Legalities
Life, Politics and the Law From ABC News Correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg
Jan Crawford Greenburg is a correspondent for ABC News' bureau in Washington DC. She covers politics, the Supreme Court and provides legal analysis for ABC News. She is a graduate of the University of Chicago's law school and is a member of the New York bar.
RECENT POSTS
- Supreme Court Puts Chrysler’s Sale to Fiat on Hold
- White House Contacted Sotomayor Before Souter Announced His Retirement
- Becoming Nominee Sotomayor
- Judge Wood Goes to Washington
- Obama: Fortifying Bush's policies on terror
- The Pitfalls of Politics
- A Stealth Nominee?
- Who's on the Way to the Court: Chart the Course
- A Justice Who Has Juggled
- White House Formalizes Supreme Court Short List
- Tortured Timing
- The Harsh Interrogation Investigation
- Souter's Plans
- Are Southerners More Racist than Northerners?
- FCC Decision, Round One
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Obama, guns and self-defense
June 26, 2008 12:57 PM
Barack Obama has recently been calling himself a strong defender of the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, but Hale Demarr—an Illinois man who got in a ton of legal trouble after he shot a home invader--might disagree with that.
Demarr lived in the tony Chicago suburb of Wilmette, which banned ownership of handguns, even if kept in the home and used only for self defense. But in December 2003, when a man broke into his house, Demarr used a pistol to shoot him.
Even though the man was inside Demarr’s home and trying to rob him, Demarr was charged by local police with violating the handgun ban.
That, of course, produced much outrage. Within a few months, the Illinois state Senate took up a bill that would have granted an individual an “affirmative defense,” or a legal justification for violating local gun restrictions if they were acting in self-defense.
But when the legislation came up for a vote in the Senate, Obama was one of 20 who voted against it—and homeowners like Demarr who used guns in self defense. Thirty-eight state senators voted “aye,” and the bill passed the state senate.
By May, an amendment from the Illinois House added the right of an individual to violate local ordinances banning handguns “when on his or her land or in his or her abode or fixed place of business.” That version went back to the Senate, and Obama voted against the bill a second time in its amended form, though it passed the Senate again 41 to 16.
In August, Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich vetoed the bill, but in November, both the Illinois Senate and House overwhelmingly voted to overturn his veto. Obama was not recorded as being present the day the veto came up for a vote in the Senate.
One of the bill’s co-sponsors, Republican Sen. Dan Rutherford, told ABC News' Howard Rosenberg, “I remember this bill as being pretty logically cut-and-dry. It seems to be a fundamental right of an American to protect their lives and home as outlined by the (U.S.) Constitution. Barack’s vote did not support an individual’s right to protect their home and family in a community that prohibited it.”
Rutherford went on to say he was pleased by the Supreme Court’s ruling today.
“It somewhat substantiates what Illinois did a number of years ago.”
In recent days, an Obama spokesman tried to distance the senator from a Chicago Tribune article last year that quoted one of his aides saying, "Obama believes the DC handgun law is constitutional." Recently, Obama has tried to sidestep the question of whether the ban violates the Second Amendment. He told ABC's Charles Gibson during a debate in April, "Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence."
Obama issued a statement today saying, "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe."
Four years ago, Obama apparently believed that Wilmette's local ordinance banning handguns was an example of a "reasonable regulation."
You can follow the Illinois legislative history of the bill by clicking here.
UPDATE: Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Obama voted against the state-wide self-defense law because he believed municipalities should be able to pass handgun bans if they thought the laws were necessary.
"Obama said at the time that he voted that way because he believed that local communities had the right to enact common sense gun laws, and did not believe that the Illinois legislature should preempt those local decisions," Burton said. "The Supreme Court has now provided guidance on how far those local communities can go."
June 26, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (21)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Americans are Idiots, No wonder they are supporting this Liar.
This internet addicted young kids have no understanding of Constitutional rights and supporting this Flip-Flopper.
Media used to call "Clinton's will do anything to get elected". What do they call this Liar.
God Bless America
McCain'08
Posted by: john | Jun 26, 2008 1:14:59 PM
This INTERNET addicted young kids have no understanding of Constitutional rights and supporting this Flip-Flopper.
-------------------------
Funny. And where are you posting your comment?
Obviously we know more than your about Constitutional rights if your defending the Republicans - who have taken away more civil liberties than any recent administration.
Posted by: Remington | Jun 26, 2008 1:19:47 PM
Remington
I am not a Republican and I am not a supporter of Bush. I hate Bush. I am an Independent and Support McCain.
Saint Obama voted twice in IL senate against Citizens to own a hand gun inside home to defend.
This liar calls himself Constitutional Professor with out understanding of US constitution.
I Laugh at this internet addicted kids
Posted by: john | Jun 26, 2008 1:26:20 PM
Jan
Good Work. I started liking ABC.
ABC Keep it up. I no longer watch Obama's TVs ( MSNBC/CNN)
Posted by: tim | Jun 26, 2008 1:29:07 PM
Well done ABC-- it's about time a member of the MSM starts investigating all the flipping and flopping. Turn Brian Ross loose.
Posted by: Robert in Cleveland | Jun 26, 2008 1:37:12 PM
Obviously, every time he is asked about his position, he obfuscates some way or another...just like this time where he didn't read all the briefs. Face it....HE WILL NEVER HAVE READ ALL THE BRIEFS. DNC: DUMP THIS POSER.
Posted by: chicago for hillary | Jun 26, 2008 1:46:14 PM
Obama -- always blowing hot air. Wonder how he'll explain this one. Oh yeah, he'll just blame McCain for something only remotely relevant. That's the way he works and his followers don't seem to be able to understand the shallowness. Maybe they're hung up on the word HOPE.
Posted by: Thomas | Jun 26, 2008 1:46:52 PM
Interesting, more people write about attacking Obama, the attacking the supreme court stating that your right to own and use firearms can be restricted, if not revoked. (i.e, they can refuse to issue you a license... to REVOKE your constitutional RIGHT!) The great American experiment is DEAD! And people are preaching to the administers of their own servitude. Interesting...
Posted by: pity | Jun 26, 2008 1:54:08 PM
This is a game changer. 5-4 is an outrage and should wake up Americans to how close we are to losing all our rights.
Posted by: geevill | Jun 26, 2008 1:54:43 PM
Remember, BHO is all about change. ie, change of positions.How do all you progressives feel, now that you are loosing your selected one to those in the middle?
Posted by: Robert in Cleveland | Jun 26, 2008 1:55:06 PM
Remember Obama's statement about stupid people clinging to guns and bibles. That alone should be all one has to know about this jerk!
Posted by: A | Jun 26, 2008 1:59:16 PM
I don't know why anyone is surprised...he has never been willing to actually take a real stand on anything throughout this whole campaign, except criticizing the Clintons of course. And even now he expects President Clinton to jump immediately on his bandwagon after all of the twisted and negative things said about his presidency. He diverts, generalizes, or plain waffles on everything when he is backed into a corner. I've said it from day one, he is just another politician, even worse, a Chicago politician who really knows how to play the "old politics" he is always criticizing. Sadly,once again,marketing paid off and people bought into it.
Posted by: dc | Jun 26, 2008 2:03:03 PM
Interesting that everyone here trying to defend Obama in no way refutes the above article, they merely complain how McCain didn't get an article with this much detail or what about McCain! Basically they cannot defend him and are admitting that he is wrong. Obama supporters can not defend him because he can not defend himself, he blatently lies and changes his opinion when nothing has changed. McCain changed his mind on drilling off the coast, but because gas prices have gone up to a point we have not seen before and it is said to be a supply issue. He changed his opinion based on chages facts of today, just like on the tax cuts, he didnt want them before but now the economy stinks and that is a changing fact. Obama changes his opinion on who he talks to, where he is, and which way the wind blows! Thats a fact.
Posted by: Peter | Jun 26, 2008 2:17:01 PM
If someone breaks into my home he will understand the word hurt. I really do not care what the local laws say about owning a gun. I would rather be judged by twelve...then carried by six. Obama is just plain scary.
Posted by: James | Jun 26, 2008 2:52:36 PM
Both Obama and McCain are nothing more than self-serving politicians. Don't vote for either of them.
Posted by: don | Jun 26, 2008 3:44:01 PM
Is anyone getting it - Obama is not ready to do anything but quarter back those who have done something. Obama flip? You have to be kidding he flip on Wright, the catholic priest, and they been his friends for over twenty years. Obama can not compare in any way to McCain in any area. But he will continue to bad mouth McCain decisions even though he has not done anything for anybody good or bad.
Posted by: a citizen | Jun 26, 2008 5:13:34 PM
Is anyone getting it - Obama is not ready to do anything but quarter back those who have done something. Obama flip? You have to be kidding he flip on Wright, the catholic priest, and they been his friends for over twenty years. Obama can not compare in any way to McCain in any area. But he will continue to bad mouth McCain decisions even though he has not done anything for anybody good or bad.
Posted by: a citizen | Jun 26, 2008 5:14:53 PM
Great reporting, Jan. I was unaware of Obama's opposition to the Illinois gun bill.
Posted by: Mark | Jul 5, 2008 10:27:42 PM
It kills me when liberals talk about Republicans taking civil rights. Even in the face of facts, that still say that. It's blatantly obvious, Democrats want our guns! Well, it is a fact that the less educated tend to vote Democrat and the more educated tend to vote Republican. And I'm saying, the more you know about the founding of this country, the more likely your be a Conservative ... who is pro-gun.
Posted by: Khalil | Jul 17, 2008 12:04:55 PM
The scariest thing is that Obama' served as a Law professor for 12 years and has no opinion in a case involving a part of the "Bill of Rights" Thats the scary part here. Forget the double speak....ask a professional something about their job and they'll have an opinion... he cops out by not having "Read the Briefs"" give me a constitutional break.....shades of more to come!!
Posted by: Chuck | Jul 30, 2008 10:06:33 AM
Post a comment
