This is the NRA ad that Obama's goons wants to censor.
Politico has the source. Most of this was a letter from the NRA in response, so I'll post the whole thing here so I can disect this point by point. Normally, I post excepts. If politico or Ben Smith has a problem with the full posting, I'll adjust it afterward.
The Obama campaign has written radio stations in Pennsylvania and Ohio, pressing them to refuse to air an ad from the National Rifle Association.
"This advertisement knowingly misleads your viewing audience about Senator Obama's position on the Second Amendment," says the letter from Obama general counsel Bob Bauer. "For the sake of both FCC licensing requirements and the public interest, your station should refuse to continue to air this advertisement."
I know the bill in contention very well, as well as the context behind it, so the NRA not only is accurate, but in this case, the context of the ad is more inflammatory than the bill itselt. Most who know me know that I refer to one of the ammo bans as the "30-30 ban." That's the bill. I'll get to that later. Back to the politico:
The ad, "Hunter," conflates Obama's anti-gun stances of the 1990s with his current, more pro-gun, stand, and was chided for inaccuracy in The Washington Post, an item to which Bauer's letter refers.
The Washington Post? Who the hell died and made those jokers the arbiters of truth?
NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam, who provided the letter, said it shows clear evidence that the ads are "hurting him," and stood by their substance. He also provided a copy of the NRA's own letter to the stations and memo disputing the Post story, after the jump. He also said the ad is running only in Pennsylvania at the moment.
Good. Be prepared to take out Obama/Daley's goons.
TO: Station Managers
FROM: Cleta Mitchell, Esq.
Counsel to National Rifle Association
DATE: September 25, 2008
RE: Documentation for Advertising by National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund ("NRA-PVF")
This firm serves as counsel to the National Rifle Association (“NRA”) and the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund ("NRA-PVF"), which is the federal political action committee of the NRA and the sponsor of certain advertising purchased and soon-to-be purchased on your station. It has come to my clients’ attention that the Obama for President campaign is engaging in an effort to prevent or stop the airing of certain ads by NRA-PVF, falsely alleging that the ads are ‘inaccurate’. The Obama presidential campaign apparently relies on an article appearing in the Washington Post on September 23, 2008 to support its contention hat the NRA-PVF ads should not be aired.
The Washington Post is hardly an objective news source on any subject related to the issues to which the NRA is dedicated, having spent decades attacking not only the NRA but also fighting against the legislation and policies NRA supports to protect the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as supporting every conceivable government proposal or policy any officeholder or candidate suggests to weaken and disrupt the guarantees of the Second Amendment. It is therefore no surprise that the Washington Post would now attack the NRA for advertisements which truthfully disclose the anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment record of Barack Obama, the candidate supported by the Washington Post.
Attached please find the point-by-point refutation of the Washington Post’s article about the NRA-PVF ads regarding Obama’s record on the Second Amendment, as well as an article disclosing the bias of the decidedly not neutral “FactChecker” on which the Washington Post article is ostensibly based.
The NRA devotes 100% of its time and resources to protecting the Second Amendment and fighting for government policies and legislation furtherance of the rights of the American people to keep and bear arms.
The legislative and policy record of candidates and officeholders such as Barack Obama are well known and documented by the NRA on an ongoing basis. NRA-PVF’s advertising during the 2008 election cycle is based on that extensive research and documentation, which is being furnished to you with this Memorandum.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that your station disregard the shamefully false assertions from the Obama campaign and its attorneys regarding the NRA-PVF ads and that the ads run in accordance with the purchase(s) made by NRA-PVF in the media buy.
Please feel free to contact me at (202) 295-xxxx if you have any questions. Thank you.
Be prepared. Here's the rebuttals.
Factual Response to Washington Post False Statements on NRA Anti-Obama Ads
Washington Post Claim—500% Tax on Guns
It is unclear from the article exactly what weapons would have been covered by the proposed tax. … Even if Obama did support a big tax increase on the sale of certain types of assault weapons back in 1999, that is hardly evidence that he will move as president to tax the “guns and ammo” most commonly used by hunters.
The Post quotes Obama out of context, claiming that he only wanted to tax “certain types” of guns in 1999. But the full sentence in the 1999 article reads, “Obama is also seeking to increase the federal taxes by 500 percent on the sale of firearm, ammunition [sic] -- weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths.” Chinta Strausberg, Obama unveils federal gun bill, Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999, at 3. (emphasis added). Contrary to the Post’s assertion, the statement makes no distinction as to what type of guns Obama proposed to tax.
The Post is far too eager to let Obama off the hook just because he hasn’t mentioned the idea lately. Obama has supported the idea and has never repudiated that support. Therefore it is fair to say that the statement reflects his views on the issue.
Chicago Defender, December 13 1999. I can't get there, but it is consistent with his atrocious record.
Washington Post Claim—Ammunition Ban
Contrary to [NRA’s] claim, the Kennedy proposal of July 2005, SA 1615, was not aimed at “virtually all deer-hunting ammunition.” Instead, it would have authorized the attorney general to define types of illegal ammunition capable of penetrating body armor commonly used by law enforcement officials. During the Senate debate, Kennedy said that his amendment would “not apply to ammunition that is now routinely used in hunting rifles,” a point contested by the NRA.
NRA contested the point for a simple reason: The Post is wrong.
The Kennedy Amendment would have expanded the current ban on manufacturing “armor piercing ammunition” other than for sale to the government, 18 U.S.C. ? 922(a)(7), by banning any “projectile [i.e., bullet] that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines … to be capable of penetrating body armor.” The amendment called for testing of projectiles against “body armor that … meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers.” S. Amdt. 1615 to S. 397, July 29, 2005.
Body armor is rated in different classes based on the level of protection it provides. The “minimum” level of body armor under Department of Justice standards that were in effect in 2005, Type I armor, only protects against the least powerful handgun cartridges; only Type III and higher armor protects against high-powered rifle cartridges. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Ballistic Resistance of PersonalBody Armor: NIJ Standard-0101.04 2-3 (June 2001).
However, there are many “projectiles that may be used in a handgun” that can also be used in a rifle. Handgun hunting is increasingly popular, and handgun hunters often use handguns that fire common hunting rifle cartridges such as the .30-30 Winchester. See, e.g., http://www.tcarms.com/firearms/g2ContenderPistols.php#spec_charts. A ban on “projectile[s] that may be used” in these handguns would have the effect of banning the same cartridges for rifle hunters. It would even ban rifle cartridges not commonly used in handguns, because any bullet may be fired in a barrel of the correct diameter, regardless of whether the barrel is installed on a handgun or on a rifle.
Finally, it is true that Sen. Kennedy denied his 2005 amendment would ban hunting ammunition. However, in a floor debate on a substantially identical amendment the previous year, Kennedy specifically denounced a hunting rifle cartridge:
Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 [sic] caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.
It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America.
Cong. Rec. S1634 (daily ed. Feb. 26, 2004). The relatively low-powered .30-30 Winchester was introduced in 1895 and “has long been the standard American deer cartridge.” Frank C. Barnes, Cartridges of the World 52 (8th ed. 1997). As noted above, the .30-30 may be fired in a handgun.
Even apart from the Kennedy Amendment, Obama also said, on his 2003 questionnaire for the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, that he would “support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons.” See Lynn Sweet, Obama’s 2003 IVI-IPO questionnaire may be getting closer scrutiny, Chicago Sun-Times, Dec. 11, 2007 (available at http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/12/sweet_column_obamas_2003_iviip.html). The rifles that were banned as “assault weapons” under the 1994 Clinton gun ban fire cartridges such as the .223 Remington and .308 Winchester—the same ammunition used in common hunting rifles. See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30) (repealed Sept. 13, 2004). Therefore, this statement also supports a ban on hunting rifle ammunition.
