President Trump Signs Reversal of Obama’s Social Security Gun Ban

Thirty nine days into his presidency Donald Trump is finally making some moves in favor of the Second Amendment rights of Americans, but not quite as stridently as gun owners would have liked. While Trump has been slinging executive orders left and right on immigration and other topics gun control repeal hasn’t been a top priority. Yesterday he made the first pro-gun move signing into law a repeal of the Obama era ban on firearms for some social security recipients.

The rule in question added social security recipients to the “prohibited persons” list in the FBI run NICS system used for background checks for firearms if they also indicated that they were incapable of managing their finances. There was no investigation into any of these cases, they were simply added to the list when they met the criteria.

Folks like the NRA and ACLU took issue with the rule for a number of reasons. First and foremost it was restricting a Constitutionally protected right (to keep and bear arms) without due process. For other mental health related NICS denials there’s usually a judge involved at some point but this was pure bureaucracy in work. Second was that it unfairly slandered those with mental health issues as “dangerous” which is incorrect, and forcing them to lose their Second Amendment rights would keep them from seeking help.

Trump didn’t reverse this Obama executive order with an executive order of his own, instead Congress passed a resolution which he signed into law yesterday.

With President Trump busy focusing on immigration and healthcare it’s possible that he might run out of political capital before he enacts some of the pro-gun changes we’ve all been clamoring to see in this administration. When something as simple and (relatively) non controversial as repealing the Social Security gun ban takes an act of congress to prompt Trump to act we might not be able to rely on executive action alone to bring about the changes we want.

comments

  1. avatar former water walker says:

    As an old guy who gets SS I approve!!!

    1. avatar Doktor says:

      Well at last night least trump mentioned Remington…typewriters.

      Ouch.

  2. avatar Buzz Word says:

    GOP Congress, get moving! Repeal the NFA, enact national carry reciprocity, allow carry in public buildings, repeal the Federal Gun-Free School Zone Act,…

    Go to work!

    1. avatar John Doa says:

      Guns won’t matter to people who don’t have jobs. Daddy wants some new toys so lets get those H1Bs out of here and stop the outsourcing.

  3. avatar pwrserge says:

    To be 100% fair, correct me if I’m wrong but one of the reasons we hated Obama was his tendency to rule by decree, right? I have a feeling that Trump will sign any pro-2A bill that makes it to his desk. Quite frankly, he’s catching enough flack from what should have been non-controversial executive orders as it is.

    What we saw in his speech yesterday was him throwing down the gauntlet to Demokkkrats to put their money where their mouths are. Everything he proposed was well within either existing law or within the enumerated powers of the federal government. If, by the time of his first State of the Union address none of his points make it through, he has a solid leg to stand on spending the 2018 campaign season destroying the DNC for acting against the clear will and interests of the American people.

    Electing Trump was only one of the steps we needed to take to bring a real pro-2A agenda to the federal level. We also have to hold the congresscriters accountable so that they pass laws or repeals for Trump to sign.

    The entire “I want massive executive actions NOW” crowd is playing the same game of checkers that the DNC has been for the past two decades. It’s why they got more or less nothing on the topic at the federal level since 1994. What Trump is doing is playing 3D chess. He’s positioning himself as a populist to give the GOP the political horsepower they need to crush the DNC agenda for a generation.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      If … none of his points make it through, he has a solid leg to stand on … [to destroy] the DNC for acting against the clear will and interests of the American people.

      The same idea occurred to me.

      I am starting to believe that the Democrat Party is now on a rapid decline to irrelevance at the federal level. I understand that they would not support every goal that Trump laid out and I have no problem with that. What signals their demise is how often Democrats refused to support goals that were obviously good for ALL people in our nation, simply because the Democrats had not stated that goal.

      Saying it another way, Democrats are so angry that they are quite happy to “bite their nose off to spite their face”. They are so angry with the voters and Trump that they are opposing everything which is not 10,000% aligned with their Party platform, no matter how good something might be for everyone. Their zeal to quite literally punish the voters will seal their status in Washington D.C.

      1. avatar Pwrserge says:

        That’s more or less what I’m seeing. Trump is smarter than the average bear. Right now, he’s focusing on massively popular initiatives to further separate the hard line DNC from the majority of American voters.

        A good example is his propposal for Obamacare repeal. The DNC will fight him tooth and nail on this even though he’s not going for the full repeal that the GOP has been touting for years. Instead, he’s taking an incrementalist approach and adding a few GOP goals to the mix. (The huge one is allowing insurance companies to operate across state lines.) Given the unmitigated disaster that Obamacare has become and with no Obama in office to finagle his way around the downsides of the law with indefinite deferrals, he’s going to turn the working class solidly against the DNC.

        Another good one is his VOICE proposal. It’s hard to argue against immigration laws when victims of criminal aliens are getting massive soap boxes to point out that the policies the DNC proposes hurt REAL people.

        The hilarious part is that the DNC has already doubled down on their election period stupidity. What Trump is doing is giving them enough rope to hang themselves and give the GOP massive advantages after the midterms. (The DNC always takes a beating in the midterms.)

        While I expect SOME action on 2A issues during his first two years, I expect far more of his time being used to set up the massive blitz he’s going to run after 2018.

        1. avatar Omer Baker says:

          The RNC is not going for the repeal they’ve been touting for years. And I personally don’t believe they will repeal the Affordable Care Act entirely, despite what they’ve said in the past. There’s too much money and control to give up.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Because an instant full repeal would be giving the DNC a present. What they plan, instead, is a gradual rollback while brining in much needed reforms to how insurance is sold in this country. (The fact that companies can’t operate across state lines is a big part of the problem.)

        3. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “Because an instant full repeal would be giving the DNC a present.”

          Yes, I can see that.

          If Trump were smart (and I believe he is), he’ll consider himself a one-term wonder and act acordingly.

          Meaning, make the second two years of his administration a ‘lame-duck’ one.

          This is important, because Oprah Winfry is making noise she may run in 2020.

          Right after the election Micheal Moore commented ‘”Why don’t we Democrats run someone beloved for President?”

          Well, guess what?

          “Oprah Realizes You Don’t Need Experience to Be President”

          https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2017-03-01/oprah-realizes-you-don-t-need-experience-to-be-president

          That is serious, powerful stuff. If Oprah runs, Oprah wins. Trump can run a perfect presidency and still be *destroyed* by Oprah in 4 years.

          …And I looked up Oprah’s position on gun rights. She wants defacto gun registration via ‘universal background checks”.

          Is there *anyone* in Progressive-Land more beloved than Oprah Winfry?

          We better get what we can this time around in court-packing, especially SCOTUS.

          I doubt we will have another Conservative president for a *long* time…

          Here’s a political laugh for you today:

          “Illegal Immigrant Speaks Out At Press Conference About Being Illegal, Then Is Promptly Detained By ICE”

          http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/01/illegal-immigrant-speaks-out-at-press-conference-about-being-illegal-then-is-promptly-detained-by-ice/

        4. avatar David says:

          I agree, is it not crazy? When Obamacare was first introduced, DNC and Republican Party were both against it. Obama was not liked very much and pushed his beliefs and wants. Trump has a plan for the people and it really is enforcing laws that are already written and in act. Trump is for protecting our boarders as all other countries do. Try crossing into other countries illegally and you may get shot. Just saying, Obama was disliked as is Trump, I feel Trump is better for America then Obama was. In supporting the rights of all American citizens.

    2. avatar Dave Marland says:

      This!

    3. avatar YAR0892 says:

      It seems to me the trick at this point is getting Congress to put stuff on the man’s desk!

      1. avatar Mmmtacos says:

        It’s better if we go that route. Legislation is not so easily overturned (how about that healthcare folks, amirite?), whereas an EO, as we have seen President Trump do, can be thrown out with the flick of a pen on the whim of one man (the most powerful man in the free world, but still).

    4. avatar strych9 says:

      This is pretty much how I felt about last night”s speech as well.

      I know that most Americans aren’t political junkies and didn’t watch but the Democrats looked bad last night. The Democrats expected Trump to show up and give some sort of childish Twitter rant type of speech and that’s what they prepared for.

      Instead Trump showed up and gave a very Presidential speech that was likable and covered policy well without going too far into wonkishness. The Democrats weren’t prepared, booed and hissed and made themselves look bad. Some of them refused to clap for things they agree with and instead sat and quite literally chewed gum.

      At the end Nancy Pelosi looked like someone kicked her in the gut. That rebuttle speech by the former governor of Kentucky, who lost to a Republican BTW, fell completely flat because it was written to rebutt what the Dem’s expected instead of what they got..

      I won’t say that Trump completely outmaneuvered the Democrats because part of it was their own doing due to outright arrogance but they didn’t look good last night.

    5. avatar Leonard Stein says:

      Yes Indeed. Let Trumo carry out his agenda with as little pollution as possible. Let us get America back for True Americans

  4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Trump didn’t reverse this Obama executive order with an executive order of his own, instead Congress passed a resolution which he signed into law yesterday.

    Which verbage in the U.S. Constitution describes how Congress passes “resolutions” which become laws? Last I checked, someone in Congress has to propose a bill which only becomes law after the House, Senate, and President sign-off. Is a “resolution” simply another word for a “bill”?

    1. avatar B says:

      “A joint resolution, H.J. Res. or S.J. Res., is a legislative proposal that requires the approval of both Chambers and the signature of the President, just as a bill does, in order to have the force of law.”

      “There is little practical difference between a bill and a joint resolution. Both are subject to the same procedure, except for a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution.”

      Sounds like its a “this is officially a thing now” thing. This one shoots down future EO abuses. Wish it had addressed the VA adding vets to the list for the same reason…

  5. avatar Cliff H says:

    On the other hand, an Act of Congress is a law. An Executive Order can be reversed by the stroke of the next president’s pen.

