Hearing Protection Act and National Reciprocity Status Check

Image via Democrat and Chronicle

With the election of Donald Trump, the People of the Gun eagerly looked forward to moving the ball forward on gun rights. We had great goals of taking suppressors out from under the National Firearm Act. What’s more, we saw national reciprocity as attainable. Obviously none of that has taken place. So what happened and where do we go from here?

In a nutshell, the pending bills from the last Congress died when that session ended. Why didn’t we get votes on them? If I had to name one person as the primary obstacle, my finger would not point at Chuck Schumer or any of the Senate’s radicals who hate guns. Instead, Kentucky’s senior senator, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell killed them by sitting on them.

As bad as Paul Ryan showed himself to be, Mitch McConnell stabbed us in the back over and over last session. We had opportunities to pass all manner of gun rights legislation ranging from the Hearing Protection Act to National Reciprocity to plenty more. We had the votes to pass them by a simple majority in the Senate, either in straight up votes or as part of spending packages. And ol’ Cocaine Mitch sat on them all and refused to grant a vote.

In my mind, when your friend stabs you in the back, it hurts a lot worse. Without fail, every time an election rolls around in Kentucky, ol’ Mitch talks a great game about his pro-gun attitudes and credentials. And he brags how we’re going to get things done in Congress.

Like so many politicians, too often their talk is worth the tank contents of your favorite Vactor Manufacturing sewage sucking truck.

Frankly, someone will re-introduce both the Hearing Protection Act and National Reciprocity this session. Oh wait, John Cornyn already did. And while they might squeak through the Senate one way or another, their passage in the House in today’s political environment is somewhere between zero and none.

The Hearing Protection Act would take suppressors out of the National Firearms Act, making them much more readily available to regular gun owners. Some refer to suppressors as ‘silencers’.  Of course, suppressors don’t really “silence” anything like Hollywood and fear-mongering, anti-gun politicians would have you believe.

Nick Leghorn for TTAG

Currently, someone wishing to own a suppressor must file the relevant NFA paperwork, pay a $200 transfer tax and wait. And wait. And wait a little longer for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to process the application.

Once again, the Hearing Protection Act of 2017 that would have ended that $200 tax and all the waiting has died. It had a whole lot of co-sponsors last session in the House of Representatives, but with the new Congress, we must start from scratch with a new bill.

National reciprocity would make your concealed carry license valid nationwide, just like your driver’s license.  Or your marriage certificate. Yes, plenty of us notice how state’s rights suddenly become important to federal politicians when it comes to national reciprocity. If they didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any at all.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, fresh off two wins this past week (State of the Union and the government shutdown) thinks she has a huge tailwind. Given how Republicans — especially establishment GOPers — fold like cheap suits, she may just rule the roost on more than just guns and immigration. Time will tell.

Sure, President Trump would sign either the suppressor bill or national reciprocity in a heartbeat, but that doesn’t matter if the bills don’t reach his desk.

On the contrary, Democrats have either introduced or plan to introduce all manner of gun control measures this session. Like the pro-gun bills, these will likely never see the light of day in the Senate assuming they ever make it out of the House. And even if they would pass both the House and Senate, President Trump would likely veto them.

One that our own Luis worried about, the “universal background checks” bill, quickly became a hot mess. HR8, enacts universal background checks (otherwise known as a ban on private gun transfers).  Not content with just that, sponsors also worked in a ban on handgun ownership for under 21s, open-ended fees, and requires background checks (and fees, and state-level waiting periods) to loan someone a gun for a day’s huntingThen more background checks (and fees, and waiting periods) to return the loaned gun. 

While universal background checks by itself might have had a tiny prayer of passage if the planets perfectly aligned, the heavy-handed over-reach of HR8 bill has given it the life expectancy of a drug mule who had his load confiscated by police.

In short, gun legislation — both good and bad — will almost certainly remain at a stand-still at the federal level in the newly divided Congress. Not unlike it was under unified GOP control. Short of another Las Vegas Mandalay Bay-type massacre, gun control won’t move anywhere outside of the House. Meanwhile, both sides will duke it out in the states and, in some cases, the local level. Not to mention the media.

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    To be fair, getting 9 Demokkkrats in the Senate to switch sides would have been a Herculean task. Please quit with the entire “control” thing. No party “controls” the Senate if they have less than 60 seats. But I’m sure the usual suspects will find a way to blame Trump. After all…

    #OrangeManBad

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      hate to say this…but as far as gun rights go…things weren’t this bad under obama…..

      1. avatar Mike says:

        Except that is utterly untrue. Obama appointed a huge number of deferral judges opposing any and all second amendment rights, about 600. Trump has appointed a stunning number of pro gun judges.

        and WTF dos trump have to do with the fact that the Senate was compeltey short of the number of Democratic Party Senators whose votes are REQUIRED to pass reciprocity, and that unlike last time it came up, this time minority leader, who has a huge influcen controls those votes, is from a “may issue” state?

        We have never ever had a better president when it comes to the Second Amendment. Anyone denying it is laughable.

        1. avatar RMS1911 says:

          Unconstitutional
          Bumpstock ban
          GCA
          NFA
          Ring a bell?
          last time I checked constitutional carry and the right to keep and bear arms was the supreme law of the land since 1791.
          Perhaps it’s time to forcefully show them our displeasure with their schemes.

      2. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

        Yup. The RKBA cause could have held our own against Hillary. The people who say “at least he’s not Hillary” are gutless bottomfeeders, or trying to manipulate people to vote their way be pretending to be. Disgusting either way, chronological adults acting like that.

        1. avatar anonymoose says:

          There would have been a great amount of bloodshed if there had been a (D) victory in 2016. We’re already teetering on the edge here with Nancy Mussolini as speaker again.

        2. avatar Gadsden says:

          Except SCOTUS would be on its way to a huge liberal majority, instead of the opposite. The border would be outright open, and we’d have an assault weapons ban. I voted for Trump and I’m not ashamed of it. I’ll vote for him in 2020 too given the fact that he’ll likley be running against Kamala “free college free healthcare free immigration” Harris.

        3. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

          Paper tigers, Moose and Gadsden, vis-a-vis the RKBA.

          The rest about immigration and free college is not what I’m here to talk about. If you like the republican product apart from gun rights and gun rights aren’t a big deal to you, fine, but those are your priorities, not mine. It’s nothing to offer me or threaten me with.

        4. avatar Gadsden says:

          That’s fine, let’s talk about that then. So with president Hillary, right now we’d have a liberal and this anti gun Supreme Court. We’d have a slew of new anti gun federal judges. They would give the court a liberal slant for a long time to come. If Hillary would’ve won, it’s likley she would’ve gotten one, or both houses of Congress, and the democrats would’ve had no qualms what so ever about using the nuclear option to pass an assault weapons ban after Vegas and Parkland. Does that really sound like a fun time to you?

        5. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

          Short answer to your loaded question, Gadsden, yes it sounds like a blast to me, basically because I’m aware if events that happened more than 4 years ago. The full answer I’ll add in a new comment below.

      3. avatar Gadsden says:

        That really is not strike at all Frank, you’re being way overly dramatic.

    2. avatar GLTirebiter says:

      Straight up gospel truth. Without having 60 votes in the bag, Mitch the Turtle would only have been inviting any of the lunatic fringe Left to filibuster the bill and kill it. No way he was going to have that happen. I don’t know why anyone thinks 51 votes is going to get *anything* done in the Senate as long as the filibuster is there.

      1. avatar Mark H says:

        HPA is a TAX/Revenue bill. Under senate rules those are not subject to filibuster. Same rule that let them pass Obamacare with under 60 votes.

        1. avatar Ahhh huhhh says:

          Look harder next time. Under “Actions Overview (7)”, vote count by both the House and Senate on the “ACA”.

          https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/3590/all-info

    3. avatar Jim JOnes says:

      Here’s the thing on that..Yes…Dems could have filibustered the bills requiring 60 votes to overcome said filibuster. And yes…there’s no way Cocaine Mitch would have nuked the filibuster completely for these two bills. BUT they(meaning Republicans) could have at least voted on these bills in the Senate and either let them lose by votes(if not filibustered) or let them be killed by filibuster. At least then they could have said, “Hey…we tried but the dems killed the bills.”

      But nope….just like Obamacare they didn’t do squat. When not in power they’d vote to repeal and repeal but once they won all that drive to get rid of Obamacare went away(with the same excuse…don’t have the 60 votes).

      So they keep the issue alive so in the next election cycle they can rile up us gun owners with the hope the this time they might actually do something.

      Unfortunately, the Republicans are the only game in town and they know it. Plain fact is there is nobody on the Dem side in the Senate looking to EXPAND guns rights…..they all want to take them away.

      Disgusted with the whole damn thing.

      1. avatar Simon says:

        Don’t you remember the whole Las Vegas shooting thing that happened a few months into Trumps 1st term? That’s what killed these bills.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          There will always be some tragedy for the progressives to beat everyone else over the head with. These bills went nowhere — not even to a cloture vote — solely because Republican politicians are spineless do-nothings.

          Besides, why should they bother doing something that gets their enemies riled up when they know gun owners will vote for them next time around, same as always, simply because the Democrats are worse?

        2. avatar Mike says:

          ING that is not true. That Las Vegas shooting created an unprecedent rise in support for gun control, much more than Newton.

      2. avatar JW says:

        Culture is upstream of politics. When you get disgusted with the politicians, it is a good time to teach someone new to guns how to shoot.

        Bonus points for teaching a kid or someone who disagrees with you on politics.

        Double bonus for teaching the kid OF someone who disagrees with you on politics 🙂

    4. avatar Craig in IA says:

      Anyone with any political saavy won’t waste any vital capital on firearms bills until after the 2020 elections should the Repubs hold the Senate again and retake the House. What’s the use? Trying to back legislators into some sort of corner with votes being taken on issues that cannot pass, only to “get them on the record” guarantees partisanship and polarity, even with the occasional across-the aisle person who might side with you.

    5. avatar Ronald Wright says:

      Don’t forget that the DumboRat Reid introduced his “nuclear option”. The Repubs could and still can use that option to push these Bills through if McConnell would pull his head out of his “axx”!! Please read the following and let everyone know about his “option” which already exists!!

      Concealed Carry Permits Between States and the Full Faith and Credit Clause
      I would like someone to explain why Concealed Carry Permits/Licenses are not protected by the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution : “Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” -Article IV, Section 1. State laws cannot conflict with the Constitution (Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Section 2). I taught High School Government classes for 31 years, so I know what I am talking about here.
      States have to recognize marriage licenses from every other state, so why not my Concealed Carry License I have from my home State of Kentucky? Does this mean that I am married in some States with a Marriage License from Kentucky, but not in others? The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not give a State the power to say “we will accept some public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of the other States, but not accept others”. A public act, record, or judical proceeding IS a public act, record, or judical proceeding!
      My wife and I travel quit a bit and I’m sorry, but I am not going out on the road without a pistol for our personal protection. Even the Police admit that they can’t be everywhere all the time for the public’s safety. I believe if someone or some national organization would challenge this in federal court, the federal court would have to apply the full faith and credit clause to cover concealed carry permits/licenses. My CCL was issued by the State, has the State Seal and other identifying marks, and my personal information on it just as my Driver’s License does. As far as I am concerned, that makes it a STATE RECORD like any other license issued by my state. Am I legal to drive in some States with my Kentucky Driver’s License, but not in others?
      I had to complete an extensive course in gun safety and marksmanship before I got my CCL in Kentucky, more so than getting a marriage or drivers license! And don’t use the argument that “guns are dangerous” – more people are killed by people driving cars each year in the US than by firearms. There is hardly any mention any more in the news about a death in a car wreck, but let one occur becasue of someone using a gun and the news outlets, especiall TV, are all over it! Just this morning out of Lexington, KY on TV : “Twelve Year Old Shot In The Chest While At Home”, but nothing about the three people killed in a car wreck on I-75 yesterday!
      In my opinion, the States should concentrate on toughing up the laws on punshiment for the use of a firearm to commit a violent crime (at least life without parole) and leave law-abiding citizens alone! Convicted felons in my area seem to pay little attention to the ban on them ever possessing a firearm again after their convictions.
      I guess maybe that I will be the first to use the full faith and credit clause as a defense if and when I get arrested for LEGALLY carrying a pistol, with my CCL, in some of our ***-backward states.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        There are 2 answers to your question.

        The first answer is technical (and I admit I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t explain the technicality). A marriage is a “judicial act” that fits the full faith and credit clause. A gun permit might not quite fit any of these categories. So, if we ever find ourselves in a debate about how many angles fit on a pin-head, we might loose this one.

        Conversely, supposing we won this debate. So what? Who cares? No politician cares. The voters who care can be counted on two hands (maybe add the feet.) So, this answer just doesn’t matter in the real world.

        The second answer is in the court of public opinion. To the average voter, the argument seems persuasive. Joe/Jill Sixpack simply isn’t interested in the technicality. S/he thinks this makes a lot of sense. Moreover, s/he thinks that CCPs are just like drivers’ licenses.

        As it happens, drivers’ licenses do not enjoy national reciprocity. Rather, it’s that each state’s legislature long ago realized that there was no point arresting drivers with out-of-state plates. Should they do that, these drivers would not come to their states and spend money. It was in each state’s own interest that they provide blanket “recognition” to the drivers’ licenses issued by other states. (Moreover, this same reasoning applies in the border states to the north and south. No point in arresting Canadian and Mexican visitors because they don’t have a Vermont or Texas driver’s license.) So, as a technicality, this “CCPs are just like drivers’ licenses” holds no water whatsoever. Nevertheless, intuitively, it’s very persuasive.

        1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

          My Georgia Weapons Carry License is signed by a Probate Judge (same judge who issues marriage licenses) so how is that not a judicial act? At this point, I just hope some of these judges Trump has been appointing do us some good because even the politicians who are “on out side” are 99 and 44 one hundredths pure crap. The Democrat politicians are anti-American trash.

