January 21, 2009 Contradicts Obama's Gun Claims

Despite numerous public claims in the past that he would leave gun owners alone, reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban and enacting other restrictions are very much on Barack Obama's "Urban Policy" agenda.

Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

The Tiahrt Amendment does not unduly restrict law enforcement investigations; to the contrary, it keeps law enforcement agencies honest, making sure they cannot abuse gun trace data. Both the BATFE and FOP (Fraternal Order of Police) oppose the release of the information protected by the Tiahrt Amendment citing a threat to on-going investigations and to the lives of undercover officers and informants.

So if law enforcement agencies get all the trace data they need to solve specific crimes and law enforcement itself is against repealing Tiahrt, why would Obama be for it? Some would speculate that Obama's fellow gun-banning proponents such as Chicago Mayor Daley and New York Mayor Bloomberg might find a way to use this data to fire off another round of lawsuits hoping to cripple or bankrupt the gun industry.

As for "commonsense measures," the man who tried to corrupt constitutional scholarship and doled out funds to some of the most rabid anti-gun groups in the United States simply has no credibility for having common sense on the matter, as he's supported outright bans and has been openly hostile to firearm owners in the past.

As for the infamous "gun show loophole," it is completely false, a myth. It simply doesn't exist.

The same gun store dealers that perform background checks at their retail locations are required by law to perform those same background checks at gun shows. Private sellers have never been required to perform a background check anywhere, whether selling it in a person-to-person sale at a gun show or in their home. The only reason to push for such legislation is to further erode the rights of Americans and expand government control in your lives.

As for "childproofing guns," there is no proven or near-term solution that can both render a firearm inoperable for some users and still leave it reliable enough for use as a self defense weapon for law enforcement or civilian use. Various gimmicks have been trotted out in the past; all have been commercial failures because the inherent unreliability of such systems compromises the confidence of the shooter, and their faith in the tool.

Further, "childproofing guns" is not something that can be done retroactively, meaning tens of millions of existing guns would either need to be grandfathered—rendering the law immediately useless—or the guns themselves would have to be modified to comply with the law at taxpayer expense. How many billions of our tax dollars does President Obama intend to spend assuring compliance of a law that makes a potentially deadly tool unreliable in the hands of those most prone to needing it in a time of life-threatening danger? That's a rhetorical question, by the way. Expansive gun laws aren't about saving lives, but asserting control.

As for reinstating the laughably ineffective Assault Weapons Ban—which Joe Biden still inexplicably like to take credit for authoring despite its utter failure—this too, is an attempt to control the lives and rights of law-abiding Americans, and an attempt that has a well-documented history of accomplishing next to nothing.

During the life of the ban (1994-2004) semi-automatic rifles and pistols increased in sales and became more widespread. So-called "assault rifles" and high capacity magazines sold in higher numbers than ever before during the ban. It did so because then Senator Biden and his fellow gun-banners are idiots, outlawing cosmetic features, knowing that a law affecting how the guns actually work would never stand a constitutional challenge. As a result, firearms that were "assault weapons" the day before the ban drops several scary-looking features that did not slow their rate of fire or affect their accuracy, and were legal again the very next day.

Below on the left is the infamous TEC-9 that Congressmen and Senators made such a big deal of being a preferred weapon of gangs and drug dealers. Beside it is the cynically-named AB-10, the "After-ban" version of the exact same gun that was legally on store shelves the day the ban took effect.

The law did not save lives, though it did have one interesting, unforeseen consequence: the creation of an entire new market of small, powerful handguns designed for concealed carry.

While the high capacity magazine ban portion of the ban raised the cost of magazines for existing models, it also had the unintended consequence of convincing gun designers that if they were restricted to guns that only carried ten-round magazines, then these guns needed to be small, light, concealable, and powerful. As concealed carry laws were becoming more widespread across the country during this same ten years, this new market exploded, creating a market niche and even created entire companies to cater to that market where none had before existed.

Barack Obama continues to lie to the public about his intentions towards our Second Amendment rights, but may end up doing nothing more than making the American people more heavily armed, and the shooting industry among the most recession-proof.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at January 21, 2009 10:15 PM

The 2nd amendment is about to be trashed. Don't be surprised if the gun banners takes on your ammo supply, too. A 300 pct tax on bullets will slow people down.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at January 21, 2009 11:17 PM

And this is a surprise?

