Hillary Rodham Clinton was in Hartford yesterday carrying her gun control message to a receptive audience as the Connecticut primary looms next Tuesday, warning political activists that they “need to keep gun control at the top of their list,” according to the Hartford Courant.
Yesterday’s appearance follows a pattern she set earlier in the week in Philadelphia, where she also talked gun control, arguing that there are “too many guns in our homes…and neighborhoods.” And her daughter, Chelsea was in Maryland yesterday to remind voters that she is “the only person running for president who…has a strong record on gun control,” according to Breitbart.com.
It cannot be made any plainer than that. Democrats have become known as the “party of gun control” and now their front-runner has literally ordained herself as the “candidate for gun control.” That image was reinforced by Erica Smegielski, daughter of Sandy Hook principal Dawn Hochsprung, who was gunned down along with 25 others, mostly children, when a deranged killer who had murdered his own mother went to the school in 2012 and opened fire with guns taken from her safe.
“Hillary Rodham Clinton has been a champion for gun violence prevention for her entire career,” Smegielski said yesterday, according to the newspaper. “I know she is the only person in this race that can deliver real results.”
“It matters to me that my mom also recognizes the role the Supreme Court has when it comes to gun control.”—Chelsea Clinton
In Hartford yesterday, Clinton complained to supporters, “In political terms, the gun lobby never rests — and they have only one issue they care about.”
While that may not be entirely accurate, the so-called “gun lobby” consists of millions of gun owners and organizations that represent their interests, and what interests them most is protecting the Second Amendment from Clinton and her cronies. Without their efforts over the past few decades, the right to keep and bear arms might have been reduced to a heavily-restricted, government-regulated privilege, advocates argue.
Speaking of government regulation, there’s a breaking story in Oklahoma about two pieces of legislation in the Sooner State that concern officials with the state Bureau of Investigation. They’re worried about possibly losing $8 million in revenue if the Legislature approves one of the bills that could ostensibly lead to legal unlicensed carry.
The story asserted, “If that bill passes, it would allow people to vote to change the Constitution, not requiring a license at all.”
Licensing, it appears, is something of a cash cow for the bureau. Agency spokeswoman Jessica Brown told KFOR, “It would have a devastating effect on OSBI. We would not have any more gun licensing. That could be up to $8 million and, for a very small agency, that would be a devastating amount.”
But this opens a proverbial “can of worms” debate about whether a license should be required to exercise a constitutionally-protected fundamental civil right. There’s nothing in the Second Amendment, which was incorporated to the states via the 14th Amendment in the McDonald v. City of Chicago case that was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, about needing a license to carry a defensive firearm, either openly or concealed.
That brings the conversation back around to Clinton, and what her daughter said in Maryland that should raise alarms for gun owners who are still asleep at the wheel. Chelsea said matter-of-factly that, “It matters to me that my mom also recognizes the role the Supreme Court has when it comes to gun control.”
Gun owners who don’t understand the critical importance of this year’s presidential and Senate elections (the president nominates, and the Senate confirms nominees to the Supreme Court and federal courts) need a refresher course on American government. Appointments to the high court could threaten the Second Amendment gains made over the past eight years since the 2008 Heller ruling, written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Whoever becomes the next president will likely appoint two or three new Supreme Court justices, and a lot of federal judges. Those appointments are for life, meaning that a generation of gun owners will be affected.
Got an opinion about this column? Share your thoughts in the “Comments” section, below.