Our own Luis Valdes fears that a Democrat-led initiative to end private gun sales in America will pass in 2019. I’m not sure what kind of liquid he has in his gun control Magic 8-ball, but in my view, federal gun control efforts will remain a lame, three-legged dog that just won’t hunt during this next session of Congress.
Nancy Pelosi and crew might not even have the votes to pass a ban on private gun sales – otherwise known as “Universal Background Checks” – in the Democrat-controlled House. And there’s no way it will get 60 votes in the Senate. Even if the perfect storm Luis imagines comes to pass, the universal background check scheme will still fail by a few votes.
And even if it did pass, President Trump would not sign it into law.
Oh yes, earlier this year President Trump directed government bureaucracies to “ban” bump stocks. That ban made a lot of Democrats, gun control advocates and the mainstream media piddle themselves with excitement. It also upset a lot of gun rights supporters.
The Firearms Policy Coalition and Gun Owners of America wasted no time filing well-argued lawsuits. The courts may well sack the ban even before it takes effect a few months from now.
And I fully believe President DJT has no problem with that. Here’s the thing: Trump likely expects this extra-legal ban to go down in flames via the courts. Ever the master negotiator, Trump merely gave the media yap dogs and Dems a big, fat red herring – and they swallowed it whole.
And when the courts strike down the ATF’s regulatory over-reach, Trump can then shrug his shoulders and say he tried. And then continue with his agenda of jobs and America first without breaking his stride. Once again, he’s playing Democrats and the mainstream media hacks for fools.
Meanwhile, the Danger of Gun Control in the States
Having written all that, gun owners should not breathe easy and return to their Trump-induced slumber. Paid gun control advocates, sucking on the teat of billionaires like our old buddies Michael Bloomberg and George Soros, continue to work diligently to pass gun control legislation in the states.
For example, Florida – the “Gunshine State” – has enacted new gun control restrictions. And voters may have more than one ballot initiative in 2020 to ban America’s favorite rifle and other rifles. Not only that, but gun grabbers want to strip gun rights from those who have:
1) been convicted of a felony;
2) been convicted of three or more misdemeanors;
3) had their drivers license suspended or revoked for driving under the influence, careless or reckless driving, or excessive speeding;
4) been the subject of two or more domestic abuse emergency calls or investigations;
5) a mental condition that has been affirmed as temporarily or permanently psychologically disturbed by a person with a medical degree;
6) made any substantiated threat of violence against another person.
The above comes directly from the Florida Department of Elections for one of the proposed ballot initiatives that big gun control wants to get on the Florida ballot.
Meanwhile, closer to my home state of Illinois, our new Democrat governor JB Pritzker (pictured above) loves himself some gun control. When he ran a failed campaign for Congress some years back, he called for a blanket handgun ban. No amnesty, no grandfathering. His approach: “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in.”
While Pritzker will (probably) never achieve a handgun ban in the Land of Lincoln, he will use his bully pulpit to promote gun control when and where he can. Not only that, but he will sign into law any gun control bills that squeak through the Illinois General Assembly. Anything to take the persistent street violence in Chicago off the front page for a day or two.
For example, the “Gun Dealer Licensing Bill” passed this year but ran smack into a veto from our current governor. If the trend holds in 2019, fat cat JB Pritzker will sign it right away. If it follows the SB-1657 bill vetoed this year, it will end private gun sales and ration private gun owners to ten firearm transactions per year. Not only that, but it will saddle dealers with expensive licensing and security requirements, driving many Illinois FFLs out of business.
Florida and Illinois don’t have a corner of the market for racist, classist and sexist gun control proposals. Plenty of other states are in that business as well.
But back to the U.S. Congress. The ban on private gun sales, which supporters like to repackage and market as “universal background checks,” faces very dim prospects for passage. Especially if the People of the Gun pay attention and stay engaged – both with our politicians and our neighbors. Don’t let the gun control industry manipulate your friends and neighbors. Private sales of guns between good guys has never been a threat to public safety.
Help your friends understand the truth so we can all become better, smarter citizens. The background check system does nothing to stop bad guys from stealing – or buying – guns on the street. What’s more, bad guys don’t go to gun shows. In fact, a mere 0.7% of criminals say they got their guns at gun shows (thank you Bureau of Justice Statistics!).
California has all manner of gun control laws that Nancy Pelosi dreams of imposing on a national level: gun registration, 10-day waiting periods on purchases, gun violence restraining orders, gun rationing, gun bans, government-approved handgun lists, gun purchasing permits, ammunition regulations, gun confiscation laws – and universal background checks. Yet all those measures fail to stop gun crime in California. Including the recent murder of a police officer in Newman, California by an illegal alien (with an illegal gun).
Frankly, we must remain alert and engaged in politics at the local, state and federal levels. Because as a great philosopher once opined, just because you don’t take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politicians won’t take an interest in you.
We have once again become a nation of free states and slave states.
And, just as in 1845, Florida is confused as to in which side of the line it sits
“On which”
Florida is an interesting case in that the northern half is full of southerners and the southern half is full of northerners. Only this time it’s the southerners (in the north) that want a free state and the northerners (in the south) that want it to be a slave state.
It’s also interesting that states that don’t respect an individual’s 2nd Amendment rights also generally don’t respect any other individual rights.
That’s the best description of Florida there is.
LMAO! FTW, I love it!
You hit the nail on the freggin head.
Its driving me nuttz too.
Florida is not now, and hasn’t been, for some time, a southern state. It’s now a northern state that happens to be physically located in the deep south. It’s populated with the dregs of society from the “great” states of the NE. It’s a northern socialist state located in the deep south. FL should run all people north of the Mason-Dixon line out of the state. Since we know that ain’t gonna happen, you poor people in FL are going to become NY/NJ south. Sucks to be you, sucks for the rest of us as well.
“Florida is not now, and hasn’t been, for some time, a southern state.”
You’ve clearly never been to Florida. And if you have, you’ve clearly never set foot outside Orlando or Tampa.
“…you poor people in FL are going to become NY/NJ south.”
Going to?
Too late. The whole Miami-Ft Lauderdale-WPB metro area is the Southern most Burrough of NYC.
So the state government investigating you twice or having an individual make two unproven allegations is enough to pass constitutional muster to strip you of a fundamental right? These people are crazy!
“been the subject of two or more domestic abuse emergency calls or investigations;”
most politicos don’t feel the need to stick their necks out trying to pass federal regulations when the states are doing such a “good’ job of passing onerous restrictions…
I won’t say i’d be surprised if i’m proven wrong, but i think there are enough Ds in purplish districts who don’t want to see themselves voted out by going hard after gun control in their first term.
that is to say, i tend to agree i don’t think its a given a UBC bill makes it out of the house
NJ2AZ,
I am nearly certain that a universal background check bill would clear the U.S. Senate — probably on exactly 60 votes for cloture and then perhaps 52 votes to pass.
As for the U.S. House of Representatives, I figure that could go either way. While some Democrat U.S. Representatives in purple districts might be tempted to vote against a universal background check bill, I figure some Republican U.S. Representatives in purple districts will be tempted to vote in favor of universal background checks.
Would it not be the pinnacle of irony if the Republican controlled U.S. Senate passed and the Democrat controlled U.S. House of Representatives defeated a universal background check bill?
I’m totally certainly you don’t know diddly squat about politics and the legislative process.
So I should ignore his talk and his walk?
Lol… CNN… you got AJ+ queued up too?
Are you saying the video of Trump is a deep fake produced by CNN?
Honestly, at this point it wouldn’t surprise me. CNN is beyond biased, they’re the onion of cable news.
I’m saying that context matters.
“Here’s the thing: Trump likely expects this extra-legal ban to go down in flames via the courts.”
Bullshit. If Trump wanted to do this he’d send ANY sign to gun owners this wasn’t crap. Reevaluate sporting purpose, NFA amnesty, correctly determine that smokeless powder propels by energy of expanding gas and not an explosion. ANYTHING. All this did was throw his base to the wolves.
And the NRA’s bullshit.
And you’re STILL troll.
“Take the guns first, due process second”
Donald J. Trump
And I’m pretty sure he was sitting right next to “Mr & Mrs America, turn ‘em all in” too.
Overall inclined to agree at least on intent and blind advocacy of and for the NRA.
I really have questions if it will make it through the SC though. I really think we’re starting to slide more towards a broader challenge of the regulatory state as a whole honestly. With the new SC justices there are questions in my mind as to if they’re going to start telling Congress to get off their rear ends and start doing their jobs instead of letting the presidency and the judiciary legislate. Probably a dream but you never know these days.
If the bump stock ban is not for real, then I would expect the NRA to be fighting it tooth and nail as well, they could be pushing hard for donations to “stop the ATF from this unprecedented power grab, donate to the NRA today to repeal the bump stock ban!” It would give them something to fight that they would have a slam dunk victory, if that was the plan.
Also if the plan is to send fake regulations up with the intention of getting them killed by the courts, I guess the immigration controls on hostile countries or countries lacking ability to vouch for people traveling from them is also fake regulation? He wants the courts to kick that back. Or we have to navigate between the rules he does want and they opposing rules that we don’t but are actually fake rules so don’t fear, just spend a few years and millions fighting in the courts, it is just for fun…
In that case put all kinds of crazy illegal rules, speech against the president results in death penalty, the EPA is banning gas starting next month, unilaterally declare war on Spain, all schools are indefinitely closed, build that border wall via phone and pen. If you are just sending out bogus rules just to make the courts do some work to push back on you, then there are no limits right?
If Trump doesn’t want a bump stock ban, then fighting for one only seems to hurt his credibility, and the ATF/justice department, and it sure provides cover for States to continue to ban it, or even Congress itself. Why shouldn’t Florida Republicans ban bump stocks if Trump and the NRA are also for banning it? How good will the state case to reject the state ban do if we have a partially implemented federal rule?
So how is that 2A counsel thing for the president you were (are?) on working out?
…Could that be a small, old-style classroom desk located in a dimly lit section of the WH. In a little cramped room…Labeled about the door; “Jantior’s Closet…” (P.S. : Still awaiting 2nd Amendment restoration in my “Socialist Authoritarian Controlled Eastern Bloc Police-State…..)
I cannot comment on the SAC.
I will say: It’s been more than a little disappointing that Paul Ryan and Cocaína Mitch have not been more receptive to legislation to implement many of these things we’ve talked about.
John
The problem isn’t Mitch or Paul, it’s the lack of 60 votes for pro 2A bills in the senate. They are good vote counters and they know they don’t have 9 dem’s to vote for pro 2a bills even if all GOP vote yes.
The dem’s in the senate have voted as a block against almost everything and every nominee. Unless that changes, no pro 2a bill will pass.
Ryan got it passed in the House. Mitch never gave them a chance in the Senate,
I hear you. Nonetheless, it would have been helpful to put the Anti-2A senators on-record. Some of them are from red/purple states. Even some lefties support the 2.
Agreed. If we want to stop gun control at the Federal level we need only get 41 solid gun-rights Senators elected. There are 40+ right-to-carry states which send 80 Senators to DC. We can’t get 1/2 of them on our side? Why is that?
We got the state legislators of these 40+ states on our side. So, apparently, we know something about our own states’ politics. Why do we not bother with our own Senators?
One interpretation is that we are too narrowly focused on our home turf. I’m fairly happy here in Pennsylvania. It costs me a penny a day for my 5-year License to Carry Firearms. So, why should I care much about Cary and Toomey in Washington. Let them do what they like and my right – RIGHT ! I say!! – will remain untouched.
That train of thought works very well right up to the point where Congress passes a bill and a president signs it.
We need a Senate that will ensure that Federal judges are confirmed who respect the Constitution. And, a Senate that will block gun control laws. Until we see to that small effort – 41 Senators – we remain in jeopardy.
Yet you all could have at least removed some import restrictions like 922r.
They were designed by executive order, they can be removed by executive order.
Not by Executive Order, but by Executive Memorandum on January 16, 2013. And Executive Order CAN’T Nullify and Executive Memorandum, ONLY A “Super Majority Vote” by both the US House and the US Senate can Nullify a Executive Memorandum. And with the US Congress track record so far, that’s not likely to happen…
Hate to say I agree with Nanishi. Trump is a NYC democrat in a thinly veiled disguise. When is the last time Boch got it right?!?
He predicted HPA and National Reciprocity signage years ago LOL.
I called Trump’s victory many months before the election.
Hell, I called Trump when folks thought he wouldn’t make it past Super Tuesday in the frickin’ primaries.
