Second Amendment not endangered

Donald Trump's latest on-stage outrage was really two. The one that got the attention last week was his apparent suggestion that "Second Amendment people" rise in an armed insurrection against the federal government if Hillary Clinton wins the election. The second was his premise for the claim: that "Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment."

Ms. Clinton plays up her opposition to the National Rifle Association, but her positions are, if anything, too modest.

What Mr. Trump seems to have meant — always a risky way to begin a sentence — is that Ms. Clinton would appoint judges who might scale back the overly broad protections for gun ownership that the Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment to provide. Doing so would not be anything like abolishing an amendment, which no court can do.

In any case, Ms. Clinton does not appear to be interested in pressing a radical re-interpretation of the Second Amendment. She has endorsed a balance between upholding Americans' constitutionally protected access to firearms and enacting rudimentary safety measures.

Ms. Clinton would close loopholes that allow many guns to be sold unchecked. She would use this more comprehensive background check system to deny weapons to domestic abusers and the dangerously mentally ill, a measure that research indicates could save lives. She would end the practice of allowing gun sales to go through if federal officials do not rapidly complete a background check. And she would ban assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. If these policies sound familiar, that is because they echo and elaborate upon the Brady Bill and other legislation Ms. Clinton's husband signed during his presidency

This story was originally published August 14, 2016 at 5:24 AM with the headline "Second Amendment not endangered."