In a story entitled, "Court to Hear Gun Case," the Chicago Tribune's James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins wrote ". . . 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.'"
That was when we first heard the term "inartful" used to characterize his previous response:
"That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator's consistent position," Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.
It was inartful because the wind had shifted and Heller had been decided against DC and the vast majority of the country was applauding the decision.
So he was suddenly all for the decision, wording his statement in such a way that it appeared the court had finally come around to his way of thinking:
In response to the ruling, Obama issued a carefully worded statement that applauded the court for providing "much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country" on gun rights while the candidate straddled differences between gun-control advocates and defenders of the right to bear arms.
Obama said he has "always believed that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures."
The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee added that "the Supreme Court has now endorsed that view," noting that the court opinion striking down the capital's handgun ban concedes the right to gun ownership is "not absolute" and is "subject to reasonable regulations."
Well not really - but that's his spin and he's sticking with it.
Which brings us to what Erik found. It has to do with his time in the Illinois Senate. In the case of these bills he decided to vote something other than "present". The bills dealt directly with a homeowner's right to use a gun in self-defense:
In fact, Barack Obama specifically voted four times in the Illinois Legislature to allow criminal charges against a homeowner who used a firearm in self-defense of their person and home — specifically what the Supreme Court says is a constitutional right. Obama may say he supports it, but his record says exactly the opposite.
In 2004, the Illinois Senate considered S.B. 2165 (IL 2004), sponsored by Senator Ed Petka (R-Plainfield). The bill came about because of an arrest in Wilmette, IL in late December of 2003. A 54-year-old businessman shot and wounded a man who had broken into his home for the second time in 24 hours. Cook County prosecutors found the shooting justified, but the businessman, Mr. DeMar, faced a fine and possible destruction of two guns under a 1989 village ordinance prohibiting handgun possession.
S.B. 2165 would allow residents to use self-defense as a basis for seeking dismissal of criminal charges stemming from local gun ordinances if they used the banned weapon in an act of self-defense in their home, business or property.
Obama voted no on third reading March 25, 2004, and voted no on concurrence to a House amendment on May 25, 2004. In fact, Obama voted no four times: in the Judiciary Committee, on Third Reading, in the Judiciary Committee's vote on concurrence with the House, and on the final concurrence.
Luckily for the people of Illinois, the legislation passed despite Obama's opposition. Had he had his way, people in Illinois could still be prosecuted for defending themselves against crimes.
And when he had other opportunities to affirm his belief that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right, he fell short of the mark, opting instead for restrictive legislation:
In 1999, Obama voted in favor of S.B. 177 (IL 1999). The legislation required guns to be secured by trigger locks, placed in a lock box, or placed in a location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure from a minor. Likewise, in 2003, Obama voted for H.B. 2579 (IL 2003) for a law that restricted the rights of Illinois's citizens so that they could only buy one gun a month. The law created the offense of "unlawful acquisition of handguns."
In 2001, Obama voted against S.B. 604 (IL 2001), which would have allowed individuals who have valid orders of protection against other individuals to carry concealed weapons for their protection. The bill would have created an affirmative defense against a charge of violating Illinois's concealed carry law if the person had a lawfully issued protection order against someone seeking to do harm to the person.
In 2002, Obama voted against S.B. 397 (IL 2002), which amended the Firearms Owners Identification Card Act. The legislation was specifically crafted for sporting events and allowed a non-resident participating in a sanctioned competitive shooting event in Illinois to purchase a shotgun or shotgun ammunition in Illinois, but only at the site where the event is being held, for the purpose of participating in the event.
Mr. Obama is beginning to come across as the political reincarnation of John Kerry. And to celebrate that, and understanding how well Mr. Obama enjoys new seals, we humbly submit the following for consideration.
I’d love to see a reporter hammer Obama with this video the next time he tries to claim he was against the DC handgun ban, though considering how far the majority of MSM types are in the bag for Obama I’m not going to hold my breath.
McCain flip flops on the Bush tax cuts, torture, his own immigration bill, and on and on and on. And yet Obama is the waffler.
IOKIYAR.
So basically Obama’s position was that if you owned a banned firearm, you could still claim self-defense to the crime allegedly committed with the firearm, but not to the firearm possession charge itself. Wow. How freaking radical.
In other words, if a felon possesses a firearm, and uses it to defend himself, and kills someone, he can’t be convicted of homicide, but he can be convicted of felon in possession. Wow, how crazy is that?
Is this best that wingnuttery can come up with?
Chicago Tribune, August 20, 2004:
Last week, Obama won the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police. Union officials cited Obama’s longtime support of gun-control measures and his willingness to negotiate compromises on bills backed or opposed by the FOP.
So the guys protecting the citizens of Chicago supported Obama’s positions on guns. Called him a fair broker. Have you ever met a Chicago cop? My experience is that they are flaming radical Commie pinkos. All of them.
Luckily for the people of Illinois, the legislation passed despite Obama’s opposition. Had he had his way, people in Illinois could still be prosecuted for defending themselves against crimes.
This is another typical misleading statement from wingnuttery. In fact, it’s a lie, which McQ is happy to repeat.
Even if you owned a banned gun, but were acting in self-defense, you could not be convicted of harming someone else with the gun. Just like if I use my car to defend myself, and I don’t have a license, I can be convicted of driving while suspended, but not for the act of self-defense.
I understand this is complicated stuff for the average wingnut. But it’s not that complicated.
you could not be convicted of harming someone else with the gun
No you just get convicted for owning it in the first place.
Like you point out, the law is much more pervasive and oppressive than McQ implies. Someone could merely brandish the firearm and have the attackers flee with no one getting hurt and still face penalties.
The person doesn’t even have to brandish the firearm to get punished. Because the purpose of the law is to discourage you from having a firearm in the first place. Not to discourage you from using it. The effect is the same, when it comes time to defend yourself, you can’t. And the former is likely much more effective than the latter at accomplishing that.
You’re right, McQ should not have soft-sold the ability of this legislation to interfere with a person’s right to defend themselves.
So basically Obama’s position was that if you owned a banned firearm, you could still claim self-defense to the crime allegedly committed with the firearm, but not to the firearm possession charge itself.
and,
Even if you owned a banned gun, but were acting in self-defense, you could not be convicted of harming someone else with the gun. Just like if I use my car to defend myself, and I don’t have a license, I can be convicted of driving while suspended, but not for the act of self-defense.
So, mKultra, you’re saying Obama’s position is that it’s a good thing to break a community law of possessing an illegal firearm if you use that firearm in an act of self-defense. Right? Do you suppose there are any other laws that Obama favors breaking? Other than unlicensed use of a motor vehicle in self-defense, that is.
I understand this is complicated stuff for the average wingnut. But it’s not that complicated.
You’re right, it really ain’t that complicated. I suspect some wingnuts see right through it.
Now I read that there is some guy, Andy Martin, saying Obama’s mom and dad never married.
He did have another wife, but under mohammedan law that was allowed.
This is another typical misleading statement from wingnuttery. In fact, it’s a lie, which McQ is happy to repeat.
Even if you owned a banned gun, but were acting in self-defense, you could not be convicted of harming someone else with the gun. Just like if I use my car to defend myself, and I don’t have a license, I can be convicted of driving while suspended, but not for the act of self-defense.
I understand this is complicated stuff for the average wingnut. But it’s not that complicated.
No it is not all that complicated. But you are lying and that isn’t complicated either.
So basically Obama’s position was that if you owned a banned firearm, you could still claim self-defense to the crime allegedly committed with the firearm, but not to the firearm possession charge itself. Wow. How freaking radical.
How do you figure that’s his position? What he did was oppose a law; he is at least as restrictive as the law he voted against changing. He could be significantly more restrictive.
In other words, if a felon possesses a firearm, and uses it to defend himself, and kills someone, he can’t be convicted of homicide, but he can be convicted of felon in possession. Wow, how crazy is that?
Somehow I doubt that the law Obama opposed would have protected felons. It certainly wouldn’t revoke federal firearm laws, like the federal restrictions on felon gun ownership.