John
I would remind the author it was REPUBLICANS in Florida , Vermont and Pennsylvania that helped PASS anti-gun measures !
Gov. Benedict Scott,RINO of Vermont,worthless POS.
I was speaking to a former Vt.state senate candidate this morning and Scott and his RINO party wouldn’t even pressure the supposed Republican party of Vermont,to give support to the new Republican candidates running for election this past fall.
Too bad……..I got all excited when reading the title and then realized my mistake. I thought it said the New Democrats were dead on arrival. Damn it!!!!!
Planned Parenthood jokes here?
John Boch: You predicted Congress would pass and Trump would sign HPA and national reciprocity. I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion when there was 0 evidence for it. Here again, you are mistaken. The Senate GOP is exceedingly anti gun. The next serious mass shooting could very well push the Senate to pass UBC. As Luis’ article explains, there are a handful of very anti gun GOP senators. If they pass it, Trump is also very anti gun and will sign it. He will tell us this is common sense and many people like pwserge, will tell us he “loves America” and it tryin the best he can. He don’t mean it, he love us, and is trying to protect us from something worse!
Mr. Boch,
Please quote Trump’s, or any of his “best peoples,” quotes regarding the 2nd Amendment getting eviscerated in: FL, VT, VA, NY, NJ, MD, MA, WA, etc. during the first two years of his presidency. The fact is that you can’t with the exception of Trump congratulating RINO traitor Rick Scott on his anti-gun legislation. Trump hasn’t said a damn word about states destroying the 2A. Trump has a loooooong history of saying and doing anything to get what he wants. But gun owners aren’t the only group he fooled, the Chistians of America bought everything hook, line, and sinker. They have LaPierres, Coxes, and Hammers too, except with “Rev.” in front of their last names.
I don’t think Mr.Trump has any working back round of the Constitution,Bill of Rights and most likely thinks the Federalist Papers to be a scandal sheet.
I’ve read similar thoughts of Mr. Trump and the NRA postulated by Mr. John Boch,who was appointed to the presidents white house 2A counsel. Which has produced little to nothing in the way of second amendment restoration results from this white house or President.
With Mr. Trumps past statement of “Just Take The Guns First,Then Let the Courts Decide,shouldn’t inspire confidence of any citizen as to his Constitutional standing.
Again with the “4D chess” nonsense. Guys, Trump does not believe in the same interpretation of the Second Amendment that we do. Quit kidding yourselves.
dumpster is a con man and an opportunist who cares only about himself and his bank account. He cares not about gun owners, the second or anyone other than himself and his useless, worthless children. He will sell out our country if it suits his ego and his bottom line.
TDS=Trump Defense Syndrome
Can I get my nationalism without a side dish of gun control? Donald Trump was elected for a host of reasons, gun control was not one of them. Most of the reasons he was elected are never mentioned on ttag, but should be. Many gun people were willing to overlook his shaky past on the issue, because they were being economically crushed. When you afraid of losing your house because you can’t pay the mortgage, shooting sports are a unaffordable luxury.
I voted for Ted Cruz during the primary, but I didn’t think he was going to make it. He got hardly any free media, and what he got made him sound like the reincarnation of Oliver Cromwell. (No one, at that time wanted the government to control people’s sex lives. Now with the me too movement, I am not so sure) I heard many women call into the Rush Limbaugh show complaining that he sounded like a televangelist. So he lost the primary, because he didn’t speak to the concerns of millions of people. And frightened millions more.
Then when it came to the general election, was there ever really a choice? Hilary would have been a disaster in every way possible. I would likely be unemployed, lost my house and having to switch back to dial up.
It’s fine to bitch here about the bump stock ban, but why isn’t it breaking into the wider conversation? At my job I listen to a lot of talk radio. And I have yet to hear about it. I bring it up on Ringside Politics and Free Talk Live. But I don’t hear a caller to Rush or Sean bring it up.
And finally if it is Trump vs Kamala Harris, you going sit it out?
The Democrats pushed gun control into a fully split party issue. In the end it’s almost assured that we’ll lose if it stays that way. The NRA hitching their horse near fully to the Republicans is stupid, it means there’s little reason for them to stay loyal to our interests, but rather to just say some nice pandering stuff every 2-6 years depending on the position and sending us on our way after. Much like Democrats and their intersectional groups or the unions.
