Good News/Bad News

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, the Democratic party has once again ridden the gun control message to national failure. At the national level, they got exactly one clear win (Nevada senate) and a "let's smile and call it a win" in Pennsylvania where Pat Toomey (Republican sponsor of Schumer's background check) won his race; but in doing so guaranteed pro-2A Republican control of the Senate. Moreover, gun rights was a critical issue among the surprising turnout of voters in critical states Hillary lost (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and possibly Michigan).

Given the Supreme Court balance and the already difficult prospects the only major party with a pro-2A platform faced in holding the Senate, the national races were yuge! Bloomberg waited until just the math alone favored a loss for the Republicans and then dumped money in to defeat pro-2A Senators, yet still lost a mathematically favorable scenario.

However, the bad news is the antis continue to have success with vaguely-worded state-level ballot iniatives restricting sales. Naturally, you can expect Bloomberg and the anti-gun media propagandists to run with that story and ignore the bloody massacre of their candidates at the national level. From our perspective, the big takeaway is likely to be that Bloomberg will shift his schwerpunkt to state ballot iniatives over seeking to replace politicians.

[zukiphile]

The good news I see is that there was a campaign commitment to a list of Sup Ct nominees. I would hope that it is communicated that breach of the commitment will bring about vigorous opposition.

The bad news is that I think that sort of threat needs to be made.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

The good news I see is that there was a campaign commitment to a list of Sup Ct nominees. I would hope that it is communicated that breach of the commitment will bring about vigorous opposition.... I think that sort of threat needs to be made.

Agreed. The POTUS-to-be might prioritize his pet desires to prop up Kelo v. City of New London and roll back New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which may prompt him to nominate someone less like Scalia and Thomas than we would like. (Thomas and Scalia both dissented on Kelo.)

[csmsss]

The election results will certainly challenge the determination of many of California's gun owners to remain citizens of the state.

[shooterdownunder]

From an outsiders perspective.
Bad news. Trump became president.
Good news. None visible.

[rightside]

Stay downunder

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

...the Democratic party has once again ridden the gun control message to national failure.

One wonders if their post-election analysis will correctly conclude this.

I'm not counting on it.

Originally Posted by shooterdownunder

From an outsiders perspective.
Bad news. Trump became president.
Good news. None visible.

I can understand that perspective from a major U.S. ally if one primarily considers trade, finance, and defense.

However, on 2A issues, his opponent was arguably the most openly anti-gun* major-party candidate ever, so I hope we can agree that the result is potentially good news for U.S. gun owners.

*IMHO nothing that the current POTUS has actually said or done is nearly as bad as what HRC blatantly proposed to do. What the POTUS actually wanted to do is soon to become an inconsequential historical matter.

[Old Bill Dibble]

Alan Gura for SCOTUS! Start a writing campaign today.

[YARDDOG(1)]

Stay downunder

That's for SURE ; )
Y/D

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Let's discuss the specific issues that BR brought up. Australian views of the general election and our suggestions about Australia are not relevant.

Or this gets closed.

[natman]

OK, from a domestic Second Amendment perspective Trump's victory is a night and day difference from what Clinton's would have been. Clinton was rabidly in favor of discriminating against gun owners in every possible way. She was determined to enact draconian anti gun laws and regulations regardless of the rule of law, the Constitution or anything else.

The last time Hillary lived in the White House (and I'm glad it was the LAST time), the Clinton administration unilaterally came up with a scheme to change the way guns were distributed and tried to do an end run around Congress by threatening to harass gun manufacturers into bankruptcy with baseless law suits, even though the manufacturers were following existing law.

This completely ignored the rule of law and separation of powers and was the most unconstitutional stunt to come out of a Presidential administration since FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court in 1937.

