P
Patriot Games
Guest
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120839466717921537.html
The Democrats and Gun Control
By DAVID KOPEL
April 17, 2008
Imagine an election race of Pat Robertson versus James Dobson, each of them
appearing at organic grocery stores and Starbucks throughout Massachusetts,
with each candidate insisting that he alone deserves the vote of
gay-marriage advocates. An equally silly spectacle is taking place these
days in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, West Virginia and Kentucky,
as Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama compete for the pro-gun vote.
Mr. Obama supports the Second Amendment - or so his surrogates have been
claiming all over Pennsylvania, the state with the highest per-capita
membership in the National Rifle Association. The effort was set back last
weekend with the publication of Mr. Obama's remarks claiming that people in
small towns in Pennsylvania and other Midwestern states "cling" to guns
because they are "bitter" that the government has not solved their economic
problems.
Mrs. Clinton shot back with an excellent speech in Valparaiso, Ind.,
recounting that her father had taught her how to shoot when she was a little
girl. "People enjoy hunting and shooting because it's an important part of
who they are," she said. "Not because they are bitter."
Surely she is right. The shooting sports culture in Pennsylvania was
thriving long before the domestic manufacture of steel began to decline.
Indeed, that culture was thriving before steel was invented. Pennsylvania's
1776 state constitution declared "That the people have a right to bear arms
for the defence of themselves and the state . . ." A separate provision
guaranteed "the liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times."
However, having the right to arms and the liberty to hunt is worthless if
you can't buy a gun. In 1999, Mr. Obama urged enactment of a federal law
prohibiting the operation of any gun store within five miles of a school or
park. This would eliminate gun stores from almost the entire inhabited
portion of the United States.
As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama endorsed a complete ban on
all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama campaign has claimed he "never
saw or approved the questionnaire," and that an aide filled it out
incorrectly. But a few weeks ago, Politico.com found an amended version of
the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama's handwriting.
When the U.S. Supreme Court voted last year to hear a case on the
constitutionality of the Washington, D.C., handgun ban, Mr. Obama's campaign
told the Chicago Tribune: "Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is
constitutional" and that "local communities" should have the ability "to
enact common sense laws." Other than Washington, D.C., the only American
cities with handgun bans are Chicago and four of its suburbs. As a state
senator, Mr. Obama voted against a 2004 bill (which passed overwhelmingly)
to give citizens a legal defense against prosecution for violating a local
handgun ban if they actually used the firearm for lawful self-defense on
their own property.
Mr. Obama's campaign Web site touts his belief in the Second Amendment
rights to have guns "for the purposes of hunting and target shooting."
Conspicuously absent is the right to have firearms to defend one's self,
home and family. In 2001, as a state senator, Mr. Obama voted against
allowing the beneficiaries of domestic violence protective orders to carry
handguns for protection.
Yet, as Mr. Obama has mockingly pointed out, Mrs. Clinton is not exactly a
modern-day Annie Oakley wiling away weekends in a duck blind. As first lady,
she helped organize the Million Mom March for "sensible gun laws" in 2000.
It was led by the shrill gun prohibitionist Rosie O'Donnell.
Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly voted for antigun proposals, and co-sponsored
many of them. After Hurricane Katrina, the New Orleans and St. Tammany
police confiscated guns from law-abiding citizens, violating an explicit
Louisiana law. In some cases, the confiscation was carried out with the
assistance of federal agents, and was perpetrated via warrantless break-ins
into homes.
The next year, the U.S. Senate voted 84-16 for a homeland security
appropriations rider stating: "None of the funds appropriated by this Act
shall be used for the seizure of a firearm based on the existence of a
declaration or state of emergency." Mrs. Clinton was one of the 16 who voted
"no." Mr. Obama commendably voted with the majority.
Forty states currently allow most law-abiding adult citizens to carry
concealed handguns for lawful protection, after a background check and (in
almost all such states) a safety class. Of course those laws only apply to
carrying within the relevant state. Mr. Obama told the Chicago Tribune in
2004 that he favored a national ban on concealed carry, to "prevent other
states' laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents." Mrs.
Clinton campaigned against a licensed carry referendum in Missouri.
Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voted against legislation to stop
mayors from suing gun manufacturers and gun stores because of gun crime.
That legislation banned lawsuits only if businesses had complied with all
laws regarding firearms manufacture and sales.
A presidential candidate could of course swear devotion to the First
Amendment, while declaring that the amendment's purpose is to protect sports
reporting and book collecting. And that candidate could still support
government lawsuits against publishers, local bans on newspapers, and
draconian restrictions on political commentary.
Civil libertarians who supported such a candidate because of his alleged
love for the First Amendment would be foolish. Civil libertarians who
support Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton because of their purported fealty to the
Second Amendment may be bitterly disappointed.
Mr. Kopel is research director of the Independence Institute and co-author
of the law school textbook, "Gun Control and Gun Rights" (NYU Press, 2002).
The Democrats and Gun Control
By DAVID KOPEL
April 17, 2008
Imagine an election race of Pat Robertson versus James Dobson, each of them
appearing at organic grocery stores and Starbucks throughout Massachusetts,
with each candidate insisting that he alone deserves the vote of
gay-marriage advocates. An equally silly spectacle is taking place these
days in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, West Virginia and Kentucky,
as Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama compete for the pro-gun vote.
Mr. Obama supports the Second Amendment - or so his surrogates have been
claiming all over Pennsylvania, the state with the highest per-capita
membership in the National Rifle Association. The effort was set back last
weekend with the publication of Mr. Obama's remarks claiming that people in
small towns in Pennsylvania and other Midwestern states "cling" to guns
because they are "bitter" that the government has not solved their economic
problems.
Mrs. Clinton shot back with an excellent speech in Valparaiso, Ind.,
recounting that her father had taught her how to shoot when she was a little
girl. "People enjoy hunting and shooting because it's an important part of
who they are," she said. "Not because they are bitter."
Surely she is right. The shooting sports culture in Pennsylvania was
thriving long before the domestic manufacture of steel began to decline.
Indeed, that culture was thriving before steel was invented. Pennsylvania's
1776 state constitution declared "That the people have a right to bear arms
for the defence of themselves and the state . . ." A separate provision
guaranteed "the liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times."
However, having the right to arms and the liberty to hunt is worthless if
you can't buy a gun. In 1999, Mr. Obama urged enactment of a federal law
prohibiting the operation of any gun store within five miles of a school or
park. This would eliminate gun stores from almost the entire inhabited
portion of the United States.
As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama endorsed a complete ban on
all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama campaign has claimed he "never
saw or approved the questionnaire," and that an aide filled it out
incorrectly. But a few weeks ago, Politico.com found an amended version of
the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama's handwriting.
When the U.S. Supreme Court voted last year to hear a case on the
constitutionality of the Washington, D.C., handgun ban, Mr. Obama's campaign
told the Chicago Tribune: "Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is
constitutional" and that "local communities" should have the ability "to
enact common sense laws." Other than Washington, D.C., the only American
cities with handgun bans are Chicago and four of its suburbs. As a state
senator, Mr. Obama voted against a 2004 bill (which passed overwhelmingly)
to give citizens a legal defense against prosecution for violating a local
handgun ban if they actually used the firearm for lawful self-defense on
their own property.
Mr. Obama's campaign Web site touts his belief in the Second Amendment
rights to have guns "for the purposes of hunting and target shooting."
Conspicuously absent is the right to have firearms to defend one's self,
home and family. In 2001, as a state senator, Mr. Obama voted against
allowing the beneficiaries of domestic violence protective orders to carry
handguns for protection.
Yet, as Mr. Obama has mockingly pointed out, Mrs. Clinton is not exactly a
modern-day Annie Oakley wiling away weekends in a duck blind. As first lady,
she helped organize the Million Mom March for "sensible gun laws" in 2000.
It was led by the shrill gun prohibitionist Rosie O'Donnell.
Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly voted for antigun proposals, and co-sponsored
many of them. After Hurricane Katrina, the New Orleans and St. Tammany
police confiscated guns from law-abiding citizens, violating an explicit
Louisiana law. In some cases, the confiscation was carried out with the
assistance of federal agents, and was perpetrated via warrantless break-ins
into homes.
The next year, the U.S. Senate voted 84-16 for a homeland security
appropriations rider stating: "None of the funds appropriated by this Act
shall be used for the seizure of a firearm based on the existence of a
declaration or state of emergency." Mrs. Clinton was one of the 16 who voted
"no." Mr. Obama commendably voted with the majority.
Forty states currently allow most law-abiding adult citizens to carry
concealed handguns for lawful protection, after a background check and (in
almost all such states) a safety class. Of course those laws only apply to
carrying within the relevant state. Mr. Obama told the Chicago Tribune in
2004 that he favored a national ban on concealed carry, to "prevent other
states' laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents." Mrs.
Clinton campaigned against a licensed carry referendum in Missouri.
Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voted against legislation to stop
mayors from suing gun manufacturers and gun stores because of gun crime.
That legislation banned lawsuits only if businesses had complied with all
laws regarding firearms manufacture and sales.
A presidential candidate could of course swear devotion to the First
Amendment, while declaring that the amendment's purpose is to protect sports
reporting and book collecting. And that candidate could still support
government lawsuits against publishers, local bans on newspapers, and
draconian restrictions on political commentary.
Civil libertarians who supported such a candidate because of his alleged
love for the First Amendment would be foolish. Civil libertarians who
support Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton because of their purported fealty to the
Second Amendment may be bitterly disappointed.
Mr. Kopel is research director of the Independence Institute and co-author
of the law school textbook, "Gun Control and Gun Rights" (NYU Press, 2002).
