Question of the Day: Your Firearms-Related Hopes for the Next Four Years?

Donald Trump is the 45th President of the United States. While not all gun rights advocates’ dreams may come true under the Trump Administration — national reciprocity strikes me as the heaviest of heavy lifts — the Hearing Protection Act look like it has an excellent chance, if not a done deal. At the very least, our rights aren’t likely to be attacked as they would have been under a Clinton admin. And how. Looking ahead . . .

What are your firearms-related hopes for the next four years? I’m sure some of you will use this as an opportunity to reveal your desire for one gun or another. Or the desire not to get shot. Fair enough. But what do you hope to see Mr. Trump’s troops, the Republican-controlled Congress and the Supreme Court do in the next four years — realistically?

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    HPA
    National Reciprocity
    SBR / SBS off of the NFA
    Repeal of the Hughes amendment
    Illinois suppressors / full NFA

    1. avatar TruthTellers says:

      All these and the removal of the “sporting purposes” clause so foreign guns made in small calibers can be imported.

      1. avatar Chadwick says:

        Hell yeah! That’s exactly what maga means to me. Oh yeah and disband the atf.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      I like pwrserge’s list but I do not think repeal of Hughes Amendment is realistic.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Do it the way it was passed in the first place. Add it as an amendment to a “must pass” bill after the closure vote has taken place. Then pass it on a party line vote.

        1. avatar Kroglikepie says:

          The Hughes amendment NEVER passed in the first place. Charlie Rangel just took it upon himself to assume it passed, despite the votes and reality saying otherwise.

    3. avatar anonymoose says:

      Don’t forget opening the MG registry and repealing 922r.

    4. avatar Henry Bowman says:

      Wall
      Deportations
      Ending Refugee Resettlement
      Ending Birthright Citizenship for illegals
      Limiting legal immigration around 1924 limits
      Federal Voter Protection Laws*
      End ‘Motor voter” laws
      Purge the dead from voter roles
      Paper ballots
      English only ballots
      restrict abestentee ballots

      Stop importing leftist voters and put some “common sense restrictions” on voting. I mean its not like those limits make hard for people to vote, just like they do not make it hard to know a gun, right?

      Lets fight to win, screw “fighting fair”.

      1. avatar Kendahl says:

        By “birthright citizenship”, I assume you mean the 14th Amendment that automatically makes you a citizen if you are born in the US. I agree that it would help discourage illegal immigration. However, getting it done will require another amendment and those are hard to get passed.

        1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

          No it will not, as Congress has the plenary power over Immigration More over we can just do what the left does, just “interrupt” it. Not that hard as the author of the 14th said it did not apply to aliens.

          Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:

          Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

          Maybe even strip it of those given it mistakenly, we can enforce tax code retro actively, so why not?

          The left wants to play ball? Well, we will play only play to win….Its us or them and if we do not act soon and tactically we will be displaced in our nation and out voted..

          Trump might be the only chance we have and we must unleash all Holy Hell upon mass immigration and its supporters if we are to secure our future and the Blessings of Liberty for Ourselves and OUR posterity.

  2. avatar Jack Wagner says:

    ^ What that guy said.

  3. avatar T says:

    Repeal the F…ing Hughes Amendment
    Change or eliminate the Sporting Clause so we can import some cool stuff.

    1. avatar PPGMD says:

      At least for rifles and shotguns it is easy to effectively nullify the sporting clause with a single executive order. All Trump has to do is require that the BATFE to reformulate the sporting test while consider 3 gun, USPSA, IDPA, and other practical shooting sports under the sporting clause.

  4. avatar Accur81 says:

    -Pro gun SCOTUS justice(S)
    -Pro gun federal judges
    -National reciprocity
    -Hearing Protection Act

    Wishlist:
    -denying funds to anti-gun / pro sanctuary CA
    -Hillary / Holder / Lynch / Obama in prison.

    Gun owners: we’re stronger together.

    1. avatar former water walker says:

      What Acurr81 sez. I have a very long list for Illinois but but be more like Indiana is a good start…

    2. avatar CarlosT says:

      Yeah, this. Also, I’m hoping that the Supreme Court will strike down assault weapons bans, UBCs, and other ridiculous gun control crap.

    3. avatar Howdy1 says:

      Remove taxes/excises/fees/etc from firearms, ammo and magazines. The NFA kind and the city/state/federal kind. That’s a poll tax. That’s a paddlin’.

      Firearm safes should be deductible. Do it for the children!

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        +1 on firearm safes being tax deductible!

    4. avatar JasonM says:

      I’d like to see those pro-gun judges declare all the restrictions on gun ownership, registration requirements, and other stupidity in states like California unconstitutional.
      I’d also take a national preemption law that allows for the prosecution of politicians and bureaucrats who violate it.

  5. avatar jwtaylor says:

    In order of likelihood:
    Constitutionalist SCOTUS
    Rescind import bans
    HPA
    Rewrite NFA
    Repeal NFA
    Removal of F in BATF (arbf)
    National Reciprocity

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      Nailed it.

    2. avatar jmf552 says:

      I like your approach and most of your conclusions. Mine is a little different. In order of likelihood:
      1. Constitutionalist SCOTUS – this will happen
      2. Replace NICS with BIDS or some other “blind” system – easily do-able without even changing a law
      3. National Reciprocity
      4. Repeal or rewrite the GFSZA – legislators are working on this, “The Safe Children Act”
      5. The HPA
      6. A law that would require that surplus federal firearms be sold off to FFLs
      7. Repeal GCA and the Brady Bill – possible, but unlikely (would make #2 unnecessary)
      8. Repeal NFA – possible, but unlikely

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Mr. Taylor is pretty much right on the money. I would tweak his list slightly:

      Constitutionalist SCOTUS
      — AND appropriate SCOTUS decisions —
      Rescind import bans
      HPA
      Rewrite NFA (make short barreled long guns legal)
      Repeal NFA (and Hughes Amendment)
      Repeal Gun-Free School Zones Act
      Removal of F in BATF (arbf)
      National Reciprocity

  6. avatar Yada says:

    LOL @ HPA being “If not a done deal”

    FAR FROM IT

  7. avatar Me says:

    Ban “gun free zones” nationwide

    1. I’ve already done that.

  8. avatar matty 9 says:

    full repeal of the NFA.

