Previous Post
Next Post


Donald Trump is an unlikely gun rights hero. Lest we forget, the once and future real estate magnate supported the Clinton-era assault weapons ban. (No surprise there, he was a Democrat at the time.) I remain unconvinced that Mr. Trump has the courage of my convictions, or the political nous to get sh!t done. Still, as Bachman Turner Overdrive sang, I’ll take what I can get. B-b-b-baby you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

It remains to be seen if the author of The Art of the Deal can deliver undiluted national licensed concealed carry reciprocity — our best bet for gun rights restoration in states behind the Iron Curtain 2.0 (e.g., New Jersey, Hawaii, California). At least until a more conservative-minded Supreme Court judge can further tip the balance towards respect for Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

Anyway, national reciprocity is on the table. If Mrs. Clinton had won the election, the odds of a reciprocity bill becoming law would have been lower than the chances of Billary flying Jet Blue. Post election, there’s lots of pro-gun legislation under consideration, as Trump-enabled gun rights advocates gear-up to repeal and not replace infringements suffered by The People of The Gun since the National Firearms Act of 1934. And before.

Right now, I’m cautiously optimistic about gun reform (to use the antis’ term), in a Show Me State kinda way. But also prepared, of course, to hold the Trump administration’s feet to the proverbial fire if The Donald fails to deliver on his pro-gun promises, or waters down gun rights legislation to appease the opposition. Actually, make that when.

Remember candidate Trump’s pledge to the NRA convention to “get rid of gun-free zones” on day one of his new administration? A promise that Mr. Trump repeated at subsequent campaign stops. “My first day, it gets signed, OK? My first day. There’s no more gun free zones,” Trump pronounced at a Burlington, Vermont rally. “You know what a gun-free zone is to a sicko? That’s bait.”

You go, girl! Only . . . Mr. Trump retreated from that position when Mrs. Clinton made it sound like her rival wanted to hand guns to adults as they passed through the school gates. “Clarifying his position,” Trump told CNN that only school resource officers and/or trained teachers should be “allowed” to carry a gun in school.

Hey! You know what that sounds like? A compromise! A deal! Kinda like the “no federal database” deal that the NRA cut to support National Instant Background Checks for all new gun sales. How great is that?

Back up a second. What exactly could President Trump sign on day one to eliminate “gun free zones,” anyway? An executive order cancelling Bush the Elder’s Gun Free School Zones Act? Not to coin a phrase, that’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works. Question: does Mr. Trump know how government works?

Let’s be charitable and say not yet, and assume that President-elect Trump’s Beltway swamp drainers will effectively manipulate the levers of power on his (our?), but definitely not their own behalf. Shepherding common sense gun reform (I love stealing the antis’ verbiage) through the slow-motion horse-trading whorehouse that is the United States Congress.

Still, no matter how you slice it, rolling back gun control isn’t going to be the cakewalk some on the pro-gun side imagine it to be under President Trump. Especially not with California going full retard on gun control. (Background checks for ammo sales? Really?) And Nevada’s looking decidedly intellectually challenged on the firearms freedom front, what with its forthcoming Universal Background Check law.

Not to put too fine a point on it, gun rights restoration via federal fiat or a Supreme Court edict risks a political civil war between Uncle Sam and the states. As if that’s not in the cards anyway….

Suffice it to say, The Truth About Guns will remain hyper-vigilant on behalf of gun rights advocates during the Trump administration. As far as I’m concerned, it ain’t over ’til the fat lady can legally carry her gun anywhere in the United States without any sort of local, state or federal permission slip. Trump or no Trump, we’re a very long way from that blessed day.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. SIGH. We know what our rights would be like under hillary(rights? what rights?) So let’s let President Elect Trump at least get sworn in before we tear at him.

    • I agree. While Trump is making questionable moves like bringing in Reince Prebius (or whatever his name is) as his Chief of Staff, with all the protests and shock still not worn off of his victory, he can’t come out guns blazing all at once, he can’t go into his first transition meeting with Obama and say, “YOU’RE FIRED!”

      Trump has to play this smart and I do believe he is by playing nice and by doing so, he’s keeping steps 2 and 3 of the Deal formula intact:

      2. Protect the downside and the upside will take care of itself.
      -Trump is making sure that he shows he’s willing to work with the RINO’s by bringing in one of them. If he went rouge and made Rush Limbaugh his Chief of Staff, he’d lose half the Repubs in Congress. Showing them early that he’s willing to listen, makes them willing to listen and thus the upside of these moves is always going to be there.

      3. Maximize your options.
      -By opening the door to the RINO’s it keeps them open minded. If there’s anything that’s been proven with the RINO’s it’s that they have no spine. After half an hour with Trump, Bitch McConnell and Paul Cryin’ are going to come out of that meeting calling for legislation to be introduced to build a border wall so high, it’ll block out the Sun.

      It’s also incontrovertible that Trump is doing a high wire balance act and nobody knows if he’s going to make it across the way he said he would. The thing about that though… is the enemies within the Republican party don’t know either and Trump bringing in Prebius is keeping his enemies closer than his allies, which is step 4 of the Deal formula: Know Your Market. Trump has to sell the People’s Brand to the Swamp Things in DC. He can’t do that if he doesn’t know what what their weaknesses are.

      • “…If he went rouge and made Rush Limbaugh his Chief of Staff,…”

        That won’t be happening.

        Limbaugh is not interested in the paycut…

        • limbaugh is not interested in actual accountability. Its easier to just be always right than to actually DO something. Rush has a paperweight on his desk right next to his golden EIB microphone. It says “The Buck Stops Over There Somewhere” and has a fingertip bobblehead.

    • Hillary is gone, so it doesn’t really matter what she would have done. At least, that is what Trumplings kept telling me after Cruz dropped out. Now that the frog is king, all that matters is what he will do. So unless you want another Bush who quietly passes anti gun regulations while pretending to care about our rights, you have to be willing to criticize. When he reverses himself as he did on GFZs, it matters. When he pursues unconstitutional terror watchlist disenfranchisement, it matters, when he starts listening to his little Gun Council, it matters.

      Loyalty in politics is how we got where we are. People refused to criticize their leaders, who then were free to ignore their needs. Mark my words; If Trump thinks he has our votes regardless, he will do nothing for us. This is how he and all other politicians have always worked.

      • Hillary is only gone cause Trump kicked her ass to the curb. Trumplings. You’re the guy that was declaring hillary the winner as soon as Trump got the nomination.

        Your opinion matters, why?

      • How’d McMuffin work out for ya?

        Last I checked he was thrown away into the dustbin of history, along with the rest of the other “muh true conservative” types.

      • It is astounding to hear the chorus master repeatedly ask “can we trust him?” and wonder if Trump has “the political nous to get sh!t done.” RF, the guy just took on sixteen major political figures and beat them all in primaries. Then he took on a democrat nominee who was carrying very favorable Vegas bookie odds and 90% media support…and he won. Spending less money. Then he got both the most “methodical organization man” republican and the most “shake it up” republican brain to accept senior positions in his administration. That’s loading up with exactly the kind of weapons you need to “get sh!t done.” Or so it seems to me.

        Trump has two shooting sons. He learned via the AW Ban that the gun regulators really are, ultimately, gun grabbers. They’re never content. Feeding their appetite never pays. Trust Trump. “What have you got to lose?” At least it’s assured you won’t end up owing him alimony…..

        It’s true that there’s always some group that thinks it got what it wanted in an election but which ends up getting it…good and hard. I don’t think POTG are the likely candidates for that, uh, end. Give Don and Eric a little credit.

  2. I’m fairly convinced that Trump will at least sign the Hearing Protection Act, considering him, his son, and Silencerco have spent a bunch of time together working things out. His son seems very passionate about getting that bill through, so calling his dad up and giving a nudge shouldn’t be out of the question.

    • I agree that his sons are our biggest allies. They greatly increase my optimism that the administration will act on a number of its pro 2A campaign promises, instead of them being things just said to help get elected.

      • Trump’s family are going to be his closest secret advisors because he trusts them. Trump brought in guys like Christie, Giuliani, etc. because he knows the stuff he’s going to have them do will be done well, but that doesn’t mean he’s going to take everything they say without a pound of salt.

        So long as Eric and Don Jr. can hear the People’s voice, they’re going to pass the message on to Poppa Don and when Eric comes asking to have a short barrel shotgun, but he tells dad that part of the NFA needs repealing, The Don is going to get to work on that convincing the Slimers with an (R) next to their name to introduce legislation to get it done, lest they lose favor with him signing the next government financing bill.

        • You do realize that is an incredibly corrupt conflict of interest, right? Trump’s closest advisors being his kids, who also now run a multi-billion dollar conglomerate that could benefit from many of his policies? But yeah, drain the swamp, those dirty crooked Clinton’s are bleeding us dry, and all that other bullshit Trump supporters pretend to believe. I have hope Trump will do well, but hope is what elected Obama. I suspect the Trump Corporation will soon be replacing the Clinton Foundation (wouldn’t it be so alpha if he uses the IRS to sieze all his contributions to the Clinton’s? Or confiscates all their holdings & transfers them into “his kids'” corporation? Talk about an epic troll of those stupid cucks! Reeeeetarded.)

  3. I’m sure he’d sign reciprocity and the HPA. But it’s not getting to him. If you think the the Republicans in Congress care about the right to bear arms you got another thing comin.

    • Dear RINO Congresscritters:
      You didn’t think we could or would put Trump in, did you?
      If we can do that, do you think we can put you OUT if you keep treating us as poorly as the Dems treat blacks?

      • RINOs are more accurately neocons, which is the Latin contraction for “new con job”. They’re Dems/Statists in Repub clothing. Sorta. Like Reagan, one of the worst anti-gun governors, then Presidents, ever.

      • “You didn’t think we could or would put Trump in, did you?”

        Lol. Well “WE” didn’t put Trump anywhere–it’s becoming more and morey clear that Trump’s biggest vote-getter in the election was Hillary.

        And it’s doubtful that 2A issues will be a priority for the new Congress. Why should they?–Hillary won the popular vote so they know their seats are far from secure.

        • We still don’t know who won the popular vote. Clinton is up by 600k votes, with 7 million votes uncounted as of yesterday.

        • ” . . .Hillary won the popular vote so they know their seats are far from secure. . .”

          In this you are quite wrong. The purpose of the Electoral College is to give representation to states and geographic regions rather than population dense urban areas. If you look at an electoral map, the vast majority of American states voted for Trump. Why should the voting population of mega-cities on our coasts have more control over the presidential election process than people living in rural areas? You should have studied this in 9th grade civics class.

        • Yes Trump more than likely won the popular vote. Absentee ballots(especially overseas) are 2/3rds Republican(or more)in a typical presidential election. How soon we forget screwing soldiers…

        • Don’t count on absentee ballots. After I retired from the military (following 15 years of filing absentee ballots), my wife and I discovered that our votes had never been counted, much less added to the totals, just burned. Along with the absentee ballots of all other military families in the 1975-1990 time frame.

          • Read long ago that some states only open the absentee ballots when and if an election is close. Then, the votes are only counted until a clear winner is determined. Of course, there was also the potential for simply destroying votes in order to ensure a victory in places where one or the other party was/is dominant.

            Maybe “early voting” removes the problem of destroyed “absentee” ballots.

  4. Take what you can get. We can work with Trump. Hillary, on the other hand, is 10 pounds of you-know-what on a 5 pound bag.

    If we can pass pro gun bills in the Senate, at least the Donald won’t veto them. Better yet, we can pack the supreme court and make the gun control laws unconstitutional. Scorched motherf**king earth folks.

    • Hillary’s gone, dude, or should we keep talking about how much better other nominees woukd be doing for gun owners and the country at large?

  5. If we can get these 3 items through, I think that would be a good start…

    1. Hearing protection act
    2. Conceal Carry national reciprocity
    3. The rescinding of Executive Orders that restrict the 2A, to include the Bush ban on importing MSR’s.

    • Honestly, and I know some people aren’t going to like this, but I think sbrs and sbs off the NFA is a more pressing matter. The longer a law has been in place, the harder it is to repeal. That law has been around over 80 years, meaning this may be our only shot to get it done. National reciprocity will be a minefield anyway and will take a lot longer to get through.

      • I was under the impression that the Conceal Carry national reciprocity is one those Bills that can be pushed through. Too me that has a higher precedent. It would also bring those Occupied States closer to 2A reform that they so desperately need. We can’t do much for them until the SCOTUS issue is resolved and the un-Constitituional laws that those states have passed are brought to suit and gone through the lower courts then eventually to SCOTUS. Repealing the NFA I think should be done after the HPA and SCOTUS. The statement I want to make…. A week ago we weren’t having this conversation. A year ago we had just got the ATF to back down on M855 ammo. This last July 41F went into effect… Now today this week, we have hope that I mean real honest to goodness hope that all these un-Constitituional laws, executive orders, and anti-gun legislation can be repealed, overturned, and reform the 2A into true Common Sense gun reform… 😀 Thank you for reading. Please contact your congressional representatives and express to them what they should do about 2A reform. Don’t be afraid to remind them that there are mid-term elections and they can be replaced…

        • You and Robert seem to think that National Reciprocity is “our best bet for gun rights restoration in states behind the Iron Curtain 2.0 (e.g., New Jersey, Hawaii, California).” Sorry to burst your bubble, but it just ain’t so. Consider that NYC and NJ already ignore the national law on the transportation of weapons, narrowly construing the Act so as to target anyone who takes any break in traveling from a state where the weapon is lawful to another state where lawful (which doesn’t include NYC or NJ), it is easy to see that national reciprocity will avail the residents of slave states not at all, and it is entirely probable that it will not assist concealed carriers from other states when entering a slave state. Let’s take for example the law in NYC–in order to even possess a firearm in the City, you have to have a license, not just from the State, but from the City as well–and issuance of permits is purely political–uh, I mane discretionary. SO just because it is lawful for an out of stater to carry in NYC doesn’t mean that his or her firearm will be a legal firearm under NYC law. No permit, say hello to my little friend. (Well, Bubba ain’t so little, if you catch my drift.)

          So what do I see happening in California. The Ninth Circuit gleefully announced that there is no right to concealed carry, and therefore California’s discretionary may issue system (which differs in application from county to county) continues. Since the national reciprocity law requires a license from one’s state of residence, millions of Californians will be unable to take advantage of such a law since they will be unable to obtain a license from their county sheriff in any of the “no issue” counties. And now that the Democrats have regained a supermajority in the Hous3e (and maybe in the Senate as well), that they will pass a law requiring that any concealed carry piece be registered in California will likely follow on the heals of any national reciprocity bill. And with open carry also outlawed, all you tourists had best leave your guns at home. And the same will be true in every state that does not want individuals carrying guns, national reciprocity or not.

      • Vhyrus, that’s one reason I believe every law should come with an expiration date. Just like the Clinton-era AWB … but for all laws.

        One, legislation that isn’t working as intended can be quietly allowed to roll off the books. Two, at some point our lawmakers become so busy renewing old laws they will have trouble finding time to make new ones. Of course one would have to eliminate amendments to bills, and nix blanket renewals; but I view those as features, not bugs.

      • Broadening “sporting purposes” to all recreational or even competitive/sanctioned uses would have an enormous impact, from gun imports, to ammo, to 922r. A bill to change to “all lawful purposes” is even better, but requires congress.

        • You do not get to enjoy any of the potential new benefits of the Trump Presidency barn, you nevertrumper. Sit down and shut up comes to mind.

        • You did nothing but work against Trump on this forum for many months, in the face of overwhelming indications that trump is very 2A. Now you want to enjoy the fruits of a Trump presidency regarding gun rights. What a piece of work you are.

      • The way I look at it is this; I would prioritize the repeal ofexisting laws over the addition of new ones, I would walk back federal over-reach before applying federal dictates onto the States.

        • So much this!
          It used to bug the shit out of me when the NRA and Republicans would say “we need to enforce the laws on the books”. My reaction was “the hell you say!” We need to eliminate gun laws because they are in direct conflict with the second amendment. We have murder laws and assault laws. That should cover most of the gun issues. The rest can fall under negligence.
          I have an unregistered baseball bat and kitchen knives. Why no redundant laws with those items? Guns should be in the same category. It is the misuse of the gun that should be addressed in a law. Not mere possession.

  6. I suspect the Congress critters of both houses are well aware of just how fed up their base is with the “go along to get along theme” of modern DC. We will get a non-watered down version of the HPA and likely an end to the SBR/SBS silliness before the Democrats get their act together and make any headway on slowing down the Trumpster and getting him to sign off on compromise. That first 100 days will be critical to those achievements, after that things will start to slide like they always do.

    • “I suspect the Congress critters of both houses are well aware of just how fed up their base is with the “go along to get along theme”…”

      No they aren’t. Or at least they are refusing the acknowledge the recent election, just as they did the 2010 and 2014 interim elections. The new members were essentially told they accomplished their primary job of getting Repubs elected/re-elected. Their next (and permanant) job was to support whatever the leadership directed. That and stay on the phone fund-raising for Repub war chests. Just yesterday, McConnell stated there would be no discussion of any legislation, of any type, related to term limits.

      The Repub establishment is not enlightened; they cannot “get the picture”. They can only wage internal war to protect their power. Trump will be hemmed-in by Dems and Repubs who will not allow his agenda any oxygen.

      BTW, Trump does seem to look at being president as being CEO of America; issue orders, and hold underlings accountable for results. He does not even recognize that the enemy he faces now is more treacherous and stubborn than any presidential candidate he ever saw: the intrenched bureaucracy. Trump can issue a thousand EO/EA a day; the bureaucrats will stone-wall, slow-roll, research, consider, analyze, generate endless false starts….until there is a leftist again in the office.

      • Re your last point, the President is the head of the federal bureaucracy, except for those relatively small pieces attached to the Supreme Court and Congress. He (with the approval of Congress) appoints the Secretaries of departments and the heads of agencies. At some point you drop down to where you’re a career employee, but those still have performance reports. At that level it can take a while to build a case for termination, but it can be done, and a track record of failure to perform tasks as directed can be established in less than a single presidential term.

        So it will be very hard, but there is some hope on that score.

        • Being a decades-long career federal bureaucrat, I maintain Trump is in for a shock. Terminations are so rare as to be non-existent (you may not have been keeping up on that), performance reports are used to deny promotions, not to remove anyone (and…to give a poor performance report, one must prove every other employee in your unit is not guilty of some form of the poor performance for which you are awarding one employee). I lived through a time when a person was awarded the top spot in an agency. The person was successfully running a small, minority owned business when selected for the government position. The senior staff at the agency did not like a non-government/non-lobbyist person in the top spot. The senior staff provided the newly appointed person with advice certain to be wrong for the confirmation hearing (leading to several embarrassing mis-steps), refused to assign someone familiar with government laws and regulations applicable to the agency, and finally sat silent as the new appointment was (correctly) accused of violations of federal law (law even the lowest level employee knew and understood). The result was the resignation of the “outsider”, and appointment of a political hack, from inside the agency.

          Never, ever underestimate career bureaucrats. Presidents (and others) come and go, the bureauracy endures, unruffled, and unimpeded.

          • Do you really think Trump has that much experience with professional staff (not talking about union jobs) who cannot be dismissed at will? The only people Trump can manipulate freely are the presidential appointees. Everyone else has tenure, and a review system that will last beyond his time in office. But then, being a government insider and employee, what could I possibly know about it?

        • Sure Sam, double down. Only you and your decades of experience could possibly understand that the Federal government is a morass of bureaucracy. Got it.

          • Sorry if it is painful to even read something that points out The Donald just may not quite understand the real limits to what he can do inside his own branch of government. You can’t drain the swamp when you can’t even get to it.

            The original patronage system had the advantage that the president could literally control anyone beholding. The civil service system was inserted to preclude a drift away from the entrenched political vector, usually (always?) toward statism, and control of the people.

            The keepers of the leftist legacy are the 2.7 million government employees. Wish it weren’t so, but don’t come crying when it turns-out Trump doesn’t turn this ship around by sheer force of personality.

        • Sam. It doesn’t take a professional scuba diver to tell me or Trump that water is wet. NO SHITT SHERLOCK!!

        • Great. Until the question is answered satisfactorily, let’s just have a hiring freeze for around, oh, 8 years. Then we’ll begin discussing how to drop it, what firing rules need to be changed.

      • If you’ve worked with Unions, you’ve worked with government bureaucracy. If you’ve worked in NY in realestate, you’ve worked with government bureaucracy. To say you don’t think he has experience in dealing with the waste and graft he’s likely to encounter as President is really, really underselling his skill set and life experience. That’s not even touching on the fact that the man is adept at surrounding himself with people who have those necessary skills.

        In any case, we’re about to find out.

        • It’s not the waste and graft, it is the intractability. You can’t Make America Great Again, if you can’t get compliance of the civil service. Trump can control the appointive positions, and the appointed commissions. He cannot force the civil service to do anything, not even follow EO/EA pronouncements. Obama had an enthusiastic ally in the civil service, eager to increase control over the populace. Those same people will be in place “Day One” of the Trump presidency. All I’m saying is Trump is accustomed to being CEO. Government may come as a big surprise to him.

          BTW, any “conservative” legislation that might escape congress requires Executive Branch civil service to right the implementing regulations. Expect much new legislation will not be put in place before the next elections (2018). Trump might actually get a whole lot of “good” legislation passed, and signed. But, if the results are not seen/felt in 2017/early 2018, the elections may turn on him.

    • Think of it like this: The Elite Establishment (D or R) is most concerned about being re-elected; from which it follows that they need to bring home the bacon required to keep contributions flowing. They don’t have a lot of political capital going for them when Trump is in the Oval Office.
      Why would the Elite Establishment spend their precious little political capital fighting silencers? Sure, they can cry all they like for effect on the home-team; but, to actually stand in the way of what Trump needs to deliver to his constituency?
      Also bear in mind that rolling-back gun control doesn’t cost precious dollars. Trump doesn’t have to take any Federal Pork away from anyone to move silencers out of the NFA. (Granted, he has to give up the revenue from selling stamps; but it probably costs nearly $200 to process each application; so the net revenue lost might be small. Moreover, there will be the revenue from the excise taxes on sales of silencers – with lots more sales with the NFA paperwork and stamp out of the way.)
      I don’t think every gun-control roll-back will be as easy as silencers; but, there is very little tax revenue or commercial interest at stake for the Elites to fight.
      We also don’t know how gun-control fits into Trump’s agenda. Trump needs Senators and Congressmen who will play ball with him. He could use gun-control roll-back bills to flush-out those who are facing re-election in 2 years. Most of the Ds can probably vote against roll-backs; but, not necessarily the Rs. Some Rs will get primaried if they vote against their President too many times. We PotG can vote-out a few Rs by voting-in a D opponent while still retaining control of the House.

      • Or, heck, eliminate the stamp but impose a flat tax of $50/can, to be collected at the point of sale. Or $10/can. Either way I think the uptick in sales volume would make up the “loss” in revenue so the D’s should on paper have a saving grace to vote for it.

        My question, given how hard it is to fire a Federal employee, what do you do with the ATF agents who were processing can paperwork?

        • “My question, given how hard it is to fire a Federal employee, what do you do with the ATF agents who were processing can paperwork?”

          When you have been around long enough, you see alot of entertaining stuff in government. One agency I worked for was simply re-named, but successfully claimed enormous “savings” by “doing away with a ‘redundant’ agency”. All that actually changed was letterhead. But, it should a true dissolution of ATF happen, everyone will transfer to other organizations, even if they have no real work to perform.

  7. I don’t expect any proactive movement on gun rights. Give us one or two more originalist SCOTUS justices and it will have been worth it.

  8. I’ve really come to question the majority of the writers on this blog over this election season as well as the previous Obama support. Maybe you guys/ladies aren’t unlike the vast majority of journalists in this country, just better at hiding your Liberal cores. More John Boch and Dean Weingarten and less of the nevertrumpers. We know who they are.

    • I wouldn’t go that far. Lazy, uninformed amateur journalist with deep set biases maybe, but I don’t see closet Obama supporters. Except for that fcktard Concierge.

      • Possibly.

        I note with some interest that there are over 350 comments on the FirearmsConcierge, commenting on the editorial decision of TTAG, many of which are far worse than my comment that got memory-holed. Hey, whatever.

    • “Flame”?

      You keep saying that. I do not think it means what you think it means.

      But, hey, your sandbox, your rules. Delete whatever comments you want to delete.

      • The irony is my comment wasn’t even directed at him. He gets a lot more leeway over at the Treehouse, as the local online Chuck Norris of the Cat Ladies.

        • Psst: hey, Editorial Staff: this is what a flame looks like. (Note that I don’t engage this person. He simply trolls me with unsolicited ad hominem.)

  9. “hold the Trump administration’s feet to the proverbial fire”

    Trumps job is to persuade Congress…not issue EO’s. That act alone will preserve the Republic.

  10. Trump has been cultivating loyalty with the gun culture this whole time. You might have noticed that Mike Pence is horrible assassination insurance – he’s a Republican party hack. Trump playing to the gun rights crowd could very easily be ingratiating himself to the one segment of the population that the deep state is actually kind of afraid of. He already called out all the major networks and even the voter fraud. He told Hillary to her face that she should be in prison. He could point to us and say to them “go ahead, take me out, piss them off, see how that works for ya.”

  11. I doubt any of the 16 other Republican candidates could have broken through the “Blue Wall” like Donald Trump did. Mr. Trump may not be a “true believer” in the gun rights movement, but neither is he a “cuckservative”. Better to win the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives with him than to lose with Ted Cruz or someone else.

  12. Young, healthy, pro gun Supreme Court nominees will make it all worthwhile. Sure, many of us would like 80 years of gun control to vanish like a canoli on Rosie O’Donnell’s plate, but that may be a bridge too far. Coming up short of that goal may still be a pretty good win. Work with him, don’t snipe.

  13. I am skeptical of Donald too. But I give him the benefit of “he’s not in yet”. He’s already backtracking and picking similarly “meh” eastern types to get him going. I am happy I don’t have to spend ALL my $ on guns come January 20th-just most of it! I see no end of rioters…er…”protesters”.

  14. Come on, Robert. Give Trump a chance. When I looked at the election map, I saw Hilde winning the usual urban ghettos, and the Donald winning everywhere else. That includes Staten Island and Suffolk County, within and just outside of NYC (yes, and a heck of a lot of NYC cops live there, and not just on Blue Bloods.) Very importantly, Trump won almost all small towns, small cities except college towns, and all rural areas. These are the gun vote. These areas have pro-gun Congressmen. I have to believe that most of the desired legislation will be proposed, and some of it will in fact be passed, as in rammed up or down the urban Democrats various orifi. And whoever is nominated and confirmed for the Supreme Court will be in the mold of Scalia, not Ginsburg or Sotomayor. Taken together, all this is huge, especially compared to Hilde. Will any of this “save” California or NY themselves? I doubt it but I can’t help what they do there. I hope that if we get national required CC reciprocity, and real safe passage legislation (violate it NJ or MD or NY and your Federal aid for more speed traps is gone) that these will motivate people in those states to push their own envelope. If they don’t, I go to and through those states almost never.

  15. Trump will let it be known through back channels what he is willing to sign and what he wants to sign. If the votes are there, it’ll pass.

    I’m guessing he will get national carry reciprocity and the silencer bill. Republicans will push it and vote for it to establish their 2a bonafides and Dems will vote against it to burnish their gun control credentials.

    • I agree with the outcome but not the reasoning. Any goodies gun folks get will be because of the NRA endorsement. That endorsement did not come to Trump for free.

