CNN's Toobin: President Obama is 'Against Gun Control'
CNN's Jeffrey Toobin falsely claimed on Tuesday's Parker-Spitzer that Barack Obama is "against gun control." Toobin also seemed to lament that the conservative position on the Second Amendment has become the "conventional wisdom" in politics: "This is how much gun control has fallen off the map politically- that the idea that more guns will mean more protection is widely believed" [audio available here].
The senior legal analyst for the liberal network appeared during a segment at the bottom of the 8 pm Eastern hour to "break down some of the legal issues" related to the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Host Kathleen Parker first asked Toobin about the interview of gun rights advocate Alan Korwin in the previous segment: "You just heard us interview this pro-gun fellow out in Arizona. Are we all going to be safer if we're all packing heat?"
The liberal talking head launched into his take on gun politics:
[Video embedded below the page break]
TOOBIN: You know, the thing that was so interesting about that interview is that that's the conventional political wisdom now. This is how much gun control has fallen off the map politically- that the idea that more guns will mean more protection is widely believed. His view, which may sound odd to those of us who are sitting in the Upper West Side of Manhattan, where there are very distinct views about guns, is very widely shared outside of our world.
This is a much milder version of what he said during a July 15, 2009 segment on CNN where he noted that "when I was in law school...the idea that you had a Second Amendment right to a gun was considered preposterous....But the Supreme Court [in Heller]...said that...individuals have a personal right to bear arms."
Later in the segment, co-host Eliot Spitzer unsurprisingly raised the issue of Arizona's gun laws, which many in the mainstream media have been harping about since the shootings: "Seven states- I believe it is- including Arizona, have passed laws that say if a gun is made in our state, then the federal laws don't even apply. First, is that constitutional in your view? Will it be effective? What do you make of all that?"
It was in the course of the discussion over these state laws that Toobin made his outlandish claim about Barack Obama's record:
SPITZER: ...[S]even states, having passed this law- saying, we don't even want the gun limitations imposed by a rather weak federal statute- tells you how sort of rabid folks are- probably on either side- but certainly, those who do not want any limitations on access to a gun.
TOOBIN: Look at Barack Obama. Barack Obama was a senator from Illinois where Chicago- big defender of gun laws- but he had to run for Senate in downstate Illinois, too-
SPITZER: Yeah-
TOOBIN: And he's against gun control. So, I mean, it's- the politics are very different from what they used to be.
Actually, both sides of the Second Amendment issue acknowledge the Democrat's support of gun control. Obama's own Organizing For America website notes how he will "continue to be in favor of handgun law registration requirements and licensing requirements for training" and how he "supported a package of legislation that would limit handgun sales to one a month." The National Rifle Association's talking points page against Obama cites other parts of Obama's pro-gun control record from his time in Illinois.
Earlier in the segment, Spitzer mouthed the liberal talking point about high-capacity gun magazines: "There is the issue of the size of the magazine. Thirty-two bullets- 33 bullets, I think, is not what you need for sport." Besides demonstrating a key misunderstanding of the Second Amendment, it should be noted that the perpetrator of the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre used 10 and 15-round magazines in his rampage (15-round magazines were also previously banned with the 1994 Assault Weapons Act). The Commonwealth of Virginia's Review Panel on the massacre noted this detail in their report and concluded that the ban, if it were still in effect, "would have not made much difference in the incident. Even pistols with rapid loaders could have been about as deadly in this situation."
The full transcript of Jeffrey Toobin's appearance on Tuesday's Parker-Spitzer:
SPITZER: CNN's senior legal analyst Jeff Toobin is here to help us break down some of the legal issues raised by the Tucson shooting. Welcome, Jeff.
TOOBIN: Hey.
KATHLEEN PARKER: All right, Jeff, you just heard us interview this pro-gun fellow [Alan Korwin of gunlaws.com] out in Arizona. Are we all going to be safer if we're all packing heat?
TOOBIN: But, you know, the thing that was so interesting about that interview is that that's the conventional political wisdom now. This is how much gun control has fallen off the map politically- that the idea that more guns will mean more protection is widely believed. His view, which may sound odd to those of us who are sitting in the Upper West Side of Manhattan, where there are very distinct views about guns, is very widely shared outside of our world.
SPITZER: You know, interestingly, Jeff, I think the divide on gun control issues is very much an urban/non-urban issue-
TOOBIN: I completely agree-
PARKER: Most issues are-
SPITZER: I think folks who live within urban settings are more willing to control guns and- whereas, if you're not living in an urban setting, you say- wait a minute. I want to use a gun for shooting, for sport, whatever it may be. And so, this is a very real political/ideological difference.
Let me ask you about the NICS system (National Instant Criminal Background Check System), the system of federal controls that he talked about. Does it work? You were a prosecutor for many years. Does the system weed out those who shouldn't buy guns?
TOOBIN: Not many- I mean, it's a very complicated system that relies on states and localities to put their information into the system, to put in every time someone has been convicted of a crime, or judged mentally incompetent, or had a domestic violence restraining order against them. Most community- not most- many communities don't do that. The kid who shot up Virginia Tech, who killed 32 people- he had been judged mentally incompetent. Virginia didn't put that into the system-
SPITZER: Right.
