Is Harry Reid pro-gun or anti-gun?

[Trlsmn]

Is Harry Reid pro-gun or anti-gun? You be the judge.

Is Harry Reid pro-gun or anti-gun?

Nevada Senator Harry Reid claims to be a defender of the Second Amendment. Is that really the case? You decide. Here is a list of votes he has cast over the past twenty years in the U.S. Senate:

1. June 28, 1991—Voted for a 5 day waiting period for handgun purchases (Vote No. 115).

2. November 19, 1993—Voted to eliminate the five-year sunset in the Brady Bill's five day waiting period, which would have made the waiting period permanent (Vote No. 386).

3. November 19, 1993—Voted to end a filibuster led by pro-gun Senators against the Brady Bill (Vote No. 387).

4. November 20, 1993—Voted for the Brady Bill, which imposed a 5-day waiting period before purchasing a handgun (Vote No. 394).

5. August 25, 1994—Voted to end a filibuster led by pro-gun Senators against the Clinton Crime Bill, which contained the ban on many semi-automatic firearms (the so-called "assualt weapons ban; Vote No. 294).

6. August 25, 1994—Voted for the Clinton Crime Bill, which contained the ban on many semi-automatic firearms (the so-called "assault weapons" ban; Vote No. 295).

7. April 17, 1996—Voted to expand the statute of limitations for paperwork violations in the National Firearms Act from 3 years to 5 years (Vote No. 64).

8. June 27, 1996—Voted to destroy 176,000 M-1 Garand rifles from World War II, and 150 million rounds of .30 caliber ammunition, rather than giving them to the Federal Civilian Marksmanship program (Vote No. 178).

9. September 12, 1996—Voted to spend $21.5 million for a study on putting "taggants" in black and smokeless gunpowder (Vote No. 287).

10. September 12, 1996—Voted to make it a Federal crime to possess a gun within 1,000 feet of any school, private or public, and impose a 5-year prison sentence for violating the law (Vote No. 290).

11. July 28, 1998—Voted against killing an amendment offered by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) to prohibit the importation of firearm magazines holding over 10 rounds that were manufactured before the 1994 ban was enacted (Vote No. 240).

12. May 12, 1999—Voted to ban the private sales of firearms at gun shows unless buyers submitted to background registration checks. Draconian restrictions would have also been imposed on gun show promoters, expanding federal authority in this area (Vote No. 111).

13. May 13, 1999—Voted to ban the importation of ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds (Vote No. 116).

14. May 14, 1999—Voted for an amendment introduced by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) that would regulate the transfer of firearms over the Internet (Vote No. 119).

15. May 18, 1999—Voted for an amendment to force gun sellers to include trigger locks with every handgun sold (Vote No. 122).

16. May 20, 1999—Voted for legislation to subject repair shop and pawn shop transactions to the same registration and background check requirements as purchases from dealers—even if a person was reclaiming his own firearm (Vote No. 133).

17. May 20, 1999—Voted for an amendment offered by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) that would ban private sales at gun shows, unless the buyer first submits to a background registration check. Even displaying a firearm at a gun show, and subsequently transferring that gun to a non-licensee, would result in a two-year prison sentence. The amendment would also have granted BATF open-ended inspection authority to harass vendors at gun shows, and explicitly gives BATF the right to keep a gun owner registration list for up to 90 days. This amendment passed 51-50, with Vice President Al Gore breaking the tie (Vote No. 134).

18. May 20, 1999—Voted for the Clinton Juvenile Justice bill, which contained a host of gun control provisions (Vote No. 140).

19. July 28, 1999—Voted to end a filibuster on the Clinton Juvenile Justice bill. The filibuster was led by Sen. Bib Smith (R-NH) because of concerns with the gun control provisions in the bill (Vote No. 224).

20. February 2, 2000—Voted for an amendment offered by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Charles Schumer (D-NY) to help the cities bring frivolous suits against gun makers (Vote No. 4).

21. March 2, 2000—Voted for an amendment offered by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Charles Schumer (D-NY) blaming school violence on the fact that Congress "failed to pass reasonable, common-sense gun control measures" and call for new gun ownership restrictions on the anniversary of the Columbine shootings (Vote No. 28).

22. March 2, 2000—Voted to use Federal taxpayer funds to hand out anti-gun literature in schools and to run anti-gun public service announcements (Vote No. 32).

23. April 6, 2000—Voted for and cosponsored a "sense of the Senate" amendment urging the passage of new gun control restrictions (Vote No. 64).

24. March 2, 2000—Voted for an amendment offered by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) urging the passage of the ant-gun juvenile crime bill being opposed by GOA (Vote No. 28).

25. April 10, 2000—Voted for a non-binding amendment offered by Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) urging the House-Senate conferees to get the juvenile anti-gun bill to the floor of each chamber by April 20 (Vote No. 64).

26. May 17, 2000—Voted with 29 other F-rated Senators against an amendment stating "the right of each law-abiding United States citizen to own a firearm for any legitimate purpose, including self-defense or recreation, should not be infringed." (Vote No. 103).

27. May 17, 2000—Voted for a resolution praising the participants of the so-called Million Mom March, and calling on Congress to pass the anti-gun juvenile crime bill that GOA was fighting (Vote No. 104).

28. April 2, 2001—Voted for the Incumbent Protection Act, so-called campaign finance reform (Vote No. 64).

29. March 20, 2002—Voted to end a filibuster of the odious Incumbent Protection bill. The blatantly unconstitutional legislation squelches the voice of groups like Gun Owners of America in the final days before an election. By making it difficult, if not impossible, for groups to criticize the anti-gun actions of legislators prior to an election, incumbents are able to duck accountability for those actions (Vote No. 53).

30. February 26, 2004—Voted for an amendment to require all handgun purchasers to pay an implicit "gun tax" by requiring them to buy a trigger lock when they purchase their handgun, irrespective of need. In addition, the amendment would create a broad cause of action against gun owners who fail to actually use the storage device to lock up their firearms (Vote No. 17).

31. March 2, 2004—Voted to outlaw the private sale of firearms at gun shows unless the buyer agrees to submit to an FBI background registration check. This legislative would have effectively eliminated gun shows because of stringent requirements placed on event sponsors (Vote No. 25).

32. July 28, 2005—Voted for an amendment to require all handgun purchasers to pay an implicit "gun tax" by requiring them to buy a trigger lock when they purchase their handgun, irrespective of need (Vote No. 207).

33. September 29, 2005—Voted against John Roberts for Supreme Court Justice. Roberts' record and testimony to the Senate show that he is strong advocate for Second Amendment rights. Had Reid's position prevailed on this vote, the 5-4 decisions in Heller and McDonald could have gone the other way (Vote No. 245).

34. January 18, 2007—Voted against an amendment to strike language in a bill that would infringe upon the free speech rights of groups like GOA by requiring them to monitor and report on communications with members, and could easily have led to government demands for organizational membership list (a.k.a. registration) (Vote No. 17).

35. January 31, 2006—Voted against Samuel Alito for Supreme Court Justice. Justice Alito's record and testimony to the Senate show that he is strong advocate for Second Amendment rights. Had Reid's position prevailed on this vote, the 5-4 decisions in Heller and McDonald could have gone the other way (Vote No. 2) .

36. February 2, 2009—Voted to confirm Eric Holder as Attorney General. Holder was an anti-Second Amendment official for the Clinton administration, and has called for a renewal of the Clinton gun ban (Vote No. 32).

37. March 19, 2009—Voted to massively expand the amount of land covered by the National Parks gun ban. As Majority Leader, Reid frustrated the efforts of pro-gun Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) for more than a year to repeal the gun ban. Sen. Coburn's position ultimately prevailed after overcoming Reid's opposition later in 2009 (Vote No. 106).

Read More

 

[Trlsmn]

38. June 25, 2009—Voted to confirm Harold Koh as Legal Advisor to the Department of State. GOA warned all Senators that Koh is a radical globalist pushing for worldwide gun control regulation, including the UN Treaty on Small Arms (Vote No. 213).

39. August 6, 2009—Voted to confirm Sonya Sotomayor as Supreme Court Justice. GOA warned all Senators that Judge Sotomayor's record on gun rights was one of hostility to the Second Amendment, which was born out in her dissent in the McDonald decision (Vote No. 262).

40. September 9, 2009—Voted to confirm Cass Sunstein as Administrator of Regulatory Affairs (Regulatory Czar). GOA notified all Senators that Cass Sunstein is a radical leftist who would like to ban hunting and give animals some of the same rights as humans in the courtroom (Vote No. 273).

