-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
What does this election mean for gun owners?
- Thread starter DMX
- Start date
CaseHardened
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2015
- Messages
- 3,664
- Likes
- 575
You are SO WRONG.
Any SCOTUS that can READ is going to change Gun Laws for the BETTER for our lifetime.
- - - Updated - - -
No.
SCOTUS will act first.
- - - Updated - - -
In that case we'll see them in the supreme court.![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
We will.
Doubtful. He still needs to answer to the electorate, which is left-leaning and overwhelmingly anti-2A. He *could have* explained that it's poor jurisprudence, that the AG has overstepped her authority, and that declaring an entire class of firearms illegal, needs to come from the Legislature, and you can't retroactively declare thousands of gun owners to be felons for doing something that they thought was legal at the time. That is logic that the anti- crowd might understand, and it takes it out of the realm of the "because it's guns" doctrine.
But, if Baker had wanted to go down that road, he would have done so already.
Throw him out in 2018, is the only solution.
Bigger picture, if Clinton would have won, the rest of the races would have probably gone differently. There wouldn't be Republican majority in both houses of Congress. Short term, nothing negative will come down the pipe. Longer term, Trump can appoint justices with little opposition and maybe sign off on the national conceal carry and removal of suppressors from the NFA.
So, to quote, Trump winning was YYYUUUGGE. Even if he really is a douchecanoe.
Luckily, Trump wasted no time after being elected making a Second Amendment Coalition that has patriots across the country cheering in celebration. While still on the campaign trail, Trump talked about his outline to create a group of patriots that would feverishly defend American gun rights.
Trump isn't just trying to restore the integrity of the Second Amendment, he is also making sure that gun-grabbing liberals can't just step in and try to erode it as they please. He has said that the Second Amendment Coalition "is to be composed of women and men who are grassroots leaders, and elected officials with a record of fighting for the Second Amendment," according to Recoil. To top it all off, the leader of the coalition is to be none other that his gun enthusiast son Donald J. Trump Jr.
"My father defends the Second Amendment, so that you and I and your spouse and your children can take care of themselves when someone much stronger, much meaner and much more vicious than them tries to break into their home," said Coalition Chairman Donald J. Trump.
http://usherald.com/trump-just-made-massive-presidential-move-liberal-gun-grabbers-running-hills/
Trump isn't just trying to restore the integrity of the Second Amendment, he is also making sure that gun-grabbing liberals can't just step in and try to erode it as they please. He has said that the Second Amendment Coalition "is to be composed of women and men who are grassroots leaders, and elected officials with a record of fighting for the Second Amendment," according to Recoil. To top it all off, the leader of the coalition is to be none other that his gun enthusiast son Donald J. Trump Jr.
"My father defends the Second Amendment, so that you and I and your spouse and your children can take care of themselves when someone much stronger, much meaner and much more vicious than them tries to break into their home," said Coalition Chairman Donald J. Trump.
http://usherald.com/trump-just-made-massive-presidential-move-liberal-gun-grabbers-running-hills/
"That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works."
To channel Atilla, wish in one hand and crap in the other , see which one fills up faster.
We got suckered with Charlie boy.
He's a flaming moonbat in a Republican suit.
I'm not ashamed to admit I f*cked up and voted for him.
I also believe in fixing my mistakes.
wasralex22
NES Member
Nothing major yet. Trump has stated before in several interviews, and he believes we shouldn't be told how many rounds we should carry and where we can carry. He would like to make it so it favors legal gun owners. In one interview, he stated that it takes to long for the police to respond and we should have the right it protect ourselves. Will we see change in MA? I don't know, but if anything changes it will be in our favor. Silencers, untied carry, maybe even having the ability to own 30 round mags. I can only hope though...
fencer
NES Member
The lack of optimism on NES never ceases to amaze me.
What is to prevent Trump from using Executive Order to dramatically reduce the restrictions states can apply to the second amendment ?
Trump is not stupid, and he recognizes the power gun owners wield in this country. They helped him win and he will want those votes again in four years. He is never going to win the guncontrol states anyway, so he will want to make damn sure he doesn't lose and of the gun rights states. California, Mass, New York City will be liberal hell holes forever, but he won Florida big and Ohio too. Both states with a lot of folks that hold gun owners rights very dear.
What is to prevent Trump from using Executive Order to dramatically reduce the restrictions states can apply to the second amendment ?
Trump is not stupid, and he recognizes the power gun owners wield in this country. They helped him win and he will want those votes again in four years. He is never going to win the guncontrol states anyway, so he will want to make damn sure he doesn't lose and of the gun rights states. California, Mass, New York City will be liberal hell holes forever, but he won Florida big and Ohio too. Both states with a lot of folks that hold gun owners rights very dear.
No, one can't. Removal of federal funding would be an absolute disaster for MA or any other state, plus it wouldn't work; the courts would overturn it for what it was, an arbitrary federal intrusion on state sovereignty. Because what's obvious to you and I as a "constitutional right" is actually open to interpretation.
