Taking on The Lobby

After the horror that was Northern Illinois University Thursday afternoon, Barack Obama announced Friday morning that, as a constitutional attorney, he supports the Second Amendment right to bear arms, thinks it doesn't only apply to the militia, and that he also plans to use California gun control legislation as a paradigm for a national policy to contain the spread of gun violence.

But, is it really possible to have it both ways? Can one support the right to bear arms, as well as implement the kind of national gun control legislation that will stem the flood of shootings on our nation's campuses, streets, and homes? Essentially, the question is, should Senator Obama become President Obama would he be prepared to take on the most powerful, and influential, congressional lobby outside of the tobacco industry, the gun lobby?

After the spate of campus killings at Columbine, Virginia Tech, and now at Northern Illinois, there is little doubt that the former president, and his attorney general brother, Robert F. Kennedy, would be hard at work on gun control legislation now. Obama is fond of this quote from President John F. Kennedy: "Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate," but is he any more ready for hand to hand combat with those who put their rifles next to Gideon's Bible in Motel 6's from Idaho to Alaska, those who are the most obstinate opponents of restrictions on the possession, manufacture, and sale of firearms?

He suggests that he would support legislation on the order of gun laws implemented, in California, during Gray Davis' tenure as governor. While California has some of the most draconian firearm laws in the country, requiring that only those handguns be sold, or manufactured, that are listed on the Bureau of Firearms approved list, it's important to remember that private sales are exempted from this restriction. Moreover, one does not need a license to own a handgun in California.

In the nation's capital, all firearms must be registered with the police, and possession of handguns is prohibited, even in one's home, unless they were registered before 1976. And, while this handgun ban is currently being challenged by those who think it violates their Second Amendment right to bear arms, the ban will remain in effect until the Supreme Court hears the case.

Importantly, with the exception of certain counties, in Illinois, site of Thursday's mass shootings, and Obama's home state, registering a firearm is not mandated by law, and a Firearm Owner's Identification Card may be easily obtained unless the applicant has been convicted of a felony, or was a mental patient within the past five year nor is there a carry permit requirement. Notably, the gunman who randomly shot two dozen in a university lecture hall obtained his guns legally.

As one who doesn't profess to know enough about constitutional law to discuss the Second Amendment, I leave it to the Supreme Court to decide what that entitlement is. But, one can only hope that the image of the Virginia Tech shooter will be juxtaposed in the justices' memory along with the Northern Illionis University gunman, as well as others who have taken the lives of middle school students in Oxnard, and done drive-bys throughout our inner cities. One would hope that this, too, would be factored into their deliberations. Were it possible for the founding fathers to anticipate that, two centuries after their demise, assault weapons would be used by neighbor against neighbor, brother against brother, they might have been less ambiguous as to when one has a constitutional right to bear arms. Clearly, as survivors of a revolutionary war, there concept of citizen and militia must have been much different from our own.

Those who like to compare Barack Obama to John F. Kennedy, or his brother and attorney general, Robert F. Kennedy, must be reminded that, whether rightly or otherwise, President Kennedy stood up to Cuba, and Bobby Kennedy took on organized crime. We may not be sure of much, but we can count on the chutzpah of both Kennedy brothers to take on the most virulent of corporate lobbies in this country.

For the past eight years, we've had a president, and a Justice Department, that is too spineless to admit having taken a wrong turn with respect to our involvement in Iraq, yet is not afraid, or ashamed, to tweak the Constitution in ways that compromise freedom of expression, and due process. For nearly a decade, the Bush administration has lip synched the neo-conservative mantra of respect for human life while, at the same time, forever changing our notion of human rights. One has only to look at the treatment Jose Padilla received in the hands of his captors to grasp that this administration has no more respect for the human rights, and dignity, of its citizens than of those it detains in Iraq, or Afghanistan.

One thing is clear, a McCain presidency will cater to the gun lobby, and not act to limit access to firearms.

Moreover, if interpretation of the Second Amendment is in order, one would hope that it would be weighed heavily in favor of the preservation of human life, thus we ask Senator Obama, or any presidential nominee, to look to Washington, D.C., not to California, as a model for gun control legislation, and to work together with gun groups, and law enforcement, to get firearms out of the hands of our children, out of our classrooms, schoolyards, and streets.

If Senator Obama becomes his Party's nominee, then he must distinguish himself from his Republican opponent by demonstrating his commitment to curtailing the proliferation of handguns and assault weapons.

