There are a number of laws that the NRA and gun enthusiasts would like to see change under the Trump administration.That's fair, and we are happy to discuss the issues. But National Public Radio is a Liberal organization, and as such they have some concerns ... which may not be publicly acknowledged in every article they write or air.
I have my own issues. Here are what NPR identifies, and what MY issues are:
ISSUE NUMBER 1!:1. National reciprocity for concealed-carry permits
This is the biggest-ticket item for the NRA and it's the most likely to happen. Trump, a concealed-carry-permit holder, has said that concealed carry "is a right, not a privilege," and that a permit should be valid in all 50 states, similar to a driver's license.Simple: If your state considers you sufficiently responsible to carry a concealed handgun in YOUR state all other states should recognize your right to carry.
* Just now, that's difficult because each state has its own criteria. For example, Oregon only requires you to pass background checks and pass a raining course; but the neighboring state Washington has slightly more stringent requirements, so Washington may not recognize an Oregon CHL even though Oregon recognizes (and respects) a Washington CHL.*not a quote
Or word to that effect .. the details are a little more complicated, but that's a fair representation of the issues.
(TERMINOLOGY NOTE "CHL" = Concealed handgun Licence for the purpose of this discussion.)
The reference to "driver's license" rights is dismissive of the 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights, but gun owners are willing to put this issue aside for the moment.
It gets complicated when CHL applicants complain that the 2nd amendment recognizes this right without the need to 'take a test', which many states require (as well as 'special training'), It's a legitimate issue, but most folks are willing to allow this "misinterpretation" to be accepted as an administrative glitch; for now.
(And Anti-Gun protesters claim that gun owners are not willing to compromise!)
ISSUE NUMBER 2!:
2: An end to gun-free military zones.We've seen several instances where serving military have been assaulted by illegally armed individuals in a military base. The soldiers were not allowed to carry a weapon, although they were, arguably, the most qualified individuals in the nation to carry a weapon.
This administrative change would recognize the competence and good judgement of serving military personnel (because packing a gun is their job!_, acknowledge that they are in a "at risk" environment, and provide them the ability to defend themselves in what is, after all, 'their home' (the base where they are assigned, and required to either live or at least be present during the normal performance of their duties.)
You trust police with guns, and they get lest initial training, and less annual "hands on" training than most Military personnel. Y'all might want to step back and ... thank about thiat.
At a rally in January, Trump said, "My first day, there's no more gun-free zones." He was talking about schools and military bases. He later clarified his position on schools, saying that school resource officers or teachers should be allowed to carry them. He has not publicly changed his opinion on military bases.Currently, most gun owners on military bases must register their firearm and store it in an armory while on base. The only people who can carry guns while on a military base are on-duty military, state or local police.
Nobody is entirely happy with the federal government's current background check process or its database, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Gun control groups argue that there are too many loopholes in it, and many gun rights groups concur — a rare show of agreement — though not in the details.