Trump calls for nationwide concealed carry

[P@triot]

Sure to make the left's heads spin and explode...and will play well with the millions of gun owners...who vote

Republican presidential front runner Donald Trump — who said he has a concealed carry permit — called for the expansion of gun rights including making those permits applicable nationwide.

In a position paper published on his website, Trump called for the elimination of gun and magazine bans, labeling them a “failure.”

It’s not a departure from what he’s said on the trail this year, though it does mark a shift from a position he took in his 2000 book “The America We Deserve,” where Trump stated that he generally opposes gun control but that he supported a ban on assault weapons and a longer waiting period to get a gun.
“If we can do that for driving — which is a privilege, not a right — then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege,” Trump touted.

Trump has apparently had a handgun permit for years; a 1987 Associated Press story said he had one at the time.

The real estate magnate called for expanding mental health treatment, saying that people with mental health issues who are violent must be off the street “before they can terrorize our communities.” Trump said the issue has been ignored.
“All of the tragic mass murders that occurred in the past several years have something in common – there were red flags that were ignored,” Trump said. “And why does this matter to law-abiding gun owners? Once again, because they get blamed by anti-gun politicians, gun control groups and the media for the acts of deranged madmen.”

That deafening roar is the sound of the owners of 300 million American firearms owners cheering. And by the way…they vote.

Trump Calls for Nationwide Concealed Carry - Page 2 of 2 - Truth And Action

Oh man are their heads going to explode. How frick'n great would it be to have this pass and then see a conservative "million man march" through New York City while armed just to watch Bill DeBlasio come unglued...

 

[bodecea]

We've done this experiment before, it was referred to as the wild west. But look, if some folk need to see it again, I say go for it.

We see it in Chicago today....oddly, while the RW gets what they want in regard to guns in Chicago...they keep complaining about the violence. Go figure....

 

[Fenton Lum]

We've done this experiment before, it was referred to as the wild west. But look, if some folk need to see it again, I say go for it.

And the vast majority of the so-called "wild west" was peaceful. Everybody was allowed to carry a gun, but most didn't bother. Those who did were almost universally careful and responsible with their guns, and caused no problems. And the less-responsible ones walked vary carefully around them.

And occasionally you'd have some guy misuse his gun. Those are the ones who got all the headlines, of course. You never saw any newspaper articles about a man who went into town, bought some things, met some people, and then went home. Although that's almost always what happened. Shootings were very rare.

The "Wild West" was no more violent than the U.S. is today. And in most big cities, it was more peaceful.

Yes, we've done this experiment before. And it worked out a lot better than the experiments we're trying today, banning and restricting guns and disarming the people who obey such silly laws.

I don't see much of anything constructive being tried today, just a lot of caterwauling and religious type fanatacism, but thanks for your perspective on the past.

You never saw any newspaper articles about a man who went into town, bought some things, met some people, and then went home. Although that's almost always what happened.

Still is.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Oh man are their heads going to explode. How frick'n great would it be to have this pass and then see a conservative "million man march" through New York City while armed just to watch Bill DeBlasio come unglued...

The best part, is that we don't even need legislation to pass in Congress to get it. The 2nd amendment already requires that govt not infringe the right at all.

All Trump has to do is write an Executive Order.

Executive Orders are what a President is supposed to use to carry out something passed by Congress (and signed into law by the Prez, of course).... or something that was enacted by ratification as a Constitutional amendment. Such as the 2nd amendment.

Classic example is, Congress passes something saying that a group of Federal buildings on a corner in DC will be painted brown. Obama signs it into law. Obama then issues an Exec Order to solicit three companies for bids on the painting work, issues another order to check the bidding companies' qualifications etc. Obama is issuing Exec Orders pursuant to something Congress passed into law.

If he's issuing Exec Orders to do something that is NOT a duly enacted law, such as to delay implementation of part of Obamacare for a year, that's the equivalent of issuing an EO to paint the buildings red instead of brown. It does NOT carry out what Congress passed. In fact, it's the act of a dictator with no Congressional oversight or adherence to procedures required by the Constitution, at all.

