Guns

Hillary's Gun Proposals Assault the Constitution

Clinton wants to make gun manufacturers financially liable for misuse of their products and require background checks for all gun transfers.

|

AK Rockefeller/Flickr

While the FBI continued to analyze the emails Hillary Clinton thought she deleted and her advisers pressed her to hire a Republican criminal defense attorney in Washington, a madman used a lawfully purchased handgun to kill a professor and eight students at a community college in Roseburg, Oregon. Looking to change the subject away from her emails, Clinton was quick to pounce.

She who has ripped into Republicans for seeking political gain from the four American deaths in Benghazi, Libya, now seeks her own political gain from the dozens of murdered children and young adults in Newtown, Connecticut, and Roseburg. On the heels of the latter and referring to both tragedies, she launched an emotional attack early this week on the two most recent Supreme Court decisions upholding the personal right to keep and bear arms. She offered to "fix" them should she be elected president.

Her so-called fix consists of a dead-on-arrival legislative proposal making gun manufacturers financially liable for the misuse of their products and an executive order determining the meaning of certain words used in federal statutes. The liability-shifting proposal is akin to punishing General Motors whenever a drunken driver misuses his Chevy and injures someone. The courts would surely reject that. The executive order proposal assaults the Constitution. Those in the gun sale business must conduct background checks via computer services offered by the FBI. The background checks look for reports of crimes of violence, domestic violence, and mental illness. Private people who occasionally sell their hardware or give guns as gifts are exempt from conducting background checks. Clinton would create a presidentially written and mandated definition of occasional sales and gifts so as to require background checks for all gun transfers—a requirement Congress rejected.

We are 13 months from Election Day 2016, and Clinton has already promised that she would rule by pen and phone rather than govern by consensus.

As a lawyer, Clinton should know that only the federal courts—not the president—can decide what statutory language means. Moreover, if she knew anything about FBI background checks, she would know that they are only as good as the database on which they rely. If a madman hides his mental illness, no database will reveal it.

Her attacks on the Supreme Court decisions were direct. She rejects their characterization of the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right—meaning that it is akin to thought, speech, press, association, worship, travel, etc.

Yet if she were to become president, she would take an oath to uphold the Constitution; that means the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. The presidential oath of office would require that she execute her duties "faithfully"—whether she agrees with the law or constitutional provision or not. She apparently has no intention of fulfilling the presidential oath of office.

We are 13 months from Election Day 2016, and Clinton has already promised that she would not enforce Supreme Court decisions with which she disagrees.

What did both the Newtown and the Roseburg tragedies have in common? Both murderers were madmen. Yet neither had a record of mental illness, so the background checks the anti-self-defense lobby loves would not have prevented either of these killers from buying a gun and using it to murder indiscriminately. If killers are prepared to murder innocent children, does Clinton really think they would obey the laws regulating gun ownership?

Both mass murders occurred in no-gun zones. A no-gun zone is the most dangerous place on the planet when a madman intent on killing enters. No-gun zones are arbitrarily designated on public property by local authorities, stripping law-abiding folks of their lawfully owned guns—their natural right to self-defense—and exposing them to terror and death.

The Constitution does not permit public no-gun zones any more than it does public no-free-speech zones. If the right to keep and bear arms is truly fundamental, the government cannot interfere with it based on geography. If the Army veteran/college student who stopped seven bullets with his body last week and saved the lives of his classmates (and survived!) had been permitted to carry a gun into the school building, the madman who murdered nine innocents would have been stopped long before police arrived —long before he completed his killings.

The right to keep and bear arms has more than just the Second Amendment to protect it. By characterizing the right as fundamental and pre-political, the high court accepted the truism that this right is merely a modern extension of the ancient right to self-defense. And the right to defend oneself does not come from the government; it comes from our humanity. It is a natural right.

Who among us, when confronted with the terror of nearly certain annihilation, would concern himself with the niceties of the law? Life itself is at stake. The right to self-defense is a manifestation of the natural instinct for survival, borne in the hearts of all rational people. But Hillary Clinton rejects that instinct because she prefers we become dependent upon the government—as long as she is running it.

The police cannot stop mass killings, because they cannot be everywhere all the time. And madmen willing to kill do not fear being lawbreakers.

Guns in the hands of the people give not only tyrants second thoughts but also madmen. Even madmen fear an early death.

COPYRIGHT 2015 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO || DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

NEXT: People Magazine Wants You to Bug Your Representatives for More Gun Laws; What do the People Think?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. President Hillary likely won’t do anything on gun control once in office because there’s no profit in it.

    1. ^This.

      How many millions did she get from the sale of the office of SOS?

      Imagine what the oval office is worth. She will be too busy raking in the bucks to actually execute the office.

      I wonder how much the Chinese and Ruskies are donating to her campaign.

    2. She’d try gun confiscation, for self-defense. It won’t work, and may precipitate that which she fears, but she’ll try.

      After all, she remembers landing under sniper fire.

  2. “Yet if she were to become president, she would take an oath to uphold the Constitution; that means the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. The presidential oath of office would require that she execute her duties “faithfully”?whether she agrees with the law or constitutional provision or not. She apparently has no intention of fulfilling the presidential oath of office.”

    Nah, she will just phone it in like she did as SOS. She is just there to get her snout in the trough. She has no intention of doing any of the things she says.

    “The Constitution does not permit public no-gun zones any more than it does public no-free-speech zones. If the right to keep and bear arms is truly fundamental, the government cannot interfere with it based on geography. ”

    I wonder if this could be the basis for a suit on behalf of anyone killed in a gun-free zone?

    1. Oh, I agree that any relationship between what she SAYS and what she actually intends is purely coincidental. But I’m sure Shrillary has lots and LOTS of plans for when she’s in the White House, above (or below) and beyond just raking in the bribes. In fact, I suspect that the people bribing her will quickly discover that she doesn’t stay bought, which might get interesting.

      Now, I don’t really believe that her plans are going to be a coherent policy; Shrillary doesn’t DO coherent.

  3. “What did both the Newtown and the Roseburg tragedies have in common? Both murderers were madmen. Yet neither had a record of mental illness, so the background checks the anti-self-defense lobby loves would not have prevented either of these killers from buying a gun and using it to murder indiscriminately. If killers are prepared to murder innocent children, does Clinton really think they would obey the laws regulating gun ownership?”

    Just to correct- Newtown, the shooter himself did have a history of mental issues. I seem to remember him attempting to purchase a gun and being turned away However, the guns were purchased by his mother, who did not have such issues.

    1. Both had a well documented history of mental illnesses and all of the mass shootings in the media in the past 3 years all have 1 thing in common; EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM was taking Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitors, extremely dangerous psychoactive concoctions that cause violent outbursts and hallucinations. the most recent one was on a combination of SSRIs and Lithium – I was on these when i was younger and during those years i was a militant neo-nazi and a member of American Front in Jacksonville FL, i stopped taking them tried to kill myself with my AK because i thought that “govt agents” (neighbors and co-workers) were conspiring to round everyone up for death camps and i didn’t want to be taken alive but the round misfired (fortunately) and I got help from a psychologist who actively tries to help people rather than doping them into oblivion (like the Navy “docs”) and okaying them stand ARMED watch on a military installation while on known dangerous psychotropic prescriptions because they needed more watch standers.

    2. Both were hoaxes, as have all been in recent years. Very poorly acted; anybody watch Robbie Parker laughing it up as he was coming to the microphone and then deep breathing several times and getting into his part? Sickening and an utter slap in the face of anyone who knows these false flags for what they are…… All the “bereaved” parents behave like NO human being who has just lost someone precious to them. None of them cry. I’ve been bereaved on several occasions. Any thought of who I lost would send me into uncontrollable tears for weeks–there was no way I could talk about those things. Those people are fake, fake, fake and they are lying to the unconscious American public who believe the lies and propaganda on the god box. We KNOW the media lies to us. Why, then, do we continue to believe these fake killings?

      Anybody pay attention to Gene Rosen? He was creepy as all get-out. That POS was rehearsing his lines with his smart phone outside by his car before he was interviewed. Some of the footage from Sandy Hoax was used as “official” footage for the one in Oregon–right down to the SH sign in the foreground. continues..

      1. Anybody notice the “Visitors Must Sign In Here” sign outside the fire station after the supposed Sandy Hoax “shooting”? Anybody notice in the lengthy aerial view of the fire house that the actors were merely entering one building, circling around the other and going back in, ad nauseam?

        None of this crapola ever adds up. That little boy, Noah Pozner, a supposed SH victim….his picture was on a board with others in Peshwar (I believe it was) after a shooting there.

        Anyone listen to that coroner, Dr. “Carver” after the SH “shooting”? He said, for all to hear, that he “hoped this all didn’t come down on the people of SH”.

        Tip of the proverbial iceberg that is and continues to ram what was once a decent and prosperous nation…….

        This crap is all to get and keep the sleeple bleating in fear to the point that they will beg for gun confiscation or worse.

  4. I am convinced that the single most important factor that makes this country different from anywhere else in the world is the Second Amendment. I understand the argument that a bill of rights listing rights can (and often is) construed as limiting natural rights to those listed or as a decree granting those rights but had the Founders not enshrined the RTKBA in the Second Amendment we would be unexceptional and possibly broken into several smaller nations.

    As to the idiots who want to confiscate guns I recommend this little read: http://www.davekopel.org/2A/La…..ntrol.html

    I recommend it for everyone. A few minutes well spent.

    While the current FedGov is as bad as King George in many ways, and in some ways worse, the one act they have not committed that likely would push us over the edge is universal violation of our Second Amendment rights.

    1. Actually, the feds and state thugs have been violating our 2nd Amendment rights for a long time, just not the sudden, in your face, gun confiscation.

  5. Basically Hillary is promising to be the Kim Davis of the Heller and McDonald decisions.

  6. Not enough questions.

  7. “that means the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.”

    Huh? Says who?

    1. Says the Supreme Court I should imagine.

    2. Precisely. If you were President in 1857 would you enforce the Dred Scott decision? What about Wickard v. Filburn in 1942? Or Korematsu? Or Plessy v. Ferguson?

      No, if the Court is insane or full of big government patsies, you still obey your oath to the Constitution as written, not as those who pretend to not be able to read “interpret” it.

    3. Careful ,Andrew, the recent actions by the Supreme Court, which you support, by the way, says that if five, of the nine, decide the Second Amendment is “unequal”, they can discard it and impose their own edict as to what we peasants must do.
      See: Obergfell.

  8. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.buzznews99.com

  9. police can’t be everywhere but the TSA can be at every campus door. that is the next step.

  10. I bought my first handgun ever, just a couple of weeks ago.
    Every time that I went in to the gun shop, there was a new buyer, like me. It’s going to be an uphill battle for Hilary.

  11. ” The right to self-defense is a manifestation of the natural instinct for survival, borne in the hearts of all rational people. ”

    Not exactly. The right to self-defense is a manifestation of the right to life. My life is the only thing I have. I have the right to keep it, so I have the right to defend it. I will also defend the lives of those too young or helpless to defend themselves.

    1. “The right to self-defense”, except for self defense from tyrannical government, has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.
      Anyone, at the time, that would have even suggested prohibiting the ownership of a gun, which was necessary for survival as a means of obtaining meat and of providing for self defense, would have been laughed out of existence.
      The Second was created to ensure that, at some future time, the people would be able to have, in their possession, the ability to take up arms against a tyrannical government. Those other reasons for keeping and bearing arms were simply a given.
      The Revolutionary War was won by citizens forming militias to combat the British, not by militias already in existence, thus the use of the preamble.

  12. The liability-shifting proposal is akin to punishing General Motors whenever a drunken driver misuses his Chevy and injures someone. The courts would surely reject that.

    It only takes a couple of anti-gun judges in the right places. We already know which ones, so the anti-gun lawyers don’t even have to shop for them. Then the issue goes to SCOTUS, perhaps after Hillary appoints two or three justices.

    Not a safe bet.

    1. Civil war is a safe bet, personally I hope they try before I get too old and frumpy to play its the waiting that’s killing me

  13. Oregon Shooter Linked to Man Praising Islamic Terrorism: ‘Kill the Jews’ – Mercer’s MySpace features only two connections, one of which is a man named Mahmoud Ali Ehsani. Ehsani published a photo album titled, “Classic ? The Mujahideen Collection LOL,” featuring Islamic terrorists from several countries, including Palestine, Iran, and Pakistan, among others. One caption reads: “my brave soldiers keep on fighting for the liberation of Palestine against Israel. f#ck israel. Kill the jews. jews are the only infidels.” Mercer wrote on a dating profile he disliked “organized religion,” and considered himself “spiritual” instead of religious. He also described himself as a “teetotaler” and said he “never” did drugs.

    Breitbart

  14. The headline read, “Hillary’s Gun Proposals Assault the Constitution”, which they do. Had readers noticed that they “assault” common sense too?

  15. Why would our Government try and remove guns from the people of America? There is a fact that all is dismissing from this equation.
    As I am writing aren’t the Governmental officials aware that there are millions upon millions of people fleeing the Middle East into Europe and heading to the US, for one fact only. Not one of these people had a way to protect their own home front due to the Fact they are A GUN FREE SOCIETY. A Nation should learn from other nations mistakes. To do anything that would force a Nation such as ours who has a Constitution ( 2nd Amendment) that gives people the right to bare arms if they want to own a gun is justified by the fact that no other nation will cross our borders and drive every citizen out of their homes and line them up for execution.
    Life goes on, yes we lose people do to sickness of mind, but that does not justify removing guns from our Society as you all sit in the Whitehouse bombarded by protection from deranged people.
    The evil in the Middle East should wake you all up as to the REALITY of the millions of lives lost to a GUN FREE SOCIETY. The world we live in is not a Fairy Story any more. There is a lot of beastility taking place in this world now. So, to try And get a VOTE making all good gun owners feel liable for shootings they had no part in, is abusive on the part of Hillary.

  16. Of course Hillary wants to impose background checks as a precondition to receiving government permission (that government doesn’t have the authority is to issue or deny) to exercise a right: Background checks has never prevented a crime in the history of the planet, but they do accomplish another far-left totalitarian objective: They force the gun owner to waive his 4th Amendment right to be secure from unwarranted interrogation, search, and seizure without probable cause of criminal conduct, and his 5th Amendment right to due process before his rights can be taken from him. And they sucker him into believing he is somehow one of the guvmint-certified “good guys” in the process … all for the purpose of leaving him no rights left to claim when the government decides to revoke its illicit “permission” and confiscate all the firearms, using the UN troops made available by the “Strong Cities Network” Obama’s lapdog Loretta Lynch announced at the UN last week. How about it, gun owners? You sure a compelled background check before you are allowed to exercise a fundamental right is something your should support?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.