Hillary Clinton’s campaign has released a “factsheet” entitled Hillary Clinton Believes It’s Time to Act on Gun Violence. The position paper establishes a radically left-wing, gun control agenda, while also establishing that the candidate and her staff don’t know or understand existing federal gun laws.

The most glaring example of the Clinton campaigns ignorance is it’s position on “straw purchasing.”


The Clinton campaign incredibly claims that straw purchasing is merely a “paperwork violation.”

Straw purchasing—defined as someone with a “clean” criminal record buying a firearm for a prohibited person—has been a federal felony for decades, with violators facing a sentence of up to ten years in a federal prison and a $250,000 fine for each violation.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) have long maintained a web site decrying this federal crime, Don’t Lie For the Other Guy.

Clinton’s stance on background checks is also rife with ignorance.

It is estimated that 20 to 40 percent of all gun purchases in America are conducted with no background check because federal law fails to cover unlicensed transfers online, at gun shows, and between anonymous strangers.

Clinton does not cite the source of her claim that “20 to 40 percent of all gun purchases in America are conducted with no background check,” which we consider quite interesting. We’re unaware of any current research that validates this claim.

So-called “online” gun sales are primarily transfers from one federally-licensed gun dealer (FFL) to another, and as such, a federal background check is required before a customer is allowed to receive the firearm, without exception.

Most other “online” sales are nothing more than online classified ads, similar to Craigslist, where lawful transactions between private parties are facilitated, but where buyers meet in person. There simply isn’t anything remotely like an Amazon.com-type web site where customers can order guns without a background check and have them delivered to their door. There are a limited number of instances in which a person in the same state can ship a firearm to another.

As for the “gun shows loophole,” it is a myth. All firearms transfers (including sales and trades) by FFLs must be strictly  documented, with background checks performed. It does not matter if these gun sales are conducted in a gun shop, a gun show, out of a home, or some other venue.

Let’s go deeper into her support for “comprehensive” federal background checks.

Advocate for comprehensive federal background check legislation. Laws prohibiting dangerous individuals from buying guns are only as effective as our background check system is comprehensive. Background checks reduce gun trafficking,  reduce the lethality of domestic violence,  and reduce unlawful gun transfers to dangerous individuals.

Gun traffickers can be charged with numerous federal crimes already, including the laws covering straw purchasing that the Clinton campaign doesn’t know exists. Likewise, there is scant support for the campaign’s claims that such checks will reduce the lethality of gun violence, or reduce transfers to dangerous individuals. All of Clinton’s links here point to “research” funded by billionaire Democrat gun control supporter Michael Bloomberg, which has been hammered time and again by media outlets and fact checking organizations for dishonesty.

“The point” of a comprehensive federal background check database is obvious; a de facto gun registry, despite the fact such a registry is unlawful and unconstitutional. A corrupt government could use such a registry to effect confiscation, which is clearly a goal of the left wing of the current Democrat Party, as evidenced by President Obama’s current push for “Australian” gun bans and mandatory buybacks (federal confiscation at the threat of point of a government-owned gun).

Indeed, the rest of Clinton’s anti-gun platform is clearly designed to impede the lawful purchase of firearms by law-abiding citizens, and will have little to no effect at all on criminal acquisition of firearms, or in violent crime committed by criminals.

There are more than enough existing federal laws on firearms, but our Democrat-led Department of Justice refuses to prosecute most federal gun charges, and plea-bargains them away or drops them entirely.

Instead of attacking the lawful commerce of firearms between law-abiding citizens, perhaps Clinton could explain why she is in favor of totalitarian infringements which only increase the power of the state and the size and expense of the federal government.