Or, if Congress passes something that violates the Constitution, such as a law that says people must have a license granted by government before they can buy or sell firearms, then any EO that implements it must be equally unconstitutional.

Executive orders have a legitimate use... but a narrow one. They must implement something that's already a duly enacted law, and the law they are implementing must constitutional itself.

And the 2nd is the highest law of the land. Issuing an Executive Order to carry out what it clearly commands, is a quintessentially Constitutional act. And, in fact, is the duty of every President.

 

[Fenton Lum]

see a conservative "million man march" through New York City

We'd all like to see that.

 

[P@triot]

Oh man are their heads going to explode. How frick'n great would it be to have this pass and then see a conservative "million man march" through New York City while armed just to watch Bill DeBlasio come unglued...

The best part, is that we don't even need legislation to pass in Congress to get it. The 2nd amendment already requires that govt not infringe the right at all.

All Trump has to do is write an Executive Order.

Executive Orders are what a President is supposed to use to carry out something passed by Congress (and signed into law by the Prez, of course).... or something that was enacted by ratification as a Constitutional amendment. Such as the 2nd amendment.

Classic example is, Congress passes something saying that a group of Federal buildings on a corner in DC will be painted brown. Obama signs it into law. Obama then issues an Exec Order to solicit three companies for bids on the painting work, issues another order to check the bidding companies' qualifications etc. Obama is issuing Exec Orders pursuant to something Congress passed into law.

If he's issuing Exec Orders to do something that is NOT a duly enacted law, such as to delay implementation of part of Obamacare for a year, that's the equivalent of issuing an EO to paint the buildings red instead of brown. It does NOT carry out what Congress passed. In fact, it's the act of a dictator with no Congressional oversight or adherence to procedures required by the Constitution, at all.

Or, if Congress passes something that violates the Constitution, such as a law that says people must have a license granted by government before they can buy or sell firearms, then any EO that implements it must be equally unconstitutional.

Executive orders have a legitimate use... but a narrow one. They must implement something that's already a duly enacted law, and the law they are implementing must constitutional itself.

And the 2nd is the highest law of the land. Issuing an Executive Order to carry out what it clearly commands, is a quintessentially Constitutional act. And, in fact, is the duty of every President.

Spot on and well done! It's so refreshing to see someone who actually knows what they are talking about. I can't tell you how many times I've had to send someone to this link about Executive Orders because they had no damn clue about them.... I salute you!



X-Patriot (Constitutional Writes) | Executive Orders

 

[Fenton Lum]

Executive orders have a legitimate use... but a narrow one.

Yeah, and everytime I hear that, it's from someone who wants their pet thing driven around a challenge.

 

[P@triot]

Oh man are their heads going to explode. How frick'n great would it be to have this pass and then see a conservative "million man march" through New York City while armed just to watch Bill DeBlasio come unglued...

The best part, is that we don't even need legislation to pass in Congress to get it. The 2nd amendment already requires that govt not infringe the right at all.

All Trump has to do is write an Executive Order.

Executive Orders are what a President is supposed to use to carry out something passed by Congress (and signed into law by the Prez, of course).... or something that was enacted by ratification as a Constitutional amendment. Such as the 2nd amendment.

Classic example is, Congress passes something saying that a group of Federal buildings on a corner in DC will be painted brown. Obama signs it into law. Obama then issues an Exec Order to solicit three companies for bids on the painting work, issues another order to check the bidding companies' qualifications etc. Obama is issuing Exec Orders pursuant to something Congress passed into law.

If he's issuing Exec Orders to do something that is NOT a duly enacted law, such as to delay implementation of part of Obamacare for a year, that's the equivalent of issuing an EO to paint the buildings red instead of brown. It does NOT carry out what Congress passed. In fact, it's the act of a dictator with no Congressional oversight or adherence to procedures required by the Constitution, at all.

Or, if Congress passes something that violates the Constitution, such as a law that says people must have a license granted by government before they can buy or sell firearms, then any EO that implements it must be equally unconstitutional.

Executive orders have a legitimate use... but a narrow one. They must implement something that's already a duly enacted law, and the law they are implementing must constitutional itself.

