NPR: Firearms Industry Soars Amid Election-Year Angst, Shattering Records

NPR has the story here.  NPR spoke to a gun shop owner in California for the story.  The shop owner, David Strickroth, rightly says gun owners are not convinced that Hillary Clinton supports the right of individually keep and bear arms.  He then follows up with this:

... He hears from gun owners and enthusiasts who are afraid that they'll lose their right to own certain types of firearms if Clinton becomes president.

Personally, he doesn't believe that will happen. Strickroth is no fan of Clinton and won't be voting for her on Tuesday, but he says that any restrictions on people's Second Amendment rights will "eventually [get] to the court and the court will say, 'No, you can't do that,' " he says.

He references the uproar and fear that followed the 1968 Gun Control Act and the last two presidential elections and gestures around his gun shop. "I'm still here," he says.

We still have people on our side who don't understand the seriousness of this election.  If Hillary Clinton wins, she will have the power to render the Second Amendment irrelevant by making court appointments.  She can also do additional "Executive Actions" that congress will be powerless to overturn because it takes 60 votes in the Senate to move legislation.

Hillary Clinton Wants Heller Reversed to Make the Second Amendment Meaningless

VSSA's sister organization, Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) emails a Thursday Bulletin to members.  It's similar to VSSA's eBullet.  VSSA's office receives the ISRA bulletin and Executive Director Lu Charette passed along the October 6, edition.  In that email update, the ISRA Executive Director shared that he had received a phone call from one of their members who indicated they would be voting for Hillary Clinton on November 8.  Here is his response:

On Monday the office received a call from a member who indicated they were going to vote for Hillary Clinton, misguided to say the least.   It has taken millions of dollars, an enormous amount of time, massive efforts by organizations like the ISRA, NRA and SAF as well as personal sacrifices by people like Dick Heller, Otis McDonald and others to bring the Second Amendment back to its real meaning.  If Hillary Clinton is elected President, Heller v DC, which is the cornerstone of the Second Amendment movement, will be reversed.  McDonald v City of Chicago will be overturned, as well as many other cases and will fall by the wayside and turned into the dust of history.   Moreover, there are other important cases waiting like Peruta v County of San Diego, which seeks to destroy concealed carry.  In this case, the County of San Diego insists there is no right to carry concealed in the Second Amendment and that a person must prove his or her life is in danger before being issued a permit.  The 9th Circuit upheld the County's position by a margin of 7-4.  Before you say that it's "just California", Hillary's court will make that the law of the land.

VSSA members helped pay for the victories in Heller and McDonald.  You contributed to a special appeal that allowed VSSA to be a party to the State Association amicus briefs, so you have a special stake in making sure those decision are not rendered worthless.  Gun owners need to understand that if those decisions are reversed, we won't go back to the way things were before Heller, as former NRA President David Keene reiterated during his appearance on this past Sunday's Armed American Radio (at about the 43:25 minute mark of the first hour) program and in his new book, Shall Not Be Infringed the New Assaults on Your Second Amendment.  Hillary Clinton wants the 2nd Amendment reinterpreted so it doesn't mean anything, which as Keene told AAR host Mark Walters, "is the moral equivalent of abolishing it."

Fact Checking Politifact on Clinton's Statement Supporting Australian Gun Confiscation as Model for US

On Monday, Politifact published this dismissive "fact check" of the NRA's anti-Clinton mailer that charges “Clinton said gun confiscation is ‘worth considering.” 

In the final rating of "Mostly False" the author, Warren Fiske, said Clinton was simply talking about "voluntary buyback programs" and not confiscation: 

Clinton made that statement last year at a New Hampshire campaign stop, when she was asked a vague question about an Australian program that gave gun owners one year to sell certain firearms to the government before those weapons became illegal. She left the NRA some room.

But the NRA stretches her words to an almost unrecognizable form. Clinton focused her comments on voluntary buyback programs similar to those some U.S. communities have instituted for guns and the federal "cash-for-clunkers" program.

Fiske however misses some key facts, like, the Australian "buyback" wasn't voluntary, it was mandatory, as the NRA was quick to point out:

Even an ad for the supposedly voluntary "Australian example" calls it...a ban. And @HillaryClinton says it's "worth looking at"@PolitiFact pic.twitter.com/zKu0xc13lB

— NRA (@NRA) October 17, 2016

.@Politifact thinks the "Australian example," which promised "severe penalties" like a 12 month prison sentence was...voluntary? pic.twitter.com/LnDDNHrfNt

— NRA (@NRA) October 17, 2016

The Washington Examiner's Ashe Schow did the work that Fiske apparently did not have time to do:

And that "Australian example" was an example of gun confiscation. It was not a voluntary program. Historian Varad Mehta wrote about the Australian program last year for the Federalist, breaking down exactly what it entailed.

"Australia outlawed semi-automatic rifles, certain categories of shotgun, and implemented strict licensing and registration requirements," Mehta wrote. "The cornerstone of its new gun-control scheme, however, was a massive gun buyback program. The Australian government purchased 650,000 to one million guns with funds raised via a special tax."

Not withstanding the long list of sources Fiske lists that he used to reach his conclusion, it is very clear to anyone interested in knowing the facts that the NRA in no way "stretched" Clinton's words in an "unrecognizable form" and if given the chance, she would do everything she can to make it much harder for Americans to own firearms.

The Election and Our Gun Rights

That was the topic for much of the first hour of Tom Gresham's Gun Talk Radio program yesterday.  Gresham reminded listeners where Hillary Clinton stands on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.  Then, he interviewed Tom Mason, co-author of Shall Not be Infringed: The New Assaults on Your Second Amendment.  In the book, Mason and co-author David Keene (former NRA President) outline and examine the ongoing battle fought in the courts, Congress, and state legislatures across the country as well as in the media and even the United Nations. Guns have become a symbol over which battle after battle is fought, all the while hiding the end game of a cultural shift to government dominance.  Although the Supreme Court ruled the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to “keep and bear arms,” Hillary Clinton has promised to challenge this Constitutional freedom, even vowing to make it a litmus test for Supreme Court justice nominees. Gun control advocates continue to insist that the Court was wrong and should reverse this finding, thereby, stripping American gun owners of the Constitutional protection that has thus far made it impossible to ban gun ownership.

Last week, Keene spoke at the Heritage Foundation and discussed the book.

Washington Examiner: Clinton Vows Supreme Court Judge Who Backs Gun Control

Hillary Clinton doubled down on her campaign's anti-gun rhetoric during Sunday night's debate.  During a question related to what type of qualities she will look for in Supreme Court justices, she did not mention their constitutional philosophy once, but listed a litany of things that should not be part of the consideration.  From the Washington Examiner:

"I respect the Second Amendment, but I believe that there should be comprehensive background checks," the Democratic nominee said Sunday, "and we should close the gun show loophole and close the online loophole we have to save as many lives as we possibly can."

Clinton's remarks were a response to the specific question: "What would you prioritize as the most important aspect of selecting a Supreme Court justice?"

She said she believes the current court has "gone in wrong direction." Though the issue of gun control was mentioned only briefly Sunday evening during the debate, it has been an ongoing theme of the Clinton campaign.

Clinton has used both debates to stress the importance of more gun control.  Last debate she tied gun control to better "race relations."  That's interesting given it was a black man, Otis McDonald, that fought for the right for residents of  Chicago to be able to own firearms for self defense.  But that is likely one of the cases Clinton was referring to when she said the Court has "gone the wrong direction."

Why Should You Vote Your Guns in 2016?

