Reagan on Legislation
Ronald Reagan laid out a basic part of his successful legislative philosophy; that he didn’t need a complete victory as long as it moved towards his ultimate goal. Reagan was willing to take a partial victory, if it was a step in the right direction, and then he would come back for more. Unfortunately, Republicans did not pick-up this philosophy, but Democrats did adopt it. Over the last 40 years, Democrats - on all issues and especially on gun control - were willing to take a step in the left direction and then come back for more. It has worked for them.
Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill” (BBB) amended the National Firearms Act (NFA) and eliminated the tax stamp for certain firearms, suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and the NFA’s “any other weapons” category, but still kept the paperwork and registration requirements.
A lawsuit challenges the NFA, as it is amended, as now being unconstitutional because it was a tax law and now there is no tax. The Trump DOJ has filed an ‘Amicus Brief’ to protect what is left of the NFA.
One ‘no-compromise’ 2A organization calls the DOJ’s Amicus Brief the “ultimate betrayal” of the 2nd Amendment. Their idea of ‘no-compromise’ flies directly in-the-face of Reagan’s philosophy.
This past weekend, on Tom Gresham’s Gun Talk radio show, Gresham was asked his opinion on what 2A organizations he would suggest donating to (in Colorado, I believe.) He didn’t name any he opposed but without mentioning Reagan’s philosophy he drove home the point that no-compromise would not work in an American legislative system based on compromise. Gresham wants to take a win and then come back for more.
What was Pam Bondi’s DOJ thinking when it filed the Amicus Brief? Perhaps, the idea of the entire NFA being declared unconstitutional and automatic weapons (machine guns to the Left) being sold over-the-counter was a bit too much. The Left and its media propogandists would have a field day if ‘machine guns’ were completely legal.
The field is still wide open for new efforts to remove other items, like suppressors, off of the NFA’s list. After all, over 40 states have made suppressors legal, subject to the NFA’s provisions. (Guess which state is not one of them?)
The Trump administration has been declared by some as the most pro-2A administration in history. They certainly have had some early successes. Trump is a deal maker and that requires some long-term, strategic goals. It’s quite likely that the ‘Amicus Brief is just a short-term tactical move in the grand political scheme. We don’t know, at this point, and only time will tell.
Few would disagree that the Republican Party has disappointed 2A defenders, over the years, and it is appropriate to call them to task for it and let the politicians know we are watching. But, like Trump, we 2A defenders need to pick our fights and it seems much too early to start condemning our friends over one issue. We have too much in common to let one step divide us.
Is that Amicus Brief a bad thing? It’s your opinion that counts and it should be based on the complete picture.
The idea of a strategic goal also reinforces the need for gun owners to get out and vote. A long-term strategy requires a political majority for the party that supports 2A.
