Obama on Gun Control

[BPSCG]

Link

(Note this is from December, 1999, when Obama was an Illinois state senator.)

Sweeping federal gun control legislation proposed by Sen. Barack Obama (D-13th) would increase the penalties on gun runners who are flooding Chicago's streets with illegal weapons.

At an anti-gun rally held at the Park Manor Christian Church, 600 E. 73rd St., headed by the Rev. James Demus, Obama also said he's backing a resolution being introduced into the City Council by Alds. Toni Preckwinkle (4th), Ted Thomas (15th), Leslie Hairston (5th) to call for a "shot-free" millennium celebration.

Obama outlined his anti-gun plan that includes increased penalties for the interstate transportation of firearms. The maximum penalty now for bringing a gun across the border is 10 years in prison. Obama is proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home.

He's proposing restricting gun purchases to one weapon a month and banning the sale of firearms at gun shows except for "antique" weapons. Obama is also proposing increasing the licensing fee to obtain a federal firearms license.

He's also seeking a ban on police agencies from reselling their used weapons even if those funds are used to buy more state-of-the-art weapons for their agencies. Obama wants only those over 21 who've passed a basic course to be able to buy or own a firearm.

He's proposing that 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.

Bolding mine.

If someone steals your gun out of your house and shoots someone with it, you get charged with a felony.

Today's exercise: Calculate how far you would have to drive in order to get to the closest point where a gun store could legally be located, i.e., more than five miles from the nearest school or park.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

If someone steals your gun out of your house and shoots someone with it, you get charged with a felony.

If, and only if, you had not securely stored your weapon.

 

[kallsop]

Assuming he puts Hillary out of her misery and wins the nomination, it will be a most interesting campaign through November.

I just saw a clip of Obama on a news show last night, trying to talk his way out of his close and enduring association with his fundraiser, the Rezko bum. Obama looked like a deer in the headlights and was totally unconvincing. This is the first time I really saw his inexperience shine through and he looked very vulnerable.

He's a sitting duck for the republicans to aim at. Just in the last week alone, he didn't know Al-Qaeda was in Iraq, lied about Rockefellers position on the Iraq war, and lied about NAFTA to the residents of Ohio and/or the Canadians. There's plenty there for Hillary to go after, but she has proven to be a very poor campaigner.

 

[Cleon]

Today's exercise: Calculate how far you would have to drive in order to get to the closest point where a gun store could legally be located, i.e., more than five miles from the nearest school or park.

Many states have similar laws for adult "novelty" stores. You can pick up your 9mm when you're making a shopping trip for this month's copy of Big 'Uns.

 

[BPSCG]

Many states have similar laws for adult "novelty" stores. You can pick up your 9mm when you're making a shopping trip for this month's copy of Big 'Uns.

So you have shopping centers in metropolitan Atlanta that are more than five miles from the nearest school or park?

 

[Upchurch]

BPSCG, what is this website you pulled this from? "The Volokh Conspiracy"?

There is no mention of whether reporting the theft exempts you from the felony charge, but remember a charge is not a conviction.

 

[BPSCG]

There is no mention of whether reporting the theft exempts you from the felony charge, but remember a charge is not a conviction.

True. Do you consider pursuing felony charges against the gun owner in such a case to be optimal use of taxpayer dollars? Of police investigative resources? Of the court system?

As to the other proposal - banning gun stores within a five-mile radius of any school or park - do you think this would be a de jure end run around the second amendment?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

True. Do you consider pursuing felony charges against the gun owner in such a case to be optimal use of taxpayer dollars? Of police investigative resources? Of the court system?

If they have failed to have proper security over a firearm? Yes.

In the same way I think it would be reasonable to prosecute a demolition firm who did not have adequate security over their explosives.

 

[joobz]

True. Do you consider pursuing felony charges against the gun owner in such a case to be optimal use of taxpayer dollars? Of police investigative resources? Of the court system?

The interesting question is what happens in the case that it's the gun owner's son?
If son steals gun to play with it and show off to friend. Gun accidently discharges killing friend, is the parent guilty of a felony?

What's the current law in such a scenario?

As to the other proposal - banning gun stores within a five-mile radius of any school or park - do you think this would be a de jure end run around the second amendment?

No more so than having metal detectors barring guns from entering schools.

 

[Upchurch]

True. Do you consider pursuing felony charges against the gun owner in such a case to be optimal use of taxpayer dollars? Of police investigative resources? Of the court system?

If someone's negligence allowed something like a school shooting to occur, you betcha. Owning firearms is not only a right, it is also a responsibility.

As to the other proposal - banning gun stores within a five-mile radius of any school or park - do you think this would be a de jure end run around the second amendment?

