pageok
pageok
pageok
Obama's Real Records on Guns & Sporting Issues in Illinois:

In a recent interview with Field & Stream, Barack Obama stated, "if you talk to sportsmen in my home state of Illinois, they will tell you that I've always been a forceful advocate on behalf of the rights of sportsmen, on behalf of access for sportsmen and hunters. I've been somebody who, well before the recent Supreme Court case, stated my belief that the Second Amendment was an individual right." In a podcast for iVoices.org, I interviewed Richard Pearson, the Executive Director of the Illinois State Rifle Association. Pearson has been lobbying on sporting and right to arms issues at the Illinois legislature since 1989. He has more first-hand knowledge of Obama's record on these issues than anyone except Obama himself. In the 20-minutes podcast interview, Pearson suggests that Obama's claim about his record is extremely inaccurate.

As for Obama's credibility on Second Amendment issues, an article by David Hardy, on the Pajamas Media website, points out that during Obama's tenure on the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the Foundation spent a great deal of grant money for a long-running effort to prevent the Second Amendment from being recognized as an individual right applicable to Americans who are not in the National Guard.

commontheme (mail):
From this post, a casual reader might be excused for believing that Mr. Kopel was interested in getting a fair and accurate picture of Obama's views. Then you can go to Mr. Kopel's website and find stuff like this:

Full Picture of Obama Emerging. Aug. 27. What the media hasn't told you about the socialist, racialist, Barack Obama Sr. Plus bogus claim from Time that older Jewish. voters who don't back Obama must be racist.
10.16.2008 5:12pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
So, anyway, Common, how does Barack's narrative ref. him and the Second match his record?
10.16.2008 5:20pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Common. I read Kopel's "Full Picture...." article. Didn't see anything like that. Not even close. Got a link?
10.16.2008 5:25pm
It's All A Lie (mail):

during Obama's tenure on the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation


Impossible. Obama has ZERO executive experience.
10.16.2008 5:28pm
cboldt (mail):
As far as I'm concerned, anybody who claims Obama is a strong supporter of an "individual rights" view of the 2nd amendment is reality challenged or a liar.
10.16.2008 5:29pm
Todd I. (mail):
Isn't it kind of unreasonable to hold Obama personally responsible for everything the Joyce Foundation did? Isn't his record as a legislator much more important?
10.16.2008 5:31pm
Kevin P. (mail):
Barack Obama's actual track record and history on gun control - as opposed to his current day dissembling on the subject.
10.16.2008 5:35pm
Sarcastro (www):
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who tries to convince me of anything I don't already believe is crazy or a liar or both.
10.16.2008 5:35pm
Kevin P. (mail):
Todd, see the link above for Obama's track record as a legislator on gun control.
10.16.2008 5:35pm
Witness (mail):
This is very important.
10.16.2008 5:36pm
Thorley Winston (mail) (www):
Isn't it kind of unreasonable to hold Obama personally responsible for everything the Joyce Foundation did?


It's perfectly reasonable to assume that someone who has a leadership role in an advocacy group agrees with the positions of the group unless they present evidence to the contrary showing that they dissented from a particular position.
10.16.2008 5:38pm
Nunzio:
It seems like Obama's had his come to Jesus moment on this issue pretty recently. But politicians do this all the time.

If says, now, he doesn't want to take your guns does anyone believe he'd spend anytime on this issue as President?
10.16.2008 5:39pm
Patrick22 (mail):
I bet there is a decent percentage (5% +/-) that are voting McCain simply on 2nd Amendment grounds. If Obama is elected anyway, along with a Democratic Congress, and no new restrictions on 2A comes out in the next 4 years, what do these voters do? It seems obvious that the Democratic party in general has moved away from gun control following Gore's defeat. Maybe move is too strong, but certainly de-empathized.
10.16.2008 5:40pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Nunzio.

Absolutely. He said, "Even if I wanted to, I don't have the votes." What if he had the votes, which he may?
10.16.2008 5:40pm
Kazinski:
Todd I:
Anybody who is a member of the Joyce Foundation board is rabid gun controler. To say that he supports individual rights now, is as believable as a NARAL board member saying they are pro-life.
10.16.2008 5:42pm
cboldt (mail):
-- anyone who tries to convince me of anything I don't already believe is crazy or a liar or both. --
.
I wasn't trying to dissuade you or anybody else from a belief that Obama is a strong supporter of an individual rights interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I was just expressing my point of view on a subject where Obama's record is very well out in public. Not that reality challenged people and liars won't attempt to deny his record.
.
Sane people take those who seriously preach that the sun rises in the West as deranged.
10.16.2008 5:47pm
Brett:
If says, now, he doesn't want to take your guns does anyone believe he'd spend anytime on this issue as President?


The "I won't take your guns away" argument is a phony one anyway. Obama is correct when he suggests that even in a heavily Democratic Congress, national gun bans are unlikely to be politically tenable. But gun controllers seldom push such measures for precisely that reason; instead, they employ the death-by-a-thousand-cuts approach, attempting to render the Second Amendment a nullity by flooding the zone with so-called "reasonable restrictions" (that, by any objective metric, do not even approximate "reasonable").

Obama's pro forma blather about respecting the rights of sportsmen invariably comes with the caveat that he believes in "reasonable restrictions". The reality is that the only time Obama has ever found a restriction on gun ownership, possession, or use to be unreasonable is when the Supreme Court was on the verge of declaring it unconstitutional anyway.
10.16.2008 5:50pm
Triangle_Man:
It's perfectly reasonable to assume that someone who has a leadership role in an advocacy group agrees with the positions of the group unless they present evidence to the contrary showing that they dissented from a particular position.

Because all such groups operate from a position of unanimous agreement on issues? Seems like a stretch.
10.16.2008 5:51pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Triangle.
Yeah, they do. That's what's called a mission statement. People who disagree either leave or work within the group to change it. But until they get the change, the original mission statement is pretty close to the actions.

Does the aforementioned NARAL have a couple of loose cannons on the executive board who keep putting out pro-life statements?
10.16.2008 5:55pm
just me (mail):
If says, now, he doesn't want to take your guns does anyone believe he'd spend anytime on this issue as President?

I don't think he will spend much time on it-but not because I believe he all the sudden believes gun control is wrong.

I think he won't spend any time on it, because i don't think congress would pass anything more restrictive than what we currently have. For one thing while the democrats control congress many if not most of the democrats that won in '06 did so on pro gun platforms. Basically, I think he will sign anything congress sends him on the issue of making it harder to own guns, I just don't think congress is going to do it.
10.16.2008 5:55pm
Alan Gunn (mail):

If Obama is elected anyway, along with a Democratic Congress, and no new restrictions on 2A comes out in the next 4 years, what do these voters do? It seems obvious that the Democratic party in general has moved away from gun control following Gore's defeat. Maybe move is too strong, but certainly de-empathized.

