Civil Rights Advocates at FPC Rebuke Trump’s Gun Control, Confiscation Plans

President Trump speaking at the 2017 NRA Annual Meetings & Exhibits Photo from CNN Money
President Trump speaking at the 2017 NRA Annual Meetings & Exhibits Photo from CNN Money

SACRAMENTO, CA-(Ammoland.com)- Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) had sharp words for President Donald Trump today, responding to the president’s increasing efforts to pass new gun control laws.

Trump expressed a strong preference for the confiscation of firearms without due process, and a willingness to set aside priority legislation to protect law-abiding American gun owners, like carry reciprocity. “Or, Mike, take the firearms first, and then go to court,” President Trump said in response to statements by Vice President Mike Pence. “It takes so long to go to court to get the due process procedures, I like taking the guns early. Take the guns first, go through due process second.”

But civil rights advocates said that such a confiscation scheme would be unconstitutional. “The Constitution was expressly designed to prevent the government from acting in a way that puts its interests first and the fundamental rights of people second,” said FPC Legislative Advocate and Spokesperson Craig DeLuz. “The government doesn’t get to go around taking away peoples’ rights and property, and then going to court to present its case if it feels like it.”

FPC has consistently opposed “no fly, no buy” legislation that would prohibit people from accessing and exercising their constitutional rights based on secret government watch lists.

“We wonder if President Trump would like a policy of ‘impeachment first, due process second’,” remarked FPC Legislative Advocate Philip Watson. “Constitutional rules and safeguards are there for a reason—even, and especially, when they are inconvenient to the government and its policy preferences.”

“The dangerous anti-gun, anti-due process garbage coming out of D.C. is why we fight for individual liberty and constitutional principles rather than parties or candidates,” said FPC Grassroots Director Richard Thomson. “President Trump and Congress need to stop talking about passing more burdensome gun control laws and start working to pass common-sense legislation to protect and advance the right to keep and bear arms.”

“The fundamental, individual human right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is not up for debate,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “We reject the idea that law-abiding gun owners must suffer for the depraved acts of evil and insane people that a massive federal government and Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel failed to stop in the first place.

“The bottom line is that no amount of gun control can overcome a persistently and unacceptably incompetent government that fails to do its job. As Supreme Court Justice Alito recently warned, the government is clearly ‘more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe,’” Combs concluded.

In a recent statement, FPC said that if Republicans enact gun control, “they will have shown the voters that neither major political party cares about their rights or the Constitution—and that the only real, civil option left is a new constitutional amendment.”

Trump is also pushing for FPC-opposed legislation that would raise the federal gun buying age to 21.


About the Firearms Policy CoalitionFirearms Policy Coalition

Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

  • 14 thoughts on “Civil Rights Advocates at FPC Rebuke Trump’s Gun Control, Confiscation Plans

    1. Is it possible he is just patronizing these ‘gun wranglers’ and has no intention of doing anything that offends the Second and its advocates?
      I would like to believe he hasn’t ‘caved’ to their rhetoric. He is a negotiating businessman, and I see this as more of a way of keeping ‘them’ happy while he is doing little if anything, in the meantime that would disgrace the Second.
      I agree. If he wants to run again and have a chance of winning, he had best be placating the’enemy’.

    2. I agree with Hoss and Briley.

      President Trump will alienate his base.
      Who would be the person to vote for ?
      I am disillusioned with the President , he was all Pro Gun , then like the Democrats he is putting the 2nd amendment in a bad position. I am wondering why does Schumer and Pelosi have so much influence on him .
      If the President loses and does not win another term , he need not ask why . if he just look at the things he said he wouldn`t do and then listens to the left wingers and tries to appease them.
      It is a shame but the Negotiator keeps losing and keeps trying to convince his base and others that everything is better . At what cost to the people that supported him and trusted in him ?
      Washington is truly a swamp that he was going clean up.
      I had high hopes for Trump , now I do not know , for I see something is not right.
      I won`t vote for the Progressive left wing Democrats . I guess though they will get a vote , when I choose not to vote.
      I love this country but we have no choice in candidates , Guess I could always write someone in that has proved themselves. Too bad Carlos Hathcock died , now that was a man that did his job and was a true patriot and hero and a true legend in his time.

    3. More gun laws? Why, the government doesn’t enforce the laws on the books now. They need to look at what they already have, and enforce those applicable to a particular situation. I know it sounds simple, but when you stop and look at the hundreds of laws on the books now, it is simple. We need no more laws that will only be enforced for a short time, then forgotten to gather more dust.

    4. Here’s a thought, exactly HOW would someone know to take away a person’s guns if there were no articulable facts in evidence? If those facts – NOT ‘suspicions’ or someone’s ‘feelings’ – are present, has not de facto probably cause – and due process – been established? IOW, there is a definitive ‘clear and present danger’. Something for us all to consider.

      1. @Gomez, As to your first question, the someone would have to be government through their agents. Government, much like our current governments at every level, would simply ignore the peoples’ Constitutional Civil Rights. As to your other questions and assertions, I am not sure if I understand them. Perhaps you could refine them.

    5. I generally like Trump but this is a good example of his lack of policy on an issue. He seems to be going with appeasement – leaning with the wind. That is not a good policy.

    6. I generally like Trump, but this is a prime example of his lack of policy on an issue. Leaning with the wind – he seems to think that appeasement will work, but we know how that’ll end up.

    7. Do we not recall the recent PRO-gun moves he made which now defy these new statements? Didn’t he sign an Ex-Order that fully and clearly outlined the absolute Right and need for the “Militia”, (not the organized Nat-Guard) to own and have the AR15 as the primary militia rifle? Also outlining the physical attributes of many other such rifles to fall under that Ex-Orders guidelines?? I know I read it. So, it would appear something larger is happening here with DT. My guess is he is playing a game with the Demon-crats so they are fucked in Nov.

    8. Please call the President immediately at 202-456-1111 or 202-456-1414 and tell him you do not support gun control laws.
      This is your chance to actually do something.
      Be polite and courteous, dont scream these are your rights.

    9. The press reported this comment By president Trump.
      …””I think they should have taken them away, whether they had the right or not,” Trump said. He added later, in case there was any doubt: “Take the guns first, go through due process second.”…
      Here’s an interesting fact relating what the argument is on rights verse legal action in Australia, Australian police are known internally to remove the weapons of police officers during psychological stress episodes temporarily until the matter is resolved by counseling.
      Note the “temporary” nature of the point requiring “grant” by internal matter and “resolve”.
      By comparison it may be that the shooter in Parkland FL could have been treated such a way because the law does not seem at this time in the USA to have such a “vehicle of law that is intermediary” to “Mental illness” or “rights without question” as his case as a teenager in the reactive stags of growing up at best, also had other issues that unfortunately were as real as giving what his actions were that day as a real chance of occurring (turmoil of no family loss of mother and nowhere to live in terms of belonging with people).
      The FBI understood he was a bomb waiting to happen, but US law does not have an intermediary between mental illness and right to bear arms in the context of understanding “Logical mental disorder of a temporary nature”.
      Had such laws been in use in the USA then, he may never have committed the shootings and as you can imagine at some time he would be standing around with his AR-15 again.

      1. The problem with this is that it assumes one can be resolved (cured if you will), thus is applicable only in the police officer return to duty use for which it is intended. Schizophrenia medication treatment is often 100% effective, if the patient takes their meds. But too many feel they are “better” and then stop their meds and relapse. Then there is the fact that psychiatric evaluation is still not effective at determining who is and is not a danger to self or others unless the person is threatening. !ich talk has been had over SSRI antidepressants, yet the millions of people taking them with no adverse affects belies the “everyone will be suicidal/homicidal because of them” trope brought out by both sides. They are called side effects for a reason, in that not everyone will experience them and it is up to the patient to inform their doctor of these things.

        There is not an applicable version of mental illness either. The nanny state has let these people walk free and refuses to institutionalize them. There are no hard figures, but I’d venture that for every 1 locked up due to mental illness, 90 are released after 72 hour hold. We no longer have the facilities to remove these harmful people from our streets. Not to mention that we have no hard definitions for which to incarcerate for “mental illness” or even bar from firearm purchase besides adjudicated or involuntarily committed to am institution. These weak terms leave a vast amount of people out there available to purchase firearms or sweeps up innocents under the broom of adjudication for nothing !ore than desiring someone else hands their finances.

        We need these definitions and diagnosis locked down, codified, written in stone so they can not be changed on political whim, and then implemented. If a person is too dangerous to self or others that they can not own a firearm then I dare say they should not be on the streets.

    10. If President Trump continues to saide with the treasonous globalest that are hell bent on destroying this country, he will be a 1 term President!

      1. I believe he is, as of yesterday, a one term president. Most people will take his actions on gun control and seizure to be traitorous, I know I certainly do, and find a new person to support. Hopefully that new person will be an original constitutionalist.

    Leave a Comment 14 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *