Obama, once again, supports our Second Amendment rights, but sees no problem with local gun control. Using the worn out "yell fire in a theater", Obama equates firearms ownership with unlawful use of a firearm.
Politico has discovered something we have known for some time:
Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has worked to assure uneasy gun owners that he believes the Constitution protects their rights and that he doesn’t want to take away their guns.
But before he became a national political figure, he sat on the board of a Chicago-based foundation that doled out at least nine grants totaling nearly $2.7 million to groups that advocated the opposite positions.
The foundation funded legal scholarship advancing the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect individual gun owners’ rights, as well as two groups that advocated handgun bans. And it paid to support a book called “Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.”
Obama’s eight years on the board of the Joyce Foundation, which paid him more than $70,000 in directors fees, do not in any way conflict with his campaign-trail support for the rights of gun owners, Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Obama’s presidential campaign, asserted in a statement issued to Politico this week.
LaBolt stressed that the foundation, which has assets of about $935 million, doesn’t take “detailed policy positions,” but rather uses its grants to “fuel a dialogue about how to address public policy issues like reducing gun violence.”
For this last statement to be true, you would have to wonder how much money they have granted to gun rights organizations. The answer would be exactly $0.00.
In case you haven't seen, we are collecting maps reflecting the impact of five mile exclusion zones. If you are not aware of this proposal, check out The Five Mile Proposal.
In 2004 Barack Obama was running for the U.S. Senate in Illinois. The Chicago Tribune provides these tidbits:
All of the candidates endorsed stricter gun-control measures, but each said tougher enforcement of existing gun-control laws should be a priority over the introduction of new laws. Each candidate supported closing loopholes that allow gun shows to sell weapons to unauthorized buyers. Each also advocated the renewal of a federal ban on the sale of assault weapons, which expires in September. Obama, however, called for a host of new gun-control measures: strengthening the assault-weapons ban to include high-capacity clips made prior to 1994; holding parents criminally responsible for children who injure someone with a gun found in the home; placing trigger locks on all guns; and allowing gun buyers to purchase only one weapon per month. Hynes advocated increasing penalties for crimes committed with a gun, and Hull would increase funding to update technology that provides instant background checks on gun buyers. All of the candidates, except Hynes, said they opposed allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons. Hynes and Chico said states, not the federal government, should regulate the matter. "I consider this an issue for the states to decide, not the federal government," Chico said. Obama disagreed. He backed federal legislation that would ban citizens from carrying weapons, except for law enforcement. He cited Texas as an example of a place where a law allowing people to carry weapons has "malfunctioned" because hundreds of people granted licenses had prior convictions. "National legislation will prevent other states' flawed concealed- weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents," Obama said. (emphasis mine)
So, not only does Barack support the standard laundry list of gun control, he also wants federal legislation to override state concealed carry laws.
From David Mendell, "Democratic hopefuls vary a bit on death penalty," Chicago Tribune, February 20, 2004.
Running for the Illinois state Senate in October 2001, Barack Obama says that there should be local control of firearm law.
In 2001, Obama was one of just nine senators to vote against a bill that toughened penalties for violent crimes committed during gang activity. Obama said the law did not clearly define a gang member and he questioned why lawmakers were targeting Hispanics and blacks for stiffer sentences. Two years earlier, after the Columbine High School shootings in Colorado, Obama voted "present" on a bill requiring juveniles to be prosecuted as adults for firing a firearm on or near school property. Obama also voted against a bill permitting gun owners to claim self-defense when using a gun in their homes if the local community bans the use of handguns. Obama said municipalities should control local gun regulations, not the state. "That law eviscerated anti-handgun ordinances in some communities," Obama said. "The way I feel, Wilmette should not determine Mattoon's firearms ordinances and Mattoon should not determine Wilmette's."
His desire to not "eviscerated anti-handgun ordinances in some communities" is curious as just 3 years later he wanted to write federal law to step on all state and local pro-concealed carry law.
The common thread between this article and Obama 2004 Pushing Federal Gun Control is not who controls firearm law, but the fact of gun control. Obama comes across as for all gun control law and against all gun rights law.
From David Mendell, "Obama's record a plus, a minus ; Votes in Senate defy easy labels," Chicago Tribune, October 8, 2004.
Rev. Pfleger told the crowd: "We're going to find you and snuff you out....Like a rat you're going to hide. But like a rat, we're going to catch you and pull you out....We're going to snuff out John Riggio." Rev. Pfleger also promised: "We're going to snuff out legislators that are voting against our gun laws. We're coming for you because we're not going to sit idly."
I am not sure Pfleger's threat was more than figurative, but it is very clear the reverand believes in rabid gun control.
The behavior was serious enough to get the attention of Cardinal Francis George. The cardinal responded thusly:
Publicly delivering a threat against anyone’s life betrays the civil order and is morally outrageous, especially if this threat came from a priest," George said. "It is first of all up to the civil authorities to determine what threat might have been contained in the remarks attributed to Fr. Michael Pfleger. With that determination, the sponsors of the anti-gun rally and the Archdiocese can better decide how to respond.
If Father Michael Pfleger was just another one of the many Chicago Obama supporters, he would be of no significance. But, by Obama's own words, Pfleger is one of Obama's top three spiritual advisors.
I'd bet that Pfleger advises Obama on more than spiritual matters.
Of course they have. Set up as a 'progun' organization by the Democratic Party, their entire purpose is to give progun credentials to otherwise antirights candidates.
All Obama had to do was vote for Senate Amendment 4615 (109th Congress). It was a prohibition on confiscation of firearms during a national emergency.
Forget that Obama has:
A long history of gun control in the Illinois Senate.
Voted for every gun control measure to come before the Senate in Washington.
Wants to reinstate an 'assault weapons' ban.
Came out for banning all handguns as late as 1996.
Supported banning assault weapon ammunition in 2003.
Supported limiting handgun ammunition in 2003.
Is against concealed carry.
From Obama's own words, it appears that the Second Amendment is all about hunting.
Compared to Clinton, Obama is a big unknown for most people when it comes to gun control. The AHSA would never be able to support Clinton because of her well known stand. But those who have not researched Obama may just take their endorsement at face value.
Providing this endorsement during 'bittergate' and just before several primaries where gun control is a big issue, the AHSA maximizes the impact for Obama.
Many sites do not remember this quote on Heller v. D.C. It is not suprising in the Trib and its archive do not remember this article. So, I am just moving it back to the top.
Here is Obama said on Heller v. D.C. on the day that the Supreme Court granted cert before he had a chance to edit his words:
Court to review gun ban
D.C. law that bars owning handgun to go to Supreme Court
By James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins
November 21, 2007
WASHINGTON
The Supreme Court again stepped squarely into the culture wars yesterday by agreeing to hear a high-profile gun ban case, one that might make firearm ownership a significant issue in the coming election year.
At stake is a law that prohibits residents of the District of Columbia from owning handguns. The justices will decide sometime next spring whether such a ban violates the Constitution. If they rule that way, it could eventually spell trouble for gun bans in other cities.
The move left gun-rights activists euphoric.
"I'm on cloud nine," said Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation, minutes after the court's order accepting the case was released.
Monday was National Ammo Day, a day on which gun devotees such as Gottlieb called on sympathizers to buy 100 rounds of ammunition in support of gun stores and bullet manufacturers.
While gun-control advocates were not cheered by the Supreme Court's agreeing to consider the case, they were consoled that the court could rule on the issue in a relatively narrow way. Only the right to own a handgun in the home will be addressed, not limits on assault rifles or concealed weapons.
Thomas Mannard, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, said that while his organization supports the right of local governments to limit handguns in the home, its primary concern rests with prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons in public. "I'm not ready to say it's a setback," Mannard said.
Moreover, any decision from the court will apply only to the federal government and not to laws passed by states and cities, because the District of Columbia is a federal entity.
Even so, the court has not ruled on the scope of the Second Amendment since 1939, and the timing might be right for gun-rights supporters given the court's conservative drift and its newest justices, John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr. A favorable ruling would be "the building block we've been fighting for 30 years," Gottlieb said.
