The Issues That Matter to Gun Owners, Part One

 

Fshutterstock_3306466irearms owners are becoming an increasingly-important voting bloc in center-right politics, and it’s important to discuss and define what specific issues and laws are important to today’s gun owners in this upcoming election. With that in mind, I reached out to some of the people who defined “Gun Culture 2.0” in order to get their opinions on the legal matters of today which matter to gun owners, and this was their response.

The Supreme Court 
The recent ruling in the case of Commonwealth v. Caetano sent shockwaves through the gun community. In a stunning unanimous decision, the highest court in the land (literally) laid down the law, telling lawmakers in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that yes, the Second Amendment applied to more than just muskets and it also covers the right of the citizens to own guns for their own use, not necessarily as part of a state militia. This ruling, an important win for the pro-gun rights movement, highlights the importance of who is sitting on the Supreme Court. With an open vacancy and the potential for more openings in the next four years, it is vitally important to gun owners that the next President appoints a person to the Court who will defend our innate right to self-defense and the heritage of firearms ownership in the United States.

Concealed Carry Reciprocity 
Imagine how difficult it would be to travel across the country if you weren’t sure if your driver’s license was valid from one state to the next, or how hard it would be to do taxes if your marital status varied depending on what state you lived in. That’s the reality that people with a concealed carry permit face when they move about the country. When I moved my family across the country two years ago, I had to disarm myself when I traveled through Illinois, because Illinois law does not recognize concealed carry permits from any other state. This confusing mumbo-jumbo of laws needs to come to an end: Each state is free to set their own rules regarding the training and testing required to drive a car, and each state recognizes and approves the driver’s license from each other state. It’s time to apply that uniformity and common-sense approach to how and when we carry a gun across state lines.

Safety Gear 
Let’s state this right up front: Silencers* are not an assassin’s tool or a boon to poachers, they’re a safety device designed to protect hearing and make guns easier to shoot. Suppressors were added into the omnibus “National Firearms Act” of 1934, which placed what was at the time severe restrictions on who could own a suppressor, fully-automatic gun, or short-barreled rifle or shotgun. Those restrictions, such as a $200 stamp and a background check, may have been an almost insurmountable hurdle in 1934, but today, with inflation and instant background checks, they’re an annoying anachronism at best. It’s time to bring firearms law into the 21st century, and make safety devices like suppressors much more accessible to the average gun owner.

Liability Laws
Hillary Clinton talks at length about her desire to end “the gun manufacturer’s immunity to lawsuits.” This is, of course, insane, because gun manufacturers can be sued when they make a defective product, just like any other company in the United States. What the Protection in Lawful Commerce in Arms Act covers is protecting gun companies from going bankrupt under a deluge of nuisance lawsuits. Every person who buys a gun in a gun shop or from a licensed dealer at a gun show goes through a federal background check to see if they have a criminal past or a history of domestic violence. Therefore, suing gun manufacturers when somebody does something illegal with their guns is like suing Dell computers when someone posts classified information on an email server.

Part Two next week.

* Yes, I know, a silencer doesn’t “silence” gun noise (although I’ve shot subsonic .22 rounds from a suppressed pistol that made no discernible noise at all, aside from the *thwack* of the bullet hitting the target) and should properly be called “suppressors”. However, Hiram Maxim called them “silencers” when he invented them, so I use those two words interchangeably. 

Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 13 comments.

  1. Member

    How about some recommendations for a newbie to purchase? I’m already clinging to religion and full to the brim with bitterness. It may be time to complete the picture and get a gun.

    • #1
    • March 25, 2016, at 4:27 PM PDT
    • Like
  2. Member

    Campus Carry is becoming a hot button issue in Georgia. The Legislature passed Campus Carry with a veto proof majority and sent it to Gov Deal’s desk. He has it now and has pushed back on the bill with the objections which are a regurgitation of talking points from MoveON.Org. He’s asked for modifications to the bill and the Legislature has basically told him “that’s the bill we sent you, no more no less”. He has to either sign it or veto it over the next month.

    • #2
    • March 25, 2016, at 4:28 PM PDT
    • Like
  3. Member

    @Suspira

    Kevin posted a good article on first guns a couple of months ago

    https://ricochet.com/choosing-first-defensive-firearm/

    • #3
    • March 25, 2016, at 4:31 PM PDT
    • Like
  4. Member

    Great post as always Kevin. I travel by car between TX and OH 4-5 times a year and would love to be able to transport my rifles and pistols and shotguns with me without worry. It is ridiculous with the 2nd Amendment that this is even a worry. Keep up the good work.

    • #4
    • March 25, 2016, at 4:35 PM PDT
    • Like
  5. Member

    Mountie:@Suspira

    Kevin posted a good article on first guns a couple of months ago

    https://ricochet.com/choosing-first-defensive-firearm/

    Thanks for the heads up. I wasn’t quite so bitter a couple of months ago, so I must have overlooked it.

    • #5
    • March 25, 2016, at 5:30 PM PDT
    • Like
  6. Member

    Thank you, Kevin! Great stuff!

    • #6
    • March 25, 2016, at 7:00 PM PDT
    • Like
  7. Inactive

    Kevin,

    I heard that SCOTUS nominee Merrick Garland is weak or downright out to lunch on the 2nd Amendment. Do you know whether or not that is true?

    • #7
    • March 25, 2016, at 7:25 PM PDT
    • Like
  8. Contributor
    Kevin Creighton Post author

    Ron Selander: I heard that SCOTUS nominee Merrick Garland is weak or downright out to lunch on the 2nd Amendment. Do you know whether or not that is true?

    To be honest, I don’t know. Once it was pretty obvious that the GOP was going to be standing firm and not giving him a hearing, I tuned out on his candidacy. The NRA ILA doesn’t like him, but I have the feeling they’d turn down any nominee short of Ted Nugent that Obama proposed. :D

    David Kopek doesn’t like him, though, and Jonathan Adler thinks he’ll roll over and show his belly to any government agency who appears in front of the court.

    Not something I’d want in a judge who believes in individual rights and smaller government.

    • #8
    • March 25, 2016, at 7:43 PM PDT
    • Like
  9. Inactive

    Thanks, Kevin.

    Yes, I hope and pray that the GOP will stand firm!!

    • #9
    • March 25, 2016, at 7:47 PM PDT
    • Like
  10. Member

    It is difficult to discern who Judge Garland really is. The mainstream media has a different standard when it comes to describing moderate, liberal, or conservative beliefs or actions. His previous rulings seem to favor government agencies and in light of Fast and Furious, and the IRS scandal that is very problematic, especially for those that believe the Constitution was written to limit the power of government.

    • #10
    • March 26, 2016, at 5:58 AM PDT
    • Like
  11. Member

    Both the NRA and the Right-to-Work folks are opposed to Garland. If memory serves, he was on the wrong side in Heller and consistently sides with the NLRB and the unions. And the federal government. That said, he may be better than what we’re likely to get from President Hillary!

    I note that some parts of the Left-o-Sphere are very unexcited about him.

    • #11
    • March 26, 2016, at 6:44 AM PDT
    • Like
  12. Member

    Kevin Creighton:The recent ruling in the case of Commonwealth v. Caetano sent shockwaves through the gun community. In a stunning unanimous decision, the highest court in the land (literally) laid down the law, telling lawmakers in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that yes, the Second Amendment applied to more than just muskets and it also covers the right of the citizens to own guns for their own use, not necessarily as part of a state militia. This ruling, an important win for the pro-gun rights movement, highlights the importance of who is sitting on the Supreme Court. With an open vacancy and the potential for more openings in the next four years, it is vitally important to gun owners that the next President appoints a person to the Court who will defend our innate right to self-defense and the heritage of firearms ownership in the United States.

    Seems to me the ‘right to keep and bear arms’ goes well beyond the interest of those who are presently ‘gun owners’. News about the street homicide committed by 2 jihadists against a single Muslim man in Glasgow who made religious statements they were unwilling to tolerate perfectly illustrates the need for individuals to be armed in situations where they will be otherwise incapable of defending their person against deadly assaults. I’m not sure why the Second Amendment wasn’t the First Amendment.

    • #12
    • March 26, 2016, at 7:55 AM PDT
    • Like
  13. Thatcher

    I have always believed and continue to believe that the right to self-defense should be found to be a Night Amendment right.

    • #13
    • March 27, 2016, at 10:29 AM PDT
    • Like