A Less Comprehensive Plan

[Old Bill Dibble]

Best Attempt at the other viable candidate's plans.


https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positio...endment-rights

We need to bring back and expand programs like Project Exile and get gang members and drug dealers off the street.

Seems straight forward enough. The original program had some indicators of success.

Here’s another important way to fight crime – empower law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves. Law enforcement is great, they do a tremendous job, but they can’t be everywhere all of the time. Our personal protection is ultimately up to us. That’s why I’m a gun owner, that’s why I have a concealed carry permit, and that’s why tens of millions of Americans have concealed carry permits as well. It’s just common sense.

and

NATIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY. The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state.

Seems straight forward enough. The Devil is in the details.

All of the tragic mass murders that occurred in the past several years have something in common – there were red flags that were ignored. We can’t allow that to continue. We need to expand treatment programs, because most people with mental health problems aren’t violent, they just need help. But for those who are violent, a danger to themselves or others, we need to get them off the street before they can terrorize our communities. This is just common sense.

Not really anything directly about guns but it is under that section so presumably it would involve some type of gun control. Very unclear from the statement.

So the overwhelming majority of people who go through background checks are law-abiding gun owners. When the system was created, gun owners were promised that it would be instant, accurate and fair. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case today. Too many states are failing to put criminal and mental health records into the system – and it should go without saying that a system’s only going to be as effective as the records that are put into it. What we need to do is fix the system we have and make it work as intended. What we don’t need to do is expand a broken system.

Appears to be some kind of proposed executive action to alter the background check system.

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

Implies some kind of executive action for loosening of rules military base carry. Currently the services set their own rules for base carry.

[raimius]

Note: base commanders set the policy, but there is a DoD wide policy that strongly recommends against arming most military members.

[Old Bill Dibble]

That is correct so it may be more of a policy statement or written guidance then executive order type action.

[kilimanjaro]

It wouldn't be too difficult to review security at a military base and decide that certain NCOs and officers should wear sidearms, to provide a first line of defense. I'm surprised not one NCO at a Recruiting Station is directed to be armed, they seem to attract terrorist attacks now and then.

[44 AMP]

It wouldn't be too difficult to review security at a military base and decide that certain NCOs and officers should wear sidearms, to provide a first line of defense.

It might be more difficult and resource intensive than you might think...
To identify trustworthy people, that is.

I remind you that there are already background checks and investigations held on everyone, simply as part of being in the military. Various levels of clearance are held, and they DO look at things like people's (apparent) stability, etc.

AND, sometimes, they FAIL.

The Fort Hood shooter was an OFFICER!!!!!!

So, don't go placing your faith in the moral goodness and infallibility of the officer corps.

(and it still boggles my mind, why, this guy, TAKEN IN THE ACT OF COMMITING MASS MURDER, has STILL not been tried and convicted, YEARS LATER!!!)

[Old Bill Dibble]

The Fort Hood shooter was an OFFICER!!!!!!

The first one anyway. He was a medical officer though. This is vastly different than a regular army officer. Certainly no one or system is infallible.

All officers (and NCOs over E7) have at least a certain level of clearance and background checks completed. If they are done improperly due to politics, being over burdened, rushed or whatever than the system fails.

The system can fail anyway. All the best spies have had high level clearances with extensive background checks completed.

(and it still boggles my mind, why, this guy, TAKEN IN THE ACT OF COMMITING MASS MURDER, has STILL not been tried and convicted, YEARS LATER!!!)

I am not sure what you mean. Nidal Hassan was convicted three years ago of murder and sits on death row in Leavenworth. He will likely never be put to death because the military simply does not do that any more but he will never see freedom again.

It did take four years but that is not terribly unusual given all the circumstances of the case.

The Second Ft. Hood Shooter (2014) died during the shooting.



Anyway the overwhelming vast majority of military that I worked with for 24 years are 2A supporters and are in favor of carry on base. I can only recall one who was avidly anti-gun. A National Guardsman from California who was running for public office (go figure).

Generals are of course opposed. Not normally on political grounds; but on the grounds that they are terrified of being held accountable for actions of their troops and getting fired. After all the lives of their men are expendable but they only get one career.

[44 AMP]

Nidal Hassan was convicted three years ago of murder and sits on death row in Leavenworth.

\
My apologies, I had not heard he had been convicted. IN fact, the last thing I heard was they were arguing if he could stand trial with the beard...

at that point, I stopped paying attention to this so called "workplace shooting"...

[Old Bill Dibble]

At the Debate this candidate came out in favor of "no buy lists". I think this should be added to his official policy outlook.

A lot of politicians throughout the political spectrum are in favor of these so it seems likely it will happen. This is a scary proposition in a lot of ways as the metrics are unknown and untested, likely to be secret and have a poor appeals process.

[849ACSO]

A lot of politicians throughout the political spectrum are in favor of these so it seems likely it will happen. This is a scary proposition in a lot of ways as the metrics are unknown and untested, likely to be secret and have a poor appeals process.

I hope you are right, and I hope you are wrong----------

I hope you are right in that this come into being. As a gun owner, I want everyone to have the same rights as I do to own guns. I'm also a 22 LEO, and have seen, smelled and touched the devastation wrought by someone who wasn't necessarily a "criminal", but had no business having a gun.

I hope you are wrong in that it shouldn't be "secretive", and there should be an appeals process that's affordable and attainable for the average citizen. It should only be hard to get yourself off of that list if there's reason for you to be on it.

[Old Bill Dibble]

I see the no fly/ no buy lists along the same line as the extra-judicial killings the US regularly engages in with drone strikes. It is a serious violation of rights and it makes you wonder what someone did to offend the USG so much as to be deemed less worthy of human rights.

I don't have to make those type decisions anymore so it is mostly an academic exercise for me. I wish there were easy answers but there are none.

[natman]

I hope you are wrong in that it shouldn't be "secretive", and there should be an appeals process that's affordable and attainable for the average citizen. It should only be hard to get yourself off of that list if there's reason for you to be on it.

A constitutional right that the government can deny without significant due process is no right at all.

Let's look at how well the appeal process is working now. There's an appeal process for non-violent felons. None have been processed for years because funding has been cut.

There's an appeal process for NICS denials. Last I heard an appeal can run for a year or more before it's processed.

If it takes a year to get a denial reversed for a law abiding citizen, do you really think that there's going to be an "affordable and attainable" appeals process for "terrorists" on the secret list?