President Trump Promises Concealed Carry Reciprocity When Reelected

[Boats]

He had his chance, and banned bump stocks instead.

Shut up and sit down, Trump

 

[Occam]

He had his chance, and banned bump stocks instead.

Had his chance for what? When did Schumer not have the filibuster? Be specific.

As for your cherry-picked history revisionism: you’re talking about an administrative ban that ripped the rug out from under filibuster-proof legislation rapidly brewing in both houses that would have banned those bump stocks by law AND brought us a Feinstein-style AWB and other infringements - and FAR harder to fight later in court than the executive move (which will likely be struck down). Pick one: an order on the one item, and lots of latitude to challenge it, or a broad new gun control law fueled by the Parkland and Vegas mass killings. By making the order, he killed the broad chickenshit legislative support for the new AWB. Imagine how lucky we are it was him and not Hillary Clinton making that choice.

 

[NatBoh]

Trump making these promises is no different that the BS that Biden spewed about cancelling college loan debt in the run-up to the 2022 midterms.

Biden knew that he didn’t have the legal authority to do so, and it would most likely get smacked down in the courts, but the brain dead voters lapped it up and voted D. Mission accomplished.

Politicians gonna politician.

 

[Doctor_M]

I'm always mystified by this. At what point did we have control of or even the support from 60 seats in the senate on anything, let alone pro-2A matters? Am I missing something? Did I black out for year when this was true?

We didn't, but he never even tried to suggest it before. Never used the bully pulpit for anything other than to condem bump stocks or advocate for red flag laws. I'm not saying he could have done it then (or now)... I'm saying that I don't believe he was ever inclined to.

 

[Occam]

We didn't, but he never even tried to suggest it before. Never used the bully pulpit for anything other than to condem bump stocks or advocate for red flag laws. I'm not saying he could have done it then (or now)... I'm saying that I don't believe he was ever inclined to.

I recall him using the spotlight on his campaign and the microphone in front of dozens of huge crowds at rallies before and during his tenure to speak about protecting the 2A, and righteously crowing about the huge number of constitutionalist federal judges (and justices!) he put in place (and their impact on just this topic, and more).

On bumpstocks etc in the wake of those mass killings, see my comment above. His lesser-of-two evils approach on that was calculated and avoided a FAR worse turn of events as law. On red flags? Try to find a single formal policy statement or even specific language supporting a particular legal formulation on that front.

What he said was that if you have a crazy guy threatening people with guns, you take the guns away and then push the threatening person through due process. That’s exactly what we’ve always done. No, a casual remark to a press and activist gathering in the wake of two mass killings wasn’t very nuanced on a complicated topic. But he never backed a single policy or legislative change that strayed into the territory all of us warned about.

 

[Boats]

We didn't, but he never even tried to suggest it before. Never used the bully pulpit for anything other than to condem bump stocks or advocate for red flag laws. I'm not saying he could have done it then (or now)... I'm saying that I don't believe he was ever inclined to.

Agree

 

[Boats]

Trump 2013 - "Big Second Amendment believer but background checks to weed out the sicko's are fine."

Trump 2015 "I do not support expanding background checks. The current background checks do not work,"

Trump 2018 "Very strong improvement and strengthening of background checks will be fully backed by White House,"

Trump 2019 "Republicans and Democrats must come together and get strong background checks"

 

[Occam]

Trump 2013 - "Big Second Amendment believer but background checks to weed out the sicko's are fine."

Do you for some reason disagree? Keeping dangerously crazy people from easily buying guns is a long standing thing, and I'm fine with it. You're not?

Trump 2015 "I do not support expanding background checks. The current background checks do not work,"

Do you for some reason disagree? What would be the point of adding MORE background checks when the existing ones aren't used well or consistently? Be specific.

Trump 2018 "Very strong improvement and strengthening of background checks will be fully backed by White House,"

Do you for some reason disagree? That's exactly the same point. Guys like the one who shot up that church were dishonorably discharged from the Navy for being a violent person ... and the existing background system was poorly used and didn't catch that fact. Trump backed spending what we needed to spend to make sure that reporting authorities (like the DoD) didn't let people like that slip through the cracks and thus skate on the normal background checks that SHOULD have caught them. What's your problem with doing that? Specifically, I mean.

Trump 2019 "Republicans and Democrats must come together and get strong background checks"

See above. Again, what's your problem with making better, more consistent use of things like the NICS system? People like the Parkland murderer SHOULD have shown up, and didn't. Shouldn't both parties be solidly behind tightening that stuff up? NICS is only as good as the reporting agencies that are supposed to keep it fed with good data on bad people. Not sure why you think this is a bad thing. Please explain.

 

[inkd]

Had his chance for what? When did Schumer not have the filibuster? Be specific.

As for your cherry-picked history revisionism: you’re talking about an administrative ban that ripped the rug out from under filibuster-proof legislation rapidly brewing in both houses that would have banned those bump stocks by law AND brought us a Feinstein-style AWB and other infringements - and FAR harder to fight later in court than the executive move (which will likely be struck down). Pick one: an order on the one item, and lots of latitude to challenge it, or a broad new gun control law fueled by the Parkland and Vegas mass killings. By making the order, he killed the broad chickenshit legislative support for the new AWB. Imagine how lucky we are it was him and not Hillary Clinton making that choice.

What was that filibuster proof legislation that was rapidly brewing in both houses?

 

[Occam]

What was that filibuster proof legislation that was rapidly brewing in both houses?

In the wake of the Parkland and Vegas murders (Vegas being the one that really did the job), bill write-ups were circulating in both houses, based mostly on the Feinstein model. Whips from both parties were seeing significant squirming from the GOP side, with at least a dozen senators saying they'd back such a bill. It got through multiple edits, and there was already celebration in the Pelosi circles about how it was finally their time to get it done ... and the lobbyists, legal types, and reps from every 2A-friendly org were getting swamped with panicked calls from the dwindling minority who saw the inevitability of a bumpstock ban law, with an AWB frosting on that cake. It was days from happening when lawyers pitched the White House with the idea of killing support for the wider bill by administratively beating them to the punch on the one item. It worked, and the Dems were furious at the delightful and total drop of support from the RINO-types in the Senate who had been immediately ready to act on such a bill. The administrative action gave them cover, and the wider legislation died in the face of an inevitable filibuster once those votes were back in the barn where they belonged.

I'll have to find a years-old link to some reading. A couple or three lawyers who worked with the NRA and the shooting sports lobbies were hip deep in the last-minute maneuver and wrote a lengthy play-by-play of what a close shave it was, and named names. A number of legislators interviewed afterwards came right out and said that the play was the undoing of a fresh AWB. Bump stocks were going to get the legislative treatment, or the executive treatment, period. There was no way to avoid it given mass murder in Vegas. We got the MUCH better deal, especially because fighting the executive action in court may actually give us a far better position against other ATF nonsense in the long run.

 

[inkd]

In the wake of the Parkland and Vegas murders (Vegas being the one that really did the job), bill write-ups were circulating in both houses, based mostly on the Feinstein model. Whips from both parties were seeing significant squirming from the GOP side, with at least a dozen senators saying they'd back such a bill. It got through multiple edits, and there was already celebration in the Pelosi circles about how it was finally their time to get it done ... and the lobbyists, legal types, and reps from every 2A-friendly org were getting swamped with panicked calls from the dwindling minority who saw the inevitability of a bumpstock ban law, with an AWB frosting on that cake. It was days from happening when lawyers pitched the White House with the idea of killing support for the wider bill by administratively beating them to the punch on the one item. It worked, and the Dems were furious at the delightful and total drop of support from the RINO-types in the Senate who had been immediately ready to act on such a bill. The administrative action gave them cover, and the wider legislation died in the face of an inevitable filibuster once those votes were back in the barn where they belonged.

I'll have to find a years-old link to some reading. A couple or three lawyers who worked with the NRA and the shooting sports lobbies were hip deep in the last-minute maneuver and wrote a lengthy play-by-play of what a close shave it was, and named names. A number of legislators interviewed afterwards came right out and said that the play was the undoing of a fresh AWB. Bump stocks were going to get the legislative treatment, or the executive treatment, period. There was no way to avoid it given mass murder in Vegas. We got the MUCH better deal, especially because fighting the executive action in court may actually give us a far better position against other ATF nonsense in the long run.

I've looked for anything I could find on that subject and came up empty handed each time.

 

[Occam]

I've looked for anything I could find on that subject and came up empty handed each time.

That's why I said I have to do some digging. It's been memory-holed by Google pretty solidly. I recall that one platform that ran the post-mortem remarks from the three lawyers got it's content scraped and saved by another writer because the first was being shut down. Google is aggressively NOT indexing stuff like this. Just for fun, try a search there to tell you the last time the GOP had a veto/filibuster-proof majority in the senate. Try wording it in half a dozen different ways! You'd think that would be simple info to find, as well - but look at what comes back. Wildly slanted results, and most pro-2A stuff that isn't super high profile (let alone blog by some lawyer/lobbyists) gets not just pushed back a few pages, but totally buried. Its insidious.

 

[chilipeppermaniac]

I want two border walls one around NY and one around California

Dave, It is too bad we need walls at all.

Just some FYI that troubles my soul ( for you and any other interested MDS member) Despite knowing God is in control, I am privy to information that one would expect out of Detroit, Seattle, Portland,LA, SF, NYC, DC, and all the DEM MD counties and Baltimore.

An acquaintance who grew up in some of the most beautiful land in all of America, Kalispell Montana. He was born and lived there for 60+ years. He has seen changes the likes of how the rich and poor have infested Colorado. Along with big money buying up the good land, and things such as skiing, golf etc moving in, so have the Hispanic drug lord/cartels and their minions. Of course the Violence, Heroin, Fentanyl, Meth addicts, crime and death fill the streets to infect and ruin the good aspects of this town and others like it from the Kalispell's, to the heartland and city streets throughout America in ever worsening numbers.

What really irks me is how in the name of "reparations for the offended" with all this Dem. diversity, equity, Inclusion crap, no border security, defund police/ Antifa, States Attorneys who are soft on repeat offenders, has not helped in Race disparity but and politicians who get fat off special interests, power hungry, unconstitutional laws, and how through "control" the opportunities for equal rights and good life for all is teetering on the brink of collapse due to "Leverage" by politicians, big tech, big corps and the other Socialists who are now wielding the power to dictate how we can speak, earn our livings, worship, joke, what we drive, what means we can own to protect ourselves. etc etc.

My sad point is that contrary to how God teaches me, in America the direction of our country is not actually heading toward a collective improvement for all with this DEI strategy. The goals of the Left is to water down the Constitution, infect schools with all manner of teaching except REAL LEARNING, then claiming our Country is nothing but what is good for whitey, bad for all others according to the claims of the Left.

Not to come across as a bigot, but it is my belief in the Constitution that should be enough to ensure Equal Rights for ALL. and this was supposed to be guaranteed by God as I was brought up to believe the country was founded upon. The point has been made by others, so to repeat it. If foreigners want to live in the USA, they need to come in LEGALLY. AND NO, this does not mean OPEN Borders the BIDEN way.

Sadly, the BIDEN way and the policies of the SWAMP, and other factors have also caused the dissolution and bad laws that have hamstrung our 2A rights and our abilities to fight for those rights and for our Constitution as it stands. Sorry but this makes me sad to feel as if I no longer live in the USA I grew up in and always could be proud of and feel free to dream of simple things as afforded to me as my rghts in my pursuit of happiness.

 

[danimalw]

He can go fvck himself, he is an egotistical narcissist who is trying to fool people. He doesn't give 2 cents about our rights. The bump stock and red flag stances are perfect examples. "Take the guns and worry about due process later". HELL NO. Our founding Fathers understood to NOT trust the government and they WERE the government. COTUS was written to LIMIT what the government could do.

 

[chilipeppermaniac]

Also, what gets me irked is how in our BIG country, the voices of the MASSES can outweigh the voices of the few, but equally as important. Look at Montana, Dakota's, etc where population is relatively sparse. Their ways can be widely different than those of SF, LA, NYC Denver, etc, yet when the LEFTYS are in charge or worse, Rino's and Leftys make up the rules, MANY folks wishes and needs are not represented.

In my upbringing, the Govt was supposed to be accountable to the People not the other way around.
Take Rural and Western MD for example. THEY/We are stuck with the impacts of the LIB PG, Mont, Balto, Balto County MASSES of LEFTY voters and swampers. Where is the voice of the " other" People in a 1 sided get the power and never relinquish it system in places like MD or CA, NY etc?

 

[NatBoh]

Trump 2013 - "Big Second Amendment believer but background checks to weed out the sicko's are fine."

Trump 2015 "I do not support expanding background checks. The current background checks do not work,"

Trump 2018 "Very strong improvement and strengthening of background checks will be fully backed by White House,"

Trump 2019 "Republicans and Democrats must come together and get strong background checks"

All of which are inexcusable and repugnant infringements on the Second Amendment.

 

[chilipeppermaniac]

He can go fvck himself, he is an egotistical narcissist who is trying to fool people. He doesn't give 2 cents about our rights. The bump stock and red flag stances are perfect examples. "Take the guns and worry about due process later". HELL NO. Our founding Fathers understood to NOT trust the government and they WERE the government. COTUS was written to LIMIT what the government could do.

Sadly, the entire country as I see it, has had the effective ramifications of our Government screeching to a halt due to the power struggles just to get anything done, or even protect the rights that were DONE way back in 1776.

The Swamp was aptly named. I am educated and have a decent enough mind to THINK, but for the life of me, I cannot come up with a solution to end the status quo of the Gov't, the rampant spending, special interest groups, and how our country now calls what is right wrong, and through public popularity and even Presidential Executive Orders, makes WRONG=RIGHT. It has come to the point in the US that if the Govt's " subjects" don't play by the rules of the LEFT, we can be deemed ENEMIES of the STATE, Domestic Terrorists, and Racist Bigots who deserve to lose our jobs, our rights to worship, and our rights to free speech, if we oppose those who seek to strip us of our Constitutional and God given rights.

 

[44man]

This is not meant for anyone in particular, it’s just a question

If in the next election the choice is Trump or Biden or any other leftist liberal who absolutely positively wants to strip you of your rights

Who’d do you vote for?

 

[eruby]

This is not meant for anyone in particular, it’s just a question

If in the next election the choice is Trump or Biden or any other leftist liberal who absolutely positively wants to strip you of your rights

Who’d do you vote for?

Catbert!!!!

If for no other reason than 'The Democrat' will take Maryland with well over a 60% margin

 

[Boats]

Do you for some reason disagree? Keeping dangerously crazy people from easily buying guns is a long standing thing, and I'm fine with it. You're not?

Do you for some reason disagree? What would be the point of adding MORE background checks when the existing ones aren't used well or consistently? Be specific.

Do you for some reason disagree? That's exactly the same point. Guys like the one who shot up that church were dishonorably discharged from the Navy for being a violent person ... and the existing background system was poorly used and didn't catch that fact. Trump backed spending what we needed to spend to make sure that reporting authorities (like the DoD) didn't let people like that slip through the cracks and thus skate on the normal background checks that SHOULD have caught them. What's your problem with doing that? Specifically, I mean.

See above. Again, what's your problem with making better, more consistent use of things like the NICS system? People like the Parkland murderer SHOULD have shown up, and didn't. Shouldn't both parties be solidly behind tightening that stuff up? NICS is only as good as the reporting agencies that are supposed to keep it fed with good data on bad people. Not sure why you think this is a bad thing. Please explain.

Well, which is it? Are we expanding background checks, or are we not?

Do we have a gun problem or a people problem?

And no, I disagree. The bill of rights is exactly that. Rights. There is only so much pre-crime that is possible. "mass shootings" (though horrible) still only make up a tiny percent of gun deaths in this country.

Until we have effectively addressed the majority of ways that guns are used to end life, let's not infringe on the rights of the 99.99% of gun owners who aren't a threat to themselves or others.

Finally, if keeping "dangerously crazy" people (whatever that means) from having firearms means just one person is stripped of their rights unjustly, then it is not worth it.

I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.

Finally: get your facts straight. It was the Air Force, not the Navy. He got a Bad Conduct Discharge, not a Dishonorable Discharge. Which is not disqualifying for firearms ownership. The parkland shooter suffered from a TBI and depression. Both are hardly worthy of "dangerously crazy" or revocation of rights. Hindsight is 20/20.