Barack Obama seems ready to lie about, er, clarify his position
on guns, ABC News reports:
ABC News' Teddy Davis and Alexa Ainsworth Report:
With the Supreme Court poised to rule on Washington, D.C.'s, gun
ban, the Obama campaign is disavowing what it calls an "inartful"
statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide
characterized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as believing that the DC
ban was constitutional.
"That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to
explain the Senator's consistent position," Obama spokesman Bill
Burton tells ABC News.
The statement which Burton describes as an inaccurate
representation of the senator's views was made to the Chicago
Tribune on Nov. 20, 2007.
In a story entitled, "Court to Hear Gun Case," the
Chicago Tribune's James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins wrote ". .
. the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said
that he '...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights
of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to
enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama
believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.'"
The Chicago Tribune clip from Nov. 20, 2007, is an
inaccurate representation of Obama's views, according to Burton,
because the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee has
refrained from developing a position on whether the D.C. gun law
runs afoul of the Second Amendment.
I may not be as sophisticated as the folks in Obamaville, but to
me, when somebody says, "Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is
constitutional," far from being "inartful," it's rather a crystal
clear statement that he things the D.C. handgun ban is
Constitutional.
This is only the latest in the evolution of Obama's public
statements on handguns.
In a 1996 questionnaire Obama filled out when seeking the
endorsement of the progressive group IVI-IPO, Obama emphatically
answered "yes" when asked whether he would support state
legislation to "ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of
handguns."
I have a copy of the document, ironically because the Clinton
campaign was handing them out in the spin room following the
Democratic debate in Philadelphia, during which Obama tried to
claim that his handwriting wasn't on the document (also
untrue).
In a 2003 questionnaire with the same
group, this time when he was running statewide for U.S. Senate, he
was more equivocal:
Do you support legislation to ban the manufacture,
sale and possession of
a. handguns?
While a complete ban on handguns is not politically
practicable, I believe reasonable restrictions on the sale and
possession of handguns are necessary to protect the public safety.
In the Illinois Senate last year, I supported a package of bills to
limit individual Illinoisans to purchasing one handgun a month;
require all promoters and sellers at firearms shows to carry a
state license; allow civil liability for death or injuries caused
by handguns; and require FOID applicants to apply in person. I
would support similar efforts at the federal level, including
retaining the Brady Law.
b. assault weapons?
Yes.
c. ammunition for handguns and assault weapons?
I would support banning the sale of ammunition for
assault weapons and limiting the sale of ammunition for
handguns.
Notice that he says a complete ban is not "politically
practicable," suggesting that would be his ultimate goal if it
were. Should be interesting to see what his opinion on guns turns
out to be today.
topics:
Barack Obama, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, NATO