Posted by: Adriane at January 21, 2009 11:48 PM

If Democrats were serious about gun control, then they need do only one thing, actually prosecute criminals caught with illegal weapons. Suspects arrested in a couple recent cop killings in Philly, PA all have multiple previous gun charges against them that were dropped, never prosecuted. Not only that, if they think that gun crime is so bad, how about executing criminals whose crimes result in the death of any victims. They claim that the death penalty does not deter crime. That is not true because we have yet to test whether it does. 1000 executions over 20+ years of the death penalty nowhere near matches the 14,000 murders a year....

Posted by: Fred Fry at January 22, 2009 07:51 AM

In the past year, I rejoined the NRA and increased my gun collection by five - two .45s, a Shotgun, a .22 rifle and an M1 Garand.

As a hedge against excise taxes on ammunition, I bought a Lyman Crusher single stage press and all the accessories to reload .45 ACP. I have about 500 brass cases and when I shoot box ammo, I clean it up adding to my reloading stock. CCI Blazer ammo goes for 38 a round and I can reload for about 26. So far, I've bought enough Red Dot powder to load 5,500 rounds. This week I will stock up on CCI primers. If bullets get too expensive, I'll cast my own.

I can't justify reloading 30-06 when I can buy Lake City M2 .30 Cal ball at 28/round. Recurring reloading cost 40. For me, maintaining basic rifle proficiency takes less practice than shooting the 45. I'm planning to buy 5,000 M2 rounds this Winter.

I am considering buying a cheap handgun and an M1 barreled receiver. Since I have a concealed carry permit, if there is an unconstitutional handgun registration or outright ban, I could throw them those two.

Posted by: arch at January 22, 2009 08:40 AM

Concerned Citizen, that will be interesting since I reload my own ammo. I can even make my own bullets and, push come to shove, black powder (although smokeless is a little out of my league...for now).

Arch, my carry piece is a Glock 29 in 10mm. For 50 rounds of the cheap, remanufactured stuff, it's $33. I can load 50 for around $9. For my Evil Black Rifle, I shoot 6.8SPC which is $1 a round. I can reload for $.30 or so. For .45ACP, I think my cost is like $.09 a round (since I can use non-jacketed lead).

Granted, I don't save money, I just end up shooting more. But it also gives me practically everything I need to avoid any new taxes on ammo. I'm stocking up on primers, too. Having a few thousand on hand is a good idea since they're the most difficult part of ammunition to make on your own.

Posted by: Robb Allen at January 22, 2009 10:11 AM

I posted this in the comments here the other day on this post:

This is the same passage he had on his campaign site, and then on It's been on Obama's sites for months, and now it's just been transferred to the WH site. Why do people think this is new?

Posted by: stace at January 22, 2009 10:31 AM

Now is a good time for rights supporters to fortify their resolve to defend those rights with the full Founding Era facts about the Second Amendment. The Origin of the Second Amendment is the only complete document collection of relevant period sources demonstrating the formation of the Second Amendment as part of the U.S. Bill of Rights. The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms is the first book-length definitive history of the Second Amendment. It is fully documented and based directly on those Founding Era sources, and it traces every term and phrase of the Second Amendment back to its original AMERICAN use and author.

These two books taken together were cited a total of over 175 times in the U.S. v Emerson and Parker/Heller cases. There is a simple reason for this reliance. These books present the actual facts about our Bill of Rights heritage based on the Founders' own views.

Read the Founders' reasons and sources for development of the Second Amendment and Bill of Rights. You will never regret having done so.

Posted by: David E. Young at January 22, 2009 10:55 AM

If Obama & Co. are actually bone-headed enough to try reimposing the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban," then I would propose the legislation be named, "The Organized Crime Full-Employment Act of 2009."

Hell, His Majesty can't (or won't) control the flow of illegal aliens and illicit drugs into this country. So how in f*** does he think he'll be able to stop the flow of semi- and auto-firearms that can be easily broken down into their component parts, smuggled across the border, and then quickly reassembled in safe houses?

Posted by: MarkJ at January 22, 2009 11:24 AM

Mark -

He doesn't. He's counting on the fact that the majority of Americans are law-abiding, and won't knowingly break a law simply because it's the law.

I expect a major increase in outlaws.

Posted by: brian at January 22, 2009 01:12 PM

Drug War deaths will be used to justify gun bans.

Gun owners are generally clueless about the threat the Drug War poses to their rights.

Watch - 2,000 guns a day go South to Mexico while drugs come North will be the PR gimmick.

Posted by: M. Simon at January 22, 2009 02:20 PM

"The Organized Crime Full-Employment Act of 2009."

Sounds like a good name for his stimulus plan.

Posted by: Seerak at January 22, 2009 02:22 PM

He just took an oath (twice!) to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Isn't failing to fulfill that oath an impeachable offense?

Posted by: Just Askin' at January 22, 2009 02:43 PM

"As a hedge against excise taxes on ammunition, I bought a Lyman Crusher single stage press and all the accessories to reload
Posted by: arch at January 22, 2009 08:40 AM"

Right there with you.
Oct. I bought a Dillon Press,Die's for 44 mag.,357 mag.,45 cal.,and 308 cal.
I live in NC.(lots of deer hunting)so I am thinking about 30-06 because I want to be able to load for friends and others when these taxes hit.

Here we had an ex-Redskin football player (D) that was on the radio 24/7 telling everybody that Obama was not going to go after their guns and respect their 2nd amendment rights.
I knew this was a lie and going to come back and bite them in the a$$.
Hope it matters in 2010 when this "hope and change" cult is exposed for the paparazzi it is.

Posted by: Baxter Greene at January 23, 2009 03:21 AM

This may be cynical,but I bought these a lot cheaper during the ban:
Colt..AR-15..223 cal.
Rock river..AR-15...7.62 cal.
Colt..AR-15...7.62 cal.(pre-ban)
Ak-47..Romanian (3 of them)
Ak-47...Bulgarian (2 of them)
(Bought a Stag Arms AR-15..6.8 after the ban)

I got them for half of what they are charging for these same guns now since the ban expired.

There may be other reasons for the price increases but I am saying I noticed a remarkable increase at gun shows after the ban expired.

Posted by: Baxter Greene at January 23, 2009 03:30 AM

This may be cynical,but I bought these a lot cheaper during the ban:
Colt..AR-15..223 cal.
Rock river..AR-15...7.62 cal.
Colt..AR-15...7.62 cal.(pre-ban)
Ak-47..Romanian (3 of them)
Ak-47...Bulgarian (2 of them)
(Bought a Stag Arms AR-15..6.8 after the ban)

I got them for half of what they are charging for these same guns now since the ban expired.

There may be other reasons for the price increases but I am saying I noticed a remarkable increase at gun shows after the ban expired.

Posted by: Baxter Greene at January 23, 2009 03:32 AM

Drug War deaths will be used to justify gun bans.

Posted by: the pistolero at January 23, 2009 01:36 PM

"Drug War deaths will be used to justify gun bans."

A-yep. As long as you have a War On Drugs, you will have a War On Guns to go with it.

Posted by: the pistolero at January 23, 2009 01:38 PM

I don't remember ever hearing Obama saying that he would "leave gun owners alone", rather he always said that he wasn't going to "take away your guns".

He was very careful to phrase it that way, to include stopping in the middle of a sentence and restarting it so that it was a proclamation of his claim to never confiscate guns from gun owners and nothing more. When you're listening to a politician or a lawyer (and even more so when he's both) pay careful to what he says and what he doesn't say and the exact choice of words, because you can be sure that he is.

He has nothing against banning sales or transfers of all kinds of guns. This includes transfers to an heir upon your death. He would have no problems with ammo restrictions, licensing or registration requirements, increased gun/ammo taxes, bans on semi-auto guns, concealed carry bans, etc. In fact, he's proclaimed each of these as what he wants at various times during his tenure and during the campaign.

But, I figure he will be true to his word and not actually take away your guns. That's a very small consolation.

Posted by: TheGunGeek at January 25, 2009 09:36 AM