It looks like the big thing we have to worry about post-Parkland is going to be a move to raise the age for buying a long gun from 18 to 21. I’ll be honest, telling a 20 year old kid who’s coming back from a tour of duty in Afghanistan that he’s responsible enough to use an M4 to shoot Taliban for God and Country, but not responsible enough to own a semi-automatic AR-15 to shoot paper or to say, defend his family after a natural disaster, does not sit well with me at all. Are we going to repeal the 26th Amendment? Because if they aren’t responsible enough to own a rifle, why are they responsible enough to vote? Maybe we shouldn’t let them join the military either. Maybe we should raise the age you can get married without parental permission back to 21, like it used to be in many states?
This is bullshit. If you’re old enough to die for your country, you’re old enough to vote for or against the people who would send you, old enough to have a beer, get married, and yes, own a gun. If we’re now talking about moving the age of majority back to 21, and maybe we should (we have an awful lot of man and women children running around out there) we ought to have that serious conversation about that. Otherwise, this is just another case of the Second Amendment, to borrow from Justice Thomas, being treated as “a disfavored right.”
And to make matters worse, it’s the fucking Republicans doing this to us. Not that I’m shocked. I’m way too cynical about politics to be shocked. But I can’t think of any better way to make me stay home, rather than lift a finger or even vote for your shitty, awful candidates.
I’m going to be watching this very carefully – anxious to see how it plays out.
I see this playing out as the Republicans offer this attached to some pro-gun stuff like national reciprocity and arming teachers. The Democrats scoff at any deal that Trump supports and nothing changes.
If they push this, it had better be in exchange for something like National Reciprocity. I wouldn’t trade this for SHARE. National Reciprocity, as it is now, which would let someone from NJ carry in NJ on a FL license, will bring way more people into this issue than 18-21 year olds will take out.
Agreed I’d give a lot for that. There needs to be a no severability clause so that if the courts strike down national reciprocity all the anti-gun stuff goes too.
Gotta be National Reciprocity. For any of these bills, we need to demand we get something back. We can’t just pass what they want.
Got to be National Reciprocity with teeth where state/local officials trying to subvert get sanctioned.
Totally agreed. If Trump can use the anger to make things happen and force the Dems to choke down some things they don’t like — like empowering teachers and individuals for self defense — than it’s a big win.
As I stated in a previous post, this is the best time (except possibly right after the midterms) to have this “debate” and get something positive through Congress.
The house has already thrown down with National Reciprocity as the price for FIX NICS. So the proposed age ban will cost more to get past the House.
The ban under 21 is a potential threat as it hurts our ability to bring in youth shooters. It depends on how its written though. For example, a narrowly crafted prohibition that states, “Under 21 cannot purchase from an FFL (leaves private sales open, just like handguns) UNLESS they meet one of three dozen criteria.” Those criteria can be easy to meet such as :
– registered for selective service
– have a hunter’s ed card
– have a CCW permit
– have a C&R FFL (and reduce the age for a C&R to 18
– have a note signed by a grownup
– be registered to vote
– attend a NRA safety class
– be part of a shooting club or team (to include, say the Boy Scouts, which has a shooting program)
– be a member in a CMP affiliated club (costs $10)
– be in the military or have a DD214.
Its all bullshit and arguably unconstitutional, but the end result is heavily watered down so as to be largely meaningless. That also opens the door for equal protection court challenges (women can’t register for selective service).
I suspect SHARE (as its the only legislation actually on the table ready to go that’s been through committee) will be the price for the 18-21 ban, so a bunch of hunting related loopholes would thematically fit in there. If we get more time and passions cool then more good stuff could get crammed in, likely by the House. Modifications to the GFSZA would be a good example. As usual, time plays in our favor. I might be willing to consider a watered down 18-21 age restriction in exchange for enough Good Stuff.
