Sen. Majority Leader 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. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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).
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. April 2, 2001—Voted for the Incumbent Protection Act, so-called campaign finance reform.
15. 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.
16. 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."
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. April 6, 2000—Voted for and cosponsored a "sense of the Senate" amendment urging the passage of new gun control restrictions.
20. 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.
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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. May 20, 1999—Voted for the Clinton Juvenile Justice bill, which contained a host of gun control provisions.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. May 18, 1999—Voted for an amendment to force gun sellers to include trigger locks with every handgun sold.
28. May 14, 1999—Voted for an amendment introduced by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) that would regulate the transfer of firearms over the Internet.
29. May 13, 1999—Voted to ban the importation of ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. September 12, 1996—Voted to spend $21.5 million for a study on putting "taggants" in black and smokeless gunpowder.
34. 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.
35. April 17, 1996—Voted to expand the statute of limitations for paperwork violations in the National Firearms Act from 3 years to 5 years.
36. August 25, 1994—Voted for the Clinton Crime Bill, which contained the ban on many semi-automatic firearms (the so-called "assault weapons" ban).
37. 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 (so-called "assault weapons").
38. November 20, 1993—Voted for the Brady Bill, which imposed a 5-day waiting period before purchasing a handgun.
39. November 19, 1993—Voted to end a filibuster led by pro-gun Senators against the Brady Bill.
40. 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.
41. June 28, 1991—Voted for a 5 day waiting period for handgun purchases.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
is that Harry votes! You can turn any vote around and pull some obscure part out of it, people do it all the time.
If Harry was really against guns it would be self evident and clear. Look for the obvious people!
When people are losing they tend to attack all in their path .....Harry is merely the lastest, there will be more, just wait 10 minutes.
I think the issue is that too many new bills have multiple purposes and passing them (or voting against them) creates ambiguity.
A recent bill , off the top of my head, solidifies the argument: there was a credit card bill with attached language allowing concealed carry in Federal Park lands.
These are two, totally different, issues. Anyone voting for such a bill could be voting for it because of one piece of language or the other (assuming there are only two for simplicity's sake).
I think, and would like to know your thoughts on this, that bills should be single-purpose. Any amendments attached should be related ,directly or indirectly, to the original bill. This would make votes mean something and let the people hold their reps accountable for their votes.
As it sits, it allows wiggle room for already slippery politicians. They win and we lose.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
agree with you Solar!
I think that bills should be single issue .....it would not only clear up much of the ambiguity, it would also allow the focus to be on the matter at hand and it would prevent loophole law , as they would by nature, be much simplier, and it would allow people to see exactly what the law says and who actually supports what.
The current Prop in CA to legalize marijuana is one such bill that is very deceptive. If the law to legalize passes as it stands, ONLY those with cannibis cards will be legalize and all others would be raised from a misdemeanor to a felony and the Prop goes on to firm up the CA 3 strikes law. Translation, more people will be going to jail, and some for life, if the prop passes.
I'm a bit confused about something. You said that the current prop here in Ca would not do what everyone thinks it would. NORML, MPP, and other pro- legalization groups are firmly behind it. This seems counter-intuitive to me. Are you talking about SB 1449? If not, what?
If so, why do the pro-legalization groups up and down the coast, and across the nation, offer full-throated support for the bill ? Something seems off. Help!
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
SB 1449 downgrades possession from misdemeanor to infraction.
There are several bills on the table.
But I am not finding where that bill would do as you stated. Could you point out which section you were referring to?
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2251-2300/ab_2254_bill_20100218_introduced.html
Also, I'd still like to know why pro- legalization groups like NORML and MPP are firmly behind this proposal. If it makes the penalties for possession of pot stiffer, you'd think that those groups would be screaming to their lungs bloody.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Harry Reid doesn't care a whit for our rights, only for his re- election and his progressive agenda.
Were he from Illinois, and able to get away with it, he would be as anti-gun as anyone in government .
That can be said anout most, if not all politicians.
Harry Reid proudly salutes the people of Nevada
When was the last time you saw a state’s largest newspaper eviscerate a powerful, influential politician as thoroughly as the Las Vegas Review-Journal gutted Harry Reid on Sunday?
Their relationship has been rocky for years. But Harry made the mistake of telling the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce that he hopes the Review-Journal goes out of business. The paper responded with a scathing editorial:
We’ve seen cattle ranches give way to railroads. We chronicled the construction of Hoover Dam. We reported on the first day of legalized gambling . The first hospital. The first school . The first church . We survived the mob, Howard Hughes, the Great Depression, several recessions, two world wars, dozens of news competitors and any number of two-bit politicians who couldn’t stand scrutiny, much less criticism.
We’re still here doing what we do for the people of Las Vegas and Nevada. So, let me assure you, if we weathered all of that, we can damn sure outlast the bully threats of Sen. Harry Reid.
…to fully capture the magnitude of Reid’s remark (and to stop him from doing the same thing to others) it must be called what it was — a full-on threat perpetrated by a bully who has forgotten that he was elected to office to protect Nevadans, not sound like he’s shaking them down.
No citizen should expect this kind of behavior from a U.S. senator. It is certainly not becoming of a man who is the majority leader in the U.S. Senate . And it absolutely is not what anyone would expect from a man who now asks Nevadans to send him back to the Senate for a fifth term.
If he thinks he can push the state’s largest newspaper around by exacting some kind of economic punishment in retaliation for not seeing eye to eye with him on matters of politics , I can only imagine how he pressures businesses and individuals who don’t have the wherewithal of the Review-Journal.
For the sake of all who live and work in Nevada, we can’t let this bully behavior pass without calling out Sen. Reid. If he’ll try it with the Review-Journal, you can bet that he’s tried it with others. So today, we serve notice on Sen. Reid that this creepy tactic will not be tolerated.
We won’t allow you to bully us. And if you try it with anyone else, count on going through us first.
That’s a promise, not a threat.
And it’s a promise to our readers, not to you, Sen. Reid.
I don't understand what it is about the second ammendment that these libtards just don't understand. Then again, most of them are commie scum, marxist, maoist, leninist or just plain ignorant.
A well regulated militia, (the militia is the people: the citizens, every able bodied man with weapons, guns sabers etc. The standing Army, continental Army at the time, was not and is not the militia. The citizens are and always will be the militia.)
being necessary to a free state, (the founders had been fighting a tyranical government hell bent on controlling the citizens. What happens when the government turns the Army on the people like in the Revolutionary War? The citizens fight, THE MILITIA! Sound familiar?)
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (it's our right, not given by some government agency, or any man for that matter and it will not be infringed upon!)
These are the rights that the founders said in the decleration were endowed upon us by our creator. These aren't rights that they gave us, they secured them for us and every fighting man and woman continues to fight for them.
I'm not seeing what is so difficult to understand about that?