State Level Gun Rights Groups Using Anti-Gunners’ Local Strategy Against Gun Control Laws

Greg Pruett

Greg Pruett, president of the Idaho Second Amendment Alliance (AP Photo/Lisa Marie Pane)

Adopting the anti-gunners’ own playbook, these groups are focusing on tearing down laws limiting Second Amendment rights at the state level.

There’s been a lot of talk about guns from national politicians, but little action. The real fight is playing out at the state level. Pruett’s group (Idaho Second Amendment Alliance), for example, has pushed Idaho to get rid of nearly all of its regulations.

And now lawmakers are poised to drop restrictions on out-of-state residents’ right to carry concealed weapons. That proposal sailed through the Idaho House and will likely pass the Senate. It’s one of the last state gun restrictions left.

Pruett said he took to lobbying state legislators when he saw no action from Washington.

“The Republicans didn’t do gun owners any favors in the first two years of President Trump’s tenure when they had control of the House and the Senate and obviously the White House,” he said.

– Heather Druzin in Frustrated By Congress, ‘Absolutist’ Gun Rights Groups Focus Efforts On States

comments

  1. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

    Good, use each and every tool and trick there is to restore the 2A the respect Justice Thomas rightly says it deserves…

  2. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Every “victory” at the state level is predicated on a majority vote. The US constitution was created to prevent everlasting popular opinion from creating chaos with our natural, civil and human rights. Legislation at the state level does no more than legislation at the federal level. Both are subject to the popular vote. Legislatures are never going to ensure our constitutional rights are respected. Every gain is one legislature away from reversal.

    1. avatar Biatec says:

      Yes. Totally agree with your post. Great Post.

    2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “The US constitution was created to prevent everlasting popular opinion from creating chaos with our natural, civil and human rights.”

      OK, how can we get the ball rolling to challenge those laws on their lack of constitutionality? We have a high Court who may be open to taking a swing at it…

    3. avatar Craig in IA says:

      While I understand your post, Sam, in reality, even with the rights recognized in the Founder’s documents it still really boils down to a “popularity contest”. Article 5 provides for the Constitution to be amended by the people,and while it may take longer than a single state’s legislative session, the process is available and completely legal. That no one has been able to amend the Second out of the Constitution despite the introduction of several attempts speaks to the reality that Americans, in general, are not ones willing to give up their rights- even those they don’t often agree with, or use. Take as an example that Roe v Wade, once established, has never been nullified and likely never will be, regardless of how much I, personally abhor it.

      The best thing firearms owners and advocates of the Second Amendment can do is live their lives, speak and act as responsible, civilized Americans and promote the fact that any and all firearms in the hands of the general public are not a threat to society but rather, a safeguard to maintaining it. It takes some work, some research, some patience and a lot of face-to-face with people we often do not want to associate with but it is possible to turn many of those who would surrender this right, primarily because they have no linkage to it. Perhaps the most simple way is to take someone else shooting, especially if you can safely blast around with an AR or semiauto pistol.

      While we all emphasize the “God-given right” factor, too few of us promote the fun factors of shooting. Pity we get all wrapped up in the “weeds” of right v wrong and never show the best part of owning firearms- shooting for enjoyment. If the only part of owning a firearm is worrying about protecting yourself you’ll end up not being much of an advocate except to other cynical old wretches.

    4. avatar Thixotropic says:

      Correct. This is the admonishment that George Washington gave us (below) regarding Govt.

      I have found that it is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT to join organizations that espouse my beliefs and CONTRIBUTE to them. Such as State Rifle and Pistol Associations and groups like Gregg Pruitt’s in the above article.

      It is also EXTREMELY IMPORTANT to CALL your State Senators and Congressmen. Follow up with an email and GET INVOLVED.

      “Government is not reason; it’s not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it’s a dangerous servant and a fearful master…” George Washington

  3. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    I read at the NPR article. They are really terrified of children being exposed to firearms in a positive way. When an eleven-year-old girl carries an AR-15 with her grandfather beside her, and testifies before the legislative body. That really frightens them. Another goal of the state groups should be to get to 2A education and rifle teams back into the school systems.

    Based on previous comments on TTAG about this 11 year old girl. I would say that Liberals are actually terrified of children learning about firearms in a positive way.

    I read through Melissa wintrow bio. She is like a lot of female Democrats. She’s against rape victims and stalking victims from having a gun to protect themselves. But she is a big supporter of rape testing kits. She is not concerned about stopping a rape. Only testing for evidence of one.

    Conservatives should start attacking liberals claiming that liberals don’t care if a woman gets raped. Because it’s true.

    1. avatar James Campbell says:

      All spot on Chris T.
      Too bad it’s near IMPOSSIBLE to get Constitution/BOR/2ndA education into the public school system curriculum.
      I was floored when Alan Dershowitz was on Life, Liberty, Levin, and he pointed out that HARVARD law school is graduating students with NO time spent studying the Federalist Papers!!!
      The Federalist Papers are just the “Users Manual” for the Constitution/BOR, as they were used to explain why to ratify the founding documents.
      The PREMIERE law school in the land has thrown the “Users Manual” in the garbage.
      It’s no wonder why we have HORRIBLE lawyers making our laws, and brain dead “sheeple” who are kept stupid by the public school system. Makes them easy to control.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        Anytime somebody looks at a lawyer on television you need to ask yourself. Does this person support protests in front of abortion clinics? Or do they only support protest in front of military recruiting centers?

        That is one way you check to see if they really support the First Amendment or not.

        Folks have written quite a lot about the lack of Second Amendment education in law schools. Just because someone’s a lawyer doesn’t mean they’re educated about American civil rights.

        The ordinary home-schooled child knows far more about Second Amendment history and second Amendment law. Than the average Harvard law school graduate.

        And that is one reason why they are so terrified of children who are home-schooled.

        1. avatar James Campbell says:

          “And that is one reason why they are so terrified of children who are home-schooled.”
          Hahaha, I almost closed my last comment with that EXACT statement.

        2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          To James Campbell
          (smile)

        3. avatar Dave G. says:

          Chris T in KY:
          “The ordinary home-schooled child knows far more about Second Amendment history and second Amendment law. Than the average Harvard law school graduate.”

          I seriously doubt that, Chris. What have you got to back that up?

        4. avatar Ing says:

          Well, Dave G., is it possible for an educated person to know much *less* about the Second Amendment than most so-called civil rights lawyers do?

        5. avatar Dave G. says:

          ING:
          That doesn’t answer the question. Truth is, that MAYBE SOME homeschooled kids know more about the Second Amendment than SOME Harvard schooled lawyers, but I’ll bet that it’s damn few. However, there is no way of knowing how many there are, if any. In other words, the statement was pure hogwash.

    2. avatar Kendahl says:

      The mindset is that someone who is attacked should not fight back. At most, try to escape but, above all, do not harm the criminal. That makes you no better than him. Afterward, appeal to authority which, if it has the resources and if it’s not politically incorrect, may investigate and levy some sort of punishment on the perpetrator. The victim is supposed to be satisfied with that.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        Many years ago a mother and her female friend attacked a man who had raped This Woman’s son. These two women beat this rapist up and stripped him naked. They shaved his pubic hair. And then smeared his genitals with some type of heat generating cream. Possibly Bengay. The man screamed in agony and passed out from the pain.

        Unfortunately the two women were arrested. I don’t know the results of the trial. But if I was on the jury it would be nullification for me.

    3. avatar 12G Shotgun says:

      👉”children learning about firearms in a positive way…”

      I too believe this is key. 👍✨

  4. avatar No one of consequence says:

    For an NPR article, it’s pretty well balanced.

    1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

      Of course, they do have to lead with claims about our “high rate of gun violence” and the alleged “steady drumbeat of mass shootings”.

      1. avatar Kendahl says:

        Where I used to live, four teenagers went on a weekday morning carjacking spree. Their first victim was the driver of a minivan who stopped at a stop sign. The oldest teen stepped in front of the van and pointed a gun at the driver. Although the driver would have been justified in shooting the carjacker, it would have been better tactically, and just as legal, to floor the accelerator pedal and run him down. The anti-gunners wouldn’t like that, either.

  5. avatar HEGEMON says:

    I had a “constitutional” law class in college that only covered 8 out of 10 amendments in the BOR. According to the moron who called himself “professor’, the 2A and 3A were irrelevant. I kept bringing up the 2A and he would refer to me as “one of those”. Most lawyers these days don’t really know anything about the Federalist Papers or the BOR.

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      The third amendment has already been discussed TTAG previously. A homeowner refused the government’s request that they occupy his home, with their guns, so they could conduct surveillance on nearby criminals.
      I don’t recall the outcome of a case.

  6. avatar I Haz A Question says:

    About time. I was always confused by Idaho’s “CC for us, but not for you when you visit” stance.

    Now for OK to follow suit. Their CC law has the same structure and forces visitors to follow the carry laws of their home state. For Californians, that means we can’t carry when we visit OK. I have relatives there.

  7. avatar Rgallagher says:

    Try NY it’s the shits rule by decree but nothing ever happens in the “safe state “

    1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      Especially after 8pm tonight.

  8. avatar nofefad says:

    I am made $84, 8254 so far this year working online and I’m a full-time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’AM made such great money. It’s really user-friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,.for more information simply open this link thank you……………….HERE══════►     Read More

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