“I’m all for that.” That was Hillary Clinton’s response, back on Sept. 30, 1993, to a question posed by Sen. Bill Bradley, D-N.J., during a Senate Finance Committee hearing. What did Bradley ask that generated such an enthusiastic response? He had inquired whether she supported the imposition of a new 25-percent national sales tax on guns.
Americans for Tax Reform has resurrected that clip as a reminder of just how far Clinton is willing to go to punish gun owners and discourage gun ownership. Bans, restrictions, registration, taxes—you name the form of gun control, she’s all for that. Always has been, always will be. But as sure as we are of her willingness to do anything within her power to disarm America and dismantle the Second Amendment, you can also be sure that voters will have their chance to have their voices heard at the voting booths next November.
Use Your Power!
The only way we can be sure to avoid a president who will trample on the Second Amendment is to get out the vote. No one can perform your civic duty for you; if you haven’t registered to vote or need to update your address, do so today!
Attorneys General Urge Supreme Court To Hear Gun Case
Nearly half of the nation’s attorneys general have signed on to support a challenge to an Illinois city’s arbitrary ban on certain guns. The amicus brief, led by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, questions whether a municipal ban on possession of some of the firearms most commonly used for lawful purposes violates the Second Amendment.
The challenge is based on the case of gun owner Arie Friedman, who contested the city of Highland Park’s 2013 ban on what it defines to be “assault rifles.” Friedman lost his claim to own now-prohibited guns and magazines in violation of the city’s ordinance to a lower court and appealed to the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals last year.
Highland Park attorneys now have an opportunity to respond, and then the Supreme Court will consider whether it will hear the case. If it does, we could be looking at the next big ruling on Second Amendment issues.
Kaine Pushing For More Gun Control
U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., is pushing for more federal gun legislation, this time to hold sellers “criminally liable for a bad sale.”
The mechanics of how sellers would take “reasonable affirmative steps to determine (if) the customer met federal criteria” and avoid so-called bad sales remains unclear, as Kaine’s office has only provided a summary of the proposed legislation at this point.
Of greater concern is the senator’s assertion that “ultimately, efforts to reduce gun violence must focus on multiple solutions.” This sounds suspiciously like more intrusive scrutiny of all firearms transactions, even those between close friends and family members. The goal is just better disguised: A list of owners based on transaction monitoring.
Just ignore the fact that such a list is patently barred by the terms of the 1968 Gun Control Act precisely because it can be used to drive confiscation.
HuffPo: Sexual Assault Not Sufficient Justification For Campus Carry
We expect anti-gun nonsense from HuffPo, but Nancy Kaufman’s “Concealed Carry On College Campuses: What Could Possibly Go Wrong”—regarding sexual assault on campus—might’ve hit a new low.
Kaufman claims because acquaintances commit 90 percent of assaults, women might be reluctant to use guns. That’s irrelevant—campus carry allows armed self-defense; it doesn’t mandate it. Giving women the right-to-carry doesn’t rescind their right to run away, call for help, or fight back with fists or feet. Plus, there’s the other 10 percent to contend with.
She then says a man “truly intending harm” will probably wrest the gun from her. This argument is as sexist as it is tired: How often are men told that criminals “will just get your gun anyway”? Besides, studies of defensive gun uses by women show that guns are actually a great equalizer.
Study Doesn’t Ask About Defensive Gun Use, Concludes It Rarely Happens
A study appearing in the newest issue of Preventive Medicine concludes that while owning a gun is a good way to cut down on loss of property, it “is not associated with a reduced risk of victim injury.” But as this highly illuminating blog post by Jacob Sullum illustrates, this finding is a product of skewed experiment design. The researchers rely on data gathered by the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which is widely regarded as providing misleadingly low numbers for occurrences of defensive gun use.
Sullum also notes that “the survey includes ‘no specific questions about self-defense gun use.’ That’s a pretty big flaw for a study aimed at measuring self-defense gun use, which the NCVS isn’t.” It may be instructive to note that one of the authors of this study is David Hemenway, who co-authored the recent article on police deaths that John Lott so effectively ripped to shreds.
Mobile Home Resident Fights Off Four Invaders
A 34-year-old man was inside his mobile home in Gresham, Ore., when four armed men allegedly broke in and attacked him. According to KPTV, the resident shot at the intruders, killing one and wounding another. All three of the surviving suspects were apprehended by police.
Investigators say that they believe the armed citizen was specifically targeted by his attackers, and his life was certainly in danger—he was stabbed during the encounter, although he received no life-threatening injuries and was released from the hospital after treatment. Had he not been able to access a firearm, it is hard to imagine him surviving the attentions of four men determined to do him harm.