Something from Sen. Obama's website that concerns me

[Redbear]

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/additional/Obama_FactSheet_Western_Sportsmen.pdf

"As a former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama understands and believes in the
constitutional right of Americans to bear arms."

For more than a century the Supreme Court has defined the 2nd Amendment very narrowly and said that it only applies in the very limited sense of a "well regulated militia." As far as the Supreme Court has been concerned there is no such thing as an individual's "constitutional right of Americans to bear arms."


Now that Roberts/Alito/Scalia I/Scalia II are there, the court is hearing a case asking them to apply the second amendment to strike down D.C.'s ban on handguns.

It concerns me that Obama appears to agree with the NRA and people like Scalia.

I think Sen. Clinton agrees with this expanded interpretation of the 2nd, but I dont see it on her site.

Does anybody know if Obama or Clinton have taken a position on the case before the Supreme Court?

[Bicoastal]

1. Senator Clinton was just talking about shooting tin cans and hunting while in Arkansas...

...I think they're both trying to woo the gun rights crowd.

[Redbear]

3. Im sure thats especially true in Texas

Its just bothers me to see our two candidates appear to be in agreement with the NRA.

[EffieBlack]

15. Why do you have a problem with them agreeing that there is a constitutional right to bear arms?

There is, without question, such a right. It's right there in the Second Amendment.

However, both Clinton and Obama disagree with the NRA on the pertinent question - whether the right is an INDIVIDUAL one. The NRA believes that it is - that the "well-regulated militia" part of the Amendment was just some sort of a brain stutter by the Founding Fathers and doesn't really mean what it says, therefore, the state cannot regulate guns in any way, ever ever ever. Obama and Clinton, on the other hand, believe that the second part of the Amendment can't be separated from the first part and, thus, the right is not unlimited and the state has the power to regulate firearms.

[Redbear]

22. No. Sen. Obama has stated specifically that the right is an individual one

He said it yesterday.

"I believe the Second Amendment means something," Obama said. "I do think that it speaks to an individual right."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/02/16/2008-02-16_in_wake_of_niu_horror_barack_obama__hill-2.html

[creeksneakers2]

27. There's a strong case that it is an individual right

and not much of one for the militia theory. But the key word in the amendment is "infringed." There was a common law right to bear arms back in Colonial days but it was not an absolute right. Guns could be taken from criminals or insane persons. "Infringed" means that there can't be any less of a right to bear arms than there was at the time of the passing of the amendment, but it doesn't mean absolute right.

[EffieBlack]

28. Thanks for the link - it helps to prove my point:

While safeguarding and respecting our Second Amendment rights, we've got to figure out how to get guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists, gang members and people with mental health problems," said Clinton, an Illinois native and New York's junior senator.

Obama said the country must do "whatever it takes" to eradicate gun violence from the nation's streets and schools. He called for strengthening background checks and bolstering law enforcement officials' ability to trace weapons, but he, too, defended gun rights.

"I believe the Second Amendment means something," Obama said. "I do think that it speaks to an individual right."


Both Hillary and Barack recognize that the Second Amendment confers the right to bear arms, but neither of them believe that the right is an unlimited one - both believe that the state has the power to regulate firearms. Their positions on this are virtually identical.

[formernaderite]

32. well-regulated meant something entirely different than

what you think it means...which is where the issue lies. In British english, and 18th century language well-regulated meant having everything necessary....ie. a well-regulated gentleman had all the clothes proper to a man of such standing. A well-regulated ship, was outfitted with all the proper mechanics etc. Lawrence Tribe, has also revisited the 2nd amendment and has shifted his thinking...that it is an individual right. Btw: The militia...and it's meaning is still on the federal books...was any "man" between the age of 17 and 47 I seem to remember.

[liberalnurse]

12. I heard she packs a pink mini-glock

in her bra.:scared:

[MH1]

2. Obama supports "the right of municipalities to establish their own handgun laws."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/15/668828.aspx

Living in the Philly burbs, I can say this is a hot issue here and I agree with his position.

[Iris]

5. great. GA is about to pass a law saying you can have one at a little league game.

great stuff!

Also, you can have one near a public school but not a private school!

yeah! Municipalities rule!

[sandnsea]

18. Federal law regulates public schools

No guns within a certain distance of any public school. If Georgia has a local law, it's to match the federal law and protect kids in private schools.

[Maddy McCall]

19. Most little league games aren't played on school campuses.

[sandnsea]

23. I was referring to the rest of the post

The school part. I don't know what laws they're passing about little league, and frankly I don't give a shit. If that's how the south wants to live, knock yourselves out.

[Maddy McCall]

29. You're an angry one, aren't you?

Democrats can't win without the South, so you'd better start paying attention to what the South thinks.

[sandnsea]

33. Only when people use distortions

and pretend they've made a point.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

4. Oh please...

Don't let the reds divide our country on this issue again... I spent time in Southern Ohio in 2004... people in those hills won't vote for anyone who wants to take their guns... Something the NRA aka Republican party spews each election...those librul dems want your guns.........phewwwwwwwwwwwwey!

Let those that want 'em, have 'em... It isn't worth losing the GE over

[ClericJohnPreston]

6. Anything for a "win"

Seems like a proven formula for losing....your ethics and principles, for starters!

[NoBushSpokenHere]

20. No, I am just saying...much MORE important items in this election

like Iraq
like Jobs
like Foreclosures
etc...

just sayin' we shouldn't permit the reds from bogging us down with items such as this one. If a criminal wants a gun, a criminal is going to get a gun...we can debate the issue to death and never agree.

[Common Sense Party]

7. For more than a century...WHAT???

For more than two centuries, the supreme court of the land has judged and determined in case after case that, well-regulated militia or not, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." There can be and have been limits on what types of arms, and when and who can purchase them, but individual citizens are now and always have been allowed to own firearms--for hunting, for sport, for self-protection.

And Obama saying he has no problem with that...gets your undies in a twist WHY?

[Redbear]

8. The supreme court has never held that the second amendment

grants the right to individuals to own guns.

Sen. Obama believes that the second amendment should be interpreted to provide individual rights.

[Common Sense Party]

9. Can you show me where the Supreme Court has EVER ruled

that an individual has NO right to own guns?

If that were true, wouldn't ALL guns have been confiscated from private individuals?

If that were true, wouldn't ALL sales of guns to individuals be illegal?

I'm not following you here.

[Redbear]

17. The supreme court has never used the 2nd amendment to

strike down a state or municipality gun law. They have taken the position that unless you are talking about a "well regulated militia" the constitution is silent and thus states and municipalities can do whatever they want. Thats why of the thousands and thousands of cases the Supreme Court has decided in its history only FIVE have involved the 2nd Amendment.

There has been a campaign by the NRA and the GOP to liberalize the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment so that it can be used to strike down gun laws that violate "the individual's right to own guns."

[EffieBlack]

16. He most certainly does not. Where do you get that?

[islandmkl]

10. maybe we should step back and ask "What do the majority of Americans favor?"

on the question of gun ownership/control. Perhaps a candidate can address these issues in such a manner. Or, we can find ourselves totally ignoring a vast segment of the voting population...and wondering how the RW got over on us again. We just love to hand the RW handfuls of votes...DO YOU THINK ANY GUN QUESTION IS AT THE FOREFRONT OF MOST PEOPLES' MINDS?

The recent tragedies should not lend one to believe that opposing-viewers will now "see the light"...is isn't going to happen.

So, let's not address AS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES: the war in Iraq, the economy, jobs, taxes, the environment, education...no, let's talk about guns and do all we can do to exclude voters, all the while affecting NO SOLUTION>

[Straight Shooter]

11. Obama can't reach out to Repubs if they think he's grabbing for their gun

"But then something happened. Pledging to introduce the latest gun control bill, he turned up missing from the legislature for two full months of the Senate’s winter session! Speculation ran rife: did Bobby take care of him? What happened to Obama? The time for introduction of his liberal dream of a gun-control bill came and no Obama. When he finally turned up, sheepish, he said he took his family on a vacation to Hawaii and while there his daughter got sick and so, gosh darn it, he had to stay in sunny Hawaii until she got better."

http://www.tomroeser.com/blogs/default.asp?categoryID=54

This is such a great article on Obama by a right winger-dinger Catholic who likes Obama personally, but has known him for quite some time and has really got his number.

BTW, I think the phrase "As a former constitutional law professor" is a bit pompous. It's the horn he and his supporters blow every chance they get. Even those who aren't "former constitutional law professors" understand the right to bear arms.

[islandmkl]

14. great...Tom Roeser....let's find some more RW slugs who 'like Obama personally'

The only thing this has to do with OP is that you might want to own a gun if Tom Roeser is your friend.