The NRA is right on this. There were two IDENTICAL Bills. One was in 2004, before Obama was senator. The other was in 2005. The 2004 bill was S AMDT 2619 to S1805. The 2005 bill wasn S Amdt 1615 to S397. The Language of both bills is as follows:
SA 1615. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 397, to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 13, after line 4, insert the following:
SEC. 5. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.
(a) EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.--Section 921(a)(17)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines, under section 926(d), to be capable of penetrating body armor; or
``(iv) a projectile for a center-fire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability, that the Attorney General determines, under section 926(d), to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber.''.
(b) DETERMINATION OF THE CAPABILITY OF PROJECTILES TO PENETRATE BODY ARMOR.--Section 926 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d)(1) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Attorney General shall promulgate standards for the uniform testing of projectiles against Body Armor Exemplar.
``(2) The standards promulgated under paragraph (1) shall take into account, among other factors, variations in performance that are related to the length of the barrel of the handgun or center-fire rifle from which the projectile is fired and the amount and kind of powder used to propel the projectile.
``(3) As used in paragraph (1), the term `Body Armor Exemplar' means body armor that the Attorney General determines meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers.''.
What did Mr. Kennedy have in mind? He explained it in 2004
Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.
It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America. Armor-piercing ammunition for rifles and assault weapons is virtually unregulated in the United States. A Federal license is not required to sell such ammunition unless firearms are sold as well.
The .30-30 Winchester is the basic hunting round. .30-30 lever action. It is a mid level ammunition. Another target in Kennedy's comments it the less powerful .223, which is used in the AR-15. If this bill was passed, the Attorney General can unilaterially ban the .223 and .30-30.
As far as police vests go, they are supposed to protect them from pistol rounds, not rifle rounds. Just about any non pistol ammunition I have is "armor piercing", because most of my rounds are rifle rounds. Slugs? There's some real power there. 30-06? That's a lot more powerful than the .30-30 and is a hunting round.
Washington Post Claim—Gun Ban
The … claim refers to semiautomatic rifles and pistols covered by the assault weapons ban, which expired in March 2004.
While Obama does support the ban (which actually expired in September, not March, of 2004), the statement in the advertisement is based on Sen. Obama’s vote for much broader legislation and his public statement in favor of banning all semi-automatic firearms.
On March 13, 2003, Obama voted in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee for a bill that would have enacted a much broader gun ban. (The vote tally sheet is available at http://www.nrapvf.org/Media/pdf/sb1195_obama.pdf).
The bill under debate that day, SB 1195 (available at http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/93/SB/PDF/09300SB1195lv.pdf), would have made it illegal to “knowingly manufacture, deliver, or possess” a “semiautomatic assault weapon.”
The bill defined a “semiautomatic assault weapon” to include “any firearm having a caliber of 50 [sic] or greater.” See SB 1195, page 2, line 10 (emphasis added). Under this bill, a firearm did not actually have to be semi-automatic to be a “semiautomatic assault weapon.”
Shotguns 28-gauge or larger (by far the majority of shotguns owned in the United States) are all “.50-caliber or greater.” See National Rifle Ass’n, Firearms Fact Book 183 (3d ed. 1989). SB 1195 did exclude any firearm that “is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action” and “any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.” SB 1195 p.3, lines 12-23. However, the bill did not exclude firearms with hinge or similar actions, such as single-shot or double-barreled shotguns used by millions of hunters.
Anyone who possessed one of these firearms in Illinois 90 days after the effective date would have had to “destroy the weapon or device, render it permanently inoperable, relinquish it to a law enforcement agency, or remove it from the state.” SB 1195, p. 5, line 33. Anyone who still possessed a banned gun would have been subject to a felony sentence. SB 1195, p. 5, line 15. This “seizure and surrender” provision was much more severe than the former federal “assault weapons” ban, which had a “grandfather clause” to allow current lawful owners to keep their guns. See 18 U.S.C. 922(v)(2) (repealed).
Obama also supported banning a large class of popular hunting firearms on a 1998 Project VoteSmart survey. One of the questions, and the relevant part of Obama’s responses, were as follows:
Indicate which principles you support (if any) concerning gun issues.
X a) Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
X b) Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
See Illinois State Legislative Election 1998 National Political Awareness Test (available at http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=9490#826:) (emphasis added). Millions of American hunters have used semi-automatic rifles and shotguns for over a century.
Finally, of course, a ban on hunting rifle ammunition (such as the Kennedy amendment Obama supported) would have been a very effective ban on the use of hunting rifles.
I haven't followed the Illinois .50 caliber gun ban, but almost all shotgun rounds are .50 caliber or higher. I'm going my memory, but I think by measurement, the calibler of your basic Mossberg 500 12 gauge is "72 caliber."
But that just covers the beginning of Obama's distain of the 2nd Amendment. I covered it all when the Elmer Fudds at AHSA endorsed him. From April 18, 2008
So what is Obama's record on the 2nd Amendment.
First off, he was a former Board member of the notorious Joyce Foundation. The Joyce Foundation is the main funder of gun grabbing organizations in the US. They fund groups such as VPC which supports a total ban. They have hundreds of millions of dollars to fund these astroturf organizations.
http://republicanmichigander.blogspot.com/2007/07/obama-hates-civil-rights-and.html - I commented on one of his puff pieces here. He supports "Ballistic prints" which don't do anything for crimes. He supposed the so called "assault weapons" ban.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110009664 - He voted present on another nasty bill.
He voted to ban almost all centerfire ammunition - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00217
He voted to support frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufactuers. - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00219
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml - And this exposes his State Senatorial record.Obama regularly supported gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic "assault weapons" and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month.
He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation. Supporters framed the issue as a fundamental question of whether homeowners have the right to protect themselves. Obama joined several Chicago Democrats who argued the measure could open loopholes letting gun owners use their weapons on the street. They said local governments should have the final say, but the self-defense exception passed 41-16 and ultimately became state law.
"It's bad politics to be on the wrong side of the Second Amendment come election time," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. "It will certainly be talked about. You can take that to the bank." On the other hand, Obama parted company with gun control advocates when he backed a measure to let retired police officers and military police carry concealed weapons.
He supports guns for the important people, but not us. That's Obama's elitism for you. That fits the views of the Elmer Fudd organization that is supporting him as well. But wait, there's even more from Politico.
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_obamaquestionaire1newest.html - Obama State Senate survey - pt 1
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_obamaquestionaire2.html - Obama State Senate survey - pt 2
On guns...TOTAL BAN!
Now his aids tried to cover for him and say that wasn't his work. BS. Buck stops at the top. Politico called that as well.The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group’s detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his 1996 bid for a state Senate seat. Late last year, in response to a Politico story about Obama’s answers to the original questionnaire, his aides said he “never saw or approved” the questionnaire. They asserted the responses were filled out by a campaign aide who “unintentionally mischaracterize[d] his position.” But a Politico examination determined that Obama was actually interviewed about the issues on the questionnaire by the liberal Chicago nonprofit group that issued it. And it found that Obama — the day after sitting for the interview — filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama’s own handwritten notes added to one answer.
Is it really surprising that an organization headed by two, and formerly three gun grabbers, would back a gun grabber? Not really. The good news is that most of us know what AHSA is about, and no amount of photo ops are going to change that. It's the record that counts, and the records of Obama, Schoenke, Ricker, and Rosenthal show that none of them are friends of the 2nd Amendment.
Yeah, if I had that record, I'd want to shut up my opposition too. However, we have a thing called the first Amendment, and from someone who actually taught constitutional law, he should know better. Either he's an idiot who doesn't know it or more likely, doesn't give a damn.
However, we do, and we will make sure this jackass loses, so we can protect our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights.