Trump Releases His Plan for 2nd Amendment… Leaves Millions Furious

[Ron_TN]

 

 

One common criticism of billionaire businessman and presidential candidate Donald Trump is that he far too often speaks in vague generalities and rarely offers specifics about where he stands on the issues.

That is no longer the case, at least regarding his stance on gun rights and the Second Amendment, as Trump just released his official policy position on his campaign website.

“The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period,” the position paper began.

 

 

Trump went on to explain that the right to keep and bear arms is a right that pre-exists both the government and the Constitution, noting that government didn’t create the right, nor can it take it away.

He also rightly denoted the Second Amendment as “America’s first freedom,” pointing out that it helps protect all of the other rights we hold dear.

In order to protect and defend that right, Trump proposed tougher enforcement of laws that are already on the books, rather than adding new gun control laws.

Citing a successful program in Richmond, Virginia, that sentenced gun criminals to mandatory minimum five-year sentences in federal prison, Trump noted that crime rates will fall dramatically when criminals are taken off the streets for lengthy periods of time.

Trump also proposed strengthening and expanding laws allowing law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves from criminals using their own guns, without fear of repercussion from the government.

Noting that many of the recent high-profile shooters had clear mental problems that should have been addressed, Trump proposed fixing our nation’s broken mental health system by increasing treatment opportunities for the non-violent mentally ill, but removing from the streets those people who pose a danger to themselves and others.

Trump would do away with pointless and ineffective gun and magazine bans and suggested fixing the current background check system already in place, rather than expanding a broken system.

Furthermore, Trump proposed a national right to carry, a national concealed carry reciprocity law that would compel states to recognize the concealed carry permits of any other state, exactly as drivers licenses from anywhere are accepted by all states today.

Finally, Trump would lift the prohibition on military members carrying weapons on military bases and in recruiting centers, allowing trained military members to carry weapons to protect themselves from attacks by terrorists, criminals and the mentally unstable, as we have seen recently.

This is great, and those who cherish our right to keep and bear arms should be pleased by Trump’s stated position on the Second Amendment.

Of course, liberal anti-gunners will hate this, but their opinion on the matter is of little concern to us “people of the gun,” of which Donald Trump is apparently one.

Please share this on Facebook and Twitter to help spread Donald Trump’s official policy position on the Second Amendment and our right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Sidecarist]

Those are the right words. Now win the general election and do it.

[Sam1]

I like how people have to specify that there is a period at the end of a sentence now, ensuring its closure. period

[owejia]

I doubt Trump will get any of this done because of the Rino's in the Senate. Corker and Alexander being two of them.

[JAB]

I doubt Trump will get any of this done because of the Rino's in the Senate. Corker and Alexander being two of them.

 

As far as allowing military personnel to carry on base, etc. I wonder how much he could do as 'Commander in Chief' that would not have to have Congressional approval.  Would be fitting if he went the Obama route to reverse a lot of anti-gun crap.

 

Along those same lines, he could veto any new anti gun rights legislation that comes to his desk and instruct the agencies that fall under the Executive branch to 'enforce existing rules and do not create any new ones.'  Keeping the ATF from coming up with any new rules could be huge in itself.  Even better if he could order them to pare down and streamline existing rules.

Edited May 4, 2016 by JAB

[E4 No More]

As far as allowing military personnel to carry on base, etc. I wonder how much he could do as 'Commander in Chief' that would not have to have Congressional approval.  Would be fitting if he went the Obama route to reverse a lot of anti-gun crap.

 

Along those same lines, he could veto any new anti gun rights legislation that comes to his desk and instruct the agencies that fall under the Executive branch to 'enforce existing rules and do not create any new ones.'  Keeping the ATF from coming up with any new rules could be huge in itself.  Even better if he could order them to pare down and streamline existing rules.

IIRC, it's up to the base commanders to allow the people under their command to carry or not: therefore, as CIC he could very well order them to allow it.

[bersaguy]

I have learned long ago that a person that is running for a position will say what ever he believes the people want to hear at any given time. Trump is not stupid and he knows how many gun owners there are in America and how many votes he can gain by saying what he knows we want to hear. The proof is in the puddling. If he is elected his actions will be far more important than his words prior to his election........................jmho  

[Sam1]

IIRC, it's up to the base commanders to allow the people under their command to carry or not: therefore, as CIC he could very well order them to allow it.

 

No longer left up to the base commander.  At least it was not at Ft. Knox, Ft. Stewart, anywhere in Korea (guns illegal) or in Germany (guns restricted).

[Sam1]

I think the majority of us are optimistic, but cautious... Especially with the magnitude of the environment; politically, socially, and financially.

[E4 No More]

No longer left up to the base commander.  At least it was not at Ft. Knox, Ft. Stewart, anywhere in Korea (guns illegal) or in Germany (guns restricted).

Said countries could dictate what's allowed outside the base, but not inside the base, and have to abide by the status of forces agreements: otherwise there would be no bases by default. In this case I was speaking of bases in the US.

[Sam1]

Said countries could dictate what's allowed outside the base, but not inside the base, and have to abide by the status of forces agreements: otherwise there would be no bases by default. In this case I was speaking of bases in the US.

 

Still not up to the base commanders.  From my understanding at Army bases the base commander has the authority to arm additional troops on an as-needed basis (threats), but they can't authorize all-out carrying.

[E4 No More]

Still not up to the base commanders.  From my understanding at Army bases the base commander has the authority to arm additional troops on an as-needed basis (threats), but they can't authorize all-out carrying.

Maybe it's just the Army? :)

[Hershmeister]

Make my day - repeal the NFA and/or Hughes amendment

[Sam1]

Maybe it's just the Army? :)

 

Don't believe so, they should fall under the same laws as any federally occupied property (leased/owned).  That's why there was a big push to change the law last year, don't think anything come from it on a federal level though.

 

<just googled it>  Policy is DoD wide, congress amended the NDAA stating that DoD was required to make a policy outlining the criteria to allow for installation commanders do it on an individual basis, but POTUS vetoed the bill in October so the existing law is still in place... unless something has happened since October.

[ou812]

Don't believe so, they should fall under the same laws as any federally occupied property (leased/owned).  That's why there was a big push to change the law last year, don't think anything come from it on a federal level though.

 

<just googled it>  Policy is DoD wide, congress amended the NDAA stating that DoD was required to make a policy outlining the criteria to allow for installation commanders do it on an individual basis, but POTUS vetoed the bill in October so the existing law is still in place... unless something has happened since October.

Air Force tells brass they can OK guns on base, citing 2015 shooting that left 5 dead

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/25/air-force-tells-brass-can-ok-guns-on-base-citing-2015-shooting-that-left-5-dead.html

[Sam1]

Air Force tells brass they can OK guns on base, citing 2015 shooting that left 5 dead

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/25/air-force-tells-brass-can-ok-guns-on-base-citing-2015-shooting-that-left-5-dead.html

 

 

So they fall back on the threat rule.  I think they should be able without having to justify it.  Most of these guys are in charge of weapons that could destroy a grid square with a single pull of the trigger, yet they can't be trusted to carry around a pistol?

[56FordGuy]

“I support the ban on assault weapons and I support slightly longer waiting periods to purchase a gun,” said Donald Trump in 2000 in his book, The America We Deserve.


I find it humorous that a whole lot of people were screaming and foaming at the mouth over states' rights when we were talking about Obamacare or gay marriage, but they're downright eager to throw those rights away for concealed carry. Sure, let's have the federal government manage the carry process! Do you really think that suddenly states like California and Illinois are going to adopt Tennessee style gun laws? No. There will be some compromise, which means people on free states having the places they can carry, maybe even real gun registration forced on them so that the folks in anti gun states can carry. While I feel bad for folks in Maryland and DC, I'm not willing to give up any of my rights for them. They made their beds, let them figure out how to fix it.

[E4 No More]

Don't believe so, they should fall under the same laws as any federally occupied property (leased/owned).  That's why there was a big push to change the law last year, don't think anything come from it on a federal level though.

 

<just googled it>  Policy is DoD wide, congress amended the NDAA stating that DoD was required to make a policy outlining the criteria to allow for installation commanders do it on an individual basis, but POTUS vetoed the bill in October so the existing law is still in place... unless something has happened since October.

There was an Air Force General on Fox a couple of months back saying that it was up to base commanders, and that they were encouraging them to re-evaluate their policies. I don't know; I just regurgitate what I hear. :)

[JAB]

“I support the ban on assault weapons and I support slightly longer waiting periods to purchase a gun,” said Donald Trump in 2000 in his book, The America We Deserve.


I find it humorous that a whole lot of people were screaming and foaming at the mouth over states' rights when we were talking about Obamacare or gay marriage, but they're downright eager to throw those rights away for concealed carry. Sure, let's have the federal government manage the carry process! Do you really think that suddenly states like California and Illinois are going to adopt Tennessee style gun laws? No. There will be some compromise, which means people on free states having the places they can carry, maybe even real gun registration forced on them so that the folks in anti gun states can carry. While I feel bad for folks in Maryland and DC, I'm not willing to give up any of my rights for them. They made their beds, let them figure out how to fix it.

 

That is the one part of Trump's stated policy with which I do not agree.  I have said, before, pretty much the same things you have said - a Federal government that mandates carry reciprocity will then be on the field to mandate the rules and requirements that every state must have in place in order for a person to be legal to carry.  To further the driver's license example that so many like to use folks should keep in mind that many of the laws that govern the 'standards' with which cars must comply originated in California.  Do we really want our carry laws originating there, too?  Do we want to be limited to carrying only guns that are 'California legal'?

Edited May 5, 2016 by JAB

[300winmag]

The guy is more of a flip flopper than Romney and McCain.  Who knows what he would really do but we know what Hillary will try to do.

 

As far as guns you can either take a chance with Trump or vote for Hillary and know she will make things as difficult as she can for gun owners.  Both Trump and Hillary seem to be very self centered people and will say and do whatever they can get away with to get ahead.

[btq96r]

The guy is more of a flip flopper than Romney and McCain.

 

That's an understatement...here's a sample from the past 48 hours:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/05/trump-signals-willingness-to-raise-us-minimum-wage.html

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-wont-self-fund-general-election-campaign-1462399502

...Someone who would reasonably be considered a Democratic supporter will running his campaign finances:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-05/trump-picks-former-goldman-partner-and-soros-employee-finance-chairman

 

Trump with a Soros linked money manager... :biglol: :rofl: :bowrofl:

 

He's still got a long way to go to catch up to #WhichHillary, but he's well on his way.

[Chucktshoes]