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

By Erick Posted in | Comments (15) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

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.

Read on . . .

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.

« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | Obama's Gun ObfuscationComments (6) »
Barack Obama Voted Four Times To Allow Criminal Charges Against Homeowners Who Defend Their Person and Home With a Gun 15 Comments (0 topical, 15 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »


"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

If memory serves, he also voted against legislation in his state that would make it a crime for people recently released from prison to associate with gangs.

If I remember his wording correctly, he said that such legislation would make it so that "no black person could talk to one another" or something horridly offensive like that.

Obama, consistantly, gives more rights and concern to criminals than innocent law-abiding citizens.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

It's linked in this one at the top.

Fight On!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

There are laws that prohibit parolees from associating from criminals as a condition of their parole. However, if a person is no longer on parole, you cannot make it a crime for them to associate with whomever they please.

That would prohibit gang members on probation from knowingly gathering with other gang members while on probation *if* such prohibition was a condition of probation.

Fight On!

Yeah, I knew the bill was something along those lines.

When I think "Defenders of the Constitution", Obama's name doesn't spring to mind.

Such a bill, if it had been passed, would still be much nicer than what I'd like to see happen to gangs.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

As I mentioned in my post, that is a common condition for parolees.

tell me that SOMEONE at the RNC or McCain campaign reads this blog and can put together a tiny little advertisement letting the country know about Obama's votes..

I mean, he has flip flopped on abortion, gun rights, jerusalem, talking with Iran with no preconditions, Reverend Wright, energy policy and now the Surge in Iraq..

"Small town folks get bitter after which they cling to guns or religion, or antipathy to people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment"- Barack Carter Obama

is that many of his supporters don't care. Understand, it's not so much about who he IS, it's about who he IS NOT.

That's the problem with "Anybody but" campaigns (or their variations like "At least he isn't..."). You end up with really crappy "Anybody But"s.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

The ads wouldn't be aimed at those who have drunk the Kool-Aid and wouldn't be swayed by such ads, they would be aimed at the non-committed folks, those who are only recently tuning in or who haven't tuned in yet, or those Dems who are more conservative than the Washington Dem elite (see: Ohio rustbelt union folks). Those folks, if shown his rank hypocrisy and true positions on issues like gun rights would be a lot less likely to vote for him.

"Do not fear, only believe." (Mark 5:36)

it's like peeing in the ocean. You have a huge number of people and systems covering for BO.

The real attention grabber might well be gas prices. EVERYONE is reminded as their gas fill-ups push $100+ with no end in sight. Even the media can't disguise that. They can only try to misdirect blame. Ahem .......... the Dims want to sue OPEC.

If voters cannot figure that out, the Repubs are doomed.

President Barack Obama will appoint justices (at least two) that will threaten our right carry.



McCain for POTUS so the left can't ruin SCOTUS.

Any of our attorneys care to hazard a guess whether those who are incarcerated due to the DC ban (if there are any) now have an appeal?

Jan Greenburg's blog at ABC nails Obama on this case.

In the IL Sen he voted twice AGAINST a bill that would have allowed a hand gun in the home for self defense, after some guy used a gun in his house as he was robbed. Twice.

Now he says he's always believed in the individual right.

Check out this absurd quote:

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Obama voted against the state-wide self-defense law because he believed municipalities should be able to pass handgun bans if they thought the laws were necessary.

"Obama said at the time that he voted that way because he believed that local communities had the right to enact common sense gun laws, and did not believe that the Illinois legislature should preempt those local decisions,"

He's always believed in an individual right yet he supports a ban if the legislature thinks it necessary!! He supports the 2nd amendment but thinks that total bans are common sense gun laws and that they're consistent with an individual right. I wonder what some of his common sense laws are dealing with 1st amendment. Maybe he wants to ban jury trials or right to counsel or confrontation as part of his common sense laws.

Can you imagine that in any other context? I've always supported freedom of speech but if Peoria wants to ban newspapers because they think it necessary, fine by me. Or, I've always supported free exercise of religion but if Oak Park wants to ban Christmas trees or menorahs in the home, be my guest.

And of course, we all know what he thinks of local decisions when it comes to abortion, school vouchers, sodomy rights, school prayer, and a whole host of other issues.

And this guy was actually President of the Harvard Law Review, the most prestigious academic journal in legal academy???

He wouldn't even pass a 1L class with that kind of awful reasoning. I mean, he makes Harriet Miers look like Learned Hand.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service