed to be assault/battery.

    Bottom line this trend to strip men of gun rights without a trial needs to have a higher threshold to be allowed … to protect against misuse.

    You get something on your record as having assaulted (touched) your wife, and suddenly you can no longer carry or own a weapon. This can be used as retribution in divorce. The domestic violence needs to be highly significant to lead to disarmament. Hard one to solve, but I don’t like the trend, and it could end your right to bear arms at some point, even if you’re a decent guy.

    The other problem with these incremental moves to disarm men is that while they sound reasonable on the face of it, they are just one in a long line of increments that keep building and building. In the end, there are so many prohibitions that it becomes simply too difficult and expensive to get armed. You simply give up, which is the aim ultimately of the Cuomos and Bloombergs of the world.

  52. Get rid of law enforcement carve outs. If the state limits its citizens to x round magazines, then the same goes for law enforcement. If Joe citizen can’t carry, then retired law enforcement can’t carry.

    • This is a good idea for those who pass the background check. Otherwise, law enforcement, particularly big city LE, are many times if not most times in favor of gun control. Why not, in their minds, since they have no worries about being able to carry, now or in their retirement. Let them think like the common man and then let’s see how they feel about gun control. It would continually reinforce the pro 2nd amendment mindset in the people who often decide on gun control. Police can, if they want, make your life a living nightmare, even if gun laws are in your favor. In my county, LE is sympathetic to gun owners, and that’s good, though somewhat uncommon.

  53. If we could get relief on shipping firearms through the US mail somehow, that would be great. It basically costs $60 to ship a handgun right now since you have to do overnight FedEx or UPS. It makes warranty work cost prohibitive many times, and guns often need warranty work. It’s cheaper through an FFL, but why should an FFL be able to use the US postal system and not us. If it requires that you have a concealed carry permit, then fine. The CC folks have a security background check already. Let them use the postal service.

  54. Make it such that you only need a background check no more than once a year or two for purposes of buying and selling guns, and NFA items. Why tie up so much time and energy and money getting these checks over and over again? If someone has a CC license, and if we trust them to carry concealed over the term of that license, why are we bothering to recheck and recheck with every transaction? It ties up law enforcement time while being unnecessary. I believe several states take proof of CCL as good enough for purposes of buying weapons. That’s just common sense. CCL holders are likely some of the most law abiding citizens of any group you can name. Why not respect them more.

  55. On the subject of compromise, if you are bargaining for high priority items as above, one thing I might offer as compromise to the anti’s is handgun availability to those under 25, in the cities. The large objection to handgun availability stems from inner city crime, and the vast majority of those crimes are from those under 25. If you could set the bar for handgun ownership a bit higher for these folks, it might dry up the swamp a bit and diminish inner city violence somewhat. Perhaps more lengthy training and proof of liability insurance could be required of those under 25, particularly people living in large metropolises’ city limits (class one city?). That way, people under 25 could still own handguns, but those not motivated enough to get training would be out of luck. A lot of thugs would simply not be able to buy guns legally since they’d be unlikely to go through classes and get insurance.

    I wouldn’t offer this as a proposal, as it is at least superficially is antigun, but I personally wouldn’t mind offering it in the spirit of compromise if we were going to get something very good in return.

    Personally, I do believe the inner city does have a gun problem, big time, particularly with inner city youth. If you can figure a way to target this population, I’m in favor of it to help protect city folks. Protect city folks, and you will find we have less and less anti 2nd amendment people. But, law abiding folks do still need to have the right to be armed, even in the city, maybe especially in the city. We just want them to be the law abiding ones. We need to find a way to sort that out. It’s the essence of the gun debate.

    • Meh, sorry. Gang bangers don’t obey the law, such “restrictions” will only affect law abiding citizens who need to defend themselves and their families from the thugs, who include those under 18, not just under 25. Such an effort would be doomed to failure, as evidenced by the fact that there is violent crime in the inner cities *now*, when all manner of laws prohibit the crime, the guns, the drugs, already. You propose more restrictions.

