Second Amendment

Clinton's False Assurances About Her Respect for the Second Amendment

The Democratic nominee says "there's an individual right to arms" but does not think it includes handgun ownership or self-defense in the home.

|

C-SPAN

"There's no doubt that I respect the Second Amendment," Hillary Clinton said during last night's presidential debate. "I also believe there's an individual right to bear arms." That's as close as Clinton has come during this campaign to acknowledging that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms—a question she conspicuously dodged in an ABC News interview last June. Last night she once again showed why, notwithstanding her assurances, there is ample reason to doubt her respect for that right.

As debate moderator Chris Wallace noted, Clinton last year declared that "the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment." Last May one of Clinton's advisers said the candidate believes District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 case in which the Court first explicitly recognized the right to armed self-defense that Clinton claims to respect, "was wrongly decided." Last night Clinton said her problem with Heller is that the Court overturned a "reasonable regulation" aimed at protecting little children from gun accidents. "I disagreed with the way the Court applied the Second Amendment in that case," she said, "because what the District of Columbia was trying to do was to protect toddlers from guns, and so they wanted people with guns to safely store them."

Clinton neglected to mention that this so-called safe storage law 1) banned ownership of handguns, which as the Court noted are "the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home" and 2) required that long guns in the home be kept unloaded and either disassembled or disabled by a trigger lock at all times, making it impossible to legally use them for self-defense. If that law did not violate the Second Amendment, it is hard to imagine what law would. Yet to Clinton it is a "reasonable regulation" perfectly consistent with the right to keep and bear arms.

Taking Clinton at her word, she believes "there's an individual right to arms," but it does not include the right to own a handgun or the right to use a rifle or shotgun for self-defense in the home, which the Court recognized as a "core lawful purpose" under the Second Amendment. What does the right Clinton has in mind include? She won't say, and this year's Democratic platform unhelpfully refers to "the rights of responsible gun owners" without providing any clue as to what those might be or so much as mentioning the constitutional basis for them.

"I support the Second Amendment," Clinton said last night. "I lived in Arkansas for 18 wonderful years. I represented upstate New York. I understand and respect the tradition of gun ownership. It goes back to the founding of our country." Yet she seems to have no idea why.

NEXT: Neither Trump Nor Clinton Understands What the Supreme Court Is Supposed to Do

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. “Sure, there’s an individual right to bear arms. Doesn’t say anything about WHICH individuals, though.”

    1. Trigger warning: Hihnfection below.

    2. But TOP MEN in the Libertarian Party have told us that to vote Trump is to vote for Hitler. Didn’t he confiscate guns, too?

  2. “Taking Clinton at her word…”

    How can anything after that clause be taken seriously!

    1. Come on, dude, it’s just a thought experiment. A far-fetched one, to be sure.

    2. Assuming for the sake of argument that what someone says is true, and then showing that even if you give them the benefit of a charitable interpretation they are full of shit, is a fine rhetorical technique.

    3. You’re talking about a website that *still* hasn’t done a piece about the Project Veritas videos showing Democrat operatives admitting to rigging elections. Of course they’re gullible enough to take Clinton at her word.

    4. The great thing is, taking Clinton at her word in other areas leads you straight to the conclusion that she should not be in the White House under any circumstances.

      She claims that she can’t remember any of the security briefings because of her concussions. Why on earth should someone with severe traumatic memory problems be President?

      She claims she had pneumonia, diagnosed two days before, at the 9/11 ceremony. Bacterial pneumonia is contagious during its early stages, yet she is out in public breathing on and touching people, including small children. Why on earth should someone who would expose others to a contagious disease for photo ops be President?

      Etc.

      1. Yeah, it’s too bad her supporters don’t actually take her words seriously. She is so terrible that her own defenses of herself would be seen as strikes against her to any neutral observer. “I’m not a criminal, I’m just incompetent and clueless”.

    5. She said the Heller decision was about toddler safety.

      This bitch is anti-gun, she just knows that saying so publicly outside her circle of nut jobs is political suicide.

      Luckily, she is not going to win. I just hope Trump does get a good new FBI Director and Attorney General appointed to reinvestigate Hillary, have a Grand Jury indict her, arrest her, let her out on bail and give her a trial. That way, she and Chelsea will never be heard from again for political positions.

      1. That was her public position. Her private position is the one she repeatedly stated publicly but now won’t-confiscation and ban.

  3. Of course she believes in the second amendment! She believes people don’t have a right to keep arms because the 2nd amendment (as she reads it) says no one has a right to keep arms!

    “Look, see? It says clearly ‘the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be taken seriously.’ See?”

  4. Taking Clinton at her word…

    Can’t be done, unless you’re reading her word from a leaked email to a confidant.

    1. Or calling those who do not support her a basket of deplorables. She was telling the truth, but whenever that happens she dissembles, back peddles, and claims she “misspoke” or that she has “evolved” on the issue.

  5. “”the District of Columbia was trying to… protect toddlers from guns””

    With a law that applied to the single and childless. Because… ubiquitous toddler infestations. Or sonething.

    We need a president whose lies will be shallower than Obama’s

    1. It was quite a misrepresentation to claim that the purpose of the Heller regulation was the protection of toddlers and not an obtuse firearm ban. It was a 2A workaround firearm ban which basiclly said you can have your firearm, but you must keep it in a state that makes them unusable for the very purpose for which they are designed.

      1. Look, you can have a “firearm”, where definitions of “firearm” are limited to an unformed block of steel the approximate weight of a typical handgun. If you can defend yourself with that, try learning how to throw properly, pussy.

        1. *if you can’t

        2. that doesn’t exactly jive (comply) with the Second Amendment’s RIGHT to keep -and BEAR- arms. The one that “shall not be infringed”,which seems pretty clear to most rational people.

          (the right that is “of the People”,not “of a militia”.)

          The Second is a restriction on GOVERNMENT,not on the people. (same as the rest of the BOR)
          In fact,most of the entire Constitution is a limit on government,not on the people.

          1. Hillary believes the right to bear arms means that individuals are free to wear tank tops. She has very little time to get to the gym, so she has to sculpt her guns at the office. 2 tickets to the gun show?? We need to close that loophole!!

      2. facts and logic have no place in political rhetoric. move along.

    2. Latest from the gun grabbers. I thought it was a joke. Reverse Poe’s law.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjlxXAy1_eE

  6. Well, that’s her public position. I assume her private position, the position towards which she puts her efforts, is something else.

    1. Why every journalist isn’t adding that caveat to everything Hillary says in public, the same way they’re careful to add “allegedly” to every discusion of criminal-level acts, is a mystery to me. Oh, wait, I thought about it for 3 tenths of a second and I think I’ve solved the mystery. Nevermind.

      1. Mass Media = Clinton Publicists

    2. her bodyguards should be the first to turn in their guns

  7. I wonder if any fact-checkers took up her claim that Washington’s “common sense” regulations were about protecting toddlers? My hunch is no.

    1. “Protecting toddlers, disarming The Blacks, po TAY to, po TAH to.”

    2. . Clinton said she opposed a Supreme Court ruling on guns because the overturned law was trying to protect toddlers. It did involve kids, but that’s not all the law did.

      1. Only saw two fact-checks of Clinton skimming. That and the bullshit about talking about energy only in her speech on open borders. Of course, NBC, they of the “Assad isn’t fighting ISIS” fact-check rubber stamped them both.

      2. What’s funny is, their fact check comprehensively invalidates her claim if you click all the way through. It demonstrates that (a) the law never mentions toddlers or children and applies regardless of whether any are in view and (b) was passed and defended on the basis that they were trying to reduce the use of stolen guns in crime.

  8. “There’s no doubt that I respect the Second Amendment,” Hillary Clinton said during last night’s presidential debate. “I also believe there’s an individual right to bear arms.”

    +5 pinocchios

    1. she means “bare arms”, ie arms with no weapons in them, so she’s in the clear.

  9. “I also believe there’s an individual right to bear arms. A right that I can regulate the shit out of until only my bodyguards will actually have guns.”

    IOW I take her at her word that she doesn’t intend to repeal the Second Amendment; she just intends to interpret it to suit her. A Second Amendment that only protects her and her “elite” friends is a-okay with her.

  10. I guess we’ll find out how this plays out.

    “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

    Thomas Jefferson

    1. Be careful what you say on here Almighty, Justice Department is watching for more woodchippers.

  11. The thing about Shrillary is that she actually believes she can lie as much as her (scumbag) husband and get away with it, but she is about one tenth as charming as the sonofabitch. Bubba could lie to your face and do it sooooo smoothly that a lot of people without a political reason to pretend would buy it anyway. Shillery couldn’t believably preach nonviolence to an audience of buddhist hippies.

    Of COURSE she doesn’t believe the Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to bear arms. That would imply that the Great Unwashed actually have rights at all.

    1. The Great Unwashed. I may have to rethink bathing.

  12. You should see what she thinks about the First Amendment!

  13. If you like your gun, you can keep your gun.

  14. “If that law did not violate the Second Amendment, it is hard to imagine what law would. Yet to Clinton it is a “reasonable regulation” perfectly consistent with the right to keep and bear arms.”

    Look, you can own a gun! Where does it say the gun should actually be able to fire bullets? I don’t see a problem with allowing people to own the parts of a gun, as long as those guns are never assembled and can never conceivably be fired. That’s consistent with the text, right?!

    -HRC, Constitutional Scholar

    1. You’ve got a good point. Nothing in the 2A dictates that the arms must be functional. So regulation banning functional firearms would be totally reasonable.

  15. Obligatory Arkansas defense – we hates Hillary when she was here, and continue to hate her today. She is NOT one of us, and we want nothing to do with her. There isn’t a more pro-2nd-Amendment state in America.

  16. You have the right to keep a disassembled firearm in a safe with ammunition in a separate safe so what’s the problem?

  17. Hillary Clinton is on record as saying the 2008 Heller Supreme Court case was wrongly decided. The Heller ruling struck down DC’s handgun ban but also DC’s ban on keeping any gun loaded for self-defense in your own home. And the four liberals on the court voted to uphold that effective ban on self-defense. Why does Hillary Clinton want to ban the use of guns for self-defense in the home?

    The lower federal courts have been generally hostile to the Second Amendment. They have already rubberstamped as permissible:
    * New York City’s $340 permit fee and one year process to get a permit to keep a handgun in your own home.
    * Discriminatory gun carry permitting in New York, New Jersey, Maryland, California and Hawaii, where only those who are connected are allowed to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense.
    * A “safe storage” law in San Francisco that requires homeowners to keep guns on their person or locked up when they are sleeping, directly contradicting the Heller ruling.
    * A complete ban on any gun possession by anyone who has a doctor’s prescription for medical marijuana.
    * Bans on firearms based upon cosmetic appearance. This is the most troubling because the bogus legal reasoning behind these bans leaves the door wide open to wide bans on entire classes of firearms, not just the so-called “assault weapons”.

    Expect a Hillary Clinton Supreme Court to uphold all of these laws and more, including enabling the bankruptcy of gun makers by frivolous lawsuit.

  18. She’s correct. It had to do with the purposes of forming a militia. The idea of individuals back then to even need permission from the government to own a handgun for personal protection to begin with would be as ridiculous as if today we were told we needed permission to own a knife and fork.

    This just shows how far the individual has come in over 200 years as far as being a sheeple to government.

  19. this from the crazy tyrannical family that helped bring about the waco siege massacre where big brother government shot first

    1. “The era of big government is over” – Bill Clinton

  20. “I disagreed with the way the Court applied the Second Amendment in that case,” she said, “because what the District of Columbia was trying to do was to protect toddlers from guns, and so they wanted people with guns to safely store them.”

    So, she wants the government to do what – break into gun owners’ homes to confirm that the guns are “safely stored”?

