Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

As the curtain falls on Trump World: The Third Week, and a month is on the horizon...zilch in the RKBA/2A column.

Now embroiled in court battles over the first two weeks of EOs, the fantasy of POTUS power over the Deep-State institutions (run by establishment), seems to be fading from view. (Do we really want the POTUS to assume greater power over the judiciary?)

I want the judiciary to know its limits. It is not supposed to set immigration policy.

You are not a very patient man, are you, Big?

bignflnut wrote:As the curtain falls on Trump World: The Third Week, and a month is on the horizon...zilch in the RKBA/2A column.

Now embroiled in court battles over the first two weeks of EOs, the fantasy of POTUS power over the Deep-State institutions (run by establishment), seems to be fading from view. (Do we really want the POTUS to assume greater power over the judiciary?)

Still wondering what exactly you think he promised to do by now that falls within the powers of the Executive branch?

“I will get rid of gun-free zones on schools, and — you have to — and on military bases,” he said at a rally in Burlington, Vermont, in January. “My first day, it gets signed, okay? My first day. There’s no more gun-free zones.”

Video via CNN (note the hearty cheers)

Is it too much to ask a politician to live up to his/her word?
Are we parsing "First Day" or "gets signed"?
"Signed" sounds like a bill becoming law, could be an EO, I guess (as he's the chief of the law enforcement branch). But certainly the culmination of a plan that is awaiting installation in office. Somebody explain to me either the plan or the culmination of said plan? We have seen and heard neither since Jan 20, yet, we would all dutifully line up again and pledge our vote to this "leader".

As it pertains to my patience, "Day One" promises are often false, no? They placate the base, locking down much needed votes.
But Trump is hailed as a #Winner, Outsider, Man of the People, Man of his Word, Man of Action, "Believe me...". He's not just an empty suit of platitudes serving the establishment PTB. Right? SO, put these two concepts together and one may have expected bills to be forwarded in both Chambers quickly, so that they can be signed quickly (public plan exposure, if not ultimate passage, on day one). Yet, no significant clarification or legislation seems to have been forthcoming in 3 weeks time. (Leaving aside the failures on tax policy, Healthcare, etc...)

Explain to me why my children and I should be denied our freedoms another hour/day/week/month/year? Have I no basis to be impatient? Should I simply be satisfied that the Wicked Witch of Arkansas/New York has been kept from power, while a great deal of institutional power remains in the hands of those who would do us (and you) harm? Let's not hold the guy we were told to vote for to any accountability? Let him get to our concerns in his own sweet time, and if he tarries, well, at least he's not actively hurting us (because GOPe inaction is somehow better than letting the deranged left implode on its own petard)? Square that with his promises, please.

How long is long enough? 6 months? 12 months? Where's the Champion we were promised, who would go to battle for us, everyday? Are we going to credit the Senate and Schumer with obstruction? Did the candidate not take that into account while promising the voters his actions? How shortsighted that would be, and a weak excuse.

Would I have any basis for demanding something positive in the RKBA/2A column without these clips/promises being made explicitly to my voting block? No. Didn't expect anything from a lot of the past pandering candidates. But, we're all told that Trump is exceptionally different.

“I will get rid of gun-free zones on schools, and — you have to — and on military bases,” he said at a rally in Burlington, Vermont, in January. “My first day, it gets signed, okay? My first day. There’s no more gun-free zones.”

Repeated for weight, following the candidate's example.

bignflnut wrote:As the curtain falls on Trump World: The Third Week, and a month is on the horizon...zilch in the RKBA/2A column.

Now embroiled in court battles over the first two weeks of EOs, the fantasy of POTUS power over the Deep-State institutions (run by establishment), seems to be fading from view. (Do we really want the POTUS to assume greater power over the judiciary?)

I for one never thought Trump was unilaterally going to be able to do much of anything r/t the RKBA issues, as much of it doesn't fall under executive control anyway. Trump mentioned gun free zones in schools, does he even have the legal authority to override the act passed by Congress?

Regarding RKBA he has already fulfilled the most important campaign promise, that of nominating a SCOTUS judge who will allegedly follow what the BOR actually says, not what the judge personally wants it to say. If Hillary would've been elected, Ruth Bader Ginsberg would have at least one, or possibly more political soulmates over the next 4 yrs. The B.O.R. wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on.

In addition, if the Legislative branch eventually finds some intestinal fortitude in the next two years and pass pro gun legislation, or repeal anti gun legislation, at least the president won't threaten to veto the legislation like Hillary would've. Anything beyond these two issues are just fringe benefits.