      • “Gang bangers don’t obey the law”
        Right, we know this, for sure, but one way they don’t obey the laws is by having those without records (youngest of them) do straw-man purchases, or they have juveniles who aren’t up for 3 strikes pull off driveby hits or low level violent crime. In the spirit of compromise, give the police a chance to lock up gang bangers with guns would have failed to do modest requirements. The cops need a way to enforce morality. The good guys will fulfill the modest requirements, have their guns, and be OK with cops. I wouldn’t do it with over 25, nor might I want to do it in rural America, but statistically, we might make a dent in areas that need it most, America’s inner city (and to the inner city’s inhabitants benefit I might add.) The Left won’t admit this is the region of most concern because it’s their constituency, and the Right won’t step up to curb the gun rights in this region/age group because it might affect law abiding citizens; therefore nothing gets done where it need to get done. It’s the crux of the problem and the heart of the miscommunication between liberals and conservatives. We all want crime down, but the liberals don’t seem to understand (admit/discuss) that law abiding citizens are not the problem; the gang bangers are the problem. Let’s aim specifically at the problem and no further.

        I’m sure it’s correct that gang bangers will STILL get guns (throughout time), but let’s not make it easy for them…and this is to the benefit of us all.

        The benefit to conservatives is not only to help keep a lid on violent crime (mostly perpetrated by those under 25 near the inner cities), but also to dispel the notion that we are not responsible players in the civic arena. Further, if the proposal captures the imagination of the electorate on the Left, it may dowse the burning desire to confiscate all guns somewhat (to the degree that they refrain from making it a major election issue). What we don’t want is for the next President after Trump to come in on a mandate from the Left and pull a Cuomo on us at the midnight hour. We need to squelch t anti’s logic, and do it in rational fashion. This proposal is rational, without significantly harming the rights of those under 25.

        The simple fact is, gangbangers will not go through a safety course or whatever hurdle you want to put in front of them, or conceivably buy liability insurance, or whatever we can come up to separate the evil from the good with minimal interference to the good under 25. It’s to the benefit of those under 25 if it helps stem the tide of crime facing their communities.

        Keep in mind, there is a slow trend creeping on us that we fail to publicize: the U.S. is city by city slowly headed towards being failed states, lawless regions that even the cops and EMT’s fear going into. The prime example is Detroit, but places like Newark, Camden, S. Chicago, parts of NYC and Philly and LA, New Orleans, Oakland and many more are turning into our very own Mogadishus.

  56. Please don’t go crazy with a wish list that will make ” normal” people what ever that is nuts. Man with machine gun shoots up_____ fill in the blank . Remember the Senate majority is not large enough to stop a filibuster. Some of the Senate Republicans are not really pro gun.

    Clean out the atf, get the sbr get the national standard to preempt local and state laws. You only have about one year until they start running for reelection again and the very little will get done.

  57. This is really great, especially disabling most of the stupid NFA. Thank you for the update and I can’t wait to hear progress on each of these. POTG have a special opportunity with this election to undue years of erosion to our rights. Now is the time to PUSH forward as hard as possible.

  58. Can I haz weapons of mass destruction? A Tank when a SUV just won’t do? A jeep and a recoiless rifle for those really big squirrels? Need a .50 for home defense (not really, but what the hell?). A few more crew served systems for those weekend BBQs, propane, and beer to bond with the neighbors. You know, to really enjoy my rights fully. I only have a shotgun and a pistol lord, I need to make amends.

    • You can have all those things right now! You just have to pay for them. You sound kinda clueless, here, we have seen people with tanks, cannons, explosives, machine guns, fighter jets, etc. Do you think a law can be passed to make them free? That would be Hillary’s job, don’t think free stuff is on the Donald’s agenda. Too bad.

  59. This is so awesome that TTAG has such an inside look at what is going on. I feel like the reversal of EO bans on ammo and specific types of firearms is huge. I want surplus guns to flood our country again.

  60. John.

    As a concealed carrier I can legally carry my firearm in National Parks and Federal Wildlife Refuges. The Army Corps of Engineers, who control millions of acres of waterways and parklands, still criminalize the carrying of a firearm on lands they control. Would love to see a legislative proposal passed but if the obstructionists prevent this an executive order allowing the lawful carry of a concealed weapon on Corps of Engineers holdings would be a significant improvement. Cannot overemphasize the importance of allowing concealed carry weapons on the parking lot of post offices. (I am handicapped and walk with crutches. I have to park off the Post Office grounds to drop a letter into the drive thru box).

  61. No need to punish constitutional carry states like Vermont. There is a version of national reciprocity that allows carry nation wide if their home state allows carry. Problem solved.

    HPA is a great idea. In a perfect world, this should be so easy to accomplish, as well as the SBR and SBS. No reason at all for any of it.

    That said, I’ll be surprised if either happen. Trump will be busy and Congress just doesn’t care. They want to appear pro gun without actually rolling back the controls.

    • Probably, hopeful for good Supreme Court Justices, hopeful that some of all this gets done and otherwise just trying to get along. If Trump fails to deliver any of it,…well, if you thought they were smug before….

      • I (we) may be jumping the GUN (hahaha) in thinking Trump is going to be the pro-gun president of our dreams, but THIS right here is at least a good start. If the NeverTrump POTG were in any way correct, all his 2A rhetoric would have been abandoned by now, since, y’know, he’s a damn NOO YORKER and no NOO YORKER should ever be in charge of m’gun rights! Well, to the bigots who hate the citizens of an entire state, no matter how majority leftist, here’s a big middle finger from one former NY resident who went overseas with the express intent to kill or be killed in defense of all Constitutional rights, most of all the 2nd.

        Spoiler alert: I didn’t die, and now I’m a born-again Pennsylvanian. Fck New York, but try and take New Yorkers themselves on a case-by-case basis!

  62. Words cannot express how happy I am to see an actual opportunity to bring meaningful change to archaic and pointless laws. Firearms are almost a thousand years old and suppressors are over a century old so people need to stop pretending that this is some kind of new technology that must be regulated. We should be focused on bio-tech and nano-tech nightmares which can literally destroy the world, not ancient tech.

    Having said that, I have to disagree on the feasibility of national reciprocity (although since I work across state lines it would be wonderful). The Democrat strongholds will fight that tooth and nail and huge amounts of political capital will be expended without improvement. Now, if we’re talking 3-D chess then maybe it’s a pawn and things like the Hearing Protection Act and allowing imports without the “sporting purpose” test, doing away with the Short-Barreled Rifle limits, and Section 922 provisions are space-knights. The kings and queens, of course, are fully automatic weapons and other destructive devices which, admittedly give a lot of people pause. Those will take a long time to address but there’s plenty of stuff to look at in the meanwhile.

    I am still worried about the after-effects of Operation Choke Point which shut down two dealers I know of because they couldn’t get accounts to process credit card payments. The list sent to banks directing them to refuse accounts to certain businesses specifically listed ammunition dealers and firearm sales with Ponzi schemes, racist sales, drug paraphernalia, and get-rich products (see here http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/07/former-top-obama-official-says-operation-choke-point-had-collateral-consequences/)

    The House of Representatives found that the DOJ and FDIC had substantially overstepped their lawful authority however despite the FDIC’s letter of January, 2015, there are still terminations being reported see wiki here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point

    Obviously, the entire DOJ needs to be overhauled and examined in detail. It might also be nice to review whether we need more armed federal agents across hundreds of departments than there are Marines in the Marine Corps. http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/06/20/armed-federal-officers-now-outnumber-us-marines/

    We should recall that no part of the Constitution authorizes any armed federal police and that the laws of the Union were originally expected to be enforced by calling out the militia of the individual states. I’m sure nobody expects that nowadays, but establishing some real oversight over BATF and the FBI, including, perhaps, a panel consisting of law enforcement, jurists, and civilians, might lead to more reasonable approaches everywhere so that we can focus on arresting real criminals and prosecuting perpetrators of crime rather than just entrapping low-hanging fruit.

