Obama's Switcheroo on the DC Gun Ban

Pardon Senator Obama but last year, he says he made an "inartful" statement on the DC gun ban. What exactly did our artfully challenged Obama have to say about it?

With the Supreme Court poised to rule on Washington, D.C.'s, gun ban, the Obama campaign is disavowing what it calls an "inartful" statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as believing that the DC ban was constitutional.

"That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator's consistent position," Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.

Oh, yes. Obviously inartful.

The statement which Burton describes as an inaccurate representation of the senator's views was made to the Chicago Tribune on Nov. 20, 2007.

In a story entitled, "Court to Hear Gun Case," the Chicago Tribune's James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins wrote ". . . the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he '...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.'"

For Obama to say that the DC gun ban - a law that went farther than any other gun control measure in history in encroaching on second amendment rights - was "Constitutional" no doubt reflects his view that people shouldn't be clinging to their guns and should just give them up.

So what does our inartful senator believe now - now that the Surpreme Court is going to make him a liar today and rule that the DC ban is unconstitutional?

When Obama has been asked on multiple occasions to weigh in on the D.C. gun case he has regularly maintained that the Second Amendment provides an individual right while at the same time saying that right is not absolute and that the Constitution does not prevent local governments from enacting what Obama calls "common sense laws."

Although he has been willing to describe his general views on this topic, Obama has sidestepped the question of whether the ban in the nation's capital runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

Asked by ABC News' Charlie Gibson if he considers the D.C. law to be consistent with an individual's right to bear arms at ABC's April 16, 2008, debate in Philadelphia, Obama said, "Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence."

Now that's what I call "artful." Indeed, Obama so much resembles the Dickens character in Oliver Twist the "Artful Dodger" with that response he should win some kind of award.

All politicians straddle issues to some extent. But on something as fundamental to the constitutional rights of citizens, the voter would like to know exactly where a candidate stands. Apparently, Obama stands in about 3 places at once.
Pardon Senator Obama but last year, he says he made an "inartful" statement on the DC gun ban. What exactly did our artfully challenged Obama have to say about it?

With the Supreme Court poised to rule on Washington, D.C.'s, gun ban, the Obama campaign is disavowing what it calls an "inartful" statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as believing that the DC ban was constitutional.

"That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator's consistent position," Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.

Oh, yes. Obviously inartful.

The statement which Burton describes as an inaccurate representation of the senator's views was made to the Chicago Tribune on Nov. 20, 2007.

In a story entitled, "Court to Hear Gun Case," the Chicago Tribune's James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins wrote ". . . the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he '...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.'"

For Obama to say that the DC gun ban - a law that went farther than any other gun control measure in history in encroaching on second amendment rights - was "Constitutional" no doubt reflects his view that people shouldn't be clinging to their guns and should just give them up.

So what does our inartful senator believe now - now that the Surpreme Court is going to make him a liar today and rule that the DC ban is unconstitutional?

When Obama has been asked on multiple occasions to weigh in on the D.C. gun case he has regularly maintained that the Second Amendment provides an individual right while at the same time saying that right is not absolute and that the Constitution does not prevent local governments from enacting what Obama calls "common sense laws."

Although he has been willing to describe his general views on this topic, Obama has sidestepped the question of whether the ban in the nation's capital runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

Asked by ABC News' Charlie Gibson if he considers the D.C. law to be consistent with an individual's right to bear arms at ABC's April 16, 2008, debate in Philadelphia, Obama said, "Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence."

Now that's what I call "artful." Indeed, Obama so much resembles the Dickens character in Oliver Twist the "Artful Dodger" with that response he should win some kind of award.

All politicians straddle issues to some extent. But on something as fundamental to the constitutional rights of citizens, the voter would like to know exactly where a candidate stands. Apparently, Obama stands in about 3 places at once.