Senator Ayotte

General forum for state, county, town, and school issues in NH and in nearby Massachusetts and Maine communities

Senator Ayotte

Postby safety frog » Wed May 08, 2013 8:49 am

Michael Bloomberg and Barack Obama want to take me out, and I need your immediate help to fight back.

Let me get right to the point.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's anti-gun group just went live with nearly $700,000 worth of television ads attacking me for voting against a bill that would have expanded a broken background check system. In fact, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said yesterday that the "Republican Senator from New Hampshire has been -- wham, man has she been hit hard."

But Mayor Bloomberg and Harry Reid can't bully me into changing my vote, because this legislation would have gone too far in restricting the Constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners, while doing nothing to prevent a deranged individual or criminal from obtaining and misusing firearms to commit horrific tragedies like the one in Newtown.

With the help of the liberal media, Michael Bloomberg and Barack Obama are doing everything they can to damage me politically for not supporting their agenda. And on top of this...I'm under attack for standing up to Barack Obama's efforts to "fundamentally transform" our country by defending the timeless principles of limited government and personal responsibility! This is why I urgently need you to help me fight back against the left's well-funded and well-heeled liberal special interests.

As both a mom and a strong supporter of our Second Amendment rights, I'm eager to combat the escalating gun violence we're seeing throughout the country. In fact, I supported a bill that would have helped fix our broken background check system, increased prosecutions of criminals, and strengthened our mental health system.

I need your immediate help to set the record straight and defend our Second Amendment rights from liberal special interests' vicious assault. Will you help by making an emergency donation of $25, $50, $100 or more right now?

Anyone who knows me knows I'm tough on crime. When I was Attorney General, I cracked down on sexual and internet predators and prosecuted and convicted dozens of murderers. As a U.S. Senator, I've taken a lead role in cracking down on gun violence by co-sponsoring a bill that addresses the root issues behind gun violence in America, including strenghening mental health services and criminalizing gun trafficking.

I'm 100% dedicated to fighting gun violence; after all, I have two young kids at home! But I won't disarm law-abiding gun owners so Barack Obama and Michael Bloomberg can score a political victory at the expense of our Constitutional rights. That's why I'm asking you to make an emergency contribution to help me fight back.

Thank you in advance for your support.

Sincerely,


Kelly Ayotte
U.S. Senator
Dennis F
safety frog
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:40 am
Location: Danville

Re: Senator Ayotte

Postby safety frog » Wed May 08, 2013 8:51 am

Setting the Record Straight
I voted to improve background check system
An op-ed by Sen. Kelly Ayotte

Out of state special interests are running false ads attacking me and even lying about my efforts to prevent gun-related violence. I want to set the record straight: I support effective background checks and in fact voted recently to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

As a former prosecutor who served for five years as New Hampshire's attorney general, I have a demonstrated record of punishing criminals and strengthening public safety. Having worked as a murder prosecutor, I've witnessed horrific crime scenes. I've spent time with victims - and I've worked day and night to put violent offenders behind bars.
From my experience working with police chiefs, detectives and prosecutors, I know how important it is to have laws that work - and I know how important it is to enforce the laws we have on the books.
Despite what the false attack ads say, I helped introduce and voted for the Protecting Communities and Preserving the Second Amendment Act, which improves the existing background check system, addresses mental health gaps in the criminal justice system, boosts resources to improve school safety, and criminalizes gun trafficking and straw purchases. The legislation also puts teeth into the law by creating a high level federal task force to increase the prosecution of gun-related violence.
Also, given the clear connection between mental illness and mass violence tragedies at Newtown, Aurora, and Virginia Tech, I cosponsored and voted for the Mental Health Awareness and Improvement Act. This bipartisan measure includes provisions of legislation I helped introduce that seeks to improve mental health first aid training and increase the effectiveness of mental health care across the nation. This amendment passed the Senate overwhelmingly by a vote of 95 to 2.
It's clear that criminals who attempt to illegally purchase firearms aren't being prosecuted as they should be - and have not been for years. For example, in 2010, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms screened 76,142 NICS denials. Of those, charges were brought in only 44 cases - and resulted in just 13 successful prosecutions. This sends the message to criminals that there won't be any consequences when they try to get their hands on guns.Some of my colleagues want to expand the broken background check system we have now. In my view, we shouldn't be expanding a flawed system. The focus should be on fixing the existing system, which criminals are flouting. We need to make sure we are enforcing current law and prosecuting those who attempt to illegally obtain firearms. And we must ensure that NICS includes records currently not being entered in the system, including mental health adjudications where an individual is found to be a danger to themselves and others.
There are no easy answers. Even if the proposed expansion of background checks had been in place, it wouldn't have prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy - where the perpetrator obtained the firearms he used by killing his own mother, who owned them lawfully.
Like citizens across New Hampshire, I want to find solutions that will stop criminals and those who are mentally ill from obtaining firearms. I want to make sure we punish those who try to access guns illegally. And I want to improve the nation's mental health system so that those who are on the front lines can identify the warning signs of mental illness and help those in need get proper help.
In the Senate, I know that there are members of both parties who want to find common ground on this important issue. And my commitment to the people of New Hampshire is that I will continue to try to work across the aisle to prevent violence, enforce and improve our broken background check system, strengthen mental health services, and increase school safety - all while protecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans.
Misleading television and radio ads are counterproductive and only help to poison this important discussion.
Dennis F
safety frog
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:40 am
Location: Danville

Re: Senator Ayotte

Postby shawn_oneil » Wed May 08, 2013 10:47 am

I agree with you Safety Frog.

Did you know that one of the Amendments that was being proposed was to have reciprocity on carry conceal with other states and our good old Jeanne Shaheen voted NO!
Shawn
Shawn O'Neil


Image
The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money” –Margaret Thatcher
shawn_oneil
 
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:51 pm

Re: Senator Ayotte

Postby safety frog » Thu May 09, 2013 7:41 am

Reciprocity on carry conceal permits would be a great idea! Jeanne always seems to be on the wrong side of things, so sad.
Dennis F
safety frog
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:40 am
Location: Danville

Re: Senator Ayotte

Postby Rob C » Tue May 28, 2013 12:36 pm

SeaCoast online wrote:Sen. Ayotte's background check vote a broader betrayal

By Mark Connolly
May 26, 2013 2:00 AM
In 1977, I served in the New Hampshire Legislature and sponsored common-sense legislation that said anyone wishing to be a first-time hunter had to pass a hunter safety course.

The legislation also disallowed being inebriated while hunting with a gun. Common sense, isn't it? My bill had the wide support of hunters in the state as well as conservatives, like William Loeb, former owner and publisher of The Union Leader. It was just plain common sense to pass such legislation.

Last month, Sen. Kelly Ayotte voted "No," on the wrong side of the U.S. Senate's rejection requiring background checks for guns purchased at gun shows and the Internet. Polls show the overwhelming majority of New Hampshire citizens favor this necessary step to promote sound gun safety. The essence of the legislation is to have the same disclosure standard as is now the case for the retail sale of guns. And the legislation exempted the sale of guns between family members.

So, what's the real issue here? And why is Sen. Ayotte now scrambling to defend her vote by telling us the current system is not working — meaning, in her words, we should not be implementing new laws when current ones, supposedly, are deficient. How's that again? She voted to let anyone — criminals, the mentally ill — buy guns at a trade show or on the Internet because the current system may not be working 100 percent of the time? Something is missing in that line of reasoning.

What really is at issue here is the role of money and lobbyist control in Washington. During the past several months, Sen. Ayotte has been playing to a wider national audience, and her political gun sights are now clearly looking beyond what she once labeled "New Hampshire Common Sense" when she campaigned for the U.S. Senate in 2010. Sen. Ayotte has betrayed her campaign — and us.

It is clear New Hampshire stands for the responsible use of guns, and we should not be beholden to a national agenda that attempts to use false arguments to justify a political game about money and power and national ambitions. It's time for Sen. Ayotte to stop the scrambling game and start paying attention to the common sense of what is in the best interest of New Hampshire.

Mark Connolly is a former state representative and deputy secretary of state. He owns New Castle Investment Advisors, LLC and is the author of "Cover-Up," a book about the failure of government to stop the state's largest Ponzi scheme.