    Finally, other people have raised a lot of great points here, but here’s one more just for fun. This one is almost definitely a pawn: electronic guns. These are the little gems that are being developed to take out drones that are intruding where they’re not wanted. Let’s call them something exotic and dangerous-sounding, like “voltaic guns” or “galvanic rifles.” While the left is trying to figure out what we’re talking about, we can push for their full legalization everywhere other than airports, military installations and federally-designated safe zones to assure that Americans retain the right to remain secure in their houses, papers and effects. The howling from the left will be incredible and probably include a lot of blatant lies and exaggerations which will be fun.

    Oh, while we’re on the subject, can we override the regulations basically requiring a pilot’s license to fly your own drone more than 400 feet high or away? Most definitely a pawn, and some of the regulations make some sense in cities, but out in rural areas, they’re completely ridiculous https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf . Just say you can’t fly them over property you don’t own or in any airport zone or military base and be done with it.

  63. Not sure if you wade through all the comments but that’s a great list and I appreciate that you’re going to Washington to represent us. It would make a great plot for a Frank Capra movie!

    Try to go after the Hughes amendment. I know it sounds paradoxical, but anti-gunners think silencers are illegal (because Hollywood) and machine guns are perfectly legal (and used in every school shooting). Forcing new machine guns to register on the NFA list would sound restricting to them, legal silencers would scare them. The Hughes amendment is the weak link since it’s over the heads of most (anti-gun) people. That right is also in the most danger since its dying a slow death from stagnation. Now might be the last chance to turn it around in a meaningful way.

    Couldn’t resist getting my 2cs in but we’re in good hands, thank you.

  64. John His is the best post I have ever read. I am naming my first born after you.

    Good luck and thank you so much for defending our freedom.

  65. For the love of God, do something to help us out here in California. Yeah, we know, it sucks, but we want it to suck less. And the less it sucks here, the less of a legal precedent there is for it to suck elsewhere.

  66. A federal law that prohibits the ban of firearms (rifles, shotguns, and handguns) when they are capable of firing standard ammunition.

    Or a federal law that prohibits a ban on firearms when considering only physical features (pistol grip, shoulder thing that goes up, etc) as the basis for a ban.

  67. John Kerry’s signature on the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty needs revoked. This is a time bomb that only requires a democratic majority. Do we think the dems forgot?

  68. This may be covered in the executive orders mentioned but also rescinding the Clinton-Yeltsin “agreement” that bans the import of Russian pistols, SKS’s, Dragunov’s, etc. That needs to go.

    Also this might be hard since Trump is against China but that gun ban must go. How embarrassing is it that the Canadians and Europeans can get guns from China but we still can’t? (shotguns are still exempt but they are not hard to find and plenty of them in the U.S. AK’s and other military firearms from China are not)

  69. There was a recent lawsuit under FOIA to get access to the entire set of BATFE opinion letters (I think its Hardy v. BATFE). Suggest that congress explicitly include BATFE under FOIA. Think about giving FOIA some additional teeth for agencies that are slow to respond or very clearly are improperly trying to withhold documents (sometimes there are legitimate grey areas that an agency should not be penalized for fighting over).

  70. Aren’t John and his buddy the ones who betrayed gun rights in Illinois? Wouldn’t want that sort of thinking anywhere near Trump and company.

      • I didn’t save all the articles posted here, but seems these names were/are linked to significant gun rights compromises in Illinois law. Not sure these are the same names, which is why I asked the question.

        • One troll made just about all those claims. Demo Man and otis macdonnalds ghost. I believe they were one and the same. They ranted against Boch, the NRA man and whites and Masons. Wouldn’t call them credible.

        • Too much hate in the statements and outright racism, apparently white folks was on this fellows hate list, for me to bother checking. I’m fine with stating facts. But starting out with a hate filled tirade is the wrong way to gain supporters.

        • Thanks, again. Didn’t expect you to research, just wanted to know if your general knowledge convinced you, one way or the other, about whether the two did, indeed, compromise badly on gun control laws (as in writing the ordinances).

  71. On the off chance you will read this… Want new Machine Guns on the registry without having to pass a new law or repeal the NFA? I know repealing the NFA prohibition on machine guns is not practical at present. But you can do the next best thing. The Trump admin can open another Amnesty for machine guns already not registered. Federal law already allows this to be done for 90 days at a time. (With no limit as to the number of times it is opened I might add… 🙂 So there is no statutory reason it could not be done multiple times during a Trump presidency.) TTAG already wrote on the topic a few months back. No congressional approval needed, just Trump suggesting to his Secretary of the Treasury to open it. Bingo Bango, new legal machine guns on the registry. The price of machine guns will drop since there will be a greater supply, and thus allow more people to get their hands on them.)

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/09/dean-weingarten/amnesty-administration-can-implement/

    Bonus Points: Let me also suggest having the Trump admin use executive orders to repeal the various import bans instituted largely by executive orders by Bush Sr. Clinton, etc. Specifically the Chinese/Russian import bans, and any other import bans currently keeping the supply of mil surps limited…)

  72. Obama might have done a lot better if he had done this before, rather than just blatantly go against the 2nd Amendment.
    Killary would have been better off to have done likewise instead of immediately turning a few million gun owners against her (and then lie about her position in an attempt to sucker in the gullible).

    We have got to get back to the Constitution as the law of the land, as the Founders intended it. Anyone who reads the writings of James Madison and George Mason (co-authors of the 2nd) should have that settled. Of course, we also need to get back to a SCOTUS which bases their decisions on history and the authors words rather than on their personal feelings. And all three branches must return to the limits of their authorities as established by the Constitution.

  73. Mr. Boch: congratulations on your appointment. Nonetheless, pardon me for my cynicism. Trump, ostensibly the quintessential negotiator, will bargain away whatever he deems necessary in order to get whatever he deems is more important than our 2A rights. So, I won’t hold my breath. Trump, and his appointees, just like all other politicians before him, will cave to whatever floats in on the wind. Don’t believe me? Just wait….

    • If everyone were as submissive and cooperative as you seem to be, that might be correct. I can hear you cheering already with glee because you were just so wise. Others here will make his days and nights rather stressful with calls and letters, involving representatives and senators to scream from the rooftops. And if he thinks he will be reelected under those circumstances he is dreaming. I don’t know if he even intends to run, but still …

      • You’re a joke LarryinTX…. you don’t have a fucking clue about my personal position. I’m simply pointing out that if you believe Trump – given that he has already announced taking back positions he espoused during his campaign in his interview with Stahl – you probably fucking believe in the tooth fairy. Have a nice day….

  74. AND Don’t forget to release the M1911s to the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) to be sold. This should also be a notable priority.

  75. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    Mr. Boch,

    I agree with your list of what is realistically achievable early on. Please consider pursuing all of those policy changes in the following order. I believe this order is the most likely to result in as much positive change as possible, in the shortest time possible, with the minimum amount of effort possible.

    I STRONGLY recommend that your FIRST objective is implementing the Hearing Protection Act. There is a solid public interest in reducing the noise levels of firearms as well as an individual interest in protecting the hearing of people who are shooting. And there really isn’t any basis for anyone to oppose it. After all, who can be in favor of loud noises that disturb the public peace and damage people’s hearing? Throw in the fact that suppressors are totally legal in European gun-control paradises (and even required in some instances?) and gun-grabbers really do not have a leg to stand on to oppose legalized suppressors.

    And another thing, make sure all private and public discussion/legislation refers to them as SUPPRESSORS, not silencers. Remind everyone that you still need hearing protection even with suppressors. This derails fictional arguments that legalized suppressors will create a bunch of newly minted assassins running around silently murdering people.

    Legalizing short barreled rifles and shotguns should be a close second priority. As with suppressors, there is no defensible argument for keeping short barreled rifles and shotguns illegal. Claims that short barreled rifles and shotguns are somehow more dangerous because they are “easily concealable” are moot since handguns are even more easily concealable and already legal. And claims that short barreled rifles and shotguns are more dangerous because they are more “powerful” than handguns are also moot because short barrels reduce muzzle velocities/energies (“power”) to handgun levels achievable right now with handguns in .44 Magnum through .50 S&W Magnum … which are already legal as well.

    It should go without saying that Trump can immediately rescind Executive Orders which do not require any cooperation from Congress. And most orders will have little potential for any serious political blowback. For example, who is going to oppose military service members being armed on military bases??? After all, military personnel are the “only ones” (along with police) who should be armed according to gun grabbers. Nevertheless, because some Executive Orders involve firearm possession in “sensitive places” like Post Offices and other government buildings, there could be a fair amount of political resistance which could erode support from politicians who would have otherwise supported legalizing suppressors and short barreled rifles/shotguns.

    Fourth, pursue eliminating the Hughes Amendment and allow people to acquire new machine guns because arguments if favor of keeping the Hughes Amendment are not defensible. (As much as I hate to say it — I firmly believe it is unconstitutional — I would, however, leave the current ATF vetting and $200 tax stamp in place for machine gun acquisition.) Remember, anyone with a clean criminal record can acquire a machine gun right now if they can afford it. They go through the ATF vetting process and their machine gun is registered right now. (Gun grabbers are always demanding vetting and registration.) And, as some know, it is legal right now to acquire a bump-fire stock and achieve machine gun performance without any vetting, registration, or tax stamp. Finally, we have over 80 years of EXPERIENCE that shows people who acquire a tax stamp for their machine guns NEVER use their machine guns to attack anyone. When you combine all those details, there is no defensible reason to continue to prohibit new registered machine guns.

    Lastly, I would pursue national reciprocity for concealed carry. This will have a lot more baggage and a lot more people are going to be kicking and screaming about this. Better to address the previous efforts (suppressors, short barreled rifles/shotguns, arbitrary Executive Orders, and opening the machine gun registry) in the quiet first and then pursue national reciprocity. Otherwise, if efforts for national reciprocity get bogged down, we may never get around to the other areas.

    If all of that goes well and there is still time and political potential, we can pursue eliminating the ATF vetting and tax stamp process for acquiring machine guns.
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

  76. This is a super long term thing, since it requires A) a gun friendly appointment or two to the Supreme Court, and B) a case that hinges on figuring out what Heller means by whether a gun/weapon is common or not, but the 2nd Amendment Coalition should have a set of criteria for what a common weapon is on hand, so they file an amicus curea brief as quickly as possible.

    Here’s some criteria that I think could work:
    -A weapon is identical to or derived from a design that is being used or has been used by the military and law enforcement agencies.*
    -A weapon manufactured after the AWB expired has sold 100,000** units within 10 years.

    *This would probably get narrowed down to only the US military & LE, but aiming bigger here is alright.
    **I’d like this number to be smaller, because lord knows KelTec would find a way to NOT sell 100K of a new design within a decade, but I think the SCOTUS would be more inclined to support a number on that scale.

    These would obviously only be the start, because there need to be enough criteria to prevent another Maryland situation and kill any potential AWB legislation that decides to list out tons of guns, since non-US milsurp/clones are particularly vulnerable if you went the narrow “Only US military/LE stuff is common” criteria.

  77. I wonder exactly how you plan to rape the constitution to impose federal preemption of State laws? Just because it is for an end you like, doesn’t make it right.

    There is no Federal preemption other than the Constitution itself, which denies the State certain powers, such as declaring war. If Kentucky, or California, or any state wanted to they could lower the drinking age. What the Feds have done, is say fine, but we won’t give you highway funding. Same way they got the 55 mph speed limit for a while. And even then laws vary… in some states parents can provide in home to minor children, in other states no, etc.

    So is that going to be the tactic? The piss on the constitution and strong arm the states? I am not impressed by the incredibly legally ignorant talk of federal preemption, and I fear such Federal overreach.

  78. How about take the man who worked to destroy all rights, but particularly gun rights, off the dime?

    The replacement dime could have John Browning, surrounded by his inventions (M2, 1911, BAR, Model 1897) with the second amendment’s text wrapped around the border.

