“I was just researching in the Clinton Presidential Library archives, and came across a fax from “Deputy Secretary” (of what, is unstated) to Clinton’s Domestic Policy Council,” David Hardy at armsandthelaw.com writes, “relating to settlement terms to demand in the lawsuits against gun manufacturers, which were then being brought by New York, some other jurisdictions, and private plaintiffs, and held the risk of bankrupting the industry.” Thankfully President Bush, the NRA, and Republicans rode to the rescue in 2005 with the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The Act prohibits lawsuits against gunmakers for negligence when their products are used in a crime. Click here to read a PDF of the Clinton fax, which is scary, scary stuff. Here’s Hardy’s horrifying summary . . .

It lists demands which would have achieved most of the antigun legislative objectives, without the work of getting Congress to agree. One gun a month, gun registration, eliminate non-inventory small FFLs, no guns capable of taking greater than ten round magazines, no sales of greater than ten round magazines, no juveniles allowed on gun dealer premises without a parent or guardian, gun manufacturers to finance a fund to propagandize on the dangers of guns, etc., etc.. And all without asking Congress to pass legislation.

If you think Mrs. Clinton wasn’t on board with all this, think again. If you think the current Democrat presidential candidate wouldn’t use any and all executive power to accomplish these and other restrictions on Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, you forgot that bit about a tiger’s inability to change its stripes. Or you simply haven’t been paying attention to candidate Clinton’s clarion calls for “balance” between gun rights and civilian disarmament “common sense gun reforms.” But you will if and when Hillary sloughs off her email issues and assumes power, and firearms start flying off the shelves. You have been warned. Again. Still. [h/t TVMR]

Recommended For You

36 Responses to [Bill] Clinton’s Non-Legislative Gun Grab Revealed

  1. It’s pathetic that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is even required.

    If they produced a defective product – that is understandable, but if someone used their product for criminal purposes, how are they responsible?

    Are the libs going to sue Cuisinart and Kitchen-aid if someone uses their product to kill or injure someone? Of course not. They exercise no logic whatsoever.

    • Actually, I could see someone sueing Kitchenade.

      First, many if not most people’s first reaction is to want someTHING, not someONE, to blame when evil or just bad happens. At least these days. Didn’t used to be, but then people in general used to have a better appreciation of the distinction between accident and negligence. Anyway.

      Second, those companies have deep pockets, far deeper than even the (I presume) very rare non-white-collar criminal with a personal unlimited liability policy.

      One plus two equals lawyers willing to sue “on spec” because the potential payoffs are so great. Ever wonder about the insane proliferation of warning labels? This is why.

    • Sue the federal reserve for making money so attractive that people are willing to kill for it. What about suing the builders of a certain commercial plane that took down a building or three? Bill Gates is responsible for all electronically aided treason and theft.

    • Remember, the goal of those lawsuits was never to win, that was impossible. The goal was to force manufacturers to put so much money into defending against them, they would go bankrupt, while plaintiffs, including the government, had more money than they’d ever need. “Loser pays triple” would have ended it much quicker.

      • The Lucky Gunner case showed that “loser pays” may not be a deterrent (it was a frivolous lawsuit case, not a loser pays case), but it is still a heck of a punishment.

        • I dunno. The lucky gunner may have sent a message to would be plantifs. The message that the Brady bunch isn’t gonna pic up the check when you lose. See they knew that suit would never make it. They wanted to hurt the luckey gunner with the process. They did not I think count on such aggressive enforcement of the frivolous suit laws.

    • PoLCiAA exists for one singular reason: Because no other industry has suffered the sort of direct, dedicated attacks of clearly frivolous and baseless lawsuits filed for the sole purpose of bleeding the industry out of money by forcing it to defend itself against thousands of these bad suits. I believe HCI even admitted to this specific tactic in the past. Heck, they were PROUD of it.

  2. Proof that god exists. Through some miracle, with libs controlling the media, not even a Fox news, and very little internet connectivity for alternative viewpoints to be shared, this did not come to pass.

  3. She was the one behind Bill Clinton’s assault weapons ban, so you have to ot her in the same boat as Dianne Feinstein–“Mr. and Mrs. America, turn in your guns!” On the other hand, even if elected, she will have the same difficulty in passing onerous regulation as Obama has, given the Republican majority in both houses (at least at present). Nor do I think that she is a shoe-in. The e-mail controversy is just a flash in the pan, and the Bengazi controversy, despite years of investigation, has never turned up any solid evidence of wrong-doing.

    Rather, the Republicans hate her, and the even the Democrats that I’ve spoken to do not trust her either. It seems to me that the Party is actively searching for a viable alternative candidate–which at this moment appears to be Joe Biden. (As if.) And then there is the Trump phenomenon; he may not ultimately be a viable candidate either, as many on the left see him as a racist and misogynist, but he has tapped into an underlying rage and nationalism of American voters that cannot be denied.

    • Benghazi is only a demonstration of the administration’s incompetence, including Clinton. The totally incompetent, completely ridiculous coverup is evidence only that they are unfit to govern, I don’t see criminal like Bill, under oath and proven to be lying, he should have gone to jail for perjury.

    • Mark N.,

      If the electorate votes a democrat to the Presidency, they will most likely elect enough democrats on the coattails of the democrat Presidential candidate to retake both the House and Senate. And that also means appointing gun-grabbing justices to the Supreme Court of the United States.

      Make no mistake: this is a desperate election. Unless we elect a President and Congress who will install pro-gun justices on the Supreme Court, we will lose the Supreme Court and our federal government will empower itself to infringe wildly on our right to keep and bear arms that shall NOT be infringed. And the states will do the same. If this comes to pass, nothing short of a Constitutional Amendment (that spells out “shall not be infringed” prohibits “reasonable” restrictions) will reverse the damage.

      • We are told they are all always desperate. If that should ever be true, we can recognize it when there are candidates who are atheists and proclaim it to the world. The issues will be protection/restoration of firearm rights, decreasing the size of government (not the rate of growth, the SIZE), and rolling back government regulations until the budget is balanced. Huckabee will not be the (or a) candidate. Whether the opponent is Satan or other fictional characters will not be considered. THEN I’ll believe “desperate”.

  4. And let’s not forget that Bill Ruger, Tomkins plc (British former owner of Smith & Wesson) and Ronald L. Stewart of Colt bent over faster than Monica Lewinsky to facilitate Bill Clinton’s savage rear entry. Despicable.

  5. The whole idea that anyone that manufactures anything is then responsible for any possible use it could be put to in the future is extremely ridiculous and a very dangerous precedent. That the Dems were even thinking about moving in this direction makes me NEVER want to vote for one of the again. Shifting responsibility from those that cause harm to innocents or to inanimate objects is a very slippery slope. I hope that we never go there. Already too much of this going on with criminals. “It is not really poor Malcom’s fault he was raised in an area with too much crime and gang activity. It is the fault of Society so we need to let him off easy and/or give him one more chance (to rob, kill, maim innocent law abiding citizens).”

  6. I suppose being elected by ones citizens, a representative just does a brain dump and rides the party line pole.

    How is it possible they come up with this stuff.

    I’ll vote whatever candidate that swears no new legislation while in office and deconstructs one government bureaucracy per year.

    • Wouldn’t that be something! We the people should demand each legislative body repeal some yet to be determined (by US) number of laws before being permitted to pass anything new.

  7. Think America can’t become a fascist state? Think again. We’re at a historic crossroads. I’m betting on liberty and freedom.

  8. It’s worth-while to read the original memo. It hints at what they are probably still thinking.

    For example, eliminating non-stocking (kitchen-table) FFLs is a cobra approach; e.g., “hardware stores”. Look at the combination of:

    – UBC; AND
    – eliminating non-stocking

    There is just ONE FFL in DC; a guy named Charles Sykes. The only legal way to get a gun in DC is to buy it from a stocking FFL in another State had have it delivered to you via Sykes. DC law provides that the Mayor is REQUIRED to apply for an FFL when Sykes retires. This proposal would make DC’s mayor to become a stocking dealer when Sykes closes his shop.

