Second Amendment rights could suffer a major defeat this fall if Hillary Clinton is elected, as demonstrated in a pro-gun control opinion piece she wrote recently for The New York Daily News.
“If the NRA thinks you’re doing a good job, that’s a pretty good indication that something’s very wrong,” Clinton wrote in the March 27 column, which spotlighted gun violence but also outlined her plans to restrict access to guns
Clinton detailed what she called three “common sense steps” she wants to take on gun control if elected.
“First, we need to repeal the law that gives the gun industry sweeping liability protections, so companies that make and sell guns can be held accountable when their products kill people,” she wrote. “When the NRA pushed that misguided law through Congress, they said that preventing lawsuits was their top legislative priority. Now it’s making it harder for families who lost children in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, to sue Bushmaster for marketing its AR-15 assault rifle to civilians. As President, I’ll stand with the families victimized by guns, not the corporations that profit from them.”
Secondly, Clinton said, she wants to “implement comprehensive background checks.”
“President Obama recently issued several executive orders designed to strengthen this federal system,” she wrote. “Surveys have shown that even 85% of gun owners favor these checks. And it’s hard to believe that we still allow people on the no-fly list to purchase firearms. I think it’s pretty simple: If it’s too dangerous for you to be allowed on an airplane, it’s too dangerous for you to own a gun.”
Thirdly, Clinton wrote that she wants to close the “so-called ‘Charleston loophole.’”
“Right now, a person with an arrest record can walk into a gun store to buy a gun, and if their background check isn’t completed within three business days, they can walk out with a firearm. It makes absolutely no sense.”
Author and talk show host Dana Loesch asserted that on each point, Clinton was promoting policies that either would infringe on Second Amendment rights or would not work – or both.
“Gun manufacturers can be sued the same as auto manufacturers, appliance makers, etc., etc., if the product is defective and/or doesn’t operate as advertised,” Loesch wrote, referencing Clinton’s first point. “The only exception in which a gun manufacturer or store front can be sued is if they knowingly sell to a prohibited possessor or criminal. Gun makers don’t make guns for prohibited possessors or criminals and criminal usage of a legal object isn’t the fault of the manufacturer. This does nothing to curb gun violence but it is a boon for trial lawyers.”
“Comprehensive” background checks, Loesch wrote, “didn’t stop the San Bernardino terrorists from enacting their atrocity in California, despite such laws already in existence.”
“They also didn’t prevent the illegal usage of firearms on innocent groups in Oregon, Washington, Colorado or all of the other states which saw such criminal acts despite having ‘comprehensive background checks.’ This is because criminals ignore laws.” Loesch wrote.
Referencing Clinton’s third point, Loesch said there is no such thing as a Charleston loophole.
“Dylann Roof would have and should have failed a background check. FBI Director James Comey issued a public statement admitting the state and FBI ‘flawed’ in not flagging murderer Dylann Roof,” Loesch wrote. “… Clinton’s proposals are nothing but collections of word salad that do nothing to address the real problems (like criminal justice reform) and everything to boost trial lawyers’ salaries.”
Do you fear what Clinton would do to gun rights? Share your thoughts in the section below: