Obama supports "individual right" to keep and bear arms?

[SteveM]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080215/ap_on_el_pr/obama_5

The Yahoo story seems to suggest that Obama, a constitutional scholar, may have broken from the communitarian or militia-clause rationale for gun ownership and sided with the intent and interpretation of most constitutional scholars: the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. He still favors other weird restrictions, and it is unclear how he would now view a renewed assault weapons ban, but if he is talking individual rights, he may be trying to get out in front of Hillary. I have noted this possible tactical advantage some time ago and felt Obama might make the move. After all, he is looking at Wisconsin, Ohio, and Texas, big states with big populations who own guns.

What say you?

[jody]

1. BO is a political chameleon who goes along to get along. n/t

[earthlover]

8. Chameleon....that would be Hillary, hands down! TRIANGULATING....

[Tarc]

2. Well now. If he does believe that...

then that will be the first positive, substantive position I have seen from him so far.

Let's see if he keeps to it.

[laconicsax]

3. So I take it that

he no longer supports banning all semi-automatic firearms?

[SteveM]

5. He retrenched from that original position, but frankly, I don't know.

[MethuenProgressive]

4. If that's what he's been told to say, he'll say it.

That say I.

[sandnsea]

6. All rights are regulated

That's something that the 2nd Amendment folks just can't seem to get through their heads.

[Tarc]

10. Excuse me?

Care to explain what "I can't seem to get through my head" ? I support the individual right to bear arms as set by the 2nd amendment, but I also certainly want regulations in place to keep them out of hands of criminals and such.

[sandnsea]

11. Good. Obama does too.

I take it he will have your support?

[Tarc]

33. Do you ever have a post here that isn't an idiot strawman response?

You made an asinine assertion about gun rights supporters and regulation. Address that or don't waste my god damned time, please.

[sandnsea]

36. That's what the DC ruling said

Go tell Judge Silberman he's asinine.

"None of which suggests that the D.C. government is foreclosed from regulating the use and ownership of firearms. Indeed, Judge Silberman conceded that "the protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment."

Perhaps, said the court, D.C. could justify concealed-carry restrictions, the registration of firearms, proficiency testing, and no gun possession by felons or minors. But an across-the-board ban on all handguns, in all places, for all residents, isn't "reasonable."

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8133

[Boomer 50]

57. Absolutely not.

Banning firearms has absolutely nothing to do with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Obama supports banning all semi-automatic firearms. If he supported legislation that would enable citizens to defend themselves without fear of criminal prosecution then I'd support him. Unfortunately, his stance says to me that all gun owners are criminals in his eyes. I won't support that from anyone.

[SteveM]

14. Sandnsea, we were just talking about that on another thread...

Your right to keep and bear arms, especially in your home, is about as unfettered as the other BORs. But if you want to carry a concealed weapon, there is significant regulation in most states. Typically, a class on the legal issues surrounding the use of a firearm, a background check and time at the shooting range, shooting your gun.

If you don't follow these regs, supported by most 2A defenders, you don't get to legally carry a concealed weapon.

I know, Vermont doesn't count. (Their law doesn't even address concealed weapons, as far as I know.)

[sandnsea]

16. I think ccw is hysterical

They've got the most ardent gun advocates registering in every state -- doing the exact thing that every one of them thinks they're fighting. It cracks me the hell up.

[krispos42]

23. The pistol you carry concealed is not registered when you have a CCW permit

The state does not know which, or how many, guns a person with a CCW permit is carrying.

[sandnsea]

25. They know WHO has the guns

and that's all that really matters when they get ready to do their gun grabbing.

[sabre73]

26. You must not know a much about CCWs.

They can come for my license and that is it. It does not show what guns I own on the license, just that I have a permit to carry. It would be far easier for the grabbers to follow the list of registered firearms sold in each state to each SSN.

And all they can do is get ready to go gun grabbing but they will most likely go home empty handed.

[sandnsea]

28. pssht, you wish

They show up with a warrant and use your ccw as evidence, there go your guns.

[sabre73]

29. What guns? N/T

[sandnsea]

31. The ones they find

They have *your* name. Not mine.

[sabre73]

35. You assume WAY TOO much... LOL

Show me a gun with "my name" on it! You would be hard pressed to do so.

[sandnsea]

37. If you've got a CCW, they've got your name

That's all they would need to get a warrant and take your guns.

[sabre73]

40. WHAT GUNS?

They would get a warrant to search for guns (assuming we did away with the 4th amendment too). And I would let them search because I would have nothing to hide. However, they would still go home empty handed.

