Clinton dodges question on Second Amendment

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton on Sunday dodged a question on whether she believes an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right.

“I think that for most of our history, there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment until the decision by the late Justice [Antonin] Scalia, and there was no argument until then that localities and states and the federal government had a right, as we do with every amendment, to impose reasonable regulations,” she said on ABC’s “This Week.”

{mosads}”So I believe we can have common sense gun safety measures, consistent with the Second Amendment.”

Clinton said what she has proposed regarding gun safety measures has been supported by 90 percent of the American people.

“So that is exactly what I think is constitutionally permittable and again, you have Donald Trump just making outright fabrications, accusing me of something that is absolutely untrue,” she said.

Presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump has claimed on the campaign trail that Clinton wants to abolish the Second Amendment. Clinton has disputed those claims.

In the interview that aired Sunday, Clinton said she plans to continue speaking out for gun safety measures such as comprehensive background checks, closing the gun-show and online loopholes and reversing a bill that gives immunity from liability to gun makers and sellers. 

“I think all of that can and should be done,” she said. “And it is, in my view, consistent with the Constitution.”

When pressed further on whether she believes the right to bear arms is a constitutional right, Clinton continued to avoid the question, saying any constitutional right “is subject to reasonable regulations.”

“And what people have done with that decision is to take it as far as they possibly can and reject what has been our history from the very beginning of the republic, where some of the earliest laws that were passed were about firearms,” she said.

“So I think it’s important to recognize that reasonable people can say, as I do, responsible gun owners have a right, I have no objection to that, but the rest of the American public has a right to require certain kinds of regulatory responsible actions to protect everyone else.”