    I don’t think a machine gun should be so hard to get. Plus I need a tank, maybe an old M3 Sherman and about 50 3inch rounds would make for a fun 4th this summer.

    1. avatar Kapeltam says:

      I like how you party. We should hang out when you get that tank!

    2. avatar Mike Betts says:

      I don’t mean to be nit-picky but the Sherman’s nomenclature was “Medium Tank, M4”. Its predecessor, the M3, was called the “Lee” by the U.S. and those in service with the British pattern turrets were known as “Grant”, It mounted a 75 mm cannon in a sponson on the right side of the hull and was not a successful design. Also, while the later Shermans mounted a 3″ gun, it was more commonly referred to as a 76 mm. It was originally armed with a short-barreled 75 mm which lacked the velocity to knock out German armor, so it was up-gunned to a long barreled high-velocity 76 mm gun (M4A3E8/M4A3(76)W HVSS). The British up-gunned to the 17-pounder (76.2 mm) main armament. There was also an American Sherman variant armed with a 105 mm howitzer.

      1. avatar robby says:

        Don’t forget these two nonstandard versions of “Sherman Tank” The M4A3R5 flame thrower, and
        the M3-4-3 , with a POA-CWS-H1 flame thrower mounted in place of the bow machine gun.

  9. avatar Cubbie says:

    Everything everyone else said. But, ultimately, just leave me and my rights alone.

    1. If it were that easy. Some fightin’ needs to be done.

  10. avatar Chrispy says:

    I’d love to see the HPA make it through

    I’d also love to see something done to get states on board with standard capacity magazines. There’s no reason I shouldn’t be able to get a 17 round magazine just because I live in an unfriendly state.

    Reciprocity would be nice as well

    1. avatar Anon in CT says:

      The route to getting rid of AWBs and mag limits goes through the USSC.

      And I am cautiously optimistic.

  11. avatar Scott C. says:

    On a realistic level: pass the H.P.A., national reciprocity for concealed carry, get a constitutionalist on the S.C.O.T.U.S., and get rid of gun free zones nation wide.

    On a dreamers level: Disband the ATF all together, scrap the N.F.A and Hughes Amendment, national constitutional carry, and any crime committed using a weapon of any kind is an automatic life sentence (actually punishing the criminals not the law abiding citizens… What a noel idea).

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Two things come to mind:

      1. There are a lot of “crimes” that could be committed with a firearm (discharging a firearm within the city limits) that really do not rise to the level of life without parole. Then of course there are the over-zealous prosecutor hoplophobes who would just be looking for gun crimes to put away POTG. I can easily imagine the ardor with which such a prosecutor would attempt to make a self-defense case (George Zimmerman?) appear to be a crime and thus put a law-abiding citizen in prison for life. That part of your comment needs a little more thought and work, IMO.

      2.Any crime committed with a firearm is an automatic life sentence – this is the exact formula for ensuring that any such criminal will make every effort to leave no witnesses. Be careful what you wish for. Historically countries who have resorted to such extreme and harsh penalties for otherwise mundane crimes have in fact created a criminal class totally ruthless in their desire not to be identified and punished. If the penalty for robbing the 7/11 is life in prison and the penalty for murder is life in prison, why in the world would you not just shoot the witness?

      1. avatar Rich K. says:

        Better correct that to “any VIOLENT crime committed with a firearm gains an automatic life sentence”, or some such thing. Problem is, you see, states like New York or New Jersey could put people away for life just for having hollow-point ammo (in New Jersey), or violating New York’s SAFE act (which only affects those who are sheeple enough to go along with it), etc. In other words, otherwise law-abiding people who think that the gun-nazis and their ineffective-against-real-criminals legislation are full of s**t could be put away for life under your suggestion.

        I’d rather see laws that protect ordinary citizens from civil prosecution (and even criminal prosecution) if they shoot a criminal. Make life so much more hazardous for criminals that they stick to shoplifting rather than risk getting shot wile breaking-and-entering, carjacking, etc., and pass laws that hopefully will insure that a large number of people in an area, at any given time, will be armed and ready for trouble. “An armed society, is a polite society”.

        1. avatar Darre F says:

          Just a bit of clarification on NJ’s intentionally confusing law. You are able to own and use hollow point ammo. You are not however, allowed to carry with it (Like anyone gets to carry anyway), and if you use it in a crime, it becomes an add-on charge, just like using a weapon for an illegal purpose.

        2. avatar Scott C. says:

          Rich K:

          As I said to Cliff H, I can half way see the argument to change that to any “violent crime”. However in your argument of non-2a friendly states such as N.Y. with the “SAFE Act” or N.J. with the ammo confusion, those are state issues, not the federal level. If New Yorkers or New Jerseyites ( I guess that’s what they’re called) “sheeple” as you call them took a page out of Colorado’s book and got rid of the Bloomberg type of politicians, you could regain the freedom in those states (I don’t know if you’re from one of those states, if so I feel bad for you). I am simply and strictly referring to federal level actions I would like to see accomplished. If there is a problem with a particular state, the citizens of those states have 2 options as I see it: 1) fight to change it or 2) move out. I have noticed for the last few years that citizens and corporations are leaving these states that regularly infringe upon their freedoms, As to your second paragraph, I agree whole heartily with your sentiments.

