Reply #28: Nice spin, but no.

[Moosepoop]

The bill that Obama voted against did not "allow citizens to possess a handgun to defend their loved ones in their own homes." It would have allowed people who violated a municipality's local gun ordinance requiring registration of handguns to escape prosecution for the illegal gun if they got caught with it by way of using it in defense at their home or business.

http://factcheck.org/2008/09/nra-targets-obama/

The NRA bases this overheated claim on a vote Obama cast on March 24, 2004, in the Illinois state Senate. He was one of 20 who opposed SB 2165. That bill, which passed 38 – 20 and became law, did not make it a crime to use firearms for self-defense, however. Rather, it created a loophole for persons caught violating local gun registration laws.

It states that in any Illinois municipality where a gun ban is in effect, it shall be an "affirmative defense" if the person accused of violating the ban can show that the weapon was used "in an act of self-defense or defense of another … when on his or her land or in his or her abode or fixed place of business."

Letting the owner of a banned firearm escape a municipality's penalty is one thing, but it's another thing entirely to make it a crime to use any firearm – registered or not – in self-defense. The bill came about after Hale DeMar, of Wilmette, Ill., shot a burglar who had invaded his home. At the time, Wilmette had an ordinance that prohibited owning handguns.

Clarification: To avoid any confusion, we've modified this section to make clear the bill would have pertained to municipalities with local gun bans.

The NRA's "overheated claim" referenced in the first sentence of the above excerpt is the claim that Obama plans to "ban use of firearms for home self defense" -- in other words, the same claim you are making now.