Trumps Position on RKBA

[downtownv]

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

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 (http://conservativetribune.com/trump-owns-a-gun/) and the Second Amendment, as Trump just released his official policy position (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights) 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 (http://conservativetribune.com/trump-statement-america-agree/) 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 (http://conservativetribune.com/trump-reveals-plans-gun/) 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.

http://www.kahrtalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=13817&stc=1


I would hope that there no bickering on this one, here!

[Bobshouse]

Good enough for the NRA, good enough for me.

[Handy]

It wouldn't matter if Trump was a pedophile and serial killer - if he is the nominee he'll get the conservative votes.

[DavidWJ]

I'm sorry to say that I know conservative Republicans that have bought into the media's portrayal of Trump and plan to NOT vote. Sickens me...

[Handy]

I'm sorry to say that I know conservative Republicans that have bought into the media's portrayal of Trump and plan to NOT vote. Sickens me...
A bunch of middle of the road people like Trump, and a bunch of conservatives see a media figure who is a poor businessman with a history of bankruptcy. I'm sure there are some liberals that won't bother voting for Clinton, too.

[nmkahrshooter]

All this is fine and dandy but if he doesn't learn to keep his mouth shut he will be his worst enemy. None of this will matter if he pisses of general public and gun- hating Hillary gets elected.

[Handy]

All this is fine and dandy but if he doesn't learn to keep his mouth shut he will be his worst enemy. None of this will matter if he pisses of general public and gun- hating Hillary gets elected.
Exactly. Most people are not one-issue voters.

[OldLincoln]

Judge appointments? Consider this Fed Appeals Court ruling:

Appeals court rules no constitutional right to carry concealed guns Published June 09, 2016 FoxNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/)




right to carry concealed guns Published June 09, 2016 FoxNews.com
(http://www.foxnews.com/)









Court: No constitutional right to carry concealed weapons















A federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled Thursday that people do not have a Second Amendment right to carry concealed weapons in public, in a sweeping decision likely to be challenged by gun-rights advocates.
An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the 7-4 ruling, upholding a state law requiring applicants to show "good cause," such as a fear of personal safety, to carry a concealed firearm.
The judges, further, definitively dismissed the argument that a right to carry a concealed weapon was contained in the Second Amendment.



"We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public," Judge William Fletcher wrote in the majority opinion.
If challenged, it could set up a Supreme Court battle.
Critics have long charged that the 9th Circuit has a history of liberal-leaning decisions. Thursday's ruling overturns a 2014 ruling by a smaller panel, and resulted from a case in which a sheriff in San Diego County required applicants to show supporting documents, such as restraining orders against attackers, in order to get a permit.
Celebrities who fear for their safety and those who routinely carry large amounts of cash were often given permits.
Judge Consuelo M. Callahan, dissenting in Thursday's ruling, said the restrictions were tantamount to an infringement of the Second Amendment rights of Americans.
“In the context of present-day California law, the Defendant counties’ limited licensing of the right to carry concealed firearms is tantamount to a total ban on the right of an ordinary citizen to carry a firearm in public for self-defense,” Callahan wrote.
“Because the majority eviscerates the Second Amendment right of individuals to keep and bear arms as defined by Heller and reaffirmed in McDonald, I respectfully dissent,” Callahan said.
Gun rights groups blasted the decision.
“Once again the 9th Circuit showed how out of touch it is with mainstream Americans,” C.D. “Chuck” Michel, president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association – one of the plaintiffs in the case -- said in a statement. “This decision will leave good people defenseless, as it completely ignores the fact that law-abiding Californians who reside in counties with hostile sheriffs will now have no means to carry a firearm outside the home for personal protection.”
The New York-based gun control organization Everytown called the ruling "a major victory for public safety," while California Attorney General Kamala Harris hailed "a victory for public safety and sensible gun safety laws."
During oral arguments before the panel, Paul Clement, an attorney for the plaintiffs, argued that the self-defense standard should be sufficient and asking for more violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
California Solicitor General Edward DuMont countered that there was a long and rich tradition of restricting concealed weapons in cities and towns. California officials sought to intervene in the case after the San Diego sheriff declined to appeal.
California officials said loosening concealed weapons permitting standards and allowing more people to carry guns threatens law enforcement officials and endangers the public.
Clement countered that there was no evidence that crime went up in counties such as Fresno and Sacramento that had more permissive "good cause" standards.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.




===========================
So, love or hate Trump, he is what is standing between you and your nightmare with Court Appointees. Time to get behind him and push.

[jeepster09]

I know i'm voting Trump....better than the HILDABEAST!

[OvalNut]

We've got a BIG freaking problem here.

If/when this case goes to the SCOTUS, the resulting ruling will be the law of the land across the entire US.

If that case were to go to the current Court, it would most assuredly result in a 4-4 split, effectively a push, and the Appeals Court decision would stand for ALL states. You would lose your right to carry concealed in every state. Period.

More likely, it goes to the next SCOTUS after the next President is sworn in and nominates/appoints the 9th Justice. If Trump nominates, then all is well in America.

... If Hillary nominates that 9th Justice, you lose the right to carry concealed.


Tim

[deadeye]

If she/it is elected we are going to lose a whole lot more than that. I will never stop being puzzled why people can't see it.

[SlowBurn]

I don't trust Trump on RTBA issues. But I do trust Clinton... to do absolutely everything she can to destroy that right. And as POTUS she can do a lot, including putting the worst of the worst on the bench. If you care at all Clinton should never be president.

Vote for Trump and ask everyone to do the same. #nevertrump=Clinton.

[yqtszhj]

If she/it is elected we are going to lose a whole lot more than that. I will never stop being puzzled why people can't see it.

All they see is they want free crap from the Government that ain't really free. Makes me sick.

[warbird1]

While I consider myself to be more than a one issue voter...that said if the candidate isn't right on the Second Amendment then I no longer listen to that individual.

[OvalNut]

While I consider myself to be more than a one issue voter...that said if the candidate isn't right on the Second Amendment then I no longer listen to that individual.

+ a Bazzillion, squared!


Tim

[marshal kane]

All they see is they want free crap from the Government that ain't really free. Makes me sick.
Ditto that but for those on the dole, it IS free in the sense that they won't ever have to pay back what they received. The other side of this coin is that hard working Americans pay taxes so that someone can receive something for free. There really is "no free lunch" and if anyone thinks there is, they should look at the Nation Debt. One of the first things any aspiring politician learns is to tax the working people and give to those who will sell their votes. Democrats do this openly while Republicans try to hide it. The result of continuing and expanding the dole system is eventually the nation will go bankrupt. At this point, the Federal government is only making interest payments on the National Debt which is rising. We are in serious financial jeopardy.

[deadeye]

"One of the first things any aspiring politician learns is to tax the working people and give to those who will sell their votes. Democrats do this openly while Republicans try to hide it."

Your whole post is right on. The above statement especially. During the Bush years the Repubs had the administration, house and senate. What did they do? Party hearty!!! I sometimes wonder behind the scenes how much difference there really is. I am in serious doubt Trump will be able to do much as an outsider. He will come up against the "Good Ole Boy" regime from the beginning. On the other hand we don't need a dictator. Oh well, I will just vote a straight Repub ticket and hope for the best.

[SlowBurn]

Muggsy tried to warn us about Trump. Now he's joined with Dems in wanting to let the Feds keep you from being able to get a gun simply by putting your name on a secret list. What could go wrong?