3 Gun Laws President Trump Could Change Within the Next Month

[PAMedic=F|A=]

3 Gun Laws President Trump Could Change Within the Next Month
Silencers for all and universal concealed carry are just two of the changes the new president could propose.

Rich Smith (TMFDitty) Jan 23, 2017 at 2:43PM
The NRA spent more than $36 million on advertising supporting its favored candidates during the 2016 elections -- an all-time record. That support paid off big time when pro-gun Donald Trump won the top of his ticket and was sworn in as the 45th president of the United States on Friday. With Trump, along with firm Republican majorities in both the House and Senate, we could begin seeing loosened gun control laws in relatively short order.

What follows are just a few of the changes President Trump might propose.

Gun Suppressor Silencer
THE NAME'S TRUMP. DONALD TRUMP. AND HE'S HERE TO LOOSEN GUN CONTROL. IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.

Sea to shining sea reciprocity
On the campaign trail, Trump famously promised to expand reciprocity for holders of concealed carry permits, such that a gun owner with a permit issued in one state would be entitled to carry a weapon in all other states.

That's not how things work right now. If I have a concealed carry permit issued in Indiana, for example, it will be valid in 32 other states -- but 17 states and the District of Columbia will not recognize it, and can arrest me for concealed carrying in those jurisdictions. A permit issued in California, despite the state having even stricter gun laws, is not valid in 26 other jurisdictions. Conversely, an Alaska-issued permit is valid in all but 12 jurisdictions.

According to Trump: "A concealed carry permit ... should be valid in all 50 states. A driver's license works in every state, so it's common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state." In a very short time, he could make that opinion law.

Reverse President Obama's midnight executive actions
In the waning days of his administration, President Obama pushed through roughly two dozen executive actions designed to tighten gun control without the need for any laws being passed by Congress. Among other steps, Obama has directed the Centers for Disease Control to conduct research into gun violence, permitted doctors to ask patients whether they own guns, and required all firearms dealers to obtain federal licenses and conduct background checks on all buyers. The latter rule, issued just two weeks ago, requires anyone who sells a gun, even if only at a gun show or over the internet, to obtain a license and conduct background checks regardless of how many guns they sell. Failure to comply could earn a violator up to five years in prison and a fine of as much as $250,000.

President Trump immediately promised to "unsign" this directive once he takes office.

You have the right to remain silent
Meanwhile, Congressional Republicans are pushing a new law called the "Hearing Protection Act," aimed at reducing restrictions on the purchase of "silencers" for firearms. Currently, silencers are legal to purchase in 42 states. However, the purchase of a silencer entails the payment of a $200 federal tax, and requires a waiting period of up to 17 months to receive approval from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

The act, by the way, gets its name from the fact that guns are loud -- your average 9mm pistol produces a retort measured at 160 decibels. Attaching a silencer drops this volume down to 125 decibels, which is less damaging to human ears, and also makes outdoor shooting ranges less of a public nuisance. (Click the link to get an idea of how loud gun reports can offend the ears of non-shooters.)

Opponents of the measure argue that permitting easy access to silencers will permit criminals to kill in silence. Proponents respond that silencers are only "rarely" used in crime -- and in any case, 125 decibels, while easier on the ears than 160 decibels, is far from "silent." 125 db may be quieter than a jackhammer (130 db) but it's still significantly louder than a police siren (115 db).

What it means for investors
While all of these laws may have an effect on the gun industry, it's this last one that might have the most visible effect on publicly traded gun businesses. American Outdoor Brands (NASDAQ:AOBC), the company formerly known as Smith & Wesson, sells handguns with specially threaded barrels to accept suppressors, for example, and could enjoy greater sales of such products if silencers become easier to buy. Rival Sturm, Ruger (NYSE:RGR) actually makes and sells suppressors.

Now consider that as of the last report, Americans owned 265 million guns -- but fewer than 1 million silencers. That's a huge market that American Outdoor Brands and Sturm, Ruger would love to sell into. Easing restrictions on silencer sales could have follow-on effects, too. Granting easier access to suppressors could reduce noise complaints at open-air shooting ranges, making it easier for such businesses to open, which would attract more customers, resulting in more ammunition being used, resulting in more ammunition being sold, resulting in more sales (and profits) for ammo makers such as Olin Corp (NYSE:OLN), Vista Outdoor (NYSE:VSTO), and Orbital ATK (NYSE:OA).

Long story short, any relaxation in America's gun laws under a Trump Presidency would be good news for the gun industry -- but easing restrictions on silencer sales could give the NRA the biggest bang for its campaign contribution bucks.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/...ithin-the.aspx

[KCJones]

It's been TWO months, in fact, and although the Hearing Protection Act is still proceeding (slowly) haven't seen movement on the others that I'm aware of.

[PAMedic=F|A=]

It's been TWO months, in fact, and although the Hearing Protection Act is still proceeding (slowly) haven't seen movement on the others that I'm aware of.

A gun owner crossing state lines with a legally registered firearm can land in prison under what critics say is a “patchwork” of laws that have little to do with public safety.

A bill working its way to President Trump’s desk could change that, by allowing gun owners who are allowed to carry concealed guns in their home states to exercise the rights in any other state that does not prohibit concealed carry.

“Our Second Amendment right doesn’t disappear when we cross state lines,” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said last month when he introduced a Senate bill that closely tracks one introduced in the House.

“Our Second Amendment right doesn’t disappear when we cross state lines.”

- Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas
Cornyn’s Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 is aimed at allowing legal gun owners to carry concealed firearms “freely between states without worrying about conflicting state codes or onerous civil suits,” he said.

The National Rifle Association said confusing and conflicting state laws can ensnare law-abiding gun owners.

“The current patchwork of state and local gun laws is confusing and can cause the most conscientious and law-abiding gun owner to run afoul of the law when they are traveling or temporarily living away from home,” said Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA-ILA.

The proposed law would not supersede state laws or establish national standards for concealed carry, advocates assure. A companion bill in the House of Representatives was introduced by Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C.

Some 40 states already offer some form of reciprocity with other states.

Critics claim reciprocity laws will undercut states that believe public safety is linked to strict gun control.

“Reciprocity would have a profound impact on state public safety, making the state with the weakest standards into the law of the land, and letting criminals and other dangerous people carry concealed guns in every state in the country,” the gun control group Every Town for Gun Safety said in a statement.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...1&noRedirect=1

[KCJones]

A gun owner crossing state lines with a legally registered firearm can land in prison under what critics say is a “patchwork” of laws that have little to do with public safety.

A bill working its way to President Trump’s desk could change that, by allowing gun owners who are allowed to carry concealed guns in their home states to exercise the rights in any other state that does not prohibit concealed carry.

“Our Second Amendment right doesn’t disappear when we cross state lines,” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said last month when he introduced a Senate bill that closely tracks one introduced in the House.

“Our Second Amendment right doesn’t disappear when we cross state lines.”

- Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas
Cornyn’s Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 is aimed at allowing legal gun owners to carry concealed firearms “freely between states without worrying about conflicting state codes or onerous civil suits,” he said.

The National Rifle Association said confusing and conflicting state laws can ensnare law-abiding gun owners.

“The current patchwork of state and local gun laws is confusing and can cause the most conscientious and law-abiding gun owner to run afoul of the law when they are traveling or temporarily living away from home,” said Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA-ILA.

The proposed law would not supersede state laws or establish national standards for concealed carry, advocates assure. A companion bill in the House of Representatives was introduced by Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C.

Some 40 states already offer some form of reciprocity with other states.

Critics claim reciprocity laws will undercut states that believe public safety is linked to strict gun control.

“Reciprocity would have a profound impact on state public safety, making the state with the weakest standards into the law of the land, and letting criminals and other dangerous people carry concealed guns in every state in the country,” the gun control group Every Town for Gun Safety said in a statement.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...1&noRedirect=1

I don't disagree with national reciprocity, or any of the other items you mention in your OP. I'd just like to see him get off the starting line and start doing something about it.

[KCJones]

I don't disagree with national reciprocity, or any of the other items you mention in your OP. I'd just like to see him get off the starting line and start doing something about it.

I will however say - much as it may make me unpopular - that reciprocity should be based on resident permits, not non-resident (I know that here in PA it's a "License to Carry" not a "Concealed Carry Permit", but when speaking nationally the term "permit" is more broadly applicable). The latter (non-resident 'permits') does, in fact, create a 'weakest link' scenario where one state that's willing to issue non-resident permits on a 'cash and carry' basis can become the de-facto national standard.

Frankly, I'm a fan of nationwide constitutional carry with no requirements. I have no problem with one (right-thinking) state being willing to issue non-resident permits without requirements, and I have no problem with those permits being required to be nationally recognized. BUT I recognize that the 'weakest link' argument above could be used to batter a national reciprocity bill. So as a practical matter, I'm -willing- to see it limited to resident permits to git 'r done.

I'm a pragmatist that way. Our gun rights have been slowly chipped away one stone at a time by the left. They have not (yet) managed to pass some grand-mal "ban all guns" legislation, but have instead chosen the path of "compromise" and "common sense"... On which path we have lost every time. Know thy enemy and learn from them: So I'm willing to rebuild that wall one stone at a time versus a stubborn insistence on 'all or nothing' and possibly getting nothing.

Is national reciprocity what I want? No. I want national constitutional carry. I want the Federal government to recognize that their ONLY role in firearms is to stop states from violating the 2nd amendment. But I'll take what I can get (for now) and keep fighting for more. I say we get back our gun rights stone-by-stone just like the Demos have eroded them.

[pa350z]

Unfortunately, with the media and those in his own party trying to submarine him everyday and now more talk about impeachment, my fear is that the POTUS will become emasculated and not be able to get anything done. This has been the mission of the liberal left since November and it hasn't stopped and won't stop. The constant drive to find a "watergate" moment is their number one priority.

[markshere2]

DJT understands power.

Really, he does. He's had it all his life (via money).

Now he has it by law.

I believe that he knows you have to use power to keep the power you have and to expand that power.

-----------
I also think he is a stubborn bastard, and not afraid of being unpopular.

I KNOW he's busy on an international scale. ISIS Islam, NorK nitwit, China expanding its power, Russia, Mexico wall, etc.

And Obamacare -> Ryancare is taking a lot of his attention, too. That shit is 1/6 of the national economy!

How about a little perspective, folks?