« Previous | Main | Next »

Obama Camp Disavows Last Year's 'Inartful' Statement on D.C. Gun Law

Share

June 26, 2008 7:35 AM

ABC News' Teddy Davis and Alexa Ainsworth Report: With the Supreme Court poised to rule on Washington, D.C.'s, gun ban, the Obama campaign is disavowing what it calls an "inartful" statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as believing that the DC ban was constitutional.

"That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator's consistent position," Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.

The statement which Burton describes as an inaccurate representation of the senator's views was made to the Chicago Tribune on Nov. 20, 2007.

In a story entitled, "Court to Hear Gun Case," the Chicago Tribune's James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins wrote ". . . the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he '...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.'"

http://www.topix.com/content/trb/2007/11/court-to-hear-gun-case

The Chicago Tribune clip from Nov. 20, 2007, is an inaccurate representation of Obama's views, according to Burton, because the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee has refrained from developing a position on whether the D.C. gun law runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

When Obama has been asked on multiple occasions to weigh in on the D.C. gun case he has regularly maintained that the Second Amendment provides an individual right while at the same time saying that right is not absolute and that the Constitution does not prevent local governments from enacting what Obama calls "common sense laws."

Although he has been willing to describe his general views on this topic, Obama has sidestepped the question of whether the ban in the nation's capital runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

Asked by ABC News' Charlie Gibson if he considers the D.C. law to be consistent with an individual's right to bear arms at ABC's April 16, 2008, debate in Philadelphia, Obama said, "Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence."

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., by contrast, has been forthcoming when it comes to the D.C. gun law. 
He signed an amicus brief in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, signaling not only his belief in the Second Amendment but also his view that the DC gun ban is incompatible with it.

The D.C. ban prohibits residents from keeping handguns inside their homes and requires that lawfully registered guns, such as shotguns, be locked and unloaded when kept at home.

June 26, 2008 in Kucinich, Dennis | Permalink | User Comments (144)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

SOODD: Same old Obama, different day!

Posted by: Soetoro No! | Jun 26, 2008 7:43:55 AM

If Hillary Clinton were smart, she'd distance herself from Obama. If she keeps following him around the campagin trail and is part of his campaign that consist of lies and inaccuracies, then she is no better than him.

Posted by: maggie | Jun 26, 2008 7:55:15 AM

Flippety-flop! Flippety-flop! Must be hard, trying to be all things to all people all of the time. LOL.

Posted by: Charlie35 | Jun 26, 2008 8:01:01 AM

Just more BS from the left in their attempts at social engineering to make the USA just like any other 3rd world country. Where the ruling elite live up on high with the rest of us are down here begging for their scraps.

Posted by: Doc | Jun 26, 2008 8:08:23 AM

what is needed here is for obama to read the constitution of the united states.

Posted by: sonia trevino | Jun 26, 2008 8:09:45 AM

Don't blame me: I voted for Hillary! (and I WON'T be voting for BHO!) You asked for him, democrats - you keep him.

Posted by: Skulldugger7 | Jun 26, 2008 8:18:30 AM

What is all of this 'Lies & Inaccuracies', that is what the Clinton's do best...And as for the 'dont blame me, I voted for Hillary' Are you kidding me!

Why would ANYONE EVER vote for a socialist, of any type! Come on people WAKE UP AMERICA, The Left is hellbent on the destruction of the republic as we know it!!!

Posted by: Damon A | Jun 26, 2008 8:24:32 AM

Obama's flip-flop pattern is the only consistency this man has. After he takes the position before one set of voters (that they want to hear), he later side steps that position by saying that he was misunderstood, his statements are being taken out of context, or that the attack is simply divisive.

Posted by: bob | Jun 26, 2008 8:31:28 AM

Here it is Thursday and I was beginning to worry that Obama would miss his weekly "disavowal" of some aide, associate, or staffer. This latest disavowal can just be tossed on the heap with his promise to Canada that his opposition to NAFTA is just 'CAMPAIGN TALK", his CHE GUEVARA flag in his Houston HQ, REV. WRIGHT, PASTOR PFLEGER, REZKO, AYRES, ETC. AD NAUSEAM. How can this idiot be leading in the polls? Is America brain dead or are there just that many people lining up for handouts?

Posted by: marc christophe | Jun 26, 2008 8:38:01 AM

Obama Husain is sure a change. A change every day that is. This guy has no solid oppinion until someone pays him to have one. Did anyone check how much money the gun lobby slipped in as 'individual contributions'?

Posted by: Joe Common | Jun 26, 2008 8:39:54 AM

Just like Kerry - a flippin' & a floppin'!

Posted by: rockthebleachers | Jun 26, 2008 8:47:21 AM

I remember the all the mistakes of the Carter presidency and don't want to go back to them.

Posted by: kaymar | Jun 26, 2008 8:48:11 AM

Obama's and your opinion on what the constitution says or means is great fun to debate but of little consequence. The constitution means what the supreme court says it means. Any politician taking a strong position on what the court will rule is setting themselves up to be wrong. The court doesn't behave like folks like, but as they interpret the document. Get over it.

Posted by: Roger | Jun 26, 2008 8:49:58 AM

The only Constitutional right Obama cares less about than the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms, is the 4th.

That's what we saw this week as Obama failed utterly and abysmally to lead our Congress and defend our Constitution against the latest FISA evisceration of our 4th amendment rights.

Posted by: mr. natural | Jun 26, 2008 8:52:43 AM

I sure hope all these previous posts were from one guy.

Personally I'd vastly prefer if guns were banned, especially in cities. Shooting rats isn't particularly safe so one presumes the guns are meant for people.

Lose them all except for law enforcement and more innocent people will live. That's the whole idea, right?

Posted by: Pete Dixon | Jun 26, 2008 8:54:55 AM

What the heck does "inartful" mean?:

adj. performed without art or skill, lack of art or skill; artless; unskillful or not wise in achieving an end; not inventive or creative; unimaginative; not adroit

I'm just a bitter, God fearing (not G. Damning!) gun lovin' flyover hick.

Hype! for the future.

Posted by: JERRY MACE | Jun 26, 2008 8:59:11 AM

"Just more BS from the left in their attempts at social engineering to make the USA just like any other 3rd world country. Where the ruling elite live up on high with the rest of us are down here begging for their scraps."

Are you kidding? After the Republicans and Bush spent the last 8 years making the gap between the rich and poor bigger than any point in this country's history, can you honesty say that with a straight face?

Posted by: Jeremy | Jun 26, 2008 9:01:05 AM

"inartful"? First Obama changes the Seal, now he changes the language.

Was Donald Young killed with an illegal gun?

Posted by: geevill | Jun 26, 2008 9:05:37 AM

Preventing law abiding citizens the right to protect their lives and property from death and theft by banning handguns is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Since the ban the murder rate in DC has remained fairly steady with that of the country where no such bans were enacted. It is a very simple and basic fact that criminals can get their hands on guns from neighboring states, so what good does the ban do if criminals still have guns? People need a history lesson on why the 2nd amendment was written in the first place, yes to protect the individual from others, but more so to protect the individual and the state from a over powerful Federal Government. It's time to wake up America as to why they want to take your gun rights away, there was a reason we received liberties in the Constitution, we need to step back and see that the US is starting to become what the founders were escaping from England- where the rulers create the laws for the exploitation of others.

Posted by: brendan | Jun 26, 2008 9:05:45 AM

What is wrong with changing one's opinion over a period of time? If your opinion on anything, anything at all has not changed in the last 5,10,20 years, either you are an ordained Saint wise beyond your years (in which case you would not be spending time here), or you are a stubborn idiot incapable of objective introspection and completely incapable of facing up to your flaws (like the current administration), let alone admitting to them.

If you get wiser as you get older, it must admittedly come from a change in you, your understanding and a change in your views!

Labeling other's actions with choice words only calls attention to your immaturity and biased motives and trust me; it does not convince anybody.

Posted by: Vinny | Jun 26, 2008 9:18:21 AM

Post a comment