No. Why would it? How does it prevent anyone from owning guns?

eta: If you think about it, charging for guns is more of an end run around the second amendment than zoning laws for gun stores.

 

[BPSCG]

If someone's negligence allowed something like a school shooting to occur, you betcha. Owning firearms is not only a right, it is also a responsibility.

I guess that's where our priorities differ, then. I'd prefer the police use my tax money to investigate unsolved murders.

No. Why would it? How does it prevent anyone from owning guns?

If such a law existed where you live, how far would you have to drive from where you're sitting right now before you were five miles away from any school or park? Do you know of any community that doesn't have a school or park within five miles of any point you care to choose?

 

[Upchurch]

If such a law existed where you live, how far would you have to drive from where you're sitting right now before you were five miles away from any school or park? Do you know of any community that doesn't have a school or park within five miles of any point you care to choose?

No farther than one of the big new malls out in the county. In other words, the same distance I'm willing to drive to buy a new pair of shoes or to see a movie.

 

[BPSCG]

No farther than one of the big new malls out in the county.

Really? Could you identify one of these malls? I'd love to googlemap it.

 

[Cleon]

So you have shopping centers in metropolitan Atlanta that are more than five miles from the nearest school or park?

Prob'ly. And if not, driving out to an area where it is that sparse isn't difficult.

Personally, I find all of the "you may not have ____ business within ____ of a park or school" legislation to be silly and pointless. They're rarely enforceable and eventually wind up getting sucked into the courts.

I just fail to see a reason to get particularly angry about this one, when similar laws have been on the books for years.

 

[BPSCG]

Prob'ly. And if not, driving out to an area where it is that sparse isn't difficult.

Yeah, the problem with that is that it's, as you say, "sparse." Gun shops shouldn't be allowed where there's any significant concentration of people?

Personally, I find all of the "you may not have ____ business within ____ of a park or school" legislation to be silly and pointless. They're rarely enforceable and eventually wind up getting sucked into the courts.

Actually, from what I understand, Minneapolis has such a zoning regulation, and rather than leading to a bunch of lawsuits, it's caused every gun shop in the city to close. And that was just a "1000 feet" law.

I just fail to see a reason to get particularly angry about this one, when similar laws have been on the books for years.

I see it as an attempted end-run around the second amendment. If you make it impossible to legally sell guns, you make it impossible to legally buy them.

 

[Cleon]

Yeah, the problem with that is that it's, as you say, "sparse." Gun shops shouldn't be allowed where there's any significant concentration of people?

Again - see what I said about "silly."

Actually, from what I understand, Minneapolis has such a zoning regulation, and rather than leading to a bunch of lawsuits, it's caused every gun shop in the city to close. And that was just a "1000 feet" law.

I see it as an attempted end-run around the second amendment. If you make it impossible to legally sell guns, you make it impossible to legally buy them.

Again, these sorts of zoning regulations/statues/laws/ordinances have been around for years, often aimed at adult entertainment, bookstores, "novelty" shops, etc.

If this is an "end-run around the second amendment," by the same logic, the laws aimed at adult businesses are end-runs around the first amendment.

So why the outrage when a Democrat aims it at guns, instead of the usual Republicans aiming at porn?

Never mind, I answered my own question...

 

[BPSCG]

So why the outrage when a Democrat aims it at guns, instead of the usual Republicans aiming at porn?

Because everyone knows that Democrats are morally superior to Republican fascists, and would never shred the Constitution the way a prominent current Republican president would.

 

[Cleon]

Because everyone knows that Democrats are morally superior to Republican fascists, and would never shred the Constitution the way a prominent current Republican president would.

Boy, it's a good thing I never said or hinted any of that, isn't it?

 

[quixotecoyote]

Because everyone knows that Democrats are morally superior to Republican fascists, and would never shred the Constitution the way a prominent current Republican president would.

Now say it like you mean it

 

[rjwould]

Assuming he puts Hillary out of her misery and wins the nomination, it will be a most interesting campaign through November.

I just saw a clip of Obama on a news show last night, trying to talk his way out of his close and enduring association with his fundraiser, the Rezko bum. Obama looked like a deer in the headlights and was totally unconvincing. This is the first time I really saw his inexperience shine through and he looked very vulnerable.

He's a sitting duck for the republicans to aim at. Just in the last week alone, he didn't know Al-Qaeda was in Iraq, lied about Rockefellers position on the Iraq war, and lied about NAFTA to the residents of Ohio and/or the Canadians. There's plenty there for Hillary to go after, but she has proven to be a very poor campaigner.

Tell me you really aren't serious...