Previous Post
Next Post


This may not have been what the NRA had in mind when they endorsed Donald Trump last month in Louisville. “Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump says he will be meeting with the National Rifle Association to discuss ways to block people on terrorism watch lists or no fly lists from buying guns. Trump announced the meeting via a tweet Wednesday, without providing any details on the time or place.”

Will they also discuss the importance of due process or the fact that individuals could be deprived of their civil rights by being placed on a secret list by unaccountable bureaucrats? We’d guess the NRA will be raising those topics. We hope.

Trump’s famous for his deal-making. But as Johannes wrote not long ago, that may not necessarily be a good thing for those who value their gun rights. Stay tuned.

[h/t Johannes Paulsen]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. That didn’t take long. Hopefully, since Trump isn’t a details guy, he’s going to the NRA for a debriefing so he can more thoughtfully respond to reporters on the campaign trail.

    On the other hand, Trump responding more thoughtfully sounds laughable. Could it be as I feared earlier that the first mass shooting occurs and Trump embraces gun control to pander or indulge his NYC democrat tendencies?

    The next 5 months will tell whether Trump really is better than Ovary Clinton or he’s just as bad.

    • It’s disappointing enough that Trump has joined with the Dems to make the Orlando terrorist attack a fun control issue. What’s really frightening his apparent willingness to join them in advancing one of the most radical and un-American gun control schemes -the “no fly list” – a scheme that would allow the central government to strip a citizen of one of his most precious civil rights on the basis of evidence(?) that fails to meet even the minimum threshold of probable cause necessary for an arrest or search. Not only that, but a scheme that would do this without affording the citizen his Constitutional due process and right to confront his accusers. And, if that weren’t bad enough., the central government wouldn’t be required to tell the citizen that: (he had been placed on the list; (2) who made the determination; (3) the evidence(/) used against him; (4) the standard of proof used; or (5) the identity of his accusers.

      This is the type of thing that goes on in totalitarian countries and Trump should have immediately diavowed and condemned it for what it is. But he didm’t and that’s a very bad sign that he may be returning to his gun control roots.

      • You nailed it with the authoritarian thinking. This is the reason I cannot support Trump, even if Clinton is far worse. He’s an authoritarian. Assuming he is OUR authoritarian (whatever that means) is an extremely risky proposition at best.

      • “This is the type of thing that goes on in totalitarian countries and Trump should have immediately diavowed and condemned it for what it is.”

        Every politician along with most underinformed citizens are vulnerable to the kinds of “let’s do it for the kids!” moral imperatives that inevitably lead to very bad laws enforcing private social reform agendas (National Prohibition and the 55 MPH speed limit for example) that then become almost impossible to remove (National Prohibition became a constitutional amendment). It is times like this that the NRA’s strength comes into play. Had it not been for the NRA we would definitely had even more draconian gun-control laws after Sandy Hook. Trump undoubtedly feels he must “do something”. It’s commendable he’s going to first talk to the NRA. Let’s hope he listens. You can damn well bet Hillary won’t be listening.

      • >> This is the type of thing that goes on in totalitarian countries and Trump should have immediately diavowed

        In case you haven’t noticed, Trump has been proposing authoritarian solutions to pretty much every problem thrown at him.

        The guy’s platform – such as it is – it basically right-wing authoritarian populism, with a strong cult of personality around a can-do-everything leader. We usually call that “fascism” for short.

        It’s amazing that, apparently, many people on the right were willing to overlook all that, until it finally came to guns.

        Well, hopefully that will be a wake-up call for some.

    • This, he going to get the real deal from them so let us hope the NRA is done with the era of “compromise”.

      • Here’s the NRA position:

        Here is Cox’s full statement on the issue of terrorists and whether they have the ability to get their hands on guns:

        “The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed. That has been the position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S. Senate. Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue.”

        • If a nameless, unaccountable, bureaucrat can put your name on a list that automatically prohibits you from buying or owning guns then an important right guaranteed by the constitution is rendered null and void. If such a bureaucrat can take away constitutional rights then we have no rights, save those “given” to us by government. And rights given can be taken away. Both Trump and the NRA are on a dangerous slippery slope.

          • Congratulations. You get it. Game over, already. Has been for some time.

            People often think government employees are dull, dumb, ignorant, lazy; maybe so. But they are wonderfully cunning and treacherous. Do not ever underestimate their desire for turf fights, emipre-building, thirst for power over the serfs (you and me).

            How do I know this? I was one for 10yrs. Great training.

    • It’s not a bad procedure provided that the government is legally responsible for all costs of challenging said order.

      • Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution

        In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

        Can someone tell me where in the Constitution it says you can be deprived of your Rights without being convicted of a crime?

        • Well, by that logic restraining orders are unconstitutional. They are not. That’s settled law.

        • Quoting from the constitution gains nothing. If it were that simple, every encroachment would be ended with a simple recitation of the relevant clause. The constitution has become a mere suggestion, if not entirely a work of fiction.

      • The NRA knows he’s been anti-gun until the primaries. They’re not going to change their policy for him.

        • Sounds like trump is asking the NRA for advice. Since when is that a bad idea? Bathhouse barry and Hitlery aren’t asking the NRA for advice.

        • Of course they will. They perceive him as their savior from Hillary’s gunpocalypse. If that means that some Muslims (who are all probably jihadists anyway, as we all know from Fox News) don’t get guns, well, who cares?

  2. Prevention, while wholly impossible, is one thing. How will they handle confiscation if someone should happen to be placed on such a list after years of accumulating firearms? How about the firearms held by friends and family of the individual n question? And will friends and family also be barred from purchasing?

    As safe and snuggly as a list sounds the real world implementation of such a list is guaranteed to be expensive, inaccurate, impossible to maintain and ultimately useless as far as preventing firearms from falling into the “wrong” hands.

    We really need to stop pandering to morons for feelz. It’s hurting everyone.

    • “We really need to stop pandering to morons for feelz. It’s hurting everyone.”

      +10,000. Root of an unscientifically estimated 99% of all our present problems right there.

      • Off by an order of magnitude…weeeeellllll if you invert it and ask how many aren’t.

        99.9 percent are.

  3. If Trump changes his tune on the 2A, he’ll lose by a landslide because he will have few supporters left.

    I have another proposal for him to consider; Trump could propose that the NICS system immediately notify the investigating FBI Agents that someone that they have investigated in the past is making a firearms purchase. NICS is allowed to take up to 3 days to clear a sale. The investigating FBI Agents could respond to the notification from NICS with a “go” if they think there isn’t a problem or a “hold” if they think further investigation is required. No new laws or executive orders would be required to do this.

    • “If Trump changes his tune on the 2A, he’ll lose by a landslide because he will have few supporters left.”

      You vastly overestimate 2A single-issue voters. The huge majority of us Trumpsters are not voting for Trump based on his 2A views. We are voting for Trump based on his pro-America views. Get out of the echo chamber.

      • Last I checked every major American politician is “pro-America.” How freaking vague is that nonsense?

      • Unlikely, all the bitter marginalized white people who have been pushing him so far likely think that this will only effect brown people and people with accents. He’ll push for it, and they’ll dutifully get down on their knees and smile and ask for more.

        Trump is a loose cannon, a bitter divider, and quite possibly the most dangerous person in America to our personal freedoms. Wake up people #wedeservebetter

    • This proposal would actually require a higher burden of proof. The AG would need to go to a court and present probable cause to put somebody on the list.

          • Yes. This type of restraining order is pre-crime. Just like “Gun Violence Restraining Orders” are pre-crime. They are bullshit and they use the low bar of “Guilty until Proven Innocent.”

        • So you’re ok with somebody under active indictment for a violent felony being able to buy a gun while out on bail? The burden of proof for both situations is exactly the same.

          • “So you’re ok with somebody under active indictment for a violent felony being able to buy a gun while out on bail? The burden of proof for both situations is exactly the same.”

            How many logical fallacies can you fit in one statement? First, ATF Form 4473, question 11(b). Second, you are moving the goal posts. Third, the burden of proof is not “exactly the same” in his proposal.

        • Go to a court and show probable cause that a crime has been committed. How is that not exactly the same?

          • And what happens after a prosecutor goes “to a court and shows probable cause that a crime has been committed” in a regular court vs a FISA court? These are different outcomes. This process is not the same as putting them on some arbitrary list that they are unaware they are on and from which it is hard to remove ones name. Why do you have a such faith in this secret system that has included toddlers, at least one Senator, and DHS employees among other ridiculous mistakes?

        • Because you have no idea what you’re talking about. The “No fly” list doesn’t require a FISA court order.

          • But the proposal that you’ve said “wasn’t a bad idea” does. From the NYTimes article:

            “For maximum secrecy, Congress could assign these probable cause determinations to the jurisdiction of the existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The judges on this court have a deep understanding of the nation’s national security threats.

        • Emphasis on COURT. The NO FLY or Terror Watch lists do not require a COURT. Get the difference yet?