At the end of the day you won’t get 60 votes for such an omnibus in the Senate and it dies. The Dems will be stuck in a DACA-like situation where they refuse to take the deal offered and they lose a campaign wedge issue. Or, if it somehow gets the votes and we do have to swallow FIX NICS and an 18-21 restriction of some sort, we get SHARE and CCW reciprocity out of it at a minimum.
Nevertheless our position will not get stronger (with the possible exception of immediately post-midterm) in the presidency or legislature for the forseeable future. I’m not willing to gamble on a second Trump term. Even with another SCOTUS pick I’m not willing to count on the courts to do the right thing. Now is probably the best possible moment for us to roll the dice on the legislative process.
accidentally put this on the wrong post:
oupla’ thoughts …
1. As pro-gun guy with with a kid in High School that doesn’t like the thought of 18 year old seniors being able to buy rifles/shotguns … perhaps the solution is something like 19 WITH a GED or H.S. diploma. 21 for those without. (BTW — there are a lot of 18 year old seniors because so many suburbanites held their kids back for an extra year where they could). While I agree with your arguments … moving the purchase age for rifles to 21 will not be the death of the 2nd amendment (and I doubt they’ll be able to change possession requirements — I hope).
2. It is Republican’s doing it, but it appears they are insisting on packaging it with other reforms. The anti-gunner goal would be “ban semi-autos so the next mass murder is with a pump shotgun, then ban them, then wait for the next mass murder with a pistol …†until they’re all gone. I would assume there will be a package of changes presented and not just anti-gun.
3. Trump has to walk a fine line here or he loses his base. I’m not happy, but bringing in the angry people to let them vent was wise I think (there was as wave building, better to get some of the energy out of it now) and then turn things over to a partisan bickering congress where dem’s refuse to accept anything based on protecting students and watch them kill the reform because they hate guns more than they love kids.
We’ll wait and see. But if they can get this much traction with a republican administration … can you imagine what they would be doing by now with President Hillary/Majority Leader Schumer/Speaker of the House Pelosi?
1) I’m with you on the idea of raising the age to 21, or making it 19 with a high school diploma/GED. Also you could easily include some provision to allow active duty members of the military, or those with an honorable discharge, to get a gun before 21. Frankly, the universe of 18 year olds who can buy a rifle is very small. As long as this is restricted to purchases, and doesn’t impact my ability to take my kids shooting, then I don’t think its that big of a deal (especially for what we can get in exchange for it – I imagine the NRA and Trump realize that too).
2) If your Trump, you get to be seen as having accomplished something. I don’t think the crazies on the left warm up to him, but he’s a politician and all of a sudden every thing Jimmy Kimmel has said seems like a great big fat lie to the vast majority of Americans.
That’s almost worth the price of admission too.
3) I bet we get nationwide concealed carry, and some other things we want too. Easily. Democrats have to go along, otherwise they will be seen as insincere and a bigger problem. The Democrats have more to lose if they don’t take a deal.
4) Kennedy (81) will likely retire. But replacing him doesn’t change our SCOTUS numbers. No way Ginsberg (84) retires, or Breyer (79). And if the Republicans lose the Senate (a possibility) and Kennedy doesn’t retire until after the election I would expect the Democrats to not allow any nominees through at all until after the 2020 Presidential election. That would energize their base further and create a real potential for losing the White House in 2020. Id rather pass a gun control bill that does minimal damage now, on our terms, especially if it works to save the Senate and/or the House in 2018 and/or the White House in 2020.
But I’m still trying to game all this out. Those are just my initial thoughts.
I can think of someone with a master’s degree in a technical field from a top-drawer university who does not have a G.E.D. or a H.S. diploma.
Is he under 21?
Not anymore, but that isn’t the point, is it?
“I’ve got mine” doesn’t help anyone in the long run.
The entire laundry list of gun control minus an AWB wil be signed by trump. There is no way around it.
we are getting the age restriction ban, We are getting universal background checks, we are getting universal registration, we are getting magazine capacity bans. And all this and more will be on the Republicans. Then when they get voted out in 2020 and a Democrat becomes president they will then go for The ban of ALL Handguns and semi automatic rifles. Every. Single. One. With confiscation. Ownership of semi auto weapons and magazines over 10 rounds will be blanket banned.
