31 replies to this topic

[Econ101]

Since 97.8% of mass shootings occur in them, it is a demonstrable fact that gun-free zones, even with armed security as in the Gilroy, California Garlic Festival attack, are a threat to public safety.

Mass Shootings in Gun-Free Zones | The American Spectator

 

There must be a change before any more lives are sacrificed in the name of a dangerous fantasy. Gun-free zones are a classic example of perverse incentives. Whereas they deter legal gun owners from entering while armed, mass murderers see them as engraved invitations. A simple and easy remedy would be to change gun-free zones to "Concealed Carry Only" or eliminate them altogether. This would be a deterrent for lunatics and terrorists while allowing concealed carry permit holders to provide a  credible threat of armed resistance within the zone.

 

An executive order mandating local officials to impose a $1,000 per day fine for failing to comply with this change could make the problem disappear virtually overnight. As a bonus, any funds collected could be used to compensate the victims of previous gun-free zone induced massacres.

 

As a practical matter, an executive order would almost certainly be blocked by an injunction from a federal judge. But, a reasonable argument can be made that gun-free zones without impenetrable armed security are a violation of the civil rights of the people trapped in them.

 

The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was ruled unconstitutional. But, the amended and reenacted version of 1996 has yet to be challenged in the Supreme Court. Since then, the 2010 McDonald v. Chicago decision supported the right of the plaintiff to conceal a handgun in his home in Chicago. It's time for all gun-free zone policies to be scrutinized in light of that decision.

 

[TomKoz]

Tease

[Bubbacs]

_{Title is click bait, and first post at that....GJ}

[rmart]

What one president can 'give' the next can take away...

I don't like executive orders.

[biggun 1]

im afraid the president has much bigger things on his mind right now.

[steveTA84]

And I thought my thread titles were bad sometimes



That said, would be nice if he could do it/were to do it

[TomKoz]

What one president can 'give' the next can take away...
I don't like executive orders.

UNless Lib judges say he can’t ..... DACA !!

[Bitter Clinger]

Yeah don't worry, some Obama appointed judge will "block" it.

[RandyP]

I usually wait for the post count to be larger than 100 and the join date to be measured in months or years, not days before directly responding to posted topics…. but that's just me. It kinda keeps me from falling down any rabbit holes - lol

[Econ101]

Yeah don't worry, some Obama appointed judge will "block" it.

 

No kidding. That's why I predicted it and what should happen next. The whole point is to get it fast tracked to the Supreme Court. If abortion is a civil right, how can having a concealed handgun in a kill zone not be?

[JTHunter]

What one president can 'give' the next can take away...
I don't like executive orders.

UNless Lib judges say he can’t ..... DACA !!

Yeah don't worry, some Obama appointed judge will "block" it.

 

Bingo !!

[Thomas Paine]

Seems like common sense to me. The way to solve a problem caused by perverse incentives is to reverse the incentives. The question is how to do it - legislatively or judicially. The Democrats have been able to bypass the legislative process to get the policies they want through the Supreme Court. Maybe, the Otis McDonald decision gives Trump the ammunition to do that with this issue.

 

Don't let the naysayers get you down. I don't think they bothered to read your entire post.

[Econ101]

Thomas Paine gets the idea, as did so many people in this forum who signed a petition last year:

Repeal Or Amend The Gun Free School Zones Act In Light Of The Otis McDonald Decision: A Cost / Benefit Analysis | We the People: Your Voice in Our Government

 

My point is that the McDonald v. Chicago decision changed everything and this is no longer just a public policy issue - it's a civil rights issue. If Trump can get the Supreme Court to agree by triggering an injunction with an Executive Order, he can be to self defense rights what Eisenhower was to education rights when he desegregated the schools.

[borgranta]

If they fight this they open the door to SCOTUS eventually ruling that banning rights in governmental facilities as unconstitutional.

[Thomas Paine]

If they fight this they open the door to SCOTUS eventually ruling that banning rights in governmental facilities as unconstitutional.

 

That's a good point. Since Trump is a bold outside-the-box strategic thinker, he might actually see this as the magic bullet if it gets to him.

[Ne1fortennis]

 

Thomas Paine gets the idea, as did so many people in this forum who signed a petition last year:

Repeal Or Amend The Gun Free School Zones Act In Light Of The Otis McDonald Decision: A Cost / Benefit Analysis | We the People: Your Voice in Our Government

 

My point is that the McDonald v. Chicago decision changed everything and this is no longer just a public policy issue - it's a civil rights issue. If Trump can get the Supreme Court to agree by triggering an injunction with an Executive Order, he can be to self defense rights what Eisenhower was to education rights when he desegregated the schools.

 

 

You're right. It is a civil rights issue and even more importantly, it's a national security issue. Think of the 49 people murdered by a Muslim terrorist in an Orlando nightclub. Even if you concede that it might be dangerous to have inebriated customers with guns, what's the rationale for depriving all the employees of their right to defend themselves? If the terrorist thought there was a credible threat of armed resistance from them, all those people might still be alive.

[JTHunter]

Thomas Paine gets the idea, as did so many people in this forum who signed a petition last year:

Repeal Or Amend The Gun Free School Zones Act In Light Of The Otis McDonald Decision: A Cost / Benefit Analysis | We the People: Your Voice in Our Government

 

My point is that the McDonald v. Chicago decision changed everything and this is no longer just a public policy issue - it's a civil rights issue. If Trump can get the Supreme Court to agree by triggering an injunction with an Executive Order, he can be to self defense rights what Eisenhower was to education rights when he desegregated the schools.

You're right. It is a civil rights issue and even more importantly, it's a national security issue.  Think of the 49 people murdered by a Muslim terrorist in an Orlando nightclub. Even if you concede that it might be dangerous to have inebriated customers with guns, what's the rationale for depriving all the employees of their right to defend themselves?  If the terrorist thought there was a credible threat of armed resistance from them, all those people might still be alive.

 

Agreed !

[Thomas Paine]

 

 

Thomas Paine gets the idea, as did so many people in this forum who signed a petition last year:

Repeal Or Amend The Gun Free School Zones Act In Light Of The Otis McDonald Decision: A Cost / Benefit Analysis | We the People: Your Voice in Our Government

 

My point is that the McDonald v. Chicago decision changed everything and this is no longer just a public policy issue - it's a civil rights issue. If Trump can get the Supreme Court to agree by triggering an injunction with an Executive Order, he can be to self defense rights what Eisenhower was to education rights when he desegregated the schools.

 

 

You're right. It is a civil rights issue and even more importantly, it's a national security issue. Think of the 49 people murdered by a Muslim terrorist in an Orlando nightclub. Even if you concede that it might be dangerous to have inebriated customers with guns, what's the rationale for depriving all the employees of their right to defend themselves? If the terrorist thought there was a credible threat of armed resistance from them, all those people might still be alive.

 

With ISIS having lost their caliphate and out for revenge, and with kill zones (euphemistically called gun-free zones) all around the country, you could even argue that it's a national security emergency. Logically, a simple 3 step process would drastically reduce the incidence and severity of any future mass shootings.

 

1) President Trump signs an Executive Order.

2) A federal judge blocks it with an injunction.

3) The Supreme Court, on an expedited national security basis, upholds it.

 

Would this strategy actually work? Is there a Constitutional Lawyer in the house?

[Quiet Observer]

As pointed out above by mmart in post #4 one president's executive order can be reversed by a later president.  

Apparently some here believe that President Trump is a close personal friend who will follow their suggestions.  

Then, of course, the justices on the Supreme Court come here for advice.  

 

If it were so simple the various national and state pro-2A organizations would have approached the President long ago with the same idea, and he would have done it.

[Econ101]

As pointed out above by mmart in post #4 one president's executive order can be reversed by a later president.  

Apparently some here believe that President Trump is a close personal friend who will follow their suggestions.  

Then, of course, the justices on the Supreme Court come here for advice.  

 

If it were so simple the various national and state pro-2A organizations would have approached the President long ago with the same idea, and he would have done it.

 

Your objection to the civil and criminal liability idea, on the basis of the concept of legislative immunity, led to this strategy. It bypasses that hurdle and challenges the Gun Free School Zones Act. I believe that the rationale for all "gun-free zones" should come under scrutiny in light of McDonald v. Chicago and the emergence of crazy kids on drugs and Islamic terrorism since the GFSZA was amended and reenacted after being ruled unconstitutional.

 

I don't expect anybody here is a close personal friend of President Trump, but I would expect that somebody knows a Congressman, a Senator, a Governor or an NRA official who can bring this to his attention. If it wasn't a national security emergency before Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was killed, it looks like one now. I'm not a Constitutional Lawyer, but it seems like common sense that the foundation of the Gun-Free School Zones Act can't hold up anymore. All I know is this: if there's another mass shooting before President Trump is made aware of and considers this strategy, there won't be any blood on my hands.

[Quiet Observer]

As a candidate and as President, Mr. Trump has spoken out against gun-free zones.  He has issued several executive orders in other areas.  

The NRA has condemned GFZs.  

https://www.newsmax.com/headline/us-gop-2016-trump-guns/2016/01/07/id/708639/ 

https://theintercept.com/2018/02/22/trump-blames-gun-free-zones-school-shootings-echoing-myth-spread-n-r/ 

 

You are not introducing an idea that the President is not aware of.  If it were that simple, he would have signed the executive order in his first 30 days. 

I seriously doubt that we can get Governor Pritzker or Senators Durbin or Duckworth to advise him to do so.

[Thomas Paine]

As a candidate and as President, Mr. Trump has spoken out against gun-free zones.  He has issued several executive orders in other areas.  

The NRA has condemned GFZs.  

https://www.newsmax.com/headline/us-gop-2016-trump-guns/2016/01/07/id/708639/ 

https://theintercept.com/2018/02/22/trump-blames-gun-free-zones-school-shootings-echoing-myth-spread-n-r/ 

 

You are not introducing an idea that the President is not aware of.  If it were that simple, he would have signed the executive order in his first 30 days. 

I seriously doubt that we can get Governor Pritzker or Senators Durbin or Duckworth to advise him to do so.

 

I guess you assume that only Illinois residents in Democrat districts read these posts. There are 435 representatives, 100 senators and 50 governors. Also, it wasn't a national security emergency in his first 30 days and it would have been a huge political risk.

 

Now, he can use it to his advantage with a national address explaining the common sense reasons for the order. When the Gun Free School Zones Act was passed, nobody could have anticipated the disastrous consequences of its perverse incentives and copycat kill zones. But, we've seen them for decades now and it's time for a solution that would save lives without taking away any of our rights.

[Quiet Observer]

 

 

I guess you assume that only Illinois residents in Democrat districts read these posts. There are 435 representatives, 100 senators and 50 governors. Also, it wasn't a national security emergency in his first 30 days and it would have been a huge political risk.

 

Now, he can use it to his advantage with a national address explaining the common sense reasons for the order. When the Gun Free School Zones Act was passed, nobody could have anticipated the disastrous consequences of its perverse incentives and copycat kill zones. But, we've seen them for decades now and it's time for a solution that would save lives without taking away any of our rights. 

 

Instead of just sharing your ideas here, have you called or written to the President, your governor, your U.S. senators, or U.S. representative?  Call the NRA, GOA,  etc.  

As I pointed out above, the President, his advisors, the various pro-2A organizations and their lawyers are well aware of executive orders. They would have pushed and/or tried it, if it were feasible.  This idea is not new.

 

An executive order does not require a national emergency.  In 2018 President Trump signed legislation to increase funding for school safety,  If it were practical he could have issued an executive order before then or since then. 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-gun-free-zones-guns-allowed-properties/story?id=39266544 

https://thepolitical...hool-shootings/ 

[Liberty4IL]

As pointed out above by mmart in post #4 one president's executive order can be reversed by a later president.

The "Do Nothing" (except impeach) Democrats have made it clear they will not work with the President (since January 2017). So time to go on the offensive. Pass an EO every week from now until November of 2020. Let the people see the benefits, get reelected on those mandates, take back the House, and get them passed into law.

If GFZs were eliminated and National Reciprocity were signed as an EO tomorrow, after a year of no blood in the streets, on what basis would a new President reverse it? Everyone on this forum knows that their arguments against it would be proven as lies and fear mongering because that's all that they have. It's that way with every single issue.

Trump was elected because Washington is incapable of getting anything done. So go it alone and let the people decide in 2020 what is better for the country.

[Thomas Paine]

 

 

 

I guess you assume that only Illinois residents in Democrat districts read these posts. There are 435 representatives, 100 senators and 50 governors. Also, it wasn't a national security emergency in his first 30 days and it would have been a huge political risk.

 

Now, he can use it to his advantage with a national address explaining the common sense reasons for the order. When the Gun Free School Zones Act was passed, nobody could have anticipated the disastrous consequences of its perverse incentives and copycat kill zones. But, we've seen them for decades now and it's time for a solution that would save lives without taking away any of our rights. 

 

Instead of just sharing your ideas here, have you called or written to the President, your governor, your U.S. senators, or U.S. representative?  Call the NRA, GOA,  etc.  

As I pointed out above, the President, his advisors, the various pro-2A organizations and their lawyers are well aware of executive orders. They would have pushed and/or tried it, if it were feasible.  This idea is not new.

 

An executive order does not require a national emergency.  In 2018 President Trump signed legislation to increase funding for school safety,  If it were practical he could have issued an executive order before then or since then. 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-gun-free-zones-guns-allowed-properties/story?id=39266544 

https://thepolitical...hool-shootings/

 

One of your links deals only with schools and the other has been scrubbed. A comprehensive ban on gun-free zones could have saved 49 lives in Orlando and the legislative route, even if possible without some serious concessions, would take too long to prevent another massacre. Timing is everything and we have stirred up a hornets' nest by killing ISIS leaders. Tell the organizers of the New York City marathon this isn't a national security emergency.

 

Rahm Emanuel said "You never let a serious crisis go to waste." If there were only a couple of degrees of separation between the President and me, you'd better believe I'd be working those connections. I don't have that luxury, but I'm willing to bet somebody here does. If you have a better idea than wasting time trying to get the attention of people I don't know, please share it. The clock is ticking and lives depend on it.

[Quiet Observer]

I do not think that anyone here has spoken against the reversal of most gun-free zone laws.  The questions are "can it be done via presidential executive order and how long would it be in effect".  

 

I am still waiting to see a post by someone who has called and/or written to President Trump or other  officials. 

[borgranta]

The federal carry ban has an exemption here

 (3)

the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

 

 

The executive order could clarify that arrests and prosecutions for lawful concealed and open carriers for mere possession violates the letter of the law.

[borgranta]

 

The federal carry ban has an exemption here

 (3)

the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

 

 

The executive order could clarify that arrests and prosecutions for lawful concealed and open carriers for mere possession violates the letter of the law.

 

 

If the anti-gun challenge it in court SCOTUS would likely be forced to side with Trump due to the letter of the law and as a result we would have a court ruling using the law itself to expand 2nd amendment rights.

Edited by borgranta, 31 October 2019 - 09:33 AM.

[Bitter Clinger]

 

As pointed out above by mmart in post #4 one president's executive order can be reversed by a later president.

The "Do Nothing" (except impeach) Democrats have made it clear they will not work with the President (since January 2017). So time to go on the offensive. Pass an EO every week from now until November of 2020. Let the people see the benefits, get reelected on those mandates, take back the House, and get them passed into law.

If GFZs were eliminated and National Reciprocity were signed as an EO tomorrow, after a year of no blood in the streets, on what basis would a new President reverse it? Everyone on this forum knows that their arguments against it would be proven as lies and fear mongering because that's all that they have. It's that way with every single issue.

Trump was elected because Washington is incapable of getting anything done. So go it alone and let the people decide in 2020 what is better for the country.

 

 

An EO of this nature would be blocked by an Obama appointed judge before the ink was even dry.

I think the attempt would be futile.

[Thomas Paine]

 

 

As pointed out above by mmart in post #4 one president's executive order can be reversed by a later president.

The "Do Nothing" (except impeach) Democrats have made it clear they will not work with the President (since January 2017). So time to go on the offensive. Pass an EO every week from now until November of 2020. Let the people see the benefits, get reelected on those mandates, take back the House, and get them passed into law.

If GFZs were eliminated and National Reciprocity were signed as an EO tomorrow, after a year of no blood in the streets, on what basis would a new President reverse it? Everyone on this forum knows that their arguments against it would be proven as lies and fear mongering because that's all that they have. It's that way with every single issue.

Trump was elected because Washington is incapable of getting anything done. So go it alone and let the people decide in 2020 what is better for the country.

 

 

An EO of this nature would be blocked by an Obama appointed judge before the ink was even dry.

I think the attempt would be futile.

 

You obviously haven't been paying attention to what's been written here. It's a 3 STEP STRATEGY! The Obama judge would be a useful idiot executing the second step.