Law School Conservative

Barack Obama just can't escape the gun issue. As gang violence continues to plague Chicago, the senator sat down with the Chicago Sun-Times to talk about guns and gun control. 

Obama wouldn't say how he feels about the legality of Chicago's ban on handguns, and he wouldn't give an opinion on the constitutionality of the D.C. gun ban, either. He did say that it's clear the bans aren't working, but still expressed his belief that these cities should be able to pass and enforce any gun-control law they want.

Obama also displayed an amazing lack of information about the Tiahrt Amendment, claiming it blocks ATF from sharing gun-tracing information with local authorities. As I've pointed out before, the reason the Tiahrt Amendment became law back in 2003 was the lawsuit filed by Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. Back in the 1990s, Daley wanted access to ATF crime trace data from outside of Chicago, and he wanted to try to use that information to sue gun manufacturers and dealers. The Clinton-era ATF blocked the release of the information, and law enforcement agencies around the country begged the federal government to keep this information in the hands of law enforcement only. The Tiahrt Amendment doesn't do anything to stop law enforcement from getting access to these records. It only blocks the public and grandstanding politicians from trying to use these sensitive law-enforcement tools for their own purposes.

Senator Obama says he doesn't like empty rhetoric. But that's all we hear from the senator when it comes to the Second Amendment. His attempts to pander to gun owners by expressing vague support for the Second Amendment won't fly. Not when his legislative record is littered with votes against the Second Amendment and for more gun control.

In a recent interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, Senator Barack Obama once again expressed his opposition to Right-to-Carry laws. That's not surprising. After all, Obama is a politician from one of two states in the union without any Right-to-Carry law on the books. But when Senator Obama says he hasn't seen any evidence that Right-to-Carry laws "make anyone safer," I have to say to Barack Obama: You're not looking hard enough.

Senator, meet Charles Todd, a Right-to-Carry holder from Memphis who defended himself against an armed carjacker last week. 

Senator, meet Jane Downey, a Right-to-Carry holder who defended herself against an intruder in her sister's home earlier this month. 

Senator, meet James Spiers, a Right-to-Carry holder and pizza delivery driver. Spiers was just trying to do his job when he was robbed late last month. With a gun held to his head by the criminal,  Spiers shot and wounded his attacker. The single father of a ten-year-old girl was fired from Pizza Hut for violating company policy by legally carrying his firearm. Would you prefer, senator, that Mr. Spiers not have had his gun? Would you like to explain to his daughter why Right-to-Carry doesn't work?

The simple fact is that 40 states have "shall-issue" Right-to-Carry laws on the books. There are millions of armed citizens in this country, and if they were a problem, we'd know about it. In fact, there are plenty of studies that show a decrease in crime after Right-to-Carry laws are passed. 

Barack Obama's opposition to Right-to-Carry isn't based on logic or reason. It's just the knee-jerk emotional response of an anti-gun politician. But his knee-jerk emotional response, if put into law, would make us all less safe and less free.

In a few months, the members of the U.S. Olympic Shooting Team will head to Beijing for the 2008 Olympics. The host country is expected to provide stiff competition for our men and women. But did you know that the Chinese shooters stand to make millions if they win five gold medals?

Chinese state-run media have reported that a company that makes an alcoholic drink called baijiu have promised the team more than ten million dollars if they capture at least five medals. In a country where the average income is just over $2000 a year, that's quite a payday. 

Our own shooters don't stand to make millions if they bring home some gold, but they'll be fierce competitors nonetheless. They're representing the home of liberty and freedom, and they don't need to be bribed with the promise of riches to do their best.

We’re just following their example:

Hat tip to co-author Grant Keener for this one.

Animal rights extremists are trying to invade classrooms in Washington, D.C. 

With the passage of the "Animal Protection Amendment Act," they'd be able to go into schools and indoctrinate children with their bizarre notion of “humane education.” 

The bill would require the D.C. Department of Education provide such instruction. It would also get rid of the phrase "animal owner" in the District of Columbia. No longer would you own a dog or a cat. Now you'd be their "animal guardian."

It's easy to dismiss these attempts at indoctrination as silly. But the animal rights extremists are serious. They want to change the way you think, the words you use, and the way you live to fit into their agenda. And they won't stop until they get their way.