  16. Bob here has been skeptical of Trump since before he ran for President and he didn’t support him during the Primaries, but what Bob has forgotten (as the air in Rhode Island limits brain activity) is that Clinton not being in the White House makes advancement of the 2nd Amendment possible, albeit slow. As long as we’re not moving backwards, we’re moving forwards in some form.

    It hasn’t even been a week since Trump was elected and he has a LOT to do before he even gets inaugurated. In the meantime, if we continue to trumpet the importance of strengthening 2A by removing things from the NFA Act, national reciprocity, and making it easier for gun dealers and manufacturers to do transactions, someone close to the Donald will hear and relay the message.

      • From what I have read, Austin is not Texas. It is Detachment 5 of Calexico (Californicacia).

        Det. 2 = Oregon
        Det. 3 = Wash. state
        Det. 4 = Colorado

        • Austin is Texas’s D.C. It’s Texas’ little San Francisco. It is a plague on the state. It is the center of the cancer of liberalism, ground zero of the infestation. It is the most un-Texas place in all of Texas. Don’t know why the entire TTAG staff chose to move to Austin? Maybe it was to make the transition easier, since Robert was coming from a slave state, maybe he couldn’t handle real freedom and real conservatives all at once, so he had to take a baby step by moving to the most liberal-infested left-wing hellhole Texas has?

          Baby steps…

        • “Don’t know why the entire TTAG staff chose to move to Austin?” – Only 2 did, and from the northeast to boot. But even if all did, echo chambers are for cowards. When I see someone from Texas move to RI and start raising hell about gun rights there, they’ll have my respect.

  17. Trump only wanted this job to be popular, and to give him more business opportunities. He’s not unlike Schwartzenegger as Governor of California in that regard.

    Trump is also extremely pliable, and will cave to anybody who feeds his fragile ego. After a 90 minute meeting, Obama went from “founder of ISIS” to “a good man”, and Trump caved on key provisions of the Affordable Care Act just because Obama asked him to (which is a good thing).

    So what you can expect out of Trump is basically whatever the people around him manipulate him into doing.

  18. I’m “wait and see” on Trump, in all aspects. It’s been five days since the election. He’s made a few appearances, made a few statements here and there, but very little that’s real has happened. He may be great for gun rights; he may wheel and deal them all away. He’s got no previous record to judge by. We’ve got nothing to go on.

    At this point, he’s a handful of lottery tickets. The drawings start January 20th.

  19. Let’s say you were looking for a date and chose a girl who said she’ll go home with you, but you suspect she might only want to cuddle. And then let’s say you picked her over another girl who had promised to grab the first pair of scissors she can find to cut off your meat & two veg.

    …What would it take to make you wish you’d gone out the latter girl instead?

    Okay, now let’s take this heavily lopsided dichotomy and apply it to the matter of gun rights: One probably isn’t as passionate as you’d like about removing gun restrictions, but has already defeated an opponent who is very, very passionate about adding on many more.

    Before you give kneejerk answer, keep in mind Option #3 in both cases is to pack up and move to Canada.

    Perfect is the enemy of the good, people; we may not get everything we want on a silver platter, but the alternative was so very much worse.

  20. President Trump WILL have HIS Solicitor General (SG) (whomever he names) do most of the heavy lifting on restoring our 2nd Amendment Rights after all that IS the SG’s job ie. representing the nation before the Federal Courts. Yes the Solicitor General will sue states that violate the 2nd Amendment with onerous or frivolous legislation that impedes us in exercising our rights.

    Now where I’m torn is with Ted Cruz’s name being mentioned in reference to a Supreme Court appointment. I now nearly despise Ted Cruz whom I initially supported well that’s until his duplicity in being a Mitch McConnell/Chamber of Commerce lackey and undermining Chris McDaniel in Mississippi who was challenging 80+ year old philandering RINO and cuck Thad Cochran was revealed AND before Trump entered the race. I always believed Cruz either belonged on the Supreme Court or should’ve stayed in the Senate as a “Conservative” voice, my ultimate wish even three years ago was for him to take up the long empty mantle of Sen. Joseph McCarthy and help purge our nation’s Federal agencies of fellow travelers, Commies, Socialists all committed Leftists.

    What to do? What to do? President Trump has many decisions to make, no doubt he has made many already and is just biding his time in announcing them for maximum publicity (smart move, seize the news cycle) but I trust him when he says he will support us and expand our 2nd Amendment Rights.

    btw: Has anyone noticed our resident Moms Demand Tampons trolls have been noticeably absent from the comment sections as of late? No doubt they’re crawled up in a ball in their “safe spaces” and sucking their thumbs like children.

    • Sir, your choice of user handle is cruel, offensive and potentially triggering to the fortitudinally-challenged. I love it.

      • Thank you, it’s the ultimate insult to the space cadet and his “prop”. I used to post under the screen name “Watt’s Tw@t” with an “a” but was asked by Robert Farago to change it due to him having to override the automatic filter every time I commented. You should see me in real life, I revel in “triggering” Liberals, had a neighbor literally “shaking” the other day in anger over my support of Trump, what a pansy, an anti-gunner and typical hipster d-bag

    • And a RINO in the truest sense of the word. He supported abortion rights while supporting the infringement on our 2nd amendment rights, and was a repeated donor to the Clintons, both of them. Don’t put your head in the sand for any of our federal overlords.

      • “Abortion”? Hell I’m a Trump supporter and a “Conservative”, a “FISCAL Conservative” I don’t like the idea of abortion ie. ripping “viable” babies out a womb but I’m tired of MY tax dollars being squandered supporting members of dysfunctional communities of all races too stupid to use birth control and who live the “welfare lifestyle”. You cannot be a “Fiscal Conservative” and be anti-abortion” it’s THAT simple.

