Handgun Ban @ MindSay

(from Freedom and Reason)
Obama and the Personal Right to Keep and Bear Arms

The Boston Globe characterizes it this way: "Barack Obama's dizzyingly inconsistent positions on District of Columbia v. Heller, the landmark Second Amendment case decided by the Supreme Court last week."

They noted that during his run for the Illinois Legislature, Obama supported legislation to "ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns." During much of his campaign for president, he endorsed the DC gun law, which banned handguns. He said in November 2007 that the DC handgun ban was constitutional. He was asked in February 2008 about whether he supported the DC ban and he said he did.

Since the Second Amendment does not assert the right of individuals to keep and bear arms - except in the context of a well-regulated militia - Obama's position was consistent with the intent of the framers. Whether persons can own firearms for their person use is for the states to decide. The decision is among the powers granted to them by the Tenth Amendment.

Obama appears to have flipped flopped on the issue soon after February. By March he no longer thought the DC gun ban was constitutional, but he didn't explain why. In April, he punted on the question with the standard "I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence."

When the court overturned the ban and stated, for the first time in US history, that individuals had a person right to keep and bear arms (thus inventing a right where none had previously existed), Obama acted as if his conviction that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, and that there the DC gun ban was unconstitutional, was vindicated. "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms," he said.

But he could not possibly have always believed that, since he said the DC gun ban was constitutional.

Why did Obama flip? No doubt he looked at the polls showing that more than 70 percent of Americans believe the Second Amendment confers a personal right. The same percentage oppose making guns illegal. He look at the fact that half of all households own guns. So, as with so many other things, Obama changed his position to fit public opinion.

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.”