Comments

[perldog007]

"But, is it really possible to have it both ways? Can one support the right to bear arms, as well as implement the kind of national gun control legislation that will stem the flood of shootings on our nation's campuses, streets, and homes?"

YES. 31 states support the right to carry with a permit and Alaska and Vermont require no permit. School shootings and other crimes are stopped by ordinary legally armed citizens all the time.

Crime in the shall issue and right to carry states is lower than in restrictives states like California, Illinois, New Jersey and places like D.C. and Chicago.

In Israel they stem the flood of terrorists shooting school children with armed grandmothers in the schools AND support the right to keep and bear arms for their citizens.

You can have it both ways, but only if you consider all factors. If you assume that all guns and gun owners are evil everybody loses.

In Utah on state college campuses people with permits can and do carry guns.

Even with over 20,000 legal infringements on the right to keep and bear arms honest people with guns protect life and stop crime with far greater frequency than criminals and madmen take life with guns.

So what are you advocating? That our first African American President promote more slaughter?

Also, is the Second Amendment the only fundamental right you want to get rid of? Because once you establish the means to get rid of that Amendment what protects the rest?

[BritPatJax]

Neal Boortz want students to turn the lecture halls into the next OK Corral. One would start and others stand and join in. Who would know what started it and who was attacking and who was defending. I am grateful that my children are safely in the UK. See my whole article about guns and Boortz.
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/52953

[Thirdpower]

While Ms Stahl and yourself advocate more St Valentines Day Massacres. Of course you ignore the fact that several shootings have been thwarted by citizens w/ firearms. Including this one:

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/feb/19/e19attackweb/

Would you rather have the women be raped instead of being defended by a non-LEO w/ a firearm?

But of course the facts don't matter, only emotional hyperbole.

[molonlabe]

Another day, another hoplophobe.

Jayne,

Maybe you can explain to me why we would want to "take on the gun lobby" when it appears that they and other pro-rights organizations are the only ones concerned with educating youth about firearm safety? If anti-gun groups are so "concerned" with gun violence, you'd think that they would support firearm safety programs like the "Eddie the Eagle" program from the NRA. No, the Violence Policy Center(yeah, THAT anti-gun organization headed by Josh Sugarmann, who has a license to sell firearms) actually chastises the NRA for teaching children the seriousness of firearms.

"The primary goal of the National Rifle Association's Eddie Eagle program is not to safeguard children, but to protect the interests of the NRA and the firearms industry by making guns more acceptable to children and youth. The Eddie Eagle program employs strategies similar to those utilized by America's tobacco industry"from youth "educational" programs that are in fact marketing tools to the use of appealing cartoon characters that aim to put a friendly face on a hazardous product. The hoped-for result is new customers for the industry and new members for the NRA."

Here"s the rest:

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/eddiekey.htm

Anti-gunners only want "common sense" when it fits their anti-gun agenda. There is only "compromise" when the law-abiding have to give up yet more of their constitutionally protected rights.

Try again, Jayne, the rhetoric is getting OLD.

[Thirdpower]

Columbine, VT, & NIU. All "Gun Free Zones". I guess they all "Catered to the Gun Lobby".

[Herrington]

I don't know if anyone here remembers a time when there were no random shooting sprees. Charles Whitman in 1966 was the first in my memory. As I recall, the good old boys pulled their rifles out of their guns racks and started shooting back. They probably saved a few lives that day. Whitman was said to have had a brain tumor.

I used to carry a rifle on the Greyhound bus on my way to hunt in Texas. I was astonished that a lady got upset about it once. She called the bus driver and he asked if it was loaded. I said no and he reassured the lady. My point is that there was a time and atmosphere where guns were not a threat, when senseless shooting and killing just simply was not given the slightest thought.

This has gotten serious though. There must be a destabilizing factor of some kind. And that factor defies any characterization other than insanity, tragedy and waste. And in our consternation, we blame inanimate objects and begin to doubt the wisdom of our Constitution.

I have studied the gun, what makes it work, how and when to use it in defense and to avoid confrontations in which it could become a resolution. I have never used a gun in self defense. I have been shot in the throat and lived. And now there are people I trust with guns and people I do not.

