Skip to comments.
Obama and Guns
ABC News ^
| Feb. 15, 2008
| by Jan Crawford Greenburg
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 individuals right to own a gun.
That sounds surprisingand certainly not what youd expect from someone with the Senates 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 persons right to own a gun, or does it merely protects a states 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 states rightand that cities like Washington, D.C. can therefore ban all guns if they choose.
But if you dig a little deeper, Obamas position is not as surprising as it first appearsespecially when you think about those big primaries looming in gun-friendly states like Wisconsin (where he made the remarks today), Texas and Ohio. Thats 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 saysand 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 gunseven 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 Administrations 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 Administrations 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 Administrationeven though weighing in on the side of individual rightsadvanced 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 its constitutional to ban all guns in a city, as DC basically does, whats the point of the 2nd Amendment? If thats not unconstitutional, conservatives ask, what is?
Nothing, they say.
Obamas 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 banand adopt Silbermans test.
Obama wouldnt go that far. Neither would the Bush Administration.
And that raises the question: If the Supreme Court wont either, will the big gun case have any impact on existing gun laws whatsoever?
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; barackhusseinobama; chebama; guns; gunvote; niu; nobama; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 next last
Misleading Headline of the Day
Via Drudge, who offers an equally misleading headline, the Ass. Press announces that:
Obama Supports Individual Gun Rights
RTWT, and tell me how that squares with the last two paragraphs of the article:
At his news conference, he voiced support for the District of Columbias ban on handguns, which is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court next month.
The notion that somehow local jurisdictions cant initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang bangers and random shootings on the street isnt born [sic] out by our Constitution, Obama said.
O-kay.
1
posted on
02/16/2008 5:27:55 PM PST
by
jdm
To: jdm; Joe Brower
He’s just having it both ways, and his friends in the MSM are helping him out with it.
2
posted on
02/16/2008 5:32:30 PM PST
by
OKSooner
To: jdm
Vote for the GOP nominee.
A Supreme Court majority hangs in the balance.
To: jdm
At his news conference, he voiced support for the District of Columbias ban on handguns, which is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court next month. He's a Democrat and a politician to boot, thus he is against the second amendment in it's true form and is being disingenuous for political favor. PERIOD!
4
posted on
02/16/2008 5:34:17 PM PST
by
EGPWS
(Trust in God, question everyone else)
To: jdm
Lots of blacks own guns for personal protection and want to keep that right intact. Obama knows to support the 2nd amendment and yet also throw it back onto local communities to make their own gun control laws. It is a win-win for him. He keeps the black supporters happy and throws the anti-gunners a bone.
5
posted on
02/16/2008 5:35:12 PM PST
by
Kirkwood
To: Senator Goldwater
That should be on the mind of every voter. The SCOTUS is in charge for the long term.
Comment #7 Removed by Moderator
To: jdm
Yeah right.
More likely, he realizes that if he takes a publicly anti-gun stance during this campaign, he’d have very little chance of winning anywhere except on the coasts.
Once he’s in office, well, who cares what the voters think...
8
posted on
02/16/2008 5:40:14 PM PST
by
VOR78
To: F15Eagle
While I don’t have a littany of falsehoods surrounding the man, the fact that he is a Chicago politician affronts this position. I would have to ask him about the violation of the 2nd in all anti-gun districts.
To: Kirkwood
There are also a lot of fairly conservative Democrats in the south, in particular, that are strongly pro-gun. He can’t risk alienating them just yet if he wants to win in the fall.
That’s also why you see a few Democratic senators taking a more conservative line on the 2nd amendment. They know that if they want to keep their job, that’s one issue that they can’t cross the line on.
10
posted on
02/16/2008 5:43:57 PM PST
by
VOR78
To: VOR78
It certainly didn’t help spotted-owl gore.
To: jdm
...states like New York, which have taken the more orthodox position that the 2nd Amendment only protects a states rightand that cities like Washington, D.C. can therefore ban all guns if they choose. Orthodox socialism, that is.
12
posted on
02/16/2008 5:48:44 PM PST
by
Mr. Mojo
To: jdm
He already is on record with the typical Lib sop of “I support Hunter’s right to...but...”
As soon as there is a “but” everything said beforehand is meaningless.
13
posted on
02/16/2008 5:51:48 PM PST
by
padre35
(Conservative in Exile/ Isaiah 3.3/Cry havoc and let slip the RINOS)
To: jdm
It WOULD be surprising, if true. But, Barak Hussein Osama is LYING.
14
posted on
02/16/2008 6:22:23 PM PST
by
2harddrive
(...House a TOTAL Loss.....)
To: 2harddrive
Not only is Barack Obama lying. The press is helping him spread the lie.
To: jdm
Did obamanation suddenly discover the joys of duck hunting?
16
posted on
02/16/2008 7:43:20 PM PST
by
Bear_Slayer
(When liberty is outlawed only outlaws will have liberty.)
To: eyedigress
17
posted on
02/16/2008 7:48:46 PM PST
by
Bear_Slayer
(When liberty is outlawed only outlaws will have liberty.)
To: jdm
His global poverty bill in the senate right now calls for US acceptance of UN gun and small weapons ban.
He's trying to have his cake... and a pie as well.
18
posted on
02/16/2008 7:49:27 PM PST
by
infidel29
(Santorum 2012..)
To: jdm
Obama had the opportunity to sign on to a
congressional amicus brief in the Heller case arguing that the 2nd is an individual right. He didn't - nuff said.
McCain signed on, Clinton didn't.
19
posted on
02/16/2008 7:58:19 PM PST
by
javachip
To: Kirkwood
"Obama knows to support the 2nd amendment and yet also throw it back onto local communities to make their own gun control laws." These is no such thing as supporting the Second Amendment and then telling the states to decide. It's already settled at the federal level and the states cannot pass any laws which are in conflict with the Constitution. The Second Amendment is part of the Constitution, in case there are some that still don't acknowledge that.
Moreso, because the Second Amendment is mentioned specifically as an amendment not to be infringed as well as a law that states that the Constitution/Bill of Rights is the supreme law in spite of any Thing that the states might try to do concerning the right to keep and bear arms. Without equivocation.
American Citizens have been long-suffering regarding these attempts to immasculate the people. We haven't done anything about it at this late date because we are really curious to see what their end game plan is. Well, maybe just a little more than just curious.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson