Are Voters Beginning to Reject Obama’s and Clinton’s Gun Control Agenda?

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Monday, May 2, 2016:  

For months now national polls of likely voters in November have given Hillary Clinton high single- or low double-digit leads over Donald Trump, allowing Clinton to push her anti-gun agenda with impunity. She bragged last week on MSNBC that, once elected, she would take on the gun rights crowd (read: NRA, GOA, JPFO, The 2A Foundation, the NAGR, the CCRKBA, etc.) from the very first day:

I really support everything President Obama said he would do through regulations on guns, but we’re going to start the very first day and tackle the gun lobby to try to reduce the outrageous number of people who are dying from gun violence in our country.

Her agenda has been clear for years: gun confiscation. A major part of her platform this election cycle is repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), passed in 2005, which prohibits civil liability actions from being brought against gun makers for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others. If repealed, lawsuits would no doubt be instigated against the industry, bankrupting it.

But her threat against the PLCAA is starting to ring hollow. A poll two weeks ago by Harper Polling of 1,000 American voters across every demographic and geographic in the country showed a majority opposed to repealing the law. They said instead that criminals should be prosecuted, not gun makers (or dealers or distributors). Even among liberal East Coast Democrats. Even among those who voted for Obama in 2012. Majorities said no.

Rasmussen Reports has been closely following the potential Clinton/Trump matchup in November, and last week recorded that for the first time Donald Trump has closed the gap with Hillary: 38 percent of those polled support Trump while 38 percent support Clinton.

As the country’s “greatest gun salesman,” Obama has been pushing an anti-gun agenda that has resulted in record numbers of Americans adding to their stockpiles of firearms and ammunition. Undeterred, Obama announced another broadside against the Second Amendment in January, including orders to the Justice, Defense, and Homeland Security agencies to report back to him in 90 days about how “smart gun” technology can be implemented. That report came in last week, and Obama posted its progress on his Facebook page, and how important it is, he said, to keep accidental discharges of firearms at a minimum and thieves from stealing them:

These common-sense steps are not going to prevent every tragedy, but what if they prevent even one? We should be doing everything we can to save lives and spare families the pain and unimaginable loss too many Americans have endured.

Most people understand the concept: a “smart gun” can only be fired by its owner. What most people don’t grasp is that it doesn’t work.

Case in point: Armatix and its clever failure, the iP1. It’s essentially a small, .22-caliber semi-automatic pistol that holds just 10 rounds and has an effective field of fire of 75 yards. It comes with a separate watch with an RFID chip imbedded that keeps the gun from firing unless it’s less than 10 inches away from it. It was developed in 2006, it lists for $1,798, and the demand, to be kind, has failed to meet expectations.

Jon Stokes, writing for TeleCrunch.com, was far less kind: “The smart gun, in all of its incarnations, is a fantasy. No electronic technology is 100% reliable, and very few people will trust a gun that can be turned into a brick by a failure of some on-board circuitry.” Besides, said Stokes, any new software will have a “whole host of brand new security and identity problems … that must be discovered and patched, and then the patches will have problems….”

New Jersey’s Attorney General said essentially the same thing in 2014 when he determined that the iP1’s design failed to meet the minimum standards of New Jersey’s 2001 law, the Childproof Handgun Law. He said “after careful consideration of the iP1’s design, we have determined that it does not satisfy the statutory definition because … the pistol may be fired by a person who is not an authorized or recognized user.”

Oh, swell. Isn’t that the whole point? Fifteen years into development and it still won’t work?

But Obama’s push continues, as he explained on his Facebook post.

What’s interesting is that the final report isn’t due until October, a month before the election. Likely a coincidence, but then, isn’t everything political a coincidence? This would give a boost to Clinton’s anti-gun campaign just as she would be preparing to pick up the baton that Obama is leaving for her.

But if Rasmussen and Harper are right, that Hillary is getting pushback on one of her major anti-gun tenets and that Trump has closed the gap, then Obama’s obsession with gun control would disappear altogether in November, along with Hillary.

Helping along is this from Trump’s website about his support for the Second Amendment:

The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.

The Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all law-abiding Americans. The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple.

Sources:

Yahoo.com: Obama announces new steps to curb gun violence

ABC News: Inside President Obama’s Smart Gun Announcement

Rasmussen Reports: Clinton and Trump tied

Background on Armatix iP1 smart gun

Why Obama’s Smart Gun Push Will Misfire

NRAILA.com: Poll: Voters Not Swayed by Clinton’s Anti-Gun Duplicity

Harper Polling: Voters Do Not Support Lawsuits Against Firearms Manufacturers, Retailers for Gun Crime, Poll Finds

Hillary Clinton to Attack Gun Owners Her “Very First Day” in Office

Background on PLCAA