  6. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

    Nick, did you consider that having Congress pass a law about it is actually better than an Executive Order? A law means that the next Obama can’t just write an order; he’ll have to get Congress to pass a law, which is not a guaranteed slam dunk by any means.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      The reason for Osama’s EO was that Congress refused to even consider the bill he wanted passed. Now the EO is not a player anymore, this attack is OVER!

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      Seeing as congress *loves* symbolic measures with no practical meaning, wouldn’t it be easier for Trump to spearhead the adjustment of some gun laws via EO, then have congress follow up with a measure that is more binding on future administrations, but doesn’t actually change the status quo that day?

      Not to mention, that as Trump is showing every day he fails to repeal Obama’s orders, EO’s are a lot more durable than we are giving them credit for, because the Deep State has been allowed to become so powerful it rivals congress itself.

  7. avatar Sarge605 says:

    A step in the right direction!

  8. avatar J says:

    Liberals now have one less tool to attack the 2A with.

  9. avatar 2aguy says:

    I wanted to put this out there so people can pound the anti gun democrats……last night at the speech the brain dead democrat women wore white as signal of protest and resistance against Trump……they do not realize that the last time democrats wore white to protest republicans was when they wore white sheets as members of the klan, the terrorist arm of the democrat party…..spread the word on this…this major flub by the democrats can’t go unnoticed…
    http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/politics/democratic-women-wear-white-donald-trump-speech/

    1. avatar Walter, NOT The Dude says:

      ^ T H I S…
      “In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government, Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power. The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1865.”—
      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/grant-kkk/

    2. avatar YAR0892 says:

      Respectfully, if you think that historic fact was lost on them, I think you’re sorely mistaken. They knew exactly what they were doing and the historic significance of it.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I have not heard them announce that to their black constituency.

  10. avatar Mr. Woodcock says:

    So why not nullify 41F there Mr. President? You know….while we wait for the HPA to pass. Pretty please?

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Because 41F was a net GOOD THING. It took CLEOs out of the NFA loop completely and opened the NFA market up to many jurisdictions that had a de-facto ban. There are now millions of people who can purchase NFA items who were previously not able to.

      1. avatar Mr. Woodcock says:

        Yeah, but it completely hosed trust owners due to the responsible person bullshit. I don’t want to make all my trustees jump through hoops so I can play with NFA toys. I’m happy for the CLEO piece being cut out but 41F is part of a larger shit sandwich that needs to go away. Thank goodness I got all my NFA needs met before this crap went into effect.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          The way I see it, a trust is only really needed to get by the CLEO bullshit in the first place. I’m not about to let someone walk around with my $3000 SBR on loan anyway.

      2. avatar barnbwt says:

        You know, there is nothing stopping Trump from striking the CLEO signature while allowing trusts to operate (correctly) as they have up to 41F. Well, not except for Trump, anyway.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Nothing other than him having far bigger fish to fry.

        2. avatar barnbwt says:

          Yup; unlike gun rights in general, NFA truly is a niche issue. Trump seems to be ignoring both thus far.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          I hate to break this to you, but “gun rights” are a fairly niche issue as well. Not to us, but to the electorate at large.

        4. avatar barnbwt says:

          Do explain the outsize influence of the NRA, as well as the actual magnitude of the organization. All the smaller but still significant orgs as well. Explain why the most viewed/popular bills on congressional monitoring websites are consistently gun related. Explain why there is a veritable industry of astro-turf continually dedicated to opposing us that dwarfs abortion and many other efforts. And is enforced more randomly throughout the country than pot and illegal immigration combined.

          The issue touches tens of millions of Americans every day; the scope of gun laws is at least as big as illegal immigration, as far as the number of people living in fear of the law every day. The only difference is they are actually from here & supposed to be here, and actually trying to obey the law as opposed to break it for the most part.

          But yeah, total niche issue that no one outside the many, many, many highly popular gun websites, forums, blogs, media outlets, enormous lobbying/activism groups, and youtube channels cares about.

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      Or at least modify it so fingerprints are not required, which was the real purpose of 41F in the first place, to add expense, time, and the inability to e-file to end-users doing NFA paperwork. Not like you get prints taken for a 4473 or anything, so there is no justification for them to be needed for a trust (assuming the feds even have the authority to demand such personal information from a trusts’ members in the first place)

  11. avatar Robert T Foy says:

    I think though this action may not be permanent, but its got to be better than just a new (BS) executive order. These thing should not be used as a hammer of revenge on the last guys; yet it would appear as though it is what has taken place over the last 8 years and on. Executive orders ought be for national emergency though not abusive like the “NDAA” making the president basically a King. More self serving “Government (BS)”. I fear we shall see future President to come spending their first term just dishing out revenge.
    Hopefully the President will be Like RR, his focus was strictly on getting America strong again and proud in spirits. He was not distracted by other matters though important they may be. His focus was America and the American people. He brought down the wall separating Americans like a heavy fog still lingering from Viet-Nam. I hated the shit I heard from the adults around me in the 60 and 70. Having a President like RR after RMN, JF, JC, was like having a Messiah. It took one term of the left and their (BS) “political correctness” for them to !@#$ it all right back up.
    These rioting belligerent loud monkeys (BLM) will be the generation in high office one day. Hopefully President Trump will focus the way RR was able to do. I see the same love for America In President Trump that I saw In RR when he told Russia to pull down the Berlin Wall. So one told a falling dictatorship to free a captive people; “Bravo”. Now we in the time at hand have a President willing to Put up a wall to Stop an invasion on our southern border and secure our National interest. Our southern border has been on fire for 8 years. I am happy our President see’s the imperative need to put this fire out!!!
    I believe he knows the only reason it is not worse than it is now in America; is because of the private citizen gun owner. Hey I don’t know about anyone else, I’m still suffering from what the crooked banks did to the trades. Sorry to bust any bubbles but the housing will be decades recovering. Gun or no Gun I need an income just like everyone else. I think jobs are probable the priority of national security. A strong economy is critical for a stron nation.

  12. avatar K Maiden says:

    Only the first step (I hope and pray).
    I wonder about that “due process” thing. Here in Kalifornia, those words have little meaning. Because we WILL bow down to the overseers. Only because they know whats best for their serfs/cash cows.

  13. avatar Tim says:

    My schadenboner remains alive & well.

  14. avatar Jacob Bremer says:

    Ah yes..Trump is SOOOOO strategic and smart that he must be playing some crazy political chess to get us back some of our gun rights. He cares so much about them that he wants to ensure they are done through congressional laws and not EOs.

    Please…that’s just the latest excuse for a guy who really doesn’t care about the 2nd Amendment or the People of the Gun since he got our votes. Funny how the above logic doesn’t apply to the slew of EO’s Trump has signed. If he doesn’t want to rely on EOs for anything why did he sign those?

    Trump didn’t push this Soc Sec law…..it was a no brainer put forth by Republicans before he was even sworn in. It’s pure political theater(hell, even the ACLU was for it!).

    EOs aren’t all Tyrannical Fiat. The Congress and the Law give the executive branch wide ranging powers. The Congress usually writes vague laws and then tells the exec branch to come up with regulations, etc to implement them. Many EOs and directives from the President do such things.

    So……Trump could have been doing many things along those lines that don’t need any law or rewrite of laws to do. As Commander in Chief no law is needed to allow guns on Military bases. No law is needed to allow guns on Army Corps land. No law is needed for the AG to loosen the “sporting purpose” clause. No law is needed to allow the Korean Garands to be imported. Trump could easily do all these things right now and then…if he is REALLY worried about someone coming later and putting them back in place he can ask for legislation to remove Exec discretion in such specific matters. But I highly doubt Trump is really working with the NRA right now or Congress to draft any such laws if he isn’t even bothering with simple EOs…or talking about gun rights at CPAC or the speech last night.

    All the talk after the election of massive action on the gun rights front was just that…talk. The best we are most likely going to get is just the status quo. We aren’t going to be seeing cheap imported AKs again or 1k Russian 7.62×39 for $89. Still better than Hillary yes….but the Dems will come back someday and when they do they aren’t going to be shy about making Guns a top priority in their first 100 days.

    1. avatar Scott Davis says:

      Completely agree. While I agree with the EOs — they are just as permanent as Obama’s. I’m less then impressed with the focus on 2A legislation by either Trump or the Congress. After last night, my hopes aren’t very high. I’d love to be wrong, but I’m betting against and NFA improvements during this Congress. The D’s will move swiftly when they’re back in charge — to the negative.

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      Obvious progtard troll is obvious. The reality is that we’re done playing EO checkers. We’re working on destroying the Demokkkratic party as an institution. Priorities man, priorities.

      1. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

        Lots of wisdom in the comments above from you Serge.

        Folks who need instant gratification in their lives must be very frustrated by the political process in general.

        Patience, folks. Patience.

      2. avatar barnbwt says:

        “The reality is that we’re done playing EO checkers.”
        Huh, could’ve fooled me with all his EO action on issues he *actually* seems to care to spend his time on. As with the immigration ban, the executive is fully empowered to take care of a lot of the more obnoxious federal gun laws, yet we’re seeing less than nothing (he isn’t even undoing the steaming piles Obama left us on his way out the door)

        “We’re working on destroying the Demokkkratic party as an institution.”
        So that’s why you bet it all on black in the primaries, chasing after the longest long-shot in order to spite the big money movers who were supporting the anointed/sure thing candidates, in an election against one of the weakest opponents in history? I *distinctly* remember you, and a lot of early Trump sycophants like you going on about “burning it all down” during the primaries like a bunch of Bolshevik Sanders guys, and you weren’t talking about the DNC.

        Then somehow, against all odds, that long shot bet and all that hard work pay off, and suddenly you guys want to play it slow, play it safe? No, I’m not buying it. You just want to do whatever Trump wants to do, and that’s the end of it. Democrats accuse the opposition of all sorts of nasty things that they very predictably are guilty of themselves. Trump supporters have sounded a lot like liberal Democrats this whole election cycle in how they hypocritically demonize their opposition. So go ahead and call me a liberal shill, you liberal shill.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Actually, yes. The RINOS running were basically making the GOP unpalatable for the average American who doesn’t give a shit about the CotUS. What we needed was a populist to make some form of conservatism appealing to the general voters. FYI, we didn’t consider Trump a “long shot” we considered him the only way to win in the long run. Eight years of a president who does jack shit to appeal to the common voter would have left us in the exact same place in 2024 as we were in 2016.

  15. avatar Jason says:

    I assure you if the Dems won the WH and Congress, in the first 100 days we would have seen action on all fronts on 2A. Anti 2A Executive Orders, Bills, etc.

    I know Trump historically carries a gun (Yes only Elites in NYC can get carry permits) and his son is a big gun guy. Sure he talked 2A during the campaign. Lots of his talking points were aimed at specific groups or types of people to get their votes. Will he push for 2A and half the other things he talked about? I don’t know. He certainly has had the opportunity to say things about 2A. CPAC would have been a PERFECT opportunity. But crickets. Will it be crickets for the next 4 years? Probably not, but how hard is he going to push for 2A is the question?

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Yeah, and if the American Neo Nazi or Communist parties had won, we’d be rounding up and executing people by the millions. But they didn’t, because they didn’t have enough support to accomplish their goals, so we don’t have to base our actions around that. Likewise, the November ballot showed that Democrats are in a historically weak position with no signs of improvement, and while closer to victory than Nazis, they also have no real lock on dictating the majority’s policy. At best they can resist it.

      So quite worrying about what might have been, and using it as an excuse for not seizing the advantage so many Trump voters worked for. I didn’t vote for the man since I don’t buy what he’s selling, but many did, and I *assume* those that actually thought he could win wanted him & the other republicans to do something besides sit on their ass and “not Hillary” for two-four years.

  16. avatar sammyi says:

    I prefer that Trump not focus on gun rights right away.

    1. There are a lot more pressing issues important to a larger number of the population then gun rights, economy, health insurance etc.

    2. The more good stuff he does for a larger number of the pollution, the easier it will be do to accomplish gun rights

    1. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

      Agreed sammyi. I would include illegal immigration as well.

    2. avatar the ruester says:

      Our gun rights really have been pretty safe ever since sandy hook, haven’t they?

      1. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

        Ruestter, I’m just not a single issue guy. Some of you guys remind me of the anti-arbortion crowd, being that guns and abortion are the only issues respectively cared about. I care more about shutting down the Progessive machine. This is what Trump was elected for. Big picture first. All good things will happen from there.

        I’m wasting my time, aren’t I?

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          ” I care more about shutting down the Progessive machine.”

          That’s gonna be real tough if the Progs decide to rip up their playbook and not run an old white person in 2020 against Trump and go with someone that *everybody* likes, or at the very least, someone that *nobody* hates and is considered to be a ‘harmless’ choice.

          Like Oprah Winfry:

          “President Winfrey? Oprah says in the age of Trump that she could run for the White House despite being unqualified for the job”:

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4269856/Oprah-says-age-Trump-run-president.html

    3. avatar jwtaylor says:

      “There are a lot more pressing issues important to a larger number of the population then gun rights,”
      Tell that to Carol Bowne. Oh, you can’t, she’s dead. Waiting on a NJ gun permit.
      http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/06/10/no-one-helped-her-nj-woman-murdered-by-ex-while-waiting-for-gun-permit.html
      For Ms. Bowne, and Americans like her, gun rights, RIGHT NOW, are a matter of life and death. The economy, health care, immigration, none of that matters when you need to protect your life right now.

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        No kidding. I’m so tired of hearing this “gun rights are a tiny niche issue” horseshit from ostensible gun rights supporters. We all know damn well that;
        A) there’s a crapload of single-issue gun rights voters, same as for other special interests like abortion or what have you
        B) unlike abortion or gay bathrooms, gun rights issues directly impact *millions* of voters
        C) the gun market panics and NRA/etc membership & donations demonstrate very serious commitment to supporting figures & causes in pursuit of gun rights, to the extent they dwarf every other grass-roots effort besides perhaps the free-loading geezers of AARP (though with a substantial overlap)
        D) gun rights are legally compromised in an arbitrary/capricious/unequal manner more than any other civil liberty, rivaling the disparity seen by black Americans under Jim Crow at this point
        E) gun rights are advancing by leaps and bounds in the great majority of states (and the majority of population centers) under state-level legislation & jurisprudence
        F) a huge portion of the most obnoxious gun laws we endure are directly subject to executive discretion (sporting purposes, import bans, ammo classification, etc) and can be gutted or mooted with zero congressional input
        G) the remainder are directly subject to congressional action, most requiring a bare majority in the Senate as tax-bills that can evade filibuster

        But since, as always, gun owners are battered-wives with no place else to go at the federal level but the Republican party, the party will continue to make only the most minuscule of feints toward accomplishing our goals, as always, so that we will continue to be kept desperate enough to vote for them. Because desperation is consistent & durable, but loyalty is fickle –at least, that is how amoral political scumbags view things. Maybe once the Feinstein/Pelosi generation hags finally kick, we’ll see a generation of Democrats that try to steal some liberal gun owners though pandering and real competition between the two for gun rights will finally materialize & achieve some progress for us…but I’m not holding my breath, or seeing encouraging signs.

    4. avatar barnbwt says:

      You know, if Trump would act on some of the easy stuff, I’d be a hell of a lot more incline to believe he’s serious about tackling the hard stuff. So would the legislators he purports to lead. He’s not even tried to do anything for gun owners despite all his fanfare about a ‘gun rights strategy group’ or whatever it was, this despite ample obvious opportunity that requires no congressional/court cooperation.

      The notion of finite political capital is the dumbest thing Bush ever strategerized, particularly this notion that support derives from a successful election. If Trump is actually accomplishing goals, with or without congress, his support will intensify. If accomplishing these goals has positive effects, his support will explode. The Bush clan that dreamed up the political capital concept were, as we know now, never intending to accomplish anything but some profitable wars & fascist corporate ventures through government, so naturally they never expected to do anything that would *gain* them support between ballots. If Trump likewise talks a good game while sitting on his ass & complaining, and fails to accomplish anything of note by the next election…well, I sure hope he’s got a better line than “I’m not Hillary” to fool the gullible rubes with.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Do I have to explain the concept of “priorities” to you? The average American doesn’t give a shit about concealed carry reciprocity or the NFA. They do give a shit about importing muslim terrorists and illegal immigrants depressing their wages. What Trump is doing right now is called building momentum.

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          Actually, as state-level politics in the vast majority of Republican-led states show (you know, the ones that elected Trump), the majority of Republican voters *do* care about gun rights issues quite a bit. They are making real progress almost as rapidly as gay rights issues during their hey-day a decade ago; but unlike the DNC, the RNC isn’t trying to do jack-shit at the federal level in conjunction with the more local efforts. Well, that’s not fair, the HPA is fairly significant as far as a sea-change type measure showing that gun rights are a winning issue.

          Also, it’s worth remembering the NFA items like short barrels & silencers will be quite commonplace absent the intentionally prohibitive regulations. Considering that all gun owners will own a silencer within a year of the HPA passing, yeah, I find it somewhat significant Trump himself, or by proxy through his kid, isn’t seeking to get congress to wrap up their already-finished-and-gift-wrapped business on this issue for an easy win.

          Part of the Art of the Deal is grabbing low hanging fruit while you can & not chasing after ever higher butterflies. But that’s only if the Goal of the Deal is to actually accomplish something, as opposed to stringing along as many people for the longest time possible (fyi, that is exactly the goal of the real-estate finance Trump makes his money in)

      2. avatar strych9 says:

        The issue isn’t that gun rights in a “niche” issue or that gun owners are “battered wives”. That’s just impatience talking and it’s tiresome.

        The simple fact is that you have major issues and minor issues. Now, I rank civil rights, obviously to include the 2A, as a major issue but to most people in this country it’s secondary at best and usually tertiary. For some people who rank the 2A as a top priority destroying it is what they mean.

        Whenever you deal with this kind of thing in politics you select the issues that matter to the most people first and prioritize them. Jobs, terrorism, importation of unvetted people from shithole countries, illegal immigration and a host of other issues all garner more attention from the general public than any gun issue does.

        So a smart person goes after those things in a way that makes the most people happy the fastest. This has two effects. The first is that the largest number of people are made happy by the smallest amount of legislation or other government action which shows you can govern and builds a good faith with as many people as possible. Second, once those people are happy they stop paying attention to smaller things and go on about their lives.

        So the guy who cares deeply about the economy because he has two kids with STEM degrees that can’t find a job better than bagging groceries but is kinda against silencers being OTC doesn’t give a shit about silencers being sold OTC once his kids have jobs. Give him what he wants and he ceases to care that you’ve done something he kinda doesn’t approve of. Tackle those issues in the opposite direction and he gets fucking pissed and thinks “WTF? This guy was elected to fix the economy and instead of that he’s playing games with stupid peanut shit like national reciprocity and silencers”.

        No matter how you want to cut it every priority that we talk about here on TTAG is a minor issue to the majority of Americans. “Millions of gun owners…” give me a break, at least half of them are FUDDs like my mother in law who loves her shotguns but think handguns shouldn’t be legal in the first place, never mind carried wherever the hell you’d like.

        Further, according to congress.gov the average time it takes for a bill to become law is 263.57 days and 96.7% of bills die anyway. So even if we had a bill, say the HPA, and it was introduced on day 1 of Trump’s Presidency, and it makes it through Congress, we should still expect that, on average, it will take another 200+ days to make it to Trump’s desk. Look at the ACA as an example. That bit of tomfuckery was “fast tracked” and still took seven months. It was “created” in July 2009, passed the House on Nov. 7th, the Senate on December 24th, spent three months in reconciliation and didn’t get signed until March 23, 2010.

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          I am a bit impatient, this has been festering for nearly a century, after all. Mainly I’m impatient that there aren’t even more signs of *intent* of getting down to business on this. Our reps aren’t even limbering up for a future fight on this issue from what I’ve seen; that’s what the HPA was supposed to be, a simple/easy win to show the way for gun rights being a winning issue. Everyone else is stoked to push for it, with shocking unity as well as numbers. Now we learn it’s basically withering on the vine while McConnell/etc fart around pretending to do something about healthcare or immigration “one day.” Tell me again about priorities.

          Gun rights are an important issue to a large majority of Republicans, and a sizeable minority of Democrats. They are not an important issue to a majority of Democrats, though opposing them is. Why are we letting the majority of Democrats dictate our course of action given how weak their position is both at the state and federal level? Remember how many states are rapidly putting pro-gun legislation on the books, while the federal bodies fail to even make overtures toward the same.

          “Whenever you deal with this kind of thing in politics you select the issues that matter to the most people first and prioritize them. Jobs, terrorism, importation of unvetted people from shithole countries, illegal immigration and a host of other issues all garner more attention from the general public than any gun issue does.”
          None of which are going to be solved any time soon, and most of which are basically beyond the reach of the government to impact positively anyway. Much like the Obamacare repeal (and replace), these issues are excellent for worthless politicians to grandstand on while safely accomplishing nothing. A man moves a mountain by carrying small stones; not by shouting at the mountain in front of onlookers.

          “So a smart person goes after those things in a way that makes the most people happy the fastest.”
          And a con-man goes after things in the way that strings along the most people as possible for as long as possible. Political success generates its own momentum, and small victories are how you generate that momentum. Passing the HPA suddenly puts SBRs and SBSs on the table for the next round, re-interpreting “sporting purposes” to include all lawful acts suddenly puts 922r on the chopping block as a useless law & regulation. Neither of which requires a huge sacrifice or political vulnerability, but rather, a momentary focus on *our* issue for the first time in like forty years. That really isn’t that much to ask considering how damn big the NRA is, and how much money has been spent on pro-gun candidates over the years.

          Your guy who looks to the government to solve his kid’s inability to find employment will *never* be a friend of civil liberties. Hate to break to you, especially if it is you. The more the feds have been empowered on this front to pick winners & losers, the more they’ve picked winners and losers, and the losers are people who represent the most risk to them as educated, politically aware individualists –go figure.

          Maybe your state is full of Fudds, but the vast majority of states that aren’t coastal socialist hellholes are rapidly and aggressively passing laws relaxing rules on NFA, carry, gun free zones, licensing, and so on. As the last election miraculously showed, they may not constitute a majority of the nation, but they are more than enough to direct its course of action, and damn sure are through with being ignored and governed against by the bare majority in the cities.

          As far as time & whatnot it takes to pass a bill, HPA has been introduced for about a year now, if I’m not mistaken. Unlike the insane expansions of federal authority we’re used to, this one has a very simple, very precise scope, and a scant handful of other laws that it impinges upon. Practically the “see spot run” of legislation, second only to the naming of post offices. The only reason it would be complex enough to require months of wrangling is because of earmark bribery sleaze, or thinly veiled opposition by RINOs (the ‘actual’ Republicans in Name Only, not the ‘every person who didn’t prostrate themselves before Trump during the primaries for whatever reason’ ‘RINOs’)

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          As to your entire first paragraph: Rome wasn’t built in a day nor was it destroyed in a day. If we haven’t seen some significant movement in at least getting some of this stuff out of committee before the fall I will be in complete agreement with you though.

          “Gun rights are an important issue to a large majority of Republicans, and a sizeable minority of Democrats.”

          The problem here is that even if you add the numbers of registered Republicans and registered Democrats together you still barely break 50% of the country (55% actually, 23 R, 32 D). Which means if we assume half of all Democrats and ALL Republicans fall into the group you mention we still only get 39% of the population, at best a plurality, that cares deeply about this issue and less of them will have it as issue #1 at this point in time.

          And that’s the problem. IMHO, this is one civil right that doesn’t get near the attention it deserves. However, it doesn’t and I can’t change that and neither can you. All we can do is deal with the reality before us.

          “Remember how many states are rapidly putting pro-gun legislation on the books, while the federal bodies fail to even make overtures toward the same.”

          States have always been more responsive to the needs and wishes of their residents that the fedgov has. That’s why we have a federal system in the first place.

          “Your guy who looks to the government to solve his kid’s inability to find employment will *never* be a friend of civil liberties.”

          I don’t have kids and you’re not looking at this correctly. No one that I know of wants the feds to “find their kid a job” they want the government to get the fuck out of the way and let the economy come back so that kids don’t end up like my younger cousin: with a BS in chemistry working for $12/hour as a landscaper for the last three years. It’s not about government “doing” anything per se, it’s about government UNDOING what it has done in the past.

          “Maybe your state is full of Fudds, but the vast majority of states that aren’t coastal socialist hellholes are rapidly and aggressively…”

          Every state is full of FUDDs they’re part of the groups screaming about exactly what you mention here. Also see my reply about federalism above.

