In yet another article documenting the HopeandChange™ brought to gun dealers by the election of Barack Obama (just a sales ploy--right, Bryan?), the authors take a look at some of Obama's voting history, in order to weigh the plausibility of fears that U.S. gun laws will become still more draconian than they already are.
Specifically, the article mentioned (then Illinois State Senator) Obama's repeated votes against the "Wilmette Bill," which came up after a resident of Wilmette, IL (which had a city ordinance banning handguns) used a handgun to successfully defend himself, his home, and his children from a burglar home invader and career criminal (thanks, Sheepdoggy). Under the terms of the bill, which eventually passed over Governor Blagojevich's veto (and Obama's repeated votes), self-defense is an affirmative defense to violations of municipal firearms ordinances.
Newsweek dismissively points out that even without the law Obama tried to defeat, the violation would be no more than a "petty offense."
What Obama voted for was not any general repeal of the right of self-defense, but to uphold enforcement of the local gun ban, a "petty offense" that carried a maximum penalty of a $750 fine.At risk of exposing my low-class, peasant, white trashiness, I have to say that $750 is a not insignificant sum for me, particularly when one considers the court costs, etc. that would probably be tacked on--not to mention the likelihood that the gun would be confiscated and never returned.
Going back to the article from the first link above, the Brady Campaign's Peter "Don't call me Petey" Hamm makes an interesting statement about what he thinks of breaking laws such as Wilmette's (now repealed) handgun ban.
“If you have an illegal gun in a community that bans them and use it in self defense and all you have to do is to pay a fine — I would pay the fine and believe what I did was correct,” Hamm said.So breaking the kind of gun law that your organization has fought so hard to preserve is "correct"? Alright--I agree with that much--breaking an evil law is indeed correct (as Petey and I are far from the first to have noticed). The problem is, if breaking the law is "correct," then the law itself must be "incorrect."
Pick a side, Petey.
Stumble it!
5 comments:
It's OK to break a law if you believe what you've done is 'correct'?
I wonder what he would say when that argument is taken to its logical conclusion.
I'll bet Timothy McVeigh thought that what he did was "correct."
"used a handgun to successfully defend himself, his home, and his children from a burglar."
Correction, the man was not a burglar. He was a home invader and murderer. When someone crashes into your home while you are there and awake, threatens to hurt or kill you, they are no longer a burglar. The media, many times, describes someone coming into a home without permission, as a burglar.
Just picking nits.
Other than that, you do a great job on your blog.
Point taken--although I don't know about the "murderer" part--the guy killed someone?
Thanks.
I would suggest never pleading out to a petty misdemeanor involving a firearm. Chances are that, in the not too distant future, some Vanderslitz will submit a bill in congress and attach it to an appropriations bill as a rider that will make ANY firearm violation conviction, retroactive to three days after the death of Jesus, a ban to ever possess or even being within 30 miles of a firearm. It will be a federal felony and probably carry a life sentence without parole.
Ex post facto? Sure thing. Just like the case Hayes is fighting.
Post a Comment