(Article) Gun Ownership in the Trump Era: What the New Administration Means for You

Gun Ownership in the Trump Era: What the New Administration Means for You

In a post-election period where 2^nd Amendment advocates are breathing a collective sigh of relief, many gun owners are wondering if the new administration’s stance on firearm issues will transcend mere campaign rhetoric into substantial protections. What is clear is that the nation avoided a Clinton White House set firmly to erode constitutional protections piece by piece through a series of sequential legislative efforts.

First, the Clinton campaign had promised to attack firearm manufacturers by seeking a repeal of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). The 2005 law, signed then President George W. Bush has effectively protected the firearms industry from liability lawsuits derived from the misuse of their products. Described by NRA CEO and Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre as “the most significant piece of pro-gun legislation in twenty years” the legislation represents an important bulwark for gun advocacy that must be defended to ensure that manufacturers are insulated against liabilities for misuse; just as any U.S.-based manufacturer of consumer products. Prior to the PLCAA, victims of firearm violence had successfully sued manufacturers and dealers on the grounds that they should have foreseen that their products would be diverted for criminal use. Imagine if automobile manufacturers could be sued for their vehicles being used in DUI fatalities. It is basically the same thing. The preservation of the PLCAA will surely be one of the most important results of the recent election.  

Additionally, we should expect the new administration to fulfill a campaign promise to promote the Hearing Protection Act (H.R. 367) that would effectively remove silencers from the National Firearms Act (NFA). Currently, enthusiasts wishing to protect their hearing must endure long waiting periods when applying with the BATF and pay a $200 tax (fine). It appears that Republican lawmakers are wasting no time on this issue as Congressmen Jeff Duncan (SC) and John Carter (TX) have introduced the bill in the House anticipating a receptive executive branch. This was immediately applauded by NRA-ILA executive director Chris W. Cox who said of the proposal, “Gun owners and sportsmen should be able to practice their sport with the tools necessary to do so safely. This bill makes it easier for them to do that.”

The self-titled “law and order president” has also promised to repeal the many executive orders signed by President Obama relating to gun purchase background checks and the “catastrophe” resulting from the establishment of gun-free zones at military bases and public schools. “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 [2016]. “My first day, it gets signed, okay? My first day. There’s no more gun-free zones.” This promise has found favor with the NRA which has cited this issue as a “top priority” that will help to prevent the unchecked rampages of madmen who target unprotected facilities that basically advertise their vulnerability. The reality of such legislation is that the President-elect cannot unilaterally dismantle the Gun Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) first introduced by then Senator Joe Biden in 1990 and signed into law by Republican President George H.W. Bush. The new administration will have to overcome staunch opposition, even from Republicans who have previously resisted any repeal of the law.

In regards to the ban of firearms on military bases, it’s not Congress Trump will have to convince but the senior military brass who issued it under an “agency rule” in 1992. In fact, versions of that rule had already existed for decades. The Fort Hood shooting tragedies which claimed 17 lives in 2009 and 2014 have prompted many to rethink these strategies. This will be a collective decision between Trump and his chosen Secretary of Defense James “Mad Dog” Mattis that will need to overrule the sentiment of even Fort Hood’s commander who, surprisingly, has voiced opposition. Lieutenant General Mark Milley, the U.S. Army Chief of Staff who served as the commanding general at Fort Hood, said in April that allowing people to carry concealed weapons onto military bases as a means of thwarting attacks was unnecessary. “We have adequate law enforcement on those bases to respond,” he said. Yet, as what Trump sees as an important element of his gun reform plan, the repeal of the ban will confirm what many gun owners know to be true; that only an armed citizenry can prevent the mass killings that opponents most often cite in their anti-gun rhetoric.

The President-elect has also called for the implementation of national right-to-carry protections that would cover all 50 states. Otherwise known as “The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017” the bill, proposed by Republican congressman Richard Hudson, would allow concealed carry permit holders to travel with their firearms to any other state. Hudson remarked concerning his bill, “Our Second Amendment right doesn’t disappear when we cross state lines.” In addition to preserving a citizen’s right to self-defense nationwide the bill also allows those who are wrongfully prosecuted in states other than their own to seek legal fees from that state. Admitting to the battle ahead, NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox commented “It’s going to take a lot of work. We still have to get to sixty votes due to the filibuster rules in the Senate. It’s going to be a hard fight. If we keep the pressure on the United States Senate we have a real opportunity…and a real momentum to get this done. But we need to do it now.” As the new administration moves forward on this “federal recognition” they will need to do so carefully as some advocates have valid concerns that such a provision gives too much power to the federal government concerning carrying rights.  “We already have carry reciprocity; it's called The United States Constitution. Not to mention that according to the 9th and 10th Amendments, congress does NOT have the authority to create ANY laws pertaining to firearms and according to Marbury v. Madison, ALL firearms laws are null and void and are unconstitutional” added one opponent. Ultimately, we might realize some compromise, some middle ground where concealed carry protection does so without setting a dangerous precedent to the overall constitutional concerns. This will be the real challenge as we move forward through this new favorable political climate produced by Trump’s election.

If the series of recent pre-inauguration legislative proposals are any indication, then we can be sure that the coming months will prove promising for the enacting of many of the protections gun advocates have been long-awaiting. It will be a concerted effort encompassing all branches of government but the efforts have been substantially buoyed by the election of NRA-endorsed Donald J. Trump. It is imperative that the citizenry become pro-active and voice their support for the upcoming fight on The Hill to their respective representatives. Contact the NRA-ILA to see how you can contribute to the ongoing effort of preserving your right to bear arms.

Daniel Williamson

January 10, 2017