Brady Campaign Lauds NRA-Loved Gillibrand

ALBANY, N.Y. — New York Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (KEHR'-sten JIL'-uh-brand) has been endorsed for election by a leading gun control group two years after earning a top rating from the National Rifle Association.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence notes Gillibrand had been an NRA favorite when she was an upstate congresswoman in a Republican district. But the group says in less than two years as an appointed U.S. senator she has become a leader in sensible gun laws.

Gillibrand was appointed to fill Hillary Rodham Clinton's Senate seat last year after Clinton was named secretary of state. She accepted the Brady endorsement Thursday, saying it reflects her opposition to illegal guns and her efforts to combat gun violence.

Polls show Gillibrand with wide leads over GOP candidates Bruce Blakeman, David Malpass and Joseph DioGuardi.

Comments

[Rooster Coburn]

03:04 PM on 08/17/2010

Guns "enable" criminals to the same extent that forks enable the obese.

[grossmont328]

04:12 PM on 08/17/2010

or to the extent that cars enable drunk driving

[BlackYowe]

06:53 PM on 08/17/2010

Yup exactly. The only way to stop crime is to stop what fuels it. Poverty, drugs, poor education. bad government and so on. When you have a person like Bloomberg who basically bought his office running New York City, it's pretty silly get all blistered over guns. Bloomberg sanctions white collar crime. He actually encourages it with his policies. Is there anyone here who thinks Bloomberg didn't know what Madoff was doing?

[DaveNYC]

06:39 PM on 08/16/2010

This is either good news or bad news, or neither. I am guessing it is "neither."

It appears that Sen. Gillibrand earned her kudos by voting "no" on the Thune Amendment and by co-sponsoring Rep. McCarthy's "Gun Grafficking Prevention Act." [Was there more than this?] Neither action really concerns me.

The Thune Amendment was a stunt for the Deomocrats to show (rural) America that they, too, could vote pro-gun -- especially on legislation that was never going to pass. If Sen. Gillibrand would have voted "yes," then some other Senator would have voted "no." So it's hard for me to read much into this. As for the Gun Trafficking Act -- all I can say is, read the legislation and tell me what is objectionable. The essential parameters are: (1) creating a new "trafficking" crime that involves moving 2 or more guns into a jurisdiction where it is unlawful; and (2) giving ATF more power to fine and otherwise punish errant FFLs (e.g. federally licensed dealers).

Well -- I hardly consider the protection of gun traffickers and errant FFLs to be a "gun rights" issue.

It's good news if it means that the Brady Campaign is moving its sights away from flat prohibitions like "assault weapon" and .50 caliber bans.

It's bad news if it means that Sen. Gillibrand has moved to the dark side.

It's "neither" if (as I think) the Brady Campaign is making a political move to try to corral her.

[maxwelldog]

02:39 PM on 08/16/2010

I came to eat some crow, but after more reading, I'm not sure whether to pull up a dish of crow or not.

What in the dickens is this article about?
Gillibrand ... accepted the Brady endorsement Thursday, saying it reflects her opposition to illegal guns and her efforts to combat gun violence.
(jump to a different state and we see something strange)
Bill Brady, is opposed to additional gun laws in Illinois, and believes in issuing permits for concealed weapons. It’s safe to say that despite their similar names, Bill Brady would not have supported the Brady Bill, which imposed federal restrictions on handguns.

Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Jim-Brady-Endorses-Pat-Quinn-99855134.html#ixzz0wnIounHo

Now, I know that Pat Quinn (Governor of Illinois) got an endorsement from Jim Brady, and that IS in effect, and now if a person gets caught in a crime with a handgun and no Firearms Owners ID card, extra years are tacked on for the use of said weapon. Not danged many years, but, tacked onto whatever else is received as punishment.

Now, what's wrong with this picture?
The fact that when folks come here to comment that they like stronger gun control, want MORE gun control, they themselves get assaulted for their opinion.

All I can say is, I'm letting my crow fly free, and I'm glad as can be that some of you can't shoot through the computer screen at us. Or, you would.

[kaveman3]

08:39 PM on 08/16/2010

Who is assaulting you for you opinion?