      2. avatar Scott C. says:

        Cliff H:
        To point 1:) I can half way see a change to any “violent crime” however… I have been handling various weapons (firearms, knives, pepper spray, etc.) for 16 plus years and, knock on wood, never had an accidental discharge, cut my self or any other injury by simply following all the safety rules my dad laid down and the Marine Corps drilled into me. Personal responsibility (novel idea, I know) heavily comes into play for every citizen. As far as the George Zimmerman (personally I think it was justified, all be it badly handled )or any act of self defense, is not a crime.

        To point 2:) If a criminal comes in and points a weapon in your face, by all rights defend yourself with any and all means at your disposal, You say certain criminals will just start murdering witnesses, actually pulling that trigger is a much harder act than many suspect. For the ones that do commit murder instead of robbery, that’s what the death penalty is for. IMO

  12. avatar Rich K. says:

    Let’s see…

    1) Passage of the “Hearing Protection Act”. Hopefully followed by de-regulation of SBR’s and SBS (I don’t hold out much hope for full autos, though… 🙁 )

    2) Elimination of the Bureau for the Absolute Termination of Freedom (and prosecutions for “Fast and Furious”)

    3) National CCW reciprocity (hopefully – but not likely – followed by national Constitutional carry)

    4) a Supreme Court that strikes down all gun control laws, especially New York’s SAFE act, NYC’s Sullivan Law, all “assault weapon” and standard capacity mag bans, New Jerkzey’s “smart gun” mandate, California’s new ammo background check law, “melt temperature laws”, etc.

    5) Lower prices on ammo, now that nobody has a legitimate reason to “panic buy” and clear store shelves

    6) Allowing importation of all C&R guns (removing OBozo’s executive order banning the re-importation of Korean War M1’s)

    7) removal of restrictions on the importation of Chinese firearms

    8) elimination of “gun free zones”, which only create “target rich environments” for disaffected losers and terrorists

    Have I missed anything?

  13. avatar Anon in CT says:

    Restock the CMP with the guns in Korea?

    1. avatar General Zod says:

      …and all the surplus GI 1911s.

      1. avatar Jeremy in AL says:

        And M9s

  14. avatar aircooled says:

    It starts with strict Constitutionalist SCOTUS Judges.
    After that, it’s just repeal, repeal, repeal. No need for new laws, just repeal.

  15. avatar Mikebandw186 says:

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    I want all of it. No bans on firearms or accessories. No ban on carry. No background checks. No ban on imports or ammo. No state level preemption of constitutionally protected rights.

    How can this be accomplished? A number of ways, from legislation to Supreme Court decisions to constitutional amendments. However it can be accomplished, I want to defend my rights for the rest of my life and protect those rights for future generations.

    1. avatar Ed says:

      ^^THIS^^
      The way it’s SUPPOSED to be!

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      Please consider this reply as a virtual “like” for your comment. Well said.

    3. avatar Mike B in WI says:

      YES! Just. Follow. The. Constitution.

  16. avatar Jafo says:

    I personally want Saigas back, so Krebs can whip me up an AC-15 Mod 2 Full Rail.

    But of course the bigger picture should be doing everything possible to ensure our 2A rights are protected in perpetuity, and anything we can do to save our friends stuck behind enemy lines too.

  17. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    I want my gun rights back. By leaving California I got many of them back. Now I want it, all back.
    1. Silencers, because making guns quieter takes away a major complaint from the freedom haters. And this will make it easier for more ranges to be built.

    2. I want be able to sue and collect damages from any person or government that violates my gun civil rights. That will be the most powerful deterrent to future enemies. Even after Trump leaves office.

    3. National reciprocity with teeth. You violate my rights coming to Hawaii, California, NW Jersey or NY State, etc, then the government automatically pays damages to the gun owner.

    4. End gun free zones in public housing and all government land and offices. Court buildings and police stations ok.

    5. Everything else is gravy.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      In court buildings and police stations, where there are ALWAYS armed bailiffs and officers, what is the point of a Gun Free Zone? Not many people would be stupid enough to start armed trouble under those conditions, fewer would survive the attempt.

      One thing I might be willing to compromise on – no concealed carry in the courthouses or police stations. Metal detectors at the door to ensure that if you are carrying it is openly visible. And if you want to carry a long gun you should have an armed escort two steps behind you for your entire stay.

      1. avatar Chris T from KY says:

        I’m willing to give them police stations and court buildings for security reasons. But if you want to walk aound those locations on the side walk open carrying I have no problems with that.
        As far as dumb people walking into a court house with guns, I suggest you goggle some of the day light gun store robberies and the gun fights that ensued!!!
        There are plenty of dumb criminals walking around with guns.
        But you are a special kind of stupid criminal going armed into a police station or trying a stick up in a gun store.

        1. avatar Rich K. says:

          I HAVE heard of armed idiots going into a cop shop, but situations like that often turn out to be “suicide by cop”, done because they lack the balls to do the deed themselves.

  18. avatar Carl says:

    As much as I would love to see national reciprocity, it seems dead on arrival in the senate, unless they pick up 8 blue votes. Sadly I will just have to keep carrying under civil disobedience.

    1. avatar Chris says:

      National Reciprocity has a chance if they institute the changes to BG checks for purchases that Manchin and Toomey pushed and you had to opt in to the highest standard of a BG check which is passing and NICS and and FBI BG check and exhibit some kind of training at a minimal level (existing CWP, NRA Pistol class, etc). Some states will already qualify that have those requirements built in to their CWP certification, other people will need to do other actions to get it. I just don’t see even 50 Senators voting for a blanket reciprocity without checking the boxes of training and BG checks.

      What this should do hopefully is strip the proven need that some states require, and all CWP should be shall issue, not may issue.

    2. avatar larrylarry says:

      I don’t see how national reciprocity would even happen without major changes to the gun laws in certain states or a supreme court level striking down of bans on magazine capacity, ammo types, approved gun lists etc. It can be complicated enough for residents to parse the gun laws in their own state. I’d hate to get a felony for having one round too many, or for not storing my gun in a locked box towed behind my vehicle and the ammo stored in individual plastic baggies with the words “dangerous” on them.

  19. avatar Bob h says:

    All of the above in regards to the restoration of our liberty. The bad news: the only bills that are ” done deals” are the items that can be passed with a simple majority like tax cuts and repeal of Obamacare. Other items will require 60 votes for cloture.
    The good news: in 2 years time, 35 senators are up for re-election. 25 are democrats and 10 are in states Trump won, so possibly some dems join the republicans to save their bacon, but most likely the Dems goose step in gridlock off the proverbial cliff and we have to wait till 2018 for things like the HPA, national reciprocity and NFA reform.

    1. avatar TexTed says:

      It seems like there should be potential for R gains in 2018, but historically the party of the President loses seats in midterm elections, so there’s no guarantee.

      Of course, with Trump, things like “usual” and “historical” don’t always apply, so maybe this will be the presidential term that breaks that trend.

      1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

        Look at the math/seats up. 13 seats in the Senate are up for re election in states Trump took…

  20. avatar Dale from Kansas says:

    Repeal the GFSZ Act. How hard could that be? Any moron should be able to see it’s worthless.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Feinstein and Pelosi can’t see that it’s worthless. Perhaps you are giving morons too much credit.

  21. avatar Aven says:

    My wish list is simple. Being in Virginia, just leave me and my guns alone and don’t rock the boat.

    1. avatar Rick says:

      Or all your guns will fall into the bottom of the lake.

  22. avatar kevin says:

    Supreme court ruling California gun laws as unconstitutional (probably not going to happen, but we can hope)

  23. avatar Wiregrass says:

    It would be nice to drive across Maryland without having to unload and lock up my carry gun. And access to affordable, quality .22lr. I’d also like to see Bloomberg find some other cause on which to piss his money away.

    1. avatar Big E says:

      I’d like to see Bloomberg get an inoperable bowel obstruction and die in excruciating pain.

  24. avatar Julius Corrino says:

    Two or even more good new SCOTUS justices appointed (Diane Sykes from the 7th Circuit of Appeals or Thomas Lee from the Utah Supreme Court come to mind).

    Then the whole semiauto & magazine capacity thing needs to be brought before SCOTUS again. Which will take time. Ideally, litigation in e.g. an Illinois state court should start today or already have begun.

    On December 7th, the High Court denied certiorari in Friedman v. City of Highland Park. The plaintiff challenged the community of Highland Park’s ban of certain semiautomatic (“assault”) rifles and magazines in excess of ten rounds of capacity. The brief filed was very well-written. Justice Thomas wrote a dissent with regard to the court denying certiorari in this case with the late justice Scalia joining him therein.

    I find it a bit worrying that there were (in the worst case) only two sitting Justices willing to take this on. The lower courts relied on a blatant, intentional misreading of the Heller decision in order to make their upholding those two bans sound justified, after all.

    Maybe there will present itself another chance to bring this issue before a 2A-friendly SCOTUS. Maybe some bright plaintiff is going to design his case during the course of his lower court race in such a way that the outcome is a clear circuit split (not even necessarily on a 2A issue). In which case The Nine would have to act.

    1. avatar Julius Corrino says:

      Erratum: It should be “On December 17, 2015”, of course. Friedman v. City of Highland Park went down the drain in 2015.

    2. avatar TFred says:

      According to Wikipedia it takes four justices to grant certiorari.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari

    3. avatar LKB says:

      The reason they did not get 4 votes to grant cert in Friedman is simple: nobody could be sure how Kennedy would vote. The libs didn’t want to risk a reversal (which would have expanded Heller), and the conservatives didn’t want to risk him being the deciding vote and undermining / weakening Heller. The Scalia/Thomas dissent was probably only after they were sure Alito or Roberts would not vote to grant cert.

      With Sykes or a similar replacement for Scalia, the same dynamic will be in play (4-4-Kennedy). Ergo, unless and until Kennedy, Ginsberg, or Breyer leave the court (and none of them are likely to do so voluntarily), I don’t expect anything out of the Supremes on major 2A stuff.

      1. avatar CarlosT says:

        Ginsburg is 83, Kennedy is 80, and Breyer is 78. It’s not exactly inconceivable that one of them will no longer be on the bench before the end of the next Presidential election. It’s not a stretch to think that one of them might need to be replaced before the 2018 election.

        If one of those three is replaced with a solid pro-gun justice, then Second Amendment cases at the Supreme Court level are a whole different ball game.

        1. avatar LKB says:

          Correct, but none of them are going to want to let President Trump appoint their successor, especially given that it would likely usher in the end of the liberal court era that began in the 1960’s and has never really gone away (thanks for nothing, Blackmun, Stevens, and especially Souter).

          Ginsberg is in very poor health (only reason she didn’t resign before is probably that she thought Hillary had it in the bag and wanted her to appoint her successor), but I suspect she’s now left instructions for her clerks to prop her up a-la El Cid if anything happens. Still, even Thurgood Marshall had to quit for health reasons, even though it galled him that Ronaldus Magnus would appoint his replacement.

  25. avatar Phil LA says:

    Scotus! Everything else is secondary!

    1. avatar TexTed says:

      You are correct. Everything starts and ends with the SCOTUS. There’s no point in passing something that the court will just overturn, so — an originalist, freedom-friendly court is the underpinning of everything else.

  26. avatar Bob Watson says:

    The most anti 2nd amendment creature to ever defile the office of the presidency is gone, gone, gone after eight long years. It has been replaced with a man who has a concealed carry permit. A man whose sons are shooters and hunters. A man who made lots of promises during his campaign, some specific, some vague, to restore our 2nd amendment rights.

    I hope to see a solid 6-3 majority of originalists on the Supreme Court who will strike down unconstitutional state anti gun laws with great wrath and vengeance.
    I hope to see national reciprocity.
    I hope to see the House of Representatives remove the authority of the Washington DC city government to regulate any aspect of firearms ownership.
    I hope to see the Hearing Protection Act become law.
    I hope to see past anti gun presidential executive orders repealed with abandon.

    I want to see the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1968 gun control act repealed.
    I want to see the Department of Justice investigate and prosecute anti gun billionaires and their corrupt foundations.
    I want to see the Department of Justice investigate and prosecute former government officials who committed major felonies in their pursuit of anti 2nd amendment laws and policies.

    I cannot predict what, if anything, will happen. I do know we are about to find out.

  27. avatar roadrunner says:

    Supreme Court ruling that eliminates “may issue” in NJ.

    Supreme Court ruling that protects standard magazine size (they will take that away in NJ next year when Christie leaves office)

    That’s it, I’m easy

  28. avatar rt66paul says:

    I want the Supreme Court(after a good appointment or 2) to take a good look at the laws that NY and Ca have enacted to further limit law abiding citizens from owning and carrying firearms. I would like to see a law that allows the people the rights to any arm, training or vehicle that is used in normal law enforcement. I understand the SWAT may need flash bangs and breeching tanks, but I feel that I should be able to have and carry any duty weapon, non lethal weapons, training(martial arts), high cap mags and should be able to buy a vehicle equipted with the same power package.
    Giving LE this much above the public is militarization, pure and simple.
    The taxes and special costs everytime I buy a gun need to stop, I paid it once, I qualified, why should I have to pay again?
    I also call upon congress to disband any federal police force, except the FBI, that has power over the people who are not military. The ATF should be first. The FBI should be limited to interstate commerce, any federal program investigation and to act with local LE to catch “teflon felons”. The agencies created as a result of the “patriot act” should all be disbanded, and the “Patriot Act” itself declared null and void. It gives powers to the president and the federal government that overrun the constitution.
    We do not need “national police” inside of states, that is Gestapo tactics. The power to arrest citizens and rights to a speedy trial and reasonable bail are a cornerstone of our country.

  29. avatar Fred Frendly says:

    Put a 50% tariff on Tauruses, Caracals. Offer fed rebates on Glocks and IWI products.

    1. avatar Rich K. says:

      Why be elitist? Next thing, you’ll be wanting a 100% tax on Hi-Points and other affordable guns (at least by the sound of it – please correct me if that wasn’t your intended meaning…). I’d rather see the “sporting purposes” qualification put up by the Bureau for the Absolute Termination of Freedom struck down, allowing the importation of MORE inexpensive foreign guns. Hey, if someone wants to trust his life to a ROHM, more power to him, if that’s all he can afford…

  30. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Forget national reciprocity, how about national constitutional carry? Oh wait, we’ve already got that. It’s called the 2nd Amendment!

  31. avatar TFred says:

    One more big vote for repealing the GFSZA, which I’ve long considered one of the most heinous Federal laws on the books. This law makes federal felons out of hundreds of thousands of law-abiding citizens every day of the year, including off-duty police officers, who are not exempted. This law is virtually never prosecuted, and literally never prosecuted as a sole charge. It’s the “big hammer” that the government has to hold over the head of the law-abiding, even though they are afraid to use it, for fear it will be tossed out as unconstitutional.

    At a bare minimum, the law should be scaled back to only cover actual school property, rather than the 1,000 foot distance from any school property line.

  32. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

    Simple repeal of the NFA would suffice.

  33. avatar Dave Marland says:

    Originalist or as some call it textualist movement in the courts. And then leave me alone movement in the rest of government. As long as I’m in fantasy mode let it begin in Cook County Illinois.

  34. avatar GS650G says:

    A glut of cheap ammo on the market.

  35. avatar auldzalt says:

    I would like to see the ban on interstate pistol sales repealed.

  36. avatar tdiinva (now in wisconsin) says:

    Beyond the Hearing Protection Act and some executive orders I don’t see much action on guns. The Democrats will filibuster national carry reciprocity and unless the bill’s sponsors use some parliamentary tricks it will never come to a vote in the Senate. There are more important issues on President Trump’s table than firearms law.

  37. avatar emfourty gasmask says:

    $100 SKS

  38. avatar Jon in CO says:

    I would like to see a blanket rule across the entire country. If it’s legal in one state, it should be able to be legal in another. There’s no reason an imaginary line should preclude people from owning pieces of metal and plastic.

    1. avatar rt66paul says:

      A blanket rule means that the feds have control, that would make it worse if we got a gun grabbing POTUS later. Look at history, almost all politicans want control, so Republicans could be just as bad. What we need is a proper understanding of the BOR and some supreme court decisions that they do NOT get tweaked with new laws. Any potencial law that even approaches the rights specified would need to go under review, pass a 67% vote just to start the process. Changing laws and adding new ones just glut the courts and force them to choose which of 5 or more laws with which to charge someone. We also need to rescind all zero tolerance laws.
      All laws should come with suggested sentencing and an expiration date, but the whole process is so that the courts can be merciful and fair when circumstances show need.

      example: you are under a death threat from your ex spouse’s new lover. You go to try to get a carry permit and they are holding it up. So, you stash a gun in your car anyway, just to be safe. Say you get caught with the gun, or even worse, have to use it.
      You should have been given a CCW immeaditly, but the real world doesn’t work like that. Mandantory sentencing requires a long sentence – you are guilty, but special circumstances are not allowed to be used to give you less time or a suspended sentence.

      It has and will happen again and again. We need to get rid of zero tolerance laws.

      1. avatar marco says:

        Yes, but that existential threat (of gun grabbers putting blanket restrictions on us) already exists, and any tyrant will go for it anyway. Any authority, or ability/desire to get a change like that is already baked into our opponents. They will already use that against us no matter what.

        The only problem is that we’ve been acting like they won’t, or by restraining ourselves, we somehow are better off. We aren’t. They’ll always reach to dismantle federalism. The firewalls to stop that would have to fall for them to be able to do that, and they want to do that anyway. So there’s no reason for caution here, because it wouldn’t set a precedent any more dangerous than democrats have already pursued.

        I’d like to go back to small government goldwaterism, but that’s dead. There is no going back, only going forward. Even if we DID fight for it, the democrats, if they had the power, would just move to reverse it anyway. There’s literally nothing stopping them from their evil except structural barriers, so pretending like there’s precedential barriers we must leave in place is silly. This is the only way we stand a chance of fighting hard enough to restore freedom nationwide, and cause democratic strongholds to question their judgements.

        Democrats have their narrative. They will demographically outnumber us, and a trivial amount of interstate moving would absolutely destroy us. What answer do we have to reclaim the future? If we don’t have a strong answer that has the chance of bringing the fight back to the population centers, of importing millions of pro-freedom people (from where?) or some other strategy, this is merely a setback and not a true destruction of the democrats we can make it.

        1. This guy gets it.

  39. avatar pg2 says:

    Assuming at the very least he will not attack the 2nd Amendment and very likely will not promote/push for mandatory vaccinations as his opponent would certainly have done already makes for an optimistic outlook.

  40. avatar TheUnspoken says:

    Remove sporting purposes and listed assault weapon bans on imports, drop the US part minimums, armor piercing ammo rules, barrel import bans, imported suppressor restrictions, pistol points, minimum lengths and other “design” limitations. That would lead to all kinds of innovation. Current rules just end of with all kinds of silly work arounds, long guns imported as pistols, or imported sporterized and modified later, just a lot of pointless effort to get around the laws which have no effect on actual criminals.

    I am OK with ATF going away as long as not replaced with something worse, and if doing so doesn’t put my in-progress SBR and silencer stamps in limbo. I would hate for them to just fire all the examiners and have no defined process for completing or removing restrictions/refunding stamps.
    I’m other words we might need laws on nfa changes written before ATF just disappears.

  41. avatar Booyaa69 says:

    SC rules strict scrutiny for all 2A cases. The rest will follow.

  42. I hope the next gay night club some asshole tries to shoot up is met with an overwhelming counter fire.

    1. avatar Rich K. says:

      I’ll agree with you on that one. I personally have moral objections to homosexuality – but NOBODY deserves to be murdered.

      1. We are all human first. I believe in human rights. Use your secondary attributes as a political weapon and I say fuck that.

        1. avatar Rich K. says:

          Remember, though, that it works both ways. What about the Christian bakery owners who have been persecuted (prosecuted) for refusing to bake wedding cakes for gay couples, or the Christian-owned T-shirt shop that was sued for refusing to print t-shirts for a gay pride parade? Or the Christian event barn owners who were prosecuted for refusing to host a gay wedding reception? The homosexuals in NONE of those cases were harmed in any way (other than getting their feelings hurt), and could just as easily have taken their business elsewhere, but instead turned their “special protected status” into a political weapon to persecute people who did not agree with them, and caused more harm to the business owners than the business owners did to them (even completely driving them out of business).

          That isn’t the point, however. I stand by my previous post. NOBODY deserves to be murdered, and yes, although I morally object to homosexuality, I would love to see some murderous scum get his terminal comeuppance in a hail of lead (coming from the patrons BEFORE the police arrive) for trying to shoot up another gay bar…or mosque…or Jewish community center…or mall…or school.

        2. Don’t see where the baker was forcing anybody to conform. That wasn’t using secondary identity as a political weapon.
          Homosexuality is defined by action not appearance. Disagreeing with an action is not the same as bigotry.
          An airline charging an obese person for the second seat that they will be occupying is not the same as hating fat people.
          I don’t understand the mentality that conflicts should never occur and that there is always one wrong and one right party in every conflict. Agree to disagree and take your business elsewhere.
          There is good and evil and evil is my enemy. Do I have altercations with good people? Often, I do. But we have to recognize what will cause harm and ignore what doesn’t.
          Race is irrelevant. Sexual preference is irrelevant. Religion is irrelevant. Income is irrelevant. Do your actions threaten life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Those actions are all that is relevant.

  43. avatar David T says:

    An Article V Convention

    (to bolster states rights and deliver a killing blow to statism in our country)

    1. avatar tdiinva (now in Wisconsin} says:

      An Article V convention will be taken over by a Progressive-faux Libertarian alliance which will dismantle the Republic and institute pure democracy aka mob rule.

      1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

        WE have the numbers to stop them, and if not we send in the Marines.

      2. avatar David T says:

        They can propose whatever crazy amendments they want… and watch them fall short of ratification by 30+ state legislatures.

        George Soros is spending money to discourage such a convention from ever happening. That says it all.

        Creatures of the swamp (Washington DC) have the most to lose and are the quickest detractors. It is an avenue for change that inherently favors decentralized power.

  44. avatar ScholarCat says:

    Eliminate the ban of carrying firearms on Army Corps of Engineers controlled property.

  45. avatar Adam says:

    – pro-2nd amendment supreme court picks
    – national reciprocity
    – elimination of ‘assault weapons’ state bans

  46. avatar Anonymous says:

    Repeal of NFA?
    Repeal of hughes amendment?

    Was that too much?

  47. avatar stateisevil says:

    So NFA repeal ain’t happening, neither is repeal of GCA 68. Hughes amendment repeal I’d put at about 1%. Reciprocity I’d put at about 30%, HPA at about 50%. Pro gun Justices? Maybe at least one. More would have to resign or die.

  48. avatar Ralph says:

    Judges. Pro-Constitution, pro-gun, originalist judges at SCOTUS, the Circuit Courts and the District Courts. Flip the courts, especially the 9th Circus, and watch what happens.

  49. avatar Kendahl says:

    As President, Trump can do a great deal with executive orders. He can cancel wrongheaded ones that already exist and issue sensible new ones. An example of the first is the prohibition of firearms on federal property like post offices and Corps of Engineers property. An example of the second would be to require selected members of the armed forces to carry sidearms on duty. It would be nice to exempt them from state and local laws as well but I doubt that he could do that by executive order.

  50. avatar Mike says:

    Could the ATF change the minimum length of a rifle/shotgun barrel? They should at least be the same.
    Maybe make the minimum length 7 inches. I would assume a rule change like that would not need to go through congress.

  51. avatar Bob in Calif says:

    “But what do you hope to see Mr. Trump’s troops, the Republican-controlled Congress and the Supreme Court do in the next four years — realistically?”

    I’d like to see them do their jobs as “We the People” tell them to.

  52. avatar NorincoJay says:

    HPA is all I want for Christmas or Hanukkah. Anything else is just icing on the cake.

  53. avatar Roymond says:

    Courts.

    My wish: Congress increases the number of federal judges and courts, and all the new positions get radical supporters of all individual rights including the 2nd. And Trump nominates three justices to bring the court to eleven, since there’s nothing sacred about having nine.

    Second wish: we get the Constitution amended with a “presumption of liberty” amendment that says whichever law or interpretation of any law more supports or extends individual liberty triumphs — so if a state law more enhances the individual right to keep and bear arms, it trumps any federal law, but if a federal law more enhances it then it trumps state law.

  54. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    1. Two Justices in Thomas or Scalia mold.

    2. The same tilt for the rest of the federal judiciary.

    3. HPA

    4. The national reciprocity bill gets passed. It not only provides reciprocity, but also preempts state law allowing the licensed carrying and possession of any semi-auto handgun .50 cal and under with any capacity magazine with any ammo as long as the handgun and magazine(s) are concealed and the ammo is in the magazines.

    5. Broad executive action going 180 degrees from the Obama actions. (E.g., specifically stating that gun smiths don’t need to worry about ITAR if they aren’t exporting defense articles).

  55. avatar LKB says:

    A modest proposal: an executive order for another NFA amnesty period (which I believe the president has authority to order).
    This would have the practical effect of reopening the registry for a short period, w/o having to repeal the Hughes Amendment.

  56. avatar Nanashi says:

    Ginsberg dies and Breyer retires/dies. Trump replaces them letting the courts tear through all the bad state laws, NFA, GCA, LEOPA, UFA and everything else.

  57. avatar glenux says:

    1. I want amnesty and immediate release of all prisoners who are sitting in jails because they were prosecuted by Unconstitutional Firearms laws.

    2. Eliminate Military Bases as Gun-Free Zones, especially for Military personnel.

  58. avatar Buzz Word says:

    Make carry legal nationwide at 18. This is especially important for young women, to stop serial killers and rapists. National carry reciprocity should be enacted right away.. no need for the GOP to hold out on this because it should be a simple bill to write. Prohibit sex offenders and other heinous-crime offenders from residing within 5000 feet of a school or in family neighborhoods. Keep violent felons locked up for good: one strike and you’re out, no more nonsense, no more kooky leniency for the worst of the worst.

    1. avatar rt66paul says:

      Who determines what sexoffenders and other heinous crimes mandate a life sentence?
      1. in the first place, people change as they mature, they may not have that sex drive anymore.
      2. If there is one thing we have learned from DNA evidence, is that many people are wrongly convicted, so we have to be sure they actually did do it.
      3. If there is no carrot, the prisoners will revert to savages – not all of them do so. 5000 ft is a long way in any city of town in the US. These laws have been turned around. There are many sex offenders that were convicted in thier late teens or early 20s and thier crime was having an underage girlfriend. I am not talking about a 13-14 yo, but from 15 on, many girls are sexually active and sometimes 5-8 years ahead of some boys. They feel special to attract an older man(boy), they have been there before, when maybe the boy hasn’t.
      Even some very young girls are sexually active, they may have been “turned out” by a relative, and some act out in ways many do not understand. Once they have makeup on and are shown the ropes, they fool vice cops all the time.

      Locking some boy up that was immature to begin with does no good for society. First he will get turned as a homosexual in jail by the older ones and will come out damaged in the brain.

      Maybe we should execute anyone guilty of a felony? We could build camps, keep some to handle the dead, feed them little to keep them docile and then mass gas them and burn them…… Maybe we need secret police to do some of the dirty work.

      Sorry, we have a constitution and more laws than the whole world needs. We need to look at all our freedoms and be eternally vigilant so that they don’t get “modified”.

      The “presumption of liberty” term is one I have never heard, but I have always believed that way.

      If we gave all laws an expiration date and then congress had to assess every law to rewrite it and vote, this would get rid of old an unused laws and force them to be accurate. Yes, it would be a yuge task, we could start with the last laws made and work back.

      I feel the Roosevelt misused his powers in stacking the Supreme Court. We have enough justices there now, thier purpose has been used to set policy. If we add a couple of justices every president, how long before there are more in the Supreme Court than there are in Congressmen?
      I feel we should look back to what they did and how they operated before the Civil War tore our country apart. Maybe there should be another layer of courts before the Supreme Court. We shold be moving judges around in the circuit courts, that is what was done then. This way, we do not get one area of the country rubber stamping these “feel good” laws and thereby introducing new forms of government. Shuffle the justices so that they are forced to work together or quit.

    2. avatar Roymond says:

      I have a different idea: it’s time to build a moon base. Making a substantial one will require laborers. So send lifers there where they’ll never be a risk again.

      The stupid ones will weed themselves out; the smart ones will turn into useful members of a new society.

      1. avatar Rich K. says:

        You’ve been reading Heinlein, haven’t you? 😉

        1. avatar Roymond says:

          LOL

          Well, yes, but that was also my grandmother’s idea the moment it became obvious how easy it was to go to the moon and back, about the third moon landing — and she never read Heinlein. She joked we could name the first moon cities “Georgia” and “Australia”.

        2. avatar Rich K. says:

          I just got done reading “The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress” not too long ago.

          I was actually thinking, if you have people in prison for life without the possibility of parole, they should be the first human test subjects for new medical procedures, medicines, etc. Since they are currently a useless drag on taxpayers, and yet are getting “free” food, shelter, clothes, etc. (free in tat the cost doesn’t come out of the inmates’ pockets), we may as well make them not QUITE so useless. I know libs will whine about “cruel and unusual punishment” and “Dr. Mengele did that!”, but first off, these turds aren’t innocent Jews who were rounded up on the orders of a monomaniacal dictator with Nietzsche-esque delusions of a “master race”; they are criminals who have done things that are so horrible that they can no longer be allowed out in society, most often in states that have too pussified of a justice system to execute them. So, if you’re going to keep these worthless scumbags around, make them useful – whether they (or the bleeding-hearts) like it or not.

        3. avatar Roymond says:

          My problem with that is that we in the U.S. have an unconscionably high rate of conviction of the wrong people. We have forgotten that it is better to let 100 guilty walk free rather than one innocent be punished.

          Of course we have also forgotten that such a principle was acceptable because there was a fair chance of those guilty getting eliminated by the one agency with the moral authority to do so, namely their intended victims.

          At any rate, given that ANY innocent people get sent to prison (I know two, both framed), using convicts for anything but ‘honest’ labor is immoral.

          And since we don’t have a moon colony, let them build a wall.

  59. avatar rt66paul says:

    We really have to take a look at the mistakes that “political progress” has made over the years. We are a nation of laws, that even enforced when someone is caught, would increase the prison population by a factor of 10.
    The idea that any law made that affects the Bill of Rights should have a 67% majority in favor of looking into it before the bill even starts, would be great. Most of the laws made change things so someone can line thier pockets. We need to find the real motivations of the supporters and then review them.
    We need oversight on any new law – what did it replace? Was that law superceeded? We make laws to stop a hurtful practice, like the laws after the Great Depression, and then we lighten restrictions and it happens again. Some got rich on the backs of many who got wiped out.

  60. avatar Libertarian says:

    1.) Repeal Gun Free School Zone Act (this is absolutly mandatory before national recipricity can passed ore the nord korea freaks in states as new york city arrest you only for passing any school inside 1000 feet if they can)

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr34

    2.) Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act 2017 (if you count the may issue communistic states it make arround 81 millions a lot safer ) and for terretorials only guam is shall issue so another increase of 4,25 million

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38

    3.) Corps Lands must go the same way as stateparks (include in the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act)

    https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/national-concealed-carry-reciprocity-bill-introduced/

    4.) Suppressors Remove from nfa

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/367

    5.) Remove the Switchblade Federal “Ban” + Traveling Premption

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/84

    Thats the basics for 2017 and the bills exist

    Missed for the moment

    1.) Aow / SBR / SBS / no special group more only handgun and long arm on federal level / lowering the defination from 26/16-18 to 20/10 ore better only to 16 inches and all over is long arm on federal defination
    2.) Repeal the complete pointless Big Bore Destructive Device Part
    3.) Repeal 922r and Sportive Purchase Importation Restriction (NFA 68 Part)
    4.) Remove the Federal Felony Flat Ban (NFA 68 Part) >> State choose who can posse ore not
    5.) Re Open the Full Auto Register (NFA 86 Part ) and make Tripel Burst free / state choose
    6.) Forbid State”s “Assault Weapon Ban” on Federal Level together white Registering

    There a lot more off places on federal level to remove as only corps land

    1.) Aimtracks / Greyhound Bus
    2.) Post Office (include Buildings)
    3.) Statepark Buildings
    4.)Red Rock National Conservation Area
    5.) Wallace Forest in Idaho
    6.) San Pedro Riparian area in Arizona
    7.) Airplane Carry / private airplanes choose

    And allow removing serial numbes from firearms it s your property right !!

    best regard

  61. avatar Sky says:

    i just want prices on everything to go down and the HPA to pass

  62. avatar rt66paul says:

    If we allow the feds to make 50 state restrictions(a CCW is a restriction over the 2nd amendment), even if it forces some states to capitulate, the precedent would allow the feds to keep certain guns and place even more restrictions. It is bad enough that in most states, you have to have a permit to carry(open or concealed), but there are some that do not require anything – which is how it should be. Instead of making laws, we should be working at breaking state laws that interfere with our rights.
    The hearing act is a great start, but Ca still bans supressors and threaded barrels. The facts that we have a law that will force us to get a check before we buy ammo, we have a law forcing a special registration and making a class off rifles that olny you can have(the part that makes it a rifle has to be turned in at death to be destroyed), should not be allowed in the US. The rifles are legal for sale over the counter in many states and now they have a special designation and you can not take them from the state?
    Ca has gone too far. The feds need to set the rules for any restrictions the states can make, rules that limit state laws, not more laws at the fed level.

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      The Feds wouldn’t be making fifty state restrictions, they’d just be (constitutionally) requiring the states to honor the nonsense the others have enacted, just as with marriage licenses.

      Indeed that would actually be the best way to word it, citing the full faith and credit clause, stating that it has to apply to the expression of all individual rights, and therefore….

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email