Hillary Clinton's Gun Control Proposals

B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
"Mrs. Clinton’s newest idea is to use executive authority to expand the definition of who is “in the business” of selling firearms to include any person trying to sell a significant number of guns, a Clinton aide said."

Here is the full plan: http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-gun-control-proposals-to-include-executive-action-1444017603
UBCs, gun bans, magazine bans, enhanced liability for gun manufacturers - about the only new part of the article is when she goes into a little detail on how she plans to end run Congress via executive action.
 
Whether its her or someone else this is going to happen...UNLESS we can come up with sensible solutions. The only solutions I see thrown around on both sides right now are not good.
 
enhanced liability for gun manufacturers
Click to expand...

Ha! I suppose Oneida needs to start carrying insurance for when a nut stabs someone with a kitchen knife.

Also, someone should let Hillary Clinton know that executive orders can be overruled or negated by the legislative and judicial branches.
 
Last edited:
adamBomb said:
Whether its her or someone else this is going to happen...UNLESS we can come up with sensible solutions. The only solutions I see thrown around on both sides right now are not good.
Click to expand...

That is nonsense, to put it mildly. There have been several solutions offered with NRA support - S.480 by Sen. Graham in 2013, and more recently, S.2002 by Sen. Cornyn. Both of those take substantial steps to deal whith the issue systemically and not just concentrate on guns. The gun control crowd refused to support either bill.

It goes even further than that... in 2013, Sen. Tom Coburn, a GOA A+ rated Senator, who had worked with Schumer, Manchin, and Kirk on gun control after Newtown, proposed a non-NRA supported universal background check that covered even more sales than Schumer-Toomey-Manchin. Reid promised it would get a vote - of course, it did not, only S-T-M got a vote - because the gun control crowd isn't interested in a sensible solution. Coburn's more expansive, non-NRA supported bill still wasn't good enough for them and they kicked him out of their gun control coalition and replaced him with Toomey. The Congressional leadership promoting gun control are interested in a stalking horse they can use to advance their goal of reducing and eliminating civilian gun ownership.

They don't have any interest in sensible solutions. Heck, even the solutions they propose after a shooting never do anything to actually address the shooting that just happened - because shootings are the only time they can get traction. Look at this shooting - what's different if Hillary got her wishlist?
 
Sorry to bring politics into this but I think Clinton's plan has more to do with attacking Bernie Sanders than it does doing anything about violence.
 
Batholomew Roberts said:
"Mrs. Clinton’s newest idea is to use executive authority to expand the definition of who is “in the business” of selling firearms to include any person trying to sell a significant number of guns, a Clinton aide said."
Click to expand...
Isn't that already the definition? Except that there doesn't seem to be any fixed definition of what constitutes "a significant number."

My take-away from this (as well as everything related to Ms. Rodham-Clinton) is that we have to do anything and everything to prevent her from becoming president. For me that means no consideration of any third party candidate, irrespective of how attractive his/her positions might be. It means we have to agree to vote a straight Republican ticket, whether or not the Republicans in the final election are those we would have preferred. We may have to hold our political noses while voting, but we MUST vote against Hillary.

Unless, of course, her campaign continues to implode, and she isn't the final candidate.
 
> [WhiteHouse]Earnest welcomed Hillary Clinton’s own gun control proposals
announced
> this morning, but admitted that he hadn’t seen the full details of the proposal.
>
> He also pointedly criticized the “gun show loophole” for allowing criminals and people
> with mental problems to buy weapons, blaming organizations like the National Rifle Association
>for blocking action in Congress on the issue.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...bama-preparing-executive-actions-gun-control/

Do not EVER sell short the ability of this White House to cause irrecoverable damage "...while the courts settle it out."

.
 
Last edited:
These knee jerk reactions are so predictable. They are hollow promises, not at all well thought out. They are aimed at pointing fingers and political gain and contain little if anything meaningful in preventing tragedies like the ones seen way too often.
 
For those who'd rather not provide WSJ with the advertising revenue, this is what Ms. Clinton proposes:

  • Close the "gun show loophole." If that doesn't work, redefine the number of guns a person can sell before being required to have an FFL. That'll probably be any more than one in a lifetime. Not sure how it would be enforced.
  • forbid FFL's from transferring a gun until they've received an actual "proceed" result from NICS. No more releasing the gun if a delay doesn't clear up in 3 days. That means some transactions will be on hold in perpetuity.
  • a law to forbid people convicted of domestic abuse from owning guns. We already have that. It's called the Lautenberg Amendment, and it's been a disaster.
  • replealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This would reopen the doors to predatory lawsuits against manufacturers. I don't doubt the gun-control lobby already has the lawsuits drawn up.
 
What didn't work in the 90s isn't going to work now, no matte what new buzzwords they add to it.

Excrement covered in new spangles and glitter is still excrement.
 
Law that would open the door for firearms manufacturer liability in the case of shootings involving their products is the golden fleece for gun control hacks. This might (IMO) render firearms manufacturers vulnerable to the point they would not sell firearms in our country.

It really appears that Hillary is grandstanding and hoping for momentum and support from her voting base. The likelihood that she could successfully pull of what she has stated as her plan seems fraught with sinkholes in the courts and in the legislature. The 2nd amendment is clear, and has been supported by court decisions. But, as stated above, it is imperative that we as a voters support the candidate that will represent us the best. In this case, anybody but Hillary would work.
 
Where's the AWB and mag limit?

I'm disappointed. I like how she proposes what is already law? Some intern wrote this. Candidate don't know anything.

It's like Carly saying that we need to beef up the navy by having a 350 battleship navy. Some intern read about the debate on number of need ships and thought they all should be Iowa class.

They are all morons. Obama suggests sensible gun laws that won't take your gun away - like those great laws in Australia and the UK.

I guess this is political but one reason for the gun push (beyond the Oregon automatic response) is that Bernie is seen as more progun (yes, he voted for antigun things but some he didn't). That's an attack to get the more left wing folks to turn away from him.
 
What didn't work in the 90s isn't going to work now,
no matter what new buzzwords they add to it.
Click to expand...
That it didn't work, doesn't work... won't work..., is irrelevant.
This is a lemmings call to the sea.

And again... a rule promulgated as regulation under "interpretive" authority can wreak havoc in its wake while "going through the courts."
 
Law that would open the door for firearms manufacturer liability in the case of shootings involving their products is the golden fleece for gun control hacks. This might (IMO) render firearms manufacturers vulnerable to the point they would not sell firearms in our country.
Click to expand...

True. Until the point at which some genius finds out that this sets a precedent for other industries.

You broke your foot in a collision with a drunk driver in an F-150? Go ahead sue Ford for making a car that inflicts damage upon others.
 
Go ahead sue Ford for making a car that inflicts damage upon others.
Click to expand...

This is the part that boggles my mind. The fact that they propose such a thing. Aren't there any lawyers advising Hillary (isn't she one?), about the potential (and likely) consequences? OR are they all operating on the "as long as we can get away with it" principle???

If you can sue a gunmaker for a third party criminal misuse of the product, you can sue any manufacturer. As I see it, it's not a matter of a "slippery slope" but one of equal treatment under the law.

Does this mean that if someone jumps off a bridge the family can sue the contractor that built it? If you get sick from under cooked beef can you sue the cattle rancher?

Sue Ford? why stop there, the chain goes all the way back to the mining company that dug up the raw ore.

The list of possible suits is staggering. And remember, as we have seen in the past, it doesn't have to make sense to be the law...
 
Bureaucracies and the Courts...

Unelected people in bureaucracies and the courts will probably do more damage to the 2nd Amendment than the people that Americans vote into office. All a bureaucracy has to do is misinterpret (or creatively interpret) a law regarding guns and it is unlikely the courts or our elected officials will strike down their decision. It seems that as long as you are allowed at least one firearm of a particular type to keep on your property, then the 2nd Amendment has be upheld...
 
One might argue (anti gun position) that guns themselves promote violence and since manufactures make an instrument that drives you crazy - they are responsible.

Given that world view - I don't know this. Have there been lawsuits against the video game producers for the violent games that some killers played?

A fast car might lead you to drive fast - have there been lawsuits against fast car makers for warping the mind of their drivers?

Same logic.
 
Wait a minute. If I get stung by a bee and have an allergic reaction, who will I sue? Somebody has to take the blame, so can I sue the .gov for not controlling the bees in the public airways?

It makes as much sense as suing some company because a person misused their product.

Rick
 
For those who'd rather not provide WSJ with the advertising revenue, this is what Ms. Clinton proposes:
Click to expand...
Thank you for the summary. My humble thoughts:

Close the "gun show loophole." If that doesn't work, redefine the number of guns a person can sell before being required to have an FFL. That'll probably be any more than one in a lifetime. Not sure how it would be enforced.
***I am ok with requiring FFL transfers of all guns.

forbid FFL's from transferring a gun until they've received an actual "proceed" result from NICS. No more releasing the gun if a delay doesn't clear up in 3 days.
***I am ok if the NCIS process is fixed to avoid a more than 3 day hiatus.

a law to forbid people convicted of domestic abuse from owning guns. We already have that. It's called the Lautenberg Amendment, and it's been a disaster.
***We already have.

replealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This would reopen the doors to predatory lawsuits against manufacturers. I don't doubt the gun-control lobby already has the lawsuits drawn up.
***Absent the usual rights of recourse for product liability, I don't see how this passes normal liability law and stare decisis. Historically, manufacturers are not liable for the use of their items in their own malicious acts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top