This article originally appeared at AmmoLand.

By Tom McHale

A Supreme Court Friendly to the Wicked Witch of Wherever She Comes From means far more than you might think.

A Supreme Court Friendly to the Wicked Witch of Wherever She Comes From means far more than you might think.

Tom McHale headshot low-res square

Tom McHale

USA –-( Personally, I think that if Hillary wins, Jupiter will veer wildly off course and crash right into Toad Suck, Arkansas. Admittedly, that’s more of an opinion than a scientific fact, although I might be willing to bet a fiver on it.

Recently, a friend of mine in the gun industry said to me, “What’s the big deal if Hillary wins? What difference will it really make?” When I responded that she would be in charge of putting several of her minion trolls on the Supreme Court, thereby ending the Second Amendment as we know it, his response was “So, we get Heller overturned. It won’t make that much of a difference.”

Actually, Heller (and McDonald) remaining un-overruled is everything. Those two decisions, confirmed by the Supremes, are the last ditch legal defense against all sorts of malodorous behavior from any branch of government – federal, state or local.

The primary reason that the Supreme Court makeup is everything is that it serves as the last check and balance for any governmental activity. While it rules on court cases, those cases arise from a wide variety of legal disputes – challenged laws, civil lawsuits, and opposition to illegal actions by the executive branches of government.

In short, a Supreme Court friendly to the anti-gun crowd will allow near boundless bad behavior by all branches of government.

Although the tactics will vary, the net effect of a host of actions will result in what are effectively gun bans. As John R. Lott, Jr. of the Crime Prevention Research Center explains, we quickly forget how recently we actually did have outright gun bans on the books. “Until 2008, Washington, D.C., had a complete handgun ban. It was also a felony to put a bullet in the chamber of a gun. In effect, this was a complete ban on guns. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down these laws.”

So without further ado, consider some of the things we might see if Hillary “What Difference Does It Make” Clinton gets to pick the new Supremes. The really bad thing is that this is just a short list of some of the possibilities. Imagine a dedicated team dreaming up stuff like this for the next eight years and you might soil your shorts.

Oh, don’t worry about this list giving anyone ideas. These people, while misguided, are smart and playing a long-term game of “disarm the populace” three-dimensional chess. They are already thinking about, and in some cases doing, all of these things. The only difference is that we currently have a split Supreme Court and two massively important rulings that keep their desires in check.

Executive Orders and Executive Actions will no longer be challengeable

Hillary’s Supremes can’t hurry love, but they can hurry gov. Remember who gets to decide if a Presidential Executive Order or Executive Action is legal and constitutional? That’s right, the Supremes. A friendly Supreme Court with a five to four or six to three majority will lube the West Wing with super slick policy grease to speed Her Majesty’s desires from Bloomberg’s mouth to legally enforceable law, even if it is wrapped in policy rather than legislation.

We already have a President that just takes executive action even though he legally can’t. Recently, some of his non-gun-related “paper and pen laws” have been struck down by the Supremes. Now imagine a Supreme Court gleefully loyal to the Wicked Witch of wherever she comes from. There’s an endless list of Executive Order or Action possibilities that could make our lives miserable. Daily audits of your local gun store that last six to eight months each. Mandated microstamping. Mandatory smart gun production. How about increasing the regulation requirements placed on gun manufacturers by infinity percent or so? Use your imagination to dream up policy directives given to the BATFE from the Oval Office. It gets really scary really quickly.

Oh, and in this boundless category of fail, Congress won’t be able to do jack squat if the Executive and Legal branches of the federal government are in cahoots, so screaming at your Senators and Representatives isn’t going to fix it.

Gun and Ammo Taxes

If you think parking tickets without representation is bad, consider the possibility of infinite gun and ammo taxes. How would you feel about a $500 gun “safety” tax? Or a $1 per round ammo “Because Children!” tax? Don’t laugh; it’s been done before. Back in 1934, the National Firearms Act tacked a $200 tax onto silencers, machine guns, and other guns deemed evil. Handguns were supposed to be included in that bill, but there was too much political opposition. Oh, and that $200 back then equates to about $3,500 in today’s dollars, so when that little gem was enacted, the entire purpose was to create a defacto gun ban as no one would be able to afford them.

Sadly, this isn’t supposition on my part. Not too long ago, Hillary promoted gun and ammo taxes to help offset the “high cost of gun violence.” And that’s the key. Any tax like this will be wrapped in a Unicorn fart-seasoned blanket of funding for crime prevention or some such thing.

Yes, at the federal level, Congress holds the power of taxation but think about the states. This kind of tax talk is already happening in various locales and the only thing checking these initiatives is the threat of being overruled by the Supremes.

Any state that wants to can act like California

Imagine a dozen or so states of Fruits and Nuts rather than just a couple. Without a potential constitutional check and balance by the Supreme Court, states can implement any ridiculous laws that they so desire. Don’t think it can happen? Take a look at the new legislation recently signed into law in California. Then, while you’re at it, read up on the process behind New York’s Safe Act. That makes H. Rodham’s legal behavior look virginal in comparison.

Consider the new favored Bloombergian strategy of funding ballot initiatives. With issues far too complex to be communicated to voters, the opposition has built “sound bite” marketing campaigns that sound good on the surface, so people vote for them. Preventing this type of manipulation is one of the primary reasons that our government is designed as a democratic republic. We elect people who are supposed to invest the time to understand issues and make decisions accordingly. If we don’t like what they do, we elect new folks. Every citizen can’t digest every nuance of every piece of legislation, hence the danger of ballot initiatives.

Create enough liability to drive manufacturers out of business

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 was signed into law for one reason. A favorite strategy of the gun control groups was to sue gun manufacturers for criminal use of their products. So, if Cleetus stole a Winnington 8400 from somewhere, then killed someone with it, the victim’s family, supported by the Brady Bunch, could sue for massive damages, claiming that Winnington was somehow responsible and should have known better. Think about this. That’s no different than a drunk driving victim suing General Motors and Budweiser or a drowning victim’s family suing the water company. The whole intent of this never-ending string of lawsuits was to make it too expensive for gun companies to do business. The PLCAA largely put a stop to the practice. It did not implement any type of immunity for gun makers or retailers. If they do something negligent, they’re still liable, just as Budweiser would still be liable if they accidentally filled beer cans with Valvoline.

This strategy isn’t unrealistic conjecture. Hillary regularly lambasts the PLCAA and wants it repealed. At an Iowa campaign event on October 7, 2015, she said, “Probably one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress when it comes to this issue is to protect gun sellers and gun makers from liability. They are the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability.”

Don’t take my word for it, take hers.

So what to do?

If this list scares you, as it should, you need to get your butt out and vote. And you need to bring all your family members with you. And you need to pester every friend you have to do the same. It frustrates me to no end how many gun owners sit out elections. If every gun owner voted, there would be no such thing as a gun control movement. None. Nada. Never. Ever.

I’m going to do my part and vote, even though my vote is irrelevant. Not because it’s just one vote, but because I live in South Cackalackee. The folks here would gleefully vote for a bowl of six-week-old mildewed cheese grits over Hillary, so South Carolina ain’t goin’ on her electoral map unless she promises to make “Free Bird” the new National Anthem. The rest is up to you folks, especially those of you in states like Virginia, Ohio, and Florida. There are plenty of other swing states, and you know who you are, so get busy.


Tom McHale is the author of the Insanely Practical Guides book series that guides new and experienced shooters alike in a fun, approachable, and practical way. His books are available in print and eBook format on Amazon. You can also find him on Google+, Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest.