The Second Amendment Clingers Win, Obama the Ban-man Loses.
A divided U.S. Supreme Court, in 5-4 ruling, ruled for the first time that the Constitution protects individual gun rights, striking down the District of Columbia's handgun ban and raising questions about weapons restrictions elsewhere. (Such as in Chicago)
"The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority in the final decision of the court's nine-month term. "These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."
McCain said in a statement "Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right -- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly."
Where is Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, on this issue?
It really depends on who he is talking too, and what year it is.
In a IVI-IPO General Candidate Questionnaire that Obama filled out prior to his run for Senate:
question 35.) Do you support state legislation to:
a.ban the manufacture,sale and possession of handguns? (Obama's answer:) Yes.
Today Obama said he agrees with the court's "overall reasoning" and the Washington gun ban probably "overshot the runway."
"I have said consistently that I believe the Second Amendment is an individual right," Obama told Fox Business News, referring to the constitutional amendment that grants Americans the right to bear arms.
"And that was the essential decision that the Supreme Court came down on. And it also recognized that even though we have an individual right to bear arms, that right can be limited by sensible, reasonable gun laws." he said.
Yesterday when asked his opinion he wouldn't answer. He defered to tommorow's decission. Wait and see. Today, he's back to individual rights.
It's hard to figure him out. It was only back in Feburary that he said there were 2 conflicting traditions - but he believed that the DC gun ban was "constitutional".
Obama has simply supplied more good speak for a candidate running a national campaign, for today.
So what did Obama actually say in Local Chicago Politics where there is also an inner city gun ban where his 'reasonable and sensible gun ban laws' have left guns to be only in the hands of criminals? (See Chicago crime rate to see how well Obam's policies have straightened that cities woes out- and let's apply them Nationaly - Yes we can!)
From Obama's SENATE website in 2006 on social changes and guns:
"Solving these problems will require changes in government policy, but it will also require changes in hearts and a change in minds. I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers' lobby."
Yes, certainly, there can be, should be, and already are sensible, reasonal gun laws. But it probably needs repeating;
Obama: "I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities".
The problem with Obama's 'constitutional' belief, pre-Supreme Court ruling, is that the DC handgun ban was not a regulation or a restriction of guns -- it was a ban.
The very same ban Obama supported in DC and in Chicago and also supported in the Reverend Pfleger grassroot gunban pulpit.
Obama's voting record is consistently anti-gun legislation.
If it weren't for the Supreme Court today, Obama would revert back to his previous statements that he felt the DC hand-gun ban was 'constitutional' - and look, the Supreme Court agrees with me; and my consistent record.
So we can see the re-handwriting on the wall. In an Obama Supreme Court, through his own appointments, the outcome today could probably have been 5-4 to require, hummm, reasonable interpetational changes to the heart of the Second Amendment.
When Obama made the statement of people 'clinging to their guns' it should be much clearer now that his true policy, regarding clutching their gun rights, is too require government changes to ban the clingers individual rights to own guns.
But what did he possibly mean by ..."but it will also require changes in hearts and a change in minds."
For this we have to examine Obama's views on constitutional law.
(btw, some bloggers, and Fox News just today, called Barack a "Constitutional Law Professor"...another Obama LIE- Obama was Never a "Professor". He was, however, a 4th tier Law Lecturer)
An Obama requirement for changing hearts and minds and Supreme Court appointments:
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said, "The role of a justice is to favor the weak over the strong."
In the most difficult cases, the determining factor is not what the law in question says, or what the Constitution says. In those difficult cases, what matters is "what is in the judge's heart.
In ObamaLand (have'- have-nots' philosophy) the Law and the Constitution do not matter.
I was just curious. How many other types of things has Mr. Obama said, "I have said consistently that ..."
Wow! pretty consistently-inconsistent changes acomin' our way...