        2. avatar MarkPA says:

          “My Georgia Weapons Carry License is signed by a Probate Judge (same judge who issues marriage licenses) so how is that not a judicial act?”

          Strikes me as a good point. Likewise, in NJ and NY, a judge signs off on CWPs. So, I think a case could be made that, in at least such states as put a judge in the chain of prerequisites to issue, there is a “Full Faith and Credit” Constitutional mandate that permits be honored.

          Now, then, that would seem to limit the effectiveness of the decision. (Withhold judgement on the significant of the limitation for a moment.) A 2’nd Circuit ruling that NJ and NY would have to grant one another’s CWPs reciprocity on a FF&C ground wouldn’t have much effect at all. And so, that Circuit might find that they have little choice but to so rule. Conversely, that Circuit could balk and rule against the NY or NJ plaintiff who brought the suit.

          Then, the case might be appealed to SCOTUS which might find that the case was narrow enough to take and rule on favorably. See where this goes?

          Now, then, you and everyone else with a Georgia CWP could carry nationally because a Georgia CWP is signed-off on by a judge. Georgia should then accept millions of applications from non-residents (collecting their modest fee on each application). Thereby, we have a national CWP issued by one-or-more states such as Georgia.

          Other legislatures might jump on the bandwagon. They might pass legislation authorizing their state judges to certify the state’s CWPs (for a modest additional fee) rendering the so-endorsed CWP a “judicial act” that would have to be honored by every other state.

          Such a course of events would open such a large figure in the current scheme of May-Issue as to render it completely ineffective. It wouldn’t be dead, it would just be ineffective. That could push the May-Issue state legislatures to go Shall-Issue. And, then, it might push them to grant reciprocity to a few other states. E.g., MD would likely grant reciprocity to DC. NJ to DE; and so forth.

          We, the PotG, need to smarten-up. We need to succeed; we do NOT need to win in the way we WISH to win. Bashing our heads against a brick wall until the wall breaks down isn’t the obvious way to success.

          Congress is just very unwilling to do anything to support the 2A. So, passing Hudson’s National Reciprocity bill is a very long drawn-out battle that won’t get us anywhere.

          SCOTUS is now ripe to start doing us some good. But, we have to bring SCOTUS the right cases. SCOTUS is loath to make any sweeping holding under the 2A. They would much rather make a finding under some rationale NOT involving the 2A.

          The NYC transport-a-handgun outside the city is an excellent example. SCOTUS could find that this law is UN-Constitutional because it interferes with the citizen’s right to engage in interstate commerce; or, the right to travel freely (with her piece) outside her home-state. She has a right to “keep” her arm in her home (indeed, she has a “premises” license to do so issued by her municipal government.) She is authorized (by license) to transport it (in a box) to a city range. So, there is no compelling need to further examine her rights under the 2A. But the Constitution FORBIDS her municipality from favoring its own 7 businesses (ranges) from monopolizing her patronage of their services!

          If we can make the same indirect argument about FF&C with respect to any CWPs signed-off on by judges then we have the opening we need. No requirement to study the 2A. Whatever it is that this “CWP” thing might be, once it’s been signed-off on by a judge then its a “judicial act” that no other state may ignore without breaching the FF&C clause.

        3. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

          Yet I have been investigated more thoroughly for my CCP and it’s renewals than I ever have for my drivers license.

          GOA, NRA, 2AF etc. need to stop handing money to do nothing politicians and start funding militias in all 50 states. Our Founding Fathers would have been shooting by now.

      2. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

        Again, and again, and again. Learn how the fracking Senate works!!!

        Reid introduced the nuclear option for judicial nominees only (excluding SCOTUS nominees) and NOT for bills. McConnell expanded that nuclear option to SCOTUS nominees.

        A nuclear option for bills never existed. It would have been rather unwise for McConnell to introduce it in the last Congress, and it is certainly nonsensical to introduce it now.

    6. avatar Nanashi says:

      We would have gotten it in the same way the Democrats get half their garbage in: Attach it to the budget.

      1. avatar Mike says:

        That is literally impossible for this type of bill, but thanks for spreading nonsense. Perhaps you need civics 101, or just an hour or two reading Senate procedure?

        1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

          No it is not, the $200 tax makes it a revenue bill and therefore legitimate to put in the Budget. Remember per the idiot Roberts, if it is a tax they can do it. I would love to see the Democrats squawk about that one, but of course the Republicans don’t have the stones!

        2. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

          Well, that would require President Trump having an actual legislative agenda and plan. He simply did not and still does not have that. He could have passed a number of things through the reconciliation process. Only a few things were, such as the repeal of the individual mandate for ObamaCare (tax was set to 0%).

  2. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    Trump would sign either bill into law, doing so would make him look better than he does now. Let’s not mistake that fact, with the thought that Trump is a friend to POTG, he is not and he really doesn’t care about the 2nd either.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Called it.
      #OrangeManBad

      1. avatar Sean says:

        How is OrangeManGood when it comes to guns? Can you make an affirmative argument that Trump has been an advocate and an ally for our rights in office?

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          He is not Hillary. BOOM! Drop the mike. Can you even imagine?
          #OrangeManForever

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Not to even mention Goresuch and Kavanaugh (that is 2 more). And RBG might make 3.

        3. avatar JIm Jones says:

          Agree. with this 100%. When elected people on this site thought he was going to be so great. After he did nothing that first 100 days I came on and said he wouldn’t be doing squat. “Oh wait…he’s just busy…he’ll get to it.”. THen nothing.

          FACT is that Trump could have signed a bunch of Exec Orders by now to help us and he hasn’t. For example…he could have undone Bush Sr EO on importation of assault rifles. He could have opened up Army Corp of Engineer land to gun use. He could have directed the ATF and Justice department to change their interpretation of a whole slew of gun related things(sporting purpose clause, etc etc). All these things require nothing from Congress….but he’s still done NOTHING.

          As a matter of fact..he damn near sold us out after Las Vegas shooting until the NRA backed him down and we get the whole bump stock thing…which even Obama didn’t do.

          And SC judges? They weren’t named because they were strong Gun Rights people….they were named because they were Conservative. And we’ll see what we get out of those two soon I guess.

          So yes….at best he’s not as bad as Hillary would have been. But for the amount of support gun owners and the NRA gave him he should have done a hell of a lot more.

        4. avatar Jon in CO says:

          @LarryinTX The two SCOTUS picks of his were solid, if he does nothing else, long term, he’s helped RKBA. Hopefully, RBG falls down some lofty stairs and can be quickly replaced by someone of human character.

        5. avatar Craig in IA says:

          Some of you boneheads are worse than the new democrat socialists by wishing Trump was a King/Monarch/dictator and not the elected executive who presides (as in: president) over the federal government’ business. I call worse than the Ocasio-Cortez bunch because at least a few of you may/should have gotten a better civic education in HS and some of you probably, in the least, held an actual, real job other than “Barista” or pole dancer. People here disprove that daily, however, in spades…

      2. avatar Evey259 says:

        You wanna fellate him a little harder, serge? Maybe his track record of flip-flopping on damn near every issue is forgotten by someone with the object permanence of a baby, but most of us remember him banning bump stocks by executive fiat and stating outright that due process can go out the window.

