Who is advising HRC and Barack on the Second Amendment? Anyone?

[SteveM]

Both candidates have lousy records on 2A, we know that. But what of the future when both candidates know the "gun issue" will become stronger in the general election? Have they talked to Second Amendment Democrats, the Oregon Democrats' gun caucus, DU's Forums: Guns? It seems that at a minimum such conversation could mitigate the damage of past records and prevent stepping into the stereotypes promulgated by anti-2A groups and individuals.

Does anyone know who is advising these guys?

[bowens43]

1. Barak doesn't need an advisor.

The man is a Constitutional scholar, besides, as much as you would like it to be, guns are not going to be an issue in the GE. Americans overwhelmingly support stricter gun controls.

[SteveM]

3. Not good enough. See the history of Laurence Tribe...

For years gun-controllers relied on his "militia clause" or "communitarian outlook" as the raison d'etat for the Second Amendment, which essentially afforded NO individual rights, but rights only derived from a state's need to regulate a militia.

Funny thing happened on the way to his latest edition: He changed his mind and agreed that 2A recognizes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Tribe is considered a leading constitutional scholar, but he was wrong. To declare that one needs no adviser because of his status as a "scholar" is sublimely arrogant and foolish.

Your mantra "...guns are not going to be an issue in the GE" is like the Wizard telling Dorothy "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" or the South Vietnam parliament jockeying for portfolio in 1975, even as helicopters were departing from the embassy rooftop. You and the candidates need good advice and need to deal with the issue in an up-front manner, the sooner the better.

FYI, constitutional provisions are not subject to popular sentiment except as expressed in the amendment process (Article V), and
Americans overwhelmingly support the individual right to keep and bear arms.

[TPaine7]

5. Obama is a constitutional scholar...

who does not support any of his anti-gun policy preferences with legal analysis, legal history, or criminology.

He admits that the "collective rights" position is BS, but he pleads ignorance on the Second Amendment and has admitted that he hasn't specialized in it or read the Heller briefs (the latter he said in the last debate). His anti concealed carry position is based solidly in intuition, bereft (as far as his published statements are concerned) of any anchor in reality. The "I think" justification is only reasonable in the absence of solid science.

He pretends that the two realities are hunting traditions and kids getting shot in Chicago--people like Parker and Heller don't exist in his imaginary world.

Obama is a constitutional scholar whose Second Amendment scholarship apparently goes no deeper than "the Second Amendment does not forbid any of my policy preferences."

And I like Obama, otherwise.

This does have me questioning his intellectual honesty and constitutional integrity, however.

[WWFZD]

9. Not so fast my friend

I'm waiting to see what the Democratic candidates have to say about their support of the 2A in the GE.
I'm not saying I'll not vote for the Dem candidate, the only way that could happen is if HC or BO come out in favor of egregious new gun control legislation.
If it's a minor infringement on my 2A rights I'll probably vote Dem, if they come out with a drastic gun control stance I'll vote for Johny Mac.
Call me a single issue voter, I couldn't care less. To me, the 2A is a litmus test, does the candidate want to govern or to rule me.
And I know that many Ohioans think exactly as I do.
As a rough guess, 30-40% of the populace is going to vote along party lines, that leaves 20-40% who will evaluate the candidates positions on certain key issues.
The RKBA is very important.

[virginia mountainman]

12. What a load of horse shit...

If what you say is true, than why do most politicians who advocate gun control tend to have very short careers?

Please back up what you say with fact please.

[Redneck Socialist]

13. They do?

Americans overwhelmingly support stricter gun controls.

They why do folks who support increased gun control pretty consistently loose elections?

[Politically Homeless]

32. Re: They why do folks who support increased gun control pretty consistently loose elections?

>> Americans overwhelmingly support stricter gun controls.

> They why do folks who support increased gun control pretty consistently loose elections?

Because we gun owners vote at a much higher rate than the antis and we tend to vote the issue. We also put our money where our mouths are at a much higher rate than the antis do. Compare membership numbers in groups like the NRA and GOA to membership in groups like the Brady Campaign and MMM. IIRC, the Brady Campaign no longer even makes their membership numbers public because it's embarassing how few people belong.

Incidentally, the fact that most Americans support stricter gun controls matters not one iota. There are certain unaliable rights which are simply not subject to the democratic process, and RKBA is one of them.

[bossy22]

16. actually

the american public has no clue what our laws are- many of the people who want stricter controls advocate the stuff that is already law- like background checks and controlling automatic weapons.

[Longtooth]

18. What?!

Americans overwhelmingly want MORE gun control?! That is contrary to every poll I've seen on the subject. And before you start the "name your source" BS I'd like to see yours.

[jmg257]

19. Latest polls I saw say just the opposite...

Story last year from CNN...

...
Support for gun control dropping

Public support for stricter gun laws has been declining since the 1990s, according to the Gallup Poll. In January 2007, the number of people who supported stricter gun laws was at 49 percent, less than a majority for the first time since at least 1990.
Why such a decline? It seems related to the steady drop in the nation's violent crime rate since 1994. After a shocking incident like the one at Virginia Tech, public anger over gun violence rises. So does support for gun control measures.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, issued a statement saying, "I believe this will re-ignite the dormant effort to pass common-sense gun regulations in this nation.''
But public anger is not usually sustained very long, whereas gun owners remember every gun control vote as a threat to their rights. Gun owners vote the issue. Supporters of gun control typically don't. So politicians believe they will pay a price at the polls if they support new guns laws, even when most voters agree with them. When it comes to public opinion, intensity matters. Not just numbers.
...


And more recently:

LOS ANGELES, Aug. 21 /PRNewswire/ — A recent Zogby International poll question conducted for Associated Television News found that 66% of the American voting public in a recent poll of 1,020 Americans from August 8-11, 2007 (margin of error of +/- 3.1%) found that the American public rejects the notion that new gun control laws are needed.

The poll asked: “Which of the following two statements regarding gun control comes closer to your own opinion?

Statement A: There needs to be new and tougher gun control legislation to help in the fight against gun crime.

Statement B: There are enough laws on the books. What is needed is better enforcement of current laws regarding gun control.

Conversely, only 31% of the American public think new and tougher gun control legislation are needed.
...

[benEzra]

25. That's what the same gun-404 strategists said in 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004.

The ban-more-guns thing was finally dropped in '06, helping to clear the way for pro-gun Dems to turn the Senate blue.

I'm hoping guns are NOT a big issue in 2008. But supporting new bans will make them an issue, which is why we do NOT need to return to the 1994-2004 approach.

[jody]

26. BO taught a course in constitutional law and now he's a "Constitutional scholar"! What a joke.

I taught a graduate PhD course in mathematics, does that make me a mathematical scholar?

I also taught a graduate PhD course in economics, does that make me an economics scholar?

Where are the papers BO published in referred journals on constitutional law?

Why do BO's supporters keep trying to invent things for BO's resume, has he done nothing of significance in his life?

[klyon]

2. anti-2a groups?

Who are you referring to?
I thought the discussion was about the interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I thought it was about militias vs personal protection rights.

I don't think many people would say the government has no place to regulate weapons.

[SteveM]

4. My goodness. Try Sarah Brady...

When she was Chairperson of Handgun Control, Inc. advocated outlawing ownership of firearms for self-defense; i.e. "the only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes."

A "who"? Try Michael Dukakis who said, as Governor of Massachusetts: "I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state."

There are many more. Read: Kates & Kleck, The Great American Gun Debate, 1997, a good primer.

Whether or not you thing the discussion is "...about militias vs personal protection rights," Barack Obama went further and tried to explain why small-town Pennsylvanians are "bitter" and "cling to guns." This promulgates a well-worn stereotype forged by anti-gun organizations and individuals. Some examples from Kates and Kleck:

"No doubt anti-gun crusaders find emotional satisfaction in reviling those who oppose their views as sexually warped 'bulletbrains' who engage in 'simply beastly behavior,' 'gun lunatics silence sounds of civilization,' the 'pusher's best friend,' 'terrorists,' 'psychotics,' 'hunters who drink beer, don't vote and lie to their wives about where they were all weekend,' or characterize the murder of children as 'another slaughter co-sponsored by the National Rifle Association.'" Ignorance breeds prejudice -- and stereotypes.

Obama and Hillary both need good advice on where they are wrong and how to mitigate damage in the GE.

[klyon]

6. but who wants to get rid of the second amendment?

Hand gun control is not about the repeal of the second amendment that I know about. I am not sure the Constitution speaks to gun ownership by civilians.

[TPaine7]

7. The Second Amendment is about citizens. . .

The history clearly show it.

For a fairly brief overview, hitting only the high points of legal history, see obamaonsecond.com . The history of the Supreme Court interpretation as well as the history of the 14th Amendment as well as statements by the Founders and JFK among others show this clearly.

If you want more exhaustive scholarship, see Yale professor Akhil Amar's "The Bill of Rights." There is no shadow of a doubt that the Second Amendment is about citizens and their guns.

[klyon]

8. then the discussion must be over

I will do some research. I have seen some discussion of your position. Frankly I don't know. Regulation is the question, it seems to me. What weapons can we own and how can we use them? Or does this only apply to guns that fire bullets? If people should be allowed to own any weapon, we have big problems with legislation already passed.

I think the second amendment is about forming militias. Some of the Founding Fathers did not want a standing army, so as I understand it, they wanted everyone to be defenders of our country and when the alarm sounds we all were require to get our guns and fight the invaders, whether the guns were hanging over the fireplace or in an armory. I don't believe they meant for everyone to carry concealed hand guns and enforce the law.

[TPaine7]

10. Though law abiding citizens have the right to enforce the law,

it's called "citizen's arrest", that is not the purpose of carrying concealed handguns. The purpose is to protect life and limb.

However, if you subdue a felon in your efforts to protect life and limb, you are perfectly entitled to hold him at gunpoint for the police to prevent him harming yourself or another. If such a citizen's arrest is termed "law enforcement", so be it.

You are right about the Founders not wanting a standing army and thinking a militia was necessary. The Second Amendment uses this as a justification for protecting the pre-existing right to arms. But according to the Supreme Court, the right to arms predated the Second Amendment and in no way depends on it for its existence. I quote the source (Cruikshank) with a link in my open letter to Obama at obamaonsecond.com .

The modern theory of militia only gun rights flies in the face of history. It was invented in the 20th century:

Through the efforts of Stephen Halbrook we know that the collective-rights argument--the one that proclaims that you have no rights--first appears out of nowhere in the federal judiciary in U.S. vs Tot, as he notes in his section later in this book (citations omitted here).

The "collective rights" theory originated in U.S. v. Tot, (1943). The historical references in Tot simply do not support its thesis. See Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed 189-191 (1984). Subsequent cases merely string cite to earlier cases which are ultimately traceable to Tot.

Source: Supreme Court Gun Cases: Two Centuries of Gun Rights Revealed, by David B. Kopel, Stephen P. Halbrook, Alan Korwin, page 12.

[virginia mountainman]

11. What gets me about these "antis"

Their is no way to get around the fact, that the Bill of Rights, are basically a list of restrictions against government power.....

So how can it be argued that the 2nd is a restriction on the people??

[jmg257]

20. The "discussion" about the 2nd IS over - recent lawmakers agreed, and

re-iterated the intent of the 2nd as the Law of the Land (again). From Federal Public Law (10/26/2005) No: 109-92:

"...
"Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms."
...

The discussion will however continue on the level of "compelling interest" restrictions the govt can place on this personal right, and the level of scrutiny required to pass / justify such restrictions.

[gorfle]

21. The second amendment WAS about militias...

I think the second amendment is about forming militias. Some of the Founding Fathers did not want a standing army, so as I understand it, they wanted everyone to be defenders of our country and when the alarm sounds we all were require to get our guns and fight the invaders, whether the guns were hanging over the fireplace or in an armory. I don't believe they meant for everyone to carry concealed hand guns and enforce the law.

The second amendment was about forming militias. The idea was to have a decentralized military system, made up of the people of the states and lead by officers from those states, to defend liberty against aggression both from without and within. It wasn't just about fighting invaders.

Unfortunately, militias as our founding fathers intended to exist no longer exist. They were eliminated in the early 1900s with the passing of the Dick Act, which federalized the state militias and formed the National Guard. Now the Dick Act did provide also for the Unorganized Militia (all able-bodied men aged 17-45 not in the Organized Militia), but the well-regulated militias our founding fathers intended no longer exist.

This does not mean, however, that the reasons they wanted such decentralized military forces to exist are no longer valid. And since the militias spoken of in the 2nd no longer exist, but The People spoken of do, in my view the right must fall to The People.

Now we might argue that the second amendment wasn't intended to allow for personal concealed carry. But since CCW permit holders have been demonstrated to be more law-abiding than your average citizen, and less likely to cause collateral damage than the police when they use their weapons, why worry about it?

[Will E Orwontee]

14. You are right!

klyon wrote:

I am not sure the Constitution speaks to gun ownership by civilians.

You are absolutely 110% correct that the body of the Constitution is completely silent on the private citizen and his/her private arms.

No power was ever granted to the federal government to impact the private arms of the citizen so guess what?

NONE EXISTS!

The 2nd Amendment has but one purpose and action; forbid the federal government to exercise powers that it does not possess.

------------------------------------

"I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"

Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist 84

[krispos42]

15. It depends entirely on the types of restrictions proposed

Requiring criminal and mental-health background checks isn't an unreasonable infringement on the Second as long as they are done in a prompt manner, and helps to keep firearms out of criminal hands. Just fer'instance.

The question is about what is 'reasonable', and if is 'reasonable', is it effective? Just because it can be done, should it be done?

[bossy22]

17. the SCOTUS

is going to tell us very soon....about 1-2 months and we shall know

[Tejas]

29. before Fascism became fashionable, there used to be a time

"I don't think many people would say the government has no place to regulate weapons."


when government didn't regulate weapons. Then the carpetbaggers showed up and everything went in the toilet.

[slackmaster]

22. They hired an expert consultant

[iiibbb]

23. If it weren't for the war...

... and it's affect on our economy the 2nd amendment would weigh a lot heavier on my thought processes this election.

I will just have to trust that the probable outcome of the Heller case and the continued expansion of concealed carry laws will insulate us from the stupidity of gun legislation.

I think Obama will largely have his hands full with regards to health care, the economy, energy, and the war. In that regard I think he's the best candidate.

If it weren't for Bush and in any other year I'd probably not vote for him because of his 2nd amendment beliefs.

[SteveM]

24. Ironic that a right-wing court may bail out a "liberal" political party...

That said, the issue may still come up in the GE. Both Democratic candidates have brought up gun issues repeatedly, sometimes to get primary votes, sometimes to get future GE votes.

Recently, I spoke with 3 Democratic activists who complained bitterly (at the same time!) to me that the "gun issue" was NOT and issue and was only used to obfuscate the importance of other issues. I agreed, but asked why they still hold their positions on gun-control (all three supported an AWB; one other supported more than that). Their answer was they weren't going to do anything bringing up the AWB. But I asked: "If the Democrats gain big majorities and the presidency, and the AWB comes up again, would you support it?" They said yes. I further asked: "will the issue be big in the General Election?" They said yes.

They didn't seem to realize that this is precisely what not only the GOP but many "fence sitters" expected of standard post-LBJ "liberal thought" and may vote accordingly.

They ain't part of the solution, they're part of the problem. But they want to keep it quiet.

[jody]

27. Exit polls for the PA Dem primary showed 35% of the voters had guns in their home. 63% of them voted

for Clinton and 37% for Obama.

See EXIT POLLS: Pennsylvania, page 2

[derby378]

28. Amendment II Democrats hasn't heard a peep out of either Clinton or Obama...

...although Obama has received the endorsement of Ray Schoenke, president of the American Hunters and Shooters Association - an organization that is pro-hunter, but, from what I gather, not exactly pro-gun.

[facepalm]

33. AHSA is an anti-gun organization

The AHSA was a failed 2004 era attempt to divide the gun vote and (I am guessing) provide a smokescreen for Kerry's long anti-gun record. The AHSA is partly staffed by anti-gun activists that have been part of the gun control movement for decades. The balance of AHSA's workforce were DLC staffers (though that connection appears to have been slowly covered up over the past 4 years). AHSA's job is basically to endorse the Democratic candidate in every election, with the sort of unspoken assumption that the NRA will be endorsing the Republican candidate. To the extent that we continue to nominate die-hard anti-gunners, the AHSA continues to function as an anti-gun organization.

I think that this does us a pretty big disservice, especially when you consider that Bush is not pro-gun by any stretch of the imagination (the older Bush was actually anti-gun) and we rejected many outstanding NRA A-rated candidates like Bill Richardson and Howard Dean in the meantime. Groups like the AHSA are only "necessary" so long as we continue to nominate candidates that suck on this issue. It wouldn't have taken a Democratic version of Charlton Heston to steal the NRA endorsement from Bush, just someone that didn't suck on the issue.

And the most depressing part of all this is that if you look at the party insiders and the rising stars, you can't find any pro-gunners anywhere near the presidency anytime soon. So I really have to wonder where we are going to find pro-gun candidates to start running against the republicans.

[Will E Orwontee]

30. The primary question of this thread remains unanswered

Obama was interviewed on gun issues by the Chicago Sun-Times and printed yesterday (RE: the explosion of gun violence there).

Nothing new but he again demonstrates how uninformed he is.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/914970,CST-NWS-obama25.article

[jmg257]

31. Well that was disheartening to read. Especially the last few points. nt

[facepalm]

34. that is frustrating

I realize he is saying that out of ignorance, but it almost feels like he is daring gun owners to vote for McCain. The NRA is going to have a field day with what he has said so far, and we've got months until the general election season begins.