Three Quick Things Second Amendment Supporters Should Expect from a Trump Administration

Donald Trump (courtesy
Donald Trump made a number of promises when he was campaigning to be the President of the United States.  Many of them can be achieved fairly quickly. Some will be fought, tooth and nail by “progressive”-dominated states. Here are three that can be accomplished quickly and should be insisted upon.

1) Appoint Antonin Scalia-type literalists to the Supreme Court. This was the cornerstone of President Trump’s support for the Second Amendment. Trump should push for this fast and hard. He should be held to this promise on any future court appointees, too. From

Appoint justices to the United States Supreme Court who will uphold our laws and our Constitution. The replacement for Justice Scalia will be a person of similar views and principles who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Trump on the Second Amendment:

The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period. The Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all law abiding Americans. The Constitution doesn’t create that right it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self defense, plain and simple.

Appointing one or more justices who will be true to the Constitution as written is the most likely policy to be fiercely opposed by gun haters. By acting quickly, President Trump can get his choice through with the minimum of contention and delay.

2) National reciprocity for the “bear arms” part of the Second Amendment. This has been a major plank in Donald Trump’s platform. Here it is:


The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. If we can do that for driving which is a privilege, not a right then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege.

The proper vehicle for implementing this promise has already been introduced in Congress. It is HR 923.

Amends the federal criminal code to authorize a person who is not prohibited from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm under federal law, who is entitled and not prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm in his or her state of residence or who is carrying a valid state license or permit to carry a concealed weapon, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document, to carry a concealed handgun (which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, other than a machine gun or destructive device) in any state in accordance with the restrictions of that state.

Provides that in a state that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual license or permit holders, an individual carrying a concealed handgun under this Act shall be permitted to carry it according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license or permit issued by such state.

There have been the votes in the Senate and House to pass national reciprocity for 10 years. President Bush didn’t make it a priority. The Congress knew President Obama would veto it. Pass HR 923 quickly, while Democrat Senators still fear the strength of the gun lobby.

3) End gun-free zones on military bases. The new President can tell the Joint Chiefs of Staff to prepare an order to allow military members to carry on post and in recruit centers in order to protect themselves.

Banning our military from carrying firearms on bases and at recruiting centers is ridiculous. We train our military how to safely and responsibly use firearms, but our current policies leave them defenseless. To make America great again, we need a strong military. To have a strong military, we need to allow them to defend themselves.

Bonus. There’s a fourth thing that wouldn’t require President Trump to do anything, but he should get some credit. He can protect the Protection of the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) by letting it be known he’ll veto any attempt to repeal it.

Elimination of the PLCAA  was a major plank of Hillary Clinton’s platform. The PLCAA stopped the lawfare designed to destroy gun manufacturers in the United States. Again, no action is required here and President Trump would get credit for protecting thousands of manufacturing jobs.

President Trump can do much more….some things easy, some a bit more complicated. I will leave those for a future article.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch


  1. avatar paul says:

    National Reciprocity would be really, really nice. However, I live In NJ where permits are for all intent and purpose verboten. So, not to be too self centered but how would the above Bill affect NJ??

    1. avatar Kurt says:

      Don’t forget those of us in California…. and Hawaii…. and Maryland….

    2. avatar polarbear101 says:

      You would obtain an out of state permit from PA which would then through law be valid in NJ. I believe that is the whole intent of the law

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Nah, read again. Proposal specifies licensed in your state of residence, for some reason. Needs to be changed, now that it might actually happen.

        1. avatar Rattlerjake says:

          Wrong! Read it again, and carefully! It says: [“Provides that in a state that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual license or permit holders (this means any state requiring a permit, including Mexifornia or NJ), an individual carrying a concealed handgun under this Act shall be permitted to carry it according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license or permit issued by such state.] The first half of the sentence refers to ALL states that require a permit or license, the second part says you would be authorized to carry as though you have an unrestricted license or permit by your state!

      2. avatar Tom says:

        I live in MD and have a non-resident permit from Utah. It is currently good in PA, WV and VA, but not MD. Would it be good in MD under this proposed new law?

        1. avatar Adam says:

          No. according to the law you would need a permit from your own state so basically, if you live in an anti-gun state there is zero chance you will be allowed to nationally carry.

          The only way for MD, NJ, CA, etc people to carry would be if they passed a law which created a federal license that is good in all states. By leaving it up to the states, they essentially do nothing to stop the last 10ish anti-gun states from continuing their hold out on CCW. I’ll admit, it would be nice to see PA and VA people finally allowed to carry in MD but as a MD citizen, this carry law doesn’t excite me at all.

        2. avatar Rattlerjake says:

          Wrong! It dies NOT say that in that Act. It says: [“Provides that in a state that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual license or permit holders (this means any state requiring a permit, including Mexifornia or NJ), an individual carrying a concealed handgun under this Act shall be permitted to carry it according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license or permit issued by such state.] The first half of the sentence refers to ALL states that require a permit or license, the second part says you would be authorized to carry as though you have an unrestricted license or permit by your state! NOWHERE does it say you must have a license or permit from your state! If there is reciprocity then the permit is good in ALL states.

    3. avatar Ralph says:

      paul, even if the proposal wouldn’t bail you out directly, NJ would be required to change it’s permitting process and start issuing.

      Even the densest NJ politicians could not possibly argue with a straight face that visitors to the state (who have no residence there and pay no taxes there) can carry while NJ taxpayers, who pay for all that infrastructure, couldn’t. It would make second class citizens out of NJ taxpayers.

      I know that leftist Democrats are stupid, but they can’t be that stupid. Could they?

      1. avatar SouthAl says:

        That level of stupidity would cross the border into the realm of serious mental illness. Some would argue that this makes the answer to your question “yes”.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:


        2. avatar Rattlerjake says:

          It can’t be a mental illness, that would require having a brain!

      2. avatar neiowa says:

        60,071,781 morons voted FOR the Dowager Felon. No data on how many living individuals that might represent. My guess would be about 85%.

        1. avatar IYearn4nARnCali says:

          Dowager Felon, HAAHAHAHAHAHHA dammit that is some good stuff!

          +1 internets to you.

      3. avatar ropingdown says:

        NJ citizens are already presumptive 2nd class citizens.
        Citizens of the 1st class must provide proof in the form of a public union membership card or state employee ID.

      4. avatar who cares says:

        Maybe the liberals will build a wall to keep the gun toting criminals out.

        In all seriousness, expect them to get creative with interpreting “an individual carrying a concealed handgun under this Act shall be permitted to carry it according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license or permit issued by such state.”. I’m thinking things like California’s “safe” handgun roster for handguns permitted for carry within the state, and only allowing a single model of handgun so obscenely expensive so as to not be feasible for the majority of people to carry.

    4. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I think current plans leave you hanging and blowing in the wind. Still not all bad, once your state’s residents realize that *millions* of out-of-state people are wandering through, armed (with no ill effect), I suspect your state falling into line won’t take too long. BUT! I really don’t see any excuse for the wording including the “state of residence” bullshit, just leave it at a legal permit to carry a concealed firearm in the US.

    5. avatar No one of consequence says:

      With all respect to the commenters above, the article above says:
      who is entitled and not prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm in his or her state of residence or who is carrying a valid state license or permit to carry a concealed weapon, (bolded emphasis mine)

      Assuming this is the text that gets passed, to me it doesn’t read like it says the permit has to be issued by the state of residence. Of course this isn’t likely to be the full quote of the proposed legislation, so I could easily be wrong. But to me it seems hopeful.

      There’s also the bit about the handgun having been shipped or transported. But that’s every gun at some point. It would be nice if the interstate commerce clause worked for us, for once.

    6. avatar Kris says:

      When will “the people of the gun” see that national reciprocity is a BAD idea? Once you make state licensing a federal issue, that leaves the next statist asshole to change the rules and encumber EVERYONE instead of just a few individual states stuck in a bad position. Need I remind you that the drinking age nationally is 21, not because it’s federal law, but because some a-hole decided to link it to federal highway funding.

