Posted on 10/05/2016 7:44:16 AM PDT by TigerClaws
Hillary Clinton slammed the Supreme Court as “wrong on the Second Amendment” and called for reinstating the assault weapons ban during a small private fundraiser in New York last week, according to audio of her remarks obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
While Clinton has previously supported an assault weapons ban, this is the first time since launching her campaign that she indicated that she would take on the Supreme Court over gun issues.
Although Clinton did not identify which Supreme Court case she disagreed with, she appeared to be criticizing the landmark 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which found the handgun ban in Washington, D.C., unconstitutional.
“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.”
She also used some of her strongest language yet to criticize the NRA, vowing to take on the gun rights lobbying group and make this a key component of her campaign.
“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.
The comments earned applause at the closed-door fundraiser, and demonstrate Clinton’s efforts to appeal to progressive donors as she faces a growing challenge from the far-left candidate Bernie Sanders, who has been criticized by some liberal observers for his broad support of gun rights.
The Clinton campaign did not respond to questions about the specific areas where Clinton disagrees with the Supreme Court. However, the Heller ruling is considered the most sweeping and controversial second amendment decision made by the highest court in recent years.
The Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment granted gun rights to individuals whether or not they were members of an organized government militia in 2008. That ruling overturned the District of Columbia’s total ban on ownership of handguns and other strict forms of gun control. It also created the legal precedent that continues to influence all federal court rulings related to Second Amendment cases.
The NRA responded to Clinton’s remarks in a statement to the Free Beacon.
“Hillary Clinton just doesn’t get it,” said Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA’s legislative division. “The NRA’s strength lies in our five million members and the tens of millions of voters who support the Second Amendment. A majority of Americans support this freedom, and the Supreme Court was absolutely right to hold that the Second Amendment guarantees the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms.”
The Clinton fundraiser was hosted at the Greenwich Village home of John Zaccaro, a convicted felon. During her remarks, Clinton also proposed the creation of a national infrastructure bank, which she indicated would be modeled on the work done by the Clinton Global Initiative. She did not take questions after her speech.
“Hillary’s liberal activist court would gut the individual right to keep and bear arms.”
This would, of course, unleash the greatest wave of black market gun sales the world has ever seen. Law abiding citizens would be forced to ignore this corrupt interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
Part of me, like Gomez Addams and his trains, would like to see what happens if this came to pass.
Bayrack was right, elections have consequences.
“Anybody ever read the Brady Bill? I did, be very glad it got watered down and nothing but a 10 year ban on “assault rifles” came of it. No true assault rifle is sold in the US without a permit anyway, you have to get a permit for automatic weapons first.
Anyway, the Brady Bill in its original form, would have banned everything but non self loading (semi automatic) shotguns and I think a few single shot rifles, mostly .22 caliber. (don’t remember that point but I think a few single shot rifles were excepted) All handguns would have been banned, period. All self loading or semi automatic firearms would have been banned, and most rifles.”
The AWB “merely” limited semi-auto rifles with box magazines and certain other characteristics (along with the magazines themselves). It is no longer the law, having thankfully expired in 2004. BTW, if the Dems ever get enough power, expect that they will pass a FAR more restrictive law, one with NO expiration date. It will likely be an actual ban, much like NJ has had since 1990.
“3) Of all human failings, hypocrisy is the one I despise the most, and I enjoy than rubbing people’s noses in it.”
Yeah, me too. :>)
” The Court can not only ban private ownership of guns, they can ban speech supporting gun rights. There is no higher authority.”
To quote President Andrew Jackson: “The Supreme Court has made their ruling, now let them enforce it.”
To say that the enforcement of such a ruling would be “interesting” is quite probably the understatement of the century - as the Founders clearly intended, and would be glad to know if they were alive.
Justice Scalia mentioned that in his dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges.
Yes, the Supreme Court has assumed far greater authority than was assumed by Hamilton in Federalist 78, and about as much as the Antifederalists feared in Essays 15-19. You mentioned that the Court permitted Jim Crow for a century, which is true. I would point out that the Supreme Court was the entity that ended Jim Crow in Brown v. Board of Education, but they had to create the doctrine of Judicial Supremacy in Cooper v. Aaron to effectuate it. And while the Court may have had to make its ruling in Cooper v. Aaron to end Jim Crow, in conjunction with Roe v. Wade, it created the monster we have to deal with today.
In Cooper v. Aaron the Court said, in effect: "We are the supreme and final authority on the Constitution. Period." Then, when the Court made its ruling in Roe v. Wade, it did several things that have very bad consequences. First, in making this decision, it essentially made law. This is different from the normal political process where candidates politically campaign, get elected to carry out a policy, go to DC and pass a law, that the executive then carries out. If the law needs to be changed or repealed, it is done through the process described. The PUBLIC policy debate continues through the political and legislative process.
However, when the Supreme Court makes law, it doesn't just make law, it makes CONSTITUTIONAL law. It's chiseled in granite into the Constitution; every decision such as Roe v. Wade, in effect, is a judicial amendment to the Constitution. It doesn't change what it says, but it certainly changes what it means. When it does that, because of judicial supremacy, the public policy debate is OVER. In fact, a huge legal/political/philosophical flaw from Roe v. Wade is that the public policy debate was never allowed to happen.
So by having the Court make law, and by extension, making policy, it transformed itself from a legal body into a political organ of government. Since the Senate's assassination of Robert Bork, every presidential nomination has become politically contentious. It's not about law anymore, which is what Hamilton thought it would be in Federalist 78, its just an extension of politics by judicial means. The presidential nominations since Roe v. Wade were about overturning or upholding that decision. The political term "litmus test" was coined as a result. Now, the 2nd Amendment is on the table, too.
I don't want to gloss over the evils of the murders of millions of innocents that came from Roe v. Wade. My point is that there were other evils that came out of that case as well, and now has undermined the integrity of our legal and Constitutional systems.
No they don't. They decide based on their ideology. We are just one vote away from losing everything.
Then it's time to water the tree of liberty. Once and for all.
bookmark
Thanks...this soundbite and article need to be sent to everyone on your lists, folks.
When they come for my firearms, they will collect them ammo first!
Molon Labe!
The NRA commercial on the woman with the criminal breaking in is very powerful
Hopefully it does what the Dems often do, take selected quotes and build on that hiLIAR is dangerous to the 2nd Amendment with judicial selection power
And ram it home
she needs to asked about releasing her speeches to Wall street too, seeing as she get most of her money from them.
Hillary will appoint strong liberals to the courts, including the Supreme Court.
Hillary will withdraw the allegedly moderate Merrick Garland nomination, and replace him with a radical liberal type.
Remember too, that the president appoints all federal judges.
As of today, about 1/3 of all federal judges serving today were appointed in these last almost 8 years by Obama.
Many cases are decided in lower federal courts, and never make it to the Supreme Court.
Four or eight years of Hillary, will get us to a point where a strong majority of federal judges, in both the lower courts and the Supreme Court, will be liberal and have been appointed by liberal Democrat presidents."
A critical point that needs to be said over and over and over again to those (R)'s against Trump and the so called "undecided's."
Think the court's stink now? Wait till Hillary continues to pack not only SCOTUS, but all the lower courts with very young progressive socialist/communist jurists and judges.
It really would take a couple of generations, if even possible, to undo what a travesty that would be on our republic.
Hillary at her core is a Fabian Socialist i.e., code words for a Marxist dictator.
To become a full on Marxist dictator, you need Socialized Medicine and Gun Control. Obama did Socialized Medicine, and she's working on total Gun Control.
After Socialized Medicine (a number and exact location of everyone) and total Gun Conrol, the camps and cattle cars start.
So, go ahead, vote for Hillary! See you in the camps!
Why doesn’t she go after the criminals?
There are plenty of laws in place that need to be enforced which would help solve the issue of gun violence which is committed by criminals who unlawfully carry a weapon
I suppose if we take their argument at face value, it’s mind boggling. But, control is what this is really about.
He was married to Geraldine Ferraro and pled guilty to bank fraud. Numerous - as in over 100 - complaints against him as a landlord. Tax and bribery problems, too.
No wonder he's a friend of the Clintons.
It’s over a year old. October 2015
Well, guess she’ll make gun sales lady of the year.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.