by Bob Owens | Townhall | August 17, 2016
Hillary Clinton is running the first presidential campaign in the history of the United States based explicitly on the gutting of a core Constitutional and human right.
Clinton has made attacking the human right of self-defense a key part of her 2016 campaign, and if she’s elected—and down-ballot Democrats manage to take control of the Senate and/or House—she’s poised to be able to destroy the gun rights of American citizens in three distinct ways.
__Place progressive, anti-gun justices on the Supreme Court
__Pass bans on a wide range of common firearms
__Repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)
Stacking the Supreme Court With Anti-Gun Justices
There is already one opening on the U.S. Supreme Court following the death of textualist Justice Antonin Scalia, and there are likely to be more justices who either retire, or simply pass on due their advanced ages in the next four years.
Progressive Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 83. Moderate Anthony Kennedy is 80. Liberal-moderate Stephen Breyer is 78.
The next President will appoint a replacement for Scalia, and there has been some terrifying speculation on who that may be.
If the next President is Clinton, and Democrats manage to win control of the Senate in a “wave” election, there’s a good chance that she’s not only be able to appoint a left-leaning justice, but one with radical progressive ideology. Two of the other three elderly justices (Ginsburg, Breyer) may also retire if Clinton were to take office, to be replaced by much younger and more radicalized justices. I don’t think Justice Kennedy would chose to retire under Clinton, but at 80 years old, health issues forcing retirement, or simply death, are always a possibility.
If Clinton wins, she will appoint at least one Supreme Court Justice, and plausibly as many as four. This would assure a dramatic leftward shift in the court. While it is unlikely that a “Clinton Court” will directly challenge Heller, they will almost certainly decide whether the many state and local “assault weapon” bans weaving their way through lower courts are indeed constitutional. This ties in directly to the next threat of a Clinton presidency.
Banning A Wide Range Of Popular Firearms & Accessories
Clinton’s radicalized rhetoric has championed both bans on what she calls “weapons of war,” and the “Australian model” of gun buybacks under the threat of government force.
Actual “weapons of war”—machine guns and selective-fire firearms—have not been manufactured for the civilian market for 30 years, and cannot be, due to the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA).
Yes, you heard that correctly. Despite serial lies by Democrats and the mainstream media, actual military rifles are not manufactured for the American market and haven’t been on over a generation.
What Clinton actually wants to ban are the most common firearms sold in the United States. This includes common hunting rifles, target rifles, many popular handguns, standard rifle and pistol magazines, and—if Clinton follows Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey’s deranged lead, could result in the majority of firearms designed in the past 100 years being banned.
The threat of new federal gun laws is even more pronounced if gun owners unhappy with their choice of Presidential candidates, opt to sit the 2016 elections out entirely, and Democrats manage to gain seats in the House and Senate, or even win majorities outright.
Dismantling the Protection of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act
Hillary Clinton has made it clear that her “death blow” against the Second Amendment won’t be an attempt to repeal the Second Amendment directly, but to instead drive the gun industry itself out of business.
The weapon she has chosen to attack you human right to self defense is the repeal of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA.
Clinton has attacked PLCAA repeatedly on the campaign trail, and—lying about it shamelessly—claiming that it grants the firearms industry “immunity” from lawsuits.
This claim is entirely false, which Clinton well knows.
PLCAA does one thing, and one thing only: it protects the firearms industry from frivolous lawsuits filed by gun control supporters looking to bankrupt gun dealers and gun companies.
In the 1990s and early 2000s, the Brady Campaign (former called the National Council to Control Handguns and Handgun Control, Inc.) used deep-pocketed gun control supporters to finance what was known as “lawfare.”
Anti-gun attorneys would look for people to use as patsies to serve as plaintiffs in frivolous civil lawsuits against gun dealers, distributors, and manufacturers. The goal of these suits were always transparent, and always the same. These gun control supporters didn’t really care if they won or lost their cases, or if their plaintiff patsies were ripped to emotional shreds; their goal was then (and remains now) to force gun dealers, distributors, and manufacturers to have to hire expensive attorneys and spend hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars in legal fees to defend themselves in court.
PLCAA was passed into law specifically to keep a handful of gun control supporting billionaires from bankrupting the American gun industry from top to bottom with frivolous lawsuits. Hillary Clinton wants to repeal PLCAA so that her allies, such as Michael Bloomberg, can then finance wave after wave of lawsuits to bankrupt gun companies with exorbitant legal fees.
If Clinton is successful in her goal of repealing PLCAA—which she could very conceivably do if she is elected in a “wave” that sees Democrats pick up seats in the House and Senate—then no gun dealer or manufacturer, or sporting goods store, or ammunition company, would be immune to frivolous lawsuits, and all would be sued out of business.
You would not be able to buy new guns, because there would be no manufacturers or importers after they were targeted, one-by-one.
In many states where universal background checks are required, you would not be able to buy, sell, or trade existing guns, as dealer after dealer would be sued out of business.
You would not be able to buy ammunition for your existing guns, as ammunition companies would also be targeted for extermination, as Brady tried to do against Lucky Gunner as recently as last year (only to have their case struck down by a judge citing PLCAA).
This truly is an “all or nothing” election, folks.
If you own any firearm of any kind, for any reason, or ever want to own a firearm for any reason, electing Hillary Clinton is simply non-viable.
I know that there are Republicans, Democrats, third-party voters and political agnostics who aren’t thrilled with their choices of Presidential candidates this year. I’m certainly not.
I will tell you that if she is elected, Hillary Clinton will seek to destroy not just your right, but your ability to own, trade, and shoot the most common firearms in the United States.
All of them, without exception.
This includes your bolt-action deer rifle, your pump shotgun, your grandfather’s heirloom revolver, the pistol you purchased for self defense, and the little .22 rifle you learned to shoot as a kid.
Consider yourself warned, and vote strategically to protect the Constitution and the right to bear arms against the most dangerous and corrupt candidate to ever be nominated for President.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Once Hillary's Supreme Court Justices rule that the Second Amendment applies only to the military and not to the individual citizen, states like California, cities like San Francisco, and other jurisdictions will be able to ban the ownership of certain types of firearms, or even ban any gun ownership.
No comments:
Post a Comment