Gun Control and Obama’s New Spin

Erick Erickson found some very interesting info which he shares with us at RedState.

But first, a little reminder. November 20, 2007, Chicago Tribune:

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.‘”

That was when we first heard the term “inartful” used to characterize his previous response:

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

It was inartful because the wind had shifted and Heller had been decided against DC and the vast majority of the country was applauding the decision.

So he was suddenly all for the decision, wording his statement in such a way that it appeared the court had finally come around to his way of thinking:

In response to the ruling, Obama issued a carefully worded statement that applauded the court for providing “much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country” on gun rights while the candidate straddled differences between gun-control advocates and defenders of the right to bear arms.

Obama said he has “always believed that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures.”

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee added that “the Supreme Court has now endorsed that view,” noting that the court opinion striking down the capital’s handgun ban concedes the right to gun ownership is “not absolute” and is “subject to reasonable regulations.”

Well not really – but that’s his spin and he’s sticking with it.

Which brings us to what Erik found. It has to do with his time in the Illinois Senate. In the case of these bills he decided to vote something other than “present”. The bills dealt directly with a homeowner’s right to use a gun in self-defense:

In fact, Barack Obama specifically voted four times in the Illinois Legislature to allow criminal charges against a homeowner who used a firearm in self-defense of their person and home — specifically what the Supreme Court says is a constitutional right. Obama may say he supports it, but his record says exactly the opposite.

In 2004, the Illinois Senate considered S.B. 2165 (IL 2004), sponsored by Senator Ed Petka (R-Plainfield). The bill came about because of an arrest in Wilmette, IL in late December of 2003. A 54-year-old businessman shot and wounded a man who had broken into his home for the second time in 24 hours. Cook County prosecutors found the shooting justified, but the businessman, Mr. DeMar, faced a fine and possible destruction of two guns under a 1989 village ordinance prohibiting handgun possession.

S.B. 2165 would allow residents to use self-defense as a basis for seeking dismissal of criminal charges stemming from local gun ordinances if they used the banned weapon in an act of self-defense in their home, business or property.

Obama voted no on third reading March 25, 2004, and voted no on concurrence to a House amendment on May 25, 2004. In fact, Obama voted no four times: in the Judiciary Committee, on Third Reading, in the Judiciary Committee’s vote on concurrence with the House, and on the final concurrence.

Luckily for the people of Illinois, the legislation passed despite Obama’s opposition. Had he had his way, people in Illinois could still be prosecuted for defending themselves against crimes.

And when he had other opportunities to affirm his belief that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right, he fell short of the mark, opting instead for restrictive legislation:

In 1999, Obama voted in favor of S.B. 177 (IL 1999). The legislation required guns to be secured by trigger locks, placed in a lock box, or placed in a location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure from a minor. Likewise, in 2003, Obama voted for H.B. 2579 (IL 2003) for a law that restricted the rights of Illinois’s citizens so that they could only buy one gun a month. The law created the offense of “unlawful acquisition of handguns.”

In 2001, Obama voted against S.B. 604 (IL 2001), which would have allowed individuals who have valid orders of protection against other individuals to carry concealed weapons for their protection. The bill would have created an affirmative defense against a charge of violating Illinois’s concealed carry law if the person had a lawfully issued protection order against someone seeking to do harm to the person.

In 2002, Obama voted against S.B. 397 (IL 2002), which amended the Firearms Owners Identification Card Act. The legislation was specifically crafted for sporting events and allowed a non-resident participating in a sanctioned competitive shooting event in Illinois to purchase a shotgun or shotgun ammunition in Illinois, but only at the site where the event is being held, for the purpose of participating in the event.

Mr. Obama is beginning to come across as the political reincarnation of John Kerry. All joking aside and despite his claims to the contrary, Mr. Obama is no friend of the 2nd Amendment or gun owners.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!