The Rifle Association's 'True Story': A misleading NRA ad claims:
source: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_rifle_associations_true_story.html
-
-
- wlwatkins
- added this
NRA Targets Obama
It falsely claims in mailers and TV ads that Obama plans to ban handguns, hunting ammo and use of a gun for home defense.
The Rifle Association's 'True Story'
October 23, 2008
A misleading NRA ad claims Obama voted "to deny citizens the right of self-protection."
Summary
Summary
The National Rifle Association's misleading attacks on Obama continue. A new ad shows a terrified woman grabbing a gun after an intruder smashes his way into her home. It accuses Obama of voting repeatedly for a measure that would "make you the criminal" in such cases, and voting to "deny citizens the right of self-protection."
The NRA says the incident depicted is "a true story." Not quite.
* The actual 2003 burglary didn't involve a woman, and it didn't become violent until the male homeowner went downstairs and started firing before calling police.
* The ad fails to mention that the issue was a local handgun ban that made the homeowner's gun illegal to keep in the house.
* 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.
..................................................
Not Quite "A True Story"
The ad shows a dramatic re-creation of a home invasion and asks viewers to "imagine your child screaming in the middle of the night" as a felon breaks into your home. It shows a woman wearing a nightgown grabbing a handgun. "You use a gun to defend yourself and your family," but "Obama voted to make you the criminal" and to deny citizens "the right of self-protection," it says.
The ad claims "it's a true story," but it isn't quite. No woman was involved, for one thing. And the burglar didn't violently smash the door frame, as shown, but entered using a stolen key.
And Obama's vote would not have made anybody a criminal or denied the right of self-defense. Owners of illegal weapons would simply have remained subject to the penalties of local gun bans even in cases where the weapons were used in self-defense inside a home or business. In the "true story" in question, the homeowner put two bullets into the intruder and was fined $750 for possession of a handgun.
*********************************************************************************
read the rest of the true story in the article.....at address above.
and find out exactly what Obama did vote on....below
-
- groups:
- Politics, World News
-
- tags:
- Politics, Barack Obama, Media, World News, 9 more
-
-
wlwatkins
-
Why would NRA wait until the last month to bring up these issues they are claiming? What are their motives? You must decide. Field and Stream and Outdoor Life magazines, true gun owner magazines support Obama!
**********************************************************************
Obama's VotesThe bill that resulted from this celebrated case was S.B. 2165. It said that local gun bans could not be enforced in cases where the gun owner could prove the weapon was being used in self-defense or to defend another, while in his or her home or place of business.
Obama opposed the measure, voting against it twice on the floor of the Illinois Senate on March 25, 2004, when it passed 38 to 20, and again on May 25, when the Senate agreed to a House-passed version by a vote of 41 to 16. (The NRA says he voted "four times" but we find record of only two votes.)
Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich vetoed the measure on Aug. 20, 2004, calling it an infringement on the power of localities to determine their own ordinances. The veto was overridden easily, however, and the bill became law effective Nov. 16, 2004. By that time Obama had been elected to the U.S. Senate, and he was not present for the final vote on the override.
It would be fair to characterize Obama as voting to uphold enforcement of local gun bans, even in cases where the banned weapons were used in self-defense. But the NRA goes too far when it claims that he voted "to deny citizens the right of self-protection" generally. He did no such thing. The vote would have had no effect at all in places that didn't have local gun bans in the first place. And even though DeMar was fined for possession of an illegal weapon, he was not charged with anything more serious, such as assault with a deadly weapon, because he was found to be acting in self-defense. Had the bill the NRA refers to not passed, nothing would have changed for DeMar or others like him. He would not have been subject to anything more than paying the penalty for violating the local handgun ban.
- 4 years ago
-
wlwatkins