[sandnsea]

42. If you don't have any guns

then I don't know what you're doing in this thread. If you're planning on breaking the law and hiding your guns if the government requires you give them up, then you'd do that no matter what gun law was on the books. The point is, if the government is ever going to grab guns, they're going to go to the CCW holders first. You know it, or you wouldn't be spending all this time arguing about it.

[sabre73]

51. That is about the most.......

ignorant thing I have heard. You say "they're going to go to the CCW holders first. You know it, or you wouldn't be spending all this time arguing about it."

If I knew it then why would I argue it? Get real. I know that the opposite is true. Please remember that your opinion does not make fact; it is just an opinion.

The first place they would go would be serial numbers and Social security numbers. To think that they would go to CCW first is so blind! The permit does not indicate who owns what arms. It only tells that someone can carry arms in a concealed manner. I guess that there would be plenty of people out there that would like to spend billions of dollars going about it the ignorant way.

[ac2007]

61. Exactly

First, they'd use the 4473s already in Government possession from the records turned over to the BATF by gun dealers who are now out of business.

Next, they will use State-level "safe" weapon lists (read: illegal gun registries) to find the known guns in the state.

Then, they'll go to gun dealers still in business under the auspices of a annual inspection to copy 4473s in their possession. The ATF has already done this in technical violation of 18 USC 926(a).

Maybe after all that then they will use CCW lists. The only thing a CCW list tells you is the fact that the individual one is likely to possess a gun. It is not a guarantee.

[Boomer 50]

58. Do you really think that any cop in his or her right mind.....

Would go "gun grabbing" door to door? At some point, someone will insert that warrant sideways where the sun don't shine in that cop. The cop knows it, the citizens know it. Gun grabs are an anti-gun zealots fantasy. They don't think about the cops they are sending out to be shot up trying, but maybe they should. Or better yet, if the gun grabbers want to do door to door confiscations, they should put their money where their mouth is and do it themselves.

If we held the 2nd Amendment to the same standard as we do the 1st, there would be no gun bans at all and the only permits would be for use in a public forum. This is what Heller is most likely to bring to America, and it's a good thing.

[krispos42]

30. Than I take it you won't be advocating any registration plans, then? n/t

[sandnsea]

34. I don't care one way or the other

I just think it's funny that all the anti-registration people are already registered and don't even know it.

[krispos42]

24. Yes, they are

Where the line is is what is up for debate.

[ordinaryaveragegirl]

7. Guns are a touchy issue.

It's not realistic to say we can ban weapons, because there are people who purchase and use them for sport, or for self-defense, and we all know that. There does need to be a clearer line on what's available for sale to the public, and what should be strictly issued for law enforcement or other official use. On the one hand, you don't want to punish responsible gun owners, but you have to keep weapons out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. My first thought in all of this was of the tragedy that occurred at NIU this week. Given the psychological problems the suspected shooter had, he probably had no business possessing firearms. I'd love to see a stricter screening policy for anyone wanting to purchase such a weapon, so that people who are a higher risk don't pose a danger to themselves or others. You have to go through education on and instruction to be licensed to drive a car in many places, and the same should go for firearms, IMHO.

[L1A1Rocker]

9. Let see

Oboma says:

* he supports 2A BUT He supports the D.C. Ban
* he believs guns should be a local issue BUT He want Federal legislation to ban state CHLs


Yeah, I believe him alright. NOT

[sandnsea]

12. We keep porn from children

Cities can regulate where strip clubs and porn shops are located. Why can't they regulate gun ownership?

[sergeiAK]

19. Same reason they can't ban free speech

The DC ban is a ban. A ban directly violates the 2nd Amendment, regardless of what you think of "reasonable regulation", a ban is not a reasonable regulation by any stretch of the term. That's why Obama is a hypocrite here, saying he supports individual rights, then supporting the abolishment of those same rights.

[sandnsea]

21. Porn is a regulated form of speech

Some aspects of it are banned, same as some forms of gun ownership. There isn't anything hypocritical about it at all.

[sergeiAK]

22. Not comparable

DC has banned the keeping of all firearms in functional condition. This is a ban, on all functional firearms. The 2nd Amendment says that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The two are in direct conflict. This is not a "some forms" ban, this is a total ban.

This is not comparable to a ban on a small subset of speech that has been ruled unprotected due to obscene content.

Obama says he believes in an individual right, yet supports a law that disallows that right. He's lying somewhere, my bet is on his support of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right.

[sandnsea]

27. The ban was on handguns

Which is a subset as far as I'm concerned. You don't need a handgun to protect yourself.