      Instead of pushing national reciprocity, push national right to carry.

      Also, removing suppressors and SBRs from NFA should be near the top of this list and we have an easier chance of getting those things than we do national CCW reciprocity.

      1. avatar Marco says:

        I’ve argued that before, but it’s not likely to gain traction. Too much paperwork to figure out a national CCW license.

        Besides, the precedent has already been set by LEOSA. They SHOULD just make it “recognized by a government agency to be legally allowed to carry weapons” or somesuch that

        1. Provides protection for more weapons that guns and
        2. Allows carry on out of state permits

        The main issue should be shoving guns down liberal throats. The only way you’re going to stop the next bloomberg, Kim Kardashian’s 86 million followers, et. al is to bring the war to their doorsteps. Letting their neighbors carry, and no blood in the streets.

      2. avatar alex says:

        You are correct

  2. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

    No chance a repeal of the PLCAA will pass Congress, at least in the first two years. But in general, I hope he goes for all of the above. I think number 1 is the most important, for reasons that go far beyond 2A, and I think this is equally important and urgent as a clean repeal of Obamacare. Numbers 2 and 3 are important but slightly less so.

  3. avatar JayHu says:

    4) He can erase every anti gun EO that Obama issued, including importation

    1. avatar Matt in Maine says:

      Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush…

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      Say CMP M1911 and Korean Garands three times.

  4. avatar Bud Harton says:

    and I hope legislation to seriously amend the NFA of 1934 to allow SBRs and SBSs as well as silencers/suppressors. (I used both terms just to satisfy both ends of the mall ninja intelligentsia)

    1. avatar RobC says:

      Signing into law the HPA would be quick and easy.

  5. avatar Vhyrus says:

    “…to carry a concealed handgun (which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, other than a machine gun or destructive device) in any state in accordance with the restrictions of that state.

    And if that state passes a law that says ‘All non-LEOs are forbidden to carry a concealed firearm’ then this law officially does sweet FA for us. Bonus for them that it is super easy to undo and already is undone in most places.

    1. avatar Omer Baker says:

      Passing a law that only LEO’s may carry would render all existing CCW’s void. I don’t think the political class would want to upset the elites with CCW’s by denying the elites’ protection and denying themselves the political donations. I think after the streets don’t run with blood, like all the other times law abiding citizens are allowed to exercise their rights, the hysteria will subside.

      1. avatar Vhyrus says:

        I absolutely promise you that NJ, MD, CA, and the rest of the gun control gang will in no way allow anyone to carry a gun, no matter what law is passed. I certainly will not be the first one to try it.

        1. avatar Stuki Moi says:

          There are plenty of CCW holders in CA.

          And at least the Donald in New York, for now.

          I can’t imagine some Gambino hasn’t slipped through the cracks in NJ, either.

          The whole “according to blah, blah of each state” is a problem, as it’s not particularly clear. Hence yet another lawyer, lobbyist and tax feeder subsidy. But then again, so it the rest of State and Federal laws. Rewrite them in mathematical and logical notation, and we’d have a massively improved world over night. “We” being those of us not in the above mentioned leeching groups.

      2. avatar Marco says:

        Elites become “reserve deputies” after a hefty contribution. I.e., same system, different designation in current no-issue places.

        Boom. Any other questions?

  6. avatar Mikele says:

    He says he wants to end all restrictions on magazines and end all gun bans. Does that mean there is a way to overturn the AWB here in Massachusetts?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Probably depends on SCOTUS, the law you describe is clearly unconstitutional as an infringement. If nobody challenges it, the legislature can do whatever it wants, including dictating burning at the stake for witchcraft. You might want to investigate an organization to oppose such crap, I hope I would if it were my state.

    2. avatar Anon in CT says:

      If you believe in Federalism and States Rights, the only path to that is to put enough good justices on the USSC to get those laws over-turned. Any quick-fix law will either be unconstitutional or it will open the door to a whole bunch of bad stuff.

      Believe me I want the CT AWB gone like you would not believe, but I won’t tear up the Constitution to do it. Heck, the CT State Constitution has a copy of the Second Amendment but without the militia bit – and it didn’t do a bit of good.

      We just need five Justices who understand what the Second Amendment means.

      1. avatar Marco says:

        1. That requires replacing TWO justices- while maintaining Alito, Thomas, and Roberts- and possibly, it requires replacing THREE. Anyone who says Roberts is reliable needs their head checked. Oh yeah, and Thomas has made noise that makes it likely he would step down (actuarial tables don’t look good for him)- so that means appointing a minimum of three justices, and likely FOUR to be certain of a real 2nd amendment court.

        FURTHER- even if we get our dream and replace half the court-

        SCOTUS rulings are easily undone. It is FAR better to have congressional laws AND SCOTUS rulings together as it entrenches the idea in multiple branches far more strongly. This isn’t exactly rock-paper-scissors- when SCOTUS struck down gun free school zones, congress got together and very, very slightly altered it, and passed it again (And in enforcement, it’s virtually indistinguishable from the old law). It goes to show that if a branch is motivated, they can get around it. More failsafes means no single point of failure. Just like soldiers have a sidearm in addition to their rifle, and have buddies, check-in times, air support, etc.- having redundancies is a good thing.

        And again, we need a SWEEP of SCOTUS to guarantee your vision. I’m a pessimist and want to get some gains locked in, even in a dirty way, before betting on a miracle beyond the miracle we’ve just had.

  7. avatar P. Wolf says:

    End the no carry on Post Office and VA parking lots. He can do that by executive order – it’s in the Code of Federal Regulations written by bureaucrats, not the law (18 USC 930). Would be better if Congress passed a law, but I’ll take executive action that enforces the original intent of the law. Court’s couldn’t overturn that executive action either.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:


    2. avatar Ryan says:

      It’s assinine that I can go out for a walk with my family but if I decide to stop in and check my mail I’m an automatic felon.

    3. avatar Gunr says:

      Also end the no carry in the Box areas, that are not directly part of the lobby area!

  8. avatar rc says:

    This will be the first tell about which Donald Trump we elected. If he gets the gun rights program firing on all cylinders, there is a good chance he’ll follow through on much of what else he promised. If not, well, that can be corrected.

  9. avatar Matt in Maine says:

    Hearing Protection Act

    1. avatar Woody says:

      I don’t understand why this should be a problem to pass at all now. HPA may not be the very first priority but it’s already in motion so you would think they could get it passed in 2017 no problem. I would like to see the NFA repealed as a whole, but if it has to happen one step at a time I’ll take what I can get.

  10. avatar Anon in CT says:

    National Carry Reciprocity would be a shit-show to pass, and would then spend years tangled in the courts. There are at least 5 Republican Senators who would help torpedo it.

    Do the easy/less controversial stuff, including the HPA, first – or else nothing will get done.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Make those 5 GOP senators you assume stand up and be defeated in their next election. Not bringing up the question accomplishes nothing.

  11. avatar former water walker says:

    Sounds great in theory…I’m in the wait and see camp. Ted Cruz for SCOTUS. I sure as hell don’t want Christie or Rudy running anything-or Sarah Palin. But they were loyal Trumpers so whatever. I’m a big fan of Donnies kids running pro-2A fights…

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      “Appoint Antonin Scalia-type literalists to the Supreme Court. This was the cornerstone of President Trump’s support for the Second Amendment. Trump should push for this fast and hard.”

      The author of “The Art of the Deal” should take this to heart – mend fences with Ted Cruz and his millions of supporters by nominating him to the Supreme Court. He will be a quick approval from the Senate, many of them hate him and would love to see him gone, others love him and would like to see him on the SCOTUS. Further benefit, no Supreme Court Justice in history has ever resigned from the court to run for president.

  12. avatar Navy O-4 says:

    >End gun-free zones on military bases


    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Actually, I would go farther, we’re talking about the *armed* forces. The utility uniform should include a sidearm.

      1. avatar CoastieGM says:

        I agree in principle that we should have the option, in practicality it would be a PITA. Working in certain jobs such as the motor pool, or below decks in the engine room on a ship or cutter it would just suck. Yea I wouldn’t mind having the option to like I said but tread carefully when you start making it a requirement. Also you have to look at other regulations that tie into it. I.e. in the coast guard if we are carrying any weapon we have to wear a bullet proof vest. So now if I want to run to the DFAC on base for lunch in order to be in uniform I gotta have my gun and bullet proof vest on just to eat a meal. Again’t if that’s something I want to do I wouldn’t mind having the option. But making it a requirement would really piss me off.

    2. avatar Gunr says:

      You mean have a gun on a military? OMG

  13. avatar Joseph Quixote says:

    Gun prices and ammo returning to defensible prices. The ability to find smokeless powder. Cruz on the supreme court. Obamacare goodbye. Border secured. If he can get even 1/3 finished of what he promised he will go down as a great president.

  14. avatar Jon in CO says:

    The main problem with number 2 is the state restrictions part. Once I cross state lines, I’ll have to change magazine capacity, hollow points for FMJ (in NJ) and a host of other state specific issues that will end up with honest people in jail.

    1. avatar No one of consequence says:

      Agreed, I was just on my way down to post that. And it’s worse than just the hardware, although that issue is bad enough.

      National reciprocity would have to also include some form of uniform standards as to where one can carry, and under what circumstances, from the federal level right down to the county and city level. We have (pretty much) uniform traffic control signage posted everywhere in the US, without the equivalent for concealed carry one would literally have to keep track of hundreds of different rule sets.

      We also have a pretty standardized set of requirements on the hardware – cars – although there are some exceptions. I found out that in New Mexico, for instance, non-police vehicles can use flashing blue lights. A little disconcerting when passing through. I’d worry that a national reciprocity could force something like that through … a sneaky approach to, for instance, magazine limits or a California-esque “approved handgun” roster, writ nationally.

  15. avatar Mk10108 says:

    Anti Gun States will band citizens from carrying, stick it in the courts for 4-8 years and give the hi ho finger to Trump.

    Need to tie withdrawal of a long list of federal funding if states deny CCW.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      No more DOT $ from the Feds.

  16. avatar GnarlyNardHairs says:

    Why should only military be allowed to carry on military bases? There are thousands of law abiding citizens that work on military bases, generally holding security clearances who can’t carry to work. I carry a tiny percentage of the time that I otherwise would because of this. If I go anywhere before or after work without another trip back home, I can’t carry, because I can’t even legally have my firearm in my car or possess it in any manner on base. I’m effectively barred from legally carrying despite having a permit because of this nonsense.

    1. avatar Joe Mama says:

      ^^^ Two thumbs up ^^^

  17. avatar Sammy says:

    Disallow gun-free zone and states from banning firearms, national reciprocity, all states must issue and I am good

  18. avatar Roymond says:

    We do NOT want Scalia-type judges, we want honest ones. Scalia more than once literally invented statistics to support his position, and that is a huge danger to liberty.

    What we need are judges who are honest and have no ideological agenda, whether it’s “living document” idiocy or “Christian nation” b.s. One of the best examples of that was killed when Gabby Giffords got attacked. In fact, some of the best candidates would be one of the few liberals who are honest enough to admit that the Constitution says exactly what it does and we have no business ruling in any other way unless it gets changed.

    1. avatar Joseph Quixote says:

      People are never satisfied. Scalia saved the second and you still throw him under the bus. Nice..

      1. avatar Marco says:

        Scalia himself admitted to being an imperfect paragon of originalism/textualism.

        He also missed out, for one, on fully reviving the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment (yes… amendment… constitution… mmmm) which, to make a long story short, is SPECIFICALLY intended to protect individual rights against continued state interference, and thus would be the PERFECT and actual CONSTITUTIONAL basis to destroy gun control in NY, NJ, and California- but has essentially been nullified since the 1880s.

        THOMAS himself called for the P&I to be resurrected, given teeth, and brought into the world. Scalia had in the past said he was a “faint-hearted” originalist, and that Thomas was far more brave. Scalia eventually repudiated the “faint-hearted” part, but nevertheless, while Heller was AMAZING, it could have killed state gun control dead, if Scalia had revived the P&I. It likely was the Kennedy who required Scalia to leave it off, but nevertheless, it’s not out of nowhere to criticize Scalia, may he rest in peace and listen to the opera in the sky

      2. avatar Raoul Duke says:

        He didn’t when he put his whole “reasonable regulation” spiel in there.

        Who or what defines a “reasonable regulation”? You, me, that guy over there?

        Heller did nothing to curb gun control laws in anti-states. They read that part and said “our gun control is reasonable” so nothing happened. If anything they keep doubling down on more gun control as we speak now with Nevada joining the universal background check brigade. In fact in D.C., 8 years later, they are still fighting Heller!!

        Heller doesn’t mean anything when the enforcers don’t enforce the rules which they haven’t.

  19. avatar Roymond says:

    BTW, I don’t see why concealed carry reciprocity should spend much time at all in the courts; it’s merely a matter of enforcing the full faith and credit and privileges and immunities clauses and the Fourteenth Amendment.

    1. avatar No one of consequence says:

      Because you still have to obey local laws. Compare to the traffic code – what if every state used different standards for what yellow signs mean, for instance? Generally they indicate a suggested speed but aren’t a speed limit. But let’s say, oh, Idaho decided to use black-on-yellow for legal limits, and some other color set for suggested. If you don’t know that, you’re set up to get a ticket.

      But firearms offenses are often felonies, and even if they aren’t, you can probably kiss your gun goodbye. What might be legal at home – say, carrying in a bar if you aren’t drinking – might be illegal elsewhere, and it’s up to you to keep track of literally hundreds of different rule sets that can change when you drive across a river, to pick a non-random example.

  20. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    Mr Trump asked black people to give him a try. Based on news reports they did. I would like him to include government public housing projects, just like government military based and allow the law abiding housing residents to have guns.
    It has always been against housing regulations to have guns in pubilc government housing.

  21. avatar Larry says:

    You should all send these suggestions to the President Elect’s website as he’s soliciting ideas.

  22. avatar Stateisevil says:

    Could he not get rid of the Bush Import Ban of 91 immediatel?

    Anything pro gun must be within 4 years or quicker. He’ll be co opted by the neocons and only serve 4 years.

  23. avatar Ozzallos says:

    Should and will are two different things. Let me revise that list for you a bit.

    1) Trump will take next to no direct action concerning 2nd amendment policies. If you’re expecting him to come out with a blanket statement kicking years of regulation to the curb, you don’t have a grasp on the man you may or my not have voted for. Instead, expect a trickle-down leadership effect based on his general demeanor toward ownership, which is to say, positive. It happens quite often in the military– As a new CO takes control of his or her unit, their subordinates begin to reflect the attitude of that leader. Those who don’t are generally nudged aside or move on of their own accord. It will not be an over night process, but you will see positive results as Trump asserts his authority.

    2) Price drop on Russian firearms. For those thinking Trump has an easily bruised ego and hair trigger temper waiting to nuke opponents as he institutes The Purge, you all-too-easily bought into the leftist media propaganda (glances over at various TTAG contributors). Trump’s weapon of choice is business and negotiation, not warfare. You can tell a good amount about a person by what they have written and most people haven’t bothered to research even the most basic material available on the man. He will open up lines of communication with traditional adversaries such as Putin, though don’t mistake this for capitulation. Again, business and trade will be Trump’s primary weapons of war. I suspect this will actually result in normalized trade and the resumption of firearms importation over the long term. Of course, overall firearm prices will drop without an overt threat to the second amendment.

    3) He will do everything he says he would in the election. Trump is jealously protective of his brand and image. I cannot stress how much of an asset that is for us on the right. When pitted against either keeping his word or damaging his brand image, it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to realize which route he will take. To point, it would damage his brand to recant on those very public election promises he made. Frankly, I don’t that happening, let alone the facist hitler scenarios some people are conjuring up.

    The country is in better hands than you think, folks.

  24. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

    Most importantly the SC Justice appointment(s). After that work on bad Executive Orders. I would love a Korean war vintage collection of arms.

  25. avatar S.CROCK says:

    I want to start seeing NFA items such as suppressors, sbr, and sbs, come off the list. The ban on 7n6 should also be lifted.

    1. avatar Raoul Duke says:

      As well as all steel-core 7.62×39 that we lost back in 1993.

      The Canadians get all sorts of surplus Russian, Chinese, Czech, and Polish ammo while we are stuck with substandard commercial ammo as well as a trickle of Yugo.

  26. avatar JDS says:

    I fail to see where the second says anything about requiring permission from anyone. In fact it clearly states the government has absolutely zero say when it comes to how I decide to bear arms. Do you need a permit to excercise any other rights protected under the Constitution? Would anyone for one second put up with needing a permit before you could stop illegal search? Or a permit to plead the 5th? Why in the hell does anyone agree with needing a permit to carry a gun concealed?

    1. avatar Marco says:

      Best case scenario JDS-

      He passes reciprocity, or nationwide CC.

      It gets challenged immediately, but no injunction, so you can continue to carry.

      He manages to appoint *enough* justices to guarantee a victory (if the state/plaintiff loses at the circuit court, only AFTER they apply for certiorari)

      Judges take case, strike down permit requirement, making it 50 state constitutional carry

      Even after a Trump victory, there is literally no better or faster path to 50 state constitutional carry. Courts WOULD be scared of backlash and change too fast.

  27. avatar Paelorian says:

    I hope he also begins chipping away at the Gun Control Act and the NFA (start taking things off like silencers and short barreled rifles and shotguns, reopen the machine gun registry, eventually do away with it entirely). He can also with a stroke of a pen repeal the import bans that have been oppressing US shooters for decades. They were instituted by executive order, and all it takes to repeal them is an executive order. Suddenly we’ll be able to import cheap ammo again and import weapons from around the world. Shooting will become less expensive and more fun with a more dynamic industry bringing in new developments from around the world.

  28. avatar Darkwing says:

    You sheeple are dreaming. Tramp, sorry Trump, is like all the others. Trump has already taken a 180 on a number of things. BTW: the Electoral College has not voted, it could change. Then all the sheeple and Trump will be total humiliated

  29. avatar DaveR says:

    Sorry, but I’ll remain skeptical until I see some details. Despite what gets posted here, the 2A was a minor issue during the campaign so I would suspect it will continue to be a minor issue during the next 4 years. We won’t loose ground but no prior legislation will get repealed, the 2A interpretation will not make-or-break his Supreme Court nominee, and no one is going to go to the mat on any new pro-2A legislation.

    1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      you’re on loose ground.

  30. avatar Kim D. Campbell says:

    One thing these pundits always leave out. Veterans. Many of us spent our careers in the military working with small arms. We have a clue. Lots of others have since jumped through the hoops to get their concealed carry license. Allow us to carry on base. Speaking for myself, I drive about forty miles one way for medical appointments and to pick up prescriptions. Needless to say, we try to make that a multi-purpose trip with other stops along the way. Sure would be nice if I had a means to protect myself beyond my Spyderco Endura.

  31. avatar Jay W. says:

    Yes – end GFZ for Post Offices & public schools, Hearing Protection Act and allow the CMP to import M1 Garands & carbines.

  32. avatar Rudytbone says:

    What I want to see is the Trump DoJ file Civil Rights suits against states/cities (California, Massachusetts, Chicago) with ridiculous gun control laws.

  33. avatar Alan says:

    I’d also like to see the Gun Free School Zone Act updated to allow any CCW license holder to carry in a school zone. The current law only allows those who are licensed in that state to carry in the school zone, which is a huge problem for those carrying out-of-state.

    Ideally, the Gun Free School Zone Act would be repealed in its entirety, but I suspect a lot of people would be afraid to do that. Does anyone seriously believe that this law does anything to protect school children? It’s ridiculous to think that a criminal or mentally ill person who is intent on committing murder at a school is going to decide not to do it because of this law.

    This law also has some serious negative consequences. Good citizens, who are otherwise law-abiding, inadvertently and unknowingly break this law simply by driving within 1000 feet of a school with a gun in the car. It’s disgusting that our laws punish people for victimless crimes like this.

  34. avatar cisco kid says:

    Trump is already too late. Again here is what already happened this summer. The Supreme Court totally ignoring the Anthony Scalia ruling has 100 per cent trashed every Second Amendment Right you formerly had under the Scalia ruling.

    Supreme Court this summer ruled the Sandy Hook Bans were legal and that the States could ban any and all firearms at will. This gave the green light to Massachusetts to ban all semi-auto weapons and the Attorney General did it without passing any new laws. She simply ruled “I decree” that I have re-interpreted a 10 year old firearms law and all gun dealers were given 8 hours notice they would not be allowed to sell any modern weapons.

    The Peoples Republic of California has banned the ownership of all semi-auto rifles to be turned in to be melted down and a ballot issue will make ammo to expensive to buy and quantities will be limited to very small amounts. One Socialist said no Second Amendment rights will be violated as long as you are allowed to keep only 1 bullet per lifetime.

    The California lower courts ruled concealed carry is not a right as it threatens the “power elite” (themselves) and there henchmen. They also refused to rule on bans against “open carry” completely trashing Scalia’s ruling. In other words just like Socialist Europe self defense is not a right or legal. Of course the gun hating Supreme Court will do what they have always done and dodge the Second Amendment ruling by just refusing to hear any appeals and the lower Court ruling will become law.

  35. avatar Oldshooter says:

    Trump could, within minutes of taking office, change the policies banning carrying guns at all federal property and facilities, like Post Offices, VA facilities, Social Security offices, etc. They as abhorent to the 2nd Amendment as the prohibition on military facilities, and since those are just policies, they can legally be changed by the POTUS without any concurrence from anyone else. Changing actual laws will take longer because he must get the Congress to do that.

  36. avatar L Bain says:

    The “Federal FA Concealed Carry License” — or whatever it ends-up being titled when it becomes the law — MUST stand on its own without permitting any changes or limitations imposed by any state, municipality, &/or any and all other agencies to be 100% nationally effective and valid. Otherwise, we are doing what we’ve always done and will get what we always got (per a permutation of Albert Einstein’s quote) which, in this instance, equals squat.

    Who among us wants to be held to knowing the intricacies of every square-inch of wherever we travel within the USA of our concealed FAs responsibilities &/or to risk confinement/residency in the Gray Bar Hotel? Not I. If I’m in-transit, that has my full attention.

    In the inimitable words of the Scottish idiom KISS: keep it short and simple … to which I take the liberty of literally adding: make this interjected into the 2A as ANOTHER ONE OF OUR UNALIEANABLE RIGHTS involving each already cited in our Declaration of Independence.

    IMO, it is a “given” that the said “keep and bare arms” of the 2A is equally applicable to: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Amen. Incontrovertibly, this will be the end of this subject forever after. Period!

    Your thoughts?

  37. avatar Fred Frendly says:

    Trump should immediately put all that hoarded ammo has been stockpiling for various outfits like EPA, Social Security and Postal Service flunkies up for sale to the taxpayers.

    NO reason for every single dept of to be armed to the teeth. Sell off their toys and fire the do nothing employees who spend everyday seeking citizens to mess with.

    DISBAND, ELIMINATE, ERADICATE these bloated do nothing (productive) govt flunky depts that stifle We The People.

  38. avatar crzapy says:

    I agree with the above.

    However I would like to add passing the Hearing Protection Act and removing suppressors from the NFA.

  39. avatar justaman says:

    All above mentioned are great ideas. I live on the border where three states converge and must stay in my own state to carry. I have to give up my 2nd amendment rights when I go to shop or travel into these other states.This makes me unsafe due to the unreasonable distrust of uninformed or worse misinformed politicians. Go after the criminals leave normal people alone to travel in peace. We bother no one.

  40. avatar Mark Lee says:

    Now if we can get him to abolish the 1986 FOPA and open up the machine gun registry, we’d be like a pig in shit.

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