And the 2nd is the highest law of the land. Issuing an Executive Order to carry out what it clearly commands, is a quintessentially Constitutional act. And, in fact, is the duty of every President.

Man...I didn't even think about that! Since the 2nd Amendment is already law (and the Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution as the highest law in the land, "trumping" - pun intended - all local law), you're absolutely right. Trump would had every right to issue an Executive Order permitting nation-wide conceal carry.

 

[P@triot]

Executive orders have a legitimate use... but a narrow one.

Yeah, and everytime I hear that, it's from someone who wants their pet thing driven around a challenge.

Only by the liberals (and yes, that includes RINO's like George W. Bush). As most people realize already, the president is empowered over the Executive Branch. Executive Orders are simply an "official" way of telling the people under him to start acting on or complying with, an existing law passed by Congress.

 

[2aguy]

We've done this experiment before, it was referred to as the wild west. But look, if some folk need to see it again, I say go for it.

The Wild West...was only wild in movies......even in mining camps there was peace because everyone was armed....

 

[2aguy]

We've done this experiment before, it was referred to as the wild west. But look, if some folk need to see it again, I say go for it.

We see it in Chicago today....oddly, while the RW gets what they want in regard to guns in Chicago...they keep complaining about the violence. Go figure....

Nope...wrong.....they have slow walked permits.....and refuse to allow any gun stores in the city...so if you are actually poor, and don't have a car, it is hard to get to the suburbs to a gun store to buy a gun.....

and the violence comes from the police standing down.....this has been posted about many times......investigative stops, the kind that catch gang bangers with guns before they use them...are down almost 85%.....

Nice try though.

 

[2aguy]

We've done this experiment before, it was referred to as the wild west. But look, if some folk need to see it again, I say go for it.

We see it in Chicago today....oddly, while the RW gets what they want in regard to guns in Chicago...they keep complaining about the violence. Go figure....

Also...Baltimore is one of the 3 cities with extreme gun control that has increased it's murder rate.....all due to the ferguson effect...Baltimore has every last gun control law the gun grabbers want.......

 

[2aguy]

Simple

CC permits currently come under states rights. They determine how to issue the permits and whether they want to accept CC permits issued by other states. Trump's proposal would promote big government and a more intrusive one on the federal level.

The right to bear arms is a national right.

Concealed Carry in not a national right.
Trump just put a national registry for CC on the table. Let that sink in for a minute. Trump wants CC permits to be valid nationwide. That would mean all the states would have to compromise and adopt the same requirements for issuing a permit and maintain a nationwide list available to all law-enforcement agencies and entities, federal, state and local. Big government Trump proposal.

Funny since drivers licenses are compatible nation wide. And driving is a privilege. The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right of the People. People's rights always trump state's rights.

I agree, but this is only a 2nd Amendment issue here on this thread. The issue is concealed carry. Concealed carry is not a constitutional right. My opinion is that anytime guns and registering are used in the same sentence sucks. I do not want a nationwide concealed carry law because it offers a slippery slope to federal government involvement of lists making. I also don't want federal regulations determining who gets a CC in my state. States should make their own determinations. If they want to recognize other states that is their business, not Washington DC's.

Simple solution then. We do away with the requirement that anyone needs a permit in the first place. Let's face it, the concept of a conceal carry permit is a violation of the Second Amendment. You don't need a permit to go to church, right an editorial or speak your mind. But since it's unlikely that will ever occur, let's at least fix the problem with the tools we already have. National reciprocity should be the standard with each state conducting shall issue procedures. It's not perfect but it at least gets us most of the way there without developing a national database.

And a concealed carry permit does nothing to stop or solve crimes....it is also unConstitutional since it involves paying a fee to exercise a Right.......the democrats used Poll Taxes....a tax to vote, to keep blacks from exercising their Right to vote...so under the 14th Amendment, any fee for exercising the Right to bear arms is unconstitutional.....

 

[2aguy]

Sure to make the left's heads spin and explode...and will play well with the millions of gun owners...who vote

Republican presidential front runner Donald Trump — who said he has a concealed carry permit — called for the expansion of gun rights including making those permits applicable nationwide.

Absolutely not. Dislike many state gun laws as I may, every state has the right to decide this on their own. Bullshit Cinos like you probably can't get that through your head. But states rights means states rights, even when that state makes laws you don't like.

Nope...the drivers license example is perfect....I can drive from the Atlantic to the Pacific with my Illinois drivers license even though each state has particular state laws about driving......the Right to carry a gun is no different...

 

[P@triot]

Simple

The right to bear arms is a national right.

Concealed Carry in not a national right.
Trump just put a national registry for CC on the table. Let that sink in for a minute. Trump wants CC permits to be valid nationwide. That would mean all the states would have to compromise and adopt the same requirements for issuing a permit and maintain a nationwide list available to all law-enforcement agencies and entities, federal, state and local. Big government Trump proposal.

Funny since drivers licenses are compatible nation wide. And driving is a privilege. The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right of the People. People's rights always trump state's rights.

I agree, but this is only a 2nd Amendment issue here on this thread. The issue is concealed carry. Concealed carry is not a constitutional right. My opinion is that anytime guns and registering are used in the same sentence sucks. I do not want a nationwide concealed carry law because it offers a slippery slope to federal government involvement of lists making. I also don't want federal regulations determining who gets a CC in my state. States should make their own determinations. If they want to recognize other states that is their business, not Washington DC's.

Simple solution then. We do away with the requirement that anyone needs a permit in the first place. Let's face it, the concept of a conceal carry permit is a violation of the Second Amendment. You don't need a permit to go to church, right an editorial or speak your mind. But since it's unlikely that will ever occur, let's at least fix the problem with the tools we already have. National reciprocity should be the standard with each state conducting shall issue procedures. It's not perfect but it at least gets us most of the way there without developing a national database.

And a concealed carry permit does nothing to stop or solve crimes....it is also unConstitutional since it involves paying a fee to exercise a Right.......the democrats used Poll Taxes....a tax to vote, to keep blacks from exercising their Right to vote...so under the 14th Amendment, any fee for exercising the Right to bear arms is unconstitutional.....

You're not really trying to use the Constitution to explain your rights to liberals, are you? You do realize they have no idea what that document says, don't you? In their minds, at best the Constitution is just some cute little tradition to be ignored. At worst, it's an annoyance which is hindering their ability to regress to marxism and which needs to be destroyed at all costs.

 

[P@triot]

Absolutely not. Dislike many state gun laws as I may, every state has the right to decide this on their own. Bullshit Cinos like you probably can't get that through your head. But states rights means states rights, even when that state makes laws you don't like.

Oh my God....clearly you've never heard of the U.S. Constitution. The Supremacy Clause establishes it as the highest law in the land. It trumps any and all state laws, local laws, etc. Therefore, states do not get to decide for themselves whether or not people can conceal carry.

This is as dumb as saying that each state gets to decide for itself whether or not you have the right to free speech or the right to religion.

 

[Fenton Lum]

We've done this experiment before, it was referred to as the wild west. But look, if some folk need to see it again, I say go for it.

The Wild West...was only wild in movies......even in mining camps there was peace because everyone was armed....

Must have been the costumes and buffalo they were referring to.

 

[Care4all]

I thought the States themselves determine what they want to allow in their own States for their own citizens?

 

[Fenton Lum]

Executive orders have a legitimate use... but a narrow one.

Yeah, and everytime I hear that, it's from someone who wants their pet thing driven around a challenge.

Only by the liberals (and yes, that includes RINO's like George W. Bush). As most people realize already, the president is empowered over the Executive Branch. Executive Orders are simply an "official" way of telling the people under him to start acting on or complying with, an existing law passed by Congress.

Bullshit, you're just like them. All any of you do is screech and blame the "other" side for the same stuff you're all doing. I understand we cannot really have a conversation, but all "liberal" means is someone said something you didn't want to have to hear.

 

[2aguy]

I thought the States themselves determine what they want to allow in their own States for their own citizens?

There are things that apply to all citizens...like the Bill of Rights....