Hillary Clinton made her views on the Second Amendment and her stance on stricter gun laws crystal clear last week when she announced her plans for “gun control” if elected in November. Her plans start with nominating only anti-gun Justices for the Supreme Court.
When Clinton was asked Sunday, at the second Presidential Debate, what she believed was the most important factor in choosing a Supreme Court justice her response was: “I respect the Second Amendment, but I believe that there should be comprehensive background checks and we should close the gun show loophole and close the online loophole we have to save as many lives as we possibly can.”
Many of the “loopholes” she refers to are nonexistent. Gun dealers and federal firearms licensees are obligated by law to conduct background checks on anyone that wants to buy a gun, regardless of where that purchase is made. The same rules apply and are mandated by federal law.
The more stringent the background checks are the more the federal government gets to butt their noses into the business of the American people and keep track of all gun owning individuals. That is where the breach of the Second Amendment comes into play, another fact that Clinton blatantly tries to disregard.
If Hillary Clinton is the next Commander in Chief, you may have to kiss your gun rights goodbye. Her plan includes obliterating the firearms and ammunition industry in the United States without repealing the Second Amendment. In addition to placing anti-gun justices on the Supreme Court bench, her plans include banning a long list of common firearms and repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. These are not possibilities; these are facts that were revealed in the October 7 Wikileaks emails. The emails reveal Clinton’s press secretary said that Clinton would “support closing the gun show loopholes by executive order.”
Clinton also supports manufacturer liability, which gives the victims of gun crimes the right to sue gun manufacturers. In the event that gun makers sold a defective product this may be a feasible option but to hold gun makers accountable for the criminal misuse of a firearm does nothing but victimize the manufacturer for something they have no control over. Clinton’s plans to write this plan into law demonstrates foreshadows what could be an abuse of executive power.
Clinton’s plans would mean that gun manufacturers and retailers should be held to a different standard, a standard that goes against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which was passed in 2005 by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush. This law prohibits state or federal lawsuits against gun manufacturers except in limited cases, such as where the guns were defective, or where the manufacturer was involved in criminal conduct.
[revad2]