I suppose now that his Attorney General has been sworn in he could issue "guidance" to the US Attorneys to not prosecute violations of the GFSZA, firearms in federal facilities and/or agency rule violations (think USPS) pertaining to otherwise lawfully carried firearms by people with clean records. But then again in a typical year how many such convictions are there? You just don't hear about them because the USAs already have to heavily prioritize given the number of federal offenses on the books and limited resources to prosecute each one.

djthomas wrote:I suppose now that his Attorney General has been sworn in he could issue "guidance" to the US Attorneys to not prosecute violations of the GFSZA, firearms in federal facilities and/or agency rule violations (think USPS) pertaining to otherwise lawfully carried firearms by people with clean records. But then again in a typical year how many such convictions are there? You just don't hear about them because the USAs already have to heavily prioritize given the number of federal offenses on the books and limited resources to prosecute each one.

I don't know what the stat's are on the bolded issues, but it sounds like they're resources are too limited to even prosecute more serious offenses also, ones that might actually result in a violent crime. This news link is particularly ironic, because in my area right now on the radio the NSSF is running PSA's saying "Don't lie for the other guy", and "If you buy a gun for someone that's not legally allowed to own one you could get 10 years in prison." etc. I suppose you could in theory get prison time, but whether you actually do or not is another matter. If the stat's listed in the article is correct, and I calculated it correctly, it's less than one tenth of one perfect. I have a hard time believing it's actually that low, but it could be I suppose. The article is from 2013, don't know what the current stat's are r/t this.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... w-buyers-/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mr. Jones acknowledged in questioning by Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican, that of 48,321 cases involving straw buyers, the Justice Department prosecuted only 44 of them — saying that “hard decisions” to prosecute were made based on “limited resources.” He also acknowledged that as the U.S. attorney in Minnesota, he never prosecuted anyone accused of being a straw buyer.

Yeah I don't think it's a lot of prosecutions either but I'm hesitant to draw a comparison to the straw buyer stats. Carrying in a prohibited location is pretty cut and dried. For the most part, you get caught with the gun where you shouldn't and boom, that's the case. Intent is irrelevant.

Prosecuting straw buyers requires a very fact specific case that will largely come down to intent. And you have to do so beyond a reasonable doubt. It's weird; just because you're buying a gun with the intent to give it to someone else doesn't mean it's a straw purchase. Conversely you can be a straw buyer for an immediate family member even if they are not in any way shape or form a prohibited person.

M-Quigley wrote:Regarding RKBA he has already fulfilled the most important campaign promise, that of nominating a SCOTUS judge who will allegedly follow what the BOR actually says, not what the judge personally wants it to say. If Hillary would've been elected, Ruth Bader Ginsberg would have at least one, or possibly more political soulmates over the next 4 yrs. The B.O.R. wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on.

In addition, if the Legislative branch eventually finds some intestinal fortitude in the next two years and pass pro gun legislation, or repeal anti gun legislation, at least the president won't threaten to veto the legislation like Hillary would've. Anything beyond these two issues are just fringe benefits.

Behold the "soft bigotry of low expectations". And it is, indeed, very soft.

Perhaps this analogy is too on the nose for many (not to make it personal...you don't know me...I don't know you...), but here goes...
What if the State insisted on lying to your children and your spouse, to the point that they mentally/spiritually turn away from what you've taught them, and shortly thereafter, they physically leave you? Perhaps, in hindsight, you didn't jealously guard those relationships. Now a great deal of concerted effort will be necessary to overcome the bad teaching and restore the proper relationship. How many people jealously guard their spouses? Their children? Their freedoms?

I'll assert that this attitude where we're satiated by having any non-Clinton/ non-Obama in office is insufficient to restore the proper relationship of the Citizen to Liberty, which was neglected and not jealously guarded in the past.

djthomas wrote:Yeah I don't think it's a lot of prosecutions either but I'm hesitant to draw a comparison to the straw buyer stats. Carrying in a prohibited location is pretty cut and dried. For the most part, you get caught with the gun where you shouldn't and boom, that's the case. Intent is irrelevant.

I agree that enforcement of carrying in a prohibited location is cut and dried. I was only referring to ATF's complaint of limited resources to deal with violations whatever they might be. I was referring to violations of the law that might actually have negative consequences and lead to other crimes, like a felon using a gun to rape, rob, or murder someone. If the ATF's resources are limited, they should concentrate on prosecuting violations of law that might have more serious life or death consequences than worrying about things like whether someone has a shotgun with a 15.5 inch barrel, for example. I guess some people in government however would rather have easy legal victories instead of meaningful ones.

djthomas wrote:Prosecuting straw buyers requires a very fact specific case that will largely come down to intent. And you have to do so beyond a reasonable doubt. It's weird; just because you're buying a gun with the intent to give it to someone else doesn't mean it's a straw purchase. Conversely you can be a straw buyer for an immediate family member even if they are not in any way shape or form a prohibited person.