41. November 19, 2009—Reid voted to confirm the highly controversial Richard Hamilton to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Hamilton has stated that the Founding Fathers intended judges to amend the Constitution through "evolving case law" (Vote No. 350).

42. December 24, 2009—Reid used his position as Majority Leader to pass the ObamaCare legislation. This bill will allow the BATFE and FBI to troll through the ObamaCare database for gun owners who would be disqualified because of their medical information (Vote No. 396).

43. March 25, 2010—Reid voted against an amendment offered by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) to prevent Veterans from losing their Second Amendment rights without due process of law (Vote No. 94).

44. HARRY REID WILL CONTINUE TO VOTE AGAINST GUNS UNTIL HE IS DEFEATED!

...

 

[Bam]

It makes me disgusted knowing the NRA plans to endorse him. The ONLY reason why I maintain membership with them at this point is, because my range requires NRA membership. If I could dump them I would.

I really love how Reid puts on a front like opening a public range in Nevada when in reality he is a wolf in sheep clothing.

 

[fuhr52]

He's a career politician just happens to have a D by his name. Doesn't really matter for most of them these days whether it is a D or R. He will eat out of any hand that will feed him. He will tow the party line in most cases but throw a bone to his other supporters now and then just to show he cares.

 

[Member 5605]

I began to wonder if the list was going to end. I guess the only way it will end is when he's out of office.

 

[LibertyorDeath]

It makes me disgusted knowing the NRA plans to endorse him. The ONLY reason why I maintain membership with them at this point is, because my range requires NRA membership. If I could dump them I would.

I really love how Reid puts on a front like opening a public range in Nevada when in reality he is a wolf in sheep clothing.

Then we need to call or write the NRA and pitch a fit.

I cannot find anything saying he is going to be endorsed by the NRA, however, if his opponent is even worse then what do you really do.

EDIT: I just found this. It looks to be a bit of the other side of the story.

For the record, the NRA-PVF has not yet made an endorsement in the Nevada U.S. Senate race. In fact, there have been no announced endorsements for any U.S. Senate seat for the November general elections—period.



For several reasons, we generally do not announce ratings or endorsements until closer to the elections. There are still votes to be graded and other information to be evaluated prior to issuing an accurate grade as Election Day nears.



The NRA-PVF looks at the entirety of a candidate's record. We start with the candidate's voting record (if any), along with answers to questionnaires, statements and floor speeches the candidate makes on Second Amendment issues, as well as any action the candidate may have taken as a committee member or leader.



Our endorsements are not given lightly, nor are they issued in every race. An NRA-PVF endorsement is something that has to be earned. As we do every election year, we wait until all the votes are taken and evaluate a candidate's entire record. Making a decision prematurely, before votes are taken, risks giving politicians a "free pass"—something we can't and won't allow.



It is important to note that the NRA is a single-issue organization. Our ratings and endorsements are based solely on a candidate's support for, or opposition to, our Second Amendment rights. Other issues, as important as they may be to many people, do not and cannot play any role in those decisions. NRA represents a broad coalition of American gun owners, who are bound together by their support for the right to keep and bear arms.



For us to factor non-gun-related issues into our ratings would foolishly divide our unified base of support on the Second Amendment. This policy has served NRA and gun owners well over the past three-plus decades, making us the nation's pre-eminent pro-Second Amendment advocacy group.



We fully understand that voters must take into account a variety of issues when deciding for whom to vote. We respect that. It is our responsibility, however, to provide voters with information solely on a candidate's position on gun-related issues so that they may factor that consideration in addition to other issues.

Admittedly, Senator Reid's record is not perfect; few politicians' records are. For a number of years (primarily in the 1990s) Sen. Reid had some problematic votes on our issue. But in the last five years, he has dramatically improved his record on our issue, so the NRA-PVF would be irresponsible if it did not give due consideration to those recent votes and actions. There is no doubt that, as Senate Majority Leader, Reid has supported efforts to protect Americans' gun rights, both by voting FOR pro-gun measures AND preventing anti-gun legislation from reaching the Senate floor.



In 2004, Sen. Reid voted against efforts to reauthorize the Clinton "assault weapons" ban and early last year, flatly stated he would oppose any effort to reinstate an "assault weapons" ban if the Senate were to vote on it in the future. In 2005, Sen. Reid was instrumental in Senate passage (and eventual enactment into law) of the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" (PLCAA). That law shut down reckless lawsuits against gun manufacturers and dealers, which attempted to hold them liable for the misuse of firearms by criminals. Sen. Reid also cosponsored the PLCAA in the previous Congress and voted against the Feinstein Amendment to ban so-called "assault weapons" and the Kennedy Amendment that would have banned most hunting ammunition.