          • Now I know you’re just grasping at straws here. You’ve hopped from position to position and continue to move the goal posts and change your position. The No Fly list and the proposed No Buy lists are pre-crime, which you refuse to acknowledge. If the laws weren’t pre-crime, the person wouldn’t have to be put on a secret list. You think there is some huge difference by including a rubber stamping secret court over the current nameless bureaucrat system. In a regular Criminal Court, they would be able to obtain council, know the charges, and be able to face their accuser(s). The current system or the system with a FISA Court is/would be secret and still be pre-crime by violating a person’s rights before they even knew their rights were restricted. Even your restraining order position is a bullshit analogy, because people are notified when they have a restraining order taken out against them… to the point that the terms are usually explained to them in detail. You can believe in these systems all you want, but you are basically advocating setting a legal precedence for violating individual liberties at the whim of Top Men.

      • We already have a mechanism for preventing forbidding people from buying guns given probable cause, it’s called a felony indictment.

        • Except that terrorism is a special case. You don’t want to indict people too soon or else you a valuable intelligence asset. Going to court and presenting probable cause to sustain an indictment is the same difference and doesn’t compromise our ability to fight terrorism.

          • “You don’t want to indict people too soon or else you a valuable intelligence asset.”

            So, we can’t indict them because they might be tipped off, but if they go to buy a gun and are denied because they are on a super secret squirrel list then they won’t be tipped off?

        • If they go to buy a gun, they go from the inactive asset category to the active threat category. Them being tipped off at that point is far less relevant. If this gives us an extra couple of weeks where we can surveil them without tipping them off, it’s a reasonable compromise. The burden of proof should be the same as for an indictment, but otherwise, provided a person has adequate means of redress, I can live with this.

          • Moving the goal posts again. You’ve gone from “we can’t indict because reasons” to “well it really doesn’t matter so have the list anyway.” Which is it?

        • Ok… Try to keep up… You’re sounding like a liberal troll…

          If we suspect someone had terrorist ties and can provide probable cause that a crime has taken place we CAN support an indictment, but we shouldn’t. Why? Because keeping the person unindicted and under surveillance lets us roll up the rest of the cell. However, we should be able to put in a tripwire during this surveillance period that prevents them from becoming an active threat. That’s why we go to a judge and get them put on the “No Buy” list using the same burden of proof as the indictment above.

          If they DO try to get a gun and are denied, then we should immediately arrest and file the original indictment. At that point, the threat of them becoming active outweighs the intelligence value of them being under surveillance.

          • “Because terrorism” is how we ended up with the Patriot Act and section 1021 of the NDAA. But let us think through your position. If a suspect is dangerous enough to be theoretically placed on a “No Buy/No Fly” list and they are being surveilled to find other terrorists/cells as you say, why do we need a no buy list? Wouldn’t this surveillance be able to see the individual buying a firearm and then swoop in and arrest them as you suggest? Wouldn’t that approach also cover illegal weapons transfers or private firearms sales that wouldn’t be covered by this magical secret list? If the suspect tries to buy a gun (and that is your bar for arresting the suspect as stated above), and the suspect is under surveillance (as you stated above), then why are you advocating a secret list where people can be included by bureaucratic dictate?

      • Trump is already loosing a lot of supporters because he attacks just about everyone. If Trump also backs-off on the 2A, he’ll loose the POTG also. America is more diverse than it used to be and there isn’t enough pro-America voters to win in November. This is unfortunate, because the entire US Constitution is under attack by the elites.

        I wish Trump would get some serious marketing experts (that could help him get he point across without alienating lots of voters) and listen to them. The “Mexican” judge thing is an example. It is not because the judge is of Mexican ancestry, it is because, being of Mexican ancestry AND being a member of La Rasa Lawyers, there is the “appearance” of a conflict of interest. I have heard that the rules for Federal Judges in this position require them to to recuse themselves. Trump did not get this across to the American public or to people like Paul Ryan (who should have spoken up).

        pwrserge, I don’t think they need to go to court to put a “flag” in NICS. If the investigating FBI Agent says “hold” for further investigation, they have 3 days to show probable cause to the court or they have to let the sale go through.

    • I’ll be voting Trump, not because of guns, but because the other choices are a Hildebeest and a unicorn.

  4. Let me be the first to say it: I TOLD YA SO!!!!!!!

    Trumpkins are suckers, just as easily bamboozled as the Obama sheeple they belittle.


      • Yes. Vote for Hillary, and fight her tooth and nail, along with the GOP, who will need to battle her in order to retake the White House in 2020.