TOOBIN: He was allowed to buy the guns. The system has a lot of holes in it.
SPITZER: Well, look at the system here with Jared Loughner. I mean, he had not been deemed incompetent by a court, but clearly, everybody around him said this guy has instabilities, and yet, he walked in, bought the Glock. The system failed.
TOOBIN: The system may have failed, but the law was not violated-
SPITZER: Correct-
TOOBIN: Because there was no judgment against him that should have been in the system. Now, maybe the system should be different, but the system worked, as designed, with law enforcement.
SPITZER: Unfortunate-
PARKER: Well, Jeff, we talked to the sheriff [Clarence Dupnik] last night, and Eliot asked him directly, would it have- do we have to reform gun laws to prevent this sort of thing from happening? He says- no, that won't do any good- you know, people who are criminal, or people who are mentally unstable, can- are still going to be able to get a gun, no matter what the law says.
SPITZER: But the issue that-
TOOBIN: Is that true, though? I mean- you know, I just- law enforcement doesn't usually assume that their actions are futile. I mean, law enforcement is based on the idea that you can actually accomplish something. So it doesn't seem to me that it's just throwing up your hands and saying it's impossible, is a reasonable way to approach it.
SPITZER: Plus, there is the issue of the size of the magazine. Thirty-two bullets- 33 bullets, I think, is not what you need for sport, and therefore, who has access to that is a fundamentally different issue.
I want to switch gears for a second. Seven states- I believe it is- including Arizona, have passed laws that say if a gun is made in our state, then the federal laws don't even apply. First, is that constitutional in your view? Will it be effective? What do you make of all that?
TOOBIN: I think that is not constitutional. The two parts of the Constitution relevant there are the Second Amendment, which does protect the right to keep and bear arms- but there's also the Interstate Commerce Clause, which says that Congress can regulate interstate commerce, and guns, even if they are only made in-state, affect interstate commerce. They shoot people. They create law enforcement activity that crosses state lines. I don't think there are any votes on the Supreme Court that would uphold a law that says- somehow, if you made a gun in Arizona, it's outside of all federal regulation.
SPITZER: But as a political statement, in terms of what we were talking about before, where the public is on issues of gun control- seven states, having passed this law- saying, we don't even want the gun limitations imposed by a rather weak federal statute- tells you how sort of rabid folks are- probably on either side- but certainly, those who do not want any limitations on access to a gun.
TOOBIN: Look at Barack Obama. Barack Obama was a senator from Illinois where Chicago- big defender of gun laws- but he had to run for Senate in downstate Illinois, too-
SPITZER: Yeah-
TOOBIN: And he's against gun control. So, I mean, it's- the politics are very different from what they used to be.
SPITZER: Fascinating.
PARKER: All right. Jeffrey Toobin, it's always great to have you with us- wish you could stay longer. (laughs)
- Matthew Balan's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
So what law school did Toobin
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:30am.
So what law school did Toobin attend that considered the second amendment right to own a gun "preposterous"? That law school should be shut down if that's what they are teaching. If they consider the second amendment "preposterous" then what other parts of the Constitution do they also belittle and reject?
Answer
Submitted by jpk3 on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:44am.
Hope this answers your question, from Wikipedia about Toobin; “He is also a 1986 magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School, where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review.”
I sent the following e-mail toMartha L. Minow, minow@law.harvard.edu , who is currently the dean, info was from Harvard’s web site.
Ms. Minow,
Quick question or 2, is it true that Harvard Law school teaches that the individual right to bear arms is preposterous, if so, then how do citizens protect themselves from a tyrannical government. Are there other constitutional protections that Harvard Teaches as preposterous?
I’ll post her response if I get one.
It wouldn't be surprising if
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 1:44pm.
It wouldn't be surprising if Toobin lied.
if Toobin lied
Submitted by Huapakechi on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 8:01pm.
Considering the socialist bias of academia, and Harvard in particular, it would be even less surprising if toobin isn't lying.
***Update to Answer***
Submitted by jpk3 on Thu, 01/13/2011 - 4:59pm.
Below is the response I received from Harvard and as I suspected Toobin is not speaking honestly to what is taught at Harvard. I couldn't find if he ever retracted his statement from 2009 so at this point he has no credibility on this issue, in my opinion.
Your message to Dean Minow has been forwarded to me for reply. I can tell you in response to both of your questions that the answer is “No.” Not only do Harvard Law professors teach students the law as recently enunciated by the Supreme Court in the Heller case, but even before the Court resoundingly held in Heller that there is an individual right to bear arms, some of our leading constitutional scholars (including Professor Tribe) were on record as saying that the Second Amendment appears to guarantee such a right.
Thank you for contacting us to clarify the record.
Although Toobin attended Harvard Law School, I believe he may
Submitted by Rush Fan on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:51am.
also have received an education or training at the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, Reproduction and Adultery.
I could be mistaken.What the ?
Submitted by Patriot II on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:27am.
C-R-A-P!!!!!!
The real problem for these libs to address is statistical
Submitted by TheHistorian on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:58am.
Why are the strict gun control cities (e.g. Chicago and DC) among, if not at the highest, of the gun crime?
In FL, from '87-'97, only ONE concealed-carry permit holder was convicted of a crime. The states with CCW laws all suffer from LOWER crime rates. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html
Toobin is like all liberals. When the facts are at odds with his opinions, ignore the facts.
Dennis Prager
The IDEA!
Submitted by almostacowboy on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 12:05pm.
"the idea that more guns will mean more protection is widely believed"
Not only "believed", but statistical data prove it. But, then, of what import are facts when one has an agenda?
By this idiots reasoning, you
Submitted by retrocon on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 12:41pm.
By this idiots reasoning, you could use interstate commerce laws to regulater speech, press, privacy, etc.
Oh, wait, that IS what the liberals believe. He doesn't seem to know what the words "shall not be infringed" mean. Remember, the ivy league law schools are very much a pillar of the multi-fold propaganda machine started by the socialists many years ago.
That said, I know Alan K., and i really wish this Toobin idiot and Alan would have been interviewed together. Alan would have chewed him up with facts (valid, statisitical, actual facts), and spit him out without even trying. These academic libtards refuse to be confronted or challenged because they know that they do not have facts or truth behind them.
Obama is about as "against
Submitted by Hoosierboy on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 12:56pm.
Obama is about as "against gun control" as the Pope is against Catholicism.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/barack_obama_gun_control.htm
Obama is just another Illinois Gun Grabber.
Submitted by Ashrak on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 3:05pm.
Before last March, the Second Amendment "didn't apply" to state and local goverments. It is not surprising that educated elites think the right to keep and bear arms doesn't exist. This they have long been taught!
Believe it, because it is the truth. McDonald versus Chicago addressed that (though the NRA intentionally mucked up how). Event today, the Second Amendment does not stand on its own. No, it is the 14th amendment giving it standing, supposedly. "Incorporation" is one of the biggest boondoggles ever imposed upon this country.
In Heller, it is clearly recognized that the right to keep and bear arms pre-exits the Constitution itself and before that the court said it did not depend upon the Constitution for its existence , so how must it rest upon the 14th, specifically the Due Process clause, in order to be applied to state and local government then? AH yes, to this logic, our founders fought a war of independence, created a federal government with strict and specific limitations but offered state government omnisicent power checked only by a state's own Constitution and legislature. It doesn't get much more ridiculous than that, but that isow it stands today.
Here in Illinois, the Attorney General of this state is forward in her belief that, even now, the Second Amendment recognized rights ONLY apply "within your own home". Seriously.
Efforts to get Lisa Madigan to explain how a homeless person exercises their rights have been stonewalled ever since her participation in Heller and McDonald saw her lose on her position both times. Now, she ignores this altogether, just like the rest of state government. SlaughterHouse. Read about that. See where freedom itself was wisked away and then see that Mr. Alito and company, even when presented an opportunity to right that wrong decided to punt - though explaining, puzzlingly why they should go for it.
Obama and Holder were both wrong in their stated positions regarding D.C.s gun ban and have tried to stay away from gun control all along as a result. Make no mistake, Obama supported Chicago's ban on OWNERSHIP within your own home and like Illinois just how it is today - ILLEGAL to CARRY 100%! This, they both consider "reasonable regulation".
Obama did go after reloaders in this country. He attempted to have military spent brass destroyed so it could only be used as scrap brass. This was an attempt to make ammunition harder to come by as it would make it more expensive. Make no mistake, Obama would grab every gun if he could.
'Scuse Me?
Submitted by Cappmann1962 on Wed, 01/12/2011 - 4:38pm.
TOOBIN: You know, the thing that was so interesting about that interview is that that's the conventional political wisdom now. This is how much gun control has fallen off the map politically- that the idea that more guns will mean more protection is widely believed.
No, Asshat, it's not "conventional political wisdom". It's plain, unvarnished FACT. And gun control has fallen off the map for ONE reason - it is a political liability, and you and your moronic progressives haven't yet figured a way to shove it down our throats like you did Obamacare. You also know that with Obamacare, all we'll do is yell, bitch, complain, and vote your cronies out of office. You also know, without a doubt, that if they tried the same thing with our guns, we'd do more than yell.
"when I was in law school...the idea that you had a Second Amendment right to a gun was considered preposterous....
Make that - when you were in law school, YOU thought the idea that you had a Second Amendment right to a gun was considered preposterous....
No legitimate law school, as an institution, would spout such nonsense. They surely do discuss the vastly differing opinions, and have their own opinions, but there is no way they teach such tripe.
TOOBIN: And he's against gun control.
Really? Barry opposed bill okaying illegal gun use in home invasions (Aug 2008), said it's Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws (Apr 2008), endorsed Illinois handgun ban (Apr 2008), says he respects 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans are ok (Feb 2008), cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month (Oct 2007), said Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban (Oct 2004), agreed with banning semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions (Jul 1998), voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers (Jul 2005). Yeah, there's no doubt Obama just luvs guns...