by Adam Schoof
Jeff Neumann said he has Obama's presidential win to thank for doubling sales at his shooting range and firearms store, The Bullet Hole.
He said he is nearly sold out of AK-47s, SKS and AR-15s; guns that have faced regulation in the past when the Democratic Party has had power. Neumann said most of the buyers had never owned a gun before.
Since Obama won the presidency, background checks for gun sales have increased nationwide.
"It's not a phenomenon that's just here," Neumann said.
The rush for guns is in large part due to the election of Obama. The last Democratic administration enacted many gun regulations, including the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. Gun buyers, Neumann said, are fearful that despite Obama's claims, he will enact gun regulation like his Democratic predecessor Bill Clinton.
"The paranoia is that the last time the Democrats were in power, the Brady Bunch took over," Corey Pederson, an employee at The Bullet Hole, said.
"I come from a family of gun owners. They're all fearful of what might happen," said Jesse Vaughn, presdient of College Republicans.
"Even if [Obama] truly does feel that way, I think [the Democrats] are going to do all they can to restrict gun rights," Jesse Vaughn, president of College Republicans, said. Vaughn said the left-wing groups that helped fund Obama's election will want to see results.
However, some Democrats feel this fear is unjustified.
"I don't think [the Democrats] will let the regulations get out of hand," Andrew Toth, president of Young Democrats, said.
"Anything that goes on, it's not
going to be outlawing guns altogether," Bill Staples, professor of sociology, said. He said Obama has said he supports the Second Amendment and is unlikely to make any major changes.
"I think the center of it is mistrust
of Democrats," Staples said.
Obama could affect the outcome of gun regulation by appointing a Supreme Court Justice. The last Supreme Court case to deal with gun control was District of Columbia vs. Heller that in a 5-4 decision made it legal to purchase and license a handgun for self-defense. Since the case was held in D. C., the outcome was a federal mandate. The case was the first time the Second Amendment was used in federal court to negate a law.
Should a Justice retire and should a case involving gun regulation come to the Supreme Court, Obama could have a major affect gun control. This is Republicans', and gun owners', fear, Neumann said.
However, change seems unlikely. According to a Gallup poll, gun regulations would be unpopular for more than two out of three Americans. Furthermore, Obama has many more important concerns on his agenda than gun control, Burdett Loomis, political science professor, said.
"With two wars plus
terrorism to fight and the worst economy in 70 years, should we
really care at all about gun policies, which will be changed, at
most, at the margins?" Loomis said.
Defining the Second Amendment
People often debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment, especially over the definition of "militia."
"People do have the right to bear arms on a personal level. This has been established since our country was founded," Vaughn said. "Everyday people are the militia."
Others believe the Constitution should be retrofitted to deal with modern issues, such as gun violence and suicide.
"I would interpret the Constitution in general as something written in the 1700s," Toth said. "When the Constitution was written, we didn't have AK-47s."
Toth cited a New York Times article about an 8-year-old who shot himself with a Micro Uzi submachine gun as an example of the need for stricter gun regulations.
However, the District of Columbia vs. Heller decision still stands and remains the precedent for the interpretation of the Second Amendment.
"Undoubtedly some think that the
Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is
the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide
personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem," Justice Scalia said in his decision.
"That
is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the
role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."