    Isn’t that a violation of the 4th amendment, Hillary?

  21. Hillary has already shown how much respect she has for documents.

  22. Clinton’s emails already show she has “public positions” and private (true) positions. IOW,she’ll LIE to the American People,if it serves her ends. This is one of those instances.

  23. Liliana . if you think Lawrence `s blog is incredible, I just purchased a new Honda after earning $5741 this – 4 weeks past and also 10 grand lass month . it’s by-far the most-comfortable job I have ever done . I started this four months/ago and almost immediately began to make minimum $85… p/h .

    see this……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  24. “America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”

    ….Good News,Bad News I suppose. At least we are past the awkward stage part of this thingy .

    1. I have bought futures options {call} on tar and feathers.

  25. Hillary Clinton Delegate Explains Her Deceptive Propaganda to Ban Guns
    Of course, much of what she said is no mystery. It has been common phraseology to say that one is for “common sense gun legislation.” The reality is that kind of talk is actually “communist gun legislation.”
    “Saying you want to ban guns altogether, that’s going to piss everybody off,” Clinton alternate delegate Mary Bayer told the undercover Project Veritas reporter.
    So, she reveals openly that this is the ultimate goal, not some common sense legislation. She realizes that it will not only upset people, but it is unlawful and this is the reason they try to deceive the people.”You have to take that sort of moderate? ‘We just wanna have common sense legislation so our children are safe!'” Bayer added. “You say sh*t like that, and then people will buy into it.”
    The real issue is that the Constitution gives absolutely zero authority for those in government to write legislation that restricts or bans the ability of citizens to keep and bear arms of any kind, including warships and tanks. So, Congress can write all the words they want to write and in the end, they are simply acting unlawfully and treasonous against the people they are supposed to be serving.

    http://freedomoutpost.com/unde…..-ban-guns/

  26. The way that this thread has been completely shit upon leads me to really believe in the “dicks, pussies, and assholes” theory.

  27. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  28. Ellie . true that Susan `s blurb is good… I just purchased a gorgeous Fiat Panda sincee geting a check for $8891 this-last/4 weeks and also ten grand last-month . this is actually the most financialy rewarding Ive had . I started this 9-months ago and right away was bringin in at least $87, per-hour .

    see……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  29. Her response to the 2A question and to the question about SC judge selections both show that she is unfit for office.
    First, 2A is not a right granted by the government but one that the Bill of Rights acknowledges as a basic human rithg that the government can not “infringe”. She had no understanding of the issues in the Heller decision yet publicly wants it changed.
    Second, selection of judges that will “vote for what is good for the people” is about as wrong as any statement that I have heard from any government official. Namely, this is saying is that the law and Constitution is not binding and should be ignored and the government should just “decides” what is good for the people. If this is not the Constitutional Republic that the founders had in mind. I am sure that North Korea and Iran would be the model that she proposes as a replacement for our liberty.

    1. She had no understanding of the issues in the Heller decision yet publicly wants it changed.

      You MAY have proclaimed your own ignorance of Heller … where Scalia re-affirmed that prohibiting “military stuke” weapon is NOT unconstitutional.

  30. If Americans were as passionate about the Fourth amendment as they are about the Second, the Second wouldn’t be in danger now. But, no, you only care when loss of private property rights affects you personally.

    1. The Fourth does nor have a gaggle of groups generating hysteria over invented threats to it.
      Both amendments are subject to interpretation, What does :”unreasonable” mean? The founders left to the courts to interpret and/or define any number of potential rights.

  31. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  32. Anyone know how old hinnsanity is? I want to know if I’m going to outlive him.

  33. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  34. A presidential candidate claiming to support a specific amendment is a good sign that they don’t. And the president doesn’t (shouldn’t) get to choose which rights to respect, that’s why they’re rights. i don’t care what they think the law should be, their job is mostly enforcement. I don’t know why more people don’t see all the fuss about who the president is as a bad sign in and of itself. Should not matter this much.

  35. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.