I see some of your "facts" being challenged, like your false assertion that the recent shooting in NY was with a full-auto and your intimation that full-autos were used at Columbine, but no assaults.

[grossmont328]

01:49 AM on 08/17/2010

Maxwell, the first step to reducing the violence is to put the people who are actually committing the violence in prison and keeping them there until they are no longer a threat

[kaveman3]

09:37 AM on 08/16/2010

It's so sad that some people still can't tell the difference between full-autos and semi-autos.

Makes them look silly.

[guffman]

10:40 AM on 08/16/2010

Only the obsessed actually care.

[grossmont328]

01:50 PM on 08/16/2010

so that makes guffieclayton an obsessed gun fetishist

[Radioburning]

03:02 PM on 08/16/2010

Well, when Washington D.C. bans one of the most popular guns for home defense and competition, the Glock semi-automatic pistol, because "it's a machine gun" is it "obsessive" to say "umm, that's not exactly correct?". That's exactly what is happening right now in the name of "sensible gun control". Seems like the people who DON'T care about the difference are the ones who are obsessed. Obsessed with taking away the rights of others under the flimsiest of arguments.

[maxwelldog]

04:38 PM on 08/16/2010

you have a problem with your "superiority" kaveman3. The issue isn't whether it's an automatic or a semi-automatic. Heck, file one spring in your .45 and it becomes a seven shot auto (can't stop it, but, oh well)

The idea of the article is that this person was getting income (PAC money, presumably) from the NRA for her stand on weapons, she changed her mind and now likes stricter laws, and the NRA is unhappy.
This is also the center of several debates as to who owns the votes of representatives, and in fact, may be the very crux of why the article was written.
NRA has been filling Democratic coffers of late, nearly a 3:1 advantage over Republicans. And why is that? Are they fixing to buy some legislation? Maybe buy some legalized automatic weaponry?

Weapons don't count.
Who buys the government should be on everybody's mind.

[kaveman3]

08:50 PM on 08/16/2010

"The idea of the article is that this person was getting income (PAC money, presumably) from the NRA for her stand on weapons"

Which came first?

Did she take a pro-2A stance and then recieve support from the NRA or do you think the NRA just rolls the dice and throws money at candidates before some kind of record on the 2A can be established?

[RevJimIII]

09:04 PM on 08/16/2010

"Heck, file one spring in your .45 and it becomes a seven shot auto (can't stop it, but, oh well)" Even if you could, it is a crime with pretty stiff penalties.. and it reduces the effectiveness of the firearm. Why would anyone want to ruin a perfectly good pistol?

[BlackYowe]

09:58 PM on 08/15/2010

Gillibrand represents most of NY. Most of NY is small town and rural and we don't have violence here but almost everyone owns a gun or two. Where I live its rural and there is no reason to restrict gun ownership, people are responsible. If the cities addressed the social issues like poverty and drugs they wouldn't need to worry about guns. I like Gillibrand.

[jimme]

10:11 PM on 08/14/2010

You're not allowed to own a gun in England like here and they don't have anywhere near the violence that comes with owning one. The wild-west is long gone people.

U.S. = 25000 or more killed each year by guns.
Engalnd = under 100 killed each year by guns.

But there's money,lot's of it,to be made so to heck with lives.

[grossmont328]

02:16 PM on 08/15/2010

Jimme--since the Supreme Court has held that there is an individual right to own firearms and that the right applies at all levels of government--the laws in England are irrelevant

[OdinsEye]

02:50 PM on 08/15/2010

England did not have a firearm violence problem to begin with, so their firearm laws changed very little.

Oh, and yes, you can own firearms in England.

[maxwelldog]

02:56 PM on 08/14/2010

handguns. Geez...when is it ever going to stop?
Handguns are, for the most part, a means to kill people.
For a person to say they are calling on the second amendment rights to carry their handguns is as idiotic as a person wanting a scud missile launcher and missile...hey. If they regulate who can have a missile, only the criminals will have missiles...
As for hunting and protection on the plains? A rifle does the trick, nicely, neatly, and that's all there is to it.
As for a rifle that can fire automatically?
Not for hunting is it used.
Not for protection from wild animals is it used. Automatic weapons are used against people as in
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/14/buffalo-restaurant-shooti_n_682158.html
talk about close to home with this event.

