Archive for the ‘gun rights’ Category

JC at Left in the West got himself all worked up over an article in the Denver Post that dares suggest that guns are litmus test issue in Montana. If he’s concerned about the big city folk not understanding the demographics of the state, maybe he should start his conversation with his big city Governor who, you’ll remember, told the press in April that McCain would win Montana on one issue.

While he thinks either Obama or Clinton running on his or her own has a 50-50 shot of winning the White House against presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, Schweitzer doesn’t think either Democrat can take Montana.

Asked why not, he had a one word answer: “Guns.”

Read the whole article. And then some commentary. And some more commentary.

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…

Goal!!!!

What too much?

Today, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling that upheld an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. For more information, connect to the SCOTUSBlog or SCOTUS Wiki.

Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington’s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one’s home, and a requirement that any gun — except one kept at a business — must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place. The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed.

It is a great day to be an American. Feel free to comment below…

 

Just a friendly reminder to stock up on your canned goods, water filters and ammo.

There’s a lot riding on the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller scheduled for tomorrow, and you might be fighting for the Independent Nation of Montana.

I wonder which side Max Baucus would fight on…

Last night, I was watching Keith Olbermann’s Countdown on MSNBC when I got the shock of my life. Before me was Hillary Clinton telling the story of how her father taught her to shoot a rifle when she was little girl and following the telling with a passionate defense of my right to possess a firearm. Given Hillary Clinton’s record on this issue, a zero from Gun Owners of America, an F from the National Rifle Association and a 100% from the Brady Campaign, I was stunned by her comments.

She considers possession of a firearm a right? She understands my passion about the issue? She respects that many Americans pass the lessons and responsibilities of proper gun ownership onto their children as part of their heritage?

Is this not the same Hillary Clinton who in 2000 wanted every handgun in America registered and the records kept in a national database? Who in 1999 wanted to require that guns and ammo be stored separately (vastly limiting their effectiveness for self-defense)? Who voted against legislation that would have prevented victims of crime from suing gun manufacturers?

The hypocrisy is overwhelming.