That's the question contributor Kevin Creighton answers in this post on the Ricochet blog:

Voting guns means you reject the idea that only the people whom the government trusts should be armed. It means you understand that protecting what matters to you most is your job, not the government’s. It means you understand that no matter how efficient a police state is, bad things are going to happen to good people. Moreover, it means understanding that if a politician does not support that basic right of individual self-defense, they do not support the other individual rights either.

The Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms is a litmus test about how a candidate feels about the role government should play in your life. It’s not about “allowing” you to hunt or shoot competitions, it’s about not relying on government to define how you and your loved ones will be protected from the evil that is in this world. Voting guns is voting for your life and the lives of your loved ones.

Creighton reminds the reader in the lead-up to his conclusion, using links to her own statements, that Hillary Clinton does not believe Americans should not be able to own semiautomatic rifles, that the Australian-model of gun control is something "worth looking at", that the right to keep and bear arms is something that only belongs to the government, and that she believes the "Supreme Court got DC v. Heller wrong."  Additionally, Clinton believes people do not have the right to defend themselves and their family with a firearm.

Stopping Hillary Clinton should be what this election is about for gun owners.  Get involved today.  NRA-ILA has two campaign field representatives in Virginia, one in the Richmond area and one in Roanoke.  Their contact information is below.

Patrick DeStefano, Roanoke, VA 864-680-0399 patrick@nrailafrontlines.com
Joe Vrecheck, Richmond, VA (817) 729-8365 joseph@nrailafrontlines.com

Rasmussen: Most Like the NRA But Aren't Moved by Its Endorsement

Rasmussen reports has the results of a new survey that shows approval for he NRA is high at 54% (much higher than congress and about the current average of approval for President Obama) but the survey also shows that the NRA's endorsement of Donald Trump is not a huge factor in how they will vote this election:

Most voters share a favorable opinion of the National Rifle Association and say their Second Amendment constitutional right to own a gun is important to their vote in the coming elections. But even among voters who rate the second Amendment highly, the NRA's endorsement of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump isn't critical to how they will vote.

That almost looks like a contradiction, given that the other major candidate in the race has constantly attacked the right to keep and bear arms.  How can you say on the one hand the right to own a gun is important to your vote but that the endorsement of one candidate over the one who has made it clear she does not respect that right will not affect your vote?

Gun owners are not monolithic.  You have people who own firearms for different reasons, from the folks who own and carry everyday for self defense to the guy who owns the gun for hunting and only takes it out of the gun cabinet from October to January.  A large number of gun owners don't vote based on whether a candidate plans to greatly restrict that right. The activist gun owner is a small percentage of the overall gun owning population.

Despite what the Washington Post Fact Checker says, Hillary Clinton has no respect for our right to keep and bear arms and here is the proof that she wants to make the Second Amendment totally meaningless via Frank Miniter of Forbes.com:

Our task in the next couple of months is to get gun owners, especially the new members of the gun owning community to understand the results of this election will affect their rights and if they don't base their vote on the gun issue, they may not like what they wake up to four years from now.

Christian Science Monitor: Democrats Fired Up to See if Gun Control Can Be Winning Election Issue

The Christian Science Monitor had this article yesterday on how the Democrats itching to see if gun control can be a winning election issue:

But will gun safety actually motivate voters? Will it cause them to punish opponents of “common sense” regulation and reward supporters?

That’s the key question, because America has seen versions of this story before – mass shootings, a presidential candidate for more gun regulation (Barack Obama), and favorable public opinion. And yet it is the gun-rights lobby, spearheaded by the National Rifle Association (NRA), which has had the upper hand in legislation at the state level and in Congress.

Still, advocates of gun-safety regulation feel encouraged, with many saying the country is reaching a tipping point. They describe a slow boil of anger and fear about gun deaths – now combined with terrorism. They cite a frustrating disconnect between public opinion and a nonresponsive Congress.

“There comes a time when you have to say something, we have to make a little noise, when you have to move your feet. This is the time,” said Rep. John Lewis (D) of Georgia, the veteran civil rights leader, during the House sit-in last month.

The article points to the 2015 Virginia State Senate election and the victory of Jeremy McPike, which Bloomberg's Everytown spent heavily as one reason gun control is no longer a "third rail" issue.  What the Monitor reporter did not say is a)it was a Democrat open seat, and a district that went for Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012 and b)the other race in which Bloomberg spent heavily was won by the NRA endorsed candidate Glen Sturtevant.  It is likely that McPike would have won without Bloomberg's money and Sturtevant won in spite of Bloomberg outspending the NRA almost 10-1.  Which leads me to this part of the Monitor article:

What will make a difference this year is organization and momentum, says Ms. Milikowsky. Everytown can’t match the NRA in dollars, she says, but it has people power: mayors, moms, survivors, and other supportive Americans, a total of 50,000 volunteers who will be focusing on key state races, as well as advocating for Clinton.

Really?  Everytown can't match NRA in dollars?  Bloomberg has much deeper pockets than the NRA and he spends heavily propping up the organization.  Plus, NRA's real power is not money, it is the dedicated group of members who get involved in campaigns and go the polls.  It will take a big effort on the part of gun owners this year, an effort not really seen since the 2000 election, to make sure Hillary Clinton is not elected president.  You can sign up to volunteer by going to http://www.nrailafrontlines.com/volunteer and find volunteer opportunities in your area at http://www.nrailafrontlines.com/calender.

Reason: Hillary Clinton Picks a Doomed Fight With Americans Over Guns

Reason.com had this piece yesterday about Hillary Clinton's campaign against guns and gun owners.  What caught my eye was the premise of the article is that while Clinton may win and impose new restrictions, it doesn't mean Americans will abide by her new restrictions:

Clinton favors requiring "universal background checks" that would cover private sales between friends and neighbors that inherently take place out of public view. But when Colorado adopted such a requirement, the results were underwhelming, with the Associated Press finding 13,600 actual checks performed in 2013 after 210,00 had been predicted by a legislative impact assessment.

"The numbers are pretty clear here," Sen. Greg Brophy (R-Wray) commented in 2014. "There's no increase in private transfers for background checks, which means either there aren't very many private sales, or what is much more likely people are just ignoring this law."

That is a similar theme that gun ban advocate Adam Winkler took in the LA Times in April when he wrote why Gavin Newsome's plan to ban all standard capacity magazines, even those already owned by Californians, is a bad idea.  Winkler wrote that it is bad policy to pass laws which citizens will comply.

Reason's article is the second in as many weeks (Frank Miniter had one in Forbes last week) that suggests Hillary is making a mistake pushing gun control.  It likely won't make a difference to her base.  It remains to be seen if gun owners will unite behind her opponent to stop her from being elected.

Update: On Wednesday, the author of the Reason article, J.D. Tuccille appeared on NRANews.com's Cam and Company and discussed the article with host Cam Edwards.  Tuccille reinforced what he wrote, that Hillary Clinton’s plans for buybacks, background checks on private transfers, a revival of the 1994 “assault weapons” ban and repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act are doomed. He told Edwards that such actions would require majority support in Congress, which is unlikely. State gun control laws of this nature have been met with low compliance, and are being fought in the courts. Use of executive actions may attempt to bypass Congress, but it won’t bypass the people it is intended to affect – law-abiding gun owners.

John Lott: On Guns, Clinton Runs Both Right and Left

Dr. John Lott has a piece over at National Review Online, writing that Hillary Clinton is tailoring her message on guns to her audience. For instance:

On Wednesday, Hillary Clinton gave an address at Philadelphia’s St. Paul’s Baptist Church. With a nod to Pennsylvania’s high rate of gun ownership, she declared: “There is a Second Amendment, there are constitutional rights. We aren’t interested in taking away guns of lawful, responsible gun owners.”

But in New York City in the fall, she told donors: “The Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment, and I am going to make that case every chance that I get.” In Maryland last Thursday, Chelsea Clinton reiterated that point, promising that her mom would appoint to the Supreme Court justices who would overturn past decisions that struck down local and state gun-control measures. Given that the only laws that the Supreme Court has objected to are complete gun bans or laws that made it a crime to chamber a bullet, one wonders what “constitutional rights” Clinton was talking about preserving in Philadelphia.

While this may be the case, gun owners should under no illusions about where she really stands. She has said as recently as last week that Americans own too many guns and she intends to change that.  That's the real Hillary Clinton.

Paul Bedard: Clinton Doubles Down on Anti-Gun Blitz

Earlier this week, Washington Examiner writer Paul Bedard had this piece on how Hillary Clinton is taking her gun control comments to a higher level in her campaign.  Up until now she has been focusing on "the gun lobby" and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.  The article includes Clinton's new ad running in Connecticut that features the daughter of the principal killed during the Sandy Hook School shooting.  Yesterday, Bedard appeared on NRANews.com Cam and Company to discuss the article and how Clinton's message has evolved over the course of the campaign from simply bashing "the gun lobby" and calling for gun control to saying there are too many guns in America. It no longer matters if you are a hunter, a collector or only own one gun – she wants to reduce the number of guns in America.

Originally aired on Cam & Co 04/21/16

Gun owners need to do all they can to insure that Hillary Clinton is not elected in November.  You can find out more about how you can connect with NRA-ILA efforts this campaign season by clicking here.  VSSA will be working with NRA's Campaign Field Representatives as the campaign progresses and will keep members informed of activities where you can participate.

Wall Street Journal Op/Ed: Guns Are What Liberals Talk About to Avoid Having to Talk About Islamist Terrorism.

William McGurn writes in the Wall Street Journal about how gun control for liberals is a theology to avoid talking about the real problem, in this case, Islamist terrorism.  According to McGurn, they did it during the cold war error to avoid talking about communism:

Yet while the critiques of the president’s antigun pitch are correct, they are also beside the point. Because liberal calls for gun control aren’t about keeping guns from bad guys. It’s what you talk about so you don’t have to talk about the reality of Islamist terror. And focusing on the weaponry is part of a liberal argument that dates to the Cold War, when calls for arms control were likewise used to avoid addressing the ugly reality of communism.

Understand this, and you understand why Senate Democrats reacted to San Bernardino by putting forth antigun legislation. Why the New York Times ran a gun control editorial on its front page, and the Daily News used its own cover to feature the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre underneath San Bernardino killer Syed Farook—labeling them both terrorists. And why President Obama used Sunday night’s address to whine about those resisting his call for gun measures that would not have stopped any of the shooters.

Put simply, today’s liberalism cannot deal with the reality of evil. So liberals inveigh against the instruments the evil use rather than the evil that motivates them.

Also at the Wall Street Journal, editorial page editor Paul Gigot talked about why this debate is wasted effort.


Rather than talk about things like trying to identify threats from those who are mentally ill, like the Sandy Hook shooter, or terrorists like the San Bernadino shooters, they want to talk about guns.  But, as McGurn concluded, I guess if I were Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, I'd probably prefer to talk about guns than the failures of the anti-terror policy of the last seven years too.

Busness Week: Clinton Can't Win By Going After NRA

Well this is refreshing!  Paul Barrett writes over at Bloomberg Business Week on how the culture war against the NRA is a losing proposition for Clinton and by extension the Democrats:

Clinton sees the gun issue as a way to motivate her progressive base while simultaneously outflanking her main primary challenger, Senator Bernie Sanders of rural firearm-friendly Vermont. Asked during the debate whether Sanders is “tough enough on guns,” Clinton answered, “No, not at all,” noting he’d voted repeatedly in the early 1990s against the criminal-background-check law. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party likes what it’s hearing from Clinton. “For a major presidential candidate to break the logjam in the way she’s doing is a momentous shift,” says Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.).

But Clinton may be making a mistake framing her argument in culture-war terms—as a battle against the National Rifle Association, which is a conspiracy-minded extremist group that thrives when under attack. Moreover, while some of her ideas make sense, others, including her emphasis on “assault weapons,” come straight from a tired, ineffective gun-control playbook.

Barrett also points out that every time one of these "high profile" mass shootings occurs, the Democrats trot out their favorite target - "assault weapons."  He notes that need to stop talking about things that we know have no impact on crime:

Focusing on assault weapons remains futile today. In 2014, according to the FBI, less than 3 percent of the roughly 12,000 murders in the U.S. were carried out with rifles of any sort, ranging from wooden-stock .22 squirrel plunkers to AR-15s, the civilian equivalents to the weapons used by U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Americans killed each other far more often with knives (13 percent) and hands and feet (6 percent) than they did with semiautomatic rifles. Handguns—concealable and plenty lethal—are the source of the overwhelming amount of gun crime, and that’s where the focus ought to be. We need to deny all prohibited individuals access to all guns, not just to particular types of weapons.

But most interesting was what he said about background checks and mass shooters.  While he calls "universal background checks" the "low hanging fruit" for the gun ban crowd as something they could probably get, he at the same time points out a few paragraphs lower how futile this likely would be in stopping a mass shooter:

While background checks may deter an interstate gun trafficker or a gang-banger who bothers to buy at retail, the FBI record system is unlikely to flag the next campus shooter. That’s because most mass killers lack serious criminal records or formal determinations that they’re mentally disturbed. As was the case in Roseburg, these deranged individuals, typically self-hating young men, plan their suicidal attacks carefully and obtain their arsenals legally. 

I don't agree with everything in the long article but there are some very good points.

Hat tip to Jim Geraghty.

Is Clinton's Gun Control Proposal's Really a Challenge to Obama to Act

One of the things Hillary Clinton said when she unveiled her proposals for more gun control earlier this week, she said if Congress doesn't act, she will take executive action.  U.S. News notes that the Washington Post's Greg Sargent wonders if this is a challenge to President Obama to act.  The thinking goes if Hillary could take "executive action" in some areas related to restricting our rights, why hasn't Barack Obama already done it, since he doesn't seem to be hesitant to act unilaterally in other areas.  Probably because as Jonah Goldberg notes over at National Review, railing against "gun violence" is not about a solution for President Obama, it's about the issue and how he can score politically.

If Congress Doesn't Act, Clinton Would Use "Executive Actions" to Enact Gun Control

Jim Geraghty noted in today's Morning Jolt that Hillary Clinton will roll out her gun control proposals for the 2016 campaign at a Town Hall today.  But nothing new is in her wish list, except she would take a page out of Obama's governance book by enacting them by "executive action" if Congress does not pass them.  Even Obama hasn't been that brazen, yet! From Geraghty:

Please Make the 2016 Election a Referendum on the Second Amendment!
But imagine how Hillary’s numbers will soar when she loudly embraces gun control!

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton is set to unveil a sweeping gun-control proposal Monday that would include closing the “gun show loophole” and allowing victims of gun violence to sue firearm manufacturers.

 

Almost no mass shooters buy their guns at gun shows! Very few criminals buy their guns at gun shows!

In a survey of almost 100 detainees in the Cook County Jail, few said they get firearms at gun shows or through the Internet, said Harold Pollack, co-director of the crime lab. They also said they don’t normally steal guns or buy them at a licensed store. 

About 70 percent said they got their guns from family, fellow gang members or through other social connections. Only two said they bought a gun at a store. It’s unclear how many of those surveyed were felons, but they can’t hold a state firearm owner’s permit -- so they can’t legally purchase a weapon at a store.

 

Back to Hillary’s proposals:

Under the plan, which comes in the wake of a mass shooting at an Oregon community college that left 10 people dead last week, Clinton would tighten rules governing gun show and Internet sales using executive action “if Congress will not act,” aides said.

 

A runaway executive: Catch the fever! Show me where it says in the Constitution that if Congress does not pass a law, the president can enact the law through executive action? President Obama normalized ignoring the legislative branch.

She would also push to repeal a law backed by the National Rifle Association that prevents crime victims from suing gun manufacturers. And her proposal would revoke the licenses of “bad actor” dealers who knowingly supply guns to straw purchasers and traffickers.

Except knowingly selling to a straw purchaser is already a crime:

Furthermore, if a [federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL)] knew that the statements on Form 4473 were false and that a straw purchase was taking place, the FFL has also violated federal law. 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) prohibits any individual from selling a firearm to a person whom they know or have reason to know is a criminal or other prohibited buyer.

 

A separate fascinating fact illustrating the difference between “gun deaths” and homicides:

“Wyoming is an interesting case, because it has one of the highest firearm death rates but a homicide rate of zero.” Gun deaths can include suicide, unintentional discharges (accidents), non-homicide legal discharges (i.e. police or someone acting in self defense, so no charges are filed).

Hillary Not Backing Down on Gun Control

National Journal has the story here:

Asked what she would do to strengthen gun-control laws across the country, Clinton said the current situation is "way out of balance" and that she is "not backing off of this fight," mentioning the shooting in Charleston that killed nine black churchgoers. "I don't see any conflict between the legitimate protection of Second Amendment rights and protecting people from gun violence from people who should never have guns in the first place," she said.

On another question, about "Stand Your Ground" laws around the country, Clinton said she thought many of those laws need to be "rewritten" and that reaching for a gun has become a "knee-jerk reaction."

"Yes, there is a role in extreme situations to defend yourself and defend your home, but unfortunately what we've seen too much of in the last few years is a spate of people who have reached for a gun before they really figured out what was going on," she said. "They've been much too eager to use that gun. We've seen it with policing and we've seen it with civilians."

The facts don't support Clinton's claim that people are just "too eager to use" their guns.  There are over 100 million gun owners in this country.  We don't see untold numbers of people using them in "knee-jerk" ways to settle arguments or what ever else she may have had in mind when she made that comment.  Clinton and former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley have both made gun control a central part of their campaign for the White House.   If you think we've been under attack the last six years, if either one of them wins in 2016, it can only get worse.

Washington Post Blogger Encourages Hillary to Keep Talking About Gun Control

What a difference between 2008 and 2016..  During 2008, Hillary Clinton rarely talked about gun control during her campaign for the Democratic nomination.  Democrats did not want to talk about guns in congressional elections either in 2010 and 2012.  That all changed after the Sandy Hook school shooting.  The Charleston church shooting gave them even more resolve.  Hillary Clinton doesn't shy away from the subject.


On Friday, the Washington Post Plum Line blog's Paul Waldman encouraged her to keep talking about it, even though she is unlikely to get anything passed if she is elected:

Let’s address the matter of the gun issue’s political potency first. As is the case on so many issues, the Republican position is more popular when the questions are vague, while the Democratic position is more popular when the questions are specific. If you look at polling on guns, what you see is that the country is split pretty evenly on the broad question of whether gun laws should be more strict or less strict. But particular measures to regulate guns get much more support, especially universal background checks, which as many as nine out of ten Americans endorse.

At some point in this discussion, someone will always say: “But what about the NRA? They’re so powerful!” The NRA’s power is real in some ways and illusory in others, and it’s important to understand which is which. When it comes to lobbying, the NRA is indeed hugely powerful. It has the ability to stop any legislation on guns, often before it even gets written. But elections are an entirely different story. Almost all the congressional candidates who win the NRA’s supposedly coveted endorsement are Republican incumbents from conservative districts who win their elections by huge margins. When Republicans have a good election, as they did in 2014 and 2010, the NRA rushes to reporters to claim credit, saying the election proves that voters will punish any candidate who isn’t pro-gun. But when Democrats have a good election, as they did in 2012 and 2008, the NRA is strangely silent.

Waldman also trots out the gun ban lobby's talking point that gun ownership has steadily declined since the 1970's, inferring that sooner or later, there won't be enough gun owners to matter.  Waldman links to a New York Times article that sites the General Social Survey (GSS) for it's source to back up the claim of declining gun ownership.  But other surveys show very different data related to gun ownership. The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) has pointed out:

...the GSS survey shows a large drop that you don’t see in many other surveys.  According to Gallup, in October 2011, they wrote: “At 47%, reported gun ownership is the highest it has been in nearly two decades — a finding that may be related to Americans’ dampened support for gun-control laws.”

CRPC notes that a more accurate way is to look at the number of firearm permits year over year.  While few states require licensing of gun owners, Illinois requires a Firearms Owner ID or FOID card to own a firearm.  If the number of cards increase, it stands to follow that is because there are new gun owners who have applied for those cards.  You can also look at the number of concealed carry permits:

The number of concealed handgun permits also provide some information, with the number of permits increasing from about 4.6 million in 2007 to well over 9.3 million at the beginning of 2013.

All you have to do is talk to firearm instructors to know that all those new firearm purchases were not made by current gun owners.  It simply does not make since that someone who has owned firearms for years would all of a sudden start signing up for firearms training classes.  Ask any firearms instructor and they will tell you they see a lot of first time gun owners in their classes.  Now if we could just get them all to vote to protect their freedom.

But to Waldman's larger point that Hillary should continue to talk about the issue, let's hope gun owners see the real threat of another four years of an anti-rights Democrat in the White House and will do what it takes to see it does not happen.

Gun Ban Lobby Looking Forward to Hillary Clinton

The Hill reports this morning that the though of Hillary Clinton's White House bid is energizing the gun ban lobby, believing she is the one who can finish the task that Barack Obama couldn't on criminalizing private transfers:

Gun control advocates have high hopes for Hillary Clinton’s presidential run, viewing her as an ally who can finish the push for tightened background checks that has stalled in President Obama’s second term.

Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, has been a staunch advocate of gun-control proposals such as expanding background checks and banning assault weapons. Last summer, she ripped groups that oppose those ideas as out of step with public opinion.

“We cannot let a minority of people, and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people, hold a view point that terrorizes the majority of people,” Clinton said during a CNN town hall event.

It's not really clear how she would be any more successful than Obama since even with the U.S. Senate in the hands of the Democrats and run by Obama's lackey, Harry Reid, they fell well short of the votes needed to take away our rights.  It is also likely that even though Republicans will have a tough battle to hold their Senate majority in 2016 since they have to defend far more seats than Democrats, that there will be enough pro-rights votes in the Senate and definitely in the House to keep her from successfully pushing further restrictions.

Dan Gross of the Brady Campaign believes Clinton can make the sales pitch on so-called "expanded background checks" during the campaign but the Hill pointed out that pushing gun control may pay dividends with the left but could also prove a liability in several battleground states.

For the first time in decades, a majority of Americans say it is more important to protect gun rights than it is to limit gun ownership, according to a December poll from the Pew Research Center.

The same Pew poll found that a slight majority of women now believe owning a handgun can protect them from becoming victims of crime.

This rising popularity of guns among women could help Republicans in swing states like Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina, and New Hampshire, according to GOP strategist Ford O’Connell.

Gun control advocates fire back that a 2013 poll showed 90% of the public supports "expanded background checks." But is that really the case?  It depends on how the question is asked.

I'm still not ready to bet the farm that Clinton will be the Democratic nominee, but I would be willing to bet whoever the nominee is, it won't be a friend of gun owners.