Tonight’s Democrat Debate will feature five candidates total, three of whom have made a name for themselves by proposing new controls on gun makers, gun sellers, and gun owners.
These three gun control candidates are Hillary Clinton (D), Bernie Sanders (I), and Martin O’Malley (D).
Breitbart News previously reported that Clinton has pledged, if elected, to change current laws in America so that gun manufacturers could be sued for the criminal misuse of a firearm. This means shooting victims and their families could theoretically force gun makers to pay when a criminal brings a gun into a gun free zone and starts firing, comforted by the knowledge that none of his victims can fire back.
If Clinton secured this change it would drive gun prices through the roof–as gun manufacturers sought cash to pay defense costs and court fees–then finally, it would drive gun makers out of business one by one.
On October 11 Sanders told Meet the Press that he may be willing to support holding gun manufacturers liable for gun crime. This represents a change of view for him, as he voted for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) in 2005. That act shielded gun manufacturers from suits brought over the misuse of the products they manufacture.
But Sanders clearly signaled that he does not support making gun stores or gun store owners liable. He said he does not believe going after them is “fair.” And this marks one of the major differences between Sanders and Clinton–he is willing to consider holding manufacturers liable while Clinton’s war on guns extends beyond manufacturers to the gun dealers too.
On October 8 Breitbart News reported that Clinton put gun stores on notice that she is coming after them if elected. And she is going to do this by dumping lots of money into the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) so they can start inspecting records of Federal Firearm License (FFL) holders around the country and suspend licenses when they can find violations or deviations to justify it. Clinton suggests the majority of gun stores in America have not been inspected enough and claims the NRA and GOP have prevented those inspections by tying the ATF’s hands.
So we have a war on gun makers and gun sellers, but we also have a war on gun owners.
What is the constant push for background checks and “assault weapons” bans if not a war on gun owners? Clinton and Sanders stand side-by-side in support of these two items, and O’Malley is right there with them. In fact, O’Malley’s positions are strident that his positions on gun control may be the defining positions, as far as a war on gun owners is concerned.
Breitbart News previously reported that O’Malley supports expanding background checks, banning “assault weapons,” banning “high capacity” magazines, and forcing every would-be gun owner “to obtain a fingerprint-based license, including completing safety training and a waiting period.” Banning the firearms and magazines people have purchased to use for self-defense is not a war on the guns or the magazines, but on the law-abiding citizens who bought them.
Moreover, the licensing scheme for gun owners is not a war on guns but a war on those who want to buy one for defense of live and property.
Illinois has a licensing scheme–how is that working out in Chicago? New Jersey has one as well–how are law-abiding citizens in Camden, Atlantic City, and Trenton doing?
These and similar proposals are what gun owners–and more importantly, gun owners who vote–need to be listening for tonight.
Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at email@example.com.