The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette charged writer Chris Potter with examining the factuality of the NRA ad above. Specifically, the assertion that “Hillary Clinton could take away [your] right to self-defense. And with Supreme Court justices, Hillary can.” Here at The Truth About Guns, that’s slam dunk.
As we pointed out back in the day, the Supreme Court’s Heller and McDonald decisions — striking down D.C.’s handgun ban and affirming that Second Amendment protections trump local and state law — contain a fatal flaw. Wikipedia:
The majority decision also reaffirmed that certain firearms restrictions mentioned in District of Columbia v. Heller are assumed permissible and not directly dealt with in this case. Such restrictions include those to “prohibit…the possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill” and “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
As we predicted, lower courts have exploited this so-called “reasonable regulations” loophole to enable the ongoing degradation and destruction of Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. For example, California’s Prop 63.
Unless and until the Supreme Court excludes carry laws, assault weapons bans, bans on “high capacity” ammunition magazines, etc. from “reasonable regulations,” American gun rights in anti-gun strongholds remain tenuous. With a four – four split amongst Justices, the next appointee — and further appointees — will swing the balance one way or the other.
Bottom line: the Heller and McDonald decisions don’t have to be overturned for local, state and federal governments to “take away [your] right to self-defense” — as they continue to do under the rulings. The highest court in the land (excluding Denver) could simply let these laws stand, viewing all gun rights infringements as “reasonable regulations.”
That’s a fact that even the Gazette can’t ignore. Or can it?
A Clinton Supreme Court appointee could reverse Heller, potentially changing the legal balance in some cases. But it would take almost certainly take more than a Supreme Court pick to disarm gun owners … and the power of the NRA.
Potter is suggesting that the NRA is claiming that various governments want to forcibly disarm gun owners. While that’s always a possibility, the nub of the matter is that unconstitutional gun control laws (i.e., all of them) disarm gun owners. Or more accurately, continue to disarm Americans.
You want proof? As our good friends at The Trace report . . .
Los Angeles, which requires “convincing evidence of a clear and present danger to life,” has just 496 licensed carriers among its 10 million residents. San Francisco makes it nearly impossible to acquire a permit — only four people there have conceal carry licenses.
Even under Heller and McDonald, LA and SF continue to deny citizens their Constitutionally protected gun rights.
And yet The Gazette reckons the NRA ad’s claim is “very wobbly.” Go figure.