I thought you would find this piece by Steve Chapman interesting:

Among the many groups that opposed Barack Obama's presidential race, few were more certain or vehement than gun-rights organizations. "Barack Obama would be the most anti-gun president in American history," the National Rifle Association announced. "Obama is a committed anti-gunner," warned Gun Owners of America.

So it's no stunner that after a year in office, the president is getting hammered by people who have no use for his policy on firearms. The surprise is that the people attacking him are those who favor gun control, not those who oppose it.

Obama's record on this issue has been largely overlooked — except by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which recently issued a report card flunking Obama on all seven issues it deems important. Said President Paul Helmke, "If I had been told, in the days before Barack Obama's inauguration, that his record on gun violence prevention would be this poor, I would not have believed it."

Had he listened to the candidate in 2008, he would have believed. At a September campaign rally in rural Virginia, Obama declared unequivocally, "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away. .. There are some common-sense gun safety laws that I believe in. But I am not going to take your guns away."

The Brady Center must have hoped he was being less than honest. And he was: He had no intention of pushing those "common-sense" laws he had previously favored. On the list of issues for which Obama is willing to put himself on the line, gun control ranks somewhere below free trade with Uzbekistan.

So he has proposed nothing in the way of new federal restrictions on firearms. Even the "assault weapons" ban signed by President Bill Clinton — and allowed to expire in 2004 — has no visible place on Obama's agenda.

Not only that, he's approved changes that should gladden the hearts of gun-rights supporters, a group that includes me. He signed a law permitting guns to be taken into national parks. He signed another allowing guns as checked baggage on Amtrak. He acted to preserve an existing law limiting the use of government information on firearms it has traced.

Still, the NRA is not rushing to recant. A spokesman admits the president has signed some provisions it favors, but notes that they were attached to legislation he wanted, making them hard to veto. Says Andrew Arulanandam, "He has disappointed us with his appointments," particularly Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, neither a darling of the shooting set.

But those are petty matters given Obama's overall refusal to do anything to advance gun control. On this issue, he took such a strong, clear position during the campaign that he has no room to maneuver. That was not accidental. It was deliberate — the equivalent of burning his ships to eliminate the option of retreat.

In terms of actual policy, rather than his previous record, Obama is a long way from being anti-gun. This is not because he has fond memories of sitting in a deer stand as a lad in Hawaii or of talking shotguns with Dick Cheney. It's because his mother didn't raise a fool.

Like some other Democrats, he may recall that in 1994, after banning "assault weapons," they lost the House for the first time in 40 years. Obama knows that anyone who staunchly favors banning guns won't vote Republican no matter what. But some independents who are protective of their weapons may vote Democratic if that issue is off the table.

Off the table is exactly where he intends to keep it. Last year, 65 House Democrats (including Jerry Costello and Debbie Halvorson of Illinois) wrote Holder vowing to "actively oppose" any effort to restore the assault weapons ban. The president has enough trouble getting legislation that enjoys overwhelming support in his party. He is not about to pick a fight with centrist Democrats over gun control.

Opponents of gun control should not rely on Obama's innermost sentiments on the subject. He obviously doesn't cherish the right to keep and bear arms. But for those who favor Second Amendment rights, here's the nice thing about having such a canny politician in the White House: He doesn't have to.

--------------------

In welcome news this morning, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in the potentially far-reaching Second Amendment case of “McDonald vs. City of Chicago.” At issue is whether last year’s historic Heller vs. District of Columbia decision affirming the individual right to bear arms also applies to state law, a doctrine known as “incorporation.” The Court said it will hear the case this coming January or February.

But the case also presents opportunities to expand all civil liberties, not just Second Amendment rights. As Doug Kendall of the progressive think tank, the Constitutional Accountability Center, noted in their recent brief supporting McDonald:

“McDonald v. City of Chicago is about more than guns: it is about whether the Court will restore the precise constitutional text that requires states to honor the fundamental rights of all Americans.”

Background:

In the 2008 Heller decision, the Supreme Court unequivocally affirmed the civil right of citizens to keep loaded handguns “at the ready” in their homes. However, the ruling specifically said that their decision applied only to federal, not state law.

Writing for the majority in favor of Second Amendment rights, Justice Scalia said:

“It held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms and that the city’s [Washington, D.C.] total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.”

The McDonald case has the potential to solidify the Heller ruling and, hopefully, strike down once and for all restrictive state or city ordinances that amount to total handgun bans, as well as laws that insist that handguns must be stored in a “nonfunctional” state, e.g. in a safe or with trigger locks in place. (Note: If you have kids around the house, use common sense about the relative risks of home invasion vs. curious young hands.)

All five of the justices who supported last year’s Heller decision are still serving, with the addition of Justice Sonya Sotomayor (recently appointed by President Obama) whom we expect to join with the majority in applying the Second Amendment rights and protections to the states.

Arbitrary and Capricious

Chicago’s handgun ban was instituted in early 80s during the anti-gun sentiment following the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. Local feelings about the law are mixed, but there is no evidence that the law’s intent of lowering violent crime has worked in any way. Chicago residents face up to a year in jail as well as fines for mere possession of a handgun.

However, like most gun prohibitions, the law has not been uniformly or equitably enforced, as was shown in 1994 when Illinois state senator Rickey Hendon, representing west Chicago, reported a handgun stolen from a burglary but was not prosecuted for owning it. This is clear evidence that enforcement of the ban is both “arbitrary and capricious” (see below). We suspect lawyers arguing the case will find more instances of inequity without having to look very hard.

Earlier this year, gun rights activists became especially concerned after another far-reaching gun control bill, The Blair Holt Bill, was introduced to a chilly reception in Congress by Chicago Congressman, Bobby Rush. Rush’s bill included conditions for gun ownership, such as a requirement that guns be disassembled while not in use, that would be unconstitutional if the Heller decision is applied to the states.

Modest Change

If the Supreme Court determines that citizens of all states have the same inalienable rights to self-defense and firearms ownership, it will not result in a complete overhaul of all state restrictions. In the Heller ruling, the Supreme Court listed a number of permissible restrictions which it seemed to leave up to local jurisdictions to decide for themselves.

Quoting from the Heller decision, these restrictions include the following:

• “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill”
• “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
• “concealed weapons prohibitions”
• “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons”

The Heller decision also upholds governments’ right to require registration or licensing:

“Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”

 While the court does not require any of these listed restrictions, in the tradition of federalism it leaves the door open to local sentiment and control within specified bounds as long as they are well short of de jure or de facto bans. This is in line with the emerging policy of the Obama administration, which favors federalism and local control in matters of firearms policy. AHSA believes this approach is in the best tradition of our federal system; but we would also argue that state-level pre-emption laws that apply a single legal standard throughout a state are better than a patchwork of confusing and draconian local laws that make criminals out of law-abiding citizens who innocently cross unmarked or unposted boundaries.

Our bet is that the Supreme Court will rule on the side of gun owners and of the original intent of the founders of our republic by incorporating the Second Amendment to apply to all jurisdictions. If you have an FFL in the Chicago area, you can expect some new customers come this spring.

------------------------------------------

President Barack Obama has proclaimed September 22 to be National Hunting and Fishing Day. In declaring his support of the American traditions of hunting and fishing, the president expressed his support both for those traditions and for the values they instill and sustain in the American character.

"On National Hunting and Fishing Day, we celebrate their contributions to our natural environment and our national heritage." - President Barack Obama

Said the president:

"Since our Nation's founding, hunters and anglers have cherished these unparalleled natural gifts and marveled at their untamed beauty. National Hunting and Fishing Day recognizes the contributions of millions of Americans who continue to engage in these ageless pursuits.

Following in the centuries-old footsteps of the pioneers who walked before them, hunters and anglers have played a key role in the conservation and restoration of numerous species and their natural habitats. They not only understand their pivotal role as stewards of the land, but also seek to pass on this honored tradition to future generations . . . If not for America's great hunters and anglers, like President Theodore Roosevelt and Aldo Leopold, our Nation would not enjoy sound game management; a system of ethical, science-based game laws; and an extensive public lands estate on which to pursue the sports. On
National Hunting and Fishing Day, we celebrate their contributions to our natural environment and our national heritage."

(The president's full remarks in support of hunters and anglers can be read in full on the White House website.)

Conservation, stewardship of the land, self-reliance and strength of character are values AHSA also believes are integral to our gun-owning traditions. We are proud to share these values with our president and to support his efforts to preserve our national heritage, our gun rights and the lands we love.

I thought I would share with all of you the letter I sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on February 26th:

February 26, 2009

Mr. Eric Holder    
United States Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Mr. Holder:

Congratulations on your appointment and confirmation as Attorney General of the United States.   I am writing to address your recent comments about the renewal of the federal assault weapons, which I read in The Hill today.   This raises grave concerns for me and other law-abiding gun owners.  I strongly urge you to reconsider this effort.

For the past four years, I have served as President of the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA).  We are a gun rights organization with a commitment to protecting our environment, preserving open spaces and keeping our communities safe.  Then-candidate Obama shared many of our views and we endorsed his candidacy last April.  I was honored to serve as a surrogate for the campaign.  Last fall, I spent a great deal of time talking to gun owners, many of whom were union members, on behalf of the Obama-Biden ticket through over 40 appearances in Ohio, Minnesota, Florida and Colorado.  I also did a radio ad, which was broadcast nationally, and was featured in the campaign's direct mail.  Barack Obama's election was critically important for the future of our nation and to the million of gun owners, like me, who voted for him.

That is the reason I want to address the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which passed in 1994 in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 and expired on September 13, 2004.  It is my understanding that the Obama administration continues to state its intention to reinstate that ban.  I would strongly encourage you to negate that effort. The assault weapons ban is an issue of great import to America's law-abiding hunters and shooters, who I represent through my role as President of AHSA.   But, this issue shouldn't be based on politics, it's about policy.

Most importantly, as studies have shown, the law had no measurable effect on crime reduction and created an easily avoidable template for gun manufacturers to work around. Instead, the law demonized lawful gun owners and became a lightning rod for a decade long public debate over gun crime that merely served to divert time and resources from our already over-burdened law enforcement agencies.  Frankly, it has been an unnecessary distraction.  Gun owners support efforts to keep our communities safe.  We just want those policies directed at the root cause of crime and violence and not just symbolism, which is how the Washington Post accurately described the ban back in 1994.

Since the Federal Assault Weapons Ban's enactment, the studies analyzing its effect showed there was no statistical significant evidence that it reduced gun crimes. In fact, two studies prepared for the United States government confirm that fact:  The Department Of Justice-funded study issued in July of 2004 titled "Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003" and the Center for Disease Control's Task Force on Community Preventive Services report "First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws" issued in October of 2003.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban's major thrust, which was based on a political compromise between competing bills in the U.S. Senate, was to ban the manufacture and sale of certain gun models that had two or more of the following features, considered by most to be merely cosmetic: pistol grip, folding/collapsible stock, flash suppressor/muzzle brake, large-capacity detachable magazine, bayonet mounting point, and a grenade launcher mounting point.  However, manufacturers just put these features on guns in variable combinations instead of using an "all-in-one" approach, meaning that post-ban guns sold were effectively duplicates of pre-ban guns with a mix and match of the isolated features.  The new law became a "charade."

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban also prohibited the production of large capacity ammunition feeding devices (clips) that carried more than 10 rounds. However, large pre-ban clips were always available, albeit with a higher price point, from dealers, on the internet, at gun shows, or from international sources (especially from former Warsaw Pact countries that had large quantities of AK-47 magazines of various capacities that could fit a variety of both pre-ban and post-ban AK-47 variants).   Again, the law was meaningless.

In addition, law abiding sport shooters, collectors, self-defense advocates and hunters who bought semi-automatic replicas of military ordinance felt they had become targets of over-reaching law enforcement agencies because of the demonization of their lawfully owned guns or what they thought was a lawful hobby. This caused a chilling of support for law enforcement by an untold number of citizens who would never imagine themselves as law-breakers, which is exactly the opposite response you would hope to get from legislation intended to fight crime.

Finally, since the ban was first enacted back in 1994, there has been a major development in the interpretation of the Second Amendment, which must also be considered.  The decision in Heller v. District of Columbia established the principle that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.   The Supreme Court decision must guide your thinking as you proceed.

We share your commitment to reducing crime and gun violence.  We believe, as law-abiding gun owners, the way to do that is not by banning guns, but by making sure that criminals, terrorists and people who can harm themselves and others do not get guns.  Law-abiding gun-owners will overwhelmingly support your efforts along those lines.  Again, I applaud your long-standing service to our country and defense of the Constitution. I do however ask you work to ensure that any law enforcement legislation the administration proposes aimed at reducing gun crime in our communities will actually lower gun crime.  Policy considerations should dictate this decision.

Sincerely,

Ray Schoenke, President
American Hunters and Shooters Association