I have my ongoing differences with the National Rifle Association, whose executives have met far too many unconstitutional gun regulations they think are “just right.”
But I appreciated their press release of Sept. 10, responding to a rally in rural Lebanon, Virginia, where “Barack Obama made another one of his empty election-year promises not to take away shotguns, rifles or handguns if elected president.”
Chief NRA lobbyist Chris Cox responded: “He has supported bans on handguns and semi-automatic firearms, and he has voted to ban possession of many shotguns and rifles commonly used by hunters and sportsmen across America. And we will remind voters every single time he lies.”
In 2003 while serving in the Illinois State Legislature, Obama voted in favor of a bill in the Judiciary Committee that would have made it illegal to “knowingly manufacture, deliver or possess” a so-called “semi-automatic assault weapons,” the NRA researchers learned. “Under this bill, a firearm did not actually have to be semi-automatic to be banned. According to definitions in the bill, all single-shot and double-barreled shotguns 28-gauge or larger, and many semi-automatic shotguns of the same size, would be banned as ‘assault weapons.’
“This definition would have banned a large percentage of the shotguns used for hunting, target shooting and self-defense in the United States. The bill also would have banned hundreds of models of rifles and handguns.
“Any Illinois resident who possessed one of these commonly used guns 90 days after the effective date would have had to ‘destroy the weapon or device, render it permanently inoperable, relinquish it to a law enforcement agency, or remove it from the state.’ Anyone who still possessed a banned gun would have been subject to a felony sentence.
“Obama may argue the bill was poorly drafted,” said Cox. “But Barack Obama – who brags about being a constitutional law professor and the former president of the Harvard Law Review – voted for it. That’s pathetic.”
B.R. writes in from Pahrump, Nevada:
“I moved from California eight years ago. … I haven’t researched its current gun laws, but I doubt that they have become more lax since I left. In your column, you refer to prohibited ‘loaded guns in parks’ unless locked in a trunk, etc. I believe that’s an error.
“When I lived there, you couldn’t carry a loaded weapon locked in a car trunk anywhere in the state. Loosely interpreted, the law stated that ammunition had to be stored completely separate from the weapon, with three distinct acts required to combine the two. That basically meant that one component had to be in the glove compartment or other locked container, and the other had to be in the trunk, or locked box if in the back of a truck, etc. The three acts would then be comprised of unlocking the glove box to access the gun or ammo, exiting the vehicle, and unlocking the trunk to get at the other component.
“I know that some cops were relaxed about enforcing such strict laws. I personally had a cop find a loaded 9 mm pistol under my seat during a routine traffic stop. (No, I didn’t prevent him from searching my vehicle. I usually try not to piss cops off.) He asked why I had a loaded weapon hidden from view. I explained that I worked graveyard shift in downtown L.A. and didn’t want to be defenseless. He said he understood, but that he could arrest me. He didn’t, but he advised me that other cops might not be so understanding, so please follow the law.
“Anyway, I love your column. Keep up the great work.”
Americans Arm Themselves to the Teeth
You may ask why American individuals are buying so many firearms per person. Simple. Some will be used, others will be hidden… concealed. If anyone asks about them they will have been lost, stolen, or destroyed in some kind of catastrophe such as a fire, etc.
Americans are scared witless that the democrats, under the Obama leadership, will make a determined effort to seize their guns. The democrats, including Obama, say they are for “Common sense” gun control. The definition of “Common sense” is what scares gun owners. I mean, when a Congress, so devoid of knowledge about firearms, outlaws an entire type of rifle because it LOOKS scary,” that tells you all you ever need to know about their “common sense.”
Remember those scary weapons? No amount of talking or demonstrating could convince the Congress that the weapons they outlawed were simply weapons designed merely to look militaristic, to look scary. Many hunting rifles carry the same ammunition as those “scary” weapons. The only difference is in the appearance of the weapons. But the “girlie” men in the Congress, and some of the “girlie” girls in the Congress were frightened by the appearance of those weapons… thus… they outlawed them. Talk about “common sense.” source
***********************************************CNN on Obama and gun control
CNN included three propsed laws Obama would like to see concerning guns and gun control. Each proposed law is fatally flawed and senseless in every way from my POV
A- "Reinstating the so-called "assault weapons ban"--Completely unnecessary in every way. What the first ban did (before it expired) was prohibit the sale and importation of guns based on cosmetic features alone. The way the gun functioned was of no conern to the morons who wrote the ban...it it "looked evil" it was included. Truth be told, assault weapons have been banned from genrealmopen sales for decades. You can't alk into a gunshop, and walk out with a machine gun or other fully automatic weapon. That requires extensive paperwork, time, background invesitigations, taxes, etc. This ban will not save lives, nor will it make our streets safer.
Here are some facts regarding assault weapons, and why such a ban would be utterly pointless.
NRA-ILA : Semi-Automatic Firearms and the Assault Weapons Issue
B-"A nationwide ban on concealed carry"-- This is so simple it's elementary. If people are denied the right to carry firearms legally, only criminals will be armed. Would you think twice about robbing someone if there was a significant chance you may get shot in the process? What if you were armed, and you knew the vast majority of your victims wouldn't be? Welcome to an Obama Nation, because, should he get his way, those are exactly the types of situations that would be created. Is any explanation really necessary here as to why that is a bad thing that will lead to the victimization of MORE Americans, not LESS?
C- "Local gun Laws". Is your right to free speech impeded by local law? Is your right to vote restricted by local laws? Is your right to be free from search and seizure dependant on local restrictions? The federal guns laws are sufficient, and localized laws lead to situations like Washington DC, where the concept of self-defense was all but banned previous to the Heller case. Now, however, due to their "local legislations" its still all but impossible to bneissued a pistol permit there, and Heller himself was denied, becasue they classified his semi-auto handgun (far and away the most popular type of firearm for self-defense in the US) was a "machine pistol". By any knowledgable person's definition, the weapon he wanted a permit for would NOT qaulify as a machine pistol by ANY stretch of the imagination, but then, knowledgeable people weren't the ones who wrote that fine piece of "local legislation." In essence, the DC gun ban still stands, because the local definitions used to define allowable guns are antiqudated and obsolete. Only revolvers holding less than 6 rounds would be accecptable home defense weapons under the local laws, despite the fact a revolver can be fired simply by pulling the trigger (like ANY semi-auto firearm), and have no manuel safety devices like most semi-auto handguns do. Again, guns banned for looks, rather than their overall safety or method of firing.
CNN highlighted each one of these as examples of the kinds of laws Obama wants. Each proposed law is seriously flawed. Why haven't we heard about restrictions and laws that actually work like...Oh I don't know....not making our jails into revolving doors, where violent offenders are repeatedly allowed to walk free to recommit violent crimes? Here's an idea....and one I've mentioned a thousand times as being a thousand times more effective solution than any law Obama has proposed--mandatory, heavy-duty sentences for anyone convicted of a crime of violence using a firearm. Of course, Obama wouldn't go for that...he doesn't even want gang members eligible for the death penalty for gang-related murders. He'd rather punish the law-abiding masses for the the crimes of the lawless few....instead of taking that approach and flipping it 180...tough on gun crime, easy on the law-abiding gun owners.
I'll let this initial frenzy pass, but I will be buying a few more guns solely becasue I want to chance to own them and have them "grandfathered in" and exempt from any new bans. Unl;ess its somehow by executive order, Obama can't immediately enact any sort of new gun laws. I'll let the panic buyers do their thing, and when sales have slowed and prices capped, I'll be getting an AR-15, and likely another couple of handguns. I'm also thankful that I'm eligible for my CCW permit(permit to carry a concealed weapon) to be reinstated come January. Hopefully, those of us who have proven ourselves competent will bebable to have that right grandfathered in, too. Its not that i carry a gun 24/7 or anything (though, at times, I do) but dammit, its my right and I should be able to exert such a right whenever I feel the need to do so or have reason to do so, or if I simply WANT to do so. source