April 02, 2013

The left's assault on ammunition

Guests: Dana Loesch, Leslie Marshall

This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," April 2, 2013. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: Tonight, the Leftists found a new way to limit your second amendment rights by law abiding gun owners.

Now, liberals are no longer simply setting their sights on taking away your guns. Now they're pushing through unprecedented restrictions on your ammunition. Here are the latest developments. In Connecticut, lawmakers are expected to vote tomorrow on a bill that requires the following. Magazines that carry more than 10 bullets must be registered, the law would also create a quote, "ammunition eligibility certificate," which means a background checks would be needed just to purchase ammo. While the good those guns would be without ammo, they would also quote, "implement a dangerous weapon offender's registry."

But Connecticut is not the only state looking to limit ammunition purchases. Now, a similar proposal is being floated in California by a democrat that wants to require that ammo be sold only to licensed dealers and would force sellers to notify police if a specific amount of bullets was sold under a certain amount of days. Now, there seems to be a few reasons for this change in tactics. Now, while lawmakers, they do not have the constitution authority to take away your guns, there is no clear constitutional protection in their mind over ammunition, and as we've now seen in recent weeks, democratic lawmakers in Washington, they don't have the votes necessary to pass an assault weapons ban.

So it appears they are refocusing now on individual states and on your ammo. And to help prove our point, earlier today, the White House announced that President Obama, he is going to travel to Connecticut next week to continue to push his anti-gun agenda. So, it's starting to make sense.

Joining me now with reaction, radio talk show host, Dana Loesch and Fox News contributor Leslie Marshall. Leslie, is a gun, you don't have ammo for that gun, is it worth anything?

LESLIE MARSHALL, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I don't know, you're the one who always tells me, Sean, as a gun owner and you know, all your buddies that guns don't kill, people do but I guess the ammunition really does. And quite frankly, you know the second amendment does not address taxation, registration or anything regarding ammunition --

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: You didn't answer my question. Answer my simple question. In other words, the second amendment, the right of the people --

MARSHALL: A gun can't kill without ammunition.

HANNITY: The right for people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So, if the government is either buying up ammunition, or making you get, quote, "gun insurance," which now is being pushed as well in some states and they're limiting your ability to purchase ammunition, does that not render your second amendment rights useless?

MARSHALL: I don't believe so. And I'm not trying to be violent here, Sean, but if you take a gun, which I have not done and I don't have, as you know, and you even see this in films, you can whack somebody to death with that, Sean, I mean, this is one of arguments that another things can be used --

HANNITY: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no bullets in the gun, Dana, you know what? I have this understanding I was way out of whack. I actually thought that bullets were included in that constitutional right, Dana?

DANA LOESCH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Yes. I didn't know we were talking about pistol whipping tonight. But no, Sean, to your point, all of these new laws that are being proposed and some of these are just syntaxes, let's call them what they are, a democrat version of syntax, not a single one of these laws would do or have done anything to prevent massacres like this and it wouldn't have done anything to prevent the Newtown massacre either. I mean, that's the thing, Adam Lanza changed magazines multiple times and it wouldn't have any effect. We've even had lawmakers in Connecticut kind of admit that you're the former Attorney General Blumenthal in Connecticut, Blumenthal say, yes, really it's not going to have -- really it wouldn't have prevented Newtown. So, if we're talking about preventing more Newtowns, then why are we pushing laws that would not have prevented Newtown?

HANNITY: All right. That raises a great question. I'll throw that to Leslie. Leslie, can you name one proposal that's out there today by the Left, by Democrats, the ammo laws that we're talking about, even the United Nations issue that came up earlier today, which the United States wants to be a part. Which is really scary to me. I don't want to be governed by the U.N. Is there any one law though that you can think of proposed by Democrats that would have prevented Newtown?

MARSHALL: Actually, I don't. I don't have the statistics for that, Sean because obviously we don't have a universal background check system.

HANNITY: Hang on, I'll help you.

MARSHALL: So I can't say what would have happened.

HANNITY: The answer is no.

MARSHALL: Wait, wait, wait.

HANNITY: The answer is no.

MARSHALL: But you have to understand, what you guys always said.

HANNITY: Those are laws.

MARSHALL: You guys on the right always say my buddies there on the right, the two of you, is that give the states more power, and in the state of Connecticut, two to one, 66 to 30 percent of people of Connecticut want gun control.

(CROSSTALK)

The people of Connecticut want this.

HANNITY: But this is important because you know what, Dana, I don't want it turn on the TV. I don't want to tune in to the Fox News Channel and see another one of these tragedies. Now, I don't know for whatever reason the Left thought it was funny that Wayne Lapierre suggested that former military people, former policemen could be hired by these schools and other places just like Hollywood stars and sports stars and politicians, they have armed guards. And why not put them in school as the front line in defense? It would be an investment I'd be willing to pay for as an overtaxed New Yorker.

LOESCH: Yes, and Sean, that's something you want to talk about what Connecticut parents wanted. What Newtown parents wanted? They wanted that, they he voted for that. They voted for armed security in their school so they actually agreed with the NRA. And Wayne Lapierre on that. And as far as, you know, states choosing to do what they want to do. If we're going to talk about the supremacy clause and the enumerated powers of the constitution, the second amendment, I mean, that is, that's a federal - - that is a civil, federal right there. A civil liberty.

So we're talking about modifying, essentially, with the federal civil liberty and that's a discussion we can have for another time. But no, parents voted for that in Connecticut. They voted for armed security in their schools. They agree with the NRA.

HANNITY: Do you think they're being a little extra cleaver level here, because it's interesting, it's Harry Reid protecting all of these Democrats up for reelection in the Senate in 2014, from red states. Red state Democrats, by not bringing this legislation for a vote. So, the political cowardice is coming from Harry Reid. But if they now go for ammunition, it's just another way of rendering the gun useless. There's no point.

LOESCH: All right.

HANNITY: But we're going to take an AR-15 and hit, you know, an intruder over the head? Good luck.

LOESCH: Exactly.

MARSHALL: Sean --

LOESCH: Democrats lost after the assault weapons ban in 1994 and that's why Harry Reid doesn't want to put that n-word effects now. He was trying to save Democrats a little face.

HANNITY: But you know, what? Leslie, if this was the moral imperative and they really thought this was the answer even though none of these laws would have prevented Newtown. Then, what does that say about your party, that they don't have the courage of their convictions, they're looking more towards the election than they are -- what they believe is the safety of children?

MARSHALL: I don't agree with that at all. I mean, in my state here in California, Mike Thompson, who is an avid hunter owns numerous guns, who knows more about guns and usage of guns than I do, and so do you, Sean, who said, look when you're hunting, you've got three rounds. You don't need and you can't physically use 30 rounds and in Connecticut the parents of these children, the families wanted an outright ban on magazines. So, in Connecticut this is actually watered down from what the families and the parents of the --

HANNITY: Do you realize how silly that argument is, as a marksman and I've been-- I've been shooting guns since I'm 11. I've carried guns my entire adult life with carry pistons. That is the dumbest argument I think I've ever heard, hang on.

MARSHALL: Then why are you afraid to register or pay taxes for those --

HANNITY: Dana.

(CROSSTALK)

One at a time, Dana.

LOESCH: Everybody always talks about hunting and that only makes sense if you believe that the second amendment is based upon hunting, but it's not. The second amendment is all about defending against not only individual aggressors, domestic aggressors and government tyranny. Thank you, that's what it's all about.

MARSHALL: And Dana, I'm just curios, and I say this, with all due respect because I be on with you tonight, when was the last time the government, state or federal came knocking at your door, and trying to take guns, et cetera.

HANNITY: They don't want us to by ammo.

(CROSSTALK)

MARSHALL: First, but let's talk about--

HANNITY: Wait, whoa, one at a time.

MARSHALL: A couple in California that were raided, the husband had his registered firearms taken from him because his wife voluntarily committed herself to a mental facility already. So, that's already happened in your state, which I'm sure you're aware of with all due respect.

(CROSSTALK)

And in Texas, you're well aware of two guys were just killed that had guns in their homes with bullets.

LOESCH: Just because it happened doesn't mean it won't, and that's what the beauty of the second amendment is about.

MARSHALL: The Right not to happened, or the Right choose not to happen.

LOESCH: That's right, you can choose not to. But don't deny me my right to it.

MARSHALL: I don't.

HANNITY: Thank you very much. A lot of Liberals would like to, obviously, and the President's out there twisting the arms of state legislators now to try and get his way because he can't get the bill passed because his own party won't go forward with the bill because they're all protecting themselves politically.

But thank you both, good to see you.

Content and Programming Copyright 2013 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2013 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.