I suggest to the NRA that if they want to protect the 2 nd Amendment, they should become the worlds foremost advocates of mental health. Because to simply rely on weak kneed systems of voluntary reporting by mental health professionals and facilities is passivity. The NRA needs to actively campaign to find the source and remedy for the rash of mental collapses that have most dramatically manifested themselves in random gun violence.

I sit here and imagine the torments and potentials of all those people who have not resorted to a violent expression of their distress. I suspect they vastly outnumber the ones who have.

[Doofus]

How we know we are truly free in the good ol' USA is that people, even mentally-ill people, are able to obtain guns and shoot down their friends & neighbors. What's in our favor is that this only happens to a few tens of thousands every year, and in a country of 300 million, your odds are still pretty good. Just remember - Live Free or Die, From my cold, dead hands, and so on.

[Senzasord]

Should Senator Obama elect to follow the advice you dole out, he will hand the republicans the issue, and they will use it to keep their strangle hold on the so called Reagan deomcrats who are only now starting to figure out that it is better to vote in your self interest than it is to worry about single hot button issues. I think Senator Obama would be better served to distinguish himself from other past democratic candidates who came out full bore for gun control and ended up losing the election.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

"there is little doubt that the former president, and his attorney general brother, Robert F. Kennedy, would be hard at work on gun control legislation now."

You just made that up.

Both JFK and RFK were in favor of controlling and punishing criminals. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in their histories to indicate that they would be in favor of depriving peaceful, law abiding citizens of the right to defend themselves.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in their histories to indicate that they would be in favor of mass punishment, universally punishing the guilty and innocent alike.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in their histories to indicate that they would be in favor of listening to straw-man arguments and then accepting an irrational solution.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in their histories to indicate that they would be in favor of a greater police state, one that would turn a blind eye to all the illegal aliens (including drug smugglers and drug dealers) while accepting a goal of restricting the right of law abiding citizens to own guns.

Eventually, you may get the greater "gun control" that you want. When that day happens, you will find that those who will be hired to enforce the gun control will be as efficient and sensible as the TSAs who stop and focus upon grandmothers in wheel chairs, parents with infants, etc.

If you have a valid argument for greater gun control of the guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, please make it. In the meantime, please stop making up the nonsense about how JFK and RFK would support your position.

[Doofus]

Just because JFK was killed by a guy with a mail-order military-surplus ww2 Italian rifle and RFK by a guy with a cheap saturday-night-special, is no reason to believe they'd be in favor of tighter gun controls. Just because one mass-murderer gets his weapons from the same web-site as another, doesn't mean... Well, it doesn't mean something. No way. Again, cold dead hands & stuff.

Tolerance of this sort of behavior & these events is just a macabre American trait, not to be taken too seriously by the rest of the world. Part of what sets US apart, makes US *free* & unique.

[qdemn7]

"Reasonable restrictions" on firearms is like "reasonable restrictions" on the Right to Choose. This is nothing more than an incremental effort to ban things that cannot be banned outright.

Let me put it to you in other terms. The reason so many of us are passionate is that we regard the RKBA (Right to Keep and Bear Arms) the way ardent feminists regard the Right to Choose. In effect we are saying "This is MY body, and NO ONE is going to tell me what I can do with it." By attempting to remove the "choice", that is the decision whether or not to own a gun, you are attempting to exert dominion over my body, and my property, and this is something that I / we will simply not tolerate. You can make all the arguments about OTHERS getting hurt, or the possibility of something bad happening, and to be frank, it is all irrelevant, since you are thus prioritizing my body as being less important than others. Now it is OK for ME to make that choice, but it is definitely not acceptable for YOU to be doing that. Anymore than it is your or my place to attempt to tell a women whether, when, how or even if she can reproduce. In a country based on the Rights of the Individual, you are saying the Group is more important than the Individual, and that is something that is utterly unacceptable to many people in the USA.

What is truly mind-boggling is the attitude of Progressives who are always in favor of Gun Control. These are people who never miss a moment to make know their distrust or outright hatred of Police or the Military, yet they want Laws passed so that ONLY the Police or Military have guns. I have never understood those who have that mentality.

[drblack]

Laws against guns will be just as effective as laws against some drugs.
We all know that there are no illegal drugs,no corrupt cops, or gangs who exist because of drug profit.
Passing those drug laws solved the problem .

[sarge]

So how much money is Obama taking from the gun lobby, sparkandy? None, so far as I know. Obama as a state legislator consistently supported tougher gun laws.

Obama isn't concerned with the gun lobby, but he is concerned with voters. An aggressive gun control position is a guarantee of losing every state in the south.

The whisper campaign in the southern states during the Gore campaign was that he was going to "take your guns away". And it worked!

There are three things you can't do if you want to get elected president:

1) Support Gay marriage
2) Support single payer healthcare
3) Support a ban on handguns

During the general election, Obama will already pay dearly for his support for gun control in Illinois. He's going to be moderate on this issue, or McCain is going to be president, and that has nothing to do with the gun lobby.

The gun lobby will back McCain no matter what. It's voters like "snookie" that force Obama's hand.

[1will]

So the author compares the NRA and gun owners to Cuba and organized crime. Nice. It's nothing like a shrill over reaching comparision to get your point across. Is it any reason why gun owners distrust anti gunners.
As for the NRA, I'm a member and an instructor. I don't like being compared to Mafia types or dictatorships.
By the way, the NRA lobbies for it's members just like the NAACP, NEA, AARP, NOW, etc. It's only a special interest when it's not YOUR special interest. Believing otherwise is just hypocrisy. Your problem is not with the NRA lobbying it's with the group having a different political opinion than you do. Those that feel differently than you need to be silenced, correct?

[Querent]

She didn't say you should be silenced, I don't believe. That doesn't mean much. She is assuming that being progressive requires being anti-gun. She is assuming wrong. Progressive can be pro-gun. NRA is not a progressive organization, but plenty of NRA members are progressive. The anti-gun progressive contingency is a minority. It's okay for her to be anti-gun. It's okay for you to be pro-gun. It's not a defining issue.

[FogBelter]

One of America's Greatest Progressives ... Theodore Roosevelt ... had quite an affection for guns.

[1will]

I'm going to lump Liberals and Progressives together since 1. They are the same and 2. No matter what label Lefties use this week their party is the Democratic Party.
She didn't say I should be silenced. She only favors silencing the lobbying group that represents me and many others.
The Democratic Party with it's Lefties, Libs, Progressives or whatever title they're using this week are the anti gun party. While some members may be pro gun as a group the party takes a strict anti gun line.

[FogBelter]

I've been for gun control for as long as I can remember, Ms Stahl, but in light of what has occurred over that past seven years with the rise of groups like Blackwater ... I am quite happy that the Second Amendment has been interpreted as it has.

In fact, the real purpose of the Second Amendment shines through now as a way for the American People to protect themselves from their own Government ... for if Blackwater, or mercenaries from a similar group, are marching through American Cites and towns it will be because an element of the US Government put them there.

We still live in a world where most students won't be murdered in their classroom, and most children won't wind up killing themselves with daddy's gun.

And while those human losses are regrettable and tragic ... the inability for the American People to defend their Nation from tyranny at a grass roots level is even worse to contemplate.

[oldpotsmuggler]

Smart money says that the current SCOTUS will uphold the D.C. Circuit at least to the extent of holding that the Second Amendment creates an individual right. I'm thinking another 5 to 4, with Kennedy doing the writing and maybe trying to "legislate" some sort of a balancing process. They're too conservative not to strike the D.C. law, but probably will end up too afraid to actually send us as far down the road as the Circuit Court got things started.

My personal belief is that this is just one more subject on which it makes little sense for those of us living now to simply accept without question the original pronouncements of the Founding Fathers. I understand and appreciate the value of having an armed citizenry that could theoretically thwart the efforts of a theoretical despot to create an American dictatorship. However, I also understand the value of bringing our best modern minds to bear in the area of solving our modern problems. Sadly, that's something that we've done all too little of.

It"s like this. To the extent that a Constitutional right exists, the authority to legislate firearms regulation needs to be placed under some real limitations. The line drawing here gets hairy, but the safest bet is that there are any number of laws currently on the books that simply will no longer pass muster. For example, if ex-felons and users of psychiatric medications don"t lose their First Amendment rights, why would the result be an different with respect to the Second Amendment? These things can and should be discussed, and answers created by our current citizens for our current circumstances.

Folks on both sides of this issue actually need to give serious thought to supporting the creation of The Second American Constitutional Convention. The exact level of firearms rights that our country now wants is not clear to anyone yet, but what is clear is that the language of our current Constitution is likely not to provide the best means for us reaching that point.

[TarantinosNYC]

On the other hand he has to throw the military/industrial complex some kind of bone or he'll be in real trouble.