« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Barack Obama Voted Four Times To Allow Criminal Charges Against Homeowners Who Defend Their Person and Home With a Gun

In a victory for individuals across the nation, whether they know it or not, the Supreme Court has decided the 2nd amendment does do what it says — give the people the right to keep and bear arms. Barack Obama’s rapid reversal from opposition to agreement on the issue would make mere mortals snap in half under all the G-forces.

Despite Obama’s propensity to say and do anything to get elected, just like with Kennedy v. Louisiana, Obama’s record does not match his rhetoric.

In fact, Barack Obama specifically voted four times in the Illinois Legislature to allow criminal charges against a homeowner who used a firearm in self-defense of their person and home — specifically what the Supreme Court says is a constitutional right. Obama may say he supports it, but his record says exactly the opposite.


In 2004, the Illinois Senate considered S.B. 2165 (IL 2004), sponsored by Senator Ed Petka (R-Plainfield). The bill came about because of an arrest in Wilmette, IL in late December of 2003. A 54-year-old businessman shot and wounded a man who had broken into his home for the second time in 24 hours. Cook County prosecutors found the shooting justified, but the businessman, Mr. DeMar, faced a fine and possible destruction of two guns under a 1989 village ordinance prohibiting handgun possession.

S.B. 2165 would allow residents to use self-defense as a basis for seeking dismissal of criminal charges stemming from local gun ordinances if they used the banned weapon in an act of self-defense in their home, business or property.

Obama voted no on third reading March 25, 2004, and voted no on concurrence to a House amendment on May 25, 2004. In fact, Obama voted no four times: in the Judiciary Committee, on Third Reading, in the Judiciary Committee’s vote on concurrence with the House, and on the final concurrence.

Luckily for the people of Illinois, the legislation passed despite Obama’s opposition. Had he had his way, people in Illinois could still be prosecuted for defending themselves against crimes.

But that’s not the only time Obama has voted against the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

In 1999, Obama voted in favor of S.B. 177 (IL 1999). The legislation required guns to be secured by trigger locks, placed in a lock box, or placed in a location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure from a minor. Likewise, in 2003, Obama voted for H.B. 2579 (IL 2003) for a law that restricted the rights of Illinois’s citizens so that they could only buy one gun a month. The law created the offense of “unlawful acquisition of handguns.”

In 2001, Obama voted against S.B. 604 (IL 2001), which would have allowed individuals who have valid orders of protection against other individuals to carry concealed weapons for their protection. The bill would have created an affirmative defense against a charge of violating Illinois’s concealed carry law if the person had a lawfully issued protection order against someone seeking to do harm to the person.

In 2002, Obama voted against S.B. 397 (IL 2002), which amended the Firearms Owners Indentification Card Act. The legislation was specifically crafted for sporting events and allowed a non-resident participating in a sanctioned competitive shooting event in Illinois to purchase a shotgun or shotgun ammunition in Illinois, but only at the site where the event is being held, for the purpose of participating in the event.

COMMENTS

  • McCainocrat

    Thanks to the author for supplying more facts on the 2nd Amendment votes of Obama. This has been one of the largest, and yet most underplayed, flip flop attempts by Obama to date.

    Originally, the NRA (according to its own website) stated they would not be endorsing a candidate until October – this after having personally interviewed both candidates. However, once the DC gun ban came up for decision, and Obama had the “audacity” to state that his views were endorsed with that decision, the NRA has pledged multi millions of dollars to ad campaigns devoted to exposing Obama’s true position on the matter. The President of the organization was quoted as saying “We look forward to showing him “bitter”.” I would say an October endorsement will be a moot point under these circumstances, as their present stance is a bold endorsement of John McCain.

    With over two million members, the NRA is a force to be reckoned with. They are the veterans of “grass roots organizations”, and their voice will hold a lot of weight with more than just their members. Remember, JFK won the 1960 election by less than 100,000 votes. A two million member organization all voting for McCain could create a virtual shoe in. I think Obama might want to think about “clinging” to something – anything – at this point. He doesn’t cling to his stance on the issues very well.

  • MelZ

    Once again, Democrats value the lives of Criminals over law-abiding citizens…

    but, I guess they need to protect their electorate.

  • skorrent

    Big time, on his anti-gun and pro-abortion positions, Both huge SoCon issues. I would expect this to overcome residual SoCon reluctance over McCain come November.

    After all, if the NRA can get past the BCRA, with provisions aimed directly at them, the rest of us can live with it. By the way, they have close to 4 million members. My wife is one. I keep asking their phone jocks if they want me to join or just send money. They opt for the money. :>)

  • CKAinRedStateUSA

    Thanks for the post, giving more ammunition to why Barack Obama should never darken the doors of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

    If he weren’t such a fraud; if he really didn’t think that he, as a self-anointed prince of privilege, could actually talk his way out of his leftist/liberal assaults on the Constitution and America and we’d all believe him, without question; if there weren’t so much at stake including not just our constitutional freedoms, but that of our country–then Barack Obama would be just a study in narcissim and arrogance.

    But he ain’t. And we cannot relent until we return him to his apparently non-productive, extremely partisan tenure in the Senate.

  • CKAinRedStateUSA

    Can’t have home owners shooting the party bosses…

  • Andysforsmalgovernment

    every state, which could help in a lot of important swing states.

  • Pentagon16

    would it be asking too much for the NRA to…I don’t know… maybe… start PUTTING THIS UP IN ADS NOW?!!

  • McCainocrat

    On July 1st, the NRA published this news release:

    “The National Rifle Association plans to spend about $40 million on this year?s presidential campaign, with $15 million of that devoted to portraying Barack Obama as a threat to the Second Amendment rights upheld last week by the Supreme Court.
    ?Our members understand that if Barack Obama is elected president, and he has support in the Senate to confirm anti-gun Supreme Court nominees, [the District of Columbia v. Heller decision] could be taken away from us in the future,? Chris Cox, head of the NRA?s political arm, told Politico.”

    I’d like them to hurry, please.

  • Neil_Stevens