I agree. Also the radio ads never said you couldn't buy a gun for someone, only if you buy a gun for someone who can't legally get a gun on their own. They don't of course in a 30 second ad explain about gifts. I used to be a FFL holder, and I sold guns to people who were buying them as gifts for someone who was legally allowed to own a gun. If it's a gift they legally don't even have to be a immediate family member either. I once received a very inexpensive handgun as a Christmas gift. I was however the only non relative to get one of those gifts. There was nothing on the 4473 to indicate it's a purchase for someone else, whether legal or not. The only way it became an issue, at least when I was a dealer, was when a gun was traced, usually being involved in a crime in some way, although not always in a bad way. The very few traces I had when i was a dealer all involved law abiding defenders using their handguns legally, and the traces were just supposed to be procedure for the criminal trials of the defendants. (who I did not sell a gun to) I was never informed how the BG's got their weapons.

M-Quigley wrote:


I agree. Also the radio ads never said you couldn't buy a gun for someone, only if you buy a gun for someone who can't legally get a gun on their own. They don't of course in a 30 second ad explain about gifts. I used to be a FFL holder, and I sold guns to people who were buying them as gifts for someone who was legally allowed to own a gun. If it's a gift they legally don't even have to be a immediate family member either. I once received a very inexpensive handgun as a Christmas gift. I was however the only non relative to get one of those gifts. There was nothing on the 4473 to indicate it's a purchase for someone else, whether legal or not. The only way it became an issue, at least when I was a dealer, was when a gun was traced, usually being involved in a crime in some way, although not always in a bad way. The very few traces I had when i was a dealer all involved law abiding defenders using their handguns legally, and the traces were just supposed to be procedure for the criminal trials of the defendants. (who I did not sell a gun to) I was never informed how the BG's got their weapons.

Why would a trace be initiated on a gun used for legitimate self defense if not for the purpose of searching for something, anything, to use to persecute a LAC?

bignflnut wrote:

M-Quigley wrote:Regarding RKBA he has already fulfilled the most important campaign promise, that of nominating a SCOTUS judge who will allegedly follow what the BOR actually says, not what the judge personally wants it to say. If Hillary would've been elected, Ruth Bader Ginsberg would have at least one, or possibly more political soulmates over the next 4 yrs. The B.O.R. wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on.

In addition, if the Legislative branch eventually finds some intestinal fortitude in the next two years and pass pro gun legislation, or repeal anti gun legislation, at least the president won't threaten to veto the legislation like Hillary would've. Anything beyond these two issues are just fringe benefits.

Behold the "soft bigotry of low expectations". And it is, indeed, very soft.

Perhaps this analogy is too on the nose for many (not to make it personal...you don't know me...I don't know you...), but here goes...
What if the State insisted on lying to your children and your spouse, to the point that they mentally/spiritually turn away from what you've taught them, and shortly thereafter, they physically leave you? Perhaps, in hindsight, you didn't jealously guard those relationships. Now a great deal of concerted effort will be necessary to overcome the bad teaching and restore the proper relationship. How many people jealously guard their spouses? Their children? Their freedoms?

I'll assert that this attitude where we're satiated by having any non-Clinton/ non-Obama in office is insufficient to restore the proper relationship of the Citizen to Liberty, which was neglected and not jealously guarded in the past.

Or maybe it has nothing to do with your analogy, and people realize that we did not lose ground all in a day. We will not regain our rights overnight.

I think maybe Trump's election may be an indicator that people have not given up on Liberty and do want to see things restored. However, rolling back judicial tyranny and other issues may be more pressing at the moment.

WestonDon wrote:
Why would a trace be initiated on a gun used for legitimate self defense if not for the purpose of searching for something, anything, to use to persecute a LAC?

In some jurisdictions it seems to be standard practice by local LE to have BATFE do the trace on any gun used in any crime, regardless of whether it was used by the alleged perpetrator or victim. Someone smarter than me would have to tell you why.

Brian D. wrote:

WestonDon wrote:
Why would a trace be initiated on a gun used for legitimate self defense if not for the purpose of searching for something, anything, to use to persecute a LAC?

In some jurisdictions it seems to be standard practice by local LE to have BATFE do the trace on any gun used in any crime, regardless of whether it was used by the alleged perpetrator or victim. Someone smarter than me would have to tell you why.

Fishing.

Week 4 passes without RKBA effect. POTUS back to the rally trail, distracted by media pressures on cabinet / staff.
CPZs still in full effect.
HPA mired in committee


Rand Paul says we've done more in last 4 weeks than in last 6 years. (1:18)

Can't bring myself to eyeroll Rand. Glad coal got theirs...we're all just begging for table scraps.