        Vote for Trump, and watch the GOP cave into his PROVEN anti-2A agenda because……….”he’s one of us.”
        The proof? All of you jack wagons are caving in and rationalizing Trump’s chicanery. You don’t get sued some 200 or so times because you’re a man of your word. You don’t end up on three marriages……cheating promiscuously every step of the way……because you abide by solemn vows.

        He’s a carnival barker with a gold card. Don’t fall for it.

    • A vote for anyone but Johnson is a vote for more gun control at this point. Trump will wheel and deal, its what he knows.

      • And a vote for Johnson will result in the same outcome as a 1992 vote for Perot did. A Clinton win.

        Unless some sort of a miracle happens (highly unlikely), Trump or Clinton will be the next president. That’s the only realistic choices.

      • If Johnson is so good on guns, why did he pick anti-gun RINO Masshole Weld as his running mate?

        Johnson is more of a Glibertairan or Liberaltarian anyway.

    • Jonathan – Houston,

      I don’t know anyone who claims that Trump is guaranteed to support and expand gun rights. All anyone is saying is that Trump is a better bet than Hillary when it comes to gun rights. If you have evidence that Hillary is a better bet on gun rights than Trump, please share it with us.

      If you have no such evidence, please support the candidate who is most likely to support and expand gun rights — or do the least to degrade gun rights. At this point in time, all indications tell us that Trump is the best candidate for gun rights.

      • You F#$%$# LIAR. All of you little know-it-alls have been sucking Trump’s D for months. Now that he’s openly reneging, you play the “What? I never said that!” card. Grow a pair and own up to it. I’m not going to re-post six months of you people’s pro-Trump ludicrousness to prove a point. I’m not going to list all six million Jews murdered in the Holocaust, either. Did that not happen?

        You prigs have summoned every scrap of insubstantial delusion to justify supporting Trump. “His son is in the NRA!” Good grief. Now the chickens are coming home to roost, pre-election, even!, and you’re lying and denying you people ever supported him.

        Don’t feel too bad, though. This is an extremely well documented psychological phenomenon. Recall polls taken post-JFJ assassination: amazingly by 1963 JFK had “won” in 1960 by a landslide, despite barely scraping by in the real 1960 by the skin of his old man’s ballot box stuffing teeth. It’s just that in 1963, people were grief stricken, so they re-imagined (read: lied about) their actual 1960 decision.

        Same here, but in reverse: buyer’s remorse is already setting in, so here come the “IIIIII didn’t vote for him! Don’t look at meeeee!” Interestingly, JFK had a saying about that: Victory has a hundred fathers, failure is an orphan.

        Consider yourself and your pro-Trump buddies as deadbeat dads. Thanks for destroying America.

      • Street fighters do not abide the Queensbury rules when it comes to fighting. We have ample proof that politicians of high moral principle (ok, don’t choke on your coffee) are overwhelmingly victorious in contests with the battle-hardened street fighters of the left and Demoncrat party. Only soccer nuts find that a game ending in a tie is a victory for good gamesmanship (ooops, gamespersonship, uh, i mean, gameshumanship, oops, gameshomosapienship).

        War is politics by other means; politics is war by other means. War is brutal; fight to win, or stay on the couch.

  5. That’s our guy! Reflexively liberal, devoid of any core conservative principles, and not very smart. SMOD: our only hope.

  6. I find it extremely worrysome that these discussions about having a “secret squirrel” evildoers list have not mentioned yet the critical necessity for proper checks & balances to avoid the usual government abuse of such list.

    • The only proposal published would require a court order. More or less in line with current restringing orders. Such a court order can be challenged by the person to whom it applies. It’s a long way from the current “no fly list” which doesn’t even require probable cause.

      • I don’t want guns sold to Orlando Terrorist Boy types. He was a known quantity. He was interviewed twice by the FBI. Of course, I’m worried about governmental abuse of the system.

        • Which is why provisions should be made to require probable cause and have the government pick up the cost of challenging your status on this list.

        • There is no doubt he should have been flagged by the FBI, but not only was he removed from any secret list but he also was able to obtain and maintain a security license in the state of FL. This guy was a radical Islamist but was not a prohibited person. I think the issue is how the FBI decided to stop investigating him, how he attended a mosque where a known ISIS suicide bomber attended. How his wife knew he was planning a jihad but said nothing. The failures are entirely on the government, I am very unsettled with the notion that if we just give them even more power and control everything will be fixed when we know for a fact they aren’t even checking the social media pages of the people immigrating from Islamic countries. To be frank, No I don’t want a “no fly no buy” list with zero accountability from the same justice department that brought us fast and furious.

  7. At lest he is talking to the NRA. He could have just made some blanket statement at a press conference. Hoping the NRA at least steers him to a due process type answer. I personally think that if a judge find enough suspicious activity to deny someone’s 2nd amendment that should be OK. But no secret list, nothing without due process, there must be tons of safeguards to prevent abuse.

  8. This is nothing new to those of us who aren’t blinded by Trump’s BS. Just a few days ago his chief of staff came out for this same proposal and said Trump does as well. Wake the fuck up people. The only sane choice for gun owners is Gary Johnson if it ends up being Trump/Clinton as the other names on the ballot.

    • So you propose we vote for Johnson and ensure that Hitlary gets the White House? Are you high or just retarded?

      • Such crap. First of all, Johnson is taking more of the Clinton vote than Trump. He is beating her with independents. Everyone said Trump couldn’t win, now they are saying the same thing about Johnson. This isn’t like any other election in history. Trump will keep cratering support. By the end of this Paul Ryan and the rest of the GOP won’t be able to support Trump. If Johnson sends the election to the house there’s no way they will pick anyone but him to be president. Trump hurts our cause more than Clinton because he would be representing us. We would be turned into extremists over night.

        Oh, and by the way, I am 15+ years sober so lets keep the discussion about the issue and not me personally.

        • I might believe you if the Libertarian party had ever been able to even get a dozen people into Congress.

        • “Trump hurts our cause more than Clinton because he would be representing us.”
          His representation would be nowhere near the complete blitzkrieg on all rights (not just the 2A) by frau pantsuit.

          They already call us and consider us extremists man, why are you trying to cater to a group of people who wouldnt cross the street to piss on you if you were on fire? As far as they are concerned, we are the Kulaks and the faster they can discredit us or wipe us out, the easier it will be to begin their “Great Leap Forward”.

      • Here, here!
        I just don’t get how this #NeverTrump crowd thinks we are going to go from the liberal/progressive country we are now to full on Libertarian overnight? I ain’t gonna happen and if the beast becomes Lesident all of the illegals in this country will be voting next go round for the socialist dujour.
        BTW, here in MA. it has been floated in the legislature to allow illegals to get drivers licenses and simultaneously the Secretary of State is on TV advertising that you can now use your cell phone to register to vote and all you need to do this is a drivers license.

      • Well it’s official A vote for Trump is against gun rights and a vote for H dog is a vote against gun rights. This is why men with principles don’t vote for men without principles.

        • Have you considered that Trump is just asking the opinion of the experts on talking points or any possible courses of action would be? You know, kind of like what a leader should do.

        • Would you rather he go elsewhere for advice? A good leader asks for advice from people/organizations they trust. He may just as well come out and say the whole deal is a bad idea. I won’t wet the bed ahead of the facts. Embarrassing watching some of you guys wet the bed and assuming the absolute worst abut this meeting.

    • Except that Libertarian candidates have zero chance of being elected. Politicians in general stand very little on principle and rely on other elements of electability. Voters who hold out for absolute principle get run over by those who vote on popularity – in short, a principled voter is almost always in the position of voting for the lesser of two evils. Seldom are you given the choice of a truly principled leader, so you vote to provide the most likely protection of the rights you want to preserver.

      Johnson may (or may not) be a great choice, but the only potentially electable choice is Trump, whose rhetoric is at least far more tolerable than Clinton’s.

  9. So if we called it a “suspected murder” list would it be more obvious that a list like that is stupid and ineffective? How does a list like this make anyone feel good? THE PEOPLE ARE STILL OUT FREE IN SOCIETY AND NO ONE IS WATCHING THEM!!! If you are unwilling to deport everyone on the terrorist watch list, immediately, then you aren’t serious about security of the nation, or , you don’t have anything even remotely resembling proof that they are dangerous.

    If you don’t have enough evidence to lock them up, you don’t have enough evidence to deprive them of rights. I didn’t realize that the rights in the bill or rights was graduated dependent on the level of suspicion you are currently under.

    Isn’t this similar to how black people were treated after the civil war?

  10. This concept of “No guns if you’re on the terror watch list” must be accompanied by deductive scholarship on expedited due process. The “No Fly List” is functionally impossible to challenge-it operates in secrecy, from an undisclosed location, administered by an office that has ZERO accountability to public inquiry, and is under no obligation to provide due process of law. People mistakenly put on this list have to litigate for YEARS to clear their name. It’s not just names like Mohammad Tariq Mahmood. Some poor chump unfortunate enough to be named Cat Stevens, Ted Kennedy, John Lewis and even a 18 month old girl have been flagged. You can be labeled a suspected terrorist because of a ‘reasonable suspicion’ based on a ‘reasonable suspicion’. That’s legal lunacy. It’s unwise for a citizenry to demand federal control absent due process or representative oversight, from an entity that simultaneously operates with zero accountability and unmitigated incompetence. Demanding a inscrutable supersession of 2nd and 14th amendment rights based on hearsay is a very slippery slope, and diving off the edge on a damn Flexible Flyer is completely devoid of judicious thought.

  11. Nothing wrong for Trump to turn to the NRA for advice. Smart thing to do, get briefed about pros/cons of any new requirements placed on a FFL transfer.

    To anti’s it will look like he’s open to new ideas, maybe seem more moderate, maybe pull in a few votes, God knows that Billary is never going to stop short of anything less than another AWB.

    Maybe I don’t mind, on active duty I was required to do a SF 86, it went back to before I turned 18, I’m still looked at that same level. I got my Sorry we screwed you letter from OPM that my PII was compromised. I know that my landline phone records were subpoenaed by DCIS due to my ID being stolen and used, the thieves went so far as to contact my provider, strong armed them into putting call forwarding to a prepaid cellphone, on my landline, then were able to go around my fraud alerts on my credit reports. This was before OPM found out they were compromised, my guess my PII was compromised by Chase.

    I had my fingerprints taken and sent into the FBI and have a UPIN to use when I purchase a firearm, just so I don’t have to worry about some lowlife uses my ID and I deal with a no knock visit at O’dark 30 in the morning.

    As long as there is a way for a person to deal with being on the list by mistake, then it really is in favor to tighten the rules vice flat out saying NO, not an inch. Kennedy staff had to deal with him being on the list for weeks, that is a lot of horsepower, us minions, would be impossible is my guess. So if the law is written in such a manner as there is a way to address being on the banned list then it’s not bad, but if not then we have problems.

    We complain about knee jerk laws, CT, NY, etc…. Trump is trying to show he’s thinking about the problem, Billary wants us to stack our firearms at the curb and the trash guys will pick them up. Break out the brown bag and breath, it’s not time to act like the left and hyperventilate.

    A few months back VA almost lost reciprocity with almost every other state, but with a little my people talks to your people over dinner in Smithfield, they worked out a deal, permit holders gained way more than they lost, which was wife beaters had tighter rules and the AG has to extend reciprocity with more states. Don’t think that anyone on here would mind that, unless you have a stack of white tank tops on the clothes line. I’m sure Bloomy crapped his pants that his boy the AG had to cave and back down.

  12. It is always fascinating how stripping one of an enumerated right is likened to permissible invasion of privacy (wiretaps, etc). First, contrary to the article, there is no constitutional guarantee of privacy; the notion is derived from case law. Second, wiretaps do not deprive the suspect of any enumerated right under the constitution. Police cannot seize a car based on wiretaps simply existing. Police cannot arrest a suspect simply because wiretaps are in place. Police cannot arrest a robbery suspect for entering a bank just because a wiretap exists.

    While it may be acceptable (legal is a whole other thing) to obtain a wiretap in secret, denying a person an enumerated right in a manner where the subject is not even aware that the right has been suspended is the open door to complete abuse of the public. Since the public made guns a whole different thing and required background checks, a “suspect” placed on the “no buy” list is clueless.

    Once the subject attempts to buy a firearm (who can know the purpose?) and declares they are not a prohibited person, the immediately commit a crime (which is actually the intent behind the whole “no buy” list; forcing a person to unknowingly commit a felony). Once a person is arrested for making a false declaration on the background check form, their guns can be confiscated immediately. So, a non-convicted suspect has a felony arrest, maybe a felony conviction follows. The suspect then must fight the criminal charge, and an erroneous listing on the “no buy”.

    Let us suppose that the “suspect” sues whichever agency forced him/her onto the “no buy” list. Then suppose that “suspect” wins, and has their name taken from the list. The still have criminal charges to fight. There will be no mechanism for the overturned agency to immediately notify whomever in authority/court, “ooops, my bad, drop the charges, expunge the record.” Without expungement (every record in every agency involved), the no longer “suspect” is faced with the potential of meeting the question, “Have you ever been arrested?” This question is a threat during the entire time it takes to get the vacated arrest removed from all public records.

    But this is all just a bunch of legal mumbo-jumbo, and TS for whoever gets caught up in the process. People shouldn’t have guns anyway, right? “Appropriate suspecion” will migrate from terror cases to whatever the government wants; look at RICO laws, and civilian asset forfeiture (the latter is approved by federal courts).
    The entire notion that anyone in this country can have an enumerated constitutional right suspended on mere suspicion perverts the law and constitution beyond repair.

    • Wiretaps are included under the “search” part of “search and seizure” of the 4th Amendment. It’s both the current legal interpretation, and also the one that makes sense – wiretapping does to your (private) communication channel the same thing search does to your (private) possessions.

      Just as “freedom of the press” includes Internet publications, even though there’s no actual press involved there.

      • “Wiretaps are included under the “search” part of “search and seizure” of the 4th Amendment.”

        And ?

        Wiretaps are a derived concept from case law, not specifically called-out, as in “no person shall be subject to a wiretap without due process of law”, or some such. Including wiretaps without due process in the 4th amendment does not make “privacy” an enumerated right. Unless one agrees the enumerated rights in the first 10 amendments are not really superior to derived rights fashioned by courts.

  13. Trump is a deal-maker, and he can do all the things feared, without meeting with the NRA. I wonder how is plans to micro-manage his business empire while being President? I see a person who cannot let go.

  14. We get to see if he is the gun rights advocate we are hoping for. Not holding my breath.

    • I don’t need a guns right advocate. I need an America advocate who leaves us the hell alone.

  15. Pretty simple, bar anyone not born in the US to two American citizen parents who were also born in the US from owning weapons or voting. Solves most of our problems.

    • How would that solve anything…?

      I mean, the overwhelmingly vast majority of shootings have been done by US citizens born of US citizens, and its not like people couldnt get firearms anyway.

      And yout cant abridge the rights of some US citizens just because of their parentage, thats fundamentally antithetical to the US way of life, we are all our own people, not what our parents were.

      The 2A is a natural right, not something that can be foresaken simply because of where one’s parents were born.

  16. It’s okay to allow dead people, illegal immigrants and convicted felons to vote, but we’re taking away the right of due process from American citizens? Anyone else see this as upside down? I’m sorry, this is a new kind of “Eff’d up.”

  17. MEH…security theater. Making a moose-lim VETTED security guard the face of gun control. I’m voting Trump while holding my nose. And stocking up as best I can. Just hopin’ old white men(who belong to TTAG) ain’t put on a LIST…

  18. See the videos of clubgoers carrying wounded *to the club from down the road* and then putting them down and laughing.

  19. Man I love being right. Good job Trumpistas, you got Hillary nominated twice. Thanks guys.

      • Asking advice on how to restrict civil liberties is always a bad thing. The man didn’t lie, he said everything is negotiable. Even if the NRA convinces him it’s a bad idea he still considered taking away civil liberties, and thats not acceptable.

        • I suspect he will come out in agreement with the NRA position:

          “The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed. That has been the position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S. Senate. Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue.”

          I just don’t see anything wrong with this so far.

  20. Called it. Good thing this happened well in advance of the election itself. Donald Trump is a fair weather friend, and he always has been. His first and foremost concern is Donald Trump, and has always been Donald Trump. We’ll see how this plays out. But regardless of whether you’re voting for him because the alternative of a Clinton presidency would be a nightmare for 2A Rights, don’t ever believe that he cares about you. Donald Trump is an opportunist, and a vote for him is a gamble. Time will tell how that gamble plays out.

  21. I don’t see this as Trump endorsing a purchase ban based on no-fly lists, but him saying he wants to talk to the NRA about it. He will go, sit down, listen, get their talking points, then go out on tv and say “I listened, I thought about it, and it’s a bad idea, and here’s why.”

    Boom. He sounds presidential, he gets airtime to explain his views and bash Obama, and more people will tune in than if he just said “Hell, no!”

  22. I find it fucking unbelievable that the supposedly logical people on our side of the gun debate are acting so crazy about Trump. This is heavy conspiracy tier shit. There are people who are ACTUALLY saying he’s as bad as /HILLARY CLINTON/. What evidence do you have of this? Has he been involved in the deaths of citizens and soldiers? Is he being investigated by the FBI? Love him or hate him, he is a DAMN sight better than that woman.
    The only thing people EVER say when talking about him and gun control is how he mentioned the AWB in a book he wrote over 15 years ago, at a time where anyone of influence either didn’t care or supported it in causal conversation to keep up appearances. Trump’s sons have taught him about guns, they are very avid sport shooters and I have no doubt that he knows more about the topic than he did a decade and a half ago. As others have said, he isn’t voicing support for the watchlist ban yet, he’s just meeting the NRA over it.
    Johnson has proved through his allies that he will flop, and anyone voting for Hillary is already devoid of critical thinking skills. I support trump but I’m sick of all the shit all sides make up about him. Form your own opinions but assuming he is going to be a champion of gun control shows a lack of research.
    His policies are amazing on just about everything else, he’s trying to break this cycle of pantywaist do-nothings and safe spaces.
    I trust him with the Second Amendment.
    Like I said you can love him or hate him, but at this point he’s our only shot.

  23. Of course this was going to happen!!! It boggles the mind that the Tea Party and “conservatives” today are drooling all over Trump when just a few years ago he denounced the Tea Party and met with RINOs to find a way to destroy it as well as funding the most Marxist Democrats for years, supporting “assault weapons” bans, supporting gun restrictions, denouncing the NRA, and was a vocal liberal up until a year or two ago when he started the presidential race. Now, after the Muslim extremist terrorist shot up 100 people in Florida, Trump is calling for gun bans for those on a terror watch list and as soon as that is established, just wait and see how many Christian, conservative, gun owners wind up on that list for; flying a Culpeper Minuteman flag, being outspoken conservative, being anti-Marxist, or any other patriotic actions. The head of DHS already stated today that “right wingers” pose the same threat as Islamic extremists. The buyer’s remorse will be huge if Trump wins but I know (please, no need to tell me) that he will be less painful than if the alternative wins in at least a few ways.

    The young guys (gun owners) on this site and other gun sites don’t remember (too young or were not born) that Reagan supported an “assault weapons” ban, a ban on “hi-capacity” magazines, supported the Brady Bill with waiting periods, etc., signed the ban on machine-guns for civilian ownership if they were made after May 19th, 1986, and was what all 2nd Amendment supporters today would consider “anti-gun” while he was governor of California. Or when conservatives supported George “no new gun laws” Bush the 1st who banned more guns than any president up to that time (1989) with the import “assault weapons” ban which is STILL in effect – he was only in office for about a month when he stated his favor the ban, he signed it into law less than two months later. They don’t remember all of the Republican “CONservative” turncoat congressman and senators who voted with the communist democrats on a host of issues (not just guns) over the decades. They don’t remember that George Bush the 2nd stated that he would sign a permanent domestic “assault weapon” ban if it made it to his desk. They forget about Republican Sen. & presidential nominee McCain’s disgusting comment regarding the 2nd Amendment during the debates years ago or left wing Romney and his stupid comments about the 2nd Amendment and how his son is a shotgun owner and somehow that means that he is pro-gun. By the way, the NRA endorsed ALL of them.

    Now we have savior Trump whose RECENT past makes all of the anti-gun Republican nominees and presidents before him look pro-gun by a mile. Are the Trump supporters smitten with Trump’s two sons because they hunt on safaris? Who cares??? What have they done personally to really make a difference over the years with their money and connections??? ZERO! Many anti-2nd Amendment people hunt and own guns! Dianne Feinstien has a gun carry permit and carries a .38 snub nose. Governor (Benito Mussolini) Cuomo owns a shotgun and hunts. Senator Rockefeller (WV), who voted for every gun ban that came his way, owns a Colt AR-15 SP1. Most hunters throughout Europe are left wing socialists.

    Let’s start admiring people worth admiring. Want to know about a great American? Read all you can about Patrick Henry (his life and what he wrote) as a good start – after, you will make a sour face the next time Trump opens his mouth. If it weren’t for Patrick Henry, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO BILL OF RIGHTS AND NO 2ND AMENDMENT! If you didn’t know that, its time that you reevaluate how smart you think you are regarding gun ownership rights. God help this nation.

    • ALL I wanted was NO HILLBILLARY. Hell, it was the only silver lining when Barry the worthless beat her. Now……EIGHT LOOOOONG years later……….ITS HILLBILLARY. Rubio would have won in a walk…as libs don’t hate him…while nobody likes the crooked witch. The only way she could have won was PT Barnum (Trump). We are indeed doomed.

  24. And to think, I you Trumpster’s had to do was pick Rubio. No fuss, no muss. Rubio (around a 15 point lead) would have won in a walk. All I wanted was for HillBillary the crooked witch to lose, but noooooo, many wanted an outsider. Well tigers……… does it taste (assuming HillBillary is prez)?

  25. Trump is famous for altering his deals. Nobody gets to be surprised when Trump stabs them in the back. Anybody who voted for him knew what they were signing up for.

Comments are closed.