It seems likely that the "assault weapons" ban will be re-enacted, and bullet serialization will probably be proposed too, as it sounds so "reasonable" to those unaware of the costs. So we probably don't have to worry about people who support freedom for gunners getting bored. Over the years, I've gone from not paying much attention to gun control to taking it very seriously, mostly because of the extraordinary dishonesty of so many anti-gun people (e.g., semi-automatics as "machine guns" in DC, Obama's support of banning gun shops withing five miles of a school or park--just about everywhere, that is--and the .30-30 as an "armor-piercing handgun cartridge"). People with good arguments don't have to be that sneaky.
10.16.2008 5:57pm
Nunzio:
The death by a thousand cuts just doesn't seem feasible anymore. Like the death penalty, the Democrats have just conceded this issue.
10.16.2008 5:58pm
Houston Lawyer:
If we get 58 Democrats in the Senate and a 50 seat Democrat majority in the House, does anyone think that the Assault Weapons Ban won't be re-introduced and passed under President Obama? The 2006 class of Democratic freshmen in the House were a rather conservative group, but we don't know who will be elected this year. I think Democrats have given up on gun control like the Republicans have given up on abortion.
10.16.2008 6:09pm
sciplot:
It's good that Obama at least acknowledges that further restrictions on gun ownership is deeply unpopular with the electorate.

What's annoying to me about his position is that he always connects this "individual right" with "sportsmen and hunters", when this is clearly not the purpose of the second amendment. It's an easy way to avoid the obvious: that the 2nd is, like the other rights, meant to protect citizens from a tyrannical government.
10.16.2008 6:09pm
glangston (mail):
If says, now, he doesn't want to take your guns does anyone believe he'd spend anytime on this issue as President?


Heller and some other big city laws don't take your guns away, they make you hide them, locked and unloaded in a dark, locked closet, useless for self-defense. It would be fun to take the neighbors down there on Halloween but maybe not that scary.
10.16.2008 6:14pm
glangston (mail):
If says, now, he doesn't want to take your guns does anyone believe he'd spend anytime on this issue as President?


D.C. and some other big city laws don't take your guns away, they make you hide them, locked and unloaded in a dark, basement closet, useless for self-defense. It would be fun to take the neighbors down there on Halloween but maybe not that scary.
10.16.2008 6:16pm
Here's the plan-------------------* (mail) (www):
The talking point regarding Joyce is that BHO simply wanted to open a debate on the issue, so unless someone can show that they only funded the anti- and not the pro- side mentioning Joyce isn't going to work.

However, see this from 2000 about a debate:

All three said they were in support of gun control legislation, with Obama citing a need for higher taxes on ammunition and registration requirements on firearms...

On a somewhat related note, I could really use some help promoting the plan at my name's link. Now that "Joe the Plumber" has become famous, it's time for someone else to ask Obama prosecutorial-style questions at his public appearances, and then upload his response to Youtube.
10.16.2008 6:18pm
Opher Banarie (mail) (www):
Of course Obama believes in individual rights to gun ownership.

As long as it's not a handgun.
And it's not concealed.
And it's not made of metal.
And it's not loaded.
And it can only be loaded with H2O.

This parallels his logical support for nuclear energy, oil drilling, clean coal technology, tax reform, education reform, defense spending, etc.
10.16.2008 6:18pm
Reasoner:
Apparently Barack Obama thinks only country folk should be protected by the 2nd Amendment because he wrote in his book:
"I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturer's lobby." Audacity of Hope p.215 Oct 2006
I verified this quote in his book at the library.
10.16.2008 6:26pm
Kevin P. (mail):

Here's the plan:
The talking point regarding Joyce is that BHO simply wanted to open a debate on the issue, so unless someone can show that they only funded the anti- and not the pro- side mentioning Joyce isn't going to work.


Here's the Joyce Foundation's funding of gun control organizations. Full disclosure: I am the author of the graph. The Joyce Foundation, particularly in recent years, has been a lifeline to gun control groups, and some of them would not exist any more without its help.
10.16.2008 6:26pm
Kevin P. (mail):

Here's the plan:
The talking point regarding Joyce is that BHO simply wanted to open a debate on the issue, so unless someone can show that they only funded the anti- and not the pro- side mentioning Joyce isn't going to work.


Here's the Joyce Foundation's funding of gun control organizations. Full disclosure: I am the author of the graph. The Joyce Foundation, particularly in recent years, has been a lifeline to gun control groups, and some of them would not exist any more without its help.
10.16.2008 6:26pm
Brett:
The death by a thousand cuts just doesn't seem feasible anymore. Like the death penalty, the Democrats have just conceded this issue.


If you really believe this, then you haven't been paying attention. Sorry.
10.16.2008 6:26pm
Norman Bates (mail):
Obama's record as an anti-gunner is clear. The NRA -- a truly non-partisan special interest group with a particular interest in this area -- suggests that an Obama presidency would be an unmitigated disaster for gun owners. Obama won't necessarily attack gun owners directly, but he will appoint people who will make life as difficult for gun owners as they can.

Bill Clinton appointed just such a person to a senior position in his Justice Department where she worked tirelessly to burden gun owners and restrict firearm rights. She was a true ideologue; I met her once at a friend's home and had an extended conversation with her.

Also there is a strong likelihood that Obama will pick one or more Supreme Court Justices and all those on his Supreme Court shortlist -- Sunstein, Koh, Patrick, etc. -- would love to join a new court majority in overturning Heller. Anyone who cares about gun rights in this country would be insane to vote for Obama.
10.16.2008 6:28pm
glenalxndr:
As Brett said, Obama hasn't met any "reasonable restrictions" on guns that he wouldn't support in a nanosecond.

And, yes, it's extremely likely that the votes will be there in Congress for a much more onerous ban on "assault weapons", "armor-piercing" ammunition, nationwide concealed carry, plus microstamping, along with more senseless restrictions on the sales of firearms and ammunition.

I expect that the Democrats will suffer some political consequences for these actions. But I'm not very optimistic that those ballot box consequences will result in any significant roll-back of the damage done over the next 2, 4 or 8 years.
10.16.2008 6:29pm
Dilan Esper (mail) (www):
I don't think there's anything wrong with this attack despite my support for Obama (indeed, I think it has some merit), but may I suggest to you guys that the much, much better attack is that Obama might appoint a Justice that swings Heller the other way? It seems to me that doesn't require reading Obama's mind; it just requires the observation that even though Obama might support some form of Second Amendment rights, he is likely to appoint a liberal justice and a liberal justice is likely to oppose them
10.16.2008 6:33pm
wfjag:

What the media hasn't told you about the socialist, racialist, Barack Obama Sr.

