“I disagreed with the way the court applied the Second Amendment [in the District of Columbia vs. Heller decision],” Hillary Clinton declared in last night’s presidential debate. “I was upset because unfortunately dozens of toddlers injure themselves and even kill people with guns… But there’s no doubt I respect the Second Amendment, that I believe there’s an individual right to bear arms.”

Shocking though it is, the stoutly anti-gun rights Associated Press‘ fact checker determined that Ms. Clinton was FOS. Like this:

While Clinton emphasized the protection of children from gun accidents, the main holding in that case was far broader: that individuals have a right to own guns, at least in their homes and for self-defense. The case marked the first time the court said that individuals have a Second Amendment right to own a gun. The decision struck down Washington’s ban on handgun ownership as well as a separate requirement that people who have other guns store them either with trigger locks or disassembled. The court said both provisions violate the Second Amendment.

Ba-bam!

Recommended For You

54 Responses to AP Fact Check: Clinton Misrepresented Heller Decision

  1. You can just tell mrs. Clinton has a real problem with the Second Amendment and is a liar Plus. She has come completely 180 degrees for this last debate because no other president has ever been elected if they were anti-gun. So she’s trying to save her butt with the gun rights folks like ourselves by alluding the question and speaking about something that was only part of what the Supreme Court found unconstitutional. She’s a real hypocrite this one and scary to boot.

    • The hypocrisy was on full display when all she could think about was infant and toddler safety when it came to guns, but when it comes to abortion she is steadfastly against any ban on abortions of unborn children who are DAYS away from being born.

      So it’s fine to kill a fetus a week away from birth, but it’s deplorable that a 1 year old can pick up a gun and kill itself because of the online and gun show loopholes.

      • Yeah the average is around 30 children per year under the age of 14 it may be done under the age of 16 are killed accidentally with a firearm in the home. The average is somewhere around 300 children every year drowned in 5 gallon buckets and she’s trying to come up with some number of 33000 or some ridiculous number die every year by accident from unlocked guns that are discovered by young children and infants that doesn’t sound very correct. The cdc’s numbers don’t jive with her numbers.

        • Hillary’s 33,000 number refers to the annual number of suicides, murders, negligent deaths, and justifiable homicides where a firearm was the killing method. That number is actually quite accurate.

          As others have already stated, toddlers who access a firearm and kill someone total at most a few dozen annually.

          So, Hillary’s numbers were actually quite accurate. The problem is that she conflated the total number of annual deaths with toddler involved deaths to make it sound like 33,000 toddlers access firearms and kill someone every year.

  2. you guys might as well just take a vacation. she is going to win like i said all along. we are finished. all we can do is hope congress and the senate don’t pass anything she puts forward. trump NEVER had a chance at beating her because he can not play the game and unfortunately that is what its all about now. he doesn’t have the political favors to do what it takes to get their votes.

    • I’m afraid you may be right we can only hope and pray. But I’m playing the game I agree butt he comes off as honest and that’s totally unheard of with politicians nowadays these career politicians. Politics was supposed to be something you did as a gesture to serve your country when you were done with your turn you would go back to your full-time job. Whether that be a military leader farmer or property owner it didn’t matter. There was no such thing as career politicians and now that we have these kind of people running for years they are able to side skirt the checks and balances system to the point of corruption just like Hillary Clinton has done. Along with the liberal media.

    • I’ve been saying for the last year that there may be only eight living people vote for her and she’ll still win in a landslide.

      I don’t think she’ll carry Indiana, though, even with her fraud committee working overtime.

        • Don’t give up yet! I mailed my ballot in with Trump 2016 and I’m a registered Dem! Though I’ve only voted for one dem.

        • Why is it interesting?

          It shows that people are ordering and returning absentee ballots, but it doesn’t give you any indication of *who* they voted for.

          There’s a whole truckload of registered democrats who will never vote Hillary, and there’s probably an even bigger tractor-trailerload of registered republicans who will never vote Trump.

          The raw data doesn’t tell us anything. The commentary interspersed by the author of that blog post is extremely misleading when it characterizes certain results as “good” for either candidate.

        • Jay:

          May I ask where you live? My parents are both registered democrats because where they live (Santa Fe) it’s the only way to get a say in the primary for local elections. No one with an R wins there so there’s no point in being involved in that primary process. In fact, most D’s run unopposed on the local elections. All my parents can do is pick the lesser evil in a primary and then vote against them in the general if there’s even a challenger!

    • Essentially, no future citizen lacking years of playing the politics game can ever become POTUS.

      No person who is not a second term POTUS or VP, including HRC, is ever prepared for what the duties of that office will require. As things stand now, George Washington would not be fit to serve according to the progressives like HRC. If HRC had her way, Gerald Ford could never have stepped into the position of POTUS.

      Can you imagine what the Founders would say to this?

      • The only thing standing between Trump and the White House is his own arrogance. A humbler man would have won hands down, because Hillary is an incredibly weak candidate.

        • Why do you use the past tense?

          She hasn’t won yet and there’s good reason to believe that Trump can pull this off…

          (He’s not my first choice, but he’s better than HRC and you go into an election with the candidate you have not the ideal candidate you want.)

  3. “The case marked the first time the court said that individuals have a Second Amendment right to own a gun.”

    Fact check that little piece of BS

    • I think that’s basically correct. Heller was the first time the Supreme Court specifically stated that the 2A applies to individuals, completely unconnected with any “militia” BS.

      • Not at all (see below for details). It’s the first time that SCOTUS has _ruled_ so on the Second, but it’s far from the first time the Court has said that the Second is an individual right.

    • One of the earliest is Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) –

      From Wikipedia: The court ruled Scott did not enjoy the protection of the Bill of Rights because of his racial background. However, in its ruling, it implies all free men do have the right to bear arms by indicating what would happen if he was indeed afforded full protection:

      “It would give to persons of the negro race, … the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, … the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

      Mr Scott got the shaft, but the individual right to keep and bear arms for all citizens was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1857.

      The AP’s claim of fist time – 4 Pinocchios

      • “. . . it implies all free men do have the right . . . ” You have this completely wrong. Taney’s opinion was that it was perfectly clear that Negros could never be deemed to be citizens and thereby entitled to Constitutional rights. What is implied is that native Americans likewise couldn’t be citizens. Whether an individual of some other skin-color – perhaps an Asian – who had immigrated would be eligible for citizenship was not discussed.
        Taney’s analysis was not comprehensive. He did not discuss the hypothetical of a free sailor of African origin might disembark in America and take-up residence. Might he be naturalized? If never naturalized but well established as a free man domiciled in America with an intention of remaining here, would he have the same rights as a French immigrant?
        We simply don’t know the answers to any of these questions. It is perfectly clear from Taney’s opinion that black skin color precluded the possibility of citizenship; and, that precluded the possibility of any Negro, free or slave, from being recognized as having any rights.

        • All that you say is true, but… Part of the justification was that if Negroes were granted citizenship then they would have rights – the same rights as everyone else. Perhaps he couldn’t come to grips with the specter of armed blacks, and hoped the imagery would convince the rest of the citizenry of the rightness of his opinion. No surprise that an inherently racist decision, denying rights to blacks, would use racism in its reasoning and justification.

          Taney is a complicated character, though. He wrote the majority opinion depriving Mr Scott of his rights. But he emancipated his own slaves. He made several – what would now be considered highly incendiary – statements regarding the inferiority of the black race, yet gave pensions to his own slaves that could no longer work. I only rarely see referenced that it is his majority opinion in the Dred Scott case that is the first mention by the Court that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

      • Not really a second amendment case, and the overall ruling is not one I would want my civil rights tied too. In addition, a how lot of actual second amendment cases came out after that that directly address the right to bear arms. But it is funny how the courts will due the dance necessary to reach their conclusions in the later cases.

      • But you miss a distinction.

        Heller was the first case where the Supreme Court HELD that the 2nd amendment was an individual right. Holdings are ” ratio decidendi” and thus binding precedent.

        In Dredd Scott there was, of course, mention of it as an individual right. But that was something said in passing, i.e. perhaps persuasive of the main point, but not essential. Thus it was a “orbiter dictum” or a “dictum” for short. The dicta of a decision are not binding, though they may have persuasive force.

        • Your comment demonstrates why most here hold lawyers and the judiciary to be “contemptible.”

          I know what ‘infringed” means.

          Read US V Miller, then explain yourself.

        • The reason that Heller is so notable may be that early on it was obvious and accepted that it was an individual right. There was concern that the bill of rights was dangerous in its redundancy. All ten were just so obviously natural rights.

          It wasn’t until the cancer of progressivism began to take hold – about the time of Wilson in the nineteenteens – that any thought they could get away with redefining ‘infringed’ to mean whatever they want it to mean.

          By the thirties, statism was firmly entrenched, thus the NFA in thirty four and Miller in thirty nine.

        • Actually, John, the move away from it being an individual right began right after the Civil War, when the idea that is was a right only pertaining to members of an enrolled militia emerged — and that was invented in order to keep blacks from being armed, which was desired so they could be lynched at will.

          The U.S. Congress happily gave us the Fourteenth Amendment primarily to ensure that blacks could not be deprived of their right to keep and bear arms on the basis of this fiction.

  4. Hell must be starting to get a little chilled.

    I imagine most propagandapapers (can’t really call them newspapers since they’re not about news) will not pick up this APRIL tidbit and then say it was reported when challenged on their bias.

    Notice AP had to soft sell it though. She lied again as perpetual liars do.

  5. Misrepresented, now that’s an interesting use of that word.
    Robert, I don’t think misrepresented means what you think it means.
    IM-

  6. “Clinton Misrepresented…” Is there anything she has ever done or said where this qualifier would not apply? Sorry. It just kind of jumped out at me.

    • And for all the idiots who voted for Trump in the primary’s, thanks for taking away our gun rights. But I really want to thank Trump for not listening to his handlers. Boy what a mess

  7. I had myself a little chuckle when Wallace brought up the Heller decision. “Toddlers, Toddlers, Toddlers…Toddlers!”

    “…toddlers”

  8. How many children have died in Lybia and Syria because of former Secretary of State Clinton’s interventionist Mid East policy? Thousands? Tens of thousands? How many displaced? Hundreds of thousands? This woman has blood dripping down her finger nails.

    How many kids drown in pools every year? In Florida drowning deaths are the leading cause of deaths for kids 4-9 or something similar to that age group. 42,000 people every year die from second hand smoke way more then intentional gun homicides.

  9. I don’t recall that the legislative history of the pre-Heller DC gun law made any mention of accidents with toddlers. Nor do I recall that DC raised this class of accident-prone persons as notable.
    No doubt DC was concerned that any operable gun might be discharged, whether deliberately or accidentally, by anyone. I suspect they were more concerned about adults and teens then they were about toddlers.
    If I’m correct, Hillary made up the “toddlers” rationale from whole cloth.

    • I think she confused the Heller decision with the current Brady Campaign propaganda video. Imagine that; Hillary confused about the facts.

    • The “safe storage” provision was all but inoperative at the time of Heller since the only handguns that could be owned were those that had been grandfathered in 33 years ago.

    • When she walked out on stage last night the only thing I could think of was ‘Kim Jong-Un called, he wants his outfit back’. Besides The Devil shouldn’t wear white after Labor Day.

  10. I support the 1st Amendment, but I have a problem with people writing nasty things about politicians in newspapers. I think we should be able to do something about that, but no doubt I support the First Amendment.

      • I have a problem with people publishing offensive Islamophobic cartoons in newspapers. I think we should be able to do something about that. I support the First Amendment, but we can’t have people just drawing and publishing cartoons anytime they feel like it.

  11. The words “toddler” and “child” are found nowhere in the Heller opinion. It was about the individual right to keep and bear arms, not child safety.

  12. She’s a liar. Don’t be surprised. She also lied about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia, the Benghazi attack, and her personal email server.

    You can tell she’s lying when her lips are moving.

  13. I don’t give a flying f bomb about abortion, but Roe V Wade is a ridiculous secession combined with the court’s activity since the 1930s.

    Apparently the constitutions gives many rights, except for the ones it explicitly gives. Free speech and right to keep and bear arms are apparently subject to “reasonable restrictions”, but abortion can’t have any restrictions at all.

    • I love how Hillary stated that government has absolutely no business telling women what they can and cannot do … about abortion. But it is perfectly okay for government to tell women what they can and cannot do … about firearm ownership and possession.

  14. I love how some of the TTAG armchair Civil Rights attorneys post counter arguments against their own codified civil liberties ?!? Talk about “shooting ones self in the foot!?!”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *