Anti-gun politicians and gun-ban groups have lately been poking fun at law-abiding gun owners’ concerns about the future of the U.S. Supreme Court. “You’re just paranoid,” they say with a smirk, then add that the Second Amendment is actually in no danger at all.
Yet Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, after his strong support for individual rights in extremely close 5-4 decisions in both the Heller and McDonald cases, is nothing to joke about. Should the wrong candidate—namely current Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton—get to appoint the next Supreme Court justice (or even the next several), gun owners could find their rights restricted out of existence.
Don’t believe Clinton has exactly that in her plans? To know for sure, all you have to do is listen to her daughter, Chelsea Clinton, brag about it.
“It matters to me that my mom also recognizes the role the Supreme Court has when it comes to gun control,” the younger Clinton said at a campaign rally in Maryland. “With Justice Scalia on the bench, one of the few areas where the Court actually had an inconsistent record relates to gun control.”
She continued: “So if you listen to Moms Demand Action and the Brady Campaign and the major efforts pushing for smart, sensible and enforceable gun control across our country, disclosure, have endorsed my mom, they say they believe the next time the Court rules on gun control, it will make a definitive ruling.Should the wrong candidate—namely current Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton—get to appoint the next Supreme Court justice (or even the next several), gun owners could find their rights restricted out of existence.
“So it matters to me that my mom is the only person running for president who not only constantly makes that connection but also has a strong record on gun control and standing up to the [National Rifle Association].”
All of that, of course, is a Clintonesque way to say, “If you’ll elect my mom, she’ll appoint Supreme Court justices who will uphold all the anti-gun measures she plans to force through Congress and institute through executive edict.”
Exactly what might Clinton’s anti-gun proposals include? That’s easy to know, too, as she has been boasting about them since her campaign kicked off last year.
Among other things, Clinton favors:
- Instituting so-called “universal” background checks, which even the Obama administration admits would require gun registration to be effective;
- Closing the non-existent “gun show loophole,” despite federal law already requiring a background check for all gun sales by licensed dealers;
- Stifling online advertisement of guns for sale, thereby attacking both the First and Second Amendments;
- Closing the non-existent “Charleston loophole,” an intentional part of federal firearms law that allows a sale to proceed if the FBI hasn’t completed its background check in three days;
- Banning semi-automatic rifles as so-called “assault weapons;”
- Allowing law-abiding gun makers and gun sellers to be sued for criminal misuse of their products in an effort to destroy America’s gun manufacturing industry;
- And, of course, praising Australia’s forced confiscation and destruction of more than 650,000 firearms from lawful gun owners, saying at a campaign rally, “Certainly the Australian example is worth looking at.”
The question of would Clinton really use executive action to push her gun-ban schemes is a moot one. She has already answered that question with an unequivocal “Yes.”
At a campaign appearance in Hartford, Conn., when a supporter urged her to use her executive powers, if elected president, to attack the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms—and the right to carry in particular—Clinton replied, “Let the congregation say, ‘Amen.’”
Not content to attack just the bearing of arms, but also the keeping of arms, Clinton had said a day earlier in Philadelphia that even firearms in homes were too much. “We have just too many guns. On the streets, in our homes, in our neighborhoods,” Clinton said. Note that she didn’t say “too many guns in the wrong hands,” just, “too many guns”—meaning yours and mine.
She also has repeatedly promised to harass and badger the 5 million law-abiding members of the National Rifle Association, apparently singling us out because we believe the Second Amendment actually means what it says.
“I really support everything President Obama said he would do through regulation on guns but we’re going to start the very first day and tackle the gun lobby to try to reduce the outrageous number of people who are dying from gun violence in our country,” Clinton said. She further vowed, at a Hartford, Conn., campaign stop, to constantly push her gun-control agenda if elected. “I am here to tell you I will use every single minute of every day … looking for ways we can save lives, that we can change the gun culture.”
Given Clinton’s plans and promises, the decision of who replaces Justice Scalia—and quite possibly three or more other Supreme Court justices over the next several years—is a crucial one. Law-abiding gun owners must mobilize and do everything we can to make sure it’s not Hillary Clinton making those appointments, and a Clinton-friendly Senate rubber stamping them to fill the court with justices who would relegate the Second Amendment to the dustbin of history.
