During the final presidential debate, Hillary Clinton defended her past comment that the Supreme Court was “wrong on the Second Amendment,” arguing that her comment referenced a specific provision about safe gun storage.
Moderator and Fox host Chris Wallace asked Clinton about her comment last year that the Supreme Court was “wrong on the Second Amendment” and asked her to address the Heller case in which the court struck a Washington, D.C., law banning handguns and requiring safe gun storage.
“Well, first of all, I support the Second Amendment,” Clinton replied. “I understand and respect the tradition of gun ownership. It goes back to the founding of our country. But I also believe that there can be and must be reasonable regulation. Because I support the Second Amendment doesn’t mean that I want people who shouldn’t have guns to be able to threaten you, kill you or members of your family.”
Clinton then explained to Wallace that when she said that the Supreme Court was “wrong,” she was saying “that I disagreed with the way the court applied the Second Amendment in that case.”
“Because what the District of Columbia was trying to do was to protect toddlers from guns. And they wanted people with guns to safely store them, and the court didn’t accept that reasonable regulation, but they’ve accepted many others,” she said. “So I see no conflict between saving people’s lives and defending the Second Amendment.”
Wallace then turned to Donald Trump, asking him if he believes Clinton supports the Second Amendment. In response, Trump tried to paint Clinton as “angry” and “upset.”
“The D.C. versus Heller decision was very strongly and she was extremely angry about it. I watched. She was very, very angry,” Trump said. “And Justice Scalia was so involved, and it was a well crafted decision, but Hillary was extremely upset, extremely angry, and people that believe in the Second Amendment and believe in it very strongly were very upset with what she had to say.”
In response, Clinton agreed that she was “upset.”
“Unfortunately, dozens of toddlers injure themselves, even kill people with guns because, unfortunately, not everyone who has loaded guns in their homes takes appropriate precautions,” she said.
Later, when asked by Wallace about his opposition to assault weapons bans and support for right to carry laws, Trump launched into a rant about crime in Chicago.
“Let me just tell you before we go any further, in Chicago, which has the toughest gun laws in the United States, probably you could say by far they have more gun violence than any other city. So we have the toughest laws and you have tremendous gun violence,” he said. “We are going to appoint justices. This is the best way to help the Second Amendment. We’re going to appoint justices that will feel very strongly about the Second Amendment, that will not do damage to the Second Amendment.
I don’t understand this question from Wallace to Trump. It’s for the voters to decide, not Trump, whether or not they believe Hillary’s answer. Wallace should have just asked Trump for his position on the 2nd amendment for the benefit of voters.
I know Wallace doesn’t fact check, but he’s seriously going to outsource that to Trump?
I don’t get it. All she had to do was talk about what the SCOTUS should consider “reasonable” regulation. It is such a wishy washy standard in terms ofthe superficial language. As a fellow lawyer she should have known how to address this issue within the context of the question and the law but she yammered political crap. It was one of the more frustrating moments for me. All she had to do is say she disagreed with the SCOTUS’'s idea of what is reasonable and argue that we should all rethink what we consider reasonable regulation but she didnt. It’s too important of an issue to pussyfoot. Instead she circumlocuted. This was a disappointing moment for me.
As a non-lawyer, her answer didn’t strike me as superficial as you found it to be. I think she was giving an example where she thinks the court should be taking into consideration the real impact decisions have on people’s lives. To the extent that that turns it into “political crap,” she’s running for political office. It was certainly a different type of argument than the one she would make in a courtroom, but I think it’s grounded in the same legal beliefs.
Anyone still affiliated with the all or nothing NRA argument did not listen to a single word she said. Single issue voters are long since in the GOP bag. SCOTUS has limited law writing powers compared to Congress and State Legislatures. People who have had it with unregulated gun ownership had to hear some hope of fewer needless deaths and massacres. Trump took the low hanging NRA fruit and offered not a shred of relief to the great majority of responsible gun owners and people who deserve freedom from the fear of guns. There will be a great deal of professional spinning in favor of the NRA on this issue. It took strength for Secretary Clinton to stand up to them and appeal to the very real needs of Americans who would prefer to freely go about their lawful business without worrying when some nut case with a military assault rifle might decide the time is right for a Second Amendment solution.
Hey, I’m all for the Second Amendment, but I wish someone (NRA?) would remember that there are 2 clauses . So what exactly is a “well-regulated militia”?