Sen. Reid voted for legislation, which became law in 2006, to prohibit gun confiscation during states of emergency. He also voted for legislation to allow commercial airline pilots to be armed in the cockpit to protect their passengers and crew.



In the last two years, Sen. Reid voted for the Ensign Amendment to repeal the Washington D.C. gun ban and restore self-defense rights in our nation's capital. He cosponsored similar legislation -- S.1414 -- in the 108th Congress. He also voted for an amendment to allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for self-defense in national parks and wildlife refuges. This federal policy change took effect on February 22. In addition, Sen. Reid voted last year for the Thune-Vitter Amendment to provide national reciprocity for state Right-to-Carry permits. Sen. Reid also voted twice for the Wicker Amendment allowing Amtrak passengers to include firearms in their checked luggage. In his capacity as Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid made votes on all of these amendments procedurally possible. And these are but a few examples of Senator Reid's support and leadership on Second Amendment issues.



All of which leads to a very serious question for all NRA members and gun owners who oppose Sen. Reid to contemplate: who would take Reid's place if he loses his race—and his critically important position as Senate Majority Leader? Remember, the Senate Majority Leader is the gatekeeper who decides which legislation will be considered on the Senate floor. If Sen. Reid loses, the next candidate for Majority Leader is very likely to be Chuck Schumer or Dick Durbin—two of the most anti-gun U.S. Senators in history!



It is critical to the defense of the Second Amendment that we have pro-gun majorities in the U.S. Congress. While no endorsement has yet been issued in this race, nor any other U.S. Senate race for the November general election, rest assured that we will make all of these announcements at the appropriate time and in light of our election policy.

 

[Stomper]

Harry Reid is Pro-Harry Reid.... period.

 

[56kninja]

Wow. I only had to read a few lines before I realized this was a GoA article.

I suggest that you do research for yourselves and DO NOT take this as fact. Every time I check their facts I get a different story.

 

[HalfNutz]

The citizens of Nevada are tired if Reed's antics. He's done.

 

[Trlsmn]

Wow. I only had to read a few lines before I realized this was a GoA article.

I suggest that you do research for yourselves and DO NOT take this as fact. Every time I check their facts I get a different story.

Do you realize you just negated your own point with that statement?

 

[Just Jim]

<broken link removed>

America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution
By Angelo M. Codevilla from the July 2010 - August 2010 issue

As over-leveraged investment houses began to fail in September 2008, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, of major corporations, and opinion leaders stretching from the National Review magazine (and the Wall Street Journal) on the right to the Nation magazine on the left, agreed that spending some $700 billion to buy the investors' "toxic assets" was the only alternative to the U.S. economy's "systemic collapse." In this, President George W. Bush and his would-be Republican successor John McCain agreed with the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Many, if not most, people around them also agreed upon the eventual commitment of some 10 trillion nonexistent dollars in ways unprecedented in America. They explained neither the difference between the assets' nominal and real values, nor precisely why letting the market find the latter would collapse America. The public objected immediately, by margins of three or four to one.
----------------------------------

If you go to the American Spectator and read the entire six pages you will get an understanding what we are up against. Our politicions think they are royalty.

jj

 

[Jamie6.5]

The NRA makes an excellent point though.
Chuck Schumer, Harry's Democrat next-in-line, is one of the most out-of-touch, scary individuals in Congress where gun ownership is concerned, and NY's political machine isn't going to let him be defeated anytime soon. He and Kali's Babs Boxer, Dianne Fienswine, and MI's Carl Levin scare the crap out of me. Then there's tricky Dick Durbin of Illness-noise.
Senior Democrat leadership in Congress has always been scary, but the current crop is poised to screw us into the ground if they get their way.

Vote your gun rights, and encourage everyone you know to do the same!

 

[soberups]

The unfortunate reality is that the NRA has to view the election as a choice between Harry Reid vs. Charles Schumer as Senate Majority Leader.

I am by no means a Reid fan but if he gets replaced by Schumer we are in some deep feces.

There is a time to make a stand on principle, but there is also a time to be pragmatic and choose the lesser of two evils. Reid is clearly the lesser evil.

 

[Bruce]

I do not believe it matters whether Harry or Chuck are calling the shots, there are some Democrats that realize that a serious anti-gun vote is career killer. Some may actually not buy into gun control. This next election will most likely hurt the anti-gun politicians numbers. But there is always the chance of a RINO or two selling out.

 

[56kninja]

Do you realize you just negated your own point with that statement?

It wasn't a point it was a disclaimer.

If I cared enough I would go and examine line by line and find the facts on what they report.

But I don't get anything from working to expose a corrupt political group, because every body raises their glocks in the air, fires and shouts "LIBERAL YOU HATE GUNS!@!!!!!!!!!"

Then proceeds with a bunch of BS rhetoric to prove that their AR-15 can in fact replace their penis.

Which is why I put the disclaimer out there.

Listen to me or don't. But just realize that you are sharpening the sheers to trim your own wool if you just blindly trust the GoA at their word and face value.

 

[56kninja]

Really?

Please give us the two sides of one of those "different stories"

Post a link to a GOA "fact", and one to a "story" that refutes the GOA "fact" with verifiable "facts".

Check the last few lines where they claim the health care bill is going to compile a gun owner database..

At that point I didn't have to fact check it because the bill they summarized (of course they never quoted directly when it was) had not even been written yet.

Apparently the GoA has been spending their money on time machines or has found some very good psychics.

And when the bill was released I never found evidence that it had any relation to fire arms.

 

[Trlsmn]

Originally Posted by 56kninja View Post
Wow. I only had to read a few lines before I realized this was a GoA article.

I suggest that you do research for yourselves and DO NOT take this as fact. Every time I check their facts I get a different story.

Do you realize you just negated your own point with that statement?

It wasn't a point it was a disclaimer.

If I cared enough I would go and examine line by line and find the facts on what they report.

Maybe you should quit while you're behind!

But I don't get anything from working to expose a corrupt political group,

Ever hear the quote:

The enemy of my enemy is my friend?

because every body raises their glocks in the air, fires and shouts "LIBERAL YOU HATE GUNS!@!!!!!!!!!" Then proceeds with a bunch of BS rhetoric to prove that their AR-15 can in fact replace their penis.

:huh:

A fine example of rhetoric, thanks. :huh:

Which is why I put the disclaimer out there.

Your disclaimer is hypocrisy, I'm just pointing out that you don't practice what you condemned the rest of us for.

Listen to me or don't. But just realize that you are sharpening the sheers to trim your own wool if you just blindly trust the GoA at their word and face value.

Again you say that yet you yourself won't take the time to refute the post.

Want respect?

Take your own advice and dissect the information in the first post and prove it wrong!

I dare ya! I double dog dare ya!

I'll even make it easy for you, go to the link provided and look at the original article each point has a link to the actual vote and the link is to the U.S. Senate, you can't spin that as propaganda.

Here is an example:

1. June 28, 1991&#8212;Voted for a 5 day waiting period for handgun purchases (Vote No. 115).

Click the blue part where is says Vote No.115

So what's it going to be 56kninja?

 

[Just Jim]

It wasn't a point it was a disclaimer.

If I cared enough I would go and examine line by line and find the facts on what they report.

But I don't get anything from working to expose a corrupt political group, because every body raises their glocks in the air, fires and shouts "LIBERAL YOU HATE GUNS!@!!!!!!!!!"

Then proceeds with a bunch of BS rhetoric to prove that their AR-15 can in fact replace their penis.

Which is why I put the disclaimer out there.

Listen to me or don't. But just realize that you are sharpening the sheers to trim your own wool if you just blindly trust the GoA at their word and face value.

I know there are alot of liberals on this site just like you so if you would kindly prove GAO is wrong you would raise the standards a bit. However if you can't prove them wrong I don't think you help your cause by talking about a penis. While those liberals here may be interested in your shortcommings the rest of us wish you would stay on topic.

Reid is a progressive democrat and that should answer all questions.

jj

 

[Just Jim]

Too much coffe this morning Trism???

jj

 

[Trlsmn]

Or not enough!

I just want to see some "do as I do" not "do as I say" for a change. All the facts/links/sources were there in the first post for a critic to easily gather the truth and instead I get not only an Ad Hominim attack I get blather about not checking the source of the facts by someone who admittedly hasn't checked the facts when the source is presented in my post. I mean damn, I stop short of trying to use telepathy!