Last spring, the federal appeals court in Washington struck down the district's 30-year-old handgun ban, moving the city's government to appeal to the Supreme Court. The decision to appeal troubled many gun-control supporters, who worried that the case would finally provide the kind of unstoppable legal weapon that activists such as Gottlieb have long sought.
But lawyers for the city and its mayor, Adrian M. Fenty, said they had no choice but to seek an appeal, saying their responsibility was to the district, not the nation as a whole. The question will be whether the court's ruling will have applicability beyond Washington.
"At a minimum, I think a favorable decision would mean that people have a right to keep functional firearms, including handguns, shotguns and rifles, in their homes for self-defense," said Clark Neily, a D.C. lawyer representing the plaintiffs who filed suit against the gun ban.
Lawrence Rosenthal, a former deputy corporation counsel in Chicago and now a law professor at Chapman University in Orange, Calif., said, "For localities that have banned handguns, like Chicago, this case is huge."
Throughout the 1990s, gun advocates filed about two legal challenges a year to the city's handgun ban, Rosenthal said. But the city successfully defended its law.
"The gun rights groups have always been hoping to overturn" that decision, Rosenthal said.
Presidential candidate Rudolph W. Giuliani said the justices should strike down the D.C. ban. In a statement, the Republican former mayor of New York City called the appeals court decision "an excellent example of a judge looking to find the meaning of the words in the Constitution, not what he would like them to mean."
But the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he "believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional."
From James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins, "Court To Hear Gun Case," Chicago Tribune, 11/20/07. I would say that you should Pay to find it here, but the Trib has sanitized it's archive. There are no articles on Heller in the Trib for the entire month of November 07, the same month Heller was given cert by the Supreme Court.
Protecting Gun Rights Respect the Second Amendment: Millions of hunters own and use guns each year. Millions more participate in a variety of shooting sports such as sporting clays, skeet, target and trap shooting that may not necessarily involve hunting. As a former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right and he greatly respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms. He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting. He also believes that the right is subject to reasonable and commonsense regulation.
Where to start?
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. Yet, there it is in sentence number one. But I guess Obama does not believe in self defense or protecting his family. You can do that when the Secret Service has your back.
Sentence two: suck up to the hunters by recognizing them.
Sentence three: Obama was a Lecturer then Senior Lecturer; aka a professor, not to be confused with a tenure track Professor. He was an part-time lecturer. If you examine his opinions on gun control, you will find that his great respect for the Second Amendment amounts to a small hill of beans. That individual right he speaks of can be overridden by local law, like the D.C. gun law which he believes to be constitutional .
Sentence four: It appears that Barack will only protect our Second Amendment rights within his narrow definition of what it is all about: sporting goods. Do you think he will support my right to own a bowling ball?
Sentence five: Guess who gets to define "reasonable and commonsense"?
Barack said it. You don't have to take my word for it.
Correction: According to the University of Chicago , Obama was a Senior Lecturer, which in their parlance is a non tenure track professor. Thanks to the reader.
During his first run for elected office, Barack Obama played a greater role than his aides now acknowledge in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion- positions that appear at odds with the more moderate image he’s projected during his presidential campaign. The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group’s detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his 1996 bid for a state Senate seat. Late last year, in response to a Politico story about Obama’s answers to the original questionnaire, his aides said he “never saw or approved” the questionnaire. They asserted the responses were filled out by a campaign aide who “unintentionally mischaracterize(d) his position.” ...Both versions of the 1996 questionnaires provide answers his presidential campaign disavows to questions about whether Obama supports capital punishment and state legislation to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.” He responded simply “No” and “Yes,” respectively, to those questions on both questionnaires. But a fact sheet provided by his campaign flatly denies Obama ever held those views, asserting he “consistently supported the death penalty for certain crimes, but backed a moratorium until problems were fixed.” And it points out that as a state senator, he led an effort to reform Illinois’ death penalty laws. ...
