AWR Hawkins: Hillary Clinton’s Gun Control Executive Actions ‘Would Stretch Out Background Checks Indefinitely’

Handguns are offered for sale at Freddie Bear Sports on March 11, 2015 in Tinley Park, Ill
Scott Olson/Getty Images

NASHVILLE, Tennessee–Breitbart’s AWR Hawkins, one of the nation’s leading gun rights journalists, tells Nashville’s top morning radio talk show that Hillary Clinton’s proposed executive actions to end what she calls “incomplete background checks” on the purchase of guns would “stretch out background checks indefinitely.”

Hillary’s moves against gun rights come following the massacre of nine students at an Oregon community college last week and President Obama’s subsequent pronouncement, hours after the shootings, that “this is something we should politicize.”

On Friday, Obama will travel to Roseburg, Oregon, the site of the shootings, despite vigorous local opposition to the visit as an act of political exploitation insensitive to the victims and their families.

WWTN host Ralph Bristol asked Hawkins whether the “executive actions that Hillary Clinton wants to take if she’s President … to end what she calls the incomplete background checks…would have stopped the Charleston shooting…as she claims.”

“Nothing that she’s proposed would stop any shooting …Wouldn’t even stop a stabbing …Nothing that she’s proposing would make us safer in any way,” Hawkins said.

“What her proposal would do is stretch out background checks indefinitely so that they would go from being a check that could last up to three days … to being a check that is indefinite, that a gun could not be sold to you even if the background check to three, four months,” Hawkins explained.

“So if you’re a single mom,” Hawkins noted, “that’s three or four months you have to fend for yourself without defense.”

Bristol noted that “all she’d [Hillary Clinton] have to do is order the FBI to drag their feet on background checks and –voila!”

Hawkins agreed, and explained the danger Clinton’s proposed executive actions would pose to the Second Amendment and gun rights.

“With the [current] background checks… I even get an instant green light which means I can buy, I get an instant red light, which means I can’t, or I get a delay, and the delay means the FBI, by law, has three business days to look for incriminating evidence to keep me from buying a gun,” Hawkins noted.

“At the end of those three days if they haven’t found incriminating evidence, then, they can’t prevent me from buying a gun because I have a right to own one,” he added.

“She [Hillary Clinton] wants to turn that on its head so that when I walk into the store to buy a gun, I have to prove to the government why I should be able to buy the gun, and that is not a minor switch. That is a huge change in the way we handle things,” Hawkins said.

“That means the onus goes from being on the government to being on me. I go from being a free man to being a man who has to prove why he should be free, and that’s dangerous,” Hawkins concluded.

Bristol pointed out that Clinton’s proposal would reverse the bedrock American legal principle of the presumption of innocence.

“Imagine if in criminal trials the onus was not on the government to prove that you murdered somebody—the assumption [by the courts and the government] is you did, and it’s up to you to prove that you didn’t,” Bristol said.

“That’s the opposite of what it is today, and that’s exactly what she [Hillary Clinton] is trying to do with this [gun control proposal],” he added.

Bristol asked Hawkins about the impact “the liability for gun manufacturers and dealers that she wants to change.”

“Gun manufacturers would disappear [under Hillary Clinton’s proposal],” Hawkins told Bristol.

“The first thing that would happen if you were allowed to sue gun manufacturers for crimes committed with their products, the first thing that would happen is gun prices would go through the roof,” Hawkins said.

“A $475 Glock, you can buy them brand new for that right now—it’s one of the most durable guns ever made—the price would quickly jump to $800, $1,200, $1,300 and they would keep rising. And once they had priced themselves out of the market—and they would be raising their price to cover their cost of defense in court—they would have to close doors and be done,” he added.

“That would be the end goal. That’s what she’s after here. She’s not trying to find a way to get money to get money to victims. She’s trying to find away to get rid of gun companies,” Hawkins explained.

Hawkins also told Bristol that there is very little difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama when it comes to their desire to destroy the Second Amendment and the rights of gun owners.

“She, in my opinion, is only pushing the few things he [Obama] didn’t think of,” Hawkins said.

“We’ve always known he’s [Obama] for confiscation. That he would almost come out and say it verbatim was a shock to some degree,” he noted.

“She’s right there with him… You have to understand if we ever go to the point where we can sue gun makers, then…confiscation will be a natural next step because we’ll have to start suing people who don’t lock up their guns properly at home. They’re going to have to be liable, too,” he added.

“It’s more than a slippery slope, it’s a hard fall,” Hawkins concluded.

The fourth stop of Bristol’s “Second Amendment is Homeland Security” tour will be held in Franklin, Tennessee on Saturday at 10 am at the Williamson County Administrative Complex. State Senator Jack Johnson (R-Franklin) will introduce Bristol.

The tour event will come one day after President Obama’s politically motivated trip to Roseburg, Oregon.

It also comes one week after GOP Presidential frontrunner Donald Trump set forth a ringing defense of the Second Amendment and gun rights in the same Tennessee city.


Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.