Having just fired guns for the first time recently I thought I would take up the issue of Gun Control/Gun Rights.  I am further going to consider this in the context of how honestly this is being handled by both sides.  

That paragon of honesty in political debate – Human Events – has been so kind as to send me a note today from the Second Ammendment Foundation.  I have copied the bulk of it below and made an effort to see if it accurately expresses the reasons gun owners should be concerned about the current administration.  I will accept the SAF as an established voice (35 years) for the political right on this topic, and allow President Obama’s words speak for themselves, as specifically referenced by SAF.

The letter from Human Events (editted for brevity only):

Obama’s Anti-Gun Agenda Heads To Supreme Court

Chicago Gun Ban Case to Determine Gun Rights For All States

The U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will hear the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, and decide whether the right to keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment protects Americans from overreaching state and local governments.

The Supreme Court case is of paramount importance to American citizens, to see that their constitutional rights are respected not only by the Congress, but by state and local governments.

Obama made public his clear anti-gun agenda in March 2004 in Chicago. Obama voted against Illinois Senate Bill 2165 allowing citizens the right to protect themselves and for local ordinances against handgun possession. The measure passed the Illinois Senate by a vote of 38-20 without Obama’s vote. STOP Obama’s Anti-Gun Agenda now before he can appoint any anti-gun judges.

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is delighted to bring this case in cooperation with the Illinois State Rifle Association and the four local plaintiffs. We are in this fight because a gun ban is no less onerous to civil rights in Chicago than it was in the District of Columbia. Such a law cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged.

(call for donations removed)  SAF stands firmly committed to defend these rights and we are asking you to stand with us and we need your help to stop the anti-freedom extremists now!

At issue is a 27-year-old Chicago law banning handguns, requiring the annual taxation of firearms, and otherwise interfering with the right of law-abiding individuals to keep guns at home for self-defense. The case was brought on behalf of four Chicago residents, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Illinois State Rifle Association.

.snip.

“The freedoms we enjoy as Americans are secured to us against violation by all levels of government,” noted Alan Gura, of Gura & Possessky, PLLC, lead counsel for the McDonald plaintiffs. “State and local politicians should be on notice: the Second Amendment is a normal part of the Bill of Rights, and it is coming to your town.”

Otis McDonald, a Chicago resident since 1952 who led the fight to integrate his union local in the 1960s and is a plaintiff in the case, welcomed the news.

“I am grateful the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case,” McDonald said. “I now pray that the Court secures me and all other law-abiding citizens the right to defend ourselves and our families.”

.snip.

The Chicago gun ban challenge will likely be among the most closely watched constitutional law cases in decades. At stake is not just the question of whether the Second Amendment secures the right to arms against state and local governments, but also the extent to which the Supreme Court preserves individual liberty against encroachment by state and local governments.

Oral argument will possibly be scheduled early this coming winter, with a decision expected by June 2010. Gura will argue the case on behalf of the McDonald plaintiffs.

The Second Amendment Foundation (saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

Illinois Senate Bill 2165, as referenced by SAF.  Page 100-106 of the transcript of the congressional discussion prior to the vote contain Sen. Obama’s statements, you can read them for yourself here.  In summary, the bill was to allow anyone granted an “order of protection” to automatically be granted the right to carry a concealed firearm.  This would override existing laws requiring background checks, age restrictions and other requirements for those applying for a “concealed carry” permit in Illinois.  The context for the bill was to provide those dealing with domestic violence the ability to carry a handgun for self-protection from the alleged abusive spouse.

Sen. Obama’s objections were not specifically with the bill itself – though he raises issues where it could either make the courts less likely to grant Orders of Protection due to the automatic concealed handgun that would attach to such orders.  His primary objection was that it created a loophole in the existing concealed carry permit system without raising the issue of concealed carry in general.

Senator Obama:

Well, just to close this questioning, and I – I appreciate Senator Petka’s patience as well as the indulgence of the rest of the Senate.  As I stated in committee, Senator Petka and I disagree on the underlying premise that conceal and carry will create a safer citizenry in Illinois.  And I think that’s a legitimate debate and that’s one, I think, that we should carry in a forthright and aboveboard manner.  I am concerned on an issue of such import to the State – one that we have debated extensively in this Chamber, one that has been extensively debated in the other Chamber, one that’s been extensively debated in the public – that we would potentially use the disturbing situation facing people who are involved in domestic violence situations as a potential Trojan horse through which we introduce the – the notion that conceal and carry appropriate in our State.  If we think that conceal and carry is appropriate we should vote on it, we should vote it up or down.  We should make a decision that it applies to everybody, or it applies to nobody.  For us to do it in this piecemeal fashion, I think, does a disservice both to victims of domestic violence, but I also think it does a disservice to the – Illinois public.  I would urge, at this stage, a No vote, not only because I don’t think this is going to be particularly effective with respect to curbing domestic violence, but more importantly, because I think that this reaches into a much larger issue in terms of how we maintain safety in the State of Illinois.

IMHO, the SAF disengenuously makes blanket accusations against (then Sen.) Obama as an anti-gun legislator.  Obama stated his belief that concealed carry would not reduce crime, but at the same time welcomed the debate.  His objection is with half-measured backdoor approaches to complex issues, not with addressing the issue openly and honestly.

It will be interesting to see how the SCOTUS case turns out.  Ironically, from the sounds of it I am likely to side with SAF in regards to the outcome of this case, but as a willfully dishonest partner in the debate I don’t believe I could ever support them as an organization.