        • With all the proposed spending by Trump, I can’t see how anyone can could say that he is fiscally conservative.
          You say you are against abortion, but, hey I’m tired of paying for the welfare queens so I’m okay with abortion. How about ending both. No abortions and no money for welfare queens.

  21. If trump tunes up the SCOTUS with vetted conservatives we will prevail. If a lefty sneaks by we’re right back where we started.

      • Rinse-o Previous, as CoS will “vet” the SCOTUS nominees, will determine who is on the list, who Trump gets to consider (Trump’s pre-election list is void, now). Rinse-o Previous is “establishment”, all the time, in every way. His best buddy is Boehner, next best is Ryan. Thinking any real “originalist” judge will get a nomination?

  22. I agree that the odds for the HPA and National Reciprocity for CC are looking very good right now. And of course Los Supremos is absolutely mega: with a reliable replacement for Scalia in the pipeline, we should be safe from any overturning/neutering of Heller, which was all but certain if Hillary had been elected. And if the actuarial tables play out and Trump gets to replace Ginsberg, Breyer, or Kennedy (ideally all three), we’d have the votes for actually enforcing and expanding Heller. THAT’s the way we ultimately deal with California, NJ, NY, etc.

    Overlooked, however, is how much Trump (or to be more accurate, whomever he delegates responsibility to) can do through the bureaucracy. Imagine, for example, if Trump put in somebody at BATFE who not only cleaned house of gun grabbers, but implemented something like allowing Class III dealers to issue Form 1 / Form 4 tax stamps? I.e., these private actors look over your papers to make sure everything is in order, run a NICS check, enter the information into the registry, and then give you the tax stamp (just like your LGS can sell you a migratory waterfowl stamp on your hunting license) so that you can walk out with the suppressor / SBR / etc. the same day. No more six month waits (not to mention the cost savings to the government).

    I can also see ways that a properly motivated bureaucrat could reinterpret various regulations in such a fashion to create a loophole in the Hughes Amendment and reopen the registry (at least long enough to allow a ton of AR DAIS’s to be legally made and put into circulation). While it’d be a bit radical, It would be peanuts compared to the creative “reinterpretations” that have been done by labor, environmentalist, feminist (think: Title IX), and related activists when they have gotten control of the bureaucracy.

    Obviously, getting various items formally and permanently removed from the NFA (or getting the NFA repealed/curtailed) would be better, but hopefully you see my point: the other side has spent decades weaponizing the bureaucracy so that they can do things they couldn’t possibly get through Congress. While some sort of major civil service / administrative law change is needed to prevent and eliminate this sort of power grab, until that happens it’s time to make the other side play by their own rules.

    • As usual, valuable food for thought. But those “reinterpretations” shouldnt occur until at least one new justice is in place, as they will likely encourage challenges that would end up there.
      How does Trump get to 60 senators without resorting to the nuclear option?
      Does he use his senior advisor to call for just that?

      • Dingy Harry Reid already employed the nuclear option to that Obama could pack the DC Circuit (and get a host of other judges confirmed), and both he and Schumer announced that they would employ it if Hillary won the election and they took over the Senate. I for one am tired of the GOP playing by Marquis of Queensbury rules when the other side plainly disregards them whenever they want.

        Game theory teaches that unless we show them that there are consequences for that kind of behavior, they’ll just keep it up. Ergo, I suggest measured retribution: we tell them that we’re invoking the nuclear option on as many judicial appointments as they used it on . . . and we’re not limiting it to non-Supreme Court nominees. Call it the “Blame Harry Reid” rule.

        • I agree with you about the “nuclear option”, but 2X. Trump was elected because he played “smash mouth” politics. His supporters largely want to see “smash mouth” politics during his tenure. They want to see the Demoncrats thrashed, not just defeated. I suspect that the supporters will not be positively impressed if Trump tries to be “Presidential” dealing with Congress and the courts.

  23. I trust Donald Trump until he acts in ways that cause me to change my mind.
    The world is not a utopia. I already know he will do or say things I will disagree with.

  24. The other candidate would have immediately and unconditionally attacked the few individual
    Liberties the public still has, the 2A and people’s right to make their own informed consent of medical decisions. Give the guy a breather, he remains under 24/7 attack from the mainstream media trying to discredit and minimize his victory.

  25. I think Trump will sign any pro-gun legislation that reaches his desk.

    It is up to us to press Congress to deliver the goods.

  26. this was intended as a response to bennett’s post above.

    the comments section far outweighs the content in the original articles both in information and entertainment.
    i for one am glad that this post election week hasn’t turned into a massive circle jerk like the cubs victory has.
    trump put out a spread at his chicago tower for the leo’s dealing with the protestors. let time flesh things out.
    fc, tipton, leghorn etc. provide food for thought. i’m glad i don’t have to keep bangin’ stuff out each day. they spew, we spar, ttag gets hits.
    pulitzer? nah.

  27. He has strong NRA backing and his son is rabidly pro gun, so I wouldn’t be too concerned. He really isn’t the “author” of the Art of the Deal. That book was ghost written by a man who now despises Trump and only lightly reviewed by Trump. I doubt Trump could write much of anything. He can’t even talk in complete sentences half the time.

    • “Can’t complete sentences”? More like “doesn’t” the fact is it’s common among us in the NY/NJ Metro Area, we expect dimwits like you to get what we’re talking about early on in a conversation, our time is valuable we’re not going to waste it explaining every little detail. Now if you require further explan ……………

  28. This blog has a writer that openly stated he supported Hillary Clinton and voted for her so he can have better sales with another panic buy.

    • Would you prefer an echo chamber where everyone agrees with you? Perhaps TTAG could sell a safe space blanket for you to hide under.

    • Yes, it does. And now we know exactly who and what he is, and this site’s two million readers now know who they should never buy anything from. FirearmsConcierge did us a favor, we now know to never support him as he is an enemy as well as an epic ass.

      • Bidness is bidness. Since when is it impermissible for business owners to wish for favorable market conditions? If I owned a firearms-related related enterprise, I certainly would be looking to maximize profits. If gun lovers are likely to slow their buying because gun rights are no longer a fear factor, then I would need to recognize the shift. And do something, if possible, to mitigate the decline. If anti-gun politicians are good for driving up gun sales, and putting more guns in the hands of the people, how is that a bad thing, all around? You voted your personal interests, why shouldn’t a gun store owner vote his?

  29. I’m pretty happy with PE Trump’s picks so far. He’s taken some of the radically stupid stuff off his website, and has made some great picks for his cabinet so far. His choice in the most establishment of establishment Republicans to be his chief of staff, and a lightning rod of the “alt-right” as senior advisor is right in line with Lincoln, Kennedy, and the second George W. Bush administration.
    That said, the cult of personality around Trump, as it was around Obama, is foolish and dangerous. I will always be suspect of any federal authority. Hell, I knew Bush personally but I questioned everything he did and often disagreed with him.
    Hopeful? Sure. Skeptical? Always. If St. Peter was the President, and chose archangel Michael as his SecDef and GodAlmighty as his chief of staff, I’d still be filing FoIA requests and questioning his motives.

    • “Radically stupid”? I assume you are referring to the “Moslem Ban” as that’s the only thing that was removed. Better “buckle up” snowflake as I’ve got “news” for you, it’s BACK and up on his page. I support the “Moslem Ban” as do a majority of intelligent Americans (it says a lot about you) so do my neighbors, the family of Muslim Turkish immigrants that own two gas station/convenience stores in town. Oh yeah they ALL voted for Trump.

  30. It’s true that Trump has been cool to lukewarm on the gun issue previously. However, perhaps becuse he is not a seasoned politician, Trump at least seems willing to dance with the people who brung him, which is better than we got from morons like Bush, Other Bush, various high congressional mucky-mucks, and even Bill Weld. I’ll be patient.

  31. Very good points Robert. Unfortunately, many who are making negative comments about your article either forgot, were too young, or were not even born when Republican George Bush the first promised; “No new gun laws” during the 1988 election campaign against anti-gun and F-rated democrap Michael Dukakis . After Bush was elected, he banned more guns than any other president up to that time (following the Patrick Purdey mass shooting in 1989) with the import “assault weapons” ban WHICH IS STILL IN EFFECT. He basically stopped all importation of semi-auto military styled rifles as his office could control imports and he held that ban until Congress could catch up with a law. Some of us were cautious about Bush as he did call for a ban on small guns with low metal weights when he held up a Freedom Arms mini-.22 revolver at an FOP event and stated that these small guns should be banned. Nevertheless, the NRA endorsed him and he banned guns less than one month into office. Although there was this LITTLE-KNOWN incident with Bush stating that there should be a mini gun ban, there were NO other incidents that we knew about which would indicate that Bush would outright ban firearms (he was a gun owner, shooter, hunter). In contrast, Trump has supported “assault weapons” bans and firearms restrictions in the past and he was VERY vocal about it not to mention financing very anti-gun Democrats for years. It seems that Mr. Trump has turned around on the 2nd Amendment and that is very good to hear (his sons both seem to be a great influence on him) BUT we cannot sit idly by and think that Donald Trump is Patrick Henry reincarnated. Although I was very happy to see that Trump beat Hillary Clinton, we must always be on guard to ensure that even a little bit of 1989 does not repeat itself. “The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.” – don’t forget it! Time will tell and no one has a crystal ball.

  32. There is ONE type of “gun free zone” Trump CAN legally do away with on day 1 in office – if he has the balls and really meant what he said. He can, with the stroke of his POTUS pen, change the policies in the previous administrations that made all federal property and agency facilities gun free zones. That would require no one else to do anything, since they are mere policies, not laws (even though they are enforced as laws). Then we could carry at the Post Office, the VA facilities, the Social Security Offices, etc. Let’s see if he does it.

  33. It’s too soon to tell what President DT will do about much of anything. Broken and unfulfilled campaign promises are so common as to be no longer newsworthy.

    Yes, I know that NRA poured big money into attacking HRC and supporting DT. Trump was definitely the lesser evil of the two choices when it comes to 2nd Amendment rights. But I’m old enough to remember DT vocally backing President Bill Clinton’s assault weapons ban.

    My confidence level is pretty high that DT intends to nominate a conservative justice for SCOTUS, and that said justice will likely support the Heller application of 2nd Amendment rights. Other that, nobody really knows what is coming. We’ll find out more during The Donald’s first 100 days in the White House.

  34. We also need to be rid of the you can only buy a handgun in your home state. If they are using a FBI background check why does it matter what state you are in.

    We need laws that prevent California’s insane laws as well.

    • I’ve been saying this for years, too. If you pass a federal background check, who cares where it comes from.

  35. If he does nothing but keep the status quo (and perhaps get rid of a few past Imperial Decrees, er, executive orders), that would be so much better than what we would have gotten under Clinton. And frankly, at this point I’d rather see him put all his efforts into repealing Obamacare, securing the borders, and rolling back excessive regulation and taxes. I can wait on national reciprocity if he can get those things done.

  36. Well, this post brings up a question of how we should approach this opportunity. Should we suggest ways to whittle down useless and unconstitutional laws intimidating normal citizens, helping him become aware of infringements he may be unaware of? Or should we just make assumptions and then go ahead and attack him say he is a liar and a cheat, tell him we hate him and insult his ideas and his heritage? I bet one would be more productive than the other.

Comments are closed.