Hillary Declares Open Season on Gun Owners and 2nd Amendment

latinamericajrtrnghnt4evr112113This column will arrive between Thanksgiving and Christmas, so it’s a good time to give thanks for the gifts that hunters receive from politicians in Washington.   They are admittedly few, so the ones that we do receive should be treasured all the more.

The gift of candor can be misinterpreted.   When a politician says they are planning to attack your rights, it doesn’t seem like much of a gift. But when a politician is honest about their intentions, we should be grateful for the admission. Too many politicians give lip service to gun owners and hunters, all the while secretly plotting their strategy to diminish our rights. And that trend is even more pronounced in an election year.

Not with Hillary Clinton, at least not this year. She has used events both public and private to push a sweeping agenda of restrictions on our rights that are so extreme that they would require the reversal of Supreme Court precedents. But that won’t stop her – in fact, it’s all part of her plan.

Twice in the debates, Hillary has railed against the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,” a 2005 federal statute that passed the Congress, and was signed into law, with strong support from SCI. That law blocked the torrent of baseless lawsuits that attempted to hold gun companies liable for the criminal acts of third parties who misuse firearms. The lawsuits were intended to bankrupt the gun industry and force manufacturers into settlement negotiations, through which the gun control zealots would force acceptance of the same restrictions that they were unable to push through the Congress. The signing of the statute shut down this backdoor effort, and PLCAA has been settled law for more than ten years now, withstanding numerous legal challenges in courtrooms all across America.

But Hillary wants to roll back the clock and reverse this common-sense provision, and re-open the industry to a tidal wave of litigation. Since voters don’t agree with her goals, she has been forced to lie about the law in an effort to gain traction. At an October 7 forum in Iowa, Clinton wrongly claimed, “They are the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability. They can sell a gun to someone they know they shouldn’t, and they won’t be sued. There will be no consequences.”

According to Politifact, “Clinton said the gun industry is ‘the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability.’ Clinton is talking about a law that says the gun industry is protected from liability in certain instances, but the law also specifies several situations in which the gun industry is susceptible to lawsuits. Further, Congress has passed a number of laws that protect a variety of business sectors from lawsuits in certain situations, so the situation is not unique to the gun industry.”  For these reasons, Politifact determined her rhetoric about the law to be entirely false.

But being labeled a liar hasn‘t stopped her.   In fact, in the second debate, she upped the ante by claiming that “3,000 people have been killed by guns, 200 children have been killed” since the first debate. The Associated Press fact-checked her statistics and pronounced her claims to be “unsupported on all counts.”

Since her public statements have been riddled with lies, perhaps we should consider what she has said in private venues. A recording was made of her remarks at a September fundraiser held in New York City, when Clinton told the assembled faithful, “I was proud when my husband took [the National Rifle Association] on, and we were able to ban assault weapons…we’ve got to go after this. And here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

Those are chilling words. Four Supreme Court Justices will be age 78 or older on the day the next president is inaugurated. The next president will clearly have the opportunity to upset the delicate 5-4 balance of Justices who have voted twice now to affirm that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own a firearm. If elected president, Clinton clearly intends to stack the Court with Justices who will vote to reverse these landmark precedents. Then she can proceed to “go after this” with a vengeance, pursuing extremist gun control restrictions that would be laughed out of Congress today.

For his part, Barack Obama does not intend to go quietly. In an interview with GQ (since apparently the president has nothing better to do than grant interviews to fashion magazines) he was asked by the interviewer if gun control will be the “dominant” issue on his agenda next year. Obama replied, “I hope so.”

After years of publicly shying away from the issue, leading Democrats have clearly made the judgement that the time is ripe to strike out against the rights of hunters and other gun owners. You can help make sure that your Washington team has the resources to fight back by contributing to SCI-PAC, the SCI Political Action Committee. With the start of the election year just weeks away, it’s time to get serious about the challenges we will soon face.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  • Follow First For Hunters on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: