Are those against nationwide concealed carry for states' rights?

July 23, 9:48 AMGun Rights ExaminerDavid Codrea

Previous Next

15 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

  Courtesy Oleg Volk, A Human Right

As we saw yesterday, the Thune amendment for nationwide concealed carry reciprocity has failed to pass in the Senate. What are the antis saying?

Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign:

This proposal would have let people from states with the weakest gun laws in the nation carry hidden, loaded weapons in states with much stronger gun laws.

The Los Angeles Times:

The Senate refused to weaken states' rights in enforcing their own concealed-weapons laws...

Sen. Richard Durbin:

The states already have laws. Under the Thune amendment, those laws could be ignored.

You get the picture.

But isn't that consistent with what Barack Obama has said?

"I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne."

I guess that depends on when he said it. For instance, if we go back to his National Public Radio interview in 2004, he...well, why not listen for yourself? 

A federal ban on concealed carry. From Chicago to Cheyenne. That's some respect for "states' rights" and "state gun laws."

But the good thing about being Obama is that your position can evolve over time--at least when it serves your purposes, and your "Authorized Journalist" publicity team helps you get away with it.

For instance, let's take a look at Obama's position on nationwide concealed carry as reported by CNN...

...in December 2007, when the Democrat field was wide open:

Supports extending the assault weapons ban. Supports national law against carrying concealed weapons, with exceptions for retired police and military personnel. Supports limiting gun sales to one per month.

...in April 2008, when the challenge from Hillary Clinton was strong:

Supports extending the assault weapons ban. Supports national law against carrying concealed weapons, with exceptions for retired police and military personnel. Supports limiting gun sales to one per month.

Consistent, wasn't he, when he had to appeal to a gun control-supporting constituency?

Now let's look at the page as it still exists, reflecting when Obama's sole obstacle was John McCain, and appearances of being "moderate" served his purpose...

What? Nothing about concealed carry? Nothing about one gun a month? Lip service for the Second Amendment being "an individual right"?

Ah, here's something about states' rights:

But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right.

So if their laws work for gun control, states have rights. But if state laws work against gun control, federal bans are in order--from Chicago to Cheyenne. Just moderate the message in accordance with political needs. Supporters in the media will help cover tracks.

And the new "common knowledge" is that there is no threat to gun owners, and you're paranoid and reactionary for thinking there ever was.