[grossmont328]

09:38 PM on 08/14/2010

maxwelldog--please read the Heller and McDonald decisions--handgun bans are unConstitutional, and the stubbornness of Chicago and DC politicians will only help the proRKBA folks in the long run

[maxwelldog]

08:03 AM on 08/15/2010

I'll read what I can when I get back this morning, but if his is an attempt to make me change my mind, it would have to be extremely compelling.
Automatic weapons are used to kill people. They are idiot machines for [bad words here] people who want to murder others
Handguns are for killing people. Their use is being kept alive by a police force that has come to use THAT very force readily and easily in murdering citizens, and criminals in murdering citizens.
Here's a case of banning handguns will only leave criminals and policeman to have them and they both murder the rest of us.

[maxwelldog]

05:42 AM on 08/17/2010

You'll be glad to know I did take the time to read part of the heller macdonald, but, I really don't have enough years left in me to read every bit of ALL of it.

You folk do well to try the squelching it sooner than later, that's for sure.
After all, they left the marijuana laws on the books too long and it is next to impossible to get OFF the books, now, even though it is perfectly harmless...unlike weapons.

[OdinsEye]

02:54 PM on 08/15/2010

"Handguns are, for the most part, a means to kill people."

Most are used for recreation, competition, and hunting.

"A rifle does the trick, nicely, neatly, and that's all there is to it."

And is vastly more powerful than a handgun.

"As for a rifle that can fire automatically?"

Firearms that fire automatically have been strictly controlled since 1934. You cannot just walk into a gun store or gun show and walk out with one. The paperwork alone takes months to be processed. And you can't own any made after 1986.

"Automatic weapons are used against people as in
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/14/buffalo-restaurant-shooti_n_682158.html"

No automatic firing weapon was used in that shooting.

[maxwelldog]

03:47 PM on 08/15/2010

Isn't it funny, though, in Chicago and Indianapolis, automatics ARE used?
(not funny, "ha ha")
Like your friend just above you there, handguns are "recreational"? That is so much tripe I can't even begin to start.
I don't think saying anything to the two you will help, either.
Handguns...California police officer shot and killed a vagrant.
Indianapolis a policeman broke into the house of and killed a man in his own bed for taking a cab home when he was drunk.
Columbine. Do I have to say more on that?
Indianapolis, a kid pointed a gun at a preacher demanding money, the preacher only had a few dollars, the kid shot and killed him.
Gun control laws are stiffer in Canada, and many claim this accounts for the murder rate being lower in Canada than in the United States. 65% of US homicides were committed with firearms, versus 32% in Canada.
Two thirds of all 1992 US murders were accomplished with firearms. Handguns were used in about half of all murders. (http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html#guns)

But, like I said, you're probably packing your "recreational" firearm waiting to use it, eh?

Me? I'm going to go find a missile launcher and a few scuds. Cheap kind. $25, $30 tops. Like Hamas uses because THEY don't have any gun controls, either.

[Dragoon]

01:10 PM on 08/13/2010

No surprise from a politician. The "views" that got her elected in a local state election won't fly statewide, so they need to be "re-evaluated." Plus, the pension/benefits from the US Senate are much better $$$$ than in NY State.

[rhodapenmark]

02:48 PM on 08/13/2010

Gillibrand was the hunters' best friend, but she has never been the advocate for handguns, or automatic weapons meant to kill people.

IMO, the sort of lowlives who think that the ability to threaten and even kill other people with guns should drive an election need to be kidnapped by aliens and taken to another planet..

[grossmont328]

09:31 PM on 08/14/2010

Rhoda--self defense is a fundamental right, and automatic weapons have been strictly controlled sin 1934. Within the next couple of years, NO states will be able to restrict carry beyond "sensitive areas" like courthouses.

[DaveNYC]

06:56 PM on 08/16/2010

Uh...well, one of the "issues" that come up when Gov. Paterson nominated her to fill Hillary Clinton's seat was that she kept an AR-15 pattern rifle under her bed. That is a semi-automatic rifle with a pistol grip that a gun-banner would label an "assault weapon." I don't think she has a NY pistol license, but certainly you don't get an NRA endorsement by being opposed to handgun ownership.

[Random User]

12:48 PM on 08/13/2010

Gillibrand fell out of the NRA's favor when she voted against a bill in 2009 which would have allowed handgun owners with concealed carry permits to carry their guns in any state regardless of residence. I agree with her statement at the time that this would have essentially nullified all state and local handgun regulations.

[grossmont328]

09:33 PM on 08/14/2010

Random--the McDonald decision opened the various state laws to challenge. The AWBs in Kali/NY/NJ will fall in the next couple of years as will the laws dealing with discretionary carry licensing.

[Random User]

02:32 PM on 08/16/2010

I think the decisions were more careful than that -- they overturned outright handgun bans (a decision which I support) but they didn't overturn state regulations.

[OdinsEye]

02:56 PM on 08/15/2010

" this would have essentially nullified all state and local handgun regulations. "

Not even close. Does driving with a Nevada driver's license in NY nullify NY's traffic laws? Not at all.

[maxwelldog]

04:28 PM on 08/15/2010

you're relating driving to murdering people with hand guns?

I'll give you this. If you live in a state where the largest wild predator is two hundred pounds or more, a handgun should be permitted.
Not downtown Chicago. Not downtown Indianapolis.
Not downtown any danged city in the USA.

[Random User]

02:25 PM on 08/16/2010

The bill Gillibrand voted against would have allowed a Nevada resident to carry a concealed handgun in New York. This would have nullified the authority of the NY State Legislature, the county governments and the laws of the state of New York to pass their own gun legislation.

[nomadsborker]

11:50 AM on 08/13/2010

Gillie is just a schill for Schumer. Thanks to this no-talent twit, Schumer gets an automatic two votes instead of one.

[rhodapenmark]

02:39 PM on 08/13/2010

The correct spelling is "shill," not "schill," maroon. People who have two brains cells to rub together expect the voting records of two Democratic senators to be similar,.most of the time. That wouldn't include you, apparently.

[steve-annie]

04:12 PM on 08/13/2010

Gillibrand doesn't always vote the same way Schumer does. Look it up.

[elbzee]

07:41 PM on 08/13/2010

I've watched her since she first came onto the picture. Actually like her overall. Only thing I have against her is that I couldn't email her since I wasn't in her congressional district. Now THAT did tick me off, but at the time, she was still at the state level. I like her, and I still do. This is good recognition for a a lawmaker who supports a sensible gun laws position. Let's face it, there are A LOT of people who will insist on having their guns pried from their cold dead hands. That will require a great deal of evolution for all those folks. They’re simply not anywhere near to ready for that much sanity.

[drschockley]

11:10 AM on 08/13/2010

We don't need the Brady Bunch to combat gun violence, we need to inforce the existing laws with power and force. No more liberal judges slapping hardened criminals on their collective wrists and sending them back out on the town.

[Eris23]

11:17 AM on 08/13/2010

Where does this happen in NY?

[ZombyWoof]

02:36 PM on 08/13/2010

The US has more people (in total and per capita) in prison than any other country in the world.

[OdinsEye]

02:57 PM on 08/15/2010

Many for non-violent crimes.

[DaveNYC]

08:05 PM on 08/16/2010

The vast majority of those are victims of the "drug war." We are handing out (literally) 30 year sentences for dealing drugs, but we are failing to lock up child molesters and violent offenders. That is messed up on so many levels.....

[OBR]

10:52 AM on 08/13/2010

Brady Campaign is washed up
who in their right mind would want Brady Campaign endorsement

[drschockley]

11:10 AM on 08/13/2010

Any leftist

[repelled]

03:41 PM on 08/13/2010

People that are concerned about gun control - something you obviously know nothing about.

[OBR]

04:57 PM on 08/13/2010

Yea
should be none

[grossmont328]

09:35 PM on 08/14/2010

repelled--Brady style gun control is on its deathbed