Roeser from 11.13.2006 (he must have been clairvoyant):

"The Barack Obama Phenomenon: If the Democrats Were Smart, They’d Nominate Him. If Voters Were Smart, They’d Defeat Him.

Anyhow, Get it Over with: He’s a Fad Like the Hula Hoop; Nominate Him, Get the Fever Out of the Blood and Count on Him Scaring the U.S. with His Naivete. Limpid Eyes and Soft Words? Not in a President!"

NICE RESEARCH TO FIND SOME ANTI-OBAMA LIT!!!

[Straight Shooter]

45. Well, you can rant on about Roeser but he does like Obama and he has influence.

If you'll bother to read his blog, he has some very unflattering things to say about Limbaugh, Coulter, Ingraham and McCain. He might be a right-winger, but he's worth reading for some perspective of what the other side is up to.

Touchy, touchy.

[Yossariant]

25. Not only pompous, but a lie. He was a lecturer, not a professor.

[kevsand]

13. Your description of the Supreme Court's position is not entirely accurate.

According to http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html">U.S. v. Miller (1939):

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

What this means is that the Militia is pretty much everybody; therefore the constitutional right does apply to private citizens, who were expected to own their own weapons.

The type of weapon this right applies to, however, has been restricted to that which it was reasonable to expect they would ordinarily use when called upon. As such, a large variety of handguns and other weapons are not necessarily guaranteed protection.

[Redbear]

26. I know thats one interpration of Miller

But the idea that you can apply all males in 1789 as being part of the militia to say that means all citizens in 2008 are part of the militia is a stretch that makes no logical sense.

But I do very much appreciate your position.

But I dont think there is any question that the Heller case could significantly expand the 2nd amend if they strike down a band on handguns

[kevsand]

30. "All males in 1789" was actually a superset of the citizenry.

It would have included everyone the Constitution defined as a citizen, and some extra folks, too (non-property owning males).

[lligrd]

21. After Witnessing The * Dictatorship

I support the Constitutional right to bear arms, if only so one can shoot oneself before they drag us off to camps and torture us.

[XemaSab]

24. Here's my take on it:

The second amendment is there in case the citizens have to VIOLENTLY rebel against a tyrannical government.

"When in the course of human events..." and all that.

If Bush decides he doesn't WANT to give up the presidency next year, what are you going to do about it? :shrug:

Hi Agent Mike! :hi:

[creeksneakers2]

31. I think that's a right wing myth

Shortly after the Constitution was passed George Washington led three state militias to put down a tax rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion. Our founding fathers may have believed in revolution, but not when it applied to their government. They had no wish to make the Constitution and enabler of it.

I'd also point to the power of Congress to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus during insurrections. There was no intent for an armed population mob rule America. In fact, that's just what governments are constructed to prevent.

[XemaSab]

35. I dunno if it's a myth or not

but it's why I'm in favor of the right to bear arms.

If soldiers with guns and tanks are marching through the streets, I don't want the citizenry to be defenseless. :shrug:

[Danger Mouse]

36. gun nut.

[XemaSab]

38. Haha.

You know me. :crazy:

[Danger Mouse]

41. i know you, yes. drop the biscuit, homie.

[XemaSab]

42. I'll cap you!

:o

[Danger Mouse]

43. don't tase me, bro!

:shrug:

[XemaSab]

44. you win

:rofl:

[readmoreoften]

34. Awesome. I finally agree with Obama about something.

Now, if I only agreed with him on Pakistan, the military in general, the economy, the role of religion, how to handle the Republicans, and how to not align with homophobes, we'd be maybe on the same page sometimes.

[Danger Mouse]

37. What's the problem?

No Dem will get elected if they don't at least pay some lip service to the gun-toting crowd.

[Redbear]

39. I know thats conventional wisdom along with no Dem can be elected

if they don't make a big deal about their christian faith

if they don't say "Im opposed to gay marriage"

if they dont support the death penalty

if they dont support fencing the Mexican border

if they dont support the Patriot Act


Is it all true or just hype we have accepted?

[Danger Mouse]

40. i don't agree with a lot of that conventional wisdom...

but a lot of people own guns, and support owning handguns. there's several on du.
i think we could get away with a lot of the stuff on your list, but this is one i doubt we could go far on.

[Political Heretic]

46. The relevent case is US v Miller, 1939

The Supreme Court, which is according to the Constitution, the FINAL word on interpretation of the Constitution, decided that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.

[ORDem]

47. TROLL ALERT n/t

[Iris]

48. huh?