“Law-Abiding People Should be Allowed to Own the Firearm of Their Choice”

I’ve never heard any president, Republican or Democrat, not even Ronald Reagan, say anything like this.

From The Washington Post:

Trump Plan Calls for Nationwide Concealed Carry and an End to Gun Bans

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

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

“Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own,” Trump wrote.

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.

“Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like ‘assault weapons’, ‘military-style weapons’ and ‘high capacity magazines’ to confuse people,” Trump wrote Friday. “What they’re really talking about are popular semi-automatic rifles and standard magazines that are owned by tens of millions of Americans.”

Trump said in the paper he has a concealed carry permit. The permits, which are issued by states, should be valid nationwide like a driver’s license, Trump said.

“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 said.

Hat tip: WRSA.

58 thoughts on ““Law-Abiding People Should be Allowed to Own the Firearm of Their Choice”

  1. I’m going to issue a friendly dissent from Trump’s position.

    Here are the words of the Constitution 2nd amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    This tells me several things:
    1) States have the right to regulate arms;
    2) The right of individuals to own and carry arms is an overriding right that the states cannot take away.

    My reading is that the power of regulating guns falls to the states. But, should a state act in an unreasonable way (such as Chicago or Washington D.C. completely removing the right to own or carry guns), it is an infringement on individual rights and actionable by a court.

    So, if a state wishes to ban automatic weapons, or even limit the size of magazines, it seems a reasonable regulation. We may not agree with that regulation, but you still can carry pistols or rifles, and have plenty of defense capability against street criminals, street gangs, or rioting mobs.

    It’s true that a determination of when the right to carry is really infringed hinges on a reasonable Supreme Court grounded in the Constitution. The current leftist activists inhabiting the court make a mockery the real function of the court, which is to apply reason to the law. But, if we get a solid majority of Scalia-type jurists, we may see a widening of state sovereignty, as well as the protection of true individual rights as defined in the Constitution.

    I emphasize I am fully comfortable with Trump’s idea. I just think it doesn’t accord with the Constitution. One of the things we need most is to return to a real Constitution with teeth, where language doesn’t change meaning according to the political views of the judges. The true test of a Constitutionalist is whether he supports legal positions he does not like because they are mandated by the straightforward wording of the Constitution.

    • Hi RonaldB,
      I am going to point out that your interpretation of the language of the Second Amendment is not correct:
      “The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.”

      The key to understanding the Second Amendment is “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” that means the state or federal government.

    • Since a well regulated (or well trained, or well prepared) Militia is necessary to the security of a FREE State (or FREE People), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed (by anyone or any government).

      • A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.

        That does not mean only a well-schooled electorate has the right to keep and read books?

        • No, it means the way an electorate becomes well-schooled is their ability to keep and read books. And since a well-schooled electorate is necessary to the security of a free State the electorates access to books shall not be infringed. Thus, Everyone has access to books and can become well-schooled and contribute to the security of the State.
          Similarly, all able bodied citizens have the right to keep and bear weapons suitable of use as part of a militia (see U.S. v Miller), train and become well-regulated in the use of those arms, and provide security to the State when needed.

    • RonaldB, your number 1) should say, ‘States are given the right to regulate militias.’ Not arms.

      The Second Amendment says nothing about regulating arms.

    • The absolutist interpretation of “shall not infringed” seems to be pervasive. Very good. Does that mean that a person who is a diagnosed paranoid-schizophrenic with paranoid delusions but no criminal convictions or charges has the absolute right to buy and automatic weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition? And if not, under what Constitutional provision can he be denied that right?

      • You are resorting to a worst case scenario fallacious type of argument. And that type of argument attempts to arose fear in making a decision. A person does not become a paranoid-schizophrenic with paranoid delusions overnight. And it is usually diagnosed after others around him begin to notice problems. In any case, the paranoid schizophrenic can have some semblance of control of his life with modern medical intervention. It is not a guarantee he will be a violent criminal. And if he has had no criminal convictions, it may be an indication he is not a threat to people around him.

        • I’ve worked with schizophrenics, and you’re right: with meds they can function okay, but nothing like they were before their first psychotic break. Coming to terms with that loss of potential is grievously hard for the person and his family.

          I would never recommend that anyone who suffers from psychotic illness be allowed to own guns, though – if that is what you’re suggesting. There is simply too much organic brain impairment and no guarantee that the person will be eternally vigilant about their medications.

          • What I’m suggesting is the argument is a red-herring. But if we want to go down that path, let’s do it.

            First of all, life is not as simple as suggesting whether or not I am in favor of allowing a psychotically ill person to own guns. A psychotically ill person who is currently a danger to people around him is not someone who in most likelihood capable of purchasing guns.

            There are a number of barriers, non-governmental barriers, for a firearm purchase to take place. There are barriers inherent in the person himself. Since buying a gun is not like going to the corner shop to buy a can of soda, its purchase takes more effort.

            What’s the likelihood of the psychotic holding down a job and accumulating the money to purchase the gun and ammo? Guns are not cheap. It is much cheaper and easier to buy a knife or a baseball bat. The psychotic whose mind is so contorted that he is a present danger to those around him will find it difficult to present himself at a gun shop in a presentable condition. His speech will not be normal. His physical appearance, with regard to grooming and dress, particularly if he is off his medications, will be barriers again. Also, gun shops are not around every corner like a convenience store where he can buy a can of soda. He may not have a car or even a driver’s license to get to the store. If he manages to get to the store, the person behind the counter is not obligated to sell him anything, much less a gun with ammunition. A responsible gun seller will use his judgement whether or not to make the sale. Lastly, a psychotic who is exhibiting a danger to others will most likely have contact with law enforcement in one form or another and the chance is good that he will have a record of violent behavior. That should be a disqualifier for purchase of a firearm.

            So the likelihood of a paranoid schizophrenic with paranoid delusions with a clean criminal record purchasing a firearm seems low. Could a paranoid schizophrenic with paranoid delusion end up purchasing a firearm? It’s possible, but not very likely. However, could a guy who is very angry and upset after breaking up with his girlfriend or his wife feel compelled to purchase a gun and shoot her? That is probably more likely.

        • William,

          I’m afraid you’re missing the point.

          Whether or not an advanced paranoid schizophrenic is capable of getting himself together enough to impress a responsible gun-seller is irrelevant. There are lots of people who are known by their friends and family to be impulsive and prone to bursts of anger. They often have misdemeanors in their past related to conflicts.

          The fact is, modern weapons can do a lot of damage to a lot of people, even if some of the onlookers are armed.

          So, the real question is, under what legal mechanism do you prevent some people who are clearly a danger, from owning and possessing guns? I am looking for a constitutional remedy. Otherwise, you have to say, the Constitution absolutely allows anyone who is not a convicted criminal (and technically, the Constitution does not even make that specification)to own any conceivable weapon. When you make a law allowing a court to keep someone from owning a weapon, you’re making constitutional law by the seat of your pants. This is exactly what we don’t want.

          Some of the comments above make good points: particularly the comment about “well-regulated” actually meaning “well-functioning”. But then, the problem remains of what is the societal/government authority to act preemptively, before you have a Bataclan incident with 89 people killed?

          The baron himself has investigated a group called Muslims in America, a kind of amalgam of the worst aspects of radical Islam and the Nation of Islam. They are very reclusive, very well stockpiled with arms, and probably very dangerous. Once they decide to act as a group, a lot of people are going to be dead quickly. So, is there a constitutional mechanism by which the government can protect the people from an obvious threat?

          • There are always going to be crazy, deranged, criminals, terrorists and predators… It is all part of the human species, the “human experience”. All of those above will ignore any gun law and regulation. Law will control only honest law abiding citizens! Your solution is maybe well intended but it will never work! Either all guns, knifes, trucks (Nice), baseball bats, piece of wood and even bare hands must be banned.
            Or let law abiding citizens defend themselves against the scum of humanity which exists no matter what.
            I vote for the later.

          • Hello CrossWare,

            Always happy to hear from you…especially when I don’t agree with you.

            My point is not that criminals or subversives will obey the law…of course, they won’t. The question is, what powers do the authorities have to prevent killings that are quite predictable?

            The guns at the time of the Constitution were muzzle-loading. How many people can you shoot with a muzzle-loader before you’re shot or tackled? The gunmen at the Bataclan hall in Paris were an organized group with automatic weapons and backpacks of spare ammunition and magazines. They killed over 130 people.

            Under your scenario, an ISIS infiltrator can wait several years for citizenship, stockpile an automatic weapon and thousands of rounds, go to a gathering of his choosing, and start spraying bullets. As long as he doesn’t say anything about his intentions, the police would be unable to stop him, even if they suspected. The Constitution says “shall not be infringed” which a lot of people want to interpret literally and absolutely.

            Short aside: a lot of literal, libertarian interpreters are computer programmers, who want the Constitution to be a program interpreted by an automata and who think people are driven solely by economic self-interest.

            In my view, laws have to be interpreted with flexibility, fuzzy logic if you will. The problems are compounded by diversity, where people literally see the same things as completely different phenomena. There’s enough of a difference between the left and the right, without going into the different viewpoints of Muslim and American.

            To me, it’s intolerable to not have a legal recourse when there is a high probability of one or more innocent people being killed in a predictable incident. The primary purpose of a government is security. So, you either overload your constitution with technical details, or you build some flexibility into interpretations, or you fail to provide the security which is the claim for legitimacy of any government.

            Any flexibility can be abused. Are you going to tell a divorced wife that her death is a necessary evil in a system that does not allow action against her enraged estranged spouse who is stockpiling weapons, until he actually kills her? On the other hand, we know of women who routinely accuse their estranged spouses of violence as part of their revenge. So, the optimum system has got to have flexibility built in, and is going to make mistakes.

  2. The last day to buy a modern sporting rifle such as an AR-15 in California is December 21st. And beginning next year Californians have to register their semi auto rifles with detachable magazines. Gun registration is the precursor to gun confiscation. Also next beginning next year in California it will be required to pay a $50 fee for a one-time background check to buy ammo.

    The NRA spent relatively little fighting this legislation.

    I’m hoping Trump’s positive attitude toward gun ownership will change the momentum that is currently toward ever more gun control.

    • For better and worse, we do have a constitutional “right to bear arms” in this country, and it should take a broad consensus to amend the Constitution.

      Whenever state laws are overturned by the Supreme Court, such decisions are often cited as repudiation against any sort of argument for their legitimacy. While case law is regularly debated, the court’s constitutional power to make such reversals is rarely questioned. Courtly precedents are usually referenced in support of such actions rather than a constitutional basis.

      But the power to offer opinion does not equal the power to make law.

      Many of the founders espoused the view that the Supreme Court was not the sole arbitrator of all constitutional issues, and could not hold such power to make such irrevocable decisions. Thomas Jefferson famously made a political career of opposing the federal judiciary in rendering opinions as law.

      At the most basic of the stance of politics of gun control is the Second Amendment as written in the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. It exists for solely to protect an individual’s right to own a handgun for the purpose of self-defense, whether it be a criminal or a criminal government.

      The NRA has never been a friend to the 2nd Amendment, even more recently they falsely identify that arms can be restricted reasonably for “community safety” (arbitrary decisions by government).

      For nearly a century after, its founding in 1871, the National Rifle Association was among America’s foremost pro-gun control organizations. It is hard to believe that the NRA was committed to gun-control laws for most of the 20th century—helping to write most of the federal laws restricting gun use until the 1980s.

      The NRA was founded in 1871 by two Yankee Civil War veterans, including an ex-New York Times reporter, who felt that war dragged on because more urban northerners could not shoot as well as rural southerners. It’s motto and focus until 1977 was not fighting for constitutional rights to own and use guns, but “Firearms Safety Education, Marksmanship Training, Shhoting for Recreation,” which was displayed in its national headquarters.

      The NRA was founded in 1871 by two Yankee Civil War veterans, including an ex-New York Times reporter, who felt that war dragged on because more urban northerners could not shoot as well as rural southerners. It’s motto and focus until 1977 was not fighting for constitutional rights to own and use guns, but “Firearms Safety Education, Marksmanship Training, Shhoting for Recreation,” which was displayed in its national headquarters.

      In the 1920s and 1930s, the NRA’s leaders helped write and lobby for the first federal gun control laws—the very kinds of laws that the modern NRA labels as the height of tryanny. early 1920s, the National Revolver Association—the NRA’s handgun training counterpart—proposed model legislation for states that included requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon, adding five years to a prison sentence if a gun was used in a crime, and banning non-citizens from buying a handgun. They also proposed that gun dealers turn over sales records to police and created a one-day waiting period between buying a gun and getting it

      State gun control laws were not controversial—they were the norm. Within a generation of the country’s founding, many states passed laws banning any citizen from carrying a concealed gun. The cowboy towns that Hollywood lionized as the ‘Wild West’ actually required all guns be turned in to sheriffs while people were within local city limits. In 1911, New York state required handgun owners to get a permit, following an attempted assassination on New York City’s mayor.

      In 1929, Al Capone’s St. Valentine’s Day massacre saw men disguised as Chicago police kill 7 rivals with machine guns. Bonnie and Clyde’s crime-and-gun spree from 1932-34 was a national sensation. John Dellinger robbed 10 banks in 1933 and fired a machine gun as he sped away. A new president in 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt, made fighting crime and gun control part of his ‘New Deal.’ The NRA helped him draft the first federal gun controls: 1934’s National Firearms Act and 1938’s Gun Control Act.

      The NRA President at the time, Karl T. Frederick, a 1920 Olympic gold-medal winner for marksmanship who became a lawyer, praised the new state gun controls in Congress. “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons,” he testified before the 1938 law was passed. “I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”

      These federal firearms laws imposed high taxes and registration requirements on certain classes of weapons—those used in gang violence like machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and silencers—making it all-but impossible for average people to own them. Gun makers and sellers had to register with the federal government, and certain classes of people—notably convicted felons—were barred from gun ownership. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld these laws in 1939.

      The legal doctrine of gun rights balanced by gun controls held for nearly a half-century.

      In November 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed President John F. Kennedy with an Italian military surplus rifle that Owsald bought from a mail-order ad in the NRA’s American Rifleman magazine. In congressional hearings that soon followed, NRA Executive Vice-President Frankin Orth supported a ban in mail-order sales, saying, “We do think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States.”

      But no new federal gun control laws came until 1968. The assassinations of civil rights leader Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy were the tipping point, coming after several summers of race-related riots in American cities. The nation’s white political elite feared that violence was too prevalent and there were too many people—especially urban Black nationalists—with access to guns. In May 1967, two dozen Black Panther Party members walked into the California Statehouse carrying rifles to protest a gun-control bill, prompting then-Gov. Ronald Reagan to comment, “There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.”

      The Gun Control Act of 1968 reauthorized and deepened the FDR-era gun control laws. It added a minimum age for gun buyers, required guns have serial numbers and expanded people barred from owning guns from felons to include the mentally ill and drug addicts. Only federally licensed dealers and collectors could ship guns over state lines. People buying certain kinds of bullets had to show I.D. But the most stringent proposals—a national registry of all guns (which some states had in colonial times) and mandatory licenses for all gun carriers—were not in it. The NRA blocked these measures. Orth told America Riflemen magazine that while part of the law “appears unduly restrictive, the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.”

      But in the mid-1960s, the Black Panthers were better-known than the NRA for expressing that view of the Second Amendment

      The 1968 law ordered the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to enforce the new gun laws. In 1971, ATF raided a lifetime NRA member’s house who was suspected of having a large illegal arms cache and shot and killed him. That prompted “the ardent reactionary William Leob,” then editor of New Hampshire’s influential Manchester Union Leader newspaper, to call the federal agents “Treasury Gestapo,” Burbick noted, even though later evidence confirmed the weapons cache. Loeb and other white libertarians with podiums started to assert that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to guns—like the Black Panthers.

      A split started to widen inside the NRA. Gun dealers thought they were being harassed. Rural states felt they were being unduly punished for urban America’s problems. In 1975, the NRA created a new lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, under Harlon B. Carter, a tough-minded former chief of the U.S. Border Patrol who shared the libertarian goal of expanding gun owners’ rights.

      In November 1976, the NRA’s old guard Board of Directors fired Carter and 80 other employees associated with the more expansive view of the Second Amendment and implicit distrusting any government firearm regulation. For months, the Carter cadre secretly plotted their revenge and hijacked the NRA’s annual meeting in Cincinatti in May 1977. The meeting had been moved from Washington to protest its new gun control law. Winkler writes that Carter’s top deputy Neal Knox was even more extreme than him—wanting to roll back all existing gun laws, including bans on machine guns and saying the federal government had killed Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy as “part of a plot to advance gun control.”

      Using the NRA’s parliamentary rules, the rebels interrupted the agenda from the floor and revised how the Board of Directors was chosen, recommited the NRA to fighting gun control and restored the lobbying ILA. Harlon Carter became the NRA’s new executive director. He cancelled a planned move of its national headquarters from Washington to Colorado Springs. And he changed the organization’s motto on its DC headquarters, selectively editing the Second Amendment to reflect a non-compromising militancy, “The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.”

      After Carter was re-elected to lead the NRA in 1981, things improved, but they still push unconstitutional laws to restrict gun ownership

    • Rick,

      Back when the “Assault Weapon Ban” was instituted, and California (the state government) enthusiastically jumped on the bandwagon, many people did as many people in Connecticut and New York are doing today – they ignored an obviously illegal law and refused to register them. Hopefully many people in California today will ignore the law. They are hardly going to go house-to-house arresting people who own them, even if they know most of the buyers thanks to the “instant check” phone calls at the gun store where the make and serial number of the weapon is given, in spite of the check supposedly being only for the individual’s right to legally buy and possess it.

      It’s been a while, but I seem to recall the phone check was made through a state agency rather than the Feds, however either way it would demonstrate that they were illegally keeping lists of purchasers.

      BTW, the NRA isn’t interested in protecting your gun rights. They have assisted in the writing of all major gun control legislation since the NFA in 1934, including GCA ’68, the Lautenberg Amendment, and many other laws. They NEED gun control legislation or they couldn’t scare millions of people into not only paying dues but giving frequent donations as well.

      I quit after twenty+ years as a member when they withheld any word of the Lautenberg Amendment from us members until it was a done deal. They helped write it and kept it quiet. And it was one of the worst, because it affected people who had misdemeanor violations from many years before – often when young and dumb, as almost all of us were when in our late teens and early twenties. It was ex post facto law, which was supposed to be illegal in itself. Legislation was never written to affect things that occurred long before it was written, but they pushed it through with the help of the NRA.

      Google “NRA Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934” for a start. Then join Gun Owners of America, and drop the NRA.

    • To RegT and damion cocchi,

      I read your posts with interest, particularly your disgust with the NRA for supporting gun control measures in the past, and acting as an imperial authority that knew what was best for its members.

      But, this begs the question. The question is, is there any sort of gun control measure which would significantly lower the chance of an innocent person being intentionally killed and would such a measure be Constitutional or desirable. And, I’m well aware of the idea of a trade-off: you can take all guns off the street and perhaps lower the killing rate, but cost yourself personal security.

      Do you advocate that Muslims from Syria who have become naturalized be allowed to stockpile automatic weapons and thousands of bullets, and without any record of the transaction being required?

      Do you advocate a person prone to impulsive rages be allowed to purchase and keep automatic weapons and large stockpiles of bullets?

      Perhaps you see a few hundred people being killed every once in a while as a small price to pay for the privilege of owning and carrying an automatic weapon without any records of your doing so.

      I may seem like an anti-gun advocate, but I’m asking difficult (for me) questions that are stumping me. Is there a difference between the federal government’s ability to regulate weapons, and that of states? I see the matter as being entirely a state, rather than federal, domain. The federal government was not given the power to regulate guns by the Constitution, so it falls to the states.

  3. I understand that one cannot buy a sub machine gun capable of fully automatic fire in the USA. Is this true and why is this? I would have thought that they would be the ideal weapon for home defence, much less cumbersome than a rifle, assault or otherwise, and easier to aim than a pistol with a short burst more likely to incapacitate the target.

    • Let’s see here, how many zombies or whose army are you figering on defending that home against? First spray and pray doesn’t usually work in war, only in certain conditions, just like bayonets. There is a time and place. Semi auto is far more effective, if not facing close massive assault. Second, modern full auto is far more worthwhile than the ol’ Tommy gun. That sucker is very tricky, very difficult to control muzzle climb. Without blast suppressor it is a monster to control well, and only a few well practiced souls can do it. I’ve fired it enough to know, full auto, and many more types as well.

      So for the vast majority of home attacks, threats and break ins, various semi autos that are dependable fire, and accurate, and easy handling, are the most important. You are not in peacetime, fighting a war of an invading squad of zombies, usually.

      With a clear criminal-mental record and enough moola, we can legally purchase and own a full auto, yet. While fun, they really are not very practical, especially the Tommy, except for historical collecting and shooting, which is a right, also. The shooting expense, is ridiculous, and mostly in defense, you would select single or burst fire mode, at most. And a burst can literally cut one in half, in a muzzle flash, if SAWed, or ‘stitched’ fired.

      Trump’s comment give truth to reality, in America, and the world. You cannot keep weapons out of good people’s hands, so face up to reality. Weapons, including firearms, are much needed, while out and about, as well as home, most people are not bent on murder, so make public acknowledgement of what is fact, and go forth. As Gust said, “Get past it”, when Charlie Wilson discovered the CIA agent had bugged his bottle of gifted Talisker Scotch, single malt premium.

      And never forget, in evil thugs hands, many people are being beaten to death or long term crippling, more and more these days. This doesn’t even include the increasing rapes and killings by refugees, and others of women, and yes even men, actually, and of babies through adults!!!! And more so also will be happening with edged weapons, and clubbings, too.

      So there is a quick answer, spectacular fire, attracts major ‘duck and cover’ attention, but overkill, dangerous when confronting only one or two, in a ‘stack ’em and pack ’em’ environment, as opposed to a mountain and desert locus. (stack ’em and pack ’em is an ‘advanced’ GLOBALIST concept of the dystopian world of unicorns and daylilies)

      • Thanks for the reply. My query was based on my limited experience of firearms from my Territorial Army days where as corps troops the weapon I was taught to use was the Stirling smg, essentially a short range defensive weapon and therefore presumably effective in the case of home invasion.

        Our shooting range only allowed single round firing but I don”t recall muzzle climb being mentioned by our instructors as a problem other than a slight tendency to drift up and to the left (I think).

        It is a theoretical question as I live in the UK but if I lived in the USA I would be looking for a compact, low maintenance weapon that would incapacitate the target(s) without the need for skill in target shooting, and also one that did not put a bullet through the walls and disturb the neighbours.

        • PS – as a UK citizen if I visited The USA would I be allowed to shoot on a range?

          We can buy deactivated guns in the UK – fully strippable if deactivated before 1995, I have a certified deactivated 1943 Lanchester 1* , a thing of beauty and craftsmanship, but left me little change out of 900 quid, I’m now looking for a late version Sten with wooden stock and grip.

          • As a vet whose weapons training included the Sten, I would not choose this particular weapon for self defence – or offence. You are talking about the 9mm rounds Sten? One needs to be at very close quarters as the rounds tend to lodge in the clothing a lot. Also it tends to jam and jump around. Preparation and planning research. You get this one wrong only once.

          • Yes, you would be allowed to shoot on a range.
            Indoor (and outdoor?) ranges, especially those connected to gun stores, often offer guns to rent to shooters, and sell the ammo to fire in them.
            The state of Oregon requires a NICS check (i.e. a questionnaire and somewhat time-consuming phone call to the FBI to check a person’s legal record) before handing anyone but an immediate family member a gun to shoot, whether at a range or elsewhere (!). The NICS check carries a $10 per-person charge. I do not want to speculate how often this harassing law is honored in the breach.

    • Cut-throat, it is entirely legal to own a select-fire or fully automatic firearm in many states in the U.S. Only a few states have laws against it. States that allow it do require you to comply with federal law, which means filling out a form, getting fingerprinted, and paying a fee (for what is called a “tax stamp”, since the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives was supposed to merely tax those items, not exercise stringent control on by whom, and where, they could be possessed).

      You are correct (in spite of tjfj’s comment) that a short burst is often more effective than a single shot, _especially_ inside of a house or other structure where distances are short, or “point blank”. With a full-auto weapon, practice is necessary to keep the bursts short and controlled, but it is possible to buy weapons designed to fire only two or three round “bursts”. Unfortunately, nothing made after 1986 (I think that was the cut-off date, but I’m too lazy to look it up) can be purchased by civilian owners, so the supply is limited and the prices exorbitant because of that (free market/supply and demand – thank the government for setting that up for us 😉

      Maybe Trump will fix that for us. It is not an unreasonable hope, as buying suppressors has become a little easier and doesn’t have the “only criminals would want one” stigma it used to have. It is nice being able to shoot without ear plugs or muffs. Perhaps we will return to those times when anyone who could legally buy a gun could buy a fully automatic Thompson in .45 ACP. Their ads back in the days when they were first made and sold to civilians (the 30’s?) showed a cowboy/rancher shooting at wolves (or was it coyotes) attacking a herd of cattle. I’ve seen coyotes pulling a calf out of a cow on the ground delivering her calf, and even a semi-auto wasn’t as effective as the rancher would have liked.

      • “Perhaps we will return to those times when anyone who could legally buy a gun could buy a fully automatic Thompson”

        Question. What determines who can legally buy a gun? Any citizen? A citizen without a criminal record? A citizen without a past misdemeanor or felony? Is there a Constitutional answer to these questions?

  4. The 2nd amendment is a rule imposed on the government to prevent rules on arms, not a law to ‘permit’ them. It doesn’t say anything about allowing States to make ‘reasonable’ laws; it says SHALL not be impinged.

      • The Constitution applies to all the states…and the 2nd Amendment is part of that. The states are given leeway in areas not specifically addressed by the Constitution, but *not* in those 27.

        Gun control is finessed by some states by arguing about the terms of the 2nd. Which is why Trump saying he’s going after that is causing such a ruckus.

        Not to say they’re not mis-used, as in the Supreme Court’s decision to make ObamaCare legal via the Commerce Clause. People are still trying to figure out how that one got through.


        • And here’s an explanation from back in the day:


          I had some of the details wrong on the reasoning used to make OCare constitutional. This will all be up for grabs again in January. The mis-named “Affordable Care Act” is anything but. Practitioners are leaving the field and the insurance companies want out. It’s a mess of over-regulation. Since it passed, more than 20,000 pages of regulatory addenda have been slapped onto it… A real EU law.

  5. I grew up with the wonderful post war, DCM, one of whose programs I finally took advantage of and sent in a check and order for a fine brand new grade government surplus, Colt 1911 A1, for only $15!!! Simple as that, no personal checking up on, nothing but sending the order. And we’re still all here, amazingly! About 1961. Since sold, (stupidly). But oh what a deal, and an M1 carbine rifle, 30 cal., also was available for same price….. Yes, my marksmanship, did improve, although in my case I was already a ‘sharpshooter’, with other arms. Still am.

    That’s how it was, people were not then living in a turbo hyper age, with evil on the ascendency, as is so now. Bring on the national concealed carry, as a divine right of life and citizenship, period. All the bad guys do it, lets let the generally responsible real citizens who wish so to be so armed, not just the evil sniveling thugs!!!

    Evil is rising see it here: http://www.zerohedge.com/print/577162 , a well done piece by Tyler, revelatory, and here, even more revealing Soros Behind Bussing In ‘PAID PROTESTERS’ for Nationwide Anti Trump Protests https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkKWqlBJsU0 and more here; http://pamelageller.com/2016/11/george-soros-exposed-money-behind-anti-trump-protests.html/

    You actually never know anymore, where you will run into evil humans, literally. Remember, 60 years of alinsky communist evils, Godless miseducation of empty headed little snowflakes tends to lead to some serious portion being dangerous. Either we carry our swords, as in the days of our Lord, or we crouch in our caves, in constant worry, of who is going to get us and when….God ordained that we must responsibly defend ourselves and family, and to sell what we must to have at least one sword, after we tried the route of peace. Even the French citizenry who can are now arming, as already are the Austrians, for well known new reasons. There is a world full of increasing zombies, including here in America, not all from ]out of Africa’, either…. Being evil is not a racial item, it’s an anyone item. It does thrive where Judeo Christian God is not present, and especially so where the antiChrist thrives.