Why would you ever want to establish this kind of precedent? The Feds coercing states into toeing the line should scare us all. Think of what a future moonbat president could do to Idaho or Wyoming...
Not to mention this is largely the purview of congress not the executive. When some guy asks for pork to build a turtle fence, this ends up in congress. If it makes it past congress the president can veto it sure but likely they will be vetoing a bunch of shit at once.
-Mike
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2016
- Messages
- 66
- Likes
- 46
The real swamps that need to be drained are the leftist-infiltrated "universities" (more like madrassas for sedition). Many need to be shut down in their entirety "until we can figure out what's going on"...
As for gun owners post-election, yes, I pray that both President Trump can ram through some gun-friendly EOs and Republicans in Congress can pass laws and confirm 2A judges...
The press is spinning President-Elect's Trump "Obamacare compromise" as flip-flopping which would make me dread other flip-flops... However: 1. looking at the two things he would keep from Obamacare, they are reasonable and 2. why start believing the lying' media's butthurt spinmeistering now?
He'll come through.
This is the stay-cool phase. Just bide the time until in office.
But we are watching very closely aren't we? I dread another Charlie Baker fiasco. But so far I am adamantly confident in Trump.
As for gun owners post-election, yes, I pray that both President Trump can ram through some gun-friendly EOs and Republicans in Congress can pass laws and confirm 2A judges...
The press is spinning President-Elect's Trump "Obamacare compromise" as flip-flopping which would make me dread other flip-flops... However: 1. looking at the two things he would keep from Obamacare, they are reasonable and 2. why start believing the lying' media's butthurt spinmeistering now?
He'll come through.
This is the stay-cool phase. Just bide the time until in office.But we are watching very closely aren't we? I dread another Charlie Baker fiasco. But so far I am adamantly confident in Trump.
Last edited:
If executive orders worked that way, don't you think one of our (D) presidents would have done that already?
Obama's favorite directive, the "executive action" must be couched as directions to Federal agencies to act on existing laws, cannot make new law. And the more powerful Executive orders, while having the full force of law, are limited in scope to areas where the President has power, either granted directly to the Executive by the Constitution or delegated by congress.
This.
He could easily change BATFE definitions, for example, to make life a little simpler for 03/07/01 FFLs here in MA, but they'd still need to follow state law.
Dadstoys was right: the federal bench, via a civil-rights prosecution, is about all the Trump white house could do against Healy. And he won't, especially while lawsuits are pending from private entities.
wasralex22
NES Member
"Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own," Trump wrote.
Seat belt laws come to mind.
And the 55 mph speed limit.
Wasn't there a threat to pull federal funding for states who didn't enact them?
Now remove the word Gun Owner and apply the name of any ethnic or religious group to what's being done to our constitutional rights and see how fast the Federal government would crush the life out of any state who tried to pull it.
The constitution should be applied to the rights of all or none.
Can you imagine some southern state saying, "Ya ,well we believe in the 14th amendment but we're going to place some common sense restrictions on them colored folk. "
They would think the hand of God had landed on them .
The South often defied the Feds. Then their national guard got federalized by Eisenhower, or Johnson took away their right to run their own elections, or whatever. But those were federal legislative maneuvers (or at least they were allowed by existing legislation), and that's not what we're talking about I don't think.
If the Feds pass a law affecting a state's interpretation of STATE law, which is what we're mulling here, I'd think the courts would schwack that down in very short order.
namedpipes
NES Member
The Feral government puts strings on the money they dole out. Withholding highway or education funding from states that violate civil rights is perfectly in line with past behavior.
So fine. First off, publicly inform states that violate unisex bathroom rules will lose education funding.
Now, tell the states if they refuse to provide healthcare for senior citizens that are vets, they lose highway funding.
After these are resoundingly applauded, tell them 2a violating states lose something dear to them.
Then to the inevitable rioters, all them where they were when the Ferals did the same thing for bathrooms and vets.
That's cute that you think that, then why is this allowed to stand?
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act
This did exactly what you are talking about- If a state had an alcohol purchase age of say, 18, it told the state "No, you can't do that. And if you don't change it to 21 we're going to withold fed highway money."
Hint: It's not because the states agreed to it, it's because the feds basically held a gun to their head (by witholding highway funds) until they capitulated.
See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole
Basically Rhenquist said "Well, it's not coercive, because the fed rape was "just the tip" ".
-Mike
Last edited:
That's cute that you think that, then why is this allowed to stand?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act
This did exactly what you are talking about- If a state had an alcohol purchase age of say, 18, it told the state "No, you can't do that. And if you don't change it to 21 we're going to withold fed highway money."
Hint: It's not because the states agreed to it, it's because the feds basically held a gun to their head (by witholding highway funds) until they capitulated.
See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole
Basically Rhenquist said "Well, it's not coercive, because the fed rape was "just the tip" ".
-Mike
Good point, but there's a BIG difference politically between coercing a state to implement "public safety" laws and coercing a state to loosen restrictions on guns. But I concede your point.