How is requiring background checks on internet and at gun shows a bad thing? What about that bill does she think "would have gone too far in restricting the Constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners..." ? If she thinks background checks are "going too far" then isn't the horse out of the barn?
Rob C
Rob C
 
Posts: 2021
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:51 am

Re: Senator Ayotte

Postby SBinRockrimmon » Tue May 28, 2013 11:15 pm

Rob C wrote:How is requiring background checks on internet and at gun shows a bad thing? What about that bill does she think "would have gone too far in restricting the Constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners..." ? If she thinks background checks are "going too far" then isn't the horse out of the barn?


Typical of how ignorance plays a big role. The "loophole" you are referring to doesn't exist. While it is correct that you can purchase a new gun online it must be shipped to a a FFL (Federal Firearms License, in other words a gun dealer). They will make the transfer. Part of the transfer process is a background check. While gun may be purchased and paid for online it will not be transferred to the purchaser until until the background check is approved. The FFL will usually charge $25-$50 for the transfer, since they did not make any money on the actual sale. You CANNOT purchase a new gun online and have it shipped directly to your door. This process if followed strictly at every gun shop I've been in.

Every dealer at a gun show will also perform a background check for purchases made there. The ONLY time a background check is not performed is a face to face sale and cannot be done across state lines. For this to be legal here in NH requires that the person you are selling a firearm to must be personally know to you or have a valid pistol permit (background checks are performed to obtain a pistol permit). I realize this is not the case in all 50 states, but the law is similar in most states.

It isn't the "background checks" that are going "too far" is was all the other crap that was lumped into this bill, which is the main reason it didn't pass and got voted down by members on both sides of the isle.

You really should stop getting your "facts" from BS political commercials funded by people that don't even live in NH.

P.S. - Are you required to pass a background check and obtain a permit to exercise your 1st Amendment right?
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. - Thomas Jefferson

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. - Thomas Jefferson

Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. - Benjamin Franklin
SBinRockrimmon
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:34 pm

Re: Senator Ayotte

Postby Rob C » Wed May 29, 2013 2:00 pm

Media Matters wrote:Law Center To Prevent Gun Violence: Private Sales Loophole Has Been Exploited By Gun Traffickers And Used To Supply Firearms To Criminals.

The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence explained how a deficiency in federal law concerning how firearms sellers are licensed allows dangerous individuals to obtain firearms without a background check:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Gun Control Act of 1968 provides that persons "engaged in the business" of dealing in firearms must be licensed. Although Congress did not originally define the term "engaged in the business," it did so in 1986 as part of the McClure-Volkmer Act (also known as the "Firearms Owners' Protection Act"). That Act defined the term "engaged in the business," as applied to a firearms dealer, as "a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms."

Significantly, however, the term was defined to exclude a person who "makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms."

Consequently, unlicensed sellers may sell firearms without conducting background checks or documenting the transaction in any way. In addition, because federal law does not require private sellers to inspect a buyer's driver's license or any other identification, there is no obligation for such sellers to confirm that a buyer is of legal age to purchase a firearm. As a result, convicted felons, minors and other prohibited purchasers can easily buy guns from unlicensed sellers.

According to a 1999 report issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the current definition of "engaged in the business" often frustrates the prosecution of "unlicensed dealers masquerading as collectors or hobbyists but who are really trafficking firearms to felons or other prohibited persons." A June 2000 ATF report found that unlicensed sellers were involved in about a fifth of the trafficking investigations and associated with nearly 23,000 diverted guns. A national survey of firearm ownership conducted in 1994 determined that 60 percent of all firearm sales in the U.S. involved federally licensed dealers, while the remaining 40 percent of firearms were acquired from unlicensed sellers. [Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, accessed 4/11/13]


SBinRockrimmon wrote:Typical of how ignorance plays a big role. The "loophole" you are referring to doesn't exist. While it is correct that you can purchase a new gun online it must be shipped to a a FFL (Federal Firearms License, in other words a gun dealer). They will make the transfer. Part of the transfer process is a background check. While gun may be purchased and paid for online it will not be transferred to the purchaser until until the background check is approved. The FFL will usually charge $25-$50 for the transfer, since they did not make any money on the actual sale. You CANNOT purchase a new gun online and have it shipped directly to your door. This process if followed strictly at every gun shop I've been in.

40% of guns aren't purchased in a gun shop as detailed above.

SBinRockrimmon wrote:Every dealer at a gun show will also perform a background check for purchases made there. The ONLY time a background check is not performed is a face to face sale and cannot be done across state lines. For this to be legal here in NH requires that the person you are selling a firearm to must be personally know to you or have a valid pistol permit (background checks are performed to obtain a pistol permit). I realize this is not the case in all 50 states, but the law is similar in most states.

Naive?

SBinRockrimmon wrote:It isn't the "background checks" that are going "too far" is was all the other crap that was lumped into this bill, which is the main reason it didn't pass and got voted down by members on both sides of the isle.

What is the other "crap" then? Ayotte didn't bother to explain, maybe you can?

SBinRockrimmon wrote:P.S. - Are you required to pass a background check and obtain a permit to exercise your 1st Amendment right?

Last time I checked, my 1st amendment right didn't specifically involve tools designed to kill.
Rob C
Rob C
 
Posts: 2021
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:51 am

Re: Senator Ayotte

Postby safety frog » Wed Jun 05, 2013 10:51 am

Loop Hole? One forgets the Fast and Furious Case where Mr. Holder gave away hundreds if not thousands of guns to criminals, without any back ground checks on our southern border! Thank you SB for explaining the internet sales. No licensed gun dealer is going to sell me a gun at a gun show or anywhere, without the back ground check. Takes minutes. If I wanted a specific gun, you research it, price it, then go to a local reputable dealer, show them the pricing, they will usually match, and purchase from them, legally!

Let's enforce the current laws and prosecute the thousands of people who tried to buy guns illegal that were stopped by back ground checks. Over 72,000 were denied the ability to purchase a firearm after the back ground checks found problems in 2010. 62, just 62 were prosecuted and 28 of those were dropped or dismissed by the government. Let's start with the 72,000.

A new national program will do nothing to solve this problem, only make it easier for abuse of citizens similar to what the AG and IRS have been doing to swing elections.
Dennis F
safety frog
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:40 am
Location: Danville

Re: Senator Ayotte

Postby JC » Thu Jun 06, 2013 12:32 pm

I think the biggest issue here and what everyone is forgetting, criminals and mentally ill people DO NOT follow laws! If someone wants to get their hands on a weapon they will do it illegally, criminals don't stop to think...hmm oh ya they passed a new law so now I can't do that.

We need to enforce the laws we already have on the books.
If you dont't like something, change it. If you can't change it, change your attitude.
Maya Angelou
JC
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:14 am

Re: Senator Ayotte

Postby Rob C » Thu Jun 06, 2013 12:45 pm

JC wrote:I think the biggest issue here and what everyone is forgetting, criminals and mentally ill people DO NOT follow laws! If someone wants to get their hands on a weapon they will do it illegally, criminals don't stop to think...hmm oh ya they passed a new law so now I can't do that.

Then why have any laws?

What you're saying makes no sense to me...


The central question here is this: Why would we provide an easy path for those, who we all agree shouldn't have firearms, to obtain firearms?

That path is there and everyone knows about it and here's the proof. SB and SF, or anyone else, if anyone in Danville called you up (assuming you're not a licensed arms dealer) and asked you if they could purchase a firearm from you would you be legally obligated to do anything before the purchase transpired?

If the answer is no then what is wrong with making that answer yes?

I'm still waiting to hear about all the crap in the bill that prevented Senator Ayotte from voting for it...
Image
(I stole this from one of Shawn's posts...too funny...)
Rob C
Rob C
 
Posts: 2021
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:51 am

Re: Senator Ayotte

Postby safety frog » Fri Jun 07, 2013 10:23 am

She did not support the bill as it was feel good legislation that would do diddily squat to prevent the CT tragedy.


It is time Washington worked on:

National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) improvement measures that will effectively prevent access to firearms by those not legally qualified to possess them, without criminalizing private transfers;

Vigorous enforcement of the hundreds of existing federal firearms laws;

Efforts to improve security in our nation’s schools;

A comprehensive process to review, evaluate and implement recommended changes to our nation’s treatment of the mentally ill before their actions result in these devastating consequences; and

The development and implementation of a community based “family watch” program that helps families with concerns that an immediate family member who they believe has the potential to become a societal danger is afforded the assistance that they need to intervene before a tragedy occurs.
Dennis F
safety frog
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:40 am
Location: Danville

Re: Senator Ayotte

Postby Rob C » Fri Jun 07, 2013 3:33 pm

safety frog wrote:She did not support the bill as it was feel good legislation that would do diddily squat to prevent the CT tragedy.