Dear Common:
Although I don't doubt that Mr. Kopel is not a BHO for Pres. supporter, in your summary dismissal of his post, did you overlook or did you ignore that what you quoted involved BHO Sr.? The guy running for Pres. is BHO, Jr. That is something that a "casual reader" might not notice when reading your comment.
10.16.2008 6:35pm
Thorley Winston (mail) (www):
I think he won't spend any time on it, because i don't think congress would pass anything more restrictive than what we currently have. For one thing while the democrats control congress many if not most of the democrats that won in '06 did so on pro gun platforms. Basically, I think he will sign anything congress sends him on the issue of making it harder to own guns, I just don't think congress is going to do it.


I haven't seen any evidence that a majority of the new Democratic Representatives and Senators elected in 2006 are pro-gun, unless you count the sort of people who talk about "protecting the rights of hunters and sportsmen" which is usually a smokescreen by anti-gun candidates. As Alan Gunn pointed out, there are measure that would likely be passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress that would be sold as "reasonable restrictions."

Moreover a President doesn't necessarily need Congress to explicitly sign onto an anti-gun agenda, their refusal to challenge administrative rules or approving his judicial and executive branch can often do the job as well. An anti-gun AG and US Attorneys can support lawsuits to harass the gun industry and can bypass the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act by deciding to enforce already existing laws in a "creative" fashion to deprive them of their qualified immunity.

A president who favors gun control and whose party controls the Senate and rubber stamps his judicial and executive branch nominees can appoint judges who whittle away the Second Amendment's protection or RTKBA under the auspices of "reasonable restrictions" or giving it the protection of a mere "rational basis" rather than "strict scrutiny" or even the intermediate scrutiny (remember, these issues were NOT addressed in the Heller decision).
10.16.2008 6:38pm
commontheme (mail):
wfjag - I certainly did notice that and that is what makes it all the more absurd given the fact that Obama's father is long dead and he met him only once or twice while he was growing up.

Anyone who is concerned about the activities of the long-dead senior Obama, cannot be relied upon to be be anything other than a partisan whackjob.
10.16.2008 6:38pm
commontheme (mail):

Common. I read Kopel's "Full Picture...." article. Didn't see anything like that. Not even close. Got a link?

It's on the front page of Mr. Kopel's web page. Google is your friend.
10.16.2008 6:39pm
Brett:
I think both points are effective, Dilan: Obama is, given his record, dissembling about his putative support for Second Amendment rights; AND he is likely to appoint to the Supreme Court Breyer-esque buffoons who are as hostile to the Second Amendment as he is.
10.16.2008 6:39pm
Michael B (mail):
It isn't about "sportsmen and hunters" first and foremost, Barack, it's about something more basic, more principled, much more elemental.

What's next, you're all for the exercise of free speech - as long as it's "properly vetted" via a reemergent fairness doctrine and similar legislative acts?
10.16.2008 6:41pm
Here's the plan-------------------* (mail) (www):
Although I really don't like linking to them, the WP link is actually this.

The NRA link at that page (#14) doesn't work anymore.

Is there a clear, short statement showing that Joyce only funds the anti- side? Could their excuse be that they're just trying to provide balance? Is there any documentation of BHO voting for or against a Joyce grant after clearly having read the grant and not just approving it as a matter of course?
10.16.2008 6:43pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
"The death by a thousand cuts just doesn't seem feasible anymore."

Have you tried to buy a gun in California lately?
10.16.2008 6:44pm
Michael B (mail):
What Brett said.
10.16.2008 6:46pm
commontheme (mail):
I bought another Sig 226 on Gunbroker and had it shipped to my FFL dealer and went over and signed the paperwork and and then picked up up 10 days later.

I understand that there were some additional forms to sign, but it wasn't any more difficult than when I have purchased guns over the past few years.
10.16.2008 7:00pm
Brett:
I understand that there were some additional forms to sign, but it wasn't any more difficult than when I have purchased guns over the past few years.


And yet it was still about 20 times as difficult than it ought to be in a country where the right of the peope to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
10.16.2008 7:04pm
Brian K (mail):
But gun controllers seldom push such measures for precisely that reason; instead, they employ the death-by-a-thousand-cuts approach, attempting to render the Second Amendment a nullity by flooding the zone with so-called "reasonable restrictions" (that, by any objective metric, do not even approximate "reasonable").

one could draw a parallel to abortion opponents, but somehow i don't think i'll be getting as strong of a (or any) negative reaction to that.
10.16.2008 7:05pm
BT:
I cannot think of one Democrat from Cook County who is pro gun including Obama. As a matter of fact, when running for office, D's typically will try to out anti-gun the other guy. There is a vast and powerful anti-gun culture here in Illinois, supported by the press (both Tribune and Sun Times) clergy (think Father Pfleger, Jesse Jackson, Andrew Greeley) and non-profits such as Joyce. Anyone who thniks Obama is a moderate on this issue is a fool.
10.16.2008 7:16pm
Brett:
one could draw a parallel to abortion opponents, but somehow i don't think i'll be getting as strong of a (or any) negative reaction to that.


One could try to draw that parallel. But the circumstances are distinguishable. The Supreme Court has given broad protection to abortion rights, such that the "reasonable restrictions" advocated by the anti-abortion crowd amount to fighting over table scraps. There is little to no chance of any significant incremental rollback of abortion rights regardless of what you read in NARAL and Planned Parenthood fundraising mailers.
10.16.2008 7:26pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Common.
I had read the article without looking at the lead in.
So, after reading the article and looking at the lead in, it appears that Sr. was socialist, racialist, and there were bogus charges that elderly Jews were voting against the Big O because of racism. The latter is hardly a surprise. You cannot vote against O without being a racist.
So, what is the problem with the lead? Consider that Kopel is almost entirely quoting publications.
10.16.2008 7:26pm
Brett:
And I'll add that if there ever is the likelihood of such a rollback, I'll be right there with Brian K protesting the excesses of the anti-abortion lobby.
10.16.2008 7:27pm
Sarcastro (www):
[And I'll say if Obama actually does pass significant gun restrictions, I'll be out there protesting with you guys, and apologizing for thinking you're a bit paranoid about Obama's focus on this issue.]
10.16.2008 7:33pm
Nunzio:
The easiest thing to is demand Obama to appoint someone who pledges allegiance to Heller.

Obama and Biden are big believers in ideology and nominees answering specific questions on how they would vote.

So let's have the rubber meet the road. An Obama nominee must tell the Senate Judiciary committee that Heller was decided correctly.

If not, then Obama must withdraw the nominee.

In the spirit of bi-partisanship, Republicans can say you get to appoint a pro-Roe nominee but that nominee must be pro-Heller too.
10.16.2008 7:37pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
"I understand that there were some additional forms to sign, but it wasn't any more difficult than when I have purchased guns over the past few years."

In the early 1990s there were no forms to sign, no waiting period and no recording of ammunition purchases. Now in CA most FFLs will charge you about $100 to process the paperwork. Now in CA you need an approved "lock" to pick up a gun purchase. If your gun should arrive with a magazine that hold 12 rounds instead of 10, the law directs the FFL to confiscate it. I don't why you insist on saying that it's not becoming more difficult in CA to make a gun purchase.
10.16.2008 7:37pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
[And I'll say if Obama actually does pass significant gun restrictions, I'll be out there protesting with you guys, and apologizing for thinking you're a bit paranoid about Obama's focus on this issue.]

It might be too late by then to do anything. You will also find yourself accused of "racism" for opposing Obama. It should be quite clear by now that Obama will wrap himself in a racial security blanket to fend off criticism.
10.16.2008 7:41pm
Order of the Coif:
Sarcastro posted:
I'll be out there protesting with you guys, and apologizing for thinking you're a bit paranoid about Obama's focus on this issue.


A lot of good that will do.
10.16.2008 7:43pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Order.
In which case, considering he'll come to the same conclusion, he will probably stay home.
10.16.2008 7:45pm
Sarcastro (www):
[Yep! I'm such a winner! I get to stay home no matter what!

There's a reason the Dems have abandoned gun control as an issue. It just doesn't fly with the public. Protests would likely be of a magnitude where they would be effective, and of a broad enough base that racism charges would likely fall flat.

Have a bit of faith in the system!]
10.16.2008 7:47pm
Oren:

It seems obvious that the Democratic party in general has moved away from gun control following Gore's defeat. Maybe move is too strong, but certainly de-empathized.

As a gun toting democrat, I can say I've tried as hard as I can.
10.16.2008 7:52pm
Brett:
I'll look forward to your apology and your support in the spring of 2009, then, Sarcastro.
10.16.2008 7:52pm
A. Zarkov (mail):

There's a reason the Dems have abandoned gun control as an issue.

They have abandoned it over the last few years while waiting to reclaim power. Once they have the power watch out.
10.16.2008 7:53pm
DonP (mail):
"There's a reason the Dems have abandoned gun control as an issue."

My guess is that Schumer, Kennedy, Feinstein, Kerry et. al. missed that memo when it came out.

A quick persual of any of the more popular online websites from Kos to DU revealsl a majority of Dems that believe gun control (in pretty much every form) is a "Long and Deeply held Democrat Principle".

Heck, the renewal of the AWB and other "common sense" gun control measures are an integral part of the 2008 platform document.
10.16.2008 7:54pm
commontheme (mail):

In the early 1990s there were no forms to sign, no waiting period and no recording of ammunition purchases. Now in CA most FFLs will charge you about $100 to process the paperwork. Now in CA you need an approved "lock" to pick up a gun purchase. If your gun should arrive with a magazine that hold 12 rounds instead of 10, the law directs the FFL to confiscate it. I don't why you insist on saying that it's not becoming more difficult in CA to make a gun purchase.

First I don't think I "insist" on saying anything. I am just saying it. You need to wind down a bit.

I arrived in CA in 93 so I don't know anything about the "good old days" so you may be right.

If you are paying $100 to your FFL you might want to shop around. Mine charges a straight $35.

If you certify that you have a gunsafe, you don't need an approved gun lock. Everybody should have a safe but if you don't have one, you can get an approved trigger lock for $10 or so. And you can bring the same one with you every time you pick up a gun.

When I got my first 226 eight or 9 years ago, you couldn't have more than 10 round magazines, IIRC. When I purchased my 228 a couple of years ago, you couldn't have more than 10 round magazines. When I got my most recent 226, same law. So I don't see how that has got more difficult.

I think it would be swell if I could walk in and buy a Sig on a moments notice, too, but I don't see how it has gotten much more difficult in the past few years.
10.16.2008 7:55pm
LarryA (mail) (www):
Impossible. Obama has ZERO executive experience.
Membership on a board of directors is not executive experience. Congress is effectively the U.S. "board of directors."
Isn't it kind of unreasonable to hold Obama personally responsible for everything the Joyce Foundation did? Isn't his record as a legislator much more important?
No, since his gun-rights record as a legislator is identical.
If says, now, he doesn't want to take your guns does anyone believe he'd spend anytime on this issue as President?
Yes. But then I've been active in the gun rights issue since the Gun Control Act of 1968, and I've been stabbed in the back so often I can't count the scars.
It seems obvious that the Democratic party in general has moved away from gun control following Gore's defeat. Maybe move is too strong, but certainly de-empathized.
Maybe de-publicized. Check Thomas.gov for current proposed anti-gun legislation. OTOH several of the Western Democrats that shifted the balance in 2006 are pro-gun. I have fond hopes they'll balance the Kennedys and Pelosis. But then there's Joe Biden.
Because all such groups (Joyce Foundation) operate from a position of unanimous agreement on issues? Seems like a stretch.
How many anti-gun members do you think the NRA board of directors has?
10.16.2008 8:01pm
David E. Young (mail) (www):
The Joyce Fondation bankrolls gun control in America. While Barack Obama was a director, in addition to numerous other gun control advocate supporting grants, the Foundation funded at least two major attempts, one ongoing, to rewrite the history of the Second Amendment right out of U.S. Bill of Rights history. The anti-individual rights law professor Carl Bogus was funded to organize/edit the Chicago-Kent Law Review Symposium in April 2001. It was a direct attempt to influence the federal courts, especially the Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the Emerson case after a loss for the collective rights theory at the District Court level in 1999.

The Joyce funding in late 2002 of the Second Amendment Research Center under the directorship of anti-individual rights historian Saul Cornell at Ohio State University was another attempt to influence the courts, this time over the long haul, to further a view of the Second Amendment other than an individual rights view.

The results of these two particular Joyce Foundation (Obama on board) funding efforts can be readily seen in the split decision in the Heller case. The 4 dissenting Justices accepted the position presented in the pro-DC amicus brief from Saul Cornell of the Joyce funded Research Center and Carl Bogus, Jack Rakove, Lois Schwoerer, and Paul Finkelman, all contributors to the Joyce funded Chicago-Kent Symposium on the Second Amendment arguing against an individual rights interpretation.

For the problems with the pro-DC amicus, and why the dissenting Justices were led astray by relying on biased Joyce funded academics regarding the Second Amendment, see this History News Network article:
http://hnn.us/articles/47238.html

Why would anyone suggest that Barack Obama didn't notice for eight full years as a Joyce Foundation director that he was helping to fund gun control across America as well as direct attempts to trash a U.S. Bill of Rights provision? Richard Pearson's information on his personal Obama contacts on firearms issues help explain the reasons why Barack Obama was appointed and accepted a position as a director of the Joyce Foundation - because of his views supporting gun control and explaining away the words of the Second Amendment.
10.16.2008 8:09pm
EH (mail):
It might be too late by then to do anything. You will also find yourself accused of "racism" for opposing Obama. It should be quite clear by now that Obama will wrap himself in a racial security blanket to fend off criticism.

Well surely this means the end of the 22nd Amendment.
10.16.2008 8:14pm
James Gibson (mail):
I'm convinced, I need to send a video to You-tube on why gun owners should fear Obama/Biden.

For those who think that because the Congress has a decent number of Blue Dog Dems, who have good NRA ratings, Obama can't push through a gun-control measure think again. All thats required is that they market it as limited in impact.

Forget the Assault weapon ban for the time being, between the Blue Dogs, the Supreme Court majority and even the Dissenters on the court he would have no chance. Keep in mind the Dissenters were pushing that the 2nd only protected a persons right to a military style arm for militia purposes, not a handgun for personal defense.

But what he will do is push for the end of the protection for the manufacturers and re-establish the lawsuits. Then he would push the penetration requirement (possibly in Ted Kennedy's name). Then they would push a prohibition on lead ammo for environmental reasons (even though the all copper rounds penetration capability hasn't been determined). Then they would push micro-stamping for crime prevention (whether it works or not). They may even re-surrect the smartgun research and put forth the same worthless requirement that is on the New Jersey books. This should help build the momentum and give his base in the gun control movement ammunition to push the agenda further on the State level.

So you see it will be through the States that the gun control movement will act. By telling the cities and State legislatures that Barrack won't stop them from implementing such measures, or getting Barrack to put pressure on pro-gun states to implement these laws he shields the new bans from the Supreme Court. Why need a Federal ban when he can force the States to do it for him and as long as the 2nd amendment isn't incorporated in the 14th SCOTUS will be limited to act.

Of course he could go too far. He could support state bans on 50's like I believe New Jersey was proposing awhile back only to find the wording so broad that first it banned revolutionary war flintlocks and then every shotgun in the state. Of course he then might suggest the States to impose the Illinois hunting requirements on the entire nation because Congress won't act to curb Assault weapons. As I understand it, in his home state you can only hunt large game with a muzzle loader. Thus, Congress will be shielded from the fall-out while the State parties get creamed. And even he will get the benefit of the doubt from MSM since he didn't sign any act into law other then "common sense control measures".
10.16.2008 8:19pm
David Larsomn (mail):
Does Obama EVER say anything that is actually accurate? I mean we all know politicians are professional liars, but this guy takes it to a level that has perhaps never been seen before. Indeed, Obama may well be the single most truth-challenged individual on the face of the earth today. I don't think he would know what the truth was if it crawled up his fundament and exploded.
10.16.2008 8:25pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
commontheme:

Go to a FFL finder and type in zip= 94306. The following is a typical entry:

Gold Mountain International
PO Box 5517
Redwood City, CA 94063-0517
email: Click here to email me
phone: 650-701-0994

Hours: By Appointment Only
Transfer fee: $75.00 plus $40.00 NICS &State Taxes

Those are the kind of charges typical of the Bay Area.

I think the problem is our time frame. I'm going back more than your 10 years. But even over the last 10 years San Francisco, Berkeley and Oakland have have done their best drive gun dealers out of business with special taxes. The San Francisco Gun Exchange, Siegle's in Oakland and Buchanan in Berkeley are gone. See here. The city of Oakland now has zero gun stores. A place where people desperately need to protect themselves.
10.16.2008 8:28pm
commontheme (mail):
Zarkov, seriously - check around. I'm in SF and my dealer charges only $35. He only takes word of mouth referrals because he got tired of dealing with gang bangers. There are better prices out there. Just sayin'.

I was sad to see the Gun Exchange go, but they were so overpriced it was silly. I did get a nice litte 20 gauge Beretta over and under at their going out of business sale.
10.16.2008 8:33pm
Tony Tutins (mail):
Obama is flimflamming and bamboozling gun owners on this. However, I voted my single issue back in 2000, and look what happened. John McCain isn't even that good on guns -- he worked "across the aisle" with Teddy Kennedy to close the "gun show loophole." I will pray that the spirit of John Dingell will infiltrate enough people. Please vote for all Republicans for Congress
10.16.2008 8:35pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
"Does Obama EVER say anything that is actually accurate?"

Not that I can tell, but he is careful to introduce just enough vagueness to give him an out. Or he puts in a modifier and hopes people won't notice it. For example he will federal lobbyist. During the the most recent debate he made numerous factual errors. If his opponent were on the ball he would have gotten smashed.
10.16.2008 8:36pm
Guessed:
Speaking, as someone was upthread, about gun rights and come-to-Jesus moments: I'm torn between saying the comparison is to McCain, here pilloried as a false friend to the gun rights movement (e.g., "John McCain tried running for president in 2000 as an anti-gunner. This year it appears he is seeking to "come home" to the pro-gun community, but the wounds are deep and memories long" -- or maybe not so long), or Mr. Koppel, quoted in the article as critical of McCain.

http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/mccain.htm
10.16.2008 8:37pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
Zarkov, seriously - check around. I'm in SF and my dealer charges only $35. He only takes word of mouth referrals because he got tired of dealing with gang bangers. There are better prices out there. Just sayin'.

I did check around. That's the whole point. You found an atypical, cheap, unadvertised FFL. That hardly invalidates my assertion.
10.16.2008 8:39pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
"I was sad to see the Gun Exchange go, but they were so overpriced it was silly."

I agree-- there were overpriced. But I liked to browse and talk to the clerks. It was fun. But I'm getting somewhat tired of living in a People's Republic. If CA continues to slide down in the quality of life, I'm going to move out of state.
10.16.2008 8:44pm
commontheme (mail):
Zarkov - I would send you my ffl's e-mail but you seem sort of angry.

There's always Nevada.
10.16.2008 8:44pm
therut (mail):
Not much more to add except Obama wants to be President and he is already a LIAR.
10.16.2008 8:46pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
"Zarkov - I would send you my ffl's e-mail but you seem sort of angry."

I'm not angry. I'm originally from New York City. Almost everybody in NYC sounds angry to Californians.
10.16.2008 8:49pm
commontheme (mail):
Zarkov - you must not have looked very hard for FFLs since it took me less than 10 seconds to find this one on Gunbroker:


---
---Security
Cupertino, CA 95127
email: Click here to email mephone: 408 ----9481

Transfer fee: $45.00 for transfers



I'll let you look up the specifics so you can see all of the other dealers that charge far less than $100.

You're welcome.
10.16.2008 8:52pm
whit:
saying you are for the 2nd amendment on "behalf of sportsmen and hunters" is like saying you are for the first amendment "on behalf of newspapers and network news channels". By conspicuously leaving out EVERYBODY else, you know darned well what he is saying. then, there's the fact that he was a member of joyce foundation.
10.16.2008 8:54pm
Yankev (mail):

I've always been a forceful advocate on behalf of the rights of sportsmen, on behalf of access for sportsmen and hunters.
Isn't saying that the Second Amendment is there to protect the rights of sportsmen a bit like saying the First Amendment is there to protect the right to discuss TV sitcoms and pro sports?
10.16.2008 8:59pm
Al Maviva:
Kevin P. - that's exactly the kind of hate-filled, inaccurate material that I'd expect a wingnut like you to try to inject into the conversation. Just because what you state about The One and his record voting for various gun bans is factually true, doesn't make it any less hateful to say it. Racist!
10.16.2008 9:01pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
commontheme:

I know about that guy. He raised his price to $50 and there's another $25 charge for other paperwork. His total is $75. He also says that he's atypically cheap. When I wrote $100, I trying to give an average value. He's also too far from me.
10.16.2008 9:03pm
Kevin P. (mail):

Al Maviva:
Kevin P. - that's exactly the kind of hate-filled, inaccurate material that I'd expect a wingnut like you to try to inject into the conversation. Just because what you state about The One and his record voting for various gun bans is factually true, doesn't make it any less hateful to say it. Racist!


I admit it. My brown skin is burning bright red. I submit myself for re-education and rehabilitation to the camp of the One.
10.16.2008 9:08pm
h0mi:

The "I won't take your guns away" argument is a phony one anyway.


Let me add the same people who argue this tend to clamor for "reasonable" gun control laws. Then it turns out every proposed law, including the DC and Chicago bans on handgun ownership is deemed to be a "reasonable" gun control law. A law that requires a class before obtaining a licsense to own a gun but the class is never funded is a 'reasonable' law.
10.16.2008 9:16pm
kshankar:
Why do these anti-gun nuts continue to perpetuate the myth that all of us are "hunters and sportsmen"? Do they ever once stop and think about the document this amendment was written on? The rationality behind "Madison was writing about government protecting what was viewed as inherent birthrights (such as freedom of association, expression, privacy...and killing deer!) Absurd on its face. Of course we can shoot deer with it, but it completely takes out any historical context of a check and balance against a tyrannical government. Self defense against the private criminals AND the public criminals.

The NRA does little to help eradicate this ridiculous stereotype, what with its recent ad (that was brought up here earlier, might I add) with a hunter filling up his pick up truck, dressed in hunting gear. I have no problem with hunting, but that is NOT the only reason we buy guns!
10.16.2008 9:35pm
Kevin P. (mail):
Amen, kshankar. I don't hunt, but support hunters and hunting. The Second Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting or sports. It is like saying that the First Amendment protects Sports Illustrated.
10.16.2008 9:39pm
Samurai (mail):
I really wonder how Obama can claim that he won't take guns away when the 2008 Democratic platform specifically calls for a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban. He really needs to get called out on this lie.

To be accurate he should say he won't take our guns away, so long as they don't look scary or have a shoulder thing that goes up.
10.16.2008 9:43pm
Glenn W. Bowen (mail):
"sportsmen sportsmen sportsmen"

So what.

This guy has done nothing but try to vote away gun ownership from day one. He told Dave Kopel at UIC years ago, "I don't think people should be 'allowed' to own guns." No debate, no nothing, no gun ownership.

He lies about everything else like it really isn't what it is, he does the same on this issue.

He insults our intelligence.
10.16.2008 9:45pm
Glenn W. Bowen (mail):

commontheme (mail):
From this post, a casual reader might be excused for believing that Mr. Kopel was interested in getting a fair and accurate picture of Obama's views. Then you can go to Mr. Kopel's website and find stuff like this:


Full Picture of Obama Emerging. Aug. 27. What the media hasn't told you about the socialist, racialist, Barack Obama Sr. Plus bogus claim from Time that older Jewish. voters who don't back Obama must be racist.


So cite to the contrary...
10.16.2008 9:46pm
Elliot123 (mail):
What is an assault weapon?
10.16.2008 10:09pm
winstontwo (mail):


So cite to the contrary...

When I used to work near the Tenderloin in San Francisco, there was one particular homeless guy who periodically smeared himself with feces and yelled about the implants that the CIA had placed in his teeth.

I didn't try to argue with him, either.
10.16.2008 10:44pm
Melancton Smith:
Dilan Esper wrote:

I don't think there's anything wrong with this attack despite my support for Obama (indeed, I think it has some merit), but may I suggest to you guys that the much, much better attack is that Obama might appoint a Justice that swings Heller the other way? It seems to me that doesn't require reading Obama's mind; it just requires the observation that even though Obama might support some form of Second Amendment rights, he is likely to appoint a liberal justice and a liberal justice is likely to oppose them


True, but the two most likely justices to retire are also the most liberal. However, after that, we well could be fubar.
10.16.2008 11:05pm
David Warner:
Dilan,

"may I suggest to you guys that the much, much better attack is that Obama might appoint a Justice that swings Heller the other way?"

That's a very sensible and fair-minded suggestion. Now if we can find a market for sensible and fair-minded suggestions, we're set. Perhaps in four years. Or sixteen.

An Obama administration will likely feature restriction of guns with carefully crafted exceptions for "sportsmen", which won't actually do him much good with sportsmen, but will provide plausible deniability with the scrupulously non-partisan (i.e. the media).

I say this because Obama is the ultimate technocrat and the experts (i.e. the police) like their monopoly on firearms. For good or ill, the police carry the cultural clout to make it stick, as long as they enjoy the backing of the executive and legislative branches of the Federal government. Heller alone is a speedbump.
10.17.2008 12:55am
Guessed:
Does Obama EVER say anything that is actually accurate? I mean we all know politicians are professional liars, but this guy takes it to a level that has perhaps never been seen before. Indeed, Obama may well be the single most truth-challenged individual on the face of the earth today. I don't think he would know what the truth was if it crawled up his fundament and exploded.

He lies about everything else like it really isn't what it is, he does the same on this issue.

He insults our intelligence.


I think you really believe this, but it reflects something visceral rather than any judicious assessment -- and if it's true, McCain has to be right there with him. For a more balanced assessment on each candidate's accuracy, see something like http://www.factcheck.org/ or http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/attacks/all/.
10.17.2008 12:57am
mariner:
Democrats have NOT moved past gun control -- re-enacting an
"assault weapons ban" is in this year's Democratic Party Platform. (See page 50.)

