Big Sky Cairn

In the past, Obama has said that he believes in an individual right to possess a firearm. However, Obama’s position on the constitutionality of Washington D.C.’s gun law, which fully bans ownership of handguns not registered prior to 1976 and forces long guns to be kept unloaded and disassembled (so helpful in an emergency), is less clear.

In November, 2007, an Obama aide told The Chicago Tribune that Obama “believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.”

The Obama camp is now disavowing that statement as an inaccurate representation of the Democratic Presidential hopeful’s views. According to the Obama camp the aide misrepresented the Senator’s position on the constitutionality of the DC Gun Ban.

Okay, I can see how that might happen. So, what does the candidate himself have to say?

In the past, Obama has “artfully side stepped” the question, telling ABC News’s Charlie Gibson:

“Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven’t listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence.”

Really? I haven’t read the briefs? What a cop out. Bob Novak was also unable to get a definitive answer.

Obama believes that a municiplaity has the right to enact common sense gun laws. But when he was asked if a 32-year complete ban on the possession of handguns and the requirement that long guns be kept inoperable was a common sense regulation, the Senator demurred.

However, Obama has been very supportive of a Chicago city ordinance that includes a complete ban on handgun ownership. While in the Illinois State Senate he voted against legislation that prevented Chicago from prosecuting city residents who used handguns to defend themselves in their own homes arguing that the city had a right to impose these restrictions for public good. But now that the Supreme Court has called DC’s handgun ban unconstitutional, Chicago will be next on the block.

Shortly after the Heller decision was handed down, Republican presidential candidate John McCain came out with a statement praising the courts decision. He also put out a statement saying that in light of the Heller decision, Chicago’s ban is unconstitutional.

As for Barack Obama’s position on this morning’s decision, we’re three hours in and there is nothing from the Obama camp. My guess is that they’re reading Scalia’s opinion trying to figure out how to defend his chronic support of Chicago’s laws in light of Heller. I’ll post a link to his statement when and if his camp releases it.

On a related note, Cody asked me earlier if the Heller decision means D.C. residents can run out and buy guns today. The answer is no, they cannot. The District government will take several weeks to announce what its new (SCOTUS compliant) regulations will be. Until then, residents will be governed by the old rules.

And just because it’s funny, here is D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty’s quote on the Supreme Court decision.

“I’m disappointed in the Court’s ruling and believe introducing more handguns into the District will mean more handgun violence,” said Mayor Fenty. “But I want to emphasize that at this moment, our gun laws remain in effect. It may be several weeks before there are changes to announce.”

So, he concedes the point that the ban has done nothing to keep criminals from having guns, which I’m guessing was the reason for the draconian laws in the first place. So, this big city Mayor admits that the ban is a failure but wants to keep law abiding citizens from owning guns anyway. Awesome. I can’t wait to see what this guy thinks is a”common sense” SCOTUS compliant regulation.

**Update** Obama’s statement.  He does little sidestep…

I’ve always heard banter from the left that Obama isn’t going to take your guns. Well they’re right, he won’t take ‘em, he’ll just appoint liberal judges to do his bidding. And with a narrow 5-4 decision, the last thing us gun owners want is liberal replacements.

I don’t detect the contradiction in Obama’s position that you seem to. He (and I) both agree that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms, but not even Scalia argues that this tosses out all gun restrictions. I haven’t read the full opinion, but Scalia doesn’t appear to provide clear guidance on exactly what sort of gun laws might be upheld, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing from a judge’s point of view. His job is to figure out what the Constitution allows, not what the law ought to be. While Second Amendment absolutists may be rejoicing, Obama, evidently a pretty good lawyer, is understandably reluctant to stake out a clear position so early in such a murky debate. That’s the difference between a judge, an ideologue and a policy maker.