SCOTUS Ruling on Gun Rights Highlights Obama Electability Issues

Today’s Memeorandum.com top stories are atwitter with scrutiny of Obama’s various stands and mismatched statements on gun control, starting with Political Radar’s “Obama Camp Disavows Last Year’s ‘Inartful’ Statement on D.C. Gun Law.”

First, we have — shudders — a presumptive presidential candidate who talked gansta style in Philadelphia on June 13th. From my story, “Obama’s Gangster Mentality“:

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

Obama’s words are dangerously poor examples to our nation’s youth. Obama’s words are unbecoming of a presidential candidate, let alone a president.

We’ve long known that Barack Obama is highly vulnerable on the issue of gun rights due to his all-over-the-map statements on gun ownership rights — and, most seriously, his voting record.

Before gun-lovin’ Idaho’s primary, Obama talked the talk about gun owners’ rights. But, during his terms as an Illinois state senator, he voted for laws that will disturb any gun ownership advocate. A CBS News story, “Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics” — its subtitle is “Eight Years As State Senator Were Full Of Controversial Votes, Including Abortion And Gun Control” — reports:

He supported allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons, but opposed allowing people to use banned handguns to defend against intruders in their homes. And the list of sensitive topics goes on.

With only a slim, two-year record in the U.S. Senate, Obama doesn’t have many controversial congressional votes which political opponents can frame into attack ads. But his eight years as an Illinois state senator are sprinkled with potentially explosive land mines, such as his abortion and gun control votes. …

More from “Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics” — “Eight Years As State Senator Were Full Of Controversial Votes, Including Abortion And Gun Control”:

Obama regularly supported gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic “assault weapons” and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month.

He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation.

Supporters framed the issue as a fundamental question of whether homeowners have the right to protect themselves.

Obama joined several Chicago Democrats who argued the measure could open loopholes letting gun owners use their weapons on the street. They said local governments should have the final say, but the self-defense exception passed 41-16 and ultimately became state law.

“It’s bad politics to be on the wrong side of the Second Amendment come election time,” said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. “It will certainly be talked about. You can take that to the bank.”

On the other hand, Obama parted company with gun control advocates when he backed a measure to let retired police officers and military police carry concealed weapons. …

Now, for today’s new twirl from the typical Obama “dance” around the issues:

Here’s that “inartful statement” featured today at ABC News’s blog, Political Radar:

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.’"

http://www.topix.com/content/trb/2007/11/court-to-hear-gun-case

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.

When Obama has been asked on multiple occasions to weigh in on the D.C. gun case he has regularly maintained that the Second Amendment provides an individual right while at the same time saying that right is not absolute and that the Constitution does not prevent local governments from enacting what Obama calls "common sense laws."

Although he has been willing to describe his general views on this topic, Obama has sidestepped the question of whether the ban in the nation’s capital runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

…

Remember this debate question by ABC’s Charlie Gibson?

Asked by ABC News’ Charlie Gibson if he considers the D.C. law to be consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms at ABC’s April 16, 2008, debate in Philadelphia, Obama said, "Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven’t listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence."

In stark contrast, Sen. McCain has been a straight-shooter on the issue, reports Political Radar:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., by contrast, has been forthcoming when it comes to the D.C. gun law. 
He signed an amicus brief in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, signaling not only his belief in the Second Amendment but also his view that the DC gun ban is incompatible with it.

Our friends at Reason magazine call Obama’s slippery statements “fishy.”

Earlier, Barack Obama had issued a fishy retraction of last year’s unambiguous statement that “the gun ban is constitutional.”

Remind me, would you: What is it that rots from the head?