Last week, on Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asked Hillary Clinton point-blank whether she wanted to overturn the Supreme Court’s Heller v District of Columbia decision. She said, “No” and that she is only interested in reasonable restrictions.
Bullshit. That’s not profanity, that’s a scientific term.
The Heller v District of Columbia (2008) decision stated what the 2nd Amendment protects and the McDonald v Chicago (2010) decision confirmed that the 2nd Amendment, and the Heller ruling, applies to local and state governments just as much as it applies to the Federal government.
We have to take a step back, though. Before going into what Hillary wants to do, we have to lay out all of the things that the Heller decision declared:
– People are allowed to own handguns under the 2nd Amendment.
This would seem obvious to anyone but a Leftist, I guess. The District of Columbia passed a handgun ban, making it illegal for anyone inside the nation’s capitol to own a functional handgun, outside of the military or police. Justice Scalia’s Heller opinion declared that because members of the military use handguns, and because all able-bodied Americans are expected to show up for militia service, if called upon, with militarily suitable firearms, the 2nd Amendment protects the right of individuals to own handguns.
– A right of self-defense exists, at the very least, within your home.
While the Supreme Court stopped short of ruling on what right to bear arms in public would be protected, the Heller ruling emphatically says that the right to self defense within your home is a core part of the 2nd Amendment. If the Heller ruling is overturned, there will be no constitutional right to defend yourself inside of your home, similar to this poor man in Finland who just got sentenced to FOUR years in prison for using a knife to defend himself against three armed home invaders.
Opposing the very premise of self-defense is the most radical gun control position on the Left.
– The 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Going into the Heller ruling, there were two specific camps with regards to what rights the 2nd Amendment protects. Liberals argued that the 2nd Amendment, because it begins with the phrase “a well regulated militia,” should only apply to National Guard members. Even though US Law explicitly says that you can be in the militia without being in the National Guard, the Liberals fought to make sure that the 2nd Amendment did not apply to everyday citizens. They lost.
Scalia made it very clear that the 2nd Amendment applies to “the people.” There are three time in the bill of rights that the phrase “right of the people” is used. It is used in the 1st Amendment with regard to the “right of the people to peacefully assemble” and then it is used again in the 4th Amendment in describing “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.”
The Heller ruling confirms, what should be obvious to anyone with the ability to read and comprehend text, that the phrase “write of the people” means that the people have an individual right.
– When the 2nd Amendment mentions the right to “bear arms,” it means a right to carry a weapon.
This is why Justice Scalia’s passing was so catastrophic. Even though the Heller decision explicitly defined the term “bear arms” as “carrying weapons,” without Scalia on the bench there is no way to enforce it. The 9th Circuit Court in California just ruled that even though the 2nd Amendment protects a right to carry arms, it is constitutional for a state like California to ban open carry and simultaneously prevent people from being allowed to concealed carry. If the Heller decision is overturned, then the 2nd Amendment will no longer protect a right to bear arms.
– States and municipalities cannot ban guns “in common use at the time.”
This ruling has yet to be clarified, and lower courts have disregarded it in allowing AR-15s, the most commonly used and popular rifle in America, to be banned by name. While it is unknown how this sentence will be interpreted in the future, it is easy to imagine a world where this protection is not considered a constitutional right and politicians are allowed to openly ban weapons in common use.
– States and municipalities can’t force you to disable your guns within your own home.
Another pretty obvious one. Heller declared that the District of Columbia can’t force residents to disassemble or deactivate guns in order for them to be legally owned. Overturning this ruling would allow for this ludicrous policy to be re-enacted.
– The 2nd Amendment protects modern weapons, not just musket technologies available at the time of the founding.
Another common sense idea that should go without saying, but had to be codified because Leftists are too stupid or too conniving to leave well enough alone.
If the 1st Amendment protects e-mail and the 4th Amendment protects Winnebagos, then the 2nd Amendment obviously protects modern firearms. To overturn Heller would be to remove the only national protection against a law banning modern firearms.
Now, this list certainly isn’t exhaustive, but it is the core of what the Supreme Court has said in its two gun-rights rulings in 2008 and 2010.
Today, on Fox News Sunday, Hillary Clinton declared she did not want to overturn these rulings or appoint justices hostile to them. She said she only wanted “reasonable restrictions.” It’s funny, Washington DC’s unconstitutional gun control laws were considered “reasonable” by leftists until they were overturned.
But Hillary Clinton is lying. Surprised, right?
Now let’s look at what Hillary Clinton has said recently…
“I was proud when my husband took [the National Rifle Association] on, and we were able to ban assault weapons, but he had to put a sunset on so 10 years later. Of course [President George W.] Bush wouldn’t agree to reinstate them,” said Clinton.
“We’ve got to go after this,” Clinton continued. “And here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the 2nd Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”
This is the closest we’ve gotten to Hillary Clinton openly admitting she despises Heller. There have only been two Supreme Court rulings beneficial to 2nd Amendment advocates in recent memory. She can’t claim she is talking about some other decision… If “the Supreme Court is wrong on the 2nd Amendment,” as Hillary Clinton claims, she is referring to the Heller and McDonald decisions. If she is promising to “make that case every chance she gets,” it’s not hard to make the assumption that applies to judicial nominations as well…
“Clinton believes Heller was wrongly decided in that cities and states should have the power to craft common sense laws to keep their residents safe, like safe storage laws to prevent toddlers from accessing guns,” Maya Harris, a policy adviser to Clinton, said in an e-mailed statement. “In overturning Washington D.C.’s safe storage law, Clinton worries that Heller may open the door to overturning thoughtful, common sense safety measures in the future.”
This is a lot of politispeak. It is important to understand that the “common sense safety measure” that Heller overturned was a de-facto ban on handguns. The only way for a DC Resident to own a handgun at-all was for it to be either disassembled or locked up, making it inaccessible. The Heller ruling determined that the American people have an individual right to own a functional and readily available handgun. That is one of the aspects Hillary Clinton is openly trying to reverse, under the header of “safe firearms storage,” hoping you don’t know what she is really talking about.
“I’m not here to repeal the Second Amendment,” she said during her speech at the Democratic National Convention. “I’m not here to take away your guns. I just don’t want you to be shot by someone who shouldn’t have a gun in the first place.”
If the Supreme Court overturns the Heller decision, that is exactly what would happen. Overturning Heller would mean repealing the individual right of individuals to own functional firearms for self-defense.
When Hillary was asked, point blank, about her position on Heller, she deflected to the same old talking points. Stephanopoulos persisted.
Stephanopoulos: “But that’s not what I asked. I said do you believe that their conclusion that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right?”
Clinton: “If it is a constitutional right…”
If someone asks you whether the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right and your response is a hypothetical centered around “if,” the intentions are clear, no?
To overturn Justice Scalia’s Heller and McDonald majority opinions would require us to accept the dissents in the case.
This is what Justice Breyer wrote in his dissent of the 2010 McDonald case:
“I can find nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as ‘fundamental’ insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes.”
This is Hillary’s anti-gun vision for America.
I’m not going to keep going because there are literally so many quotes from Hillary proving her contempt for the 2nd Amendment and the individual right to keep and bear arms protected by the Heller v DC ruling. I could talk about her support for allowing the government to arbitrarily ban guns that look scary, add an excessive excise tax to guns and ammunition, roll back protections to allow frivolous lawsuits to bankrupt gun companies…
Hillary Clinton is lying through her teeth when she says she isn’t coming for your guns.
If you are on the fence about voting for Trump, please digest the information above and ask yourself whether a Clinton presidency, and the potential of 4-5 Clinton appointments to the Supreme Court, would be acceptable.