We Support the Second Amendment ...

... unfortunately, Senator Obama does not. And as a man who supposedly knows the Constitution, that is rather embarrassing, but no more embarrassing than his attempted spin to support it when his words do not seem to support that position. Bob Owens explains this to people,/li> and we do so hope that Senator Obama's supporters pay close attention:

Buried deep in his official campaign website’s “Issues” page, under “Additional Issues,” is a vague nod to sportsmen, noting that Obama has never been one, and a link to the candidate’s position paper, “Barack Obama: Supporting the Rights and Traditions of Sportsmen.” A sharp observer would note that the document is named “Obama_FactSheet_Western_Sportsmen.pdf,” which makes one wonder if the campaign recognizes the rights of hunters in the southeastern and northeastern United States as well, and non-hunting gun owners nationwide.

This is far from a petty observation; the candidate himself cited his spouse, traveling though rural eastern Iowa, saying, “You know, I can see why if I was living out here, I’d want a gun.”

Out here? What about everywhere else?

It is rather ironic that Obama chose to use a firearms metaphor at a fundraiser this weekend when speaking about countering Republican attacks. “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama is reported to have said.

Ironic - because the fact of the matter is that the Obama campaign recognizes no constitutional right to own firearms for personal or community defense. His website claims a position of:

Respect the Second Amendment: Millions of hunters own and use guns each year. Millions more participate in a variety of shooting sports such as sporting clays, skeet, target, and trap shooting that may not necessarily involve hunting. As a former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he greatly respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms. He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting. He also believes that the right is subject to reasonable and commonsense regulation.

Obama’s campaign explicitly only recognizes the right to own firearms for “the purposes of hunting and target shooting,” and insists on “commonsense regulation.” What is commonsense regulation according to Barack Obama? It depends on which Barack Obama you believe is telling the truth.

In 1998 Obama stated a desire to “ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.” Many people confuse semi-automatic firearms, which use the energy created when a gun is fired to eject the spent cartridge and load a fresh round, with automatic weapons, more commonly known as machine guns.

Semi-automatic firearms are the most common firearms sold in America today.
Barack Obama’s desire to ban “all forms” of semi-autos would include a ban on most common rimfire target pistols, including those used in Olympic competition.

Barack Obama’s desire to ban “all forms” of semi-autos would ban the Ruger 10/22, Marlin Model 60, and many other rimfire .22 rifles, which form the backbone of American shooting sports, from hunting to target shooting.

Go and read it all. Mr. Owens has included photos of the sorts of firearms that Senator Obama would, by using "reasonable and commonsense regulation," ban for use in the United States. The Second Amendment is explicit in its guarantee that citizens of the United States may own and utilize firearms. The only exception is that if someone is convicted of a felony. They will never own a firearm again under our laws.

Readers will remember that back on April 1st, Thomas and I penned a lengthy column regarding the DC gun ban and we explained why the ban had to be struck down by the Supreme Court. In addition to our thinking in that piece, I will add that most firearms owners in America have no intention of ever using the weapon to commit a crime. They have them for self-defense -- as Thomas and I have ours for that express purpose. They have them for hunting, or sport shooting, or even because they are a firearms enthusiast, and enjoy collecting antique weapons.

If Senator Obama is elected, and he gets his way, we feel he will enact the most far-reaching, invasive firearms laws the nation has ever seen. As Mr. Owens points out in his piece for Pajamas Media, Senator Obama does indeed favor a reinstatement of the 1994 assault weapons ban, which did very little to curb the use or possession of such weapons. If we recall, the ban itself dealt with cosmetic features of firearms, and not the firearms directly. It did nothing to curb the steady stream of gun violence in the nation.

Banning guns is not the solution. Every nation that has banned firearms has seen a rise in the violent crime rates, especially crimes involving firearms which proves that bans do not work. When firearms are banned, the only people with firearms, aside from the government, are criminals. It is utterly foolish to believe that if a gun ban is enacted, people will voluntarily turn in their firearms. Citizens of other countries have not lived the existence with the right to bear arms as America has.

