Posted on 01/11/2013 7:30:11 AM PST by grundle
As a state senator in Illinois, President Obama opposed legislation providing an exception to handgun restrictions if the weapon was used in the defense of one’s home.
Obama’s vote would have maintained the status quo, which made it a violation of municipal gun ban law to use a firearm to save your own life in your own home. But the bill was passed anyway without his support.
The vote is a sign of how committed Obama may be to strict gun control measures.
The Illinois vote is hardly ancient history, having occurred in 2004 as Obama was running for election to the U.S. Senate. In opposing the measure, Obama lined up well to the left of the mainstream, as the Illinois Senate included 32 Democrats to 26 Republicans but approved the bill by an overwhelming margin and subsequently overrode a veto by then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
Obama did not participate in the veto override, which occurred in November 2004, likely after Obama had resigned his state Senate seat in order to prepare for his new role in the U.S. Senate.
The Illinois legislation was passed after a man who shot a burglar in his home was fined $750 by his town for disobeying its handgun ban. The absurdity and injustice of the situation doesn’t seem to have made much of an impression on Obama.
Just eight years earlier, in 1996, Obama answered "Yes" to a survey question asking whether he would support state legislation to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.” The Obama 2008 presidential campaign claimed the form had been filled out by an aide who mischaracterized Obama’s position, even though Obama’s handwriting was found on survey.
He wants us to be like Britain, where you have NO right to self defense...period. Even if a criminal is beating in your skull or breaking down you door, the only thing you can legally do is flee the scene.
So... he lied.
What else is new?
Too many people who look like his sons would be shot.
Criminals are usually poor. Some of them even look like Obama's son, if he had one. Breaking into a house to steal what is inside is simply a form of reparations. Therefore it is perfectly acceptable.
I hope you understand this now, citizen.
Don't get mad, you are in for 4 more years of this.
You mean as an Illinois State Senator he actually voted, instead of answering Present.
sfl
This is not true, in Britain you are allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself. If you possess a gun and are in fear of your life then you can use it. You’re not allowed to chase after an intruder and shoot them in the back though, which is what happened in the Tony Martin case.
Criminals are what Stalin labled “social allies” to the left.
Please tell us what the media does to people who do use a gun to defend their domiciles and family in grim Ol’ GB?
Speaking of Trayvon...
Coming up on the one year anniversary soon. Since we have never heard the results of the toxicology report from his autopsy could one assume that the sainted little martyr was not clean?
*snip*
“”When you come in, especially as a freshman, and work on something like ethics reform, it’s not necessarily a way to endear yourself to some of the veteran members of the Illinois General Assembly,” said state Sen. Kirk W. Dillard, a Republican who became a friend. “And working on issues like racial profiling was contentious, but Barack had a way both intellectually and in demeanor that defused skeptics.”
“He wasn’t a maverick,” said Cynthia Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. “There were other legislators I would turn to if I just wanted to make a lot of noise. That wasn’t his style.”
Obama was a persistent foe of social conservatives on issues of reproductive rights. He was also a reliable vote for gun control and backed a ban on assault weapons, although he took a political hit from Democrats for missing an important gun vote while in Hawaii for the Christmas holidays.
In 1997, Obama was not instantly embraced, Dillard said: “The fact that he was a law professor — and a constitutional-law professor — and he was a Harvard graduate made many members of the General Assembly roll their eyes.””
*snip*
“Obama paid a political price for missing an important vote on a crime package. That was during the 1999 Christmas holidays, as Obama — who describes himself as suffering from “chronic restlessness” — embarked on an ill-fated attempt to unseat Rep. Bobby Rush, a popular Chicago Democrat.
When the legislature was called into special session to vote on gun control, Obama and his family were visiting his grandmother in Hawaii. His 18-month-old daughter, Malia, was sick and unable to fly. The measure was narrowly defeated, and Rush criticized him. Obama lost by 31 points, his only electoral defeat.
“I take my legislative responsibilities extremely seriously,” Obama said after the measure fell five votes short. “In the midst of a congressional race, I’m well aware of the potential risk of missing a vote, even if that vote doesn’t wind up making the difference on a particular piece of legislation. But at some point, family has to come first.”
Obama was a steady supporter of abortion rights, said Pam Sutherland, Planned Parenthood’s chief lobbyist in Springfield, although he caught flak from the political left in 2004 as he ran for the U.S. Senate.
The reason was a series of votes on such issues as late-term abortion and parental notification when Obama voted “present” instead of yea or nay. He said he was not tacking toward the center, but an opponent in the Democratic primary sent mailers portraying a rubber duck and proclaiming, “He ducked!”
Obama said his votes helped provide cover for other legislators. Sutherland said the votes were part of a strategy designed with Obama’s help to deny Republicans easy campaign sound bites.
“The Republicans loved to put out legislation all the time that would put their opponents in a trick box during the elections,” Sutherland said. “It was a strong statement to those who promoted bad legislation that we’re not going to take this; you can’t use this against us.” “
(article is about a quarter of the way down the page)
“Coming up on the one year anniversary soon. Since we have never heard the results of the toxicology report from his autopsy could one assume that the sainted little martyr was not clean?”
Nah, the results havent come back from the lab yet. ;-)
I look forward to the trial.
Never forget what their real goal is!
Nelson T. ‘Pete’ Shields
Founder of Handgun Control, Inc.
“I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest. Of course, it’s true that politicians will then go home and say, ‘This is a great law. The problem is solved.’ And it’s also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time.
So then we’ll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years.
The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.”
-Pete Shields, Chairman and founder, Handgun Control Inc., “A Reporter At Large: Handguns,” The New Yorker, July 26, 1976, 57-58
Probably about the same treatment the msm gave George Zimmerman
Bump.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.