  79. I’m not sure if it’s been mentioned yet, but another one that needs addressing is to address one of the problems with armor piercing ammo law. Core needs some sort of definition to the effect of everything that is contained inside of the jacket.

  80. Get rid of minimum barrel lengths for rifles and shotguns. At least make shotguns the same as rifles. That should be an easy fix.
    Forward grip for pistols.
    Give suppressors a seral number and require a background, treat them like pistols.

  81. Or how about get rid of the BATF altogether. Their existence as an arm of the Treasury Dept is just an end-run of the 2nd Amendment. They are an unelected, tyrannical organization whose “opinions” have the power to criminalize law abiding citizens. The fact they have blood on their hands for failure to pay measly $200 tax stamps is unjust and evil.

  82. That’s a very ambitious agenda that quite frankly makes me giddy at the thought of all those things going in our favor after a lifetime of government meddling in our constitutional rights. What about making the National Park Service and the Army Corps of Engineers open up their federal lands to law abiding citizens with concealed carry permits? The ACOE is one of the largest stewards of federal lands with some archaic regulations when it comes to firearms.

    • That is very easily accomplished via a couple of ways. In February, the 9th circuit court of appeals will likely hear oral arguments in an appeal out of Idaho challenging the Army Corps of Engineer ban. All Trump needs to do is to tell his new attorney general to tell the court that the Federal government acquiesces that the ban is unconstitutional.

      If the Court refuses to rule in favor of the Plaintiffs then as head of the Executive branch, Trump can order that the ban not be enforced.

      Or Congress without the approval of the President could prohibit any money being spent on its enforcement.

      Or Congress with the approval of the President (or a veto override) could repeal the Army Corp of Engineer ban.

      Of course the same is true of every Federal gun law including the NFA ban.

      But Trump has picked someone who has already surrendered.

      You guys are screwed.

  83. “I’ve been learning lobbying from a master, Todd Vandermyde, the NRA-ILA contract lobbyist.”

    The same NRA lobbyist who turned Illinois into a state where it was, for half a day, legal to carry loaded and unloaded firearms (not just handguns) openly and concealed, without a permit into what it is today.

    I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Regardless, you guys are screwed.

  84. Dear Mr. Boch,

    Congratulations and thank you. Guns save life has always seemed to be a peculiar organization to me, and when you joined here I was happy to learn more about it, and am very much behind the work your group stands for.

    With respect, a few thoughts from behind the granola curtain:
    1. Reciprocity on out of state permits. This can help with places like Vermont which won’t issue, and yes, in places like California and New York City. Bloomberg has already won New York, so he’s been spending and setting his sights on other states. Strike major blows in the heartlands of gun control, and you delay his mission, gain more people to the side of liberty, and confuse the concentrated push we’ve seen. Bailing out blue states may seem like a heavy lift for no benefit, but if we don’t win and start pushing back, then like the zombies, they will keep coming for us.
    2. Open NICS to the public, or allow the public to conduct background checks. This might end up partnered with language limiting private transfers to $0, which would make private FFLs kick people out of their businesses, and essentially bootstrap private transfers for ALL states, without a registry. It defangs the constant press for Universal Background Checks by making UBCs still apply- it’s the law in California, etc. etc. but it cannot be verified with home office if a check happened, who has what, etc. and hamstrings continuous efforts in blue states to choke supply off, send confiscation teams, etc. etc.

  85. Ya’ll can decide how much energy to invest in Trump’s being pro 2A. While he’s allegedly carrying out that task – assuming his commitment to supporting it as reported by the NRA – I’m gonna stock up on ammo and firearms. I don’t trust this guy any farther than I can piss – Mr. Boch notwithstanding. The Hildebeast? well, at least we knew she was coming after us.

  86. One thing I would like to see with the National Reciprocity is Military ID cards including retired and disabled(as long as still mentally competent) being a sort of federal CCW.

    Like hey we trust you to carry a gun to protect our country in Afghanistan, we can trust you to carry one in Komnifornistan.

