Is Hillary ignorant, or just pandering?

Your guess is as good as mine. I’ve just come from Hillary’s gun-control web page, however, and I’m concerned. Either she does not understand existing gun laws or gun crime statistics, or she is hoping you don’t. Either way is very, very bad. Let’s take a look at her gun control position…

< Begin long-winded rant… >

Here’s what Hillary is proposing in the way of new gun control measures:

• Make straw purchasing a federal crime. “When an individual with a clean record buys a gun with the intention of giving it to a violent felon—only so that felon can avoid a background check—it should be a crime. Hillary will fight to make so-called “straw purchasing” a federal crime.”

Uh… I’ve got news for you, Hillary: Performing a “straw purchase” is a crime. If they are not being prosecuted or convicted, blame the current administration, DOJ, or ATF – not law abiding gun owners. See page 165 of the “Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide” for more details on the legality of straw purchases.

---

• Close loopholes that let persons suffering from severe mental illness purchase and possess guns. “Hillary will fight to improve existing law prohibiting persons suffering from severe mental illness from purchasing or possessing a gun. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives should finalize its rulemaking to close loopholes in our laws and clarify that people involuntarily committed to outpatient treatment, such as the Virginia Tech shooter, are prohibited from buying guns.”

Actually, the Virginia Tech shooter, Seung Hui Cho, illegally purchased guns used during his killing spree. The report of an independent review panel appointed by Governor Kaine found that:

“Cho purchased two guns in violation of federal law. The fact that in 2005 Cho had been judged to be a danger to himself and ordered to outpatient treatment made him ineligible to purchase a gun under federal law.”

The problem is not with the existing laws, but that they have been poorly implemented. Not all states report adjudications of being a danger to oneself or others to the national database used for gun purchases. However, this does not change the fact that Cho committed a crime by purchasing the guns, and did so knowingly as evidenced by his lying on the federal 4473 form required for his purchase. Once again, the law is fine – it just needs to be followed to be effective. Make the existing laws work first, Hillary, before you start making new laws!

---

• Keep military-style weapons off our streets. “Military-style assault weapons do not belong on our streets. They are a danger to law enforcement and to our communities. Hillary will work to keep assault weapons off our streets and supports reinstating the assault weapons ban.”

I know that the anti-gun lobby’s rhetoric about assault weapons has won over a lot of progressives, however, a closer look at the statistics shows that they (assault weapons) are simply a pawn of gun control advocates. The contribution of assault weapons to homicides is insignificant compared to other tools of murder: knives, hammers, and even hands/feet all cause more deaths each year than assault weapons. A review of assault weapon stats (from an earlier posting) is in order:

• Support legislation to stop domestic abusers from buying and possessing guns. “Although federal law generally prohibits domestic abusers from purchasing or possessing guns, this protection does not apply to people in dating relationships or convicted stalkers. Hillary will fight for legislation to prohibit all of these domestic abusers and stalkers from buying guns.”

Actually, sec 107 of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA 2013) specifically does address stalkers, at least as far as the federal government is concerned. And as for domestic abusers being restricted from buying firearms, I do not know of any specific limitation on the applicability of domestic abuse laws to dating couples. However, felony assault charges also disqualify firearms ownership, and local law enforcement are free to pursue this option if appropriate. Once again, Hillary is proposing laws where they already exist or are unnecessary.

---

• Repeal the gun industry’s unique immunity protection. “Hillary believes the gun industry must be held accountable for violence perpetrated with their guns. Hillary will lead the charge to repeal the so-called “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,” a dangerous law that prevents victims of gun violence from holding negligent manufacturers and dealers accountable for violence perpetrated with their guns.”

“Unique” immunity protection? Says who (other than Hillary)? Are auto manufacturers to blame for DUI deaths, or when one of their vehicles is used in some other crime? Why don’t we blame syringe manufacturers for the heroin epidemic in our country? If a drug dealer uses a name-brand stove to “cook” his crack, do we allow that company to be sued? The protection offered by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act simply guarantees the same protection to gun manufacturers enjoyed by all others, and puts an end to “sideways” gun control efforts aimed at putting gun manufacturers out of business.

---

In addition, Hillary makes the following misleading claim on her web site:

• “About 33,000 Americans are killed by guns each year.”
  That’s true, Hillary; but what you don’t make clear is that the vast majority are suicides. In 2013, approximately 33,636 Americans were killed by guns, but 63% of those (~21,190) were suicides. This indicates that we need better mental health care in this country, not more gun control. And while I can sympathize, why should a constitutionally-protected right be denied to a law abiding citizen based on the actions of someone who would otherwise be considered mentally unstable? The correct course of action is to improve mental health services and reporting so that such people are identified, helped, and restricted from possessing firearms until such time as they are deemed capable.

Some may argue that removing guns from society will reduce suicide rates under the assumption that they won’t find another way, but that seems unlikely given that our suicide rate is on par with many other OECD nations. Also, I must reiterate that it is inappropriate to restrict a constitutionally guaranteed right just because some few people cannot wield it responsibly.

< End of rant >