They're just hoping independents and swing voters won't notice.
10.17.2008 1:04am
Mark Rockwell (mail):

that, by any objective metric, do not even approximate "reasonable"


What are the objective metrics for approximating reasonableness?
10.17.2008 1:42am
Jim at FSU (mail):
This thread is mostly interesting as a gauge of how many people are enthusiastically gulping down the koolflavor-aid.

Barack Obama's record is pretty indefensible on the gun issue. What I see here are either extremely stupid people or people who are adopting an attitude of willful blindness.

He's repeatedly sponsored or publicly suggested a broad swath of measures that were off the far end of the anti-gun scale. Until about 6-9 months ago, there wasn't the slightest hint that Obama had anything other than the utmost contempt for us. And he hasn't reversed himself since then, he's only adopted a sort of lukewarm ambivalence about the issue. It seems pretty clear to me that Obama takes the 2nd amendment about as seriously as a crooked cop shaking down a drug dealer takes the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments.

Well, when Obama wins, you're going to see attacks on gun ownership begin again with a vigor we haven't seen since the early 90s. You're going to see him wield the full power of administrative law through the ATF, attempts to overturn Tiahart, attacks on the constitutionality of PCLAA, unlawful retention of NICS records, leaks of information to the bradies and to the plaintiff's bar. These are just examples I could think of in the first 30 seconds. It will be just like the way Bush behaved towards muslim terrorists, only directed against law abiding gun owners.

I am only consoled by the realization that he may actually believe his own messianic press and push ahead too aggressively. Hopefully his inexperience will combine with his wacky agenda and dig a nice deep hole for the left to fall into.
10.17.2008 2:22am
Dan M.:
I would assume that an objective metric approximating reasonableness would have to be narrowly tailored, well-written, have a clear purpose that outweighs potential drawbacks. Can you name a regulation that you think is genuinely reasonable?
10.17.2008 2:24am
winstontwo (mail):
Jim - I think you forgot to mention that he's a Muslim.
10.17.2008 2:25am
Jim at FSU (mail):
Go to hell. Everything I said there is completely true. And I could have gone farther and mentioned all the work he did through the Joyce Foundation to:
-support anti-gun groups with direct funding
-fund the creation of anti-gun legal research to poison the decades of otherwise honest legal literature focusing on the 2nd amendment
-fund symposia and conferences to help anti-gun groups and researchers coordinate and network with one another.

We were complaining about Joyce long before one of their directors became a candidate for president. We were complaining about Saul Cornell and his fabricated 2nd amendment research long before we traced money back to someone named Barack Obama. This stuff goes back years. The fact that Obama was one of the guys cutting them checks is only a relatively recent discovery.
10.17.2008 2:40am
A. Zarkov (mail):
Jim at FSU:

Jim you're beating your head against the wall trying to talk sense to the Obamabots. After a while all you get are snarky comments and name calling. Some people have a visceral fear of guns. I knew a woman who was attacked twice on the grounds of her home, yet she opposed a neighborhood patrol. She went particularly ballistic at the thought that the patrolman might be armed. These kind are particularly concentrated in the San Francisco Bay Area. Eventually I expect gun ownership to be banned outright in CA.
10.17.2008 3:23am
Brett:
What Dan M. said.
10.17.2008 4:44am
BlackX (mail):

A quick persual of any of the more popular online websites from Kos to DU revealsl a majority of Dems that believe gun control (in pretty much every form) is a "Long and Deeply held Democrat Principle".


Not surprising. What other party has been trying to keep guns out of the hands of African-Americans for the past 140-some years?
10.17.2008 8:48am
Melancton Smith:

If you certify that you have a gunsafe, you don't need an approved gun lock. Everybody should have a safe but if you don't have one, you can get an approved trigger lock for $10 or so. And you can bring the same one with you every time you pick up a gun.


Trigger locks are dangerous and should be tossed directly in the trash.

Show me a firearm that cannot be loaded and cocked without removing the trigger lock. Now you have a loaded and cocked firearm and need to fidder in the trigger guard to remove the lock.

Unsafe at any speed.
10.17.2008 9:51am
Melancton Smith:
OK, I mean 'fiddle' in the trigger guard.
10.17.2008 9:52am
Bill Twist:

What other party has been trying to keep guns out of the hands of African-Americans for the past 140-some years?



Well, hey, they know that "what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne".

If the Republican platform contained such a blatantly racially biased 'code phrase' in it, you can be the Democrats would have jumped all over it.
10.17.2008 10:03am
Bill Twist:
Melancton Smith:


Trigger locks are dangerous and should be tossed directly in the trash.



Absolutely.

A cardinal rule of gun safety is to keep your finger out of the trigger guard until you are ready to shoot. Put in a more colloquial and easy to remember way, "Keep your booger hook off the bang switch". It doesn't matter if you think it's unloaded or not, because accidental discharges have a sneaky way of happening with 'unloaded' guns.

Inserting the mechanical equivalent of a finger inside the trigger guard is just asking for trouble. All trigger locks that I have seen come with the same warning: "Do not use on a loaded gun". But another cardinal rule of gun safety is that you treat all guns as loaded ALL THE TIME.

Cable locks that go through the action, and thus prevent operation are safe, and thus a *MUCH* better option than using a trigger lock.
10.17.2008 10:14am
Yankev (mail):

Show me a firearm that cannot be loaded and cocked without removing the trigger lock. Now you have a loaded and cocked firearm and need to fidder in the trigger guard to remove the lock.
If you PROPERLY install a Master brand trigger lock on the Ruger Single Six, you can load it, but cannot cock it. But that's still a dangerous situation. And if you insert the trigger lock IMPROPERLY, you can still cock it.
10.17.2008 10:43am
rarango (mail):
Has the issue of second amendment rights even come up in interviews or the debates? I don't for a second believe it is a dead issue among the progressive wing of the democratic party. If the election goes the way I think it is, the democrats will start legislating restrictions to see how far Heller can be pushed.
10.17.2008 12:59pm
PC:
Perhaps the people in this neighborhood would have felt differently if the GOP didn't have one of its party offices sending out mailers with a picture of Obama juxtaposed with fried chicken, watermelon and ribs. Maybe there wouldn't be so much animosity towards the GOP ticket if the right leaning Fox News didn't call Senator Obama's wife a "baby mama." If GOP supporters weren't showing up to rallies with Obama monkey dolls, maybe the people in this neighborhood wouldn't feel so much animosity.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Pointing out that these things have happened is playing the "race card." The sad thing is Obama gave a great speech about race and how we need to move beyond the divisions of the past. Obama is certainly no race baiting Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. But people in the GOP insist on stoking the fires of racism.
10.17.2008 1:08pm
rarango (mail):
PC: ummmmm....check the thread you are posting on. This one is about guns and SA rights.
10.17.2008 1:11pm
PC:
Well, crap. Wrong thread. Sorry everyone, thought I was in the neighborhood sign thread.

My take on Obama's gun stances: Hate them. Absolutely hate them. I'm hoping the Dem's move away from gun control in order to win western states sticks around. It's a losing issue for Democrats and it should remain a losing issue for Democrats.
10.17.2008 1:12pm
PC:
If one of the front pagers here could just delete that first comment of mine, I would appreciate it. I don't want to derail this thread. Everyone else can ignore the comment. I'll post it in the other thread.
10.17.2008 1:15pm
kshankar:
Just out of curiosity..

I believe the last number I saw (correct me if I'm wrong) was that there are 82 million gun owners in the US, distributed unevenly..as there are about 215 million registered guns. That doesn't include the black markets and non-registered,etc. With the NRA being one of the most influential lobbies, what really are the chances of Obama revoking these rights? Will it be allowed? He has a lot of views which might not pass in this country (certain protectionist leaning views,for instance..lets not get started on that though, just an example). Could this be one? All I'm putting out is: how worried should we be?
10.17.2008 2:59pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
kshankar:
You don't "revoke" rights. You just tell the ATF that faking evidence against gun shop owners is okay. You define assault weapon more broadly and have a PR campaign about those awful military assault weapons nobody needs for hunting.
Bite-size chunks.
10.17.2008 3:21pm
Jim at FSU (mail):
kshankar, read my post above. Obama can do loads of things that will bankrupt the gun industry and pave the way for de facto bans without passing a single ban through congress. The ATF can be used to cause great inconvenience to gun stores and gun owners.

During the Clinton years, FFLs (gun dealers) decreased nearly 80 percent. No FFLs means no one can receive guns in interstate commerce. If Obama can drive all the FFLs out of business or make it so costly no one can afford guns, we lose.
10.17.2008 4:14pm
Brian G (mail) (www):
Obama has zero credibility on the Second Amendment. Anyone who thinks that he won't restrict it every bit as much as he can get away with is deluding themselves. He is a lock, stock, and barrel leftist. He isn't running for President to win and then all of a sudden change what he has been his entire life.
10.17.2008 4:17pm
LarryA (mail) (www):
Has the issue of second amendment rights even come up in interviews or the debates?
The debates are run by the mainstream media. They even avoided the issue when Sarah Palin was debating, despite gun ownership being one of the most common things they tag her with, and despite Joe Biden being one of the most anti-gun members of the Senate.

How much MSM coverage have you seen of Pearson's statement? Or of Obama trying to get NRA advertising pulled? Or of any other gun-related issue?
10.17.2008 5:36pm
Yankev (mail):

You just tell the ATF that faking evidence against gun shop owners is okay. You define assault weapon more broadly and have a PR campaign about those awful military assault weapons nobody needs for hunting.
You prosecute FFL holders for illegal sales because they wrote "Y" or "N" in the required form, instead of spelling out "yes" or "no". You count each "y" or "n" as a separate violation. This happened to a friend of mine.
10.17.2008 5:46pm
rarango (mail):
Larry A: my question, was, of course, rhetorical. And to me second amendment rights are equally as important as another bill of rights amendments. The silence on the issues speaks volumes.
10.17.2008 5:49pm
LarryA (mail) (www):
What is an assault weapon?
The technical military definition is an intermediate-caliber selective-fire (capable of full auto/burst fire) battle rifle.

The BATF classifies any firearm which will (or can easily be modified to) shoot more than one round with a single pull of the trigger, even if it's because the firearm is broken, as "fully automatic." These have been closely regulated for three-quarters of a century.

At the other extreme Washington D.C. considers any semiautomatic (the trigger must be released and squeezed again to fire another shot) rifle, shotgun, or pistol with a removable magazine, or with an internal magazine that holds more than ten rounds, as an "assault weapon" and bans civilian ownership.
You prosecute FFL holders for illegal sales because they wrote "Y" or "N" in the required form, instead of spelling out "yes" or "no".
Actually because the customer wrote "Y" or "N" and the dealer didn't make them start the six-page form over. The dealer is prohibited from filling in those answers.
Larry A: my question, was, of course, rhetorical.
And gave me a chance to sound off. Thanks.
10.17.2008 5:56pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Larry.
Just to technical this thing to death, I believe the military talks about "assault rifles". They differ from submachine guns in firing necked-down rifle cartridges instead of pistol rounds. I saw, many years ago, a fierce, shouting argument about whether the M2 carbine was an assault rifle. The cartridge was not necked down. But it wasn't a pistol bullet, either. You can see the problem that would cause people to get really, really upset. Some people.
An assault weapon is any weapon the ignorant think is scary. Then they gin up a definition. I recall that when Kerry was trying to macho up his campaign by bird hunting, he had a shotgun whose stock was faired into a pistol grip. He was violating a law. Pistol grips are EVIL, MAN. As are bayonet lugs.
A decent twenty-two bolty with a two-power scope with a large objective for dusk conditions will give more trouble than anybody would want to face. Especially if the guy with it is using his head.
10.17.2008 8:40pm
Tony Tutins (mail):

The NRA does little to help eradicate this ridiculous stereotype, what with its recent ad (that was brought up here earlier, might I add) with a hunter filling up his pick up truck, dressed in hunting gear.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Obama's not going to take your Citori away, as depicted in that ad.

But he has no problem keeping people from having access to handguns, because, obviously, handguns are not essential to hunters. (Yeah, I know you can hunt pig with a handgun, and I know about Thompson/Contenders.)
10.18.2008 12:38am
LarryA (mail) (www):
But he has no problem keeping people from having access to handguns, because, obviously, handguns are not essential to hunters.
Handguns are essential to self-defense. In addition to Heller you have the fact that forty of the fifty states have right to carry laws, and eight more states have restricted concealed carry. Only Wisconsin and Illinois ban concealed carry, and neither state bans handguns.

The only major city in the U.S. that currently bans handguns is Chicago, and their law had to be disguised as a registration law to pass. Plus, it probably won't survive Heller.

The Second Amendment isn't about hunting.
(Yeah, I know you can hunt pig with a handgun, and I know about Thompson/Contenders.)
In Texas you can hunt any legal game commonly taken with a rifle using any handgun that meets the caliber requirements.

There are also lots of shooting competitions with handguns.
10.18.2008 4:32am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Heller was a big deal for a reason. It wasn't a big deal in the face of ...nothing.
If there had not been strong efforts to restrict gun ownership, Heller would not have been brought, and Heller, once won, would not have been considered a Very Big Deal.
10.18.2008 9:52am
LarryA (mail) (www):
If there had not been strong efforts to restrict gun ownership, Heller would not have been brought, and Heller, once won, would not have been considered a Very Big Deal.
See: Third Amendment.
10.20.2008 12:20am