During the final presidential debate Wednesday night, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said she opposed the decision in the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court case because it overturned a D.C. anti-gun law that was designed to protect toddlers from guns.
Of course, no one thinks toddlers should have access to guns. But there’s just one problem with Clinton’s claim: the Heller case had absolutely nothing to do with toddlers.
The words “child” and “toddler” appear nowhere in either the Heller decision, or the dissent.
— (((Megan McArdle))) (@asymmetricinfo) October 20, 2016
In actuality, the Heller case was about the constitutional right of Anthony Heller, a 66-year-old police officer, to legally own and bear a personal firearm in his home. Prior to the 2008 Heller decision, the District of Columbia had effectively banned handguns by prohibiting their registration while simultaneously making it illegal to carry an unregistered handgun. The Supreme Court rightfully determined that this “total ban on handguns” was unconstitutional, and ruled that Heller had a constitutional right to own and bear and firearm in his home.
No mention of toddlers. Because the case had absolutely nothing to do with toddlers.
The Federalist’s Sean Davis puts it best:
If Clinton opposes an individual’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms to protect his or her family, she should just come out and say so instead of blatantly lying about the Supreme Court’s decision on the matter.