          “As far as time & whatnot it takes to pass a bill, HPA has been introduced for about a year now, if I’m not mistaken.”

          You are mistaken. The HPA introduction was back on 11/23/2015 and the bill eventually picked up 83 co-sponsors which it still retains. It was read in the House twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. No further action was taken because from 2015 until about a month and a half ago there was a 0.000% chance the POTUS would sign it. While some might see that an “languishing” it’s actually a tactic that has kept the bill alive because it sits in a committee that isn’t killing it.

          The problem with this bill, from a speed perspective, is how many areas it touches in terms of the various committees and subcommittees that have jurisdiction over facets of the bill. Finance, Ways and Means and Judiciary committees all get a say and a sub-committee of Judiciary, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations also gets a say. Ways and Means, Judiciary and the subcommittee have already signed off and so it sits in finance awaiting to be removed from the backburner and brought before a House and Senate that will pass it.

          This is part of the reason people need to calm the fuck down. People keep talking (not here) about “reintroducing” the bill. That’s fucking retarded. That bill is where it is specifically because certain people are protecting it from being killed until passage can be assured. Reintroduction would mean all those committees and subcommittees, along possibly with more because the Democrats will scream about something now that Trump’s in office and actually might sign it, have to be gone through again even if the text is exactly the same.

          “The only reason it would be complex enough to require months of wrangling is because of earmark bribery sleaze, or thinly veiled opposition by RINOs…”

          No. It’s in a holding pattern as I just explained.

  17. avatar Ryan says:

    He should sign a ban on executive orders – but I’m sure the next guy will just issue a new order re-instating it.

  18. avatar Timothy Maxwell says:

    Sooo your “signed into law” link goes to CNN, who’s opening line is that Trump is allowing severly metally ill people to own guns. Really?
    But seriously I am just as curious about the reversal of EO’s but more concerned about Heath care, term limits and the military honestly. Much work needs to be done to repair the dmamge done by Obama and the left. There will always be these left wing jack asses and anti gun idiots as long as they have room to wiggle. I say outlaw making new gun laws and remove the topic from debate all together, intitute a plan to return gun rights to those who have lost theirs from being attacked and prosecuted by the police state and finally remove import bans as has been mentioned many times before.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Yup, that’s how the media is spinning it (I think ‘fabricating’ is a better term, actually). Now you see why CNN is progressively losing their press credentials & access to whitehouse briefings (which is likewise being fabricated as ‘press censorship’).

  19. avatar LarryinTX says:

    If the libs get their way, within weeks Trump will hand over the keys to Clinton. If that happens, she can not now simply reissue Osama’s edict, such a rule will have to go through Congress, as it should have before. Letting Congress do this was ABSOLUTELY correct, WTF are you guys thinking, other than the continuing rampage against Trump? Hey, no matter how much you bitch, Cruz (or whoever) is not suddenly going to have won. Get over yourself.

  20. avatar Bosko says:

    If folks who cannot mange their finances shouldn’t have guns, then 95% of democrats should have been included on the list.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Democrat politicians handle their own finances just fine. It’s our finances that they screw up.

  21. avatar Accur81 says:

    A step in the right direction indeed, although a small one. I’m still hoping for an HPA and National Reciprocity push, which Democrats will fight tooth and nail. As they fight against almost anything Trump wants to do, from immigration reform to cabinets and SCOTUS picks. I can’t wait fir Ginsburg to be replaced. Not sure how much longer that old hag will last.

  22. avatar barnbwt says:

    Gentlemen, behold! The very first pro-gun action ever taken by President Donald Trump in his entire life! He signed his name on something (put together by other people independently without his leadership)

    –Feel free to chime in with other *actions* –as in concrete acts of generosity, education, or advocacy furthering gun rights causes– the man has performed at any point up to now to correct me. Calling me a shill or liberal doesn’t count, btw…(not to mention is comically incorrect)

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      How about calling you politically illiterate? That work for you?

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        Politically incorrect, am I? Probably. That’s not the same as being wrong, though.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Looks like you’re just plain illiterate.

          Let me simple it up for you. Trump’s first two years are about getting as many people on the GOP bandwagon as possible. Gun executive orders don’t do that. Sure, he’ll sign pro-gun bills, but he has a finite amount of time to prep the demolition of the DNC in 2018.

  23. avatar Anon says:

    The NFA, SBR $200 sot, reciprocity, et al are not high on the list. Bigger fish to fry. When was the last time ANY government reduced or eliminated a tax?

    Quit dreaming. If he gets 15% of what he says he wants after 50 years of bullshit government, consider yourself lucky. He’s been in office how long?

    He wants to eliminate $ for PBS/NPR, they are spending all their airwaves time trying to discredit him, asshats that they are.

  24. avatar TFred says:

    The ACLU position on this is well worth the read!

    https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ACLU.pdf

  25. avatar LHW says:

    More Obama Era BS tossed onto the ash heap of history.

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