2nd Amendment @ MindSay

Friday, June 06, 2008
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3991

On the Second Amendment,

Don’t Believe Obama!The presidential primary season is finally over, and it is now time for gun owners to take a careful look at just where apparent nominee Barack Obama stands on issues related to the Second Amendment. During the primaries, Obama tried to hide behind vague statements of support for “sportsmen” or unfounded claims of general support for the right to keep and bear arms.

But his real record, based on votes taken, political associations, and long standing positions, shows that Barack Obama is a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties. Don’t listen to his campaign rhetoric! Look instead to what he has said and done during his entire political career.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1

FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.2

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.5

FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.6

FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.

FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.7

FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”8

FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.9

FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.10

FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.11

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.13

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.14

FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month sales restrictions.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.9


1. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 219, July 2, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00219)

2. Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996. The responses on this survey were described in “Obama had greater role on liberal survey,” Politico, March 31, 20087. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html)

3. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 217, Kennedy amendment July 2, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00217)

4. David Wright, Ursula Fahy and Sunlen Miller, "Obama: 'Common Sense Regulation' On Gun Owners' Rights," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com, 2/15/08. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/obama-common-se.html)

5. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2004 SB 2165, vote 20.

6. “Fact Check: No News In Obama's Consistent Record.” Obama ’08, December 11, 2007. (http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/11/fact_check_no_news_in_obamas_c.php)

7. “Candidates' gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Wednesday, April 2, 2008, and "Keyes, Obama Are Far Apart On Guns," Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_560181.html)

8. 1998 Joyce Foundation Annual Report, p. 7. (http://www.joycefdn.org/pdf/98_AnnualReport.pdf)

9. “Obama and Gun Control,” The Volokh Conspiracy, taken from the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999. (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml)

10. Illinois Senate, May 5, 2002, SB 1936 Con., vote 26.

11. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2003, SB 2163, vote 18.

12. “Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control,” Radio Iowa, Sunday, April 22, 2007. (http://learfield.typepad.com/radioiowa/2007/04/clinton_edwards.html)

13. Chicago Tribune blogs, “Barack Obama: NIU Shootings call for action,” February 15, 2008, (http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/barack_obama_comments_on_shoot.html)

14. Barack Obama campaign website: “As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment . . .” (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/#crime-and-law-enforcement.)

Copyright 2008, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

Department of the Interior Extends Deadline for Comments Regarding Right-to-Carry in National Parks and Wildlife Refuges Until August 8

Like a quarterback taking a knee in the fourth quarter, two of Congress's most ardent opponents of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms are trying to run out the clock on efforts to enhance your right to self-defense in our national parks and wildlife refuges.

For two months, we have been asking NRA members and gun owners to submit comments in support of allowing law-abiding citizens to carry their legally-owned firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges -- and tens of thousand of you have done so. The deadline to submit comments expired on June 30 -- or so we thought.

Rather than closing the proscribed comments period as scheduled and moving toward finalizing this federal regulation, U.S. Senator Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) and U.S. Representative Raul Grijalva (D-Arizona), succeeded in delaying the implementation of the final rule by bullying the Department of the Interior (their respective congressional subcommittees have oversight of national parks) to extend the deadline for comments an additional 30 days! In a letter to Secretary Kempthorne, Senator Akaka and Representative Grijalva asked that the public comment period be extended, citing the recent decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller.

In truth, however, now that the Supreme Court has affirmed that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, it is more important than ever that we move toward final resolution on this matter and extend the most basic right of self-defense to law-abiding citizens visiting national parks and refuges.

The goal of their strategy is clear. Extending the public comment period amounts to a blatant and intentional stalling tactic; further pushing back resolution on this matter, possibly until after the election, into a new Administration. This needless extension will also allow opponents of carrying guns in national parks (like the Humane Society of the U.S. and the National Parks Conservation Association) to rally their troops to express their opposition to this commonsense proposal.

While we disagree with the decision to extend the comments period on this issue, it is now more important than ever that we give the anti-gunners what they profess to want-additional comments. Gun owners, Right-to-Carry permit holders, and all Second Amendment supporters must deluge the Department of the Interior with comments in support of this proposal! The new deadline for submitting comments is August 8, 2008.

Please submit your comments on-line at:
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=SubmitComment&o=090000648066022a

Or in writing to:

Public Comments Processing
Attn: 1024-AD70
Division of Policy and Directives Management
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222
Arlington, VA 22203

Please act today and forward this message and request to your family, friends, and fellow firearm owners!

--NRA-ILA

Really? Now they're telling you what can and cannot say? Jesus Christ, I'm glad I got away from that area!

Gag on 2nd Amendment Is City’s Aim in Guns Suit
By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN , Staff Reporter of the Sun | May 9, 2008
http://nysun.com/news/new-york/gag-2nd-amendment-city-s-aim-guns-suit

Lawyers for Mayor Bloomberg are asking a judge to ban any reference to the Second Amendment during the upcoming trial of a gun shop owner who was sued by the city. While trials are often tightly choreographed, with lawyers routinely instructed to not tell certain facts to a jury, a gag order on a section of the Constitution would be an oddity.

“Apparently Mayor Bloomberg has a problem with both the First and the Second amendments,” Lawrence Keane, the general counsel of a firearms industry association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said.

The trial, set to begin May 27, involves a Georgia gun shop, Adventure Outdoors, which the city alleges is responsible for a disproportionate number of the firearms recovered from criminals in New York City. The gun store’s owner, Jay Wallace, says his store abides by Georgia and federal regulations and takes steps to avoid selling firearms to gun traffickers. Mr. Wallace’s store is one of 27 out-of-state gun shops sued by New York City, and the first to go to trial.

City lawyers, in a motion filed Tuesday, asked the judge, Jack Weinstein of U.S. District Court in Brooklyn, to preclude the store’s lawyers from arguing that the suit infringed on any Second Amendment rights belonging to the gun store or its customers. In the motion, the lawyer for the city, Eric Proshansky, is also seeking a ban on “any references” to the amendment.

“Any references by counsel to the Second Amendment or analogous state constitutional provisions are likewise irrelevant,” the brief states.
Many Americans believe that the Second Amendment provides an individual the right to own a gun. Others believe that it provides no right to private gun ownership, but gives states the power to keep militias.
In a recent court deposition, Mayor Bloomberg said he believed “the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights gives you the right to keep and bear arms.” But in a recent brief to the Supreme Court, lawyers for Mr. Bloomberg argued that the amendment “was not intended to vest armed power in citizens acting outside of any governmental military effort — either federal or state.”

In a statement sent via e-mail to The New York Sun, the city’s criminal justice coordinator, John Feinblatt, said the issue at the upcoming Adventure Outdoors trial “isn’t the Constitution but whether the respondents broke federal firearms laws.”

“The right to bear arms has nothing to do with whether the respondents made straw sales,” Mr. Feinblatt said.

A straw sale occurs when gun dealers sell to someone making the purchase on behalf of another — often someone with a felony record, who is ineligible to own guns. The city sent an undercover team to simulate a straw purchase at Adventure Outdoors. Lawyers for the gun store say the two hidden cameras brought in by investigators malfunctioned less than halfway into the purchase and fail to show the precautions taken by the sales staff at the store to prevent a straw purchase.

Of the city’s recent motion to preclude mention of the Second Amendment, a lawyer for Adventure Outdoors, John Renzulli, said, “If you can’t discuss the Bill of Rights in a court of law, where should we discuss these issues? Should we reserve it for the tavern?”

Mr. Renzulli said the city’s lawsuit did implicate the Second Amendment: “The politics involved here is whether the city has the power to go into another state and control the lawful sale of firearms.”

Still, Mr. Renzulli said he did not plan to oppose the city’s request regarding references to the Second Amendment. Mr. Renzulli, who has defended suits against the gun industry in Judge Weinstein’s courtroom before, said that in the past the defense has struck a deal with the plaintiffs on the matter: Lawyers for the gun industry won’t mention the Bill of Rights to the jury, if the plaintiffs don’t mention the National Rifle Association.

“We usually say we’re not talking about the Second Amendment and you’re not talking about the NRA as a huge lobbying group that controls the legislature,” Mr. Renzulli said.

He said he expected a similar agreement to be struck in the Adventure Outdoors case.

For those of you who might have missed it, here is the transcript of the Clinton - Obama exchange about gun rights in the Democrat Presidential Debate the other night.

For your reference.

(Gibson is the moderator)

GIBSON: Back to the Philadelphia debate, the Democratic debate, just less than a week now before the Pennsylvania primary. And I would be remiss, tonight, if I didn't take note of the fact that today is the one-year anniversary of Virginia Tech. And I think it's fair to say that probably every American during this day at one point or another, said a small prayer for the great people of that university and for those who died.

It also, I suspect, makes this an appropriate time to talk about guns. And it has not been talked about much in this campaign. And it's an important issue in the state of Pennsylvania. Both of you, in the past, have supported strong gun control measures. But now, when I listen to you on the campaign, I hear you emphasizing that you believe in an individual's right to bear arms. Both of you were strong advocates for licensing of guns. Both of you were strong advocates for the registration of guns.

Why don't you emphasize that now, Senator Clinton?

CLINTON: Well, Charlie, on Friday, I was with Mayor Nutter, who is here, in west Philadelphia, at the YMCA there, to talk about what we could do together to bring down the crime rate that has ravaged Philadelphia.

You know, more than one person, on average, a day is murdered in Philadelphia. And Mayor Nutter is very committed, as the mayor of this great city, to try to do what he can to stem the violence.

And what I said then is what I have been saying, that I will be a good partner for cities like Philadelphia as president, because I will bring back the COPS program, the so-called COPS program, where we had 100,000 police on the streets, which really helped drive down the crime rate and also helped create better community relations.

I will also work to reinstate the assault weapons ban. We had it during the 1990s. It really was an aid to our police officers, who are now, once again, because it has lapsed and the Republicans will not reinstate it, are being outgunned on our streets by these military-style weapons.

I will also work to make sure that police departments in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, across America, get access to the federal information that will enable them to track illegal guns. Because the numbers are astounding. Probably 80 percent of the guns used in gun crimes are in the hands of that criminal, that gang member, unfortunately people who are sometimes, you know, mentally challenged, because it got there illegally. And under the Republicans, that information was kept from local law enforcement.

So I believe that we can balance what I think is the right equation. I respect the Second Amendment. I respect the rights of lawful gun owners to own guns, to use their guns. But I also believe that most lawful gun owners, whom I have spoken with for many years across our country, also want to be sure that we keep those guns out of the wrong hands.

And as president, I will work to try to bridge this divide, which I think has been polarizing and, frankly, doesn't reflect the common sense of the American people.

So we will strike the right balance to protect the constitutional right but to give people the feeling and the reality that they will be protected from guns in the wrong hands.

GIBSON: Senator Obama, the District of Columbia has a law -- it's had a law since 1976; it's now before the United States Supreme Court -- that prohibits ownership of handguns, a sawed-off shotgun, a machine gun or a short-barrelled rifle.

Is that a law consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence.

As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, and, you know, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

And I think that it is going to be important for us to reconcile what are two realities in this country.

There's the reality of gun ownership and the tradition of gun ownership that's passed on from generation to generation. You know, when you listen to people who have hunted, and they talk about the fact that they went hunting with their fathers or their mothers, then that is something that is deeply important to them and, culturally, they care about deeply.

But you also have the reality of what's happening here in Philadelphia and what's happening in Chicago.

And...

GIBSON: But do you still favor the registration of guns? Do you still favor the licensing of guns?

And in 1996, your campaign issued a questionnaire, and your writing was on the questionnaire that said you favored a ban on handguns.

OBAMA: No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire, Charlie. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.

What I think we can provide is common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns.

We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets.

The point is, is that what we have to do is get beyond the politics of this issue and figure out what, in fact, is working.

Look, in my hometown of Chicago, on the south side of Chicago, we've had 34 gun deaths last year of Chicago public school children.

And I think that most law-abiding gun owners all across America would recognize that it is perfectly appropriate for local communities and states and the federal government to try to figure out, how do we stop that kind of killing?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, you have a home in D.C. Do you support the D.C. ban?

CLINTON: You know, George, I want to give local communities the opportunity to have some authority over determining how to keep their citizens safe.

This case you're referring to before the Supreme Court is apparently dividing the Bush administration. You know, the Bush administration basically said, "We don't have enough facts to know whether or not it is appropriate."
Related
Campaign Lessons From a Tough Week
WATCH: Doubting Obama's Patriotism?

And Vice President Cheney, who you know is a fourth, special branch of government all unto himself, has actually filed a brief, saying, "Oh, no, we have to -- you know, he have to prevent D.C. from doing this."

STEPHANOPOULOS: But what do you think? Do you support it or not?

CLINTON: What I support is sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Is the D.C. ban consistent with that right?

CLINTON: Well, I think a total ban with no exceptions under any circumstances might be found by the court not to be, but I don't know the facts.

But I don't think that should blow open a hole that says that D.C. or Philadelphia or anybody else cannot come up with sensible regulations to protect their people and keep, you know, machine guns and assault weapons out of the hands of folks who shouldn't have them.

GIBSON: Well, with all due respect, I'm not sure I got an answer from Senator Obama, but do you still favor licensing and registration of handguns?

CLINTON: What I favor is what works in New York. You know, we have a set of rules in New York City, and we have a totally different set of rules in the rest of the state. What might work in New York City is certainly not going to work in Montana.

So for the federal government to be having any kind of, you know, blanket rules that they're going to try to impose I think doesn't make sense.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But, Senator, you were for that when you ran for Senate in New York.

CLINTON: I was for the New York rules; that's right. I was for the New York rules, because they have worked over time. And there isn't a lot uproar in New York about changing them, because I go to upstate New York, where we have a lot of hunters and people who are collectors and people who are sport shooters. They have every reason to believe that their rights are being respected.

You walk down the street with a police officer in Manhattan, he wants to be sure that there is some way of protecting him and protecting the people that are in his charge.

SAF HAILS CALIFORNIA HIGH COURT VICTORY OVER S.F. HANDGUN BAN

BELLEVUE, WA – The California Supreme Court made the right decision in rejecting an appeal by the City of San Francisco that sought to uphold its handgun ban, the Second Amendment Foundation said.

SAF was joined in a lawsuit against the handgun ban by the National Rifle Association, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, California Association of Firearms Retailers and San Francisco residents. The lawsuit was filed just days after voters in the city passed Proposition H in November 2005.

“How many times must the courts tell the City of San Francisco that it cannot pass this kind of a Draconian measure,” wondered SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “This lawsuit essentially followed the same legal path as SAF’s earlier lawsuit against the city and then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein, which also struck down a gun ban. We plowed this legal ground more than 20 years ago, and nothing has changed. We are proud to have been part of a team effort this time around that reinforces SAF’s original victory.

“The fact that the State Supreme Court unanimously decided to reject the city’s appeal will hopefully send a message that it cannot place the burden of crime reduction on the backs of law-abiding citizens,” he stated.

“Frankly, we were disappointed that this legal battle ever had to be fought,” Gottlieb continued. “We told the city early in 2005, before the measure was placed on the ballot, that this issue had already been decided by the courts, and that if they pursued this ban we would bring legal action. We weren’t bluffing, and neither were our friends at the NRA, LEAA and the California Retailers.

“This lengthy legal battle should not have been necessary,” he concluded. “It took up valuable time in an already-clogged California court system, and it wasted a considerable amount of public money and resources when the outcome was predictable. If the city truly is seeking solutions to a crime problem, we would be happy to sit down and work with them. Crime is everybody’s problem, and we should be working together, instead of fighting each other in court, because it accomplished nothing.”