Cruz let Kavanaugh say, to his face, the Constitution was not the most important thing in a ruling go by without ANY comment or shock. Combine that with his sloth on co-sponsoring pro-2A legislation (HPA took forever for him to co-sponser to my memory) and I’m not so sure he’d be better.
It takes approximately 218 votes to pass a Bill in the US House of Representatives and after January 3, 2019 the Democrats will hold 240 seats in the House. As of last week, Donald Trump’s request for funding for the Border Wall was “Only” a mere ~$2.5-Billion. You do the math? What do you “think” Donald Trump is going to do and “Still Save Face to his credibility as a President…
I creampied Pelosi in 1986, just saying.
Oh, back when she was still somewhat young, in her early eighties?
This is genuinely sad. I don’t know how to convince people like Mr. Boch and TTAG commentators that a Republican senate is no bulwark. That Mr. Trump is now the enemy.
If you cant see the evidence by now then I guess you’ll just have to find a new excuse to tell the doctor when he asks, “How’d you get that black eye?”. When your ready, pwrserge; I’ve got an 800 number you can call.
anti-2a d-suckers: come & get it, mofo’s…a lot of things can happen to dog s**t.
Trump has so much on the table at this time I do not think any firearms law is on the top of his fix it list.
“Ever the master negotiator, Trump…”
Gonna have to stop you there. Go ahead and use that line when he gets Mexico to pay for the wall.
Didn’t he recently give Mexico enough money to pay for the wall? Maybe he plans to funnel the money to them as foreign aid, then Mexico will use it to pay for the wall.
Universal Back round Checks are working so well in Vermont that it isn’t, the Marxist Morons of Montpelier were explained this before passing the bill and the POS RINO Gov. signed it.
S.55 (Act 94) required the Vermont Department of Public Safety to determine if it could conduct NICS checks.
This law requires the private parties to a transfer of ownership of a firearm, except for some exemptions, to
have the buyer go through a NICS check. This opinion from the Department of Public Safety states such a
firearm transfer would have to be done by a willing FFL. If the FFLs refuse to do these checks, a wall is hit.
State Says It Won’t Be Able To Run Background Checks For Gun Sales
After Vermont passed historic gun legislation this year, lawmakers wanted to know if the state could play a role in performing background checks.
But a new report from the Department of Public Safety finds that because only licensed dealers can access the federal database system, the state will not be able to offer an alternative to running the background checks through gun shops.
Under federal and state laws anyone who buys a gun from a federally licensed dealer is required to have a background check.
Public Safety Deputy Commissioner Christopher Herrick said lawmakers wanted to know if the state could set up a new system to give people one more option.
“In multiple phone calls with the FBI, and reviewing federal law and regulation, it became clear that we would not be authorized to have access to the full range of databases that are performed on a normal background check for a gun purchase,” Herrick said.
“Any background check that Vermont police agencies would be doing would be thin and incomplete and would potentially put the public at risk.” – Christopher Herrick, Public Safety Deputy Commissioner.
http://digital.vpr.net/post/state-says-it-wont-be-able-run-background-checks-gun-sales#stream/0
“And even if it did pass, President Trump would not sign it into law.”
https://youtu.be/iYRsZEmIfsY
Lol… yeah you go on believing that
They will attach it to the fiscal spending bill and include the stupid 5 billion for the wall. Dems will sign on to it as will trump.
End result everyone loses.
So how’s that presidential Second Amendment Coalition going, Mr. Boch?
There’s exactly two people between us & UBC at this point; Mitch McConnell, and Donald Trump. And I would argue if either of them falters the other will also. And I would argue Trump will endorse the measure after the next major shooting (which predictably occurs about every six months or so). At that point, we are relying on a mere filibuster or a couple unreliable Republican frenemies to keep us from mandatory registration.
So to simply write off Mr. Valdez’ concerns as paranoid hokum is quite irresponsible.
Valdes warns about a state-level UBC bill, Boch counters that Congress won’t be able to pass it. Seems legit.
You are delusional if you think Trump will refuse to sign such a gun-control bill.
He is the one who said he liked the idea of “taking away the guns first … then worry about due process later”. He is also the very person who told the DOJ to make up some sh!t to ban bump-stocks… a firearm accessory which only makes the bump-firing rapid-shooting technique easier.
How about public posted “Universal Background Checks and Social Media Checks” for ALL Politicians in public service!
In Nevada, the Governor Elect, Sisolak, has promised to ban ‘assault rifles’, standard capacity magazines, suppressors, and enact a ‘red flag law’.
NV has a blue super majority in the house, and one seat shy of a super majority in the state senate. Given the recent history of Republican reps in NV, I don’t see that single seat blocking the blue wave of gun control in NV in this session.
Welcome to CA type gun restrictions, NV.
Every state I wanted to have a place to put firearms has become the new California. Arizona isn’t safe, but at least I have some more time before that one becomes another California.
Good thing I live in South Carolina. No Citizen Initiatives. Only the State Legislature can put something on the Ballot. And with a Republican controlled Legislature it’s doubtful any gun control would make to the Governor’s desk. But on the downside, still no Open Carry after trying for at least 5 years.
“Democrat governor JB Pritzker . . . he called for a blanket handgun ban.”
So, let’s see how this works. SCOTUS ruled in Heller & McDonald that the 2A guarantees a right to keep a handgun – in operable condition – in the home. So long as SCOTUS maintains that stance, no state (let alone Congress) can ban handguns.
Forty plus states are right-to-carry under more-or-less favorable conditions.
That pretty much dooms any prospect of “controlling” the number of guns in the country that are used for suicide or homicide.
Now, consider all the prospects for “common sense” “reasonable” gun controls. Collectively. Imagine they were ALL adopted. It’s hard to imagine that there would be any statistically-significant impact on either suicide or homicide by gun. Then what? What do the gun-controllers do for an encore?
Isn’t it so that they would have to undertake a repeal (or substantial re-write) of the 2A? How do they do the now that there are enough permit-less carry states to block a Constitutional amendment?
In the mean time, we the PotG need to be building the docket in the courts with additional 2A cases. They must be cases we are confident that SCOTUS will easily agree to uphold; i.e., to see that there IS a right under the 2A to the contested liberty to arms. Cases like Caetano v Massachusetts. Bit by bit, the liberty to arms expands. Bit by bit, the power of legislatures to try to control guns recedes.
And, in the mean time, we the PotG need to emphasize that all the effort to control guns is mis-spent. We ought to be dealing with root-cause analysis. Tracing the cause of gun death from the bullet to the power to beyond the primer and firing pin. What is it that motivates the trigger-puller? Can we do anything about that?
To the extent that there is little to motivate the trigger-puller, we need to persuade our fellow voters that incarcerating the trigger-pullers makes more sense than incarcerating tax-payers.
Re: Root cause analysis. This is a very good point, but I’m a geeky engineer whose professional life is ruled by cause-and-effect.
Criminals (to your point that it’s the criminal trigger-puller) don’t care one whit about another bunch of words written on paper at the state or national legislature. Criminals have their own decision matrix, and other factors override the desire to remain legal.
Most mass-shootings occur in so-called gun-free zones. Note here that firearms are already legally banned. The Panacea of Gun-Grabbers. Yet firearms appear in gun-free zones with alarming regularity. New laws cannot ban firearms even more than they already are.
Further, if a kilo of cocaine can come across the border, so can a kilo of Glock. Or full-auto AK-47. Prohibition merely raises the price of the contraband item. We have performed this experiment before in the 1930s – the net-net was merely an increase in price, along with large profits to criminals with the aforementioned lack of squeamishness to break the law.
Any UBC will be short-circuited by a criminal’s girlfriend. Her background check is pure as the driven snow. She will straw-purchase the firearm and give it to her BF because her BF provides a Standard of Living to which she has become accustomed.
This is the message we need to forward to those who would want to write more laws. We already have enough laws. The problem is that we have too many criminals.
They’re going to get universal background checks, maybe sooner, maybe later. FBI NICS background check portal has had provisions already set up for it for a long time. When that happens, no one can legally circulate firearms in private, all tracked. At that point, they can just regulate the FFLs and the FFLs will have no choice but to comply or else forfeit their business license at the least. No one will have to kick in doors for this to happen. It freezes circulation and puts transfers through a manageable choke point. That’s the goal the whole time. Has nothing to do with anything else. And they are databasing in WV despite the 1968 congressional mandate not to.