"Appeasement." What word better describes the current attitude of the Obama administration, and many in the Democratic Party, toward the gun lobby?
The word recently was invoked by syndicated columnist Marie Cocco referring to the approach of the White House to the gun issue. "Obama and the Democrats haven't stared down the gun lobby," she wrote. "They've enabled it."
Is it a stretch to envision President Obama as the Neville Chamberlain of the gun issue? Consider the record so far. The President broke his campaign pledge to seek repeal of a set of Bush-supported appropriations riders (the "Tiahrt Amendments") that have weakened the Brady Act and other federal gun laws. Despite his personal commitment to voting rights for District of Columbia residents, Obama was silent as the NRA held the voting rights bill hostage to its vision of the District with virtually no gun laws. With not a syllable uttered in protest, the President signed credit card reform legislation laden with Senator Coburn's ridiculous amendment to allow loaded guns in national parks. When Attorney General Holder and Secretary of State Clinton suggested that strengthening U.S. gun laws may well help to reduce the arming of Mexican drug cartels with American guns, they were silenced. Then, in surely the most bizarre example, when protesters started showing up near the President's speeches with loaded guns, instead of condemning the practice, the White House responded that it had no problem with it as long as local laws were not being violated.
The guiding principle of the Obama gun policy seems to be: whatever happens, don't rile up the gun guys.
Of course, it is worth noting that the gun guys are determined to get riled up, no matter how weak the administration is on guns. The NRA's "Obama is coming to get your guns" message has continued unabated, inspiring record breaking gun sales despite the administration's "do nothing, say nothing" approach.
The real problem, of course, is that there is no end to the gun lobby's demands. The more you feed the beast, the more it will want. Yesterday, it was eviscerating D.C.'s gun laws and allowing guns in Yosemite; tomorrow it will be limiting ATF's power to crack down on corrupt gun dealers. The forces of reason in the Senate narrowly blocked the NRA's attempt to weaken state restrictions on carrying of concealed weapons, but this wretched proposal will no doubt be back in some form.
The question is: When will the Obama administration and Congressional Democratic leaders make a stand? They have just witnessed the NRA doing everything in its power to defeat the President's first Supreme Court nominee. They have heard the NRA's silence as gun-wielding protesters use the tactics of intimidation to oppose Obama's health care reforms. What does the "gun rights" crowd have to do before the President says, "enough is enough"?
Like the rest of the political right, the NRA is determined to see Obama fail. As Marie Cocco argued, it is absurd for Obama and the Democratic leadership to believe that "if they just try to get along with the gun lobby, the gun lobby will get along with them." The gun lobby cannot be stopped by giving it the ground it seeks today, because it will seek even more tomorrow.
On the gun issue, isn't it time for Obama and the Democrats to replace appeasement with resistance?
For more information, see Dennis Henigan's new book, Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy.
-Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=95394&mesg_id=95510
Dropping the gun-ban crusade allows other issues to come to the forefront, issues that most non-gun-owners generally feel are more important than guns: health care, foreign policy, and social infrastructure.
AND A NUMBER OF COURTS HAVE REMAINED FIRM IN THEIR PRIOR POSITIONS, EVEN AFTER CONSIDERING EMERSON. See, e.g., United States v. Lippman, 369 F. 3d 1039, 1043–1045 (CA8 2004); United States v. Parker, 362 F. 3d 1279, 1282–1284 (CA10 2004); United States v. Jackubowski, 63 Fed. Appx. 959, 961 (CA7 2003) (unpublished opinion); Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F. 3d 1052, 1060–1066 (CA9 2002); United States v. Milheron, 231 F. Supp. 2d 376, 378 (Me. 2002); Bach v. Pataki, 289 F. Supp. 2d 217, 224–226 (NDNY 2003); United States v. Smith, 56 M. J. 711, 716 (C. A. Armed Forces 2001).
Stevens incidentally says hundreds of decisions have gone along with his view.
But he cites not one case which was decided prior to 1900 which interprets the 2nd or any of the state analogs as anything other than an individual right. Nor does he cite a single commentator pre 1900 which supports that view.
Oh really? Lets see... Stevens first cite is to: United States v. Lippman, 369 F. 3d 1039. In that case the 8th circuit panel was bound by preexisting precedent and had no power to reexamine the 2nd Amend in light of Emerson, stating:" Nor could a panel of the court overrule our line of cases."
The 2nd case is US v Parker... again holding that they were foreclosed from considering the issue by preexisting precedent: "Parker's reliance on Emerson is foreclosed by this court's rulings in Bayles, Graham, and Haney"
3rd case is United States v. Jackubowski which stated that the " Federal statute that made it a crime for a convicted felon to be in possession of a firearm did not offend the Second Amendment". Such a conclusion would be reached under the Heller majority opinion.
4th case is Silveira v. Lockyer. FINALLY one that actually reviewed its previous ruling in an en banc hearing! Over a strong dissent, the 9th circuit retained its previous holding in Hickman v Block that the 2nd Amendment provides a right to the states to protect its well regulated militia and is not an individual right whatsoever.... a conclusion directly contradicted by all 9 members of the Supreme Court in Heller... as even the dissent found an individual right, albeit limited in scope.
Continued...
Obama and the democrats are right in treading softly as they know they will be put out of jobs if they continue to blame the vast majority for the actions of a few.
Maybe you can explain how adding more laws will prevent Mexican drug cartels from acquiring machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers and explosives. Other than a few civilians that go thru extreme background checks and stringient licensng requirements, there is no way these weapons can get into the hands of anyone with criminal intent without the weapons directly traceable to the source.
Maybe you should be looking at the military and police agencies who have easy access to these weapons as a possible source. The only other place to look is foreign markets who will sell anything for the right amount of $.
Quit looking for boogymen and open your eyes. Prosecute criminals and leave honest people exercizing their rights alone.
United States v. Wright, 117 F. 3d 1265, 1271–1274 (CA11 1997); United States v. Rybar, 103 F. 3d 273, 285–286 (CA3 1996); Hickman v. Block, 81 F. 3d 98, 100–103 (CA9 1996); United States v. Hale, 978 F. 2d 1016, 1018–1020 (CA8 1992); Thomas v. City Council of Portland, 730 F. 2d 41, 42 (CA1 1984) (per curiam); United States v. Johnson, 497 F. 2d 548, 550 (CA4 1974) (per curiam); United States v. Johnson, 441 F. 2d 1134, 1136 (CA5 1971); see also Sandidge v. United States, 520 A. 2d 1057, 1058–1059 (DC App. 1987).
“Until the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Emerson, 270 F. 3d 203 (2001), EVERY Court of Appeals to consider the question had understood Miller to hold that the Second Amendment DOES NOT PROTECT THE RIGHT TO POSSESS AND USE GUNS FOR PURELY PRIVATE, CIVILIAN PURPOSES. See, e.g., United States v. Haney, 264 F. 3d 1161, 1164–1166 (CA10 2001); United States v. Napier, 233 F. 3d 394, 402–404 (CA6 2000); Gillespie v. Indianapolis, 185 F. 3d 693, 710–711 (CA7 1999); United States v. Scanio, No. 97–1584, 1998 WL 802060, *2 (CA2, Nov. 12, 1998) (unpublished opinion);”
Ironically, tha'st exactly what pro-2A people say about the anti-gun lobby.
And a
number of courts have remained firm in their prior positions, even after
considering Emerson. See, e.g., United States v. Lippman, 369 F. 3d
1039, 1043–1045 (CA8 2004); United States v. Parker, 362 F. 3d 1279,
1282–1284 (CA10 2004); United States v. Jackubowski, 63 Fed. Appx.
959, 961 (CA7 2003) (unpublished opinion); Silveira v. Lockyer, 312
F. 3d 1052, 1060–1066 (CA9 2002); United States v. Milheron, 231
F. Supp. 2d 376, 378 (Me. 2002); Bach v. Pataki, 289 F. Supp. 2d 217,
224–226 (NDNY 2003); United States v. Smith, 56 M. J. 711, 716 (C. A.
Armed Forces 2001).
Stevens, by the way, said hundreds of judges had ruled this way, so now you can bring in your famed 39.
Both the DOJ and Congress recognize it as an individual right:
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf
http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm
As for other cases recognizing an individual right, here is a partial list w/ case name and descriptor.
http://saf.org/JFPP12ch5.htm
Until the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Emerson, 270
F. 3d 203 (2001), every Court of Appeals to consider the question had
understood Miller to hold that the Second Amendment does not protect
the right to possess and use guns for purely private, civilian purposes.
See, e.g., United States v. Haney, 264 F. 3d 1161, 1164–1166 (CA10
2001); United States v. Napier, 233 F. 3d 394, 402–404 (CA6 2000); Gillespie v. Indianapolis, 185 F. 3d 693, 710–711 (CA7 1999); United
States v. Scanio, No. 97–1584, 1998 WL 802060, *2 (CA2, Nov. 12,
1998) (unpublished opinion); United States v. Wright, 117 F. 3d 1265,
1271–1274 (CA11 1997); United States v. Rybar, 103 F. 3d 273, 285–286
(CA3 1996); Hickman v. Block, 81 F. 3d 98, 100–103 (CA9 1996); United
States v. Hale, 978 F. 2d 1016, 1018–1020 (CA8 1992); Thomas v. City
Council of Portland, 730 F. 2d 41, 42 (CA1 1984) (per curiam); United
States v. Johnson, 497 F. 2d 548, 550 (CA4 1974) (per curiam); United
States v. Johnson, 441 F. 2d 1134, 1136 (CA5 1971); see also Sandidge
v. United States, 520 A. 2d 1057, 1058–1059 (DC App. 1987).
I've already presented you the list of numerous cases that recognized an individual 2A right along w/ the DOJ and Congress.
Why won't you respond to that fact?
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf
http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm
As for other cases recognizing an individual right, here is a partial list w/ case name and descriptor.
http://saf.org/JFPP12ch5.htm
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-a-henigan/obama-and-the-gun-lobby-a_b_287152.html
The demonization of democratic socialism is just about as silly. Democratic socialism can't be totalitarian, and because any elected democratic socialist must have received a majority of votes, can't be minority rule. Therefore, your guilt-by-association connections to totalitarian communist regimes have nothing to do with anything. I know the "comrade" stuff feels pretty devastating to you, so knock yourselves out.
Here I'm only answering Mr. Henigan's profound analysis, especially about appeasing the gun obsessives:
"Like the rest of the political right, the NRA is determined to see Obama fail. As Marie Cocco argued, it is absurd for Obama and the Democratic leadership to believe that "if they just try to get along with the gun lobby, the gun lobby will get along with them." The gun lobby cannot be stopped by giving it the ground it seeks today, because it will seek even more tomorrow."
One would expect more from a "COLLEGE PROFESSOR".
And how is that different from the gun control lobby? Tell me Dennis, is the Brady Bunch ever going to declare "Mission Accomplished", clean out their office, and send everyone home? That's not how lobbying groups work. Regardless of whether or not they support or oppose gun rights, all lobbying groups move right on to another task as soon as they have accomplished victory in their current one. That's just how it works for all of them, including the Brady Center.
Anyway, the reason the president hasn't been doing the Brady Center's bidding like the good little servant then hoped he would be (remember "We Win, they lose, let's get to work?") is because it is clear that passing new sweeping gun bans would be deeply unpopular and would cost him thousands of votes. Gun sales have been skyrocketing ever since Obama was elected on the mere suspicion he might get new gun laws passed. Citizens have been making it clear they do not want to be disarmed and defenseles, especially with the threat of increased crime during the recession. If he is facing this much opposition before working on new gun laws, just imagine how unpopular he will be if any are passed.
Obama is simply taking into account popular opposition to gun control. That's not "appeasement. It's democracy.
(personally, I voted for Adam Schiff).
But, are his opponents any better?
1) There is not a lot of room to move the needle in NYC on gun control, which is already one of the most restrictive in the US., and
2) As Aborn discovered, pro-gun control people are unlikely to vote on just that issue.