Getting in Obama's Face on the 2nd Amendment

Obama's recent comments about "getting in the face of" and "arguing" with friends and neighbors who disagree with the Senator are making the rounds across the internet. Here are the exact words from his address to a crowd of about 1500 in Elko, NV:

I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face. And if they tell you that, 'Well, we're not sure where he stands on guns.' I want you to say, 'He believes in the Second Amendment.' ...You are my ambassadors. You guys are the ones who can make the case.

Spokesmen from his Minnesota Sportsmen's chapter are already taking the offensive, as seen by this statement:

Tell me where Senator Obama says `I want stricter controls on who can hunt and when' or 'I want to ban shotguns and rifles' Where has he said that? He hasn't.

Obama's call to action and the statements of his campaign are tough talk, but it is talk that is skillfully crafted to avoid important specifics on what form the Senator's support for the 2nd Amendment takes. Obama's toothless belief in gun rights is well documented. His blanket claim of support is a deflection that avoids an issue where the Senator has an unusually long record of votes and statements.

The statement by the Minnesota Sportsment, if read closely, actually shines a light on how narrow his support of the 2nd amendment is. It is correct that Obama has not asked for stricter controls on who can hunt and when. But he HAS asked to make it virtually impossible to find a place to purchase a firearm. He has supported reckless lawsuits against the manufacturers of the firearms that hunters use. He has supported the ban of common types of rifles, shotguns, and standard hunting ammunition.

The sportsmen are also correct that Obama has not called for an all-out ban on shotguns and rifles. But as shown above, few would types would be legal if all of Obama's votes passed, and it would be costly, burdensome, and near impossible to purchase one. Also notice that the statement leaves out the words "handguns" or "pistols". This is because you can easily find documentation on Obama supporting a ban on all handguns. In addition, you can find statements by the Senator supporting actual operational handgun bans in places such as Chicago and DC.

Voters may support Barack Obama for any number of reasons. They may agree with him on healthcare, education, foreign policy, taxation, or simply on a message of hope. But they should not be duped into believing that he has ever supported the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution in any measurable fashion. I personally encourage any of my friends and neighbors that might identify me as a republican, independent, or libertarian to get in my face an argue with me. It is an argument that I am ready for, and there is not enough "Hope" in the world to supress the facts.

Update #3: House of Reps Passes Bill to Restore 2nd Amendment Rights to DC Residents

The 11th hour actions by the DC City Council yesterday to remove some of the more restrictive regulations on handgun ownership were not enough to stop the pro-gun House of Representatives from passing a law that exercises their authority over the District. The Second Amendment Enforcement Act, an amendment to The National Capital Security and Safety Act, revokes the authority of DC to restrict the private ownership and use of firearms. It specifically and formally repeals the semi-automatic ban, the registration requirement, and the penalty for possessing an unregistered firearm. In addition, it allows the purchase of firearms from neighboring Virgina and Maryland.

Naturally, the anti-gunners are livid. The Washington Post was quick to editorialize:

The House voted yesterday to adopt a measure that would gut the District's gun laws and that goes far beyond the Supreme Court's finding this summer of an individual right to bear arms. The bill would prohibit the District from requiring that weapons be registered -- the most reasonable and benign of measures. It would allow ownership of semiautomatic handguns and rifles and would place no age restriction on gun possession. And it would effectively strip the District of the ability to enact any regulations that could be seen as unduly burdening gun ownership. If even registration is seen as unduly burdensome, that leaves little room and little hope for other reasonable provisions.

Honestly, the wrath of the anti-gun editors should be aimed squarely at the officials running the District of Columbia. Instead of using this "common sense" that is so frequently thrown around, they denied Constitutional rights to their citizens for over 30 years, even when murder and high crime skyrocketed. They wasted the taxpayers money in a drawn out court case in a futile effort to save political face and forced the hand of the Supreme Court. When the decision came down against them, they clearly made a poor effort at compliance, especially in regards to the spirit of the ruling. They must have been attempting to draw another law suit, because that is precisely what happened. Only once the House looked ready to strike did they suddenly see the light and decide to relax their legislation. I implore the editors to examine the facts. The District clearly had opportunities to enact 'common sense' laws, but this was never their intent. The intent has always been prohibition to the fullest extent and maximum control at any cost. Well, they exerted maximum control, and now have paid the ultimate cost. And the dividends will go to the free and law-abiding citizens of our nation's capitol.

Update #2: DC Council Eases Handgun Restrictions

A recent update from the Washington Post reveals that the DC City Council has voted unanimously to ease some of the more burdensome restrictions of firearms ownership that have existed since June's Heller Decision. Mayor Fenty has signed the legislation, which takes effect immediately. This emergency measure by the council allows the possession of semi-automatic handguns, removes the mandatory ballistics test by the DCPD, and removes the safe-storage law that made it mandatory to keep the firearm locked and unloaded when not in immediate danger. It is amazing what a little Supreme Court affirmation of our natural rights can do! Of course, looming lawsuits and an approaching rebuke from the House of Representatives might have had a lot to do with the relatively quick compliance. Your NRA dollars were at work on both of those fronts, and are not to be overlooked either.

"I implore the Congress to give this body, this mayor and this city an opportunity to find a solution," said D.C. Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray (D), moments before the council voted without debate to end storage requirements for firearms and permit ownership of semiautomatic handguns.

"There's every reason to believe we're moving in the direction of a responsible solution," Gray declared.

It is equally amazing to hear anti-gun democrats in perhaps the least gun-friendly city in America talking about commonsense solutions to firearms issues - and those solutions are about more freedom and not more restrictions! It seems as though regardless of these positive steps, the House could still pass legislation stripping the District of their ability to regulate firearms in any manner. Measures in the House bill that the City Council did not address include allowing DC residents to purchase handguns from neighboring Virginia and Maryland as well as allowing the ownership of semi-automatic rifles.

Aside: I was reading the coverage of this story on Reason.com as well, and the reader comments show an interesting point of view not covered in any of the MSM articles. The idea is that DC is doing this to placate the House, and once the issue is forgotten and/or the makeup of Congress changes, they will simply re-instate the restrictions.

Update: DC Starts to Cave Under Pressure from Congress to Repeal their Gun Laws

It looks like Mayor Fenty and the DC City Council are looking to avoid an embarrassing rebuke from the House of Representatives while maintaining some sort of control over their ability to legislate firearms. One of the council's chairmen, Phil Mendelson, said:

I think we're addressing the Supreme Court ruling and, coincidentally, addressing Congress's concern...

The severity of the District's previous bans and current onerous restrictions makes me think that they are less concerned with compliance and more concerned with 1) the lost face of being stripped of a piece of Home Rule and 2) losing another costly court battle. Regardless, the fact that the Mayor and the Council are considering removing more of these restrictions without going through the long and losing fight is another high water mark in this sea change of firearms politics (not to mix metaphors). Combine this with the fact that Nancy Pelosi was willing to play ball with the House Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats and put forth a compromise bill that loosens the District's gun laws and you are looking at quite a coup. So much so, that is looks like the people over at the Brady Campaign have run out of steam on the issue:

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said he was "a little concerned" about the District possibly eliminating safe-storage requirements for firearms, but he voiced no objection to other aspects of the council's legislation.

The proposed updates to the emergency legislation include allowing the registration of semi-automatic handguns (with a maximum 10 round magazine) and removing the safe storage and ballistic test requirements. More as this story develops...

DC Goes Down Kicking and Screaming When it Comes to Supreme Court Compliance

I have been busy lately, so I will let one of my favorite websites - Reason.com - do the heavy lifting for me. The short version goes like this: The House of Representatives are considering passing a bill that would put Washington DC in full compliance with the Heller decision without the need for costly and drawn out legal battles. By exercising their right over the District, Congress would remove the burdensome registration process and remove semi-auto handguns and rifles from their current disingenuous classification as "machine guns."

Naturally, the rabid anti-gun forces in DC are throwing a fit complete with the frequent lies and mistruths needed to scare citizens into strict gun regulation. From the Reason article:

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) argues that the bill would allow people to carry "loaded AK-47s or .50-caliber sniper assault weapons openly in cars or in person," which would pose a "palpable risk...to the public safety of our residents" and create a challenge for "federal law enforcement and security officials in this city, where two presidents have been killed with handguns." D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier warns, "In attempted and successful assassinations around the world, the first step in attacking a motorcade is frequently to take out the security detail with semiautomatic and automatic firearms."

I'm not sure where to begin. The only provision of the bill that deals with carrying weapons applies in the gun owner's "dwelling house or place of business or on other land possessed by that person." There's nothing about carrying loaded guns in public. AK-47s and all other "automatic firearms" would remain prohibited in any case. The two assassinated presidents to whom Norton refers are Abraham Lincoln, who was killed with a single-shot derringer, and James Garfield, who was killed with a revolver. (John Hinckley also used a revolver when he tried to kill Ronald Reagan.) Both are types of weapons that would remain legal in Washington no matter what Congress does.

I am glad to see that this bill has such a good chance of passing, and I wonder if the pro-gun votes of the Blue Dog Democrats have the old Democratic guard second guessing the success of the 2006 revolution they had in Congress. When Nancy Pelosi is offering a compromise bill that still relaxes some measures of DC gun control you know the times, they are a-changin'.