Hank
Posted on 02/16/2008 5:27:52 PM PST by jdm
A day after the tragic shootings at NIU, Barack Obama has revealed that he thinks the 2nd Amendment protects an individual’s right to own a gun.
That sounds surprising—and certainly not what you’d expect from someone with the Senate’s most liberal voting record.
Here he is, weighing in on one of the biggest and most contentious cases the Supreme Court will hear this term, a case that finally will answer one of the great unresolved question constitutional questions: Does the 2nd Amendment protects a person’s right to own a gun, or does it merely protects a state’s right to assemble a militia?
By embracing the individual rights approach, Obama is bucking gun control groups and states like New York, which have taken the more orthodox position that the 2nd Amendment only protects a state’s right—and that cities like Washington, D.C. can therefore ban all guns if they choose.
But if you dig a little deeper, Obama’s position is not as surprising as it first appears—especially when you think about those big primaries looming in gun-friendly states like Wisconsin (where he made the remarks today), Texas and Ohio. That’s because, as significant as this is, his embrace of individual rights is loosened by a qualifier.
Obama is actually straddling the issue somewhat like the Bush Administration did when it filed a brief in the case last month. He does support individual rights, but says—and this is the qualifier--the government can impose reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. And he then suggests that pretty much any existing laws are reasonable.
“There's been a long standing argument among constitutional scholars about whether the 2nd Amendment referred simply to militias or whether it spoke to an individual right to possess arms,” Obama said. “I think the latter is the better argument. There is an individual right to bear arms, but it is subject to common-sense regulation just like most of our rights are subject to common-sense regulation.” Watch Obama's comments HERE.
He declined, just as the Bush Administration did, to take a position on whether the DC gun ban violates the 2nd Amendment. He said instead that states and cities should have broad latitude to regulate guns—even if the Constitution guarantees an individual right to own them.
“The city of Chicago has gun laws, so does Washington, DC,” Obama said. “The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang bangers and random shootings on the street isn't borne out by our Constitution.”
Now that sure sounds like someone who thinks the handgun bans would be a reasonable restriction under the 2nd Amendment.
And that shows why conservatives are up in arms over the Bush Administration’s brief in the case.
Instead of embracing the categorical approach of D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman, who said a ban on handguns was a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment, the Bush Administration’s brief argued for a balancing test. It refused to take a position on the DC gun ban, and instead urged the Court to send the case back to the lower courts to apply the different, less strict standard.
Conservatives were outraged. They strongly believed the Bush Administration—even though weighing in on the side of individual rights—advanced a legal position that would make the 2nd Amendment meaningless. Even though the administration said the ban “may well be unconstitutional,” it gave enough wiggle room for a court to hold otherwise.
And if it’s constitutional to ban all guns in a city, as DC basically does, what’s the point of the 2nd Amendment? If that’s not unconstitutional, conservatives ask, what is?
Nothing, they say.
Obama’s position on the 2nd Amendment may make that point for them. As he said today: “I think there's a lot of room before you (start) bumping against a constitutional barrier for us to institute some of the common-sense gun laws that I just spoke about.”
Incidentally, Obama was not one of the 55 senators (including Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold and eight other Democrats) who signed a brief last week arguing the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right and that the DC gun ban was unconstitutional. That brief, also signed by 250 members of the House and Vice President Cheney, urges the Court to strike down the gun ban—and adopt Silberman’s test.
Obama wouldn’t go that far. Neither would the Bush Administration.
And that raises the question: If the Supreme Court won’t either, will the big gun case have any impact on existing gun laws whatsoever?
“...the more orthodox position that the 2nd Amendment only protects a state’s right....”
This has never been the position of any administration until Clinton came along, and it has never been the majority opinion of citizens. The author of this horse crap has an unorthodox way of dealing with facts. Still, I don’t need Obama’s common sense gun control.
Sorry, but that is what is happening and it will be accelerated once Obama or Clinton are elected. I’m glad I still live in a state where my 2A rights are upheld. Not everyone can say that in the US. Some communities ban gun ownership outright.
Yes, I know. Doing my very best to ward off that fateful day. To paraphrase, man’s spirit will not always strive with thugs, bullies and socialists.
Reminds me of McCain, in 1999, setting that bipartisan tone:
WASHINGTON -- Gun-control advocates have a powerful new voice in the Senate who is seeking to close a loophole that allows weapons to be sold at gun shows without background checks. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who cited cases in which suspected terrorists were caught with weapons bought at U.S. gun shows, says he will try to "force Senate consideration" early next year of the measure. Former President Clinton tried but failed to curb such sales. Hats off to the senator if he succeeds.
-----
Thank you, no. I'm on a RINO-free diet.
Here's the good news, though:
The Constitution Party, whose nominee I will be supporting, is very strong on the 2nd Amendment.
Constitution Party Gun Platform
"The right to bear arms is inherent in the right of self defense, defense of the family, and defense against tyranny, conferred on the individual and the community by our Creator to safeguard life, liberty, and property, as well as to help preserve the independence of the nation.
The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution; it may not properly be infringed upon or denied.
The Constitution Party upholds the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. We oppose attempts to prohibit ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens, and stand against all laws which would require the registration of guns or ammunition.
We emphasize that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them. In such circumstances, the peaceful citizen's protection against the criminal would be seriously jeopardized.
We call for the repeal of all federal firearms legislation, beginning with Federal Firearms Act of 1968.
We call for the rescinding of all executive orders, the prohibition of any future executive orders, and the prohibition of treaty ratification which would in any way limit the right to keep and bear arms."
The entire CP platform can be found here:
Hank
Here’s the good news, though:
The Constitution Party, whose nominee I will be supporting, is very strong on the 2nd Amendment.
Use your head. Vote for the GOP nominee. The Supreme Court hangs in the balance.
“subject to common-sense regulation”
These Comunists believe banning all but sling shots is “common-sense regulation”.
I’ll vote for the GOP nominee.
So long as he doesn’t believe in Global Warming fairy tales and seek to infringe on our liberty and prosperity in their name.
Does Juan McStain meet that criteria?
Hank
I’ll vote for the GOP nominee.
So long as he doesn’t believe in Global Warming fairy tales and seek to infringe on our liberty and prosperity in their name.
Does Juan McStain meet that criteria?
"There is an individual right to bear arms, but..."
- Obama from the article.
Does Juan McStain meet that criteria?"
"His opposition doesn’t."
-----
Objection. Not responsive.
AND factually incorrect. His opposition in the Constitution Party almost certainly will. I will NOT vote for a candidate who doesn't.
Some here won't vote for a candidate who isn't pro-life. I respect that. Myself, I won't vote for a candidate who will throw our freedoms and prosperity away in the name of a collosal leftwing scam. No matter WHAT letter is next to his name on the ballot.
Hank
-----
Do the names David Souter and John Paul Stevens mean anything to you? How happy are THEY making you?
They're the legacy of RINO Presidents past.
You'll need a better argument than that.
Hank
Do the names David Souter and John Paul Stevens mean anything to you? How happy are THEY making you?
They’re the legacy of RINO Presidents past.
You’ll need a better argument than that.
There goes your argument.
Hank
So I should vote for a candidate who will sell us out international fabian socialism to get a 50/50 chance at a less-than-hideous Supreme Court nominee?
If that’s how you define the GOP candidate, then yes. -----
Sorry, not gonna happen. I'm voting Constitution Party. I'd rather take my chances on getting a REAL conservative in 2012 than spend the next 4 years watching a vile scumbag like McStain collaborate with the Democrats. Let the Dems take full blame for the horror that will befall us.
Not in my name.
Hank
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.