If Senator Obama were to ban firearms, even in a limited sense, those firearms will not be turned in. People in America do not give up their individual liberty easily, and most firearms owners (an estimated 65 million in the United States) know why they have this right to begin with. It was not so they could hunt. It was not for sports. It was to protect themselves, and the nation, should the government sink into tyranny. Indeed, James Madison wrote of such a scenario in Federalist #46:

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

The Framers knew exactly why they gave the citizenry of the nation the right to keep and bear arms. It was not for hunting or for sport. It was so that every able-bodied person in the United States could protect themselves not only from internal threats, such as their fellow man, but also to protect themselves from the possibility of having their rights usurped by a tyrannical government. I expect more from a man who claims to be a Con Law professor. He should know better. If this idea escapes him, we suggest a return to school for some remedial tutoring.

Marcie

The Obama Drama two-step on guns

I'll be posting on and off today as we'll be shortly visited by friends and family for a dinner I'm in the process of making right now. But I spotted this story last night from Politico highlighted by Captain Ed Morrissey. Let me be blunt when I say to readers that I don't care what BS Obama hands people regarding guns. Neither Marcie nor I trust him on the issue of firearms. The Politico does it's best to prove that we shouldn't really trust him too much:

Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has worked to assure uneasy gun owners that he believes the Constitution protects their rights and that he doesn’t want to take away their guns.

But before he became a national political figure, he sat on the board of a Chicago-based foundation that doled out at least nine grants totaling nearly $2.7 million to groups that advocated the opposite positions.

The foundation funded legal scholarship advancing the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect individual gun owners’ rights, as well as two groups that advocated handgun bans. And it paid to support a book called “Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.”

Obama’s eight years on the board of the Joyce Foundation, which paid him more than $70,000 in directors fees, do not in any way conflict with his campaign-trail support for the rights of gun owners, Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Obama’s presidential campaign, asserted in a statement issued to Politico this week.

LaBolt stressed that the foundation, which has assets of about $935 million, doesn’t take “detailed policy positions,” but rather uses its grants to “fuel a dialogue about how to address public policy issues like reducing gun violence.”

As with most foundations, Joyce did not record how individual board members voted on grants, but former Joyce officials told Politico that funding was typically approved unanimously. LaBolt said Obama, an Illinois senator, “does not remember each of the over 1,500 individual grant requests and his assessment of their merits, but he considered all requests in light of the foundation's goal of developing a robust public dialogue around reducing gun violence.”

Obama joined the board in the summer of 1994 as a 32-year-old lawyer who had yet to run for public office, but he already had a reputation in Chicago as an up-and-comer, particularly on issues related to low-income communities — a key foundation focus. By the time he left the board in the winter of 2002, as he was gearing up for his 2004 U.S. Senate bid, Obama had served six years in the Illinois state Senate and had also considered leaving politics to become the group’s full-time president, by his own acknowledgment.

Obama's service on the board of the Joyce Foundation and a few other Chicago-based nonprofits including the Woods Fund of Chicago remains one of the least scrutinized parts of his career. But it’s one that could hamper his efforts to woo populations of rural pro-gun voters in Pennsylvania, which votes April 22, and in a general election match-up with the presumptive Republican nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain.

In his appeal to gun owners, Obama has not emphasized his own legislative record, which includes supporting a ban on semiautomatic weapons and concealed weapons, and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month.

He has blamed his staff for indicating on a questionnaire filled out during his 1996 state Senate bid under his name that he supports banning “the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.” Obama, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago and served as president of the Harvard Law Review, has instead focused on his respect for what he contends are constitutionally guaranteed gun owners’ rights, the “passion” of hunters and the “tradition” of handgun ownership.

In February, he told an Idaho audience “I have no intention of taking away folks' guns.” Days later, when Politico asked him about the comment, he said, “It’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally.”

Pressed to clarify his stance during a debate Wednesday evening in Philadelphia, Obama told ABC News anchor Charles Gibson, “I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns. What I think we can provide is common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets.”

A white paper on his website states: “As a former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama … greatly respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms” as well as “the passion that hunters and anglers have for their sport.” It says: “He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting.”