    How many cities with considerable populations would not generate enough gun commerce to maintain even a single stocking-dealer? Essentially this “reasonable” form of regulation would dry-up the gun-culture in cities because urban dwellers would be compelled to drive to a rural area to find a stocking dealer!

    Conversely, rural areas by definition are sparsely populated. The majority of the population are gun-owners; however, each family might buy a gun every few years on-average. In Western States towns are 10s or 100s of miles apart. How many FFLs in small towns in rural areas would be able to meet the inventory level requirements contemplated by these gun-grabbers? Some would meet an initial requirement of $10,000; but the minimum would eventually be raised to $50,000, and then to $100,000. Eventually, a majority of States would have only one or two stocking FFLs who could turn enough inventory to meet the minimum.

    Now, with UBC, no one could afford to buy or sell a gun unless they were lucky enough to live within 10 or 20 miles of a stocking dealer!

    If the gun-grabbers were sincere in wanting BCs and 4473 forms on as many transfers as possible they should be supporting competition provided by non-stocking dealers who bring inter-state and inter-net sales under the regulatory scheme designed by Congress. Clearly, either they don’t know what they are doing; or, they know that their proposals operate, collectively, to strangle the retail primary market for guns.

    • “…Clearly, either they don’t know what they are doing; or, they know that their proposals operate, collectively, to strangle the retail primary market for guns.”

      Do you really have any doubts about which it is?

      • I think the Antis are in each camp.
        Those that are leading the effort pretty well understand what they are doing.
        The followers haven’t thought about it nearly as much. Each piece seems to make some sense; so, the sum of the parts makes sense to them. The longer they are part of the movement the better they understand how the pieces come together and the farther away from critical objective thinking. By the time they become convince that no transfer should take place without a BC they don’t much care that a husband and wife would be obliged to drive 10 miles each way to get to the FFL to officiate the transfer.

        The fact is that there are 100,000 FFLs; one in every city; right? How many will there be once every one of those FFLs must be a stocking dealer with a prescribed minimum inventory? That thought is beyond their comprehension. How could it be that a couple in a major city might have to travel 200 miles to another city with a stocking dealer? Doesn’t compute.

  9. If the 2016 election boils down to a choice between Jabba the Huthillary and Jar Jar Trump (meesa so first class), that will be all the proof I need to sart believing the Illuminati are in fact running things. If these two cartoon characters are nominated by their respective branches of the Republicrat party, it may signal the first time ever viability of a third party candidate.

  10. Hold it, RF–Bush was a gun-grabber, there is no difference between the parties, and all those pro-gun Democrats out there will surely rein Hillary! in should she inherit the White House. I know because I read it on these threads all the time. Now, excuse me while I go put a tooth under my pillow…

  11. JUst read the memo. “Any trace creates presumption dealer violated law.” WTF? talk about a due process violation. how the hell could that provision avoid a suit?

    as for finding out who sent the memo, just send a random fax repeatedly (make it look legit but a misdial) to that office # using 202 area code. eventually, they will call you to ask you to stop sending the fax and inform you of the error. easy to confirm whose office that is then

    EDIT: but wait, there’s more: pg, 2 – prevention of repeat firing? are they talking about going back to flint locks? really?

  12. Not that far away from current California law.
    One [new] gun a month, [check!]
    gun registration [check!],
    eliminate non-inventory small FFLs [?],
    no guns capable of taking greater than ten round magazines [check! because…],
    no sales of greater than ten round magazines [check!],
    no juveniles allowed on gun dealer premises without a parent or guardian [not sure if this is a law]

  13. In the picture above the article, on the podium, the “U” is in the wrong place – it should be between the “C” and the “M”.

Leave a Reply

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