Clinton at private fundraiser: SCOTUS is ‘wrong about the Second Amendment’

posted at 6:41 pm on October 2, 2015 by Matt Vespa

At a small private fundraiser in New York, Hillary Clinton slammed the Supreme Court and the National Rifle Association on Second Amendment issues, even going so far as to say that the Court is “wrong” regarding this provision in our bill of rights. Stephen Gutowski and Alanna Goodman at the Washington Free Beacon obtained the audio of this event:

“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 Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

[…]

“I’m going to speak out, I’m going to do everything I can to rally people against this pernicious, corrupting influence of the NRA and we’re going to do whatever we can,” she said.

Clinton argued that the NRA has “so intimidated elected members of Congress and other legislative bodies that these people are passing the most absurd laws.”

“The idea that you can have an open carry permit with an AK-47 over your shoulder walking up and down the aisles of a supermarket is just despicable,” she said.

Yet, when one says the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment, is the former first lady referring to the Heller case? The 2008 D.C. v Heller was a landmark case that said Americans have a constitutional right to own a handgun unrelated to service in a standing militia, but it only applied to federal enclaves. In 2010, McDonald v. Chicago expanded that right to the states.

I have no doubt that Clinton agrees with these views. I’m not so sure if she has the guts to pull it off. Yes, her husband did take on the NRA and it partially contributed to the 1994 Democratic wipeout. Speaker of the House Tom Foley (D-OR) became the first sitting speaker since Galusha Grow to lose his re-election bid. Grow was booted … in 1862.

Six years later, Democrats still didn’t get the picture. The story goes that Vice President Al Gore could have easily become President Gore if he hadn’t tried to “out-gun control” his Democratic rival, Sen. Bill Bradley (D-NJ), in the primaries; a completely unnecessary move since Bradley never polled within striking distance of Gore. The consequence of this was Arkansas, Tennessee, and West Virginia going for Bush. If these three states had been etched into the Gore column, Florida wouldn’t have been an issue. Bush could have still won Florida, but Gore would have locked down more than enough electoral votes to win the presidency. Since then, the gun control movement has gone into the bunker.

All Clinton is doing is courting the most progressive elements of the Democratic base, which yearns for a candidate that will challenge the NRA and enact new gun control laws. In reality, Clinton rhetoric on SCOTUS being wrong on the Second Amendment, and her pledge to “make that case every chance I get,” is the definition of pie-in-the-sky. You need a functioning state-based Democratic political apparatus to place pressure on localities and state legislatures to change the guns laws, file lawsuits, and hope that the Supreme Court will hear arguments again on the Second Amendment. As it’s been reported before, state-based Democratic parties are all but finished in some states.

This underreported aspect of the Obama era includes the slow, bleeding death of these political operations, which have entered such a state of decrepitude in some areas that Clinton has vowed to rebuild those structures if she’s elected president. With no strong Democratic leaders at the local level, no anti-gun voices in the state legislatures, which have become more Republican since 2008, Hillary’s crusade to reverse landmark gun rights cases on the Supreme Court seems to be nothing more than slogans for fundraising. Moreover, on the legal front, those who are for Second Amendment freedom appear to be on a winning streak, winning cases in California and Illinois that either expand gun rights, or prevent governing bodies from curtailing them.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Good!

Lets get this out there that the supremes can get it wrong.

I can think of two that they had to twist themselves in to pretzels to get the ruling they wanted.

cozmo on October 2, 2015 at 6:44 PM

I suppose Clinton won’t mind her security team being unarmed then.

darwin on October 2, 2015 at 6:46 PM

“Shall not be infringed” There’s no question here of what “Is” means.

Oldnuke on October 2, 2015 at 6:47 PM

As I said in the earlier Bush thread:

Funny how it’s in “gun free zones” that most of the mass shootings occur.

How many mass shootings has their been at shooting ranges?

Yeah… ZERO.

Using the left’s logic then shooting ranges should be the place where the most mass shootings occur. Believe me, if the shooter knew most of his intended victims had guns, he wouldn’t think of trying to do a shooting. Look at Switzerland. It has the highest per capita gun ownership rate, and as far as I know there’s never been a mass shooting in Switzerland.

We need to outlaw gun free zones and work to get more law abiding people carrying guns.

anotherJoe on October 2, 2015 at 6:48 PM

Yeah, campaign on that, Hillary.

Laura Castellano on October 2, 2015 at 6:50 PM

…she’s a B!TCH!

JugEarsButtHurt on October 2, 2015 at 6:50 PM

anotherjoe 6:48

IIRC, Rush mentioned that one of the east coast killers chose to AVOID a place that he’d found out was NOT a gun-free zone.
Should be found within his transcript from yesterday .. Sorry, no time to offer, myself.

pambi on October 2, 2015 at 6:55 PM

The gun-grabbing leftists feel emboldened because they think that their attempts to shame Americans for having the Second Amendment have paid off … except that they haven’t. I so hope they campaign on gun control next year. All Republicans need to do is get out of the way and focus on economic/national security issues.

Aizen on October 2, 2015 at 6:55 PM

The commie democrats wrong about Climate Change too…

pass this new info around

http://www.wattsupwiththat.com/

three different threads on Dr. Shukla and the Institute of Global Environment and Society and the fraud of the Climate Change Govt. grants.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 2, 2015 at 6:58 PM

“We’ve got to go after this,” Clinton continued. “And here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

Clinton in June:

Now that the Supreme Court has once again re-affirmed the ACA as the law of the land, it’s time for the Republican attacks to end. It’s time to move on.

Rich.

dorkintheroad on October 2, 2015 at 7:00 PM

IIRC, Rush mentioned that one of the east coast killers chose to AVOID a place that he’d found out was NOT a gun-free zone.
Should be found within his transcript from yesterday .. Sorry, no time to offer, myself.

pambi on October 2, 2015 at 6:55 PM

That was the Charleston SC shooter.

And the Aurora CO passed up closer by theaters because they allowed guns in.

rbj on October 2, 2015 at 7:05 PM

But the Supreme Court can’t be wrong!

whatcat on October 2, 2015 at 7:11 PM

Bush could have still won Florida

Actually, Bush would have probably lost Florida too as Florida is almost as big a gun state as those 3 mentioned. We have had concealed carry for a long time. We like our guns. And Florida was decided by about 500 votes.

KMav on October 2, 2015 at 7:11 PM

“The idea that you can have an open carry permit with an AK-47 over your shoulder walking up and down the aisles of a supermarket is just despicable,” she said.

This pretty much says it all in regards to gun control types and how much they’re really bothered by mass shootings. People get killed, yet her primary concern is the guy walking in a supermarket harming no one.

xblade on October 2, 2015 at 7:11 PM

Hillary’s crusade to reverse landmark gun rights cases on the Supreme Court seems to be relegated to nothing more than slogans for fundraising

Wut?

corona79 on October 2, 2015 at 7:16 PM

Re-posting:
.

The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was and IS not about the hobby, recreational, or sporting uses of firearms.
It is about common U.S. citizen being empowered with the physical capability to:

1) – make our government fear, and respect us … and further, force them to back-down, if they refuse to fear and respect us.

2) – function as their own first-line of defense against common or VIOLENT criminals.

3) – defend them self against rogue, dangerous animals (domestic and wild), or nuisance animals.

.
It is about the common citizens (that’s “masses,” to you socialist/liberal types) CONTROLLING the government … and not the other way around.

listens2glenn on October 2, 2015 at 7:17 PM

She’ll get away with it. The media will never push her on her Second Amendment views. The GOP nominee won’t either because he’ll have strategists scaring him to death that he’ll lose the suburbs if he challenges Clinton on the gun control.

Mark1971 on October 2, 2015 at 7:20 PM

Overton window movers gonna try to move the Overton window,
haters gonna hate…

Marcola on October 2, 2015 at 7:23 PM

dorkintheroad on October 2, 2015 at 7:00 PM

That is Hillaryous.

SailorMark on October 2, 2015 at 7:25 PM

Could make for an interesting Presidential Debate. Ted Cruz wrote the Amicus Brief for a group of 31 states in the Heller Supreme Court case. I’m sure he would enjoy discussing it with Hillary Clinton on stage:

https://www.tedcruz.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Heller_Amicus_Brief.pdf

From his brief:

This case instead presents two straightforward questions, each of which will determine whether the Second Amendment has any modern relevance. First, as a threshold matter, does the Amendment protect any individual rights at all. And second, do the challenged District ordinances—which collectively prohibit the possession of any functioning firearm in one’s own home—run afoul of that right.

On more difficult questions involving the Amendment’s application—such as registration requirements and comprehensive regulation—the many amici States may well part ways. But the two questions in this case are, in the eyes of amici, not difficult. If the answer to either question were in the negative, then the Second Amendment’s protections would be rendered illusory.

For the same reason, the amici States believe that the Department of Justice’s position that this case should be vacated and remanded is indefensible. Under any standard, including that advocated by the Department, a total prohibition on the possession of any functioning firearm cannot be sustained. The District’s ordinances facially prohibit Mr. Heller from ever possessing a handgun in his own home or from possessing an operable long gun.

An individual right that can be altogether abrogated is no right at all. Amici States are sovereign governmental bodies with strong interests in maintaining extant regulations barring, for example, convicted felons from possessing firearms. But none of the 31 amici States believes that its citizens’ constitutional rights should be effectively erased from the Bill of Rights. Because, under any standard, a total prohibition on the possession of firearms cannot be reconciled with the individual right to keep and bear arms, the court of appeals’s judgment should be affirmed.

village idiot on October 2, 2015 at 7:28 PM

Somebody should ask Donald Trump and Ben Carson whether they agree with Clinton that the Supreme Court wrongly decided the Heller case…

village idiot on October 2, 2015 at 7:30 PM

How many mass shootings has their been at shooting ranges?

Yeah… ZERO.
.
anotherJoe on October 2, 2015 at 6:48 PM

.
Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield would still be alive, if there had been another individual (or more) shooting at the Rough Creek Lodge gun range, that day.
.

We need to outlaw gun free zones and work to get more law abiding people carrying guns.
.
anotherJoe on October 2, 2015 at 6:48 PM

.
Yes we do.
.
(I would make an exception for Court Rooms)

listens2glenn on October 2, 2015 at 7:32 PM

I know of a couple of things they did wrongly decide!

SailorMark on October 2, 2015 at 7:33 PM

Gun control is a golden opportunity to pick up female voters, especially.

Just pound home the simple fact that Democrats want women to be defenseless against big men; against abusers and rapists and thieves and other forms of lowlife.

Remind them that Democrats are desperately trying to import millions of criminals. Point out Sweden, the rape capital of the world now, due to all the Muslims.

And ask them if they want to vote for a party advocating millions of criminals get access to the millions of newly helpless women.

One ad, would seal the election. A woman, walking home, dark, at night, when the confrontation happens. The big man reaches for her, and then we have the Republican ending, where there is a bang and the guy is sprawled on the alley floor, and then the Democrat ending, where all we hear is her screams.

Simple tagline: each ending is the preferred ending of the respective parties. Republicans want women to be able to defend themselves. Democrats want them to be raped and murdered, because guns are scary.

Should shift a few million votes.

Vanceone on October 2, 2015 at 7:36 PM

“We’ve got to go after this,” Clinton continued. “And here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

Clinton in June:

Now that the Supreme Court has once again re-affirmed the ACA as the law of the land, it’s time for the Republican attacks to end. It’s time to move on.

Rich.
.
dorkintheroad on October 2, 2015 at 7:00 PM

.
That’s as stark of a contrast, as anyone could possibly make.

Absolutely excellent … : )
.
Kudos!

listens2glenn on October 2, 2015 at 7:38 PM

Overton window movers gonna try to move the Overton window, haters gonna hate…
.
Marcola on October 2, 2015 at 7:23 PM

.
No one can stop ANYONE from hating, but we’re much too close to a civil war in this U.S. over that “Overton Window.”

listens2glenn on October 2, 2015 at 7:45 PM

Blutig sau!

Neitherleftorright on October 2, 2015 at 7:55 PM

Gun control is a golden opportunity to pick up female voters, especially.

Just pound home the simple fact that Democrats want women to be defenseless against big men; against abusers and rapists and thieves and other forms of lowlife.

Vanceone on October 2, 2015 at 7:36 PM

YES!

The problem is that regardless of how it would affect the vote tally we often have “decent” candidates like Romney who think it would be ungentlemenly to discuss the gun issue in those terms among “polite” society. It didn’t help that Romney had a history of being for gun control.

We need a candidate that’s unambiguously against gun control.

NOT Ben Carson:

“I would rather you not have it [a semi-automatic]. However, if you live out in the country somewhere by yourself and want to own a semi-automatic weapon, I’ve no problem with that.” -Dr. Ben Carson

“Conservatives who refused to engage in conversations about gun control have an infantile attitude.” -Dr. Ben Carson

http://www.rawstory.com/2014/05/dr-ben-carson-on-gun-rights-some-weapons-probably-not-appropriate-like-tanks/

anotherJoe on October 2, 2015 at 7:57 PM

Dana Loesch for President!

John the Libertarian on October 2, 2015 at 8:00 PM

Cruz on Heller exceptions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNUhWoIdFb4

And raising a constitutional question with Sen. Feinstein:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noy5f-y0uhY

village idiot on October 2, 2015 at 8:02 PM

Says the socialist commie wanna be.

TfromV on October 2, 2015 at 8:02 PM

Here’s the Feinstein:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bzb9Hs2SmfQ

And Cruz dismantling the Obama ATF Director appointee on the administration’s failure to prosecute convicted felons who lie on gun background checks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tRidnXwLf8

Does anybody want to debate this guy on the 2nd Amendment?

village idiot on October 2, 2015 at 8:06 PM

“The idea that you can have an open carry permit with an AK-47 over your shoulder walking up and down the aisles of a supermarket is just despicable,” she said.

And there’s the usual deliberate lie that normal everyday gun ownership allows for full auto weapons.

I think Hillary, everdiso, verbaluce, Tlaloc and others of that ilk must be truly disgusting excuses for human beings. It’s quite obvious that they don’t care how many die in mass shootings, in fact the more the better, just so long as they get to disarm the potential victims of all the lowlife scum they are trying to import (MS-13, ISIS, etc.), so as to make all those potential new Democrat voters safer.

GrumpyOldFart on October 2, 2015 at 8:11 PM

More debate prep for Hillary on gun control:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0QOSc_og1U

village idiot on October 2, 2015 at 8:17 PM

listens2glenn on October 2, 2015 at 7:38 PM

Gracias! Of course it’s not hard to count on Clinton to provide choice material.

dorkintheroad on October 2, 2015 at 8:21 PM

Dana Loesch for President!
.
John the Libertarian on October 2, 2015 at 8:00 PM

.
I don’t believe she wants the job, but she would make one FANTASTIC Press Secretary.
.
Can you just imagine those press conferences? … : )

listens2glenn on October 2, 2015 at 8:27 PM

Tom Foley was a Democrat from Eastern Washington State (basically Spokane) not Oregon.

HTL on October 2, 2015 at 8:31 PM

Yawn, I get very weary of the left arguing you don’t need an AK47 to hunt bambi. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with recreational hunting, it does, however, have everything to do with liberty. To paraphrase an old saying,

The last, best defense of a democracy is a well armed populace.

Caluso on October 2, 2015 at 8:33 PM

“The idea that you can have an open carry permit with an AK-47 over your shoulder walking up and down the aisles of a supermarket is just despicable,” she said.

You’re not allowed to have an AK47 over your shoulder, or anywhere else. Kalashnikovs aren’t legal in the US, even absent an “assault” weapons ban, because they’re automatic weapons.

But never let the truth get on the way of a good story. According to the left, AK-47s are used in every shooting ever in the US, and every anti government militia gun nut has a closet full of them somehow.

The Schaef on October 2, 2015 at 8:39 PM

“The idea that you can have an open carry permit with an AK-47 over your shoulder walking up and down the aisles of a supermarket is just despicable,” she said.

I think she just wrested the gold medal for Straw Man Construction away from Obama.

Bitter Clinger on October 2, 2015 at 8:50 PM

“The idea that you can have an open carry permit with an AK-47 over your shoulder walking up and down the aisles of a supermarket is just despicable,” she said.

There are many states in which open carry of a long gun is perfectly legal. In the US, an AK-47 is a semi-automatic rifle similar in function to our AR-15. It is therefore legal to openly carry. She is spewing nonsense to sell irrational fear to her audience.

Serious Drivel on October 2, 2015 at 9:23 PM

So, for lack of any plan to save America from complete collapse, and a total lack of candidates who have 2 whole brain cells to rub together, they plan on running on the ‘grab dem gunz’ platform.

Brilliant.

Molon labe m’f’ker.

Andy__B on October 2, 2015 at 9:58 PM

“so intimidated elected members of Congress and other legislative bodies…”

Which is the primary point of the 2nd Amendment.

Star Bird on October 2, 2015 at 10:28 PM

I think Hillary, everdiso, verbaluce, Tlaloc and others of that ilk must be truly disgusting excuses for human beings. It’s quite obvious that they don’t care how many die in mass shootings, in fact the more the better, just so long as they get to disarm the potential victims of all the lowlife scum they are trying to import (MS-13, ISIS, etc.), so as to make all those potential new Democrat voters safer.

GrumpyOldFart on October 2, 2015 at 8:11 PM

No, they all want what “progressive” absolutists always want. A defenseless populace which can be forced into obedience by systematized terror.

They want to be able to have anyone they don’t like killed without any possibility of risk to themselves. And they want the only weapons to be in the hands of their “loyal minions”. They’re too “moral” and “sophisticated” to do it themselves, you see.

They order death, and watch it like the patricians in the Roman Coliseum. They don’t stoop to doing their own killing.

Tlaloc talks big about kicking a$$es. Everdiso wants the cops to “swat” all gun owners.

Hillary! just wants the whole world to be one gigantic Fort Marcy Park.

They all ultimately are sick, twisted people who dream of exterminating others for fun. And because they are Just So Perfect that anyone who does not acknowledge that perfection with mindless obedience must be obliterated.

This is why “progressives” hate gun owners. In their dream world there are only two kinds of people; the progressives, and the victims.

It’s difficult to victimize somebody who can defend themselves. And in answer to the Death God‘s rant in response, yes, you might get your minions to kill every gun owner, as you have wet dreams about, but if you ever go that far, you will undoubtedly need a new crop of minions very frequently.

Eventually, you’ll have trouble finding anyone who is willing to do the job. What will you do then?

NB; killing them pour encourager les autres is unlikely to enhance your subsequent recruitment efforts.

Something Hillary! would do well to consider, herself, based on her track record.

clear ether

eon

eon on October 2, 2015 at 10:46 PM

This dolt thinks this is a winning strategy. I hope she embraces this argument and runs with it. She’ll be crushed.

Throat Wobbler Mangrove on October 2, 2015 at 11:36 PM

The Republicans in Congress should do something. A good move would be to push for diversion of DHS or other funds to improve security at schools. Hire more security guards etc.

Endless arguments about the 2nd Amendment are not going to win the day. More shootings, a Democrat president and 2 more Justices, and the 2nd will be severely curtailed. The pubs in Congress need to get moving.

cimbri on October 2, 2015 at 11:57 PM

So, i have one question to ask…

why is the NRA referred to as some singular entity that controls politicians?

The NRA has millions of dues paying members and a hundred million sympathizers. They have influence because they have motivated voters. it’s not money and it’s not just LaPierre who holds the strings on the puppets.

Next time someone complains about how the NRA controls politicians, ask them if they feel the same way about planned parenthood. liberals dare not cross PP. why? because they are just as big a lobbying force as the NRA and they control just as many motivated voters.

It is what it is.

moflicky on October 3, 2015 at 12:27 AM

Bush could have still won Florida
Actually, Bush would have probably lost Florida too as Florida is almost as big a gun state as those 3 mentioned. We have had concealed carry for a long time. We like our guns. And Florida was decided by about 500 votes.
KMav on October 2, 2015 at 7:11 PM

What about all the dead dem voters?

RL on October 3, 2015 at 4:12 AM

Dana Loesch for President!

John the Libertarian on October 2, 2015 at 8:00 PM

Dana Loesch me for discipline.

Younggod on October 3, 2015 at 4:36 AM

Simply removed the secret service protection from the Clintons they have and watch their opinions change.

mixplix on October 3, 2015 at 6:30 AM

Auto refresh bites. I know why you do it, and I know the pretense for why you do it.

Lolo on October 3, 2015 at 6:43 AM

Why isn’t this venal witch in prison?!
Why isn’t this venal witch in prison?!
Why isn’t this venal witch in prison?!
Why isn’t this venal witch in prison?!
Why isn’t this venal witch in prison?!

locomotivebreath1901 on October 3, 2015 at 8:22 AM

Go away Hillary,you been nowhere, done nothing, antagonistic leftist dolt.

rplat on October 3, 2015 at 8:47 AM

Under the accepted doctrine of judicial supremacy, the Court is by definition correct, a point which Democrats have heretofore been prone to emphasize. Time to kick John Marshall to the curb, apparently.

PersonFromPorlock on October 3, 2015 at 9:30 AM

SCOTUS is wrong about Obamacare, gay marriage, abortion, Dred Scott etc. But Second amendment they got right. Hillary is and always will be stupid.

Herb on October 3, 2015 at 10:45 AM

MOLON LABE, you evil witch. Please.

Wyatt Wingfoot on October 3, 2015 at 1:02 PM

Hillary, when you and Bill walk in a gun free zone make sure your security team is only carrying pepper spray. That I’d like to see.

woodhull on October 3, 2015 at 1:39 PM

The people are with the Republicans on this issue, will they exploit this issue and make the entire election hinge on fighting for the 2nd amendment or will they let another opportunity go to waste? You know, tell us we have to “get with the times” and “enact common sense gun laws” that strip us of our rights?

Dollayo on October 5, 2015 at 8:15 AM