Wednesday night marked the last time we\u2019ll see Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on the presidential debate stage for 2016. In less than three weeks, either Clinton or Trump will be our next POTUS.<\/p>\n
If you watched last night then you saw, as I did, the Second Amendment take center stage at the outset of the debate. It was raised by Trump after Fox News\u2019 Chris Wallace asked the candidates about their views on the Supreme Court and the Constitution.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe need a Supreme Court that in my opinion is going to uphold the second amendment and all amendments, but the second amendment which is under absolute siege,\u201d said Trump in his response.<\/p>\n
\u201cI believe, if my opponent should win this race, which I truly don’t think will happen, we will have a second amendment which will be a very, very small replica of what it is right now,\u201d the GOP nominee continued.<\/p>\n
Trump added that the 20 or so potential appointees he\u2019s named all have a \u201cconservative bent,\u201d would protect the Second Amendment and \u201cinterpret the Constitution the way the founders wanted it interpreted.\u201d<\/p>\n
Wallace followed up Trump\u2019s response by asking Clinton specifically about a statement she made in which she claimed, \u201cThe Supreme Court got it wrong on the Second Amendment,\u201d and whether that was in reference to the high court\u2019s 2008 landmark Heller Decision that struck down the D.C. ban on handguns and affirmed that the Second Amendment is an individual right not contingent upon militia service.<\/p>\n
Clinton responded, \u201cWell, first of all, I support the second amendment. I lived in Arkansas for 18 wonderful years. I represented upstate New York. I understand and respect the tradition of gun ownership that goes back to the founding of our country, but I also believe that there can be and must be reasonable regulation.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Democratic presidential nominee went on to name some of her \u201creasonable regulation,\u201d mentioning \u201ccomprehensive background checks,\u201d the \u201cneed to close the online loophole,\u201d and the \u201cgun show loophole.\u201d She said these regulations are sensible and \u201care not in any way conflicting with the Second Amendment.\u201d<\/p>\n
As far as her explanation of opposing the Supreme Court\u2019s Heller decision<\/a>, Clinton said that the \u201cDistrict of Columbia was trying to do was to protect toddlers from guns. And so they wanted people with guns to safely store them. And the court did not accept that reasonable regulation but they’ve accepted many others.\u201d<\/p>\n Wallace then pivoted backed to Trump and asked him if he found Hillary\u2019s answer convincing, i.e., that she wants to protect the Second Amendment.<\/p>\n Trump missed an opportunity to hammer Clinton on her anti-gun views, and instead repeated himself about how Clinton was \u201cextremely angry about it [the Heller decision],\u201d and that she was \u201cvery, very angry,\u201d and \u201cHillary was extremely upset,\u201d and \u201cextremely angry,\u201d and that Second Amendment supporters were \u201cvery upset with what she had to say.\u201d<\/p>\n Wallace asked Clinton if she was upset. In a slippery move, she ducked the question and brought up \u201cdozens of toddlers\u201d injuring themselves and \u201ceven killing people with guns\u201d because gun owners don\u2019t take appropriate precautions with loaded firearms (NOTE<\/strong>: this coincides with a Brady PSA released this week, entitled, “Guns Don’t Kill People, Toddlers Kill People<\/a>“).<\/p>\n Clinton then said, \u201cBut there is no doubt that I respect the second amendment. That I also believe there is an individual right to bear arms. That is not in conflict with sensible, common sense regulation.\u201d<\/p>\n Wow. Just wow. Folks, I have to say it, but Clinton cleaned Trump\u2019s clock on this question. Trump, who is clearly not well read on this issue, could not hold Hillary\u2019s feet to the fire on any of her anti-gun views.<\/p>\n To recap, here are Hillary\u2019s positions on the Second Amendment:<\/p>\n That whole line about her being upset with the Heller decision because it didn\u2019t protect toddlers is complete B.S. Brilliantly, she\u2019s found a way to pivot from the central point of the Heller decision, which as mentioned struck down the D.C. ban on handguns and affirmed one\u2019s individual right to keep and bear arms, and make it about the storage of firearms to protect\u00a0toddlers.<\/p>\n Do you want to know where that whole toddler line came about? Well, after audio was leaked <\/a>from a fundraiser in New York, in 2015, where Clinton said, \u201cthe Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get,\u201d one of her policy advisors came up with this line of nonsense.<\/p>\n “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 to Bloomberg News<\/a> in May of 2016. “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.”<\/p>\n It\u2019s a sleight of hand, is what it is. Clinton is engaged in a clever play of misdirection. \u00a0See, safe storage laws currently exist in places like Massachusetts<\/a> and New York and California. States have the power to pass those laws, specifically as it relates to the transportation of firearms and storing firearms not in use.<\/p>\n Now, in addition to the D.C. handgun ban, Heller also struck down a draconian D.C. law that required gun owners to keep all firearms disassembled or inoperable, even those kept around for self-defense (Can you imagine being required to keep a trigger lock on your concealed carry pistol or your home defense AR disassembled?). \u00a0However, there was no mention of this D.C. storage requirement in relation to saving children or toddlers. \u00a0That was pure B.S. fabricated by Clinton’s policy wonk.<\/p>\n On the whole, Heller doesn\u2019t stand in the way of certain safe storage laws nor does it stand in the way of \u201creasonable regulations\u201d per the ruling penned by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. What Heller stops is overtly draconian gun laws, i.e. the D.C. ban on handguns or the D.C. law that requires one to keep one’s home defense gun disassembled.<\/p>\n So, by opposing Heller, what Clinton is actually saying is she wants to go back to the age of pre-Heller where states and local government have carte blanche to gut the Second Amendment as they see fit. If given the opportunity, she will appoint justices that embrace this perspective and overturn what has become the safeguard\u00a0for gun rights in the USA.<\/p>\n #APFactCheck<\/a>: Clinton misstates Supreme Court’s finding on District of Columbia’s gun law. https:\/\/t.co\/fLrTPf1Hrm<\/a> pic.twitter.com\/46XUMlSkYv<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n