New 2nd Amendment Trap For Obama

Now that the hubbub has died down about the Supreme Court’s finding that the 2nd Amendment means what it says (over the objections of 4 ready-for-impeachment Justices who thought it meant something it did not say), Obama may think he is off the hook on the issue.

Oh yes, Obama flip-flopped on that issue, like all others. On November 20, 2007, he said D.C.’s gun ban was Constitutional, and on June 26, 2008, the day the Supreme Court handed down the ruling finding it unconstitutional, Obama said his November statement was “inartful.”

The NRA has filed lawsuits in San Fransisco and Chicago to overturn their bans. Nobody has asked Obama whether he believes the gun ban in his home town is unconstitutional in light of the Heller case, but since it was nearly identical to that in Washington, D.C., someone might pose that question.

But the real problem Obama may have is spelling out his new position on guns in the wake of the high court’s decision. Here is why. Obama has always been in favor of banning handguns.

The weakness? Barack Obama’s utter disdain of firearms (especially handguns) and a refusal to recognize the rights of law-abiding Americans to own the most common and relied-upon types of firearms.In his answers to the 1998 Illinois State Legislative National Political Awareness Test, Obama said he favored a ban on “the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.”By definition, this would include all pistols ever made, from .22 target pistols used in the Olympics to rarely-fired pistols kept in nightstands and sock drawers for the defense of families, and every pistol in between. Obama’s strident stand would also ban all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, whatever their previously legal purpose.

The problem with that position is that Justice Scalia’s opinion stated that handguns, not just revolvers, not just semi-automatics, but handguns generally, are protected under the 2nd Amendment:

The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” would fail constitutional muster.

Which brings us to the new trap for the Messiah. The Washington D.C. City Council yesterday revised its gun ban to “comply” with the Supreme Court’s ruling. Of course, being (now proven) violators of American Constitutional rights, they have no intention of complying with the opinion.

From the Washington Post.

But District officials said yesterday that they are braced for the possibility of more legal wrangling as they try to respect the high court while maintaining the strictest controls possible. [snip]The legislation does not lift restrictions on semiautomatic handguns, a move that will probably land the District back in court, according to the lawyer who successfully challenged the gun ban.Announcing the regulations yesterday, Mayor Adrian M. Fenty was clear about what might be ahead.”We think we have struck the delicate legal balance,” he said during a news conference. “While we will have lawsuits, we think we stand on solid legal ground.”

Sure, and he was confident that the previous law was on solid legal ground too. Here is what the Mayor said after the Heller oral arguments in March.

The District of Columbia has a strong interest in keeping its residents safe from gun violence, said Mayor Fenty. I’m confident that the Justices will preserve that interest and allow us to continue regulating handguns.

Their “interest” was in banning guns, that is why it was being challenged. The mayor was wrong in March. He was wrong in June. These people frankly don’t care that the laws they write violate peoples’ rights. They just want to do what they believe is right; just like liberals everywhere.

So, Senator Obama, they, like you, believe that semi-automatic handguns should be banned.

The failure to lift the ban on handguns, as required by Heller, shows that the liberals in D.C. are either illiterate or are deliberately defying the Court’s ruling, in which case they should be thrown in jail.

Senator Obama, what is your position now? Are semi-automatic handguns banned by Heller, or not?

Also find Bill Dupray at The Patriot Room