Fact Check: Hillary Clinton correct on Bernie Sanders' gun record

[RandySF]

In spring 1991, it was reintroduced and passed the House with a provision for potential gun buyers to wait seven days for background checks to be completed on potential gun buyers. Sanders, then a representative from Vermont, voted against it.

As debate continued, the waiting period was reduced to five days and the bill was lumped as a subsection within a more comprehensive public safety proposal. Sanders voted "no" two times on that version in fall 1991. It passed the House but failed in the Senate.

His fourth vote against the measure came in November 1993, when the bill was brought back, this time with the five-day waiting period.

Eventually, lawmakerscompromised and allowed the five-day wait on the condition that it be eliminated as soon as an effective instant background check system could be implemented. (The FBI launched one in 1998.)

Sanders' fifth vote against the Brady Bill's passage came later that month, but to no avail. The compromise version became law on Nov. 30, 1993.

Warren Gunnels, policy director for Sanders, told AZ Fact Check that Sanders supports several methods of gun control. "Senator Sanders has always supported the assault weapons ban, background checks, and closing the gun show loophole. That’s why he has a D-rating from the NRA," he wrote in an e-mail.

Clinton's campaign declined to comment.


BOTTOM LINE: Voting records show Clinton was correct in her statement that Sanders voted against the Brady Bill five times.


http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/fact-check/2015/11/02/fact-check-hillary-bernie-brady-bill/74426534/

[Cha]

1. Thank you, RSF

[willvotesdem]

2. A positive for BS in the general. eom

[EdwardBernays]

3. suuuuuuuurrrrrreee

but... no candidate from either party is offering meaningful suggestions...

Clintons suggestions wouldn't stop even 10% of gun violence, so it's all just grandstanding from everyone...

[Nitram]

4. It's grandstanding when Clinton does and principled when Bernie does it.

Your rhetoric is shameless.

[EdwardBernