At a Heritage Foundation event in Washington this week, George Mason University Professor Nelson Lund warned attendees that a Hillary Clinton presidency could put America’s Second Amendment freedoms in jeopardy. Lund said that the Supreme Court’s Heller decision was a good one, but that it left anti-gun liberals with plenty of room to maneuver.
“You have a right to keep some kind of handgun in your home for self-defense, but the Supreme Court has not gone any further than that,” Lund said. “If Hillary Rodham Clinton appoints Justice Scalia’s replacement, it’s quite likely that almost any form of gun control, except a complete ban on handguns, will be upheld.”
At the third presidential debate, Hillary embarrassed herself with a misleading lie about that decision, claiming that it centered around protecting “toddlers” in Washington, D.C. Of course, that’s ridiculous. The case was about the capital’s ban on handgun ownership, which was struck down by the court.
Hillary and other liberals have sharply criticized the decision and have expressed a desire to see the Second Amendment be more strongly regulated nationwide.
In his speech, Lund said that many leftists shared that view, which is antithetical to what the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the Bill of Rights.
“This right is a vital element to the liberal order that our Founders handed down to us. They understood that those who hold political power will almost always strive to reduce the freedom of those they rule,” Lund said. “Many of the ruled will trade their freedom for empty promises of security. The Second Amendment is a device designed to frustrate the domineering tendencies of the politically ambitious.”
Hillary has insisted that she supports the Second Amendment, but that support is not evident in her platform. She wants to make gun manufacturers legally liable for shootings that occur with their products. She wants to ban so-called “assault weapons.” She wants to expand background checks and eliminate the mythical “gun show loophole.” And that’s just what she’s willing to say publicly. As we know from her own mouth, she believes that politicians should reserve the right to have a different opinion on the issues in private.
Just one of her Supreme Court nominations would give liberals the majority and give their interpretation of the Second Amendment a legally viable platform. It’s useless to speculate on how that would play out, but maybe it’s better that we don’t find out.