        The sooner you realize he’s not a friend of the 2nd Amendment, the sooner we can get on with actually making headway instead of fighting to keep what we still have.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yeah… because it’s totally HIS fault that we can’t kick the Democommies out of Washington and he has to work with them to keep the lights on… Oh… wait.

          Here’s an idea… Quit electing Democommies to the House and Senate rather than expecting one man to turn dictator and fix all their bullshit single handedly. Quite frankly, I’m happy with 99.9% of what Trump has done. The remaining 0.1% is bullshit I can live with in the grand scheme of things.

          Do you think any Democommie PotUS wouldn’t be going door to door confiscating guns by now?

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      not until the next election anyway…

      1. avatar Craig in IA says:

        Does that mean you are going to vote?

    3. avatar Mike says:

      Trump has done more to protect the Second Amendment than any other President.

      And it is not just the two SCOTUS it is over 100 federal judicial appointments.

      His outsmarting of Bloomberg’s minions on the Bump stock was priceless.

      But go ahead and spin negative about Trump on this issue, and if you don’t do your utmost to get him reelected see what happens when not just Ginsburg but Thomas are replaced by a Democrat Party president and all semi autos get banned.

      1. avatar RMS1911 says:

        Yeah he sure got one over on bloomturd with that unconstitutional bumpstock ban.

  3. avatar MB says:

    Republicans had 2 years to give us National Reciprocity and to eliminate the NFA, GCA, and other punitive laws against gun ownership. We got ZERO. The Republicans and the Demon-Rats have no interest in following the Constitution.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Remind me at what time, during those 2 years, they had 60 seats in the Senate?

      1. avatar MB says:

        If the bill passes by simple majority in house of Representatives (218 of 435), the bill moves to the Senate. In the Senate, the bill is assigned to another committee and, if released, debated and voted on. Again, a simple majority (51 of 100) passes the bill. Didn’t need 60.

      2. avatar MB says:

        there would not have been a Filibuster, the Dems didn’t have the stomach for a fight ….now they are reinvigorated after the 2018 election and they have morons like AOC in the house….

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Um… the deomocommies were biting at the bit to virtue signal to their base. A filibuster was all but guaranteed. Just look at the SCotUS nomination hearings and imagine that only ten times worse. It would have given them a major PR victory.

        2. avatar DDay says:

          the democrats put up every procecudural obstacle in the way of everything in the senate. There were over 270 trump nominees who were not confirmed by Jan 3 and now need to be renominated. Why? Because the dem’s would not consent to votes on the nominees until every minute of debate, which was required unless the dem’s agreed to forgo it, was used.

          Dem’s have been doing everything possible to stop trump’s nominees and they don’t even require the 60 vote threshold.

          Get a clue, the dem’s would filibuster trump naming a post office after a war hero.

        3. avatar Ahhh huhhh says:

          I don’t think Donald Trump even knows what a “National Hero” even is! Let alone being able to Nominate one…

    2. avatar Craig in IA says:

      No… The establishment repubs, egged on by worthies like yourselves spent the first 2 years trying to further sabotage the Trump Presidency in an all-out effort with the establishment from the other side of the aisle to make it seem than only someone from the annointed, Ivy League can hold the office; that he/she/it must act, speak, eat, and even dress in a certain manner, let alone have an old lady (and 3rd one at that) who the majority of guys (and probably gals) would like to bang.

      It just ain’t done that way in DC, or Paris, or London (well- OOPS!! there), or Berlin… Of course, if you’re a dem with an Hispanic surname it’s cool to go bugger little kids in the Dominican Republic- it’s deemed “resume enhancement”.

  4. Last I heard, as of September 2017 both the Hearing Protection Act of 2017 and the SHARE (Sportsman’s Heritage And Recreational Enhancement) Act of 2017 are STILL sitting in the US House of Representatives. Without even being Voted On…

    1. avatar Craig in IA says:

      So- you’d much rather have them voted down and loudly proclaimed in the MSM??? Where do you guys learn about anything?

  5. avatar D says:

    Rs have been a bitter disappointment on numerous issues. The entire leadership needs to be replaced

  6. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

    Stop beating a dead horse. The NFA is unconstitutional and we need to work that end.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Agreed. I believe the tax on machine guns, SBRs, and SBSs is unconstitutional and has never been tested in court.

      1. avatar Jon in CO says:

        The issue with machine guns isn’t the tax, it’s the refusal of ATF and the law to allow further newly added items to the registry. If you could use the same process for a can that you use for a newly manufactured Mk18, it wouldn’t be AS bad. We should work first on opening the registry back up, and incrementalism will win the day.

        An M16A2 should not cost $25k. A stripped lower should not cost $12k.

        1. avatar DamnYankee says:

          EXACTLY! I dont agree with the NFA or GCA by any means, but at the very least open it up so we can buy newly manufactured MGs. Then at the very least prices will drop and maybe we can pay retail prices. Id guess there is a better chance of this happening than for the NFA just going away. But frankly and realistically, I dont see either one ever happening.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      never gonna’ happen…

    3. avatar Jon in CO says:

      Absolutely. The issue here is Heller. “In common usage”. They can’t and won’t ever be in common usage because they’ve been outlawed for so long. (Not outlawed, but essentially unobtainable for the average person) I’d be willing to bet that AOW’s, SBR/S’s and cans could pass as common usage, but we’ve got to get more people into buying them despite the absolutely ridiculous process, cost, and wait.

      There’s 400+Million guns, we need to press ownership to at least 1/10 of that so there’s no issue of scrutiny with the decisions. The other issue is a test bed for it. Who’s going to martyr themselves on the altar of freedom to make this happen? Those guys in KS who made their own and were promptly arrested for following state law? Maybe. At the very least it would spring up manufacturers in all 50 states and cut costs down tenfold.

      1. avatar foo bar says:

        There not in common use because there is legislatively created shortage.

  7. avatar MarkPA says:

    I don’t know what to think about Mitch. That’s a hard thing for most of us to say: “I don’t know”. All of us would like to think that we KNOW what we think with absolute conviction. But, if we were honest with ourselves, we really don’t know.

    Mitch got Kav on SCOTUS. For that alone, we owe him a debt of gratitude. Kav will sit on SCOTUS for decades doing more for the 2A then Congress will ever do for us.

    Those of us who spend all our free time on TTAG imagine that the 2A is the most important thing in the world. But it’s not important to those who sit in Congress. Money and power are important; and, guns have very little to do with getting money to campaign contributors or gaining more power in the next year or two.

    The 2A is merely a “mouse” that the “cats” on Capital Hill love to play with; intending, ultimately, to eat it. They just can’t eat it today.

    So, HPA or National Reciprocity just wasn’t very important to Mitch. Power is important to Mitch. And, to keep power, Mitch needs every last Republican in the Senate. He can’t afford to lose any GOP Senator representing a gun-rights state. So, he will work hard to slow or stop whatever gun-control legislation he can. We need to remind him how important doing THAT job is.

    Getting gun-RIGHTS legislation through the Senate is a much less important objective. Remember, legislatures are all about passing laws that make things ILLEGAL. Legislatures do NOT want to pass laws that tend to uphold rights. So, Congress is like a ratchet that with each click tends to take our rights away. It doesn’t willingly pass laws that restore rights.

    Politicians play games with us. They pass a bill we like (about anything) in one chamber and stall it in the other chamber. In the next Congress, the other chamber will pass a bill which will stall in the first chamber. They will continue to play this game with us.

    Other than bad timing, I don’t see why HPA didn’t get passed.

    I do see why National Reciprocity didn’t pass. The Hudson bill over-reached. It did the best it could to try to accommodate everybody. In so doing, it fell victim to the arguments about “states’ rights” and “race-to-the-bottom”. Accordingly, it couldn’t get enough support to get passed.

    Could NO – ABSOLUTELY NO – National-Reciprocity bill get through Congress? This just isn’t so. In the 1990s Congress passed a N-R act for the Armored Car industry. Never heard of it? That’s just how uncontroversial it was. In the 2000s Congress passed LEOSA. Two N-R bills passed. Why is it inconceivable that a 3’rd bill wouldn’t pass?

    IF we want to push the legislative route to get N-R we need to do so incrementally. For example, suppose we pushed for interstate drivers of dangerous cargos; e.g., gasoline and the like. If armored-car drivers (carrying money) are safe to give N-R to, then why not interstate drivers of gasoline and the like? If these guys are OK, then why not interstate drivers of any cargo? These guys AND GALS have to sleep on the roadside with no protection from robbers. Can you see how incrementalism for benefit of sympathetic beneficiaries can get us to the point where we are making progress?

    Race-to-the-bottom is probably a bigger issue. It’s not a Constitutional problem; it’s a sentiment problem. We need to figure out a way to combat this argument. Some sort of scheme that makes this issue go away. I’ve thought of tiered levels of CCPs whereby a “Gold” card would be good in the most hoplophobic states; a “Silver” card in the intermediate states and a “Bronze” card in the most gun-friendly states. (Con-Carry states would have no card at all.) If the last 8 May-Issue states were forced to honor cards from at least one other state then a fissure would open. E.g., NJ and NY would have to honor each other’s cards; MD and DC would have to honor each other’s cards. These 8 states would eventually break-down and grant one-another reciprocity at a “Gold” card tier.

    But, we PotG will continue to REFUSE to think about how to make progress. We will continue to over-reach and see our legislation get stalled in one or the other chamber of Congress.

    The gun-controllers do the same thing; e.g, on UBC. Yet, they are clever enough to NOT ALWAYS over-reach. Occasionally, they put together a weak gun-control bill that gets passed. That is, they construct gun-control bill that doesn’t really accomplish anything. E.g., the AWB (now expired) didn’t do much to stop AR-15s. We got along by removing all but a single “evil feature” from our configurations to keep making the same gun during the 10 years of annoyance.

    So, in this game of incrementalism vs. over-reaching, who knows how to play more effectively? Gun-controllers get some bills passed; sometimes they over-reach and their bills die. PotG usually over-reach and their bills die. Rarely, we get a bill passed that accomplishes some small benefit (e.g., interstate transport of guns) but there is not much teeth in the bill. Or, it affects only some limited territory (e.g., public land).

    Is Mitch doing the best he can for us? I don’t know; that might be a possibility.

    Are we playing the political game as cleverly as our opponents? I’m convinced we are NOT.

    1. avatar Gadsden says:

      Good insight.

  8. avatar Mark N. says:

    To be frank, any law tat is passed can be undone by a new Congress with a different make-up/agenda. No law passed there is ever secure. The only lasting victory will be in the Supreme Court. With its current make-up, and with the possibility of an even stronger majority in the future, I will keep my fingers crossed. Hopefully Thomas will not retire too soon.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Hopefully Thomas will retire in the next 20 months to ensure a third Trump appointee for the next three decades.

      1. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

        That’s the way I’m leaning.

        If we are fortunate enough with a big win with the NY Pistol decision, he bows out insuring a younger justice carries our agenda forward…

  9. avatar Jim S. says:

    Guaranteed if there’s another school shooting where a bunch of “beautiful babies” die, he’ll roll on us like a fat kid on a skate board and sign anything the democrats hand him.

    1. avatar Porridgeweasel says:

      I hate to say it but that is my thinking as well.

      Every time something is in the works, something happens and everyone goes ape shit again. Knee jerk reactions, virtue signaling and “Do Something-ism” goes through the roof….and all use legal, law abiding gun owners suffer in some way or another.
      I do not trust the Greatcheeto or the Congresskritters to do any differently.

  10. avatar Ark says:

    What happened is that A, It turns out Trump is actually an anti-gun New York liberal LIKE HE HAS ALWAYS BEEN, and B, Turtle only postures and obstructs for gun rights, and doesn’t actually support them enough to do the work and gain victories.

  11. avatar barnbwt says:

    Did Mitch really ever have 50+1 senators in support of this thing in the first place? I find it telling they never did a single Obamacare-repeal-style test vote for any pro-gun legislation at any point in the past three decades. Makes me think they don’t want to go on the record & reveal their real positions, much like the pre-Parkland Florida Republicans who ultimately voted for a whole litany of gun-grabber legislation on short notice in an election year.

    It’d sure be a kick-in-the-donations-pants if the electorate were allowed to learn that a sizeable number of pro-gun NRA-supported Republican senators were not even willing to support something as innocuous as the HPA, let alone something as ambitious as Reciprocity. Even worse if it turned out to be the president himself.

    Bad as he is, Ryan at least got the House to pass Reciprocity at some point (likely knowing full well it would go nowhere in the Senate). He deserves some credit for that.

    But before that eventual vote, both houses’ committees slow-walked all pro-gun bills as much as possible, waiting for the inevitable mass shooting that happens a couple times a year to give them cover to table the initiative. The HPA was among the most popular & viewed bills on congress.gov for a full year, yet barely got a single committee hearing before Sen. Scalise was shot down by a leftist radical, whereupon it was then permanently tabled.

  12. avatar barnbwt says:

    How’s life on that presidential Second Amendment Coalition, Mr. Boch? Any news?

  13. avatar Stateisevil says:

    You get nothing and like it.

  14. avatar GS650G says:

    Heller decision also gave us Reasonable Restrictions. The anti gun crowd is using that loophole to push new laws left and right. Going to take a bid 2A decision to stop that.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      The “reasonable restrictions” argument out of Heller is a red herring. It’s dicta; it means nothing controlling.

      The reasonable restrictions language had nothing to do with the facts in the Heller case. Therefore, it’s not part of the “holding”. It is mere dicta. If Scalia had written “our holding does nothing to undermine regulations on the price of eggs” we wouldn’t be upset. We would realize that that was true. Heller had nothing to do with eggs, so the statement is true on its face and means nothing at the same time.

      What IS relevant is that a gun law must not “infringe” on “the right” to “keep and bear arms”. The proper way to think about this question is that legislators can have all the gun laws they like; provided that no such law “infringes”.