  87. Two ideas
    1. Prohibit LEOs/government agencies/politicians from having weapons/magazines not available to the general public. Given the justification is the same, self-defense, if it is suitable for self-defense for one it is suitable for self-defense for all. (as a compromise, some limitations on class 3 /destructive devices- if that’s the right term) And hey, limiting to LEOs to reduced capacity mags may reduce excessive rounds fired in some of these LEO shootings… that’s how you justify it to the gun-banners.

    2. Make state/county/city governments which place any justification beyond ‘self-defense’ for issuing a CCW. liable for injuries/loss/damages suffered by crime victims during an assault/robbery/rape/carjacking confrontational type crime.

    Based on the dissenting judges opinion in Linda Riss vs City of New York:
    “What makes the city’s position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense (former Penal Law, § 1897). Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her. “

    If the state/local government forces you to rely on police for personal protection, they should be forced to pay up for failing to do so. Interesting debate to show to folks as you try to get the law passed– might be persuasive to some folks, the obvious contradiction. Rely on police for protection but no recourse when they can’t.

  88. Can anti gun votes such as those cast in Ca. and Ma. be overturned as unconstitutional. I don’t understand how a vote can strip a law abiding American citizen of their Constitutional rights. If this is allowed to stand then any local major demographic intent on striping a law abiding minority of their Constitutional rights is possible and obviously probable .

    • Federal courts do not consider 2A to be absolute. Read Heller.

      Supreme Court Justice Saint Scalia recognized government could put some controls on “gun rights”.

      Will take legislation, amendment, SC ruling that 2A is absolute in order to overturn state/municipal regulation of firearms.

  89. Rescinding the 1986 FOPA is a very big step in the right direction and it would accomplish almost everything you want to do in one step. It would also open up the “machine gun registry” that violates the 2nd and 14th Amendments. It was actually never ratified in Congress in the first place and illegally was treated as though it was and pushed into the Federal Register. Opening the registry would eliminate the closed market limiting the number of fully automatic weapons that are available and licensable to those manufactured up to May 1986 and would allow replacement of old models that belong in museums, unsafe worn-out and hand-made weapons with modern technology at normal prices – instead of the ridiculously inflated fortunes of today that deprives almost every regular law-abiding firearms enthusiast from enjoying their own featuring giggle switches. The duly diligent process of background checks and oversight would still be required, and it would be worthwhile to consider an additional layer of responsibility in the form of an insurance/bonding requirement. For the price of $200, a gun safe and $10/month for insurance, law-abiding citizens could finally be equipped to defend themselves and practice with “like weapons” for defense of our families, freedom and against enemies of freedom.

    The end result of these actions altogether should be a much more civil society and criminals too scared to leave home – after of course we start prosecuting violators properly with effective deterrents – unlike what we have today, which gives free reign to violent recidivist criminals.

  90. I think the Republican legislature should go hard and look to repeal the NFA entirely. This will put the starting point for the negotiations well behind the aforementioned items. If the Dems think they might be looking at the full repeal of the NFA they will be more likely to accept the half measures of repealing the 1986 acts and taking SBR, SBS, AOW, and suppressors of the list.

    You might also tell Trump that independents like myself have voted Democrat before, and we have voted Republican. I voted for Trump and a Republican this time, voted for Obama twice before, because I really want my 2nd amendment rights to be upheld. If the Republicans are not going to defend my 2nd amendment rights, I will just go back to voting for Dems, unless its Hillary…or maybe just vote Libertarian.

    Anyways lets get this done. Please do not tell me I voted for Republicans all the way down the ticket for no reason.

    Thanks for you service and being a mouth piece for us “little folk.”

  91. One more for the list: a presidential finding and accompanying executive order specifying that since there is no authority given in the Constitution for the federal government to regulate matters of personal recreation, all federal agencies are to acknowledge state law over federal law when substances involved can be grown at home.

  92. You are absolutely on the right track. While doing away with the NFA act all together would be great, what you are proposing is a fair compromise. Looking forward to the next few years!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *