Great catch by Cam Edwards, who finds something, er, odd in two statements by the Obama campaign. Here’s the first article, published by Reason.

Responding to criticism that Obama has since changed his position on gun control, his campaign declares that “Obama has been consistent.”

However, here’s an article published by USA Today:

Obama also said he no longer supported broad licensing and registering of firearms, as he did when he was in the Illinois Senate.

So, which one is it? The first quotes his campaign as saying he’s “been consistent”, then the second says Obama claims he no longer supports a licensing/registering element.

Cam also writes:

By the way, another question for Senator Obama on the 2nd. He says he supports the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans to “hunt, fish, protect their families.” Can someone explain to me then how he can also support the D.C. Gun Ban, which prohibits the possession of a functional firearm in the home for self-defense?

Look, clearly if Obama comes out and says the D.C. Gun Ban is unconstitutional, then that would almost bring up questions about Obama’s support for Chicago’s gun ban (in place since 1983). If he feels that ban is unconstitutional, why didn’t he ever work to get it overturned?

But if he holds with the statement that he believes in the individual right to keep and bear arms, but the D.C. Gun Ban somehow passes constitutional muster, I think it’s fair to ask (as Jacob Sullum suggested when I interviewed him today) Senator Obama to name an example of a gun control law that he thinks does or would violate the 2nd Amendment. As it stands, Obama’s turning an “individual right” into something the goverment can violate at will.

A while back Glenn Reynolds predicted Obama’s positions will get more scrutiny over time. The question is whether or not the media will bring this scrutiny forward.

Leave a Reply