Hillary Lies About The Heller Case – And Omits One Detail About Citizens United
During Wednesday’s final presidential debate, Hillary Clinton claimed that the Heller case centered around toddlers shooting themselves or other people. I can think of an eight-letter word to describe her comments – the first four letters are B, U, L, and L.
As someone who followed the case, I can tell you up front, it was about whether or not Washington D.C.’s blanket ban on handgun ownership was constitutional. By a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court said it was not, and it reaffirmed that the Second Amendment was an individual right.
So, either Hillary really doesn’t know what the Heller case was about, in which case, she really had no business saying the Supreme Court got it wrong; or she does know what the case was about and lied to the American people. Now, granted, gun-grabbers lie a lot about their agenda. They have to in order to get us to accept the baby steps towards their true goal.
Honesty can kill them. Remember Feinstein’s “60 Minutes” interview, where she said if she could have gotten 51 votes for a “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn `em in”, she would have gone for that? Or how about when Bill Clinton famously admitted he favored registration of guns after Columbine in an interview with ABC?
And of course, we also would be remiss as to why Hillary wants to overturn Citizens United. That case involved the Federal Election Commission trying to ban both the airing of a film critical of Hillary Clinton AND advertisements for that film within 30 days of the Democratic presidential primaries. In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court shot down the FEC on First Amendment grounds.
Now, why would Hillary want to overturn that ruling? Guess she wants to outlaw making the argument against her corruption and failed policies, whether it’s on guns or something else. Just think that over when you go vote.
Suit Against Remington Tossed
Late last week, a judge in Connecticut threw out a lawsuit filed by family members of the victims of a gunman who killed 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. In Soto v. Bushmaster, the families were trying to claim that the stolen AR-15 used in the tragic shooting had been “negligently entrusted.”
The judge dismissed those claims, but this suit was particularly insidious. The plaintiffs claimed that allowing any civilian to own an AR-15-type rifle fell under “negligent entrustment.” You could see where the end result of that logic could lead: In a state dominated by gun-grabbers, the AR-15 (or any other gun) could be banned nationwide with a settlement forced by well-funded trial lawyers. Your recourse: None whatsoever.
Given that pro-Second Amendment voters have generally succeeded in voting out enough gun-grabbers at the federal and state level to make sure that gun-ban legislation never passes, this was a sneaky and devastating end run. But the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, passed in 2005, had put a stop to this and other suits intended to use the threat of costly litigation to force gun manufacturers to agree to their anti-Second Amendment agenda.
Hillary Clinton wants to repeal that law. No surprise, she voted against it in 2005. But the real reason may be that she won’t have to sign a gun ban – she can get trial lawyers and big-city mayors who have failed to address high crime in their cities to sue their way in.
The plaintiffs will be appealing the ruling. Keep in mind, this highlights the importance of the Supreme Court (anyone want to bet how Hillary’s nominees will rule on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act?), and the need to keep working to protect our rights.
Yet Another Australian Gun Grab
The Adler A110 is a lever-action shotgun – and now, in Australia, the government is planning to ban those guns twenty years after passing a sweeping gun ban. The reason? The advertising campaign supposedly painted the Adler A110 as a rapid-fire gun – and thus, in the minds of gun-grabbers, exposed a “loophole” in Australia’s gun laws that must be closed for the sake of public safety.
Of particular note is that the Adler A110 was supposed to be allowed for importation this past August, but the Australian government reneged on the deal made with pro-gun Senators. Why? They wanted more time to discuss how to classify the gun. It seems that hundreds of orders got the gun-grabbers in a tizzy.
This is how gun-grabbers operate. Their “compromises” are just steps towards their end goal. Today’s “universal background check” is tomorrow’s registration. Do you need to remember what Dianne Feinstein said back in 1995?
On a happier note, if you want more info on the Adler A110, go here. The site is in Turkish, but some browsers can translate it. That gun looks pretty cool.
Hollywood Goes Full Gun-Grab
It looks like the gun-grabbers are going behind another “documentary” after Katie Couric’s “Under the Gun” (bought and paid for by Bloomberg) got her a defamation suit. Now, the directorial “genius” behind the 1980 bomb Xanadu is unveiling “Making a Killing” and the left in Hollywood is trying to make it a contender for an Oscar.
The fact that this was the last refuge for a failed director should speak volumes, but remember, these Hollywood types still have a lot of reach. Also keep in mind that this shows that the gun-grabbers don’t give up. They are always trying to enact their agenda.
Obama Lets More Loose
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review notes that Barack Obama has, “commuted the sentences of 15 federal inmates convicted of crimes involving firearms.” These are people who have violated gun laws already on the books. This is the typical pattern of gun-grabbers. They ignore laws on the books, particularly at the federal level. If one looks at 18 USC 922 and 18 USC 924, there is plenty to put away bad guys who misuse firearms to commit crimes. For proof, take a look at the success of Project Exile in Richmond, Virginia.
Over 17 years ago (almost 18), the New York Times, of all media outlets, told the tale of one Melvin “Bug” Smith. One of the most notorious gang members in that city, Smith had often been suspected of crimes, but intimidated witnesses. Then, he got snared in Project Exile. A combination of crack cocaine, a 9mm pistol, and a 12-gauge shotgun got Smith a sentence of 16 years and six months in a federal prison out of state. Witnesses then came forward, and Smith was soon back on his way to Richmond to face six murder charges, two of which were capital murder charges. The mayor of Richmond at the time was Tim Kaine – the same guy running with Hillary Clinton now.
So, why don’t those laws get used? Why isn’t Project Exile being taken to Chicago, Baltimore, or other inner city neighborhoods that desperately need the bad guys locked up?