I think most of the NRA's claims are substantially correct.
Read:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.htmlIt's clear that most of the points are in fact true, and Obama/Fact Check is merely mincing words to try and say they aren't true.
Let's look at some of what Fact Check has to say:
NRA Claim: "Ban use of Firearms for Home Self-Defense"
False: Obama is proposing no such ban.
The NRA bases this overheated claim on a vote Obama cast on March 24, 2004, in the Illinois state Senate. He was one of 20 who opposed SB 2165. That bill, which passed 38 - 20 and became law, did not make it a crime to use firearms for self-defense, however. Rather, it created a loophole for persons caught violating local gun registration laws.
It states that in any Illinois municipality where a gun ban is in effect, it shall be an "affirmative defense" if the person accused of violating the ban can show that the weapon was used "in an act of self-defense or defense of another ... when on his or her land or in his or her abode or fixed place of business."
Letting the owner of a banned firearm escape a municipality's penalty is one thing, but it's another thing entirely to make it a crime to use any firearm – registered or not – in self-defense. The bill came about after Hale DeMar, of Wilmette, Ill., shot a burglar who had invaded his home. At the time, Wilmette had an ordinance that prohibited owning handguns.So, Obama has voted
against legislation that would provide immunity to someone who uses a firearm for self-defense in a place where firearms were banned.
OK, so it's not a "Ban (on the) use of Firearms for Home Self-Defense" - it's just a slap in the face to people who would use them for such purpose. By providing no support for protection for people who use firearms for self-defense where it's illegal, he sends the clear message that
they ought to be illegal.
It's clear where Obama's sentiments lie in this instance.
NRA Claim: "Ban Rifle Ammunition Commonly Used for Hunting and Sport Shooting"
False: Obama is not proposing to ban hunting ammunition. And he did not, as claimed in an NRA TV spot featuring a Virginia hunter named Karl Rusch, vote to "ban virtually all deer hunting ammunition." What Obama voted for was a measure to ban "armor-piercing" ammunition, which the measure's sponsor has said repeatedly would not cover hunting ammunition.
This claim is based on Obama's vote on S. 397 in the U.S. Senate. Obama was one of 31 senators who voted in favor of S. Amdt. 1615 to S. 397 which sought to "expand the definition of armor piercing ammunition."
However, the measure's sponsor, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, said his amendment was not intended to cover hunting ammunition:
Sen. Kennedy (July 29, 2005): This is not about hunting. We know duck and geese and deer do not wear armor vests; police officers do.The simple fact is that just about any ammunition fired through a rifle will defeat body armor designed to defend against pistols. The law may not be
intended to impact hunting ammunition, but you can bet that it will be used by the gun-grabbers to cut as large a swath in available ammunition as possible. For example, what about pistol ammunition that is usable in carbines? Does the fact that it
can be used in a pistol mean that I can't use it in a rifle anymore?
I'm skeptical of any ammunition ban and I'm quite certain that the NRA is correct - you ban any specific type of ammunition and it will probably affect hunting and sporting people.
NRA Claim: "Ban the Manufacture, Sale and Possession of Handguns"
False: Obama says he does not support any such handgun ban and never has. He supports "reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of handguns" (not manufacture) and has said a ban is not "politically practicable."
The NRA bases its claim on a disputed 1996 questionnaire that Obama's Illinois state Senate campaign filled out for the nonprofit voting group, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization. On it, somebody filled in the word "yes" in response to the question, "Do you support legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?" But the Obama campaign said that the survey was actually filled out by his then-campaign manager who "unintentionally mischaracterized his position," adding that Obama never saw the survey.Riiiiiiight. Obama didn't fill out the questionnaire, someone else did. In any case, here's what Obama said later:
Obama, 2003: 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."Note that he doesn't say that a complete ban on handguns is not
acceptable, he just says it
"is not politically practicable". This tells me as soon as he finds it "politically practicable" he'll be all over it.
NRA Claim: "Mandate a Government-Issued License to Purchase a Firearm"
Misleading: Obama indeed has spoken in favor of licensing handguns, but so far as we can determine he hasn't called for registration of hunting weapons. And he's said a national gun registration law isn't politically possible: "I just don't think we can get that done."Note he doesn't say that he thinks a national gun registration law is
unacceptable, he again says it
"isn't politically possible. You can thus bet that Obama's registration schemes will be as broad as he thinks will be "politically possible".
NRA Claim: "Pass Federal Laws Eliminating Your Right-to-Carry"
True: In 2004, while running for the Democratic nomination for the Senate seat he now holds, Obama indeed called for "national legislation" to prevent anyone but law enforcers from carrying concealed firearms. That one speaks for itself.
NRA Claim: "Expand the Clinton Semi-Auto Weapons Ban to Include Millions More Firearms"
Partly true: The NRA refers here to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which was put in place during former President Bill Clinton's administration. Title XI of the legislation spoke directly to regulations on assault weapons. The law outlawed the semi-automatic versions of 19 kinds of military-style assault weapons, but it expired in 2004. So Obama supports the AWB. You can be certain that when it is brought to the table again they will try to make sure that the law cannot be simply complied with by simple cosmetic changes like last time.
NRA Claim: "Appoint Judges to the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary Who Share His Views on the Second Amendment"
In any case, Obama says he believes the Second Amendment "creates an individual right" to bear arms. That's at odds with some strong gun-control advocates who had argued that the Second Amendment limited the right to bear arms to a "well-regulated militia." The Supreme Court rejected that view in its June ruling overturning the D.C. gun ban. But Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Chief Justice John Roberts joined that opinion. To the dismay of gun-control advocates, Obama did not criticize the ruling. Instead, he said it "will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country."Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Heller decision.
NRA Claim: "Increase Federal Taxes on Guns and Ammunition by 500 Percent"
Uncertain: This claim is based on an article that appeared in the Chicago Defender on Dec. 13, 1999, when Obama was in the Illinois state Senate. According to the Defender, at an anti-gun rally, Obama "outlined his anti-gun plan," which, among other things, sought to "increase the federal taxes by 500 percent on the sale of firearm, ammunition -- weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths." As a U.S. senator, however, Obama has not pushed for any such tax on ammunition.
We asked the Obama campaign about his position on an ammunition tax but have received no response.Is no news good news? Time will tell.
NRA Claim: "Close Down 90 Percent of Gun Shops in America"
Uncertain: This claim also is based on the1999 Defender article. It reported Obama was pushing "all federally licensed gun dealers sell firearms in a storefront and not from their homes while banning their business from being within five miles of a school or a park." The NRA states that the 5-mile limit would have resulted in the closing of 90 percent of gun shops in the country. But as a U.S. senator Obama hasn't pushed for a 5-mile limit and isn't proposing one as part of his presidential campaign.
We asked the Obama campaign about his current position on imposing a five-mile limit on gun shops but have received no response.No response again. I'm pretty certain that we are going to see another push against FFL holders, in an attempt to get rid of "kitchen table vendors". I wanted to become a "kitchen table" vendor, so I could get the FFL license, just so that I could purchase firearms through the mail without having to pay someone to accept the package for me. But nooooooo - you aren't allowed to get an FFL just for personal firearm purchases. Why not?
NRA Claim: "Restore Voting Rights for Five Million Criminals Including Those Who Have been Convicted of Using a Gun to Commit a Violent Crime"
Mostly true: We could find no NRA citation to back up this statement. We note, however, that Obama was a cosponsor of the Count Every Vote Act of 2007. The section of the legislation, "Sec. 701. Voting Rights of Individuals Convicted of Criminal Offenses," states that the purpose of Title VII of the legislation was "to restore fairness in the Federal election process by ensuring that ex-offenders who have fully served their sentences are not denied the right to vote." There has been no action on the bill since March 2007 when it was referred to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.
Currently, the Sentencing Project estimates that 5.3 million Americans are denied the right to vote because of state laws denying the right to people with felony convictions. It further estimates that this bars 13 percent of African-American men from voting. Most of those ex-offenders were not, however, convicted of gun violence. "There is absolutely no way of getting to that," said Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project. "All we can say is that the majority of felony charges are not for violent crimes and guns." So Obama was a cosponsor of legislation to restore voting rights to ex-felons, and though the
majority of felony charges are not for violent crimes and guns, no doubt
some are, and consequently they would, as the NRA claims, have their voting rights restored.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