This is why we're a tad concerned here. While he continues to say he'd support the individual's right to own a firearm, he always adds the caveat of supporting it for "hunters" and "sport shooters." And the Politico also makes a mistake when it comes to citing him on the DC gun ban case before the Supreme Court right now. The Politico claims that he hasn't taken a stance, yet in a search of the 'Net, several bloggers and pundits have located quotes where he has said he is in favor of "common sense legislation" of firearms. Those same comments are usually conjoined with citing Chicago's and DC's current bans.

I could give a rip if this guy taught Con Law at the University of Chicago or not. The simple fact, if one wishes to actually research the debates in the House over the Second Amendment when the Second Amendment was being adopted for the Constitution, is that the Founding Fathers believed it was as much an individual right as it was a collective right. At the time, the nation relied on it's able-bodied men to protect the security of the country. Once a military was raised, and remained, citizens still kept their firearms for protection.

The Second Amendment goes beyond sport shooters and hunters. It goes to the individual being able to protect themselves against aggressors. Senator Obama might want to go back and catch a remedial course on the rights of firearms owners.

Publius II

Senator Obama on Firearms, via Robert Novak

The Prince of Darkness weighs in on the ever-evolving standards that Senator Obama seems to have when it comes to firearms:

After months of claiming he had insufficient information to express an opinion on the District of Columbia's gun law, Barack Obama noted with apparent approval Thursday that the Supreme Court ruled that the 32-year ban on handguns "went too far." But what would he have said had the high court's 5 to 4 majority gone the other way and affirmed the law? Obama's strategists can only thank swing Justice Anthony Kennedy for enabling Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion to take the Democratic presidential candidate off the hook.

Such relief is typified by a vigorous supporter of Obama who advised Al Gore in his 2000 presidential campaign. Believing that Gore's gun control advocacy lost him West Virginia and the presidency, this prominent Democrat told me: "I don't want that to happen with Obama -- to be defeated on an issue that is not important to us and is not a political winner for us." He would not be quoted by name because he did not want abuse heaped on him by gun control activists.

This political reality explains the minuet on the D.C. gun issue that Obama has danced all year. Liberal Democrats who publicly deride the National Rifle Association privately fear the NRA as the most potent conservative interest group. Many white men with NRA decals on their vehicles are labor union members whose votes Obama needs in West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. That is why Obama did not share the outrage of D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty, an Obama supporter, over the Supreme Court's decision.

What may be Obama's authentic position on gun rights was revealed in early April when he said at a closed-door Silicon Valley fundraiser that "bitter" small-town residents "cling" to the Bible and the Second Amendment. That ran against his public assertion, as a former professor of constitutional law, that the Constitution guarantees rights for individual gun owners, not just collective rights for state militias. But his legal opinion forced Obama into a political corner.

Mr. Novak recalls the comments that Senator Obama used which dug him a deep hole. That was right before the Pennsylvania primaries, which he lost. Senator Obama forgets who those "bitter" people are. They are union people -- blue collar people who work for a living. They are teachers. They are firemen. They are dock workers, cab drivers, and truck drivers. They are America. And when he decided it was all right to slander them, it was heard around the nation. They did not appreciate that derision one bit.

So when it came to the gun case, DC v. Heller, he had to tap dance his way around it. His excuse of "I haven't read the briefs on it" is irrelevant. He is a Constitutional lecturer. What is your opinion on the Second Amendment, Senator? Forget the case, we would like to know where you stand on guns.

Of course, that is already on the record, now is it not? A pdf white paper attached to his website says it all:


Millions of hunters own and use guns each year. Millions more participate in a variety of shooting sports such as sporting clays, skeet, target and trap shooting that may not necessarily involve hunting. As a former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he greatly respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms. He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting. He also believes that the right is subject to reasonable and commonsense regulation.

Notice that in this statement, not once are handguns mentioned. Not once does he state he believes, as a majority of the Supreme Court did, that the individual right upheld is one that revolves around us being able to defend ourselves? Not from an invading army as part of a militia, but as law-abiding citizens trying to protect ourselves, our homes, and our families. Senator Obama clearly does not agree with the court on that issue. He believes only hunters and sport shooters should be given Second Amendment rights.

Senator Obama is a lecturer on the Constitution. What is amazing is that he lacks the basic understanding of it. The Constitution sets the limits the government has to adhere to. The Bill of Rights enumerates what rights we as citizens have that the government cannot interfere with. According to Senator Obama, the government can do what it wishes when it wishes and there will be no repercussions. We, as citizens, are simply the little people who must comply.

We recall a time some 232 years ago when another man demanded we comply. The outcome, for him, was not good as his colonists embarrassed him on the world stage, and began an experiment that has lasted this long. Senator Obama would be wise to read up on his history, and understand why the people actually have firearms. It had a lot to do with throwing off the yoke of tyranny.

Marcie

Barack Obama -- radical in every sense of the word

The Obama-bots can keep pimping this guy, but sensible people have to see what this man is about. He isn't for "hope" and "change" except in the most radical sense. And Lord knows what he wants isn't right for America. His Spend-O-Meter is already at $874.35 BILLION, and that's in the first four years alone of his presidency. But some new information has come to light in recent days, thanks to the studious duties of the alternative media.

First, let's focus on Barack when it comes to issues of life. Michael Gerson in today's WaPo has this to say about his record on abortion:

But Obama's record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion -- a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called "too close to infanticide." Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be "punished with a baby" because of a crisis pregnancy -- hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life.

For decades, most Democrats and many Republicans have hoped the political debate on abortion would simply go away. But it is the issue that does not die. Recent polls have shown that young people are more likely than their elders to support abortion restrictions. Few Americans oppose abortion under every circumstance, but a majority oppose most of the abortions that actually take place -- generally supporting the procedure only in the case of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother.

Let me be perfectly clear here. Marcie and I are anti-abortion. We dislike the procedure, and we dislike how it's being used. Right now it is being used as a form of birth control for stupid people who neither have the inclination to take precautions, or decide that it's simply too inconvenient at this point in time in their lives. Abortions, quite literally, should be as the last sentence of the previous paragraph state -- in the case of rape, incest, and to protect the life of the mother. ALL other abortions should be banned. BUT that will never happen. Even if the issue is somehow sent back to the states (via overturning Roe v. Wade) there will still be states that allow the procedure.

As for Barack, his positions are extreme, even for members of his own party. Look at the extreme wing of the Democrat Party. Did Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, or Patrick Leahy voice their displeasure at the Supreme Court striking down partial-birth abortion? Not that I recall, and after doing several Google searches, I came up with no quote. Yet Barack did. So, his track record when it comes to life issues is hardly worth bragging about. And remember this, folks -- 63 House Democrats and 17 Senate Democrats supported the Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003. Bill Clinton vetoed it when it was presented to him in 1995 because, in his opinion, it didn't go far enough to protect the life of the mother. We're hedging bets that had Barack been present, he would have voted against it.

Now, let's move onto guns. He's is equally radical on this issue, to the point of being referred to as a "gun-grabber." See, Barack believes the only firearms that should be in anyone's possession are those that are used for sport shooting or hunting. Don't believe me? This is the questionnaire that Politico dug up. In it he answers the following way with regard to firearms:

Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes

Now I know this will drive gun advocates nuts, but we could care less about the last two questions. (NO ONE outside of a law enforcement official or military personnel should have assault weapons, and given how Democrats act in "defining" what constitutes an assault weapon, our view on what one is and their view are probably not the same.) However he is in favor of a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns. Those are the number one weapon that average people have to protect themselves, their homes, and their families, and Barack would favor taking them from you. That is beyond radical. His stance mirrors that of the 1919 firearms ban of the Weimer Republic though at that time, it should be noted, the ban was put in place to stabilize Germany after it's defeat in World War I. Later the ban was lifted, and firearms were regulated. Hitler's goal, upon seizing power, was to disarm any of his opponents, and the Jews. Barack wants to disarm everyone, unless your weapon is used for sports or hunting.

Additionally, as Geraghty the Indispensable notes he was in favor of banning any gun stores within five miles of a school or park. Yet his concerns for children didn't extend to the porn industry:

Obama was also the sole present vote on a bill that easily passed the Senate that would require teaching respect for others in schools. He also voted present on a measure to prohibit sex-related shops from opening near schools or places of worship, which ultimately did not pass the Senate.

So, it's OK for a porn shop to be across the street, or even down the street from a school, but not a gun shop. Sort of makes sense in a convoluted, Barack Obama kind of way, given his stance on abortion.

And what of his record on civil rights? Well, it obviously doesn't apply to another minority group:

Just as the dust surrounding Sen. Barack Obama’s long-term association with controversial minister Rev. Jeremiah Wright has begun to settle comes new reports of the democratic presidential hopeful’s connection to another racially divisive public figure—the stridently homophobic Rev. James T. Meeks, an Illinois state senator who also serves as the pastor of Chicago’s 22,000 member strong Salem Baptist Church.

Described in a 2004 Chicago Sun Times article as someone Barack Obama regularly seeks out for “spiritual counsel”, James Meeks, who will serve as an Obama delegate at the 2008 Democratic convention in Denver, is a long-time political ally to the democratic frontrunner.

When Obama ran for the U.S. Senate in 2003, he frequently campaigned at Salem Baptist Church while Rev. Meeks appeared in television ads supporting the Illinois senator’s campaign. Later, according to the same Chicago Sun Times article, on the night after he won the Democratic primary, Sen. Obama attended bible study at Meeks’ church ‘for prayer’ and ‘to say thank you.’

Since that time, not only has Meeks himself served on Obama’s exploratory committee for the presidency and been listed on the Obama's campaign website as one of the senator’s ‘influential black supporters’, but his church choir was called on to raise their voices in praise at a rally the night Obama announced his run for the White House back in 2007.

Interestingly, the Chicago Sun Times has also reported that both Meeks and Obama share a history of substantial campaign contributions from indicted real estate magnate Tony Rezko. ...

But the question remains: At what point must a candidate for the highest office in the United States be held accountable for the small coterie of individuals who make up his or her inner circle and potentially bear influence on his interpretation of the constitution? And at what point does the benefit of the doubt give way to guilt by association?

Moreover, how can a candidate cultivate a constituency like that of Rev. James Meek, essentially espousing a shared belief in their value system, become an effective and powerful advocate on behalf of issues like LGBT rights that run counter to fundamental agenda of that constituency without experiencing severe repercussions? The answer is he can’t.

Just as Hillary Clinton cannot cherry pick the successes and pitfalls from her husband’s administration that suit her campaign, neither can Barack Obama divorce himself from the implications surrounding the bedfellows he has made over the course of his relatively short political career.

He has a number of extreme figures he looks to for guidance. First, it was Jeremiah Wright. Then there's Michael Pfleger who preaches much like Wright does (see the video at Michelle's site. And then there's Meeks. These people are all considered "spiritual mentors." The problem is the spirit they're preaching is hardly God's love or tolerance. It's hate. Pure, unadulterated, spittle-filled hate. As for being connected to such a vitriol-filled homophobe, we have to question his integrity on such issues. Again, we go back to the survey:

Do you favor adding sexual orientation to Human Rights Act? Yes. Do you favor
domestic partnership legislation? Yes

Can he be trusted on those issues? Given his association with Meeks? That's hard to say. I don't think we could (if we supported him) in good conscience. If I were gay, I couldn't. (It should be noted here that Marcie and I do have a couple of homosexual friends. Marcie has a lesbian in her study group at school. We don't have a problem with their lifestyle as long as they don't try to force it on us.) But this isn't about us. It's about him.

Barack Obama is as extreme as extreme can get in this day and age. His record on issues of life, gun rights, and civil rights for other minorities is atrocious. As is his ability to take a stand on issues. His "present" votes in the Illinois legislature are disgusting, and his excuse of voting that way -- "I wanted to send a message I didn't approve of the bill in question" -- doesn't wash. That's why you vote against the bill, senator.

We don't understand how so many people can be in favor of this man as president. His inexperience is bad enough. The man doesn't know how the government works, or the proper constitutional role Congress and the Executive have. Add his extremist views and stances on certain issues, and you don't have a man of "hope" and "change." You have a dangerously inept neophyte that shouldn't be trusted with the nation's chief executive position.

Publius II

On DC v. Heller

Unlike yesterday, where I dove into the decision before actually reading it, I believe I will cite the initial news, then go read the decision before commenting on it. But, this is a momentous decision, and the court finally got one right:

The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Lyle Denniston @ SCOTUSblog has a quick summary here and the 157 page decision is here. I will say this though and that is the decision is a blow to those who think like Senator Obama. Those who believe this right applies only to hunters and sportsmen are dead wrong. It applies to the people, in general, and their ability to defend themselves.

Now it is time to do some reading.

Marcie

ADDENDUM: Heh. Jim Geraghty @ NRO's Campaign Spot weighs in with the following:

The Heller decision comes down today from the Supreme Court, either upholding or striking down the Washington, D.C. gun ban.

In preparation for the decision, it appears that another Obama statement is reaching its expiration date:

With the Supreme Court poised to rule on Washington, D.C.'s, gun ban, the Obama campaign is disavowing what it calls an "inartful" statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as believing that the DC ban was constitutional.

"That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator's consistent position," Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.

The statement which Burton describes as an inaccurate representation of the senator's views was made to the Chicago Tribune on Nov. 20, 2007.

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.'"

All statements by Barack Obama come with an expiration date. All of them.

Indeed.

Marcie

Overseeing the destruction of the Second Amendment

If we take Barack Obama at his word -- that he supports the rights of people to own guns -- then we can breathe a sigh of relief, right? Confederate Yankee says hold that sigh because it's not true. Obama used to be the director of the Joyce Foundation, and as David Hardy report for Pajamas Media their grass-roots goal was literally the destruction of the Second Amendment:

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama must demonstrate executive experience, but he remains strangely silent about his eight years (1994-2002) as a director of the Joyce Foundation, a billion dollar tax-exempt organization. He has one obvious reason: during his time as director, Joyce Foundation spent millions creating and supporting anti-gun organizations.

There is another, less known, reason.

During Obama’s tenure, the Joyce Foundation board planned and implemented a program targeting the Supreme Court. The work began five years into Obama’s directorship, when the Foundation had experience in turning its millions into anti-gun “grassroots” organizations, but none at converting cash into legal scholarship.

The plan’s objective was bold: the judicial obliteration of the Second Amendment.

Joyce’s directors found a vulnerable point. When judges cannot rely upon past decisions, they sometimes turn to law review articles. Law reviews are impartial, and famed for meticulous cite-checking. They are also produced on a shoestring. Authors of articles receive no compensation; editors are law students who work for a tiny stipend.

In 1999, midway through Obama’s tenure, the Joyce board voted to grant the Chicago-Kent Law Review $84,000, a staggering sum by law review standards. The Review promptly published an issue in which all articles attacked the individual right view of the Second Amendment.

In a breach of law review custom, Chicago-Kent let an “outsider” serve as editor; he was Carl Bogus, a faculty member of a different law school. Bogus had a unique distinction: he had been a director of Handgun Control Inc. (today’s Brady Campaign), and was on the advisory board of the Joyce-funded Violence Policy Center.

Bogus solicited only articles hostile to the individual right view of the Second Amendment, offering authors $5,000 each. But word leaked out, and Prof. Randy Barnett of Boston University volunteered to write in defense of the individual right to arms. Bogus refused to allow him to write for the review, later explaining that “sometimes a more balanced debate is best served by an unbalanced symposium.” Prof. James Lindgren, a former Chicago-Kent faculty member, remembers that when Barnett sought an explanation he “was given conflicting reasons, but the opposition of the Joyce Foundation was one that surfaced at some time.” Joyce had bought a veto power over the review’s content.

This is news to a lot of people who have had a difficult time digging up Obama's stance on the Second Amendment. Whenever he's questioned on it, he chuckles and repeats the campaign BS of "I support the rights of hunters and sportsman to own firearms," and then promptly moves on without another word on the subject. Back on 5 September he tried to assuage voters in Pennsylvania (those "bitter" "clingy" voters) that he wouldn't take their guns:

“If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it."

“Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress."

But as the director of the Joyce Foundation he oversaw the grass-roots effort to undermine the Second Amendment, and the simple fact -- as backed up by the Framers themselves -- that there is an individual right to own a firearm, and that right is protected against the government. Mr. Hardy, in his piece for PJM, notes that the Heller decision effectively derailed the efforts that continue to this day to seize what it rightfully ours. Namely the ability for us to defend ourselves from not only the ugly side of society, but from an overly-intrusive government.

Read the whole piece by Mr. Hardy. It's quite eye-opening, especially the part where Professor Glenn Reynolds, AKA Instapundit and two other law professors were scheduled to discuss the Second Amendment, and the Joyce Foundation threw a hissy fit.

It can't be believed that Obama would abide by the ruling of the Supreme Court in Heller, and should he win this election (we do doubt he will win it), and if the congressional races swing towards Democrats, we will see a whole slew of new gun laws coming out of the Congress further eroding this integral right to Americans. You all thought the Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady Bill were bad. Imagine an Obama presidency with a rubber-stamp, filibuster-proof Congress, and the havoc they could wreak on our firearms rights.

Publius II

Obama makes a play for pro-gun voters

Good luck with that. He is against concealed-carry and in a survey discovered by Politico he is against the manufacture, sale, and ownership of handguns. Here is a handy guide on where he stands on the issue of gun rights and he has stated, on the record, that he believes the Second Amendment applies only to hunters and sport shooters.

Today The Politico brings us a story that he's trying to polish up his tarnished image to lure unsuspecting pro-gun voters to his camp:

Barack Obama did not hunt or fish as a child. He lives in a big city. And as an Illinois state legislator and a U.S. senator, he consistently backed gun control legislation.

But he is nevertheless making a play for pro-gun voters in rural Pennsylvania.

By highlighting his background in constitutional law and downplaying his voting record, Obama is engaging in a quiet but targeted drive to win over an important constituency that on the surface might seem hostile to his views.

The need to craft a strategy aimed at pro-gun voters underscores the potency of the issue in Pennsylvania, which claims one of the nation’s highest per capita membership rates in the National Rifle Association.

It also could provide clues as to whether Obama, as one of the Senate’s more liberal members, can position himself as an acceptable choice to a conservative-minded demographic in later primary contests and in the general election.

“Guns are a cultural lens through which they view candidates,” said Jim Kessler, vice president for policy at Third Way, a progressive think tank. “If you are seen as way off on that issue, then you seem way off on everything. If you are seen as OK, if the lens is clearer, then they continue to look at you and size you up on other things.”

“For Obama, who is less known and is from Chicago, a city guy and an African American, the feeling is that he is anti-gun,” Kessler continued. “By handling the Second Amendment correctly, he starts to get a hearing among these folks.”

Obama aides would not discuss the campaign’s strategy. While the effort so far in Pennsylvania appears modest, it is noteworthy for a race that has largely avoided such direct engagement with gun owners.

The campaign has asked gun rights advocates like state Rep. Dan Surra, a Democrat from rural Elk County with an “A+” rating from the NRA, to form a coalition of supporters who can vouch for Obama.

“It is clear out there that I am for Obama, and they have reached out to me as a sportsman and a gun owner,” Surra said Thursday. “There has been an outreach to pro-gun legislators, pro-gun people who are sympathetic to Obama’s message.”

The campaign sent an e-mail this week to the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, saying it would “appreciate all sportsmen taking time to learn the facts: Our candidate strongly supports the right and traditions of sportsmen throughout Pennsylvania and the United States of America.”

Notice that he doesn't address firearms owners, in general, and focuses solely on the sportsmen? His views on firearms is radically different than the gun owners. He favors a 1 gun per month limit on firearms purchases, he believes in registering gun owners, and he stands for bans on certain types of firearms. What he calls a "common sense" approach is nothing more than a veiled attempt to seize firearms in the long run.

And this play in Pennsylvania can only be attributed to the recent poll numbers showing he trails Hillary by five points. In presidential primaries, five points is a chasm, and when you're trying to bury your opponent, you need every possible constituency you can muster.

But we don't think this will play well for him. By bringing this topic up, he's opened himself up to scrutiny he can ill afford. His record on firearms isn't great. It's terrible. He's received an "F" from the NRA according to ProjectVoteSmart, and while the Gun Owners of America gave him a 100 in 2006, they have this up on their site where it clearly shows he is no friend of gun owners.

If the voters actually research him rather than listening to the rhetoric of his campaign and his surrogates, they'll find a different story than the one being pimped right now. It's one in which they do not see a friend before them, but rather an opponent who wants to do away with the most important right anyone in America has.

Publius II