[sergeiAK]

32. Do some research

There is a handgun ban (which bans a rather large subset of arms). There is also a law prohibiting assembled and functional rifles/shotguns. These two laws add up to equal a total ban.

Also, according to the US v Miller decision, arms that have a "militia use" are protected. This would include handguns, no?

[sandnsea]

38. No

Not in this day and age. A handgun isn't very useful for military purposes. If you can keep a rifle or shotgun that can be assembled when needed, then you've met the requirements of a "militia" reading of the 2nd Amendment. That's why the law suit didn't take that route.

[sergeiAK]

41. The military disagrees

We still issue handguns, therefore they have a military purpose. I'll trust the ranking command staff over you as to military usefulness of an arm. And the law made no exceptions to the requirement that it be disassembled. Therefore, no practice, no transport of a complete firearm, etc. Saying DC did not completely ban firearms is disingenuous at best, and IMO, an outright fallacy. Do you think that DC should be allowed to completely gut whichever amendment they see fit?

[sandnsea]

43. No, you do not routinely issue handguns

And if you're allowed to have a disassembled rifle, then that meets the "militia" standard which, again, is the reason that wasn't the basis of the court case.

As I've previously posted, the case did give cities the right to regulate guns anyway, so I think the gun activists will wish this case had never been brought.

[sergeiAK]

45. The US military does generally issue handguns

The US military issues a 9mm handgun to most combat troops. If you can't assemble that rifle, it's not very useful in a militia context, now is it? You can't practice with it, take it anywhere, nor is it useful for any other lawful purpose (ie self defense). In simple terms, DC is trying to destroy the 2nd Amendment within its borders. They would not be allowed to so heavily restrict the 1st Amendment, so why is the 2nd special?

[sandnsea]

46. No, not for combat purposes

That is just ridiculous, so ridiculous I'm not even going to debate it. Besides, if we apply the militia test strictly, then that opens the door to rocket launchers and missiles and clearly sane people do not want a country where we drive around with rocket launchers in the back of our pick-ups. In addition, the law did not require firearms be disassembled, a gun lock was sufficient. It was a stringent gun regulation law and I suspect the ruling allowing regulation will have communities taking a second look at how to apply the common sense guidelines this case allows.

[sergeiAK]

47. If not for combat purposes, then why?

As decoration? So the troops would feel good?

Handguns are often issued as a secondary/close quarters weapon for combat troops, or as a primary weapon for non-combat personnel who might still be attacked but can't carry a rifle due to other constraints.

As for common sense, it apparently isn't common. You deny the military issues weapons for "combat purposes". That is so utterly ridiculous I lack the words to describe it.

Saying that the DC law was "stringent regulation" that does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms is ludicrous. It sought to disallow the keeping of any effective arms.

Also, since you say militia purposes are the only reason to have a weapon, why can't I buy an M249 SAW, like the military uses? It has a clearly defined militia use. Your "common sense" regulations prevent me from having weapons suitable for militia use, but then you say the only valid reason to want a firearm is for militia use. Which one is it? Can I own a gun for any lawful purpose (such as hunting, self defense, target shooting, etc) or am I restricted to militia use? If the latter, why are the most suitable firearms banned?

You also have completely failed to address my questions. Dismissing it as "ridiculous" isn't a reasoned argument.

[sandnsea]

48. Yeah, for corpsman

not routine.

*I* didn't say militia purposes were the only reason to have a gun, YOU brought that argument into the debate.

Now you want to switch the argument, always happens with gun activists.

[sergeiAK]

49. Not just for corpsman

The M9 pistol is issued to a wide variety of troops. Combat troops, engineers, drivers, pilots, and so on. Do some more research.

You made mention of militia purposes, and the militia reasoning for having weapons. From this, I (apparently incorrectly) thought that you believed the 2nd Amendment applied to militia purposes and arms. If you (as you indicate here) hold that to be invalid, then what restrictions on the 2nd Amendment are allowed? None? Any? Somewhere in between?


Thanks for the stereotype of gun-rights people. I thought we were progressive enough to avoid stereotyping here?

[sandnsea]

52. You brought the militia into this, not me

You brought Miller into the discussion. I was responding to the case you made, that handguns should be allowed because the military needs them, so they meet the militia requirement. That's what you said. So don't go turning it around on me now. If you don't want a stereotype dumped on you, don't exhibit the behavior of the stereotype.

Handguns are not routinely issues in the military. Your own qualifications makes that clear.

[sergeiAK]

54. Yes, they are routine issue.

The military issues them to most combat troops. I gave examples, not qualifications. They're not issued to 100% of troops, nor are rifles.

Jebus. Do some research. Pistols are issued to a majority of US force, end of story.

As for the militia argument, I thought I had seen you refer to it up the thread. It was another poster, I apologize.

You still haven't taken a stance, what do you think is "reasonable regulation"? Did you miss that part?

[jmg257]

59. The "militia" purposes does intend that select fire weapons and pistols be the arms the people

should provide themselves with, it also secures the right to such arms from both State and federal infringements since the role of the Miltiias were two-fold - neither "state" entity could deny the other an effective militia - our freedom depends on it. Both types of firearms were quite common then, and are still QUITE common now in the militias/military.

The private use of arms for self-defense (i.e. outside of Militia duty) strengthens the right to handguns, and numerous other firearms outside of those "military arms in common use" (already secured thanks to the militia observation). Self-defense does NOT begin & end at your front door. An unalienable right includes the means to that right. Congress can certainly set out guidelines as to what the most effective arms we should keep and bear for duty, but they have no constitutional power to ban or control our arms beyond that.

[sabre73]

39. YOU don't need a handgun maybe

But don't be so pompous as to say that NO ONE needs a handgun for protection. That is just plain ignorant. There are three very important people alive here today because they needed a handgun for protection and had one so please try a LOGICAL argument next time.

[sandnsea]

44. There are many means of protection

A gun isn't the only means, and in many situations, it's not the best means. People all over the world manage quite well without everyone being armed. There's no reason we can't figure out how to do it here.

[sabre73]

50. Maybe we could use swords? nt

[sabre73]

53. There are many means of protection that is very true.

But a gun trumps all other methods. So why would I limit my defenses? In self defense I always start with verbal communication first (so long as the threat is not using lethal force himself), If the threat continues to escalate I will use verbal commands with compliance techniques. If the threat persists then I will gradually increase my self defense to NON-Lethal then to Lethal force if need be.

Who in their right mind says "hmm. Well, I want to live but not if I have to fight to do so."? Or "Yeah, the guy is raping my wife but I guess it could be worse; The guy doing it could get hurt in the process of me doing what is right and that would be terrible!"

And if you retort that these things do not actually happen in real life then please, don't waste our time with any more of your posts because it would be evident that we are talking to an absolute mindless drone or a child who has never stepped foot outside of their house or seen a news broadcast on T.V.

[bossy22]

55. tell that to police

i guess we shouldnt arm police then- because they claim their sidearm is for defense

Handguns when used properly are the best personal defense tool in most situations- keyword "most"

[McSmythe]

60. Not only sidearms for defense.....

but the select fire M4 carbine in the trunk of the cruiser too.

[jody]

56. Then why do over 850,000 sworn law enforcement officers choose handguns for self-defense? Answer is

handguns are the most effective, efficient tool for self-defense.

LEOs keep and carry handguns as a privilege granted by government whereas law-abiding citizens keep and carry handguns as an exercise of their natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right to defend self.

[gerrilea]

13. Thank god someone keeping score here about Obama!

[SteveM]

15. Ah, but now may be the time to smoke him out! (nt)

[jody]

18. I'm betting his latest position change on the 2nd will be fuel to portray him as the charlatan on

issues he is.

He's done little or nothing and like a chameleon adopts what ever political camouflage that seems useful at the moment.

I'm surprised he didn't just say "present" when asked his position on the right to keep and bear arms.

[bossy22]

17. i dont think

he'd really support that now

[Plague]

20. Line stance...

"I support it, but I also want to regulate it."

This stance is pretty much standard issue across the board for politicians. It's just a vague statement that is intended to make supporters and opponents of the issue being discussed assume the best possible opinion in regards to the politician, and it allows the politician in question to avoid taking a definite stand on the issue. Obama isn't the first person to do it and won't be the last. I believe Edwards gave a similar response last year when pressed on the issue.

[DemOkie]

62. Forgive a newbie, but

Since Richardson bailed out, I have been struggling with who to support. Sen. Obama was an unknown quantity, and Sen. Clintons ( or at least her husbands) record on RKBA left me cold. Lately I have been leaning Obama.

My question is:

If Sen. Obama's is unsatisfactory to gun owners, who does that leave? Sen. Clinton?

[ac2007]

63. It leaves McCain or focus on Congress

You can vote for McCain or stick with Obama.

In such a decision, I would say focus on Congress and elect pro-RKBA candidates. Even a bad President can't pass legislation. That's Congress' job. Presidential desires are simply that if Congress listens to the will of the People and not pass unpopular legislation.

This is why contacting your reps is so important. Make yourself heard. It does work.

[mac2]

64. I agree.