Ther eis also an extensive speech he gave at and NRA meeting:
2011 NRA Annual Meetings - Herman Cain - Celebration of American Values Leadership Forum
However, both of these are from BEFORE his interview with CNN, and not to be a stickler but the Cain folks have been very viciously attacking people for not using the LATEST speeches available for Cain. So I'm not sure we should provoke them by referencing these OLDER interviews.
More seriously, it is sad that we had to go over a hundred post before someone actually posted a link to something positive about Cain regarding guns. I've asked repeatedly for links, and here I'm giving a link that's more supportive of Cain, and any of them could have found this link.
Still, if you use google search, you'll see that there are just a lot of questions about Cain and the 2nd amendment, and he has not said much about it. the GOA is waiting for his answers to their survey, I presume when he does answer it will probably be what we want to hear. But as the GOA said -- he has NO RECORD, so we really need him to be clear AND detailed.
As to his actual statement in your video, the question isn't given, so you have to imply what it was from his answer. I believe the question was whether he would support a federal law giving citizens the right to concealed carry throughout the country. His response seems to be that each state should be allowed to make their own laws. But it's a 1-minute clip, so it's not very detailed.
Anyway, I disagree with him, and believe he misses the point, if this is truly his answer. My right to bear arms is meaningless if it only applies to travel within my state, or a few other non-contiguous states which I can't reach without going through states that DON'T let me transport my weapon, or else I have to fly where I have to give up my right to have my weapon.
It is clearly within the purview of the federal government to legislate issues that cross state boundaries. Now, I WOULD also say that states should have the right to pass their own MORE PERMISSIVE gun laws for WITHIN their state. But the federal government should define what the "maximum" interference with my rights will be, and that should be to allow me the freedom to drive from one side of this country to another carrying a gun.
I think Cain believes that states should be allowed to interfere with that right, and I disagree. I, a resident of Virginia and a citizen of the United States, should be allowed to BEAR ARMS from here to Texas. If I meet the minimum standards for "reasonable restrictions", that should cover me everywhere.
I am not rejecting out-of-hand specific restrictions that states may wish to impose that wouldn't interfere with my general right to bring a weapon with me where I go. For example, if it was decided that the 2nd amendment allows a state to prohibit guns on church property, that wouldn't be an undue restriction on my transportation of a gun through the state. I only say that to preclude getting bogged down in a discussion of minutae of a topic that I simply haven't thought enough about to GET into such minutae.
Valid points, thanks for the link.