      So, for example, the law requires manufacturers (with licenses) to mark their receivers with a maker’s mark and serial number. Does that law “infringe”? Probably not. You certainly couldn’t get SCOTUS to find that it “infringes”. So, it IS Constitutional. Or, as a practical matter, you will NEVER get any Federal court to find it unconstitutional.

      The Anti’s want to argue that the “reasonable restrictions” OUGHT to meant that every law on guns is NECESSARILY “reasonable”. Whether a law on guns is reasonable or not is NOT the relevant question. What is relevant is whether or not it “infringes”.

      We, the textualists, ought to make a point of returning the debate to the correct part of the text. We should not follow like dogs down a rabbit hole about “reasonableness”.

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        LOL. It means nothing, and yet that’s the only passage referenced in dozens of cases, so much we’ve come to expect it.

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          Decisions in the trial court don’t mean much except to the extent that they are persuasively argued. Decisions in Circuit courts do mean something. Nevertheless, they don’t mean much more than whatever persuasion exists in the arguments.

          What really counts is what SCOTUS decides; and, what it says in the “holding”. SCOTUS’s dicta doesn’t mean any more than the persuasiveness of the reasoning.

          The lower courts have been getting away with thumbing their noses at SCOTUS so long as SCOTUS allows them to do so. But watch what happens when SCOTUS yanks on the leash. Ask Jamie Caetano.

          Our heroine in this story is a homeless single mother with an abusive ex. She lost at trial. She lost her appeal. She lost her appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court of her state. She – a homeless single mother – appealed to SCOTUS.

          SCOTUS granted cert – in a 2A case. It did NOT request briefs. It did NOT schedule oral argument. It ruled – by unanimous vote – to tell Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court to take their opinion (upholding Ms. Caetano’s conviction) and stick it where the sun don’t shine. Their reasoning took a whole page and a half. (The right to arms is not just for flintlocks anymore.)

          That’s what counts. SCOTUS granting cert and jerking the leash on the lower courts. Once the lower courts realize they are in for the drubbing Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court you will observe an epiphany in judges’ interpretation of the 2A.

  15. avatar Kyle says:

    I realize i repeat myself ad nausium.

    Government, left or right, does not want its citizens armed.

    …ever.

  16. avatar Saint Mike says:

    Trump will be a one term President . One term only.

    1. avatar Gadsden says:

      Eh. Don’t be so confident. No one thought he would win either.

  17. avatar Darkman says:

    Everybody knows who did or didn’t due what. The Question is what is going to be done about it. Our Founders would be done shooting by now. Win or lose it’s still better than kneeling. If not for Us… Then for our children. Keep Your Powder Dry.

  18. avatar Ralph says:

    “What’s more, we saw national reciprocity as attainable.”

    John, I respect the hell out of you, but if you actually believed that national reciprocity was attainable without a supermajority (60 or more) of pro-gun votes, then in that case I’m really upset that you’re not sharing whatever it is that you’ve been drinking. Or inhaling.

    After all, sharing is caring.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Well, he did buy into Trump’s gun coalition & tried to convince us it was serious, so…yeah.

    2. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “After all, sharing is caring.”

      Not with an STD it isn’t…

      *snicker* 😉

  19. avatar Rick Metzger says:

    What about redirecting most of this the angst toward the suppressor developers. Is it impossible for them to develop a combination of universal (multi) thread adapter and variable-length suppressor so that 80-90% of the firearms for which we seriously want suppressors can share one, similar to a light or a scope? Perhaps with the ease of push, twist and click like a take-down rifle? Sure, we can forget about such a solution for a a BMG or a 300 WinMag, but owners of those guns are not likely where the majority of complaints about the $200-per-can tax and process time come from.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      If you want such in a pistol buy a .45 Osprey from SilencerCo. Then you can just swap pistons for .40 and 9mm. Doesn’t work as well as the dedicated .40 and 9mm cans but then it costs 1/3rd what getting all three would cost and cuts the wait time down by the same.

      1. avatar Rick Metzger says:

        Good suggestion – thanks. My most-used calibers are .45 (ACP and LC) and 9mm, so this would be a great compromise while we wait for elimination of the tax.

  20. avatar J32 says:

    I was hoping this didn’t have to go through Congress.

  21. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

    This is OK with you all right? Not democrat is all they have to be. I mean, you grumble but you got what you asked for, you voted republican and you got republicans. That’s all you can think of to do, pick one of two choices, maybe put an NRA bumper sticker on your CUV.

    You should admit you’re not sincere about gun rights. You know you’re weak and only deserve the lesser of two evils at best, and that’s what you’ve got now, so cheer up. MAGA, Kek bless.

  22. avatar Mike says:

    amazing the number of morons here who are whining about Trump or the NRA and apparently somehow think we have had 60 votes in the Senate the last two years. Newsflash: we have not.

    1. avatar Mike says:

      winner for most childish post. You are a “loser” for picking the lessor of two evils in poltical voting? Exactly one person in 350 million agrees 100% with any candidate, and that is the candidate themselves.

      I have libertarian friends who don’t even know the libertarians are open border.

      you are just in denial of the fact that NO ONE 100% agrees with any candidate and therefore everyone alwayspicks the lesser of evils.

      Your own denial of that basic fact is a sign of your weakness.

      1. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

        Was that wall of frontier gibberish meant for me, are there two Mikes or are you replying to yourself?

  23. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

    Not this nonsense again. Didn’t we discuss this just a few months ago? Learn how the Senate works! Stop with the finger pointing propaganda articles!

    No, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell were not at fault here. If anyone at all, it would have been President Trump, for the lack of having any legislative agenda and a plan for pushing it through Congress. Now, we get these “it’s everybody else’s fault” articles to absolve President Trump from his incompetence for the next election.

    If you disagree, please point out the 9 Senate Democrats that would have voted on cloture for either the Hearing Protection Act or National Reciprocity. If you think the Republicans should have had just a “show” vote, why? It makes zero sense.

    If you think any of these bills can pass the Senate today, please point out the 7 Senate Democrats that would vote for cloture on either of these bills now.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Why no test votes? It was all the rage for repealling Obamacare, which as we know they did care the least little bit about pretending to stop. I think HPA would have failed a test vote, and that’s the dirty secret the NRA/GOP don’t want revealed.

      1. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

        I said “show” vote and not “test” vote. Given the fact that both of these would have failed to reach the 60 votes in the Senate, any vote would have been a “show” vote. That means any Republican could have safely voted for it, knowing it wasn’t going forward anyway.

  24. avatar Southern Cross says:

    I think any advancements in gun rights were completely sunk by Steven Paddock at Mandalay Bay.

    While the esteemed FBI say that Paddock’s motivation was only for personal fame and had nothing to do with any political or religious agenda, I still think that he being a Registered Democrat who was angry with the Trump presidency he decided to attack the bitter clinger mouth breathing inbred hicks from flyover country and further advance gun control. Why else would he shoot at a country music festival with 24 self-loading firearms from many different manufacturers with many fitted with bump-fire stocks?

    He not only wanted fame, but to be a martyr for the Democrat cause.

    1. avatar Jamie in North Dakota says:

      Exactly! That’s what I said the first time I saw video of the shooting and I still believe it 100%.

      1. avatar possum says:

        Paddock didnt die in that hotel room, somebody faked it. Wheeled him out in a bag, alive and well, box rocks funeral. Can’t prove me wrong, and I can’t prove I’m right.Osama bin Laden same same, buried at sea my ass

  25. avatar MyPrettyAR15 says:

    Why try and pass any gun freedom laws now? That’s a terrible idea. Nancy & Co are going to poison it. Do you think we’ll get a clean reciprocity bill to the president? Hell no, it will be spiked with so much legislative gun hating nastiness that by the time it reaches Trump the people of the gun will be screaming for a veto, Then we’ll be stuck fighting the nonsense in court for decades, meanwhile Nancy & Co can come up with even more restrictions.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      Pretty good point!

      1. avatar Craig in IA says:

        And as I stated way above, if pro-2A legislation is run and voted down (which it certainly wiill be in this House of Representatives), the MSM and Leftists in charge will make a huge celebration out of its defeat, pushing borderline supporters, both voters and legislators off of it entirely. Bring things forward when you have both the public opinion and the votes. The “show trial votes” serve no real purpose and place people who might be friendly to and with us into a corner they don’t wish to be in.

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          Also good point. Why enter a contest which you can’t win? How do you score points as a contender if your opponent is going to leave you on the mat bloodied?

          Sure, we would like to see who votes in our favor. But, real life doesn’t work that way. One guy who wants to score points with his gun-owner constituents makes a “show of support” by voting in our favor (knowing all along that the measure won’t pass). Great, he’s got our vote in the next election. In the next Congress a similar bill shows up, but he votes against it because he is beholding to gun-controller contributors who want him to help kill the bill.

          Another guy who can’t afford to offend either his progressive supporters nor his gun-rights supporters will find something really important to do the day of the vote. Like, cut a ribbon on a new public works project in his district. He won’t be there to place a show vote; and, he will be there to vote against us when, in the next Congress, a bill has a chance of passing.

  26. avatar pwrserge says:

    So many people keep expecting Trump to do shit Trump can’t legally do.

    Incremental steps are how you win wars.

    Running in screaming “LEEEEEROY JENKINS!” is how you get your face caved in.

    The reality is that without a solid 60 votes in the Senate and a House majority, no pro-gun bill will ever pass. It doesn’t matter who the Senate majority leader is, it hardly matters who the president is. You need 60 votes to beat the deomocommies and we don’t have them. What we do have, however, is a drastically different judicial landscape.

    – 2 (Possibly 4) New SCOTUS justices who are not rabid liberals.
    – over 100 federal judges who are just as conservative.
    – Blatantly overreaching sue and settle bait coming out of the White House…

    It’s almost like there’s a strategy going on that some people are too retarded to see…
    For example, look out for the newly overwhelmingly conservative 7th circuit to completely destroy the Illinois cases currently in the pipeline.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      Well argued.

  27. avatar Enuf says:

    I’m fully aware that 60 votes were not there in the Senate to break a filibuster, I get that, always have. My complaint with Trump on this thing is that he was absolutely absent from the legislative effort.

    A President is supposed to have a legislative agenda and to assemble his own team to work Congress. Among all those “Special Assistants to the President” are supposed to be people working the President’s agenda. At the head of which is the President himself. No, the President cannot make laws or magically make votes tally up to his liking. But he is supposed to make an effort. He is supposed to be able to say he honestly and sincerely tried.

    Trump didn’t even break a sweat as he ignored those promises he made to us.

    You know, wheeling and dealing. Cajoling and arm bending. Trading this for that. One hand washes the other. All that art of the political deal that Trump swore he was the very greatest at, and has since fallen flat on his jowls. Demonstrating his total ignorance, backbone of a limp noodle. He simply did nothing at all.

    Except bumpstocks. Yeah, Trump was all over that one.

    The only good thing to come out of this fiasco is that two men had Trump’s ear and managed to hold his constantly wandering attention. Those are Don McGahn and Leonard Leo. That is where the list of judicial nominees has come from and which Trump has rubber stamped. From his White House Counsel and from the Veep of the Federalist Society.

    So now it is too late to even try. It was worth the effort when only one house of Congress needed to be fought, no way to get there with one house controlled by the loyal opposition.

    A failure to try is a pretty serious way to fail on your campaign promises. Trying and failing is one thing, but not trying and failing is just plain pathetic.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      How do you “wheel and deal” with people who are actively trying to pull a coup against your administration? Any pretence of being able to make any deal with Democommies went out the window November 8th 2016 and you know it.

      1. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

        So, then the whole shutdown we went through was just for show, right?

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          Yeah, it was for show. It showed us that we need the Federal Government like we need a raging case of piles.

          Maybe piles are better. You can shrink piles.

        2. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

          I am pretty sure you know what I meant. If there is no way to make a deal with Democrats, as you claim, then the shutdown was just a political show for grand standing.

          Enuf is right and you know it! Saying that there is no way to make a deal with Democrats is the reason that President Trump didn’t even try, is a piss-poor excuse. Well, now he is trying, ironically right after Republicans lost control of the House. Imagine if he had tried during his first 100 days!

        3. avatar Enuf says:

          Trumpites tell me it’s all a game of four dimensional chess.

        4. avatar strych9 says:

          “If there is no way to make a deal with Democrats, as you claim, then the shutdown was just a political show for grand standing.”

          Lol, it’s almost like you’ve never heard of this “politics” thing.

        5. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

          “Lol, it’s almost like you’ve never heard of this “politics” thing.”

          LOL, it’s almost like you’ve never heard of this “always blame someone else” thing. The incompetent, con man and charlatan always blames someone else for their failures. The leader admits and fixes them.

        6. avatar strych9 says:

          “LOL, it’s almost like you’ve never heard of this “always blame someone else” thing.”

          Apparently you really don’t understand politics. All politicians are liars and NONE of them take responsibility for what happens. They ALL try to blame the other people.

          That’s exactly what the shutdown was: posturing and trying to convince the public that the other side is to blame. That is, quite literally, the reason for the shutdown. There isn’t another reason for it.

      2. avatar Enuf says:

        Really? Trump claimed he was the most brilliant deal maker there ever was. Claimed that he was the only one who could fix things. He said that, exactly that, repeatedly. We are not supposed to know how, he is. That’s his job, remember? The very reason he wanted to get elected? The very reason he said people should vote for him?

        All that bragging and promising and then he simply did absolutely nothing.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Was that before or after the coup attempt. Again. You can’t make a deal with people who want to lynch you.

          Nobody expected the left to melt down quite as badly as they have in the past 2 years. For crying out fucking loud. They have an open VENEZUELAN STYLE SOCIALIST as their sock puppet.

          As for the shutdown… it proved he meant business. Nancy knows that he’s just going to keep shutting down the government every 3 weeks until she gives him what he wants. Her control of the house will mean exactly jack shit as she won’t be able to pass a single bill into law.

        2. avatar Enuf says:

          The 35 days of shutdown proved Trump is incompetent. He got nothing for it. Pelosi, who I despise, left him looking weak, ineffectual and a total wuss. He burned a lot of people to gain absolutely nothing.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Oh look, here’s another treasonous democommie troll.

