Obama's Stance on Concealed Carry?

I can't find a reliable source for this quote but it appears on several pro-2nd websites. It is highly disturbing and seems to indicate a desire to supercede state laws. But like you said I'm sure this will be fleshed out more in the McCain-Obama debates.

Obama says, "National legislation will prevent other states' flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents." David Mendell, "Democratic hopefuls vary a bit on death penalty," Chicago Tribune, February 20, 2004

http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/obama.htm


Yeah, I saw that. Given the the timing of it I assume he is talking about the so-called National Law Enforcement Safety Act which was being debated in Congress right around that time (the bill passed the Senate in early March of 2004). The bill allowed former law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons nationally notwithstanding the laws of the individual states that may prohibit concealed carry (Illinois is one such state).

It's got nothing to do with prohibiting concealed carry nationally. It has to do with the federal government overriding state laws on concealed carry, not the other way around.
 
They are legally Obliged...the LE motto is 'To Protect and Serve'...where the problem lies is response time...this is a problem all over the world...not just the USA!

the correct phrase is they are not legally obligated to provide protection to ANY ONE INDIVIDUAL, but only to society as a whole.

read castle rock v. gonzalez
 
I. Don't. Believe. It.

I predict that it will happen and will happen in my lifetime. You have these goobers all wanting to go the way of the European countries and more and more of them are getting into positions of power. Gun ownership is going to be strictly regulated to the point of one not being able to own them and concealed carry is already tenuous with the potential president Obama (he will be the next president) and a democratic controlled house and congress.

I. Think. You're. A. Moron.
 
Awww DH, you spoiled all the tinfoil hat fear mongering.

It wasn't fearmongering. I posed a legitimate question and DH answered it as well as he could. It still isn't completely answered until Obama addresses it, but DH has reassured me somewhat.
 
Do you actually have an opinion about gun control or have you just given up discussing anything of relevance?
 
I disagree...one case does not change the obligation of LE...like I said response time and priorities are more likely what the court decision in this case was addressing!
NO, Diuretic is right, the court ruled that the police have no obligation to AN INIDIVIDUAL. There motto does not a duty make.

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]

In the Warren case the injured parties sued the District of Columbia under its own laws for failing to protect them. Most often such cases are brought in state (or, in the case of Warren, D.C.) courts for violation of state statutes, because federal law pertaining to these matters is even more onerous. But when someone does sue under federal law, it is nearly always for violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 (often inaccurately referred to as "the civil rights act"). Section 1983 claims are brought against government officials for allegedly violating the injured parties' federal statutory or Constitutional rights.

This is basic police acadamy stuff. You didn't KNOW this Mr. LEO? DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services 109 S.Ct. 998 (1989) is THE US Supreme Court case which lays out that there is no duty to protect individuals.
 
I'm curious to see the numbers showing states with conceal carry laws are safer because of the conceal carry laws.
 
I'm curious to see the numbers showing states with conceal carry laws are safer because of the conceal carry laws.

So that when we find states where it works well you can deny til your dying breath that it is because of concealed carry?

I think not.
 
Okay moron, since you asked, let's look at the first and last ranked for crime rates.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html

Washington DC has a ban on handguns and ranks first in the nation for violent crime.

New Hampshire has some of the fewest regulations on concealed carry permits of any state, and is in last place for total crime rate and 49th place for violent crime.

There. Now let your tapdance of denial begin... NOW.
 
Back
Top