Presidential candidate Herman Cain is trying to back away from his previous statement to CNN on gun control. Specifically, “[Gun control] should be a state’s decision.” As we pointed out at the time, the remark flies in the fact of the Supreme Court’s McDonald decision, which incorporates the Second Amendment (makes it trump local and state law). Cain’s statement emboldens municipalities and states who ignore the spirit of the law by maintaining or creating “reasonable restrictions” on the right to keep and bear arms. In a frosty press conference reported by politico.com, Cain clarified his remark . . .
“I don’t believe states should restrict access to guns, but what if a state wants to pass background checks? What if a state wants to pass carry-and-conceal? That’s what I’m talking about,” he said.
What state-mandated background checks would those be, exactly? Obviously (to those who know about these things), any state background checks would be in addition to the current federal background checks. Something like . . . background checks at gun shows. You know, “closing the gun show loophole”—eliminating private, non-government monitored firearms sales.
Note to Herman: gun control is one of those areas where you have to appreciate what’s at stake and who’s trying to do what. Here’s an example [via whbl.com] of local burghers trying to subvert the will of the nation’s highest court:
MADISON, Wis. (WSAU) – Madison’s mayor wants to see an ordinance passed requiring written permission for a gun owner to carry a weapon on private property.
Mayor Paul Soglin says the ordinance would let property owners and renters assume that persons couldn’t bring a gun onto their property without their permission. Soglin’s idea comes in reaction to Senate Bill 90 which was passed last week.
If it is passed by the Wisconsin Assembly it would allow local governments to create their own laws on concealed carry in public buildings.
Soglin sent an e-mail to the Wisconsin State Journal newspaper saying he thought the U.S. Constitution favored the rights of property owners over those of gun owners.
Supporting efforts like “extra” background checks and the “right” of states to infringe the Second Amendment makes Cain no friend to the gun rights community, or people who favor limited government.
As for “carry-and-conceal,” has Cain never heard the expression “concealed carry”? What about the idea of constitutional carry? Come to think of it, has Cain ever shot or owned a firearm?
Bottom line: unless he gets a quick and thorough briefing on the subject on gun control, gun rights and the meaning of the Second Amendment (ping email@example.com), Cain’s in real danger of losing the pro-gun vote.