Finally, Justice Scalia emphatically pointed to the utility of handguns for that essential exercise of the Second Amendment:

“…the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon… and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid…” And that brings us to key points in Barack Obama’s consistently ugly record on that core protection of the Second amendment – armed self defense.

In defining Barack Obama on self-defense, we must examine the late December 2003 story of a courageous Illinois citizen -- a victim of both a potentially deadly criminal and of an oppressive local gun ban law supported by Barack Obama. Obama’s denial of a citizen’s right to armed self-protection begins with a nightmare for a Wilmette, Illinois homeowner, Hale DeMar.

While he and his children slept upstairs, Mr. DeMar woke in the dead of night to discover that his home had been invaded by a thief who took household items and keys, which he used to steal the homeowner’s automobile.  Police did virtually nothing except take a report.

As Mr. DeMar recounted to the Chicago Sun Times, “The police informed me that this was not an uncommon event in east Wilmette and offered their condolences.”

Within 24 hours of the initial crime, the burglar returned in Mr. DeMar’s stolen SUV and again entered DeMar’s home, this time using stolen keys.  Because of the weak response of police the previous night, Mr. DeMar was prepared for the worst with a handgun that he had legally purchased and kept locked in a proper safe.  Legal in most other parts of the state, Mr. DeMar’s gun was illegal to possess within the city under Wilmette’s gun ban ordinance.

Confronted by the criminal and fearing for his children, he shot the burglar who fled in DeMar’s stolen vehicle.

As it turned out, the wounded home-invader had a long rap sheet.  This guy was a dangerous career criminal.

Cook County prosecutors found Mr. DeMars’ use of his banned handgun to be justified, but Wilmette trustees pressed to prosecute him for violating the town gun ban ordinance – claiming that Mr. DeMar’s simple possession of a handgun in his home “is endangering innocent civilians…” Outrage grew exponentially among ordinary Illinois citizens, ultimately resulting in enactment of legislation making self-defense or defense of others in a home or business an affirmative defense against prosecution for possession of a banned defensive firearm in such places as Wilmette, Morton Grove and Chicago. 

In spite of Obama’s vote, the legislation passed the senate by a 38 to 20 vote.  The House margin was 86 to 25.  And he voted against armed self-defense in the home again when the Illinois Senate overrode the governor’s veto.

Like its sister city of Morton Grove, Wilmette withdrew its handgun ban soon after the Heller decision came down but Obama’s home town of Chicago remains defiant.  Chicago’s handgun ban is literally a carbon copy of D.C.’s now-illegal ban.

Even after the Heller decision, Obama still fully supports the handgun ban in his home city, Chicago.  It is a law that Mayor Richard Daley is defiantly defending in spite of the Supreme Court’s D.C. decision.  Daley, among Obama’s most powerful and influential supporters and political mentors, recently shouted at an anti-gun rally:

“NO GUNS IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA!”

Remarkably, where Obama believes a right can be infringed by local politicians, he also believes the inverse - that the Federal government can trump state and local laws where it serves his “progressive policy” end-game.

Once again, the issue is armed self-defense – in this case, right to carry. Just as Obama’s record clearly shows he considers laws criminalizing citizens self-defense use of firearms in the home as “common sense gun laws,” he is unalterably opposed to the concept of right to carry for ordinary law-abiding Americans – a right recognized by 38 states after hard fought legislative battles.

On April 4, 2001, Obama led a floor fight in the Illinois Senate defeating legislation that would have provided limited conceal-carry rights to persons whom a state court had determined were in imminent danger of death or bodily harm and were shielded by that court’s protective order. During the floor debate, the bill’s prime sponsor, Illinois Senator Edward Petka, repeatedly cited the Second Amendment describing his legislation as “a modest proposal which simply permits a person, who would usually be a woman, to exercise a constitutional right to defend themselves…”  Obama countered by labeling the legislation “a potential Trojan horse through which we introduce the notion that conceal carry is appropriate to our state.”

The following day, Obama issued a press statement in which he cut directly to the question of the right to self defense:

“…authorizing potential victims to carry firearms would potentially lead to a more dangerous rather than less dangerous situation for the very people we want to protect.  It was a bad idea and I’m glad it failed.”   (Emphasis added)

Headlined, “OBAMA HELPS DEFEAT CONCEALED-CARRY LEGISLATION,” Obama’s statement complained:

“Although this bill supposedly only affected people who receive an order of protection, it would have opened the door to the adoption of laws permitting all persons to carry concealed firearms on the street or in their cars.

“Concealed-carry laws would only increase the problem of hand-gun violence and ultimately make the streets less safe everywhere.”

Obama’s extreme opposition to law-abiding armed citizens in Illinois was expanded to cover all Americans as expressed in a February 20, 2004 Chicago Tribune story:

“He (Obama) backed federal legislation that would ban citizens from carrying weapons, except for law enforcement.”

The article directly quoted Obama, “National legislation will prevent other states’ flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents.” (Emphasis added)

Most recently, in an April 2, 2008 Pittsburgh Tribune-Review article Obama said, "I am not in favor of concealed weapons. ... I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."

Again, in a Chicago Sun Times July 12, 2007 story headlined, “From Promise to Power,” Obama said, “I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry.”

All of this gets us back to Jim Kessler’s “Taking Back the Second Amendment,” and the notion that rhetoric is a cover for real policy.

The words of Chuck Schumer’s 1995 rant on the Second Amendment equally apply to Obama’s 2008 reinvention of himself on the right to keep and bear arms:

“If anyone tried to sell the baloney we’ll hear today, they would be arrested for consumer fraud.”

I agree. Anyone buying Obama’s baloney on this issue simply isn’t reading the fine print.