As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Trump Risks Losing Support of Gun Rights Voters

President Trump needs to tread carefully in considering gun control laws. But it’s not clear to me that he will lose many people if he makes some compromises of red flag laws and background checks, which are backed even by many gun owners.

Wondering, what do you think?

According to the Washington Examiner:

Less than a week before calling for more gun control laws, President Trump invited boos at a massive Ohio campaign rally, warning 17,000 supporters that if Democrats reclaim power, “there is no Second Amendment.”

Within 72 hours of the rally, gunmen randomly murdered nearly three dozen people in nearby Dayton and in El Paso, Texas. And despite the campaign line, Trump called for new restrictions, outraging gun rights hardliners.

Trump told reporters that he would “certainly” bring up a semiautomatic gun ban, and pushed lawmakers to expand mandatory background checks and to allow temporary gun confiscation.

“I’ll be convincing some people to do things that they don’t want to do, and that means people in Congress,” Trump said, calling for “great legislation after all of these years.”

Michael Hammond, legislative counsel of Gun Owners of America, which claims 2 million members and supporters, said Trump risks losing both conservative and traditionally Democratic Midwestern voters.

“I am no longer committed to voting for Donald Trump,” said Hammond, who spends most of his time in New Hampshire. “I think he’s about to make his ‘read my lips’ mistake. He thinks he can do anything on the Second Amendment and gun owners will love him.”

12 Responses to Trump Risks Losing Support of Gun Rights Voters

  1. I used to be “for” a genuine Red Flag law that would be as difficult & short-termed as involuntary mental health commitments. I’ve changed my mind. Here’s why:

    People who, with an ethical & representative government and a law-based judiciary that treated men fairly, and a sane mental health system, might support Red Flag laws… are right now worried that vengeful Leftists and feminist judges and lawless ‘law enforcement’ would declare all Trump supporters to be:
    “racists”,
    “white supremacists”,
    “HATERS”,
    “dehumanizers”,
    who are “extreme dangers”,
    who want to “exterminate Latinos”,
    who engage in “constant assault on people of color”,
    whose “sulphurous rhetoric” is
    “violence” that “provokes murder”.

    And, they are correct. And that’s not even counting all the vengeful wives who will lie to judges to get their soon-to-be-ex-husbands hit with a Red Flag law. In fact, if a national law passes, it won’t be 6 months before all Family Courts will issue a Red Flag as a matter of course the instant a couple begin the separation process.

    And within a year, if President Trump is not re-elected, it will apply to Christians who oppose abortion, among others.

    • IMO, don’t lose any sleep over this. If, or when, they get together with some kind of crazy-people gun control, a rich crazy guy, the NRA and/or some local gun club will sue until it gets to the Supreme Court where the 2nd Amendment rules and “crazy” is subjective making all this a moot exercise in virtue signaling.

    • Very True Tina… with “law-fare” being used by the hate-filled Left/liberals nowadays I do not trust how these ‘Red Flag laws/rules’ would be used or fairly applied…

  2. I called my one sane Senator this morning and said that I do not support McConnell’s move or any other effort to restrict our rights under the Second Amendment and that they should not be chipped away at just because it becomes a momentarily popular thing to do.

    Trump will look into this and discard it.

  3. Honestly, I’m not worried here.

    Cooler heads will prevail, and the right action will eventually be taken, despite the concerning words.

    And even that, is assuming that this whole kerfuffle wasn’t a by-design head fake to begin with. We’ve seen this before, have we not? Be not afraid!

  4. I am from Ohio & just received an email from Governor Mike DeWine. His email contained several proposals to address gun violence & gun safety measures.

    One of them calls for the legislature to pass a law allowing courts to issue Safety Protection Orders for people who present an imminent risk of injury to themselves or others and who have access to weapons.

    His next sentence states in underline “This is not a Red Flag law.”

    Can someone explain the difference between “Safety Protection Orders” & a “Red Flag Law”? Thank you.

  5. Last I heard, red flag or Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) laws are the only untenable positions taken by President Trump. That said, politicians who support this notion will regret the day they ever heard of red flag laws. Their legacies will carry a Supreme Court scolding and perhaps be a landmark of their careers. But not to worry. Red Flag laws will be overturned soon enough.

    They were created to dilute power licensed to the psychiatric community and transfer it to unqualified persons the democrats can influence, e.g., local judges and disgruntled aunts. These confiscation laws are still being trumpeted by democrats because their usual gun control arguments have been lopsided, illogical losers.

    Democrats and weak minded Republicans are victims of the bum’s rush. They’ve been hoodwinked by Bloomberg’s rhetoric and haven’t read his 2018 data. It reveals gun homicides declined seven percent, firearm injuries declined 10 percent, fatal child shootings (under 18) declined 12 percent and unintentional shootings plummeted 21 percent. Generally, since 1991, the murder rate has fallen by 45 percent and the overall violent crime rate has fallen by 48 percent.

    Additionally, shooting incidents involving students have been declining since the ’90s. During that time, citizens were buying a record number of firearms. In 2018, more than 26 million firearms were purchased, a number exceeded only by 27.5 million in 2016 when purchasers were mortified that Hillary might be elected.

    Further, a December 2018 Gallup Poll revealed that gun control is last on a list of what Americans cite as the most important problem facing the U.S. Seems government is the most important problem and immigration is second most important. Obviously, the socialist-democrats are pushing a solution in search of a problem.

    Unarguably, our government cannot be trusted with the 2nd Amendment, just as our founders warned us. The primary problem with this nationwide hysteria to enforce red flag laws is none are crafted with sufficient protections for the accused. Apparently, we’ve been deluding ourselves that the U.S. judiciary would rather let ten guilty parties go free than convict one innocent person.

    Additionally, these laws generally place enormous responsibility and pressure on police officers and judges to dispense pretrial punishment, just in case an owner might be mentally afflicted. This kind of punishment is overly severe to be based on amateur opinions afforded by all the red flag laws enacted thus far. I have no doubt that the Supreme Court will strike these laws down but in the meantime, many firearms owners will suffer needlessly. Lawsuits are sure to follow.

    Since we’re dealing with mentally troubled persons, any law should include analysis by licensed psychiatrists. Doubtlessly, we all know of judges and law officers who are far from qualified for such professional undertakings. I also doubt that they’d volunteer to diagnose mental illness if their jobs depended on doing it correctly.

    This movement makes it clear that democrats want control without responsibility. I used to wonder why democrats saturate media outlets with soothing pleas for conversation instead of acting on their clear and ultimate goal of total confiscation. I assumed they stopped short of the extreme because they know firearms owners won’t tolerate confiscation without unimaginable fury.

    Fact is democrats will temporarily settle for controlling little things like angry partners, bayonet lugs, ammunition taxes, bullet shapes and so on. But it’s still part of a common democrat flimflam. Eventually they’ll again get around to universal background checks that are impossible to manage without universal registration.

    They need a universal firearm registry because it fundamentally transforms 140 million owners into dependents. Once they know who the owners are, they’ll choose which of them are allowed to be licensed. It’s the consummate entitlement. The democrat party cannot survive without more than half the nation being dependent on the government. Democrats trade entitlements for votes. It’s the heart of their strategy.

    Justice demands that the accused be afforded at least a modicum of professional analysis and an official opinion by two or more psychiatrists. Democrats screech in the streets if denied a full measure of due process but close their eyes on the subject of self-defense by firearm. These laws open the doors to scorned partners, angry neighbors, children seeking a parent’s wealth and arrogant judges.

    The natural next step for any Nazified government was to codify empowerment of mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, uncles, aunts, cousins, friends, neighbors, judges, police officers, boyfriends, girlfriends, classmates, teachers, faculty, employers, co-workers and everyone except those actually qualified to judge mental competence.

    And you can count on democrats finding new restrictions that violate due process. Soon they’ll want to choose an upper age limit for people to be “allowed by the government” to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. It makes me wonder about the motive for Red Flag ERPO laws.

  6. There are considerable problems with what they propose under Michigan’s proposed new law;

    1.The individual being subject to the law is not required to be informed that a protection order is even being requested. It is only AFTER the order is issued that the individual may challenge the order. So a gun owner won’t even know what’s happening until a SWAT team shows up at their door in the middle of the night to claim their guns. The potential for considerable problems just with that flaw are huge.
    2.Nearly anyone who knows the person can request an order and any testimony against the person is considered true… The standards for issuing the order are extremely weak. The owner, is essentially found guilty in absentia, search warrants are issued, they are then denied their property all without a prior trial or defense.
    3.The subject has may only ask for one motion to modify or rescind the court order and it must be done within 30 days. This is for an order whose effect the person knew nothing about and had no chance to defend themselves, and who may be sitting in solitary in jail.
    4.Any negative refusal to the order by the subject, whether accurate or not can land them in jail for 14 days. While they can petition a Court for release, the original order is issued on an expedited basis while their attempts to get out of jail is subject to the courts normal review process which can take a week(s) or more.
    5.While the proposed new law allows the guns to be returned to the owner, it also allows the gun(s) to be destroyed after being held 30 days.
    6. The issuance of the Order is in and of itself, a conviction. Every possible federal, state, and local database is to be informed about an order the person knew nothing about, and had no chance to defend themselves against. Even all the persons workplaces are to be immediately informed. All which could be based on slander!
    8. What kind of mischief could a group or anyone do with such a law? How about planting a gun in a messy divorce, doxxing a rival, political mischief, nasty neightbors, etc?

    This proposed solution is for a non-existent problem. Use the Dayton shooter as an example; all his schoolmates knew he was nuts, his school had suspended him (then let him back in) for making shoot/rape lists, he was carrying the illegal sawed off gun at an ANTIFA rally the month prior to the shooting, AND NOBODY DID ANYTHING! One person’s call to the police would have sent the police for a ‘wellness’ check within 24 hours.

    Furthermore, nobody cares the same weekend; Chicago had 7 killed and 20 wounded by guns, Baltimore a similar thing. Seems Black lives don’t matter to other Blacks.

    Today’s hard truth is that of roughly 35000 lives killed each year by guns; about 70% (24500) are suicides. Of the remaining 10500 about half (6000) are black on black crimes. Of the remaining 4500, about a third are black on white crimes. The remainder, about 3000, are white on white crimes, accidents and other (see FBI statistics).

    We do have a mental (mostly depression) health problem in this country, and Blacks need to put down their guns.