The bill was not drafted for only that purpose. I think that's obvious to anyone who reads it. CT was simply the tipping point for a lot of people, not the only incident.

safety frog wrote:It is time Washington worked on:

National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) improvement measures that will effectively prevent access to firearms by those not legally qualified to possess them, without criminalizing private transfers;

Vigorous enforcement of the hundreds of existing federal firearms laws;

Efforts to improve security in our nation’s schools;

A comprehensive process to review, evaluate and implement recommended changes to our nation’s treatment of the mentally ill before their actions result in these devastating consequences; and

The development and implementation of a community based “family watch” program that helps families with concerns that an immediate family member who they believe has the potential to become a societal danger is afforded the assistance that they need to intervene before a tragedy occurs.

This all sounds great but why can't we also "close the loophole" in the existing law?
Why can't we require background checks on everyone wanting to obtain a firearm?
Why is that a bad thing to support?

Why doesn't Kelly Ayotte support that?

PS - You should really properly site content you take from other sources...

Rob C
Rob C
 
Posts: 2021
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:51 am

Re: Senator Ayotte

Postby shawn_oneil » Sat Jun 08, 2013 9:56 pm

This would mean that our Government would know where every gun resides. Our government cannot be trusted. The government needs to fear the people.

I support Ayotte in her position. If I want to know Sheehan position I'll ask Harry Reid.
Shawn O'Neil


Image
The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money” –Margaret Thatcher
shawn_oneil
 
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:51 pm

Re: Senator Ayotte

Postby Rob C » Sat Jun 08, 2013 11:26 pm

SBinRockrimmon wrote:It isn't the "background checks" that are going "too far" is was all the other crap that was lumped into this bill, which is the main reason it didn't pass and got voted down by members on both sides of the isle.


safety frog wrote:She did not support the bill as it was feel good legislation that would do diddily squat to prevent the CT tragedy.


shawn_oneil wrote:This would mean that our Government would know where every gun resides. Our government cannot be trusted. The government needs to fear the people.

I support Ayotte in her position.

So which is it? No one seems to really know...

Requiring background checks for every firearm transfer does not mean the government would know where every gun resides. It means it would be more difficult for those who should not have a firearm to get a firearm.

So, Shawn thinks it's OK for criminals and the mentally ill to easily obtain firearms. I certainly don't. Anyone else?
Rob C
Rob C
 
Posts: 2021
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:51 am

Re: Senator Ayotte

Postby shawn_oneil » Sun Jun 09, 2013 6:37 am

Rob C wrote:Requiring background checks for every firearm transfer does not mean the government would know where every gun resides. It means it would be more difficult for those who should not have a firearm to get a firearm.


If every transfer require a gov't database to be touched by the transferring party then the gov't will know that Party A sold a gun to Party B. Please explain your logic stating why the gov't will not know.

Rob C wrote:So, Shawn thinks it's OK for criminals and the mentally ill to easily obtain firearms. I certainly don't. Anyone else?


No that is not what I said. You did forget to mention the children though. :roll: :roll: :roll:

I think the current system would produce more use if fully executed like SF brought to the table. The large number of people who fail the background check are not being followed up by law enforcement. They failed for a reason and most likely have a high probably of committing a crime. The recidivism rate for people who have already committed crimes is rather large. I also agree with previous statements that more 'PORK' WAS added to the bill which caused many to drop support. Have a bill that specifically states that Mental Ill info will be added the background checking database. That I think will pass. Add the other crap and it should fail like it did.

Rob, If your logic was so sound why do FBI stats show that areas with gun control (Chicago, NY City, DC, etc.) have higher crime rates using guns. They are illegal after all. Why do states that reduce gun regulation see crimes drop?
Shawn O'Neil


Image
The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money” –Margaret Thatcher
shawn_oneil
 
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:51 pm

Next

Return to State / Region

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron