Gun-rights backers vow to 'go on offense' during Trump years

[webfact]

Gun-rights backers vow to 'go on offense' during Trump years

By RYAN J. FOLEY

 

IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) — Firearms enthusiasts who embraced Donald Trump's campaign and his full-throated support of the Second Amendment are expecting a sweeping expansion of gun rights under his administration and a Congress firmly in Republican hands.

 

Among their priorities: eliminating gun-free zones at schools, reducing requirements for background checks and ensuring that concealed carry handgun permits from one state are recognized everywhere in the U.S.

 

"This is our historic moment to go on offense and to defeat the forces that have aligned against our freedom once and for all," Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the National Rifle Association, said in a video after the Nov. 8 election. "The individual right to carry a firearm in defense of our lives and our families does not and should not end at any state line."

 

In pursuing their agenda, the gun lobby and its GOP supporters could find themselves at odds with two other tenets of Republican orthodoxy: states' rights and local control.

 

"It would be ironic to see conservatives who long have professed a belief in states' rights override states' choices in this area," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Irvine School of Law.

 

One of the NRA's paramount goals is getting Congress to pass a law requiring all states to recognize concealed-carry handgun permits issued by any other state. Currently, many permit holders must leave their weapons at home when traveling or risk violating other states' laws. NRA supporters say permits should be treated like driver's licenses.

 

Trump endorsed the idea during the campaign, but it is likely to face intense opposition from Democrats in states with tight gun restrictions, including California and the president-elect's home state of New York.

 

States make their own judgments on who should be allowed to have a concealed carry permit, and their eligibility requirements vary based on an applicant's criminal history, age and training.

 

Many law enforcement organizations warn the change would mean encountering more guns during traffic stops and in tourist areas. They also say there is no way to easily check the validity of an out-of-state firearm permit because there is no nationwide database.

 

The trend among states to expand the right to carry guns is already "creating enormous challenges on the streets for police officers who must figure out whether or not the people they encounter are legally entitled to have a firearm," said Darrel Stephens, executive director of the Major Cities Chiefs Association.

 

Chemerinsky and another expert who studies gun law, UCLA professor Eugene Volokh, said Congress probably doesn't have the constitutional authority to order states to recognize concealed carry permits from elsewhere. But they said Congress could encourage states to do so by threatening to withhold law enforcement and homeland security funding.

 

The NRA, which spent more than $30 million supporting Trump and opposing Hillary Clinton, also is calling for an end to gun-free zones around the country, including at schools. The organization has argued that such areas become targets for mass killers.

 

Trump pledged during the campaign to eliminate gun-free zones. To do that, Congress would have to repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1996, which limits carrying and bans the discharge of guns within 1,000 feet of schools.

 

Even then, Lindsay Nichols, senior attorney with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence in San Francisco, said she believes states and municipalities would be able to create gun-free areas locally.

 

Nichols said that any push to repeal the federal law would draw opposition from gun control advocates, who are better organized than they have been in years and made gains of their own at the ballot box last month. Voters in California, Nevada and Washington state tightened firearm laws, with California enacting the nation's first background check requirement for buying ammunition.

 

Even without Congress, Trump can immediately undo President Barack Obama's executive actions on guns. Among other things, Obama put sellers on notice last year that they have to conduct background checks even when doing business at gun shows or through the internet — and that failing to do so routinely would be a crime.

 

Another Obama rule that Trump could jettison would make it easier for some health care providers to share information about mental illness with the federal background check system. Critics worry that sharing such details could unfairly deny gun rights to veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress.

 

Larry Pratt, a former executive director of Gun Owners of America, said he is eager to see Trump overturn Obama's executive actions.

"Baby, those are going into the shredder," he said.

 

-- © Associated Press 2016-12-05

[Jdiddy]

Good to hear, they have been on the defensive for too long

[Damrongsak]

Back when I was a kid, guns weren't bad, but some people were.  At Grandpa's house, all the kids knew the guns were in the unlocked closet under the stairs.  When they let us shoot the .22 rifles and pistols, we knew to scrounge through the junk drawer in the kitchen to get enough cartridges.

 

Guns are not evil.  Unless you shoot at starlings on top of the barn, miss, and poke holes in the barn roof.  That is a no-no.  Or shoot at one sitting on a power wire from the barn to the chicken coop, and sever the wire.  This is where responsibility with firearms springs from.  Your beaten fanny.

 

[OMGImInPattaya]

This sounds all good to me...nothing funnier than seeing a SJW or Democrat soil their clothes at the sight of an open carry sidearm or rifle when they pickup their morning Starbucks  

 

The one idea I've heard that I'm most in favor of is the Justice Department establishing a special gun rights division (like they have a dedicated civil rights division) to protect people's gun rights, and to go after states and localities that pass laws/regulations that infringe on the Second Amendment. As it stands now, it's up to private citizens and patriotic organizations like the NRA to sue these entities when they try to take away peoples' guns.

Edited December 5, 2016 by OMGImInPattaya

[BlindMagician]

Yeah, guns, more guns, gimme guns...beat chest...guuuunnsss.

 

Let's reverse civilisation even more, and go for thumb screws, torture, surfdom, slavery.

 

Yeeehaa..they call me a redneck jus cos  of me guns, me truck, I shoot those tear-or-wristzz moose-limzz cos they look at me all weird like, kinda different weird like to those city boys in suits who look at me weird like, but different...like. Yaaa know? (Big spit, itch ass, long slow squeaky fart, drool, squint, uncontrolled twitching especially the trigger finger)

 

USA is going down the plug hole.

[simple1]

Can someone please explain calmly and logically why:

 

A) A move to reducing requirements for background checks

Except for California, no requirement for background checks to buy ammunition

[OMGImInPattaya]

43 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Can someone please explain calmly and logically why:

 

A) A move to reducing requirements for background checks

Except for California, no requirement for background checks to buy ammunition

For both A and B...one shouldn't have to pass a background check to exercise a Constitutional right.

[KarenBravo]

 

[helpisgood]

17 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

For both A and B...one shouldn't have to pass a background check to exercise a Constitutional right.

 

Constitutional rights are not absolute.   I think many know that one is not allowed to wrongly yell "Fire!" in a crowded cinema; yet, no one says that the right to freedom of speech is thus abridged.  

 

I am not sure of how best to do this, but surely laws that prevent the wrong people (mentally ill, violent criminal background, etc.) from getting firearms does not abridge any constitutional rights. 

Edited December 5, 2016 by helpisgood
typo

[Shot]

11 minutes ago, helpisgood said:

 

Constitutional rights are not absolute.   I think many know that one is not allowed to wrongly yell "Fire!" in a crowded cinema; yet, no one says that the right to freedom of speech is thus abridged.  

 

I am not sure of how best to do this, but surely laws that prevent the wrong people (mentally ill, violent criminal background, etc.) from getting firearms does not abridge any constitutional rights. 

 

The City on the Edge of Forever??? Cool

[Shawn0000]

2 hours ago, Damrongsak said:

Back when I was a kid, guns weren't bad, but some people were.  At Grandpa's house, all the kids knew the guns were in the unlocked closet under the stairs.  When they let us shoot the .22 rifles and pistols, we knew to scrounge through the junk drawer in the kitchen to get enough cartridges.

 

Guns are not evil.  Unless you shoot at starlings on top of the barn, miss, and poke holes in the barn roof.  That is a no-no.  Or shoot at one sitting on a power wire from the barn to the chicken coop, and sever the wire.  This is where responsibility with firearms springs from.  Your beaten fanny.

 

 

True, so why remove background checks?

[Shawn0000]

35 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

For both A and B...one shouldn't have to pass a background check to exercise a Constitutional right.

 

But why?  It is also a constitutional right to be able to seek any employment without prejudice, yet there are background checks required for some jobs.  I don't see anyone campaigning to remove pedophile checks for teachers.

[OMGImInPattaya]

13 minutes ago, helpisgood said:

 

Constitutional rights are not absolute.   I think many know that one is not allowed to wrongly yell "Fire!" in a crowded cinema; yet, no one says that the right to freedom of speech is thus abridged.  

 

I am not sure of how best to do this, but surely laws that prevent the wrong people (mentally ill, violent criminal background, etc.) from getting firearms does not abridge any constitutional rights. 

The act of speaking does occur in many contexts...political, commercial, social, etc. As you point out, the right to "free speech" isn't absoute and may be regulated in certain circumstances. That's why regulations on what advertisers may claim about their products is allowed...because regulating commercial speech is legal. However, the right to political speech is absolute in the United States...not so for most of Western Europe, Canda, Australia, and the rest of the world.

 

As for firearms, an armed society is a polite society is my motto and there should few, if any, limitations on their ownership and use IMO.

 

 

[OMGImInPattaya]

Just now, Shawn0000 said:

 

But why?  It is also a constitutional right to be able to seek any employment without prejudice, yet there are background checks required for some jobs.  I don't see anyone campaigning to remove pedophile checks for teachers.

The right to employment isn't a Constitional right...try to follow the logic.

[Shawn0000]

Just now, OMGImInPattaya said:

The right to employment isn't a Constitional right...try to follow the logic.

 

The right to seek employment without prejudice is, try to follow the sentence to the end.

[Emster23]

" eliminating gun-free zones at schools, reducing requirements for background checks and ensuring that concealed carry handgun permits from one state are recognized everywhere in the U.S. "

  What next? Handing out guns as you go into local cinema? Open carry.... so that means someone could walk up to Trump with an AR_15 and Secret Service just stand there? Same for concealed guns? Those laws are reasonable.... no law abiding citizen who is not crazy has had their gun taken away.... hmm explains why Trump NRA fanboys want change

[OMGImInPattaya]

3 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

The right to seek employment without prejudice is, try to follow the sentence to the end.

Youre mixing up allot of rights in your question so it's difficult to answer succinctly. Yes, background checks are allowed to vet the sutability, experience, and qualifications of job applicants.

 

As for seeking employment "without prejudice," I'm assuming you mean without being discriminated against. Contrary to your post, background checks and inquiry into someone's protected status is expressly prohibited because of their Constitutional protections.

[OMGImInPattaya]

5 minutes ago, Emster23 said:

".... no law abiding citizen who is not crazy has had their gun taken away.... hmm explains why Trump NRA fanboys want change

Millions have been denied the right to ever obtain them in states like California, Illinois, New York, and Washington DC.

Edited December 5, 2016 by OMGImInPattaya

[mamypoko]

My heart goes out to those in the gun industry. Nothing boosts sales like a Dem. government.

 

[NeverSure]

As for comments about states' rights, the right to keep and bear arms is federal - a part of the US Constitution which is binding on all states at all times.

 

The Second Amendment spells out a right, NOT a privilege, that each person inherits simply by being a US citizen. It is a right of the people against government infringement especially state infringement.

 

Cheers.

 

For the precious snowflakes on here, I just bought a semi-automatic 9mm handgun from the internet. That's right. I was too lazy to go shopping so I just logged onto www.gunbroker.com and bought what I wanted. I already have it.

 

Cheers.

[Shawn0000]

11 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

Youre mixing up allot of rights in your question so it's difficult to answer succinctly. Yes, background checks are allowed to vet the sutability, experience, and qualifications of job applicants.

 

As for seeking employment "without prejudice," I'm assuming you mean without being discriminated against. Contrary to your post, background checks and inquiry into someone's protected status is expressly prohibited because of their Constitutional protections.

 

Nope, just one right, the one made in the 14th amendment.  I am not talking about suitability, experience or qualification but the "certificate of good conduct" or "lack of a criminal record".   By your own logic it would be unconstitutional to prejudice an employee by enforcing the production of these checks.

[Estrada]

So far this year. in gun happy US, there have been 53,163 reported gun incidents with 13,742 dead, 28,303 injured (not including suicides) and 361 mass shootings. Yet they want a ban and/or control on Muslims whilst at the same time relaxing all control on guns carried by the non muslims that carried out the other 53,160 attacks. It makes no sense to blame a tiny minority for the extreme risk of death from violent attacks in the United States.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Estrada

[BlindMagician]

1 hour ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

For both A and B...one shouldn't have to pass a background check to exercise a Constitutional right.

That just shows how silly that constitutional right is. About time the USA experiment, a young nation that it is, is seen as a failure of common sense, and modernised so that people don't have the right to carry weapons on the streets.

It's amazing that human beings who aspire to be civilised cling in to a medieval level mentality.

If you were to design a new country, a new culture, from a blank sheet, would you in all honesty, after removing your emotion from the decision process, have this gun hooting element? Come on. Grow up USA.

[metisdead]

A derogatory post containing profanity has been removed. 

[Shawn0000]

16 minutes ago, BlindMagician said:

That just shows how silly that constitutional right is. About time the USA experiment, a young nation that it is, is seen as a failure of common sense, and modernised so that people don't have the right to carry weapons on the streets.

It's amazing that human beings who aspire to be civilised cling in to a medieval level mentality.

If you were to design a new country, a new culture, from a blank sheet, would you in all honesty, after removing your emotion from the decision process, have this gun hooting element? Come on. Grow up USA.

 

Its kind of complicated.  The Black Panthers is the most interesting aspect in my opinion.  At a time when black people were regularly being assassinated by the police, the right to bear arms against a tyrant, brought them some safety.

[helpisgood]

1 hour ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

The act of speaking does occur in many contexts...political, commercial, social, etc. As you point out, the right to "free speech" isn't absoute and may be regulated in certain circumstances. That's why regulations on what advertisers may claim about their products is allowed...because regulating commercial speech is legal. However, the right to political speech is absolute in the United States...not so for most of Western Europe, Canda, Australia, and the rest of the world.

 

As for firearms, an armed society is a polite society is my motto and there should few, if any, limitations on their ownership and use IMO.

 

 

 

Justice Scalia's written opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) seems to disagree with you in regards to the Second Amendment.  If you are unfamiliar with the US Supreme Court's Heller decision, the Court held, among other points of law:

 

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." [Emphasis added.]

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

 

Justice Scalia, a well-known conservative on the court, wrote the majority opinion affirming the Second Amendment right announced in Heller.  He also wrote:

 

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."

 

On this same issue, he further wrote:

 

"...nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

 

Consistent with Scalia's opinion, your motto would make more sense if it the "armed society" had and enforced laws to limit possession to those society could trust.

 

[seajae]

all gun owners should be checked and vetted before they are allowed to buy a gun/s, the last thing needed is someone with a mental condition having access to a weapon. The right to bear arms was only ever meant to protect the country from invasion by having citizens armed, over the years this has been twisted around to become what it is today. There is nothing wrong with owning fire arms for sport shooting/hunting but its a joke what is available on the market in the US, Australia changed the rules on guns and there has been a big drop in gun related violence since even though we continually see the bullsh*t articles from US claiming otherwise. There is a big difference between someone that loves hunting/shooting for sport and someone that simply wants the ability to shoot others

[BlindMagician]

36 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Its kind of complicated.  The Black Panthers is the most interesting aspect in my opinion.  At a time when black people were regularly being assassinated by the police, the right to bear arms against a tyrant, brought them some safety.

Hhmmm..tyrant police being a mark of a mature civilised nation? Aim higher.

[Ulysses G.]

32 minutes ago, seajae said:

Australia changed the rules on guns and there has been a big drop in gun related violence since even though we continually see the bullsh*t articles from US claiming otherwise.

 

That is debatable. Gun murders decreased, but not murders in general.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425021/australia-gun-control-obama-america

 

Edited December 5, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[jvs]

In another topic which was about Trump saying that if Hillary did not like guns maybe her  bodyguards

should also be prevented from carrying guns,i was going to respond and say ,maybe Trump should give each and every person in his audience a loaded gun.           I didn't.