Barack Obama is now running ads telling us that he supports gun rights:

He bases this claim in the fact that he voted for SA4615 the bill which has the purpose:

To prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law.

Good. But not good enough. This ignores all his other votes and support for the complete handgun ban in Washington D.C., and support for a ban on “assault weapons”. Hunting, which is what Obama and Biden focus on, has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. Unless you include hunting government employees in the definition of hunting. Hunting is not a protected right except under some state constitutions. Yet that is what Obama and company seem to think is the entire basis of the Second Amendment.

Check out the rest of the story before you believe this weasel.

From Nevada Appeal (ignore the error about Biden being the presidential nominee instead of the vice presidential nominee):

Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware said Friday that Nevadans shouldn’t listen to claims he and Barack Obama would take away the right to bear arms.

“I get a kick out of, sometimes, the NRA saying we’re going to take your shotguns away,” he said in a telephone interview with the Nevada Appeal.

…

“Both of us believe strongly in the Second Amendment,” Biden said. “We do not believe in registration. We do believe in limits on some of the weapons. You can’t have your own flame-thrower or bazooka. And legislation in relation to assault weapons doesn’t affect hunters or sportsmen.

“We are two Democrats who voted against gun control,” he said.

But, Biden said, there is room for common-sense laws relating to such things as carrying concealed weapons.

That’s right. You shouldn’t listen to what people are saying about his record. Listen only to what he wants you to hear. “Assault weapons”? Concealed carry? You’re just a hunter. You don’t need to concern yourself with those things. We’ll send those people off to the prison camps first and you don’t need to worry about them because your gun is a good gun. Those other guys have bad guns.

The back story is here, here, here, here, here, and here.

An email from Joe Waldron to the WA-Guns email list:

The Attorney General has issued Opinion Number 2008 — 8 that defines
state preemption as it applies to Mayor Nickels attempt to ban guns on
Seattle city property.

In a nutshell, the AG says “preemption means preemption.”

The AGO reads in part:

The question: “Does a city in Washington have the authority to enact a
local law that prohibits the possession of firearms on city property or
in city-owned buildings?”

The answer: “The answer to your question is no. RCW 9.41.290 “fully
occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation” and
preempts a city’s authority to adopt firearms laws or regulations of
application to the general public, unless specifically authorized by
state law. Accordingly, RCW 9.41.290 preempts a city’s authority to
enact local laws that prohibit possession of firearms on city property
or in city-owned facilities.”

He then uses a dozen pages of legalese to explain why the Cherry and
PNWSPA cases (state Supreme Court decisions that went against us) do not
apply here.

AG Opinions are published on the AG’s web site at
http://www.atg.wa.gov/uploadedFiles/Another/About_the_Office/AGO_Opinions/AGO_Opinion_Archives/Indices%20Yearly%20Report%202007.pdf

AGO 2008-8 is not posted yet, but should be shortly.

In all, to these non-lawyerly eyes, a well written stick to poke in
Mayor Nickels’ eye.

Another win for the good guys.

We need to thank Senator Morton (R-7), Representative Van De Wege (D-24)
and those other legislators who made the formal request to the AG for
this opinion.

And now for the down side: We can expect a frontal assault on
preemption in Olympia when the legislature goes back into session in
January. They’ve tried it before, and didn’t have quite the number of
votes they needed to pass. With ACORN & Co working overtime to register
fraudulent voters for the presidential election, we can anticipate
Democrat gains in the 2009-2010 legislature. That MAY be enough to push
them over the top.

Joe W

Obama is trying to trample on the first amendment. And then Obama saying, “Don’t tell me words don’t matter” in combination with saying people with “traditional values” cling to their guns and religion.

One might reasonably speculate that the NRA is going to engage in a full court press against Barack Abomination Obama starting today and continuing until election day.

Here are some hints of what we will see today:

• NRA ad uses Clinton’s words against Obama on guns


• Hillary Was Right: You Can’t Trust Obama With Your Guns


• NRA to Make Major Election Announcement Thursday, October 9, 2008

The news should be out of the bag by now. It’s 8:00 in PA but I haven’t seen what is being said yet and I really need to get back to bed and get some sleep.

Howard Nemerov gives us some info on possible motivation for Obama’s support for gun control:

In politics, it is often difficult to determine why a person supports a policy. Fortunately, numbers speak louder than words: In this case, follow the money to understand Obama’s support of registration.

One of Obama’s biggest donors is the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Meagher and Flom, LLP, which contributed $340,264 to his presidential campaign as of September 2, 2008.[12] Skadden, Arps represents the inventors of a “firearm safety system,” patent number 6499243, which adds a biometric activator that links a gun to one owner. The “Summary of the Invention” section of the patent application notes:

The safety system further makes use of a person’s fingerprint data, which is a unique personal property that is highly suitable for tracking and control.[13] [Emphasis added]

Sidley Austin LLP has contributed $350,302 to Obama.[14] Sidley Austin represents the inventors of the “Gun identification kit,” patent number 7380706. This invention provides a way for every gun to have a spent cartidge case made available for entry into a ballistic “fingerprint” database. Of course, such a database is useful only if all firearms are entered into it:

Because the vast majority of publicly owned firearms have not been used in the commission of a crime, they will not show up in [such a] database. It would therefore be desirable to provide a means for increasing the number of firearms for which…information and data is available.

The inventors’ solution to this? Pass a law mandating that every gun is registered (serial number matched with shell casing and owner data, all permanently recorded):

One means of populating [such a] database would be to mandate that ballistic information be obtained and entered into the database for all firearms.[15]

$350,000 for supporting gun licensing? Sounds like motive to me. Why else would Obama be so cagey on guns? We know it’s not about making people safer because no one has been able to answer Just One Question.

So, when Obama says he “won’t take your guns” keep in mind he didn’t say he wouldn’t register them. See Nemorov’s post for more about the wisdom of that. Obama says Chicago is different from Cheyenne. See my post on community policy for a response to that.

These pictures are via an email from Johnathan on an email list I’m on:

Some people on the left are complaining that Sarah Palin supporters are shallow and all enthused with her because she is good looking. I’m sure that has something to do with it. But her views on most topics are a big boost as well. Still it is hard to defend against the assertion if she were not so hot that she wouldn’t have gotten picked.

But one has to wonder why the Democrats are so upset by it. Weren’t they smart enough to know that sex sells? I can hardly believe that. After all wasn’t that one of Bill Clinton’s appeal to a lot of women voters? And if the democrats thought the male voter who thinks with the head between his legs was an important demographic they should have chosen a woman–after all they have lots of politically experienced women on their side to choose from. Here are some examples:

So what’s is there for them to complain about?

Oh, now I see. They would still be stuck with the same problem–trying to sell an inferior product at a higher price.

Further evidence of the inferiority of the left will be supplied next weekend at the Gun Blogger Rendezvous in the form of pictures of Ashley Varner from the NRA who will be attending–another reason for gun bloggers and readers to attend. She knows her stuff and it’s not just because the male brain turns to mush when in her presence.