    It is time for those who wish, to legally carry concealed, nationally, in case. They are always carrying a primitive weapon or two anyway, just not as powerful, and needing incredible time to practice to use well. It is time to know, it is not necessary to use force of superior arms, in all or even most cases, to make any point needed, even just the possibility existent, will in time have salutary good effect, on civility, and self control. Avoid in all ways confrontation, as they can be ‘impossibly messy’, but if a ‘snake’ strikes or is immanent threat, and no quarter, then one may have a chance, if desired. (Not all people wish to defend themselves, believe it or not, I had done a study, at one time, and was astonished.) It was part of a business I had had.

    Reality is we have millions of very lethal cars and lories, and tens of thousands of deaths, each year! We have around as many firearm weapons in America (many times more edged weapons), and only a tiny fraction of deaths and injuries each year from firearms, actually. Most of those are from gang connections, drugs, the non high school graduates, and most in the poorest, densest super packed and stacked sections of large urban areas. Mostly the under- and mis-educated, the drug involved.

    Trouble is, not all firearm crime is so connected. I’ve seen, (and had to participate as armed backup to local single LE handling such situations), very bad situations in the middle of nowhere, infrequently, but not that much infrequently. Many single patrol wardens, have also seen many dangerous situations, in the middle of nowhere, which is why they are now armed at a minimum. They hadn’t always been so, in the more civil past. Bad guys, evil guys, mentally sick guys, are now found anywhere, at anytime! (It has always been so, but now seems more so, or higher percentage of time.) Bottom line, modern life has become complicated, and a gun backed by a reasonably trained brain, (as always has been so), helps to uncomplicate things….

  6. The key words: “shall not be infringed.” That’s plain enough to me and I’m not a Constitutional scholar. But I keep my copy of the Constitution handy at all times. and it is written in plain enough English that even I, an English major, can understand it.

    Actually, I just lied. I simply loved English, so I took as many classes as possible.

    I’m a computer science major in reality, which meant an awful lot of math classes. Math is hard. So is computer science. English is easy. Shakespeare, baby.

  7. With the owning of firearms comes the responsibility of safe handling on private property and in public areas. There have been far too many deaths, and those deaths tend to be children, from inadequate handling and storage, and just plain lack of common sense when it comes to possessing such potentially deadly weaponry, by those who buy firearms without even bothering to accustom themselves to suitable safety precautions and procedures, that should be mandatory on all owners.

    I would like to see a system, and country wide, whereby all potential firearm owners before being issued with any firearm of any type pass a basic but thorough, gun safety course.

      • Lol! So true. How they manage to hide all those pharma drug deaths and useless surgery victims. Not to mention the really bad and deadly misleading advice. “Dead Doctors Don’t Lie” is one of many great books out there on the medical racket.

      • CrossWare, you deride a simple fact that some people should never ever own a firearm. You don’t believe that the many child deaths associated from lax parents, relatives or friends, who may happen to think like you do when it comes to easily handled loaded firearms, could have been avoided had they gone through some simple but effective safety training?

        And, there are folk, believe it or not, who are not permitted to drive a motor vehicle for many and valid reasons. As for doctors, well seeing a doctor for whatever reason, I believe that is a personal choice.

        • Nemesis, YOU ignore the fact that many people should never be parents, either. You don’t get to decide whether or not I or anyone else should be able to own a firearm. In my opinion, even felons who were not convicted of violent crimes should be able to own one. Many of them have families who deserve to be protected, and many of them have difficulty getting employment, so they live in areas that are high-crime locations.

          And it is almost impossible for a convicted felon to get his rights restored. The BATF no longer staffs the department that handles those cases, so no request for consideration is acted upon. I’m a former San Diego police officer, and put in an additional 10+ years with the California Highway Patrol, but I am in favor of restoring 2nd Amendment rights for all non-violent felons.

          • RegT, I agree that many people should never be parents and in a much saner world than this, maybe that could be a possibility, but this discussion concerns firearms and those who should never be allowed near them.

            We can ban some folk from ever driving a motor vehicle, and we seem to be able to get that one right, but when it comes to inalienable rights there is a solid brick wall to some common sense suggestions.

            And for your info – I am a retired police officer.

        • Did you watch the video? There are always morons, idiots out there but I do not believe that law should punish the ones who are take care properly of their firearms. Guns will be part of life and the bad guys will always getting it without any licensing.
          As for moronic parents and similarly impaired kids this is natural selection at work!

          • “Guns will be part of life and the bad guys will always getting it without any licensing.”

            Yes, but if there is a restriction on bad guys owning guns, at least the police can make an arrest when they find a bad guy with a gun, as opposed to having to wait until an actual violent crime is committed.

            And to RegT. I recognize your argument and have no problem with it, except I’m looking for a constitutional basis to make gun ownership legal or illegal. Your experience as a police officer is valuable and your opinion probably excellent, but what is the constitutional basis for such determinations? Does the constitution allow state governments the latitude to follow, or ignore, your probably-excellent advice?

    • I’m a stickler about gun safety too but I don’t like the idea of requiring any course of study before exercising a God given right. Too much wiggle room for the government to abuse that process, e.g. Jim Crow era literacy tests.

      But if we were to go down that road let’s start off with ethics and logic courses for journalists before they can exercise their 1st amendment rights. I’ll bet that lies and deceit from journalists have resulted in more lives lost than poor gun handling.

      • There is a huge difference between an alienable right to defend oneself and being able to exercise that right without causing harm to others.

        Some folk should never go near a firearm let alone own one!

        • If some folks should never go near a firearm, who are some of those folks? I will agree that a person convicted of a violent crime should not be allowed to possess a firearm. I will agree that children below a certain age who are not yet capable of understanding personal responsibility and consequences of their actions due to normal maturation process of the human brain should not be allowed to possess a firearm. Beyond that, I think we begin to tread on people’s freedom. Owning and operating an automobile is not a right. Keeping and bearing arms is a right. You should be free to exercise it if you wish.

          What about voting? Is voting a right? If it is a right, I suggest the same conditions should be placed on the right to vote.

        • And some folk should never go near a news microphone, and others should never go near a pulpit due to the harm they may cause.

          So, if we are not going to place preemptive hurdles before a citizen can exercise his 1st amendment rights (as well we should not) on what basis then are we requiring that hurdles be placed before exercising 2nd amendment rights?

        • William, how about these folk:

          The mentally disturbed, who once upon a time were actually locked away for their own protection as well as the general public?

          Those who suffer dementia – would you allow a disorientated person, particularly one who has developed a tendency toward violence to drive a motor vehicle, let alone possess a firearm. In my duties as a police officer I was often called upon to hold these people down in the back of an ambulance.

          Those who are reliant on mind altering drugs.

          The incompetent, yesterdays spastics, who today are treated as being normal when in fact even some incompetent will tell you that they are not like normal people.

          The violent criminal – at what point does society decide that this kind of person should be made verboten from ever owning firearms?

          The above is not an exhausted list by any means, and I am sure that others could come up with other ‘problem’ areas as to why some folk should never be permitted to go near firearms.

          And you raise an interesting point about possessing a drivers license – motor vehicles have been used recently in jihad attacks, and can be in the right hands, just as effective as a firearm. All the above should be used as a gauge to determine who is able and who is not able to drive a motor vehicle, yet there is still no restriction on who may obtain a drivers license.

          Have I told you that some people should never ever be allowed near a motor vehicle?

          You cannot equate voting with the owning of weaponry – while voting is a right, it is a separate issue and is a completely different matter, but, I believe if you value your citizenship you must vote.

          • The problem with laws aimed at people with different conditions is a recipe for abuse. I might agree with you in theory on restricting people with serious mental illnesses to own guns, but who will tell what is exactly that? The Leftists/Liberals already calling everybody Nazis who disagrees with them. I do not have to tell you how huge is a difference between someone who does dislikes what SJW doing compared to an actual Nazi.
            So what do you think would happen?
            You support Trump, you mentally ill!
            You dislike the Clinton foundation and flooding Muslims? You are mentally ill!
            You woke up grumpy because the weather is rainy? You are mentally ill!
            You disagree with the latest trend by some feminists? You are mentally ill!
            I could continue…

          • To CrossWare,

            Your questions are excellent, and the dilemma is very real. This is particularly true in a diverse society, where we literally see things differently. With diverse groups that have very different mind-sets, you have little room for compromise. One group or the other wins, and the other gets nothing. It is a result of the situation, and not of any particular ill-will.

          • I don’t share the fondness expressed by some for more government rules being implemented to control our lives in order to make the world safer. That is the wrong way to solve problems. We have become used to thinking that if there is a problem, just pass a law and that will solve the problem. No, they don’t solve problems. They create more. They cause us to lose our freedoms. Look at the Patriot Act! It was enacted to make us safe from terrorists. Are we any safer?

  8. Nemesis, I can’t argue against a basic but thorough gun safety course for all who haven’t had that benefit.

    However, as you know — common sense is really not that common.

    Our son went through a basic gun safety class when he reached the age of wanting to go hunting and trap shooting with his father. I believe my husband had a smilar class in the boy scouts in his youth. He is 74 and hasn’t shot anyone at all — just targets and some pheasants and ducks, etc. He doesn’t hunt anymore, but when he did we had some very fine eating.

    • maria_dee, when I was younger I used to hunt rabbit and duck. There is nothing like a fresh rabbit stew or duck l’orange!

      In my military days I used to instruct soldiers in firearm safety. It can take a lot of perseverance in training with some people to get a handle on some simple safety precautions.

      At 74 there is nothing better than target practice to keep your eyes alert.

      • Guys, Trump is doing what I also would do at this time, (in his shoes) he’s just taking it easy, to get along with people at this transitional time. When he actually takes office, expect things to be a little different.

        Be a little devious, the moslems are, and look at how well it works for them!

Comments are closed.