Where Has Obama Been on the Unconstitutional DC Handgun Ban?
EmailI call it unconstitutional, because the U.S. Supreme Court just did, and they decide.
"Today’s decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. "For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers…Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today."
Where is Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, on this issue?
Tough to tell.
He was asked about it yesterday.
"Why don’t I wait until the decision comes out, and I’ll comment on it, instead of trying to prognosticate on what the Supreme Court is going to decide tomorrow," he said. "What I’ve said is that I’m a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. But I do not think that that precludes local governments being able to provide some common sense gun laws that keep guns out of the hands of gang bangers or children, that local jurisdictions are going to have different sets of problems, and that this is a very fact intensive decision that has to be made. But I do think that the Second Amendment is an individual right. So what I’d like to do is wait and see how the Supreme Court comes down and evaluate the actual reasoning in the case, to see how broad or narrow the decision’s going to be."
But last year his campaign 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.’"
But Obama campaign spox Bill Burton told ABC News’ Teddy Davis that that statement "was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator’s consistent position."
What is that consistent position? At the Philadelphia debate, ABC News’ Charlie Gibson asked Obama whether the ban was constitutional.
"Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven’t listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence," he said.
Earlier, during the Potomac primaries, Obama had the following exchange during an interview with WJLA-TV’s Leon Harris:
HARRIS: One other issue that’s of great importance here in the district as well is gun control. You said in Idaho recently – I’m quoting here – ‘I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.’ But you support the D.C. handgun ban and you’ve said that it’s constitutional. How can you reconcile those two different positions
OBAMA: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of people – law-abiding citizens use if for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets, we are going to trace more effectively, how these guns are ending up on the streets, to unscrupulous gun dealers, who often times are selling to straw purchasers. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. Those are all approaches that I think the average gun owner would actually support. The problem is, that we’ve got a position, often times by the NRA that says any regulation whatsoever is the camel’s nose under the tent. And that, I think, is not where the American people are at. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.
Watch HERE.
The problem with that answer is that the DC handgun ban was not a regulation or a restriction of guns — it was a ban.
As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the court’s 5-4 decision today "the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
But that said, Scalia wrote, "the District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of ‘arms’ that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster."
Recall that the plaintiff in the suit was a special policeman who wanted to have a handgun in his home for self-defense and was denied the lawful ability to do so.
- jpt
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
Obama says the its up to the local government for gun control. This guy is running for president and does not know that local law cannot override federal law.
Posted by: jakpul | June 26, 2008, 11:55 am 11:55 am
Obama for once tell the truth for GODS sake. Tell them that you sponsored a bill only allowing police and retired police officers to carry guns in your town of lordship.
Posted by: screwheadles | June 26, 2008, 11:56 am 11:56 am
Where was McCain? Like everything else, he thinks both sides are right. And wrong. Right? Wrong? McCain is a pretzel.
Posted by: Pete | June 26, 2008, 11:57 am 11:57 am
Who knows where he has been. I think he has changed his position a few times already. ummmm….PRESENT!
Posted by: Mack | June 26, 2008, 11:58 am 11:58 am
To hear Nancy Pelosi talk obama does not have any experience or know much.
Obama trying to get out of committing to gun control one way or the other was to fluff it off and say it is up to the states.
I am sure he had no clue it is a federal matter.
He just does not wish to be held accoutable for an opinion or take a side on the issue.
He was for banning guns in Chicago and a survey he took from politico he was for gun bans. Right now he is running for an office and can’t and does not want to lose a vote for going either direction.
LOL
Being dumb or playing stupid is far worse in the long run.
Posted by: seah | June 26, 2008, 12:00 pm 12:00 pm
it is impossible for obama to win in November
Posted by: chris | June 26, 2008, 12:03 pm 12:03 pm
I remember when Obama paid that gun control group that is masquerading as a PRO gun group to endorse him while he was campaigning in Pennsylvania. This guy Obama will lie and cheat a steal to win at all cost. The latest lie was his public financing lie
Posted by: lairs lars | June 26, 2008, 12:05 pm 12:05 pm
Here is an ugly list that most liberals love about Obama
He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive
He supported allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons, but opposed allowing people to use handguns to defend against intruders in their homes.
I could go on with all this creey stuff about Obama but librals already know and love him
Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”
Obama flat out lied during a Liberal Debate about his signature being on that form and no one challenged him on it.
Obama has to lose.
Posted by: yrely | June 26, 2008, 12:14 pm 12:14 pm
When Senator Obama is asked a question, he dances around without giving an commanding answer. Just like his senate stint where he answered “present”. Such a dud.
Posted by: Mary | June 26, 2008, 12:19 pm 12:19 pm
Obama has the views of most moderates. Thats why he may seem closer to the left and yet closer to the right on gun control. No one condones violence and at the same time most people think it will be unconstitutional to ban guns. The problem is how to balance those views. Forget what Mccain is saying on gun control. He is just reversing himself. No one is calling him on all his flip-flops. Check his ratings with the NRA. How do we balance this? Balancing this is going to be difficult because there is no way of controlling gun without impinging on gun owners rights. Obama knows this and thats why as a constitutional lawyer, he realises the importance of the second ammendment and the right to bear arms and at the same time will like laws enacted to prevent it getting into the wrong hands.
Posted by: vuzous | June 26, 2008, 12:19 pm 12:19 pm
We know how the illegal guns are ending up on the streets. Its because of all the free handouts and welfare that Democrats have created. Democrats cannot create jobs by taxing businesses out of the country.
Posted by: yrely | June 26, 2008, 12:20 pm 12:20 pm
Was Obama using his telepromter when you asked him this question.
Posted by: hee haw | June 26, 2008, 12:21 pm 12:21 pm
Obama parallels honest, hard working citizens with the criminal underclass–that he draws no distinction. In Illinois, I have seen Obama vote in ways that suggests that he values the lives of the criminals over the lives of citizens. Or, perhaps, he thinks that the government should be the sole repository of real power in this country, and citizens killed by criminals are just “acceptable collateral damage” in the cause of advancing the primacy of the government.
Posted by: Samantha | June 26, 2008, 12:26 pm 12:26 pm
obama is trying to hem-haw around yet another issue and try to have it both ways. He’s a “people-pleaser”, and will say just what people want to hear for the moment. He’s too flip-floppy to have a REAL stance on this issue.
Posted by: From Democrat to Independant | June 26, 2008, 12:27 pm 12:27 pm
I believe the Supreme Court ruled correctly in upholding the Second Amendment over the D.C. handgun ban.
I hope that with his Harvard law degree background, Sen. Obama will agree that the Supreme Court was right in their defense of the Second Amendment.
Posted by: Suzanne | June 26, 2008, 12:34 pm 12:34 pm
quote….Obama says the its up to the local government for gun control. This guy is running for president and does not know that local law cannot override federal law……
.
The Great O-ppossum knows. He’s just hoping that we don’t.
Posted by: Charlie35 | June 26, 2008, 12:38 pm 12:38 pm
The ruled that it’s a right, and that they have the right to restrict it. The right to keep and bear arms in an unalienable right granted by the Constitution. This ruling is a huge step in the aims to confuscate arms and restrict gun owners by refusing to give permits for their guns. (Therfor the right to confuscate and deny the right to purchase arms) It’s a horrible decision. No wonder the liberal gun grabber McCain was so much for it.
Posted by: pity | June 26, 2008, 12:40 pm 12:40 pm
Bhrandon,I cant help but agree with you on this. But on careful observation I have come to understand why. Most news stations are owned by Republicans.So expect views to be tilted always. When Obama, came out, he was probably underestimated, all the news stations were mostly pro-Obama because they thought he will be easier to beat and that was to the detriment of Senator Clinton. Towards the end, the media now became hell-bent on destroying Obama. From bittergate, to Wrightgate, to Lapelgate etc but by then it was too late but its still not too late on the Presidential elections and thats why Obama has to double his efforts. Mccain is a brand-name and will never be easy to beat. Forget the polls. Obama has to continue to develop his own name and he is really making a good effort. Forget the people accusing him of being arrogant, people that have met him in person know otherwise. His slogan says it all, ‘Yes we can’.
Posted by: vuzous | June 26, 2008, 12:44 pm 12:44 pm
Local law-you mean like Chicago’s preemptive unconstitutional ban?
Posted by: geevill | June 26, 2008, 12:47 pm 12:47 pm
OBAMA has it right. the constitution says we have a right to bear arms GOOD. in some cities crime is rampant with illegal weapons. Obama is mindful of ways to put that in check. It’s easy to have a one sentence answer. When your loved one becomes a victim of an illegal handgun then you’ll cry.
Posted by: educated in the hood | June 26, 2008, 1:01 pm 1:01 pm
OBAMA FLIP FLOPPING HIS WAY TO PRESIDENCY.
HEY ITMAY HAPPEN!!
Posted by: FRIEDA | June 26, 2008, 1:08 pm 1:08 pm
jpt, thank you.
where does Obama stand on X issue? Answer: “Hard to tell”
where does Obama stand on Y issue”
Answer: “Hard to tell”
It one listens or reads Obama comments on an issue today and juxtaposes his answer to one given one/two years ago, the answers are either contradictory or befuddled.
Obama is a lame excuse for a candidate and his followers are scary. How could the DNC do this to us.
Posted by: rw | June 26, 2008, 1:17 pm 1:17 pm
I just finished looking at the news on most of the major outlets, and I’m wondering, who else besides obama is running for president. They have covered everything he could possibly say and do except his response on the recent ruling of the 2nd amend. Does it take his team this long to make up want they want him to say.
Posted by: kurios | June 26, 2008, 1:38 pm 1:38 pm
Senator Obama reminds me of a large fish pulled out of the water everytime someone asked him an important questions. He simply flip-flops, flip-flops, flip-flops until he gets back to the water where he is comfortable with the other fishes of his species, corrupt politicians. Such a dud.
Posted by: Martin | June 26, 2008, 2:40 pm 2:40 pm
The problem is in BO home city of Chicago where there has been a gun ban for years, the only people that have guns are cops and criminals. 30 Chicago public school children have been killed in the last year. Yeah, that gun ban really works.
Posted by: Irish Gal | June 26, 2008, 3:27 pm 3:27 pm
Someone tell Obama that the Constitution over takes any law!! A State or Federal can not make a law that is unconstitutional.
Now I do agree that one no felonies (but when you commit a felony to give up your citizenship)
Mentally unstable should not – safety of the majority over comes individual rights
Automatic weapons I am against, but a pistol or rifle is fine.
About time the Supreme court read the Constitution!!
Posted by: spock | June 26, 2008, 3:52 pm 3:52 pm
Obama, Obama who art thou? flip-flop, flip-flop. Thank-you DNC for giving us Obama-he is the joke that keeps on making us laugh.
Posted by: trent | June 26, 2008, 4:46 pm 4:46 pm
What Obama meant to say was “Why don’t I wait until the decision comes out, and I’ll comment on it, when I can get someone to write me a statement”.
Posted by: meaner | June 26, 2008, 4:54 pm 4:54 pm
What I would have said: “I’m sick and tired of federal courts usurping state and local power. The bill of rights was designed to protect the states from abuses of federal power, like in this instance where the federal court system again declared that it had jurisdiction inside of one of the sovereign states of the U.S. The second amendment guarantees felons the right to have suitcase nukes, why doesn’t the court grow a spine and uphold the true meaning of the law. If the poeple of this nation aren’t comfortable with that, then we can make a constitutional amendment abrogating the bill of rights. That IS how laws are supposed to be made in this country. By continuing to rule both that federal courts have state jurisdiction and by totally distorting the meaning of the second amendment to somehow equate it with handguns, these power-mongering jurists have guaranteed that the constitution will remain broken and that the courts will maintain their new role as an autocratic unaccountable legislative body.”
Posted by: Bumcake | June 26, 2008, 5:23 pm 5:23 pm
The thing that needs to be said here is that were Saint O the president these past 8 years then 6 justices would have upheld the DC Ban because Saint O would have put in justices that believe like he does that Saint O can take away your guns if he so desires leaving only the criminals with weapons. Thank goodness he was not president.
Posted by: Kabookey | June 26, 2008, 5:28 pm 5:28 pm
Like passges of the bible. Once again, Republicans deciding WHICH PARTS of the constitution you’d like to protect. Your president has RAPED the constitution the past 8 years. It’s bogus that dems are trying to “take your guns.” YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAA… Larger cities have much different set of problems than rural communities. Leave it to the STATES to decide. That’s a true Republic as it was designed, not by a SUPREME COURT.
Posted by: Patrick | June 26, 2008, 8:15 pm 8:15 pm
WEDGE ISSUES..Here we go again. Republicans have to simplify everything for their “Stupid” uneducated following. Why is it more college educated folks are dem? Why is it? LOL This is a very difficult issue and states and local governments should be left to make their own laws. That’s how the US was formed.
Posted by: Jason | June 26, 2008, 8:19 pm 8:19 pm
Look at all the constitutional lovers in here suddenly! So GUESS WHAT FOLKS? The War in Iraq is UNLAWFUL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Why? The Congress never declared WAR. TIME TO PULL OUT. The constitution trumps all remember? Time for the supreme court to call the war UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Posted by: Tom | June 26, 2008, 8:23 pm 8:23 pm
Talk about the law and you know nothing about it. Most gun control laws are stae and local. As lomg as a law is constitutional a local or state law can be stricter than federal law, but not more lenient. Why do think different states have stricter gun laws on concealed weapons, etc…or different abortion laws. They can restrict certain parts of abortion, for example parenteral consent, but they can’t ban it. You don;t know the law. Obama was correct as what is good for one are may not work in another area as long as the restrictions they place on guns is deemed constitutional.
Posted by: chris | June 26, 2008, 8:29 pm 8:29 pm
To paraphrase another former Dem presidental candidate……Obama was against guns before he was for it…
Posted by: Tim | June 26, 2008, 8:37 pm 8:37 pm
Obama is unwilling to commit on his stance in the matter because he doesn’t have a clue what he thinks. He needs someone to tell him. He gloats that he was a professor teaching Constitutional Law, he is an idiot. Obama is a slimy politician who will stop at nothing to get elected.
Posted by: MJL | June 26, 2008, 8:53 pm 8:53 pm
Do you honestly not understand that the DC handgun ban is a RESTRICTION of gun onwership rather than a complete BAN of all guns? It simply says that is is illegal to own certain types of guns, similarly to the assault waepons ban that we had a few years ago. It does not prohibit owning guns of other types. So, where is the problem with Obama’s position you are citing in your article?
Posted by: John | June 26, 2008, 9:03 pm 9:03 pm
It’s been said it’s a patronizing and bigoted to call Obama “articulate.” I’m thinking it’s just inaccurate.
Posted by: Morgo | June 26, 2008, 9:32 pm 9:32 pm
You know, I am starting to think the Democrats should have nominated someone that lied a little less. Like…I don’t know….Bill Clinton.
Posted by: Shryke | June 26, 2008, 10:03 pm 10:03 pm
Obama’s answer was pretty much what Scalia wrote. It’s an individual right and the government can regulate gun ownership. The question then is: where is the line of regulation? Obama and four justices thought the law fell inside the line, and five justices thought it fell outside.
Posted by: George82 | June 26, 2008, 10:15 pm 10:15 pm
Whatever Senator Obama says on this or any other judicial decision, on the votes of our last 2 approved Supreme Court Judges (Roberts and Alito), Obama votes ‘No.’ I think that gives a good idea of the type of judge he prefers.
Posted by: Pete | June 26, 2008, 10:24 pm 10:24 pm
Obama? Shifted? NOOOOOOOO! Not our annointed savior! Say it ain’t so, Barry. Say it ain’t so!
Posted by: Dan R. | June 26, 2008, 11:40 pm 11:40 pm
I can’t take it anymore.
Will November come already so we don’t have to hear about Obama anymore.
Posted by: nobama | June 27, 2008, 12:17 am 12:17 am
I have no idea what Obama stands for or believes. I often wonder if he knows either. I think he knows he wants to president.
Posted by: Linda | June 27, 2008, 2:32 am 2:32 am
Sen Obama, a flip flopper? Sen Obama, a snake oil sales man?
Both answers to these questions are definitely no.
He just needS to find out first what answer is best to win the Presidency. That is the essence of his CHARACTER.
Posted by: politicsIsdirty | June 27, 2008, 6:41 am 6:41 am
“Chris” wrote:
“Talk about the law and you know nothing about it. Most gun control laws are stae and local. As lomg as a law is constitutional a local or state law can be stricter than federal law, but not more lenient.”
Wow, Chris, where did that come from? Back of a Cracker Jack box? Not only is that a gross, and I do mean GROSS, oversimplification, it’s simply flat-out wrong.
“John” wrote:
“Do you honestly not understand that the DC handgun ban is a RESTRICTION of gun onwership rather than a complete BAN of all guns? It simply says that is is illegal to own certain types of guns, similarly to the assault waepons ban that we had a few years ago.”
Well Johnny, you’re wrong-o. The ban effectively banned having a functioning handgun – ANY handgun – in the home. Any gun had to be registered, and it was illegal to register a handgun. Any long gun had to be disassembled or locked.
So you have a right to own a useless hunk of metal parts that you might be able to bludgeon an attacker with. How does this not run afoul of a right to own firearms? It does not allow you to own “FIREarms.”
And go back and do you homework on the so-called “assault weapons ban.” It did not actually ban those weapons; it banned certain (primarily aesthetic) features that made it look too mean and scary and “military-style.” It was (and still is) still perfectly legal to own a semi-auto AR-15 chambered in exactly the same round and caliber, as long as it didn’t have a flash hider or grenade launcher and bayonet mount.
Posted by: Bill in Richmond | June 27, 2008, 1:24 pm 1:24 pm
If people can’t see through Obama after his shameless attempt of trying to have it both ways (on the gun ban issue) then they don’t want to see the truth. Obama said in the ABC debate he “hadn’t listened to the briefs”. Huh? You read briefs, not listen to them ,unless you’re the judge. What a coward. We know he is for banning guns and he thinks those of us who own them “cling to them”. Please America, don’t vote this phony in! You will regret it…
Posted by: Dirty Harry | June 27, 2008, 7:31 pm 7:31 pm