Yesterday, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) held a webinar to offer their insight as to what the firearms and ammunition might expect when the Trump administration takes over the White House.

Those observations were tempered with an opening reminder to participants: controlling the White House and Congress doesn't guarantee instantaneous change. Our founders intentionally created processes that prevent any party's effectively staging a takeover of the country simply because it holds majorities in Congress and the White House.

What the Trump victory does do is give the firearms and ammunition industry an opportunity to catch their collective breaths from the near constant conflicts with the outgoing administration.

It also presents an opportunity to move favorable legislation through Congress to a president far more likely to support it.

That's a considerable political improvement.

If you're scratching your head wondering why majorities in the House and Senate don't guarantee passage of virtually everything, here's a quick answer. Republican majorities exist, but they are, in fact, lessened by Democratic victories in both houses.

And there's a simple political reality the NSSF's Patrick Rothwell emphasized: "60 votes in the Senate," Rothwell said, "means you have to get 8 Democratic senators to cross the aisle and have 100% support from the Republicans. That's not always likely."

Meaning?

Nothing's guaranteed, but that doesn't mean some things are certainly less likely.

It's far-less likely, for example, that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act will face any threat from Congress. It's also likely that export control reform will be extended to the firearms and ammunition industries- omitted in the latest reforms- and that there will be a revision of the "sporting purposes" test for "armor piercing ammunition" and possible reductions in the restrictions of traditional (lead) ammunition when hunting on federal land.

It's also far less likely the industry will face additional executive orders like those from the Obama Administration. In fact, it's likely a majority of Mr. Obama's orders will be repealed fairly quickly after Mr. Trump's taking the oath of office.


Most importantly, there's not much likelihood a liberal judge will be nominated - or appointed - to fill the vacancy on the United States Supreme Court created by the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia last year.

With President-elect Trump promising a nominee who views the Constitution as a complete work, not an "evolving" document, it's a fair bet to say that neither the Heller Decision (written by Scalia) nor the Chicago decision, both of which further rolled back restrictions on Second Amendment rights, will be in danger of reinterpretation. In fact, a conservative majority might lead to the Supreme Court actually taking action against District and Chicago officials who have openly dragged their feet on

The Trump administration's list of potential nominees certainly appear conservative: Thomas Hardiman from the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, Allison Eid a State Supreme Court Justice from Colorado, David Stras of the Minnesota State Supreme Court, William Pryor from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, Joan Larsen, State Supreme Court Justice, Michigan, and Steve Collation of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The existing and other potential vacancies likely on the Supreme Court over the next four years are likely the single thing most feared by the still-vociferous anti-Trump movement.

SCOTUS appointments are for life- and the Supreme Court, ultimately, sets the course of the country when it comes to interpreting the law. And even after the Scalia vacancy is filled, you'd do well to hang on to those other five names.

As Rothwell points out, "Justice Ginsberg at age 83 is likely to retire during a Trump administration and both Justices Kennedy and Breyer will be in their 80s."

Another item that's on the industry wish list is the long-overdue removal of suppressors from the NFA list. Their removal is one of the highest priorities for the industry in 2017- and should the legislation make it through Congressional committee process (never a certainty)- passage is possible, and a presidential veto highly unlikely.

There is, according to Rothwell, one sticky item in that proposed removal: the $200 tax stamp currently required for each suppressor. That question remains to be resolved before the change could actually be proposed as actionable legislation.

Two other items on the NSSF's priority list are national reciprocity and ATF funding.

National reciprocity is one issue that is so involved that it's unrealistic to expect quick action.

ATF funding, however, could be. Today, both dealers and consumers face delays in processing because ATF funding increases were directed to hiring more enforcement agents, not addressing significant shortages of clerical and administrative staffing.

Later today, I'll be joining a second session to look at other changes likely in Washington -and how they'll impact the industry business-wise. It will certainly be interesting to see just what the NSSF expects- and I've been talking with industry leaders to get their best-guesstimates as well.

As always, we'll keep you posted.

—Jim Shepherd