From Worst to Bad - What We Can Expect From Pres. Hillary Clinton

Statements like this should scare anyone who believes in the
Constitution.    Just how does she intend to
"shut down the NRA for good"?

On December 29, 2015, Hillary Clinton proposed seven specific new gun laws she will push if she is elected.  MAKE NO MISTAKE, THESE LAWS - IF ENACTED - WOULD ESSENTIALLY END GUN SALES IN THE US.   Here they are, starting with the worst and progressing to least dangerous.








#1 Allow gun sellers to be sued for gun crime and
#2 Allow gun makers to be sued for gun crime  

Under current law, both can be sued for selling defective products, for selling to people they know to be criminals, and for selling in violation of state and federal laws.  None of this is in question here.  What Sec. Clinton is proposing is to hold both dealers and manufacturers responsible for ANY criminal act committed by ANYONE with a firearm they have sold - even if they break no laws in making the sale.  

The goal of these changes to liability law is simple: Bankrupt every gun maker and gun shop and end the retail firearms market.  Imagine if car manufacturers were held responsible for every instance of drunk driving, or simply violations of the vehicle code that resulted in deaths or injury.  How long would it take before car companies and car dealers were either driven out of business or had to charge so much for their vehicles that no one could afford them?  Again, make no mistake, this is EXACTLY the goal here - end gun sales in America by putting sellers and manufacturers out of business, by holding them responsible for everything that happens with every gun they sell. 

Consider that the threat to our 2nd Amendment right is so clear, so grave, that Socialist Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders voted to exempt gun makers from 3rd party liability and defends that vote to this day.  His reason?  Without such protection, they would be driven out of business in short order and no new firearms would be available in the U.S.


#3 Add no-fly list to background checks

This is likely the most unconstitutional proposal of all.  Getting on the no-fly list requires absolutely no due process and there is no good way to get off of it.  Indeed, the ACLU is currently involved in a legal action against the list on this very basis - that there is no due process whatsoever involved.

Indeed, the ACLU - no friend to gun rights - strongly opposes the use of the no-fly list (in it's current form) to screen gun purchases.  They are joined by many left of center newspapers, including USA Today, the Washington Post, the LA Times, and the Boston Globe.  Even the UK's Guardian ran an article that raised major issues with the idea. Yet, in spite of all of this principled opposition from normally anti-gun rights publications, Hillary Clinton still thinks this is a great idea.  Of course, more conservative publications such as the National Review and the Washington Times also came out in opposition.  Before Congress, Alan Bersin - a top official at the Department of Homeland Security - also opposed the idea.  Of course, he was quickly slapped back into line by the Obama administration, but his testimony remains on the record.

Here's why she likes it: Once such a law is in place, the president could order the NSA or CIA to hack the NRA or other gun rights groups to obtain their membership lists - and then simply add all the members to the no fly list.  Indeed, this has already been discussed on gun control forums.  The purpose of this proposal is simple - allow the government to permanently suspend the 2nd Amendment rights of citizens with no due process whatsoever.  Her support of such action should disqualify her as a candidate for president in the mind of ANYONE who supports the rule of law.

#4 Close the “Charleston loophole”

It's hard to know what action she would take to do this SINCE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE "CHARLESTON LOOPHOLE".  The FBI has made it clear that existing law would have prevented the shooter from buying a gun - but a clerical error resulted in him passing the background check and thus obtaining the firearm.  If we are talking about taking action to improve the accuracy of the existing background check system (NICS), then she is joining the NRA and the gun industry (and, to be fair, some gun control groups) in pushing for this. However, we should always be concerned when gun control advocates make up terms that have no meaning and then propose laws to fix the "problem".

#5 Close the “online loophole”

Let's be clear - there is no online loophole.  The same laws apply to online sales as to any other sales.  Here are the facts:

First, any internet sale that crosses state lines must go through a licensed firearms dealer - with the exact same background checks and procedures as a sale from that dealer's inventory. This includes complying with any and all state laws that apply.   For this purpose it is shipped to the dealer - not the buyer.

Second, any internet sale within a state cannot be shipped to the buyer.  Provided state law permits it, the transfer must be conducted face to face - just like any other private sale.  Again, the laws in many states make this illegal - thus requiring that the transaction be conducted through a federally licensed dealer with the same background checks as any other sale in that state.

Third, all - repeat all - commercial sales must be conducted through a federally licensed dealer.  Yes, many firearms transactions start on the internet - but no legal transaction ends there.  Many large dealers and even distributors that have large inventories and offer them on the internet, but the transaction always ends at that by now familiar licensed dealer where all required background checks are conducted. 

So, the idea that there is an online loophole - that anyone can order a gun and have it shipped to their home or office - is completely false.

Who can have a gun shipped straight to their home or office?  Only people who hold a Federal Firearms License (FFL).  This includes manufacturers, gunsmiths, and dealers - all of whom, by law, must be licensed.  One other group - federally licensed collectors - can have guns shipped directly to them, but ONLY if the firearm meets the ATF's definition of an historic and collectible firearm.  This generally includes firearms at least 50 years old and excludes any new firearms.  Again, these people have undergone extensive background checks and are licensed just like dealers and must keep the very same records as dealers.  The bottom line?  Only persons holding FFLs can have firearms shipped directly to them - there is no "internet loophole" that allows guns to be ordered on the internet and shipped to unlicensed persons.  This so called "loophole" is nothing but another lie.

#6 Close the “gun show loophole"

Again, let us be clear: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE".  Every single state and federal law that applies outside a gun show, applies inside a gun show - no exceptions.  Sure, you have heard about this one for years, but it is, quite simply a lie.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "LOW VOLUME" OR A LEGAL "UNLICENSED DEALER".  It is currently illegal to be in the business of selling firearms without a federal license - PERIOD.  Anyone doing so can be prosecuted, right now, under current law.

So, why are gun control groups and pro-gun control politicians lying about this?  Simple: They want every transfer of a firearm to require a background check - even between family members.  They know that such a law is not popular, SO THEY JUST LIE.

So, what are we talking about?  Well, when the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA68) was written, an exception was made allowing individuals to "occasionally" sell firearms they have purchased for their personal use or inherited to people in the same state they reside in.  They probably could have defined "occasionally" in such a way to make the law more clear - but IMHO, that was their only error.  

GCA68 quite intentionally left this matter up to the states.  Some require every transfer - even between family members - to go through a dealer.  Others allow sales only to people "known to the seller" or "known to be of good character".  Still other states allow occasional private sales between individuals without such restrictions.

Even many gun owners believe that background checks should be expanded - but this should be accomplished after honest debate.  It should not be brought about through outright, downright lies.

#7 Implement “Comprehensive background checks"

Here we come to the first and only proposal that many reasonable gun owners would support, IF ONLY IT WORKED.  Let's consider some facts:

Every high profile mass shooting involved guns purchased by someone who passed a background check.  None were purchased at a gun show and all but a handful were purchased by the shooter.  In fact, even pro-gun control news outlets have admitted this (CNN - USA Today - The Wire - The Charlotte Observer - Washington Post).  Even more significantly, Professor Adam Winkler of UCLA law school - no fan of gun rights - has stated that even a total gun ban will not stop mass shootings.

What about other crimes?  Would they be stopped or slowed by expanding background checks?  The evidence says no.  In fact, gun crime is highest in states that require background checks, such as New York, California and Illinois.  Given this fact, it is highly unlikely that a national requirement would have any impact.

Additionally, the current law, which makes it a felony (punishable by five years in prison) to lying on the federal form every gun buyer must fill out, is almost never enforced!  In fact, VP Joe Biden made it clear that the administration considers this a waste of time.  In fact, in 2010, out of 72,600+  denials only 44 were prosecuted.  Criminals know this and simply try buying a gun through legal channels, hoping they slip through (which they sometimes do). If they are rejected, they can always turn to the black market.

It is this black market that is the source of most crime guns.  Yet, little effort is made to enforce current laws that make its' transactions illegal.  Instead, the focus is ALWAYS upon more restrictions that only affect law abiding gun owners and buyers.  It is currently illegal to transfer a firearm to anyone prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law.   It is also illegal to buy a firearm for someone else even if they are not prohibited from owning one (this is known as a straw purchase).  One of the questions on form 4473 asks if you are the actual buyer of the firearm and lying on the form is punishable by up to 5 years in prison.  In 2014, the ATF prosecuted only125 cases with a charge of straw purchasing.

Maybe, just maybe, we should try actually enforcing the tens of thousands of gun laws already on the books before we conclude they are not working.  Except people like Hillary Clinton do not want them to work - because the real goal is the disarmament of the American people in violation of the 2nd amendment.