October 29, 2008

HOPE ON Callout Campaign: John Boccieri Does NOT Support the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Filed under: Taxes & Government — Tom @ 1:49 pm

HOPEONlogoNOTE: The HOPE ON Callout Campaign will cite the vast differences between the stated positions of certain Democratic candidates for political office in Ohio and Barack Obama, the presidential candidate these Democrats have nonetheless endorsed.

The lucky person receiving today’s not-so-coveted callout is 16th District Congressional candidate John Boccieri.

____________________________________________________

OVERVIEW: John Boccieri supports Barack Obama’s candidacy for president, even though Obama voted and spoke out consistently in favor of curbing individual gun rights as a state legislator and US senator, and even though a foundation where Obama was a director for eight years nearly succeeded in causing the Supreme Court’s recent Heller decision to end them.

Therefore John Boccieri does NOT support the individual right to keep and bear arms.

____________________________________________________

Earlier this week, I spoke to a person at John Boccieri’s office. I asked that person if Boccieri has endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. I was told that the two “share literature,” and that they are “100% a team.”

Barack Obama made what he called his Closing Argument speech Monday in Canton, Ohio. “Oddly enough,” he chose to make that argument in the city where, 90 years earlier, socialist Eugene Debs delivered the speech (HT Norma at Collecting My Thoughts) Wikipedia calls his “Speech of Sedition.” Norma’s right; I hear echoes, especially in the final section.

But this post is about John “100% a Team” Boccieri.

Boccieri spoke briefly at Monday’s rally, saying: “Change is coming to Canton, Ohio and America, and that change’s name is ‘Barack Obama.’”

John Boccieri is clearly okay with a number of “changes” Obama would make that he (Boccieri) says he opposes. One of the most important involves the recently, barely-affirmed individual right to keep and bear arms, something the Democrat claims to support at his web site (bold is mine):

John is a strong supporter of our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Whether for personal security or hunting and recreation, John will stand up for the Second amendment.

Really? Why won’t he stand up for the Second Amendment by standing up to Barack Obama?

In February, the Associated Press’s Nedra Pickler wrote the following in her coverage of an Obama news conference (bolds are mine):

Although Obama supports gun control, while campaigning in gun-friendly Idaho earlier this month, he said he does not intend to take away people’s guns.

At his news conference, he voiced support for the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns, which is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court next month.

“The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can’t initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang bangers and random shootings on the street isn’t born (sic) out by our Constitution,” Obama said.

To be clear (because Obama wasn’t, and Pickler covered for him), the DC ban “took away (many) people’s guns.”

But after the Supreme Court’s Heller ruling that threw out the DC handgun ban, Obama said he supported the decision. All of this came after he refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.

This takes “having it all ways” to a new level.

Barack Obama’s earlier position supporting the DC handgun ban reflects his core beliefs. His record of career-long, dedicated, and persistent antagonism to individual gun rights is irrefutable, and overwhelming. The following is only a partial list providing more-than-sufficient proof:

  • Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.
  • Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.
  • He voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.
  • He has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.
  • Obama also supports local gun bans in Chicago and other cities.
  • Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.
  • Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.
  • Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.
  • Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.
  • Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping, one-gun-a-month sales restrictions, a ban on inexpensive handguns, gun owner licensing and gun registration, and mandatory waiting periods.
  • Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.

You must be thinking that it couldn’t get worse. Oh yes it can, and it does — much, much worse.

You see, Obama was a director at an organization that worked mightily to make the Heller decision go the wrong way. They almost succeeded.

Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”

A Pajamas Media column by David T. Hardy earlier this month revealed that the Foundation engaged in the law-review equivalent of push-polling:

During Obama’s tenure, the Joyce Foundation board planned and implemented a program targeting the Supreme Court. The work began five years into Obama’s directorship, when the Foundation had experience in turning its millions into anti-gun “grassroots” organizations, but none at converting cash into legal scholarship.

The plan’s objective was bold: the judicial obliteration of the Second Amendment.

Joyce’s directors found a vulnerable point. When judges cannot rely upon past decisions, they sometimes turn to law review articles. Law reviews are impartial, and famed for meticulous cite-checking. They are also produced on a shoestring. Authors of articles receive no compensation; editors are law students who work for a tiny stipend.

In 1999, midway through Obama’s tenure, the Joyce board voted to grant the Chicago-Kent Law Review $84,000, a staggering sum by law review standards. The Review promptly published an issue in which all articles attacked the individual right view of the Second Amendment.

(The Review) solicited only articles hostile to the individual right view of the Second Amendment. ….. Joyce had bought a veto power over the review’s content.

….. The plan worked smoothly. One court, in the course of ruling that there was no individual right to arms, cited the Chicago-Kent articles eight times.

….. The Joyce Foundation board (which still included Obama) ….. expand(ed) its attack on the Second Amendment. Its next move came when Ohio State University announced it was establishing the “Second Amendment Research Center” as a thinktank headed by anti-individual-right historian Saul Cornell. Joyce put up no less than $400,000 to bankroll its creation.

….. The Center proceeded to generate articles denying the individual right to arms.

….. The Joyce directorate’s plan almost succeeded. The individual rights view won out in the Heller Supreme Court appeal, but only by 5-4. The four dissenters were persuaded in part by Joyce-funded writings, down to relying on an article which misled them on critical historical documents.

John Boccieri, you are “100% a team” with a guy who almost took away the “Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms” you claim to hold so dear. This is 100% indefensible.

What’s more, John, you know full well that a president Obama will nominate federal judges who will overturn Heller at their first available opportunity. What good will your platitudes about supporting Second Amendment rights be then?

This leaves us at essentially the same place we were yesterday with Steve Driehaus’s objectively indefensible support of Barack Obama while claiming to be pro-life. The mountain of evidence just presented proves that John “100 % a Team” Boccieri’s claim to support individual gun rights and support of Barack Obama cannot exist in the same universe. As with Driehaus on life-related matters, Boccieri’s failure to speak out forcefully against the Second Amendment-hostile record and plans of Barack Obama cannot exist in the same universe. It is not arguable.

The points just proven hold for each and every candidate for public office who claims to be pro-Second Amendment but who also supports Barack Obama. You have nowhere to run, and nowhere to hide. Your support of Obama signifies acquiescence to the gun-grabbers’ fondest dreams.

Among many, many others, that includes YOU, Ted Strickland. Whether Obama wins or loses, you have totally forfeited your pro-Second Amendment credibility for the balance of your pitiful political career, and it will NOT be forgotten.

Though it is very limited, there is still time for Boccieri and others to get their political situation in alignment with their alleged values. All they have to do if forcefully repudiate Obama’s candidacy, as well as any and all financial and other support they might have received from him. Absent that, Boccieri, and the others, are unworthy of serious consideration. Their words are, well, empty shells.

I was going to go after Boccieri for being prolife and supporting Obama. But after this video, I don’t know what to think, because Boccieri clearly doesn’t know what to say (HT Weapons of Mass Discussion):

(Note to John: Before a prolife constitutional amendment gets to the people, it has to get 2/3 of both houses of Congress to vote it out. You copped out.)

16th District voters can be excused for thinking that John Boccieri is from another planet. Well, not exactly. But despite recent cosmetic attempts to make it look otherwise, he is from another district far, far away.

Share

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.