Now let's take a look at what she promised would happen if she'd been elected:

But I’m going to continue to speak out for comprehensive background checks, closing the gun show loopholes, closing the online loophole, closing the so-called Charleston loophole, reversing the bill....giving immunity from liability to gun makers and sellers. I think all of that can and should be done and it is, in my view, consistent with the “Constitution.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.cc262f412a82
Let's break these down:

comprehensive background checks, closing the gun show loopholes - This means background checks for ALL sales.

closing the online loophole - no online sales (whether via a licensed dealer or not).

closing the so-called Charleston loophole - Currently if a NICS check doesn't come up with a result in three days, the dealer can release the gun to the buyer. Clinton wants the government to take as long as it wants to run a background check (read "forever"). A simple budget cut and gun sales would grind to a halt. Only a true apparatchik would translate the "Instant" in National Instant Check System to mean "as long as we want".

Reversing the bill giving immunity from liability to gun makers and sellers allowing gun manufacturers to be sued for illegal acts committed with their guns - A great deal of emphasis is given to the fact that only gun manufacturers and sellers have this sort of immunity. That's because no other product is exposed to this abuse of liability law. Imagine Chevy being sued because somebody got into an accident while driving drunk in one of their cars.

Add in her support for stopping gun sales to anybody the government puts on a secret "terrorist" list without a shred of due process and her advocacy of nationwide "Australian style" gun confiscation.

So her message to gun owner's was clear: you are second class citizens. The rule of law doesn't apply to you. Due process doesn't apply to you. Ex post facto doesn't apply to you. The organization that defends your civil rights, the NRA is the enemy.

So yes, Trump's victory is a big deal.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

The bad news is that I think that sort of threat needs to be made.

Yes, the Republicans he is surrounding himself with make me uneasy - Giuliani, Christie, William Bennett. Lots of GOP who have supported gun control in the past - and then Gingrich on the news today talking about how Trump will reach out to Schumer and they have know each other for years.

[MarkCO]

Good News: Gun owners can take one deep breath. Control of Congress and the Executive will allow some good steps. Obama legislated with a pen which Trump can undo easily.

Bad News: Trump will likely be the most hated President of all time. Who will take the job as Press Secretary? There is MUCH work to be done and no time to gloat, take a day off, etc. I believe there are deadman switches embedded in the bureaucracy and finding and stopping those will be a huge task.

Those are some initial reactions IMHO.

[JWT]

Agree 100% with MarkCO. Trump wiil have a very rough time governing until, unless, he proves to be adept at the job. The media will not give him a grace period like the typically do with a new president. Every move will be dissected and reviewed ad nauseam by the press. Hopefully he will chose good people to surround him/

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by MarkCO

I believe there are deadman switches embedded in the bureaucracy and finding and stopping those will be a huge task.

Deadman switches or not, the federal bureaucracy is huge, ponderous, and deeply embedded. It's going to take a gargantuan effort to root out all the anti-freedom, statist moles and return us to some semblance of "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people." Probably 95 percent of "the government" remains in place regardless of which party occupies the White House or controls the halls of Congress. That's a problem. It ensures continuity of government during changes in regime, but it ensures continuity of government after changes in regime.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

...the Republicans he is surrounding himself with make me uneasy - Giuliani, Christie, William Bennett. Lots of GOP who have supported gun control in the past...

This dovetails nicely with the point I was driving towards with my initial post.

Trump himself and his GOP associates show signs of being the type who see government as a tool that can be used to help business interests, whether by easing regulations, offering direct aid, or bludgeoning uncooperative factions into submission. These interests do not necessarily coincide with the cause of individual liberty or the goal of making the federal government less obtrusive.

[44 AMP]

Trump himself and his GOP associates show signs of being the type who see government as a tool that can be used to help business interests, whether by easing regulations, offering direct aid, or bludgeoning uncooperative factions into submission. These interests do not necessarily coincide with the cause of individual liberty or the goal of making the federal government less obtrusive.

Well put, Chris!

Trump is at his core, a businessman. He supports gun rights NOW, because he sees doing so as the best way to further his business, NOW.

In the past he acted differently.

In the future, he might change again, if a "better deal" can be had, and if he doesn't understand how deeply we feel about "pro gun" people BREAKING THEIR WORD, let alone breaking a oath.

I trust Hillary more than I trust Trump. Hillary is a consistent enemy, you can trust her to always be against gun rights.

Trump is an unknown quantity in that regard. He's said he supports us, and he'll have to stick to SOME of that, but how much, and for how long, is anybody's guess.

[Old Bill Dibble]

I don't care for him but he has always supported concealed carry. This is an important issue and says a lot.

Probably the best thing about the election is that for the last eight years the executive has been getting a free pass from most of the media to do whatever he wants. That is over with a capital "O". No more free pass. Everything he does will be scrutinized, sifted and analyzed. Even positions that left wing supported before will be given an inspection for dubiousness.

[44 AMP]

The reason the Executive has gotten a "free pass" from the attack media these past 8 years was because he was their darling and they, by and large, approved of whatever he did. Particularly, it seems, when the rest of us didn't.

There will be no such favor given Trump, if anything it will be worse than their treatment of "Dubya" Bush.

They will be petty, spiteful, name calling, and particularly vindictive, as Trump's win exposed them for the various bigots they truly are.

And, its started already.

This election's results was not just a loss for Hillary, it was also a loss for the mainstream media pushing the leftist agenda. And, they HATE that, more than just having their chosen one lose, when they told us she would win.

[Wildernesshunter]

Early leaks regarding Don's 2ndA plan.....

National Concealed Carry with Reciprocity....nation-wide.

Can you imagine having your little buddy with you, walking the streets of New York with your spouse?

[zukiphile]

Early leaks regarding Don's 2ndA plan.....

National Concealed Carry with Reciprocity....nation-wide.

I hope he has a team smart enough to know that such a law would be beyond federal authority.

[sd790]

I hope he has a team smart enough to know that such a law would be beyond federal authority.

I don't think that's quite true. It is the federal government's responsibility to ensure our freedoms. Since this is directly one of the rights specified in the Bill of Rights, National Reciprocity is reasonable and (I believe) constitutional.

Also, if the Federal government did not have the authority do this with concealed carry, then we would not be able to use our state's driver license in other states without worrying about reciprocity for each state that we drive through.

[zukiphile]

I hope I don't read like a skeptic if I note that I will believe rumors, leaks or assertions about executive action once I see it taken, but not much before.

I don't think that's quite true. It is the federal government's responsibility to ensure our freedoms. Since this is directly one of the rights specified in the Bill of Rights, National Reciprocity is reasonable and (I believe) constitutional.

Let's note that it isn't clear that concealed carry is a right. I am given to understand that more than a century ago when open carry was more ordinary, concealed carry itself may have been viewed with suspicion.

State governments, unlike the federal government, have quite broad police powers and aren't limited in some of the same ways the Constitutional would or should limit the federal government. Part of that police power has included where and how people carry arms. That's why we have state carry laws. At their extreme we've seen state laws stricken where the fundamental right to keep and bear is utterly disregarded (Chicago and McDonald). I don't think I've seen a case asserting a federally protected right to concealed carry. If I am wrong in this, I will be happy about it.

Enforcing reciprocity under full faith and credit is a problem because of the public policy exception to that doctrine. No state has a public policy against driving.


I agree that concealed carry reflects good public policy. I don't see a president and congress possessing authority to enforce it nationally, at least as matters now stand. Could a Sup Ct find a right that no state could refuse? Certainly, though that would not be something the exec could effect directly.

[Al Norris]

Originally Posted by sd790

Also, if the Federal government did not have the authority do this with concealed carry, then we would not be able to use our state's driver license in other states without worrying about reciprocity for each state that we drive through.

Once again... the feds had nothing to do with reciprocity of the States DL's. The various States made reciprocity compacts with each other. Just like they now do with the various compacts to recognize (or not) concealed carry permits/licenses.

In short, the feds do not have the authority to mandate such a thing.

[sd790]

Once again... the feds had nothing to do with reciprocity of the States DL's. The various States made reciprocity compacts with each other. Just like they now do with the various compacts to recognize (or not) concealed carry permits/licenses.

In short, the feds do not have the authority to mandate such a thing.

It's a good day. I've learned something new. I always thought that the commerce clause had been abused (again) to force all states to recognized each others driver licenses.