We are heading towards Civil War in 2021 there is no avoiding it anymore.
Trump has a long history of listening to people from the opposing side and then ultimately doing what he promised. i.e. listing to arguments about not putting the embassy in Jerusalem (happening), staying in the Paris Accords (we’re leaving), etc. I wouldn’t count him out at all.
As to your other dire prediictions … I hope not. Certainly that is the anti-gunners game plan, but it’s been the plan for decades and we have a VERY strong pro-gun side now. And some of them know that.
Jesus dude, even I’m not that pessimistic.
And that’s saying something! hahaha
The far left has now made it policy and are now openly advocating for gun confiscation and the murdering of gun NRA members and gun owners. The Democratic Party has not condemned the left calling for our violent murders so one has to assume they secretly support it and want it to happen. You don’t have to stretch it to much to figure out there secret desire is to kill us all. I’d be willing to bet they would even consider the nuclear option. That is the use of nuclear weapons on us to achieve it.
Put the bong down, my man! You and Joe would make a good team if you put your minds into it.
Do you find anything wrong about what Joe Huffman says?
I think he means Joe the commenter here, not Joe Huffman.
Are you a Russian Bot?
Shawn… did you know when the last federal gun control law was passed???
1994!
And that law is now gone.
Stop freaking out.
Blue states may well be getting this package. Not on the federal level, not now. Gun owners in blue states really need to take an honest look at their priorities and make plans to get out relatively soon if they value their freedom. The penalties for non-compliance will be draconian (3-10 year prison sentences seem to be the norm these days in blue states) and a felony charge will ruin most middle-class working people financially as well even if it gets bargained down to a misdemeanor of some sort.
If the Dems get 60 votes in the Senate, the House and the Presidency in a few years that’s another situation altogether. When the pendulum swings back its going to be ugly unless we can lock in some more court nominees.
Not really as bad if the Dems get all that federally, however, because to get to 60 votes in the senate and maintain a supermajority of the house they would have shown that they can capture RED (some deep red) districts. Gun control doesn’t work there. It’s the same situation as in 1994, really, except gun rights are MORE popular.
Even with the increased age of purchase, I see that as hurting Dems the most considering many of them still cling to the “guns are for hunting” mantra. How exactly does raising the minimum age to buy a hunting rifle help? You can’t just shy away from the fact that ANY rifle can be used for hunting.
Correct!
I will say that it can’t hurt to start writing (polite) letters and calls. Trump once was gung ho on No Fly No Buy.
Is there a way to get under 21 including vets and police officers to write in objecting to their loss of rights?
The NRA should have the ages of its members broken down, and could target them for a write in.
The Jack is right.
Trump did flap his gums about the “No Fly” gun ban after the muslim murdered people in a gay bar.
There was push back, and he quit.
Contact Trump NOW:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
I am livid about the idea of banning young adults from buying guns.
I would NOT trade this for something else!
Hey Everyone. Just to throw it out there, I live in Ohio’s 6th Congressional District, represented by Republican Bill Johnson. I spoke to some of his Staff Members, for almost 2 hours on, about potential Gun Control Measures that could pass….in 2018….. that Trump would more likely than not, sign into law this year. Colorado and Washington State are being used as Gun Control models for the Federal Level as of now.
I was told it consists of a 10-point plan that was later emailed to me, and it has albeit 1, but a VERY BIG pro-gun proposal to it…..here it is
1). Repeal of the Gun Free School Zones Act that also incorporates The SHARE Act and National Reciprocity.
2). Universal Backround Checks for albeit, all firearms sales (explicitly sales).
3). Adding Gun Violence Restraining Orders to the ’96 Lautenberg Amendment of the 1968 GCA.
4). Crafting a “Federal Assault Weapons and Handgun Control Act” (Not a ban, but stipulations of controls) which consists of a National 3 day waiting period for all “Sporting Firearms” long-gun sales, a 7 day waiting period for all Handgun and “Assault Weapons” Sales, and, expanding the 3 day “Default Proceed†to a 10 day “Default Proceedâ€.
5). This rumored proposal, also, would take the Democrat Party’s Assault Weapons List, and put them under all regulatory stipulations of Handguns and would create separate Backround Check Paperwork Forms (separate from 4473) that would cover Handguns and “Assault Weapons” sales, also raising the Age Limit to buy “Assault Weapons” to 21, like Handguns.
6). Require all 50 States to conduct “State” Backround Checks, carried out by State Police and/or County Sheriffs Departments for all Handgun and “Assault Weapon” Sales, on top of the NICS Checks.
7). Like Handguns right now, “Assault Weapons” would be prohibited from interstate sales, requiring Commercial Shipping between FFL’s across State Lines before sales to a gun-buyer are made.
8). Allocate $Billions in funding for Local, County, and State Police Agencies to conduct, twice per year, inspections of Licensed Firearms Dealers, requiring Inspection Reports to be handed over to ATF. ATF would also be required, and given the funds needed, to conduct annual inspections of Firearms Dealers.
9). Would enable cooperative background check capability between all Law Enforcement Agencies at all levels of Government.
10). Classifying Bump-Stocks as a “Torsion Spring Based Mechanical Machine Gun Modification Devices” putting Bump-Stocks under the Machine Gun Stipulations of the 1934 National Firearms Act.
These stipulations would go into affect in 2020 or 2021, 2 to 3 years after being signed into law, and, it would be the biggest Gun Control Bill ever passed, since the 1934 NFA and 1938 Federal Firearms Act (1938 FFA). It would be even bigger than the 1968 GCA, 1986 FOPA, and 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994 FAWB).
Tell me what you all think.
No way Congress is coherent enough to do something that complex. I doubt it ca nget 60 votes in the Senate.
If anything the House Freedom Caucus wouldn’t go for it. Ryan would have to toss the Hastert rule — and likely his speakership — away and bring in Dem votes to pass it.
I basically told Congressman Johnson that I’m only in favor of the 1st Stipulation. I left a message for my former Congressman l, Leonard Lance, the exact same thing.
Do I have the wrong guy, or was last week Joe talking about a conversation he had with his rep in NJ?
Ahhh, it was your parents . My mistake.
https://www.pagunblog.com/2018/02/16/ever-true-a-dog-analogy/#comment-425211
Yup. I was just going to post about this as well. Is this guy a troll? I don’t buy any of what he’s selling, especially when “moderate GOP” points can just casually move across several state lines so quickly. The next post is going to be a conversation he had with his in laws representing the 3rd district of North Carolina.
If I had to choose, I’d pick number 1, though. Thanks and come again. (or NO, please don’t, actually!)
Nothing else would pass. If so, the GOP can kiss its majority goodbye.
I used to live in Hunterdon County, NJ. It encompasses the geographical bulk of Lance’s NJ Congressional District.
Your post is basically the same thing. Nonsense.
This one is actually, bigger than the other list I posted.
The Gun Control threat is indeed, real. I told Congressman Johnson that I oppose all stipulations except the 1st one.
I’ve been in contact with my family who still lives in NJ. I tried to reach Lance, but, couldn’t get through. I used to live in Leonard Lance’s NJ Congressional District.
NO.
I think your post became quite hard to believe when you say that a Congressional staffer gave you “a 10-point plan that was later emailed” in writing after taking up 2 hours of their time.
It’s more detailed in the email, but I summarized it overall.
The conversation was long and overly drawn out because I spent the majority of that time opposing these proposals and fervently getting the point across that there is no compromise with the Democrats on this issue, and gow the Dems will only accept the Feinstein Ban, as in, out and out, ban.
Saying that you received an even more detailed email from a staffer who spent 2 hours listening to you drone on about “shall not be infringed,” makes this less believable. Sorry, dude, but I have enough experience with political staff to know how unlikely this is.
Alcohol and cars kill a lot more children than guns.How about no drivers license til 21.Anyone under 21 and caught driving or drinking be charged with a felony,just thinking like they do.
5 gallon buckets kill more little children than guns.
In other news:
Hawaii Dem shows true colors: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/375117-dem-lawmaker-im-not-interested-in-compromising-with-the-nra-on-gun-control
Eventually we knew we would get to this point this time. They aren’t interested in compromise. These are STILL the people who are really involved in plotting gun control strategy.
And then we have this… http://thehill.com/homenews/house/374961-dems-want-gun-control-but-worry-it-could-cost-them-midterms
Nothing changes.
A Hawaii Democrat never sees any reason to ever compromise, especially when state Democratic politics are in upheaval.
Sometimes I wish people will chill and wait it out before screaming “Traitor!”, because this is classic Art of the Deal, and he’s done with this DACA and other issues. Trump will throw some things out there for Dems (age limits and bump stocks) which essentially represents the most he will do. Of course these will also get attached to a larger bill containing pro-gun provisions, and Dems being the fanatical anti-2A types that they are, will reject it. Then Trump will negotiate down from there and frame it as being the only one willing to work toward a solution.
Dems are playing with fire here. They can either go into full-on foam at the mouth statist mode and energize the GOP base for the midterms, or be seen as caving to the NRA and Trump by accepting some type of partially pro-gun legislation. In the end I doubt much will really happen, at least federally…we all know blue states will continue to get worse.
That seems like an entirely plausible scenario.
I don’t know how many times I’ve read posts by Sebastian that lament the lack of involvement in getting pro-2A candidates elected. And posts that challenge us to be happy with small changes in our favor rather than insist we must get it all or nothing. And yet now he says, ” But I can’t think of any better way to make me stay home, rather than lift a finger or even vote for your shitty, awful candidates”?? So we stay home because we gain 2 steps but give up one? How’s that going to work out?
If it was part of a larger deal, that would change the calculus.
Parts of the Dem party are pushing gun control, harder than I thought, because they firmly believe they will win back the Senate in 2018.
If they do win back the Senate, they believe that they will have a mandate to enact gun control and stop pro-2A Supreme Court justices. Which is probably true.
Republicans may be on board with some items, but in part its to paint the Dems as obstructionist. Like Trump offering 1.8 million DACA immigrants amnesty, it demonstrates Dems do not really want “reasonable” measures and cannot take yes for an answer. I think that the rifle ban will die anyway, and knowing that, good-cop bad-cop is a useful political strategy.
All I can say is that Republicans and independents who care about the 2A better get out, swallow their bile, and vote. Because if they dont, the 2019 Senate will make these small measures discussed now look like tiny potatoes. We will also lose very likely 2 appointments to the Supreme Court because Dems will make gun control a litmus test.
But be wary not to vote for silly candidates like Roy Moore or Todd Akin. We need the most pro-2A candidate *who can win* in the game.
Wrong. They will have no gun control mandate. Never.
Look at the behavior of the lefties since Trump’s nomination. No one should be surprised about the manner in which they’re coming after us. People who continue to view this, and related issues, in a political frame are behind the curve. This is not politics. This is cultural. This is tribal.
A visit to leftie publications and social media make it clear. They don’t differ with us on policy. They hate us. They hate us with the an enthusiasm rooted in the belief that we are evil people trying to prevent the realization of their utopian vision. I’m almost temped to refer to it as religious fervor.
People operating on this level are not open to reason, debate or compromise. They are dangerous. The 20th century is replete with utopian ideals that left piles of bodies in their wake. I think it would behoove us to bear in mind that, historically speaking, when a group has butted up against another that is aggressive and expansionist, if it is not prepared to respond in kind, it ceases to exist.
Well said.
Identity Politics is the death knell of a Free Society.
America is indeed, Balkanized.