  28. avatar Warlocc says:

    Doesn’t matter if they have an R or a D next to their name, they’re a problem.
    “Lesser of two evils” argument is BS. Getting buttfucked with or without lube.
    Here’s and idea, vote for some independents for a change, instead of the people that run on nothing more than “At least we’re not democrats!” while they bend you over.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      I’d rather vote for the clap than vote for a Democrat.

      As for Independents, there are two in the Senate — Bernie Sanders and Angus King. Both are raging leftists and not worth a pint of warm p!ss.

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      Yes… that’s an argument. Because clearly, not fighting the democommies tooth and nail at every opportunity has worked out GREAT for us in the past. Enjoy your time in the democommie gulag.

  29. avatar Sarcastro says:

    Fast scrolled through 1500 words of post and 60 comments to reach here so I can say “DOA as long as our leadership is populated with Quislings and Crypto-Communists”

  30. avatar strych9 says:

    I find all of this highly amusing.

    After Trump got elected I said, repeatedly, that this stuff wasn’t going to pass right away. None of it.

    The reason is simple: We’re not that important. Get it through your heads: Politicians don’t work the way most of the folks here think they do/would like them to. Politicians go after low hanging fruit first just like everyone else.

    Low hanging fruit in the political world are those things which may not be easy to pass but for which you have the largest amount of support. The major items for the bulk of Trump supporters and GOP voters in 2016 were things like taxes, immigration, the ACA and jobs. The 2A was way, way down the list for most of these people and therefore way down on the list for the politicians.

    Therefore, as I said back then, at best we have to wait for the larger and therefore “more important” fish to get fried before our fish even gets to look at the pan. Joe Sixpack doesn’t give a flying fuck about silencers or reciprocity. He cares about having a job, money in his wallet, food on his table and the ability to save for retirement and his kid’s college fund. Give him the decent job and he’ll be fat and sassy politically speaking. At that point he likely won’t oppose the HPA because he has what he wants. Try ramming the HPA through up front and Joe Sixpack starts to wonder exactly what the fuck he voted for because neither he nor 99% of the people he knows own or probably even want a silencer.

    The concerns with the biggest groups of concerned voters get first dibs. That’s how it works. If your number one priority is guns and the 2A, great, but don’t expect fuck all from DC until other things are dealt with and don’t say “They can multitask”. No, they can’t. They have to count up their political capital and wrangle their caucus on one thing at a time, especially in the Senate. Anything that’s not coming up for a scheduled vote isn’t a serious consideration.

    1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

      Correct .

    2. avatar Eli2016 says:

      Well stated STRYCH9. Now if only the 1%’s who post on these forums could comprehend what you mean, we’d be in better shape. Don’t hold your breath though.

  31. avatar Ed Rogers says:

    It’s going to take education of the public, to get these idiots to change: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sFGIckYa-Ck&t=3s

  32. avatar possum says:

    If I had my choice and it was hearing protection act or national reciprocity, I’d take the national reciprocity. I don’t think Americans are going to get either one. Probably the next thing we see out of the Whitehouse will be firearms registration.

  33. avatar former water walker says:

    MEH…I care about my RIGHT’S in ILLinois. On the precipice of an uncivil war!

  34. avatar Kyle says:

    Per Erich Pratt (GOA) they are going to use CCW Reciprocity as the silver bullet to kill all anti gun legislation. Attacking it to ANY type of AW Bans. Knowing the Dems hate you carrying a gun more than they hate you owning an AR.

    HPA and CCW have zero chance of passing this congress.

  35. avatar Marcus says:

    It’s clear that Dems like Pelosi and Feinstein are willing to play hard ball and if the President had some balls he would say he will not enforce any NFA laws and will pardon anyone who might get charged and force them to pass a real common sense gun bill.

    1. avatar ozzallos says:

      I’ll take this moment to correct you and many others on Trump’s operational strategies– He follows the established laws. If he doesn’t like them, he seeks to find lawful ways around them. This is often neither quick or easy, and often requires cooperation from a number of establishments. It is something the instant gratification crowd here at TTAG often can’t comprehend. They want him to do it Obama’s way– Executive Order the fuck out of things without due process and ignore laws that were enacted by representatives of the people.

      Once you understand that, you can know why he does what he does. Everything else– Name calling, insults, ego –is simply showmanship after that.

  36. avatar ozzallos says:

    None of these had a prayer the moment the democrats took back the House. Nothing more, nothing less.

  37. avatar LKB says:

    CCR may have an outside chance of passing . . . goes like this:

    House passes something that includes UBC’s and a slew of other gun grabber wish list items. Senate passes something that strips out most of the House bill, but leaves in a greatly-neutered UBC and adds CCR (and maybe HPA). Conference committee puts together a stripped-down bill that includes UBC and CCR.

    Might pass, but I doubt it. CCR is a poison pill for most Dems.

    As far as HPA ever making it out of this Congress, no way.

    What I don’t understand is why PDT doesn’t just deal with at least part of the HPA administratively — e.g., change the regs to authorize any FFL who’s authorized to handle NFA weapons to just issue the tax stamps.

    So, for example, Silencer Shop checks your paperwork and makes sure it’s all correct (which they do anyway — they have it down to a science ), runs the NICS check, takes your money, give you your can and tax stamp, and upload all the data to the registry and send the tax stamp revenue to the gov’t.

    Taxpayers save money as we’re not paying bureaucrats to do the (busy)work. Consumers get the ability to buy cans on pretty-much a cash-and -carry basis. With the long wait eliminated, suppressor mfgrs get a nice bump in demand.

    Would I prefer that cans be taken off the NFA entirely? Of course. But this is something that’s PDT could do with a stroke of a pen.

  38. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    In my mind the question is why didn’t they try to pass it when it likely wouldn’t have passed but rather why try now when it certainly won’t? It’s pandering and posturing at its finest.

  39. avatar John Galt says:

    Cornyns reciprocity bill is just an ass covering for republicans that sold us out last session when there was an opportunity for success.

    If it were up to me I would hang them all.

    They are laughing at us as they screw us in the a** and ask for money.

  40. avatar Mad says:

    Keep trying to MAGA.the alternative is unthinkable

  41. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    I’ll believe it when I can walk out of my local gun store with a Can, the same day I pay for it. I’m not the only gun guy who was disappointed by the “turkey neck”, many , many years ago.

  42. avatar TX223 says:

    See… fakers like John Cornyn introduce bills like this when they have absolutely no chance of passing, and oppose them when they do have a chance of passing. Cornyn supported the “veterans dissarmamenr act”, and has voiced support for red flag laws (a.k.a. National confiscation through attrition).
    Absolute complete fake looser.

  43. avatar Mad says:

    They will eventually confiscate our guns.oh maybe not today but is coming.my 36 yo son is an E8 master sargent.iraq 3 tours.he says if the military break their oaths with the fire power they possess we are screwed

    1. avatar Mad says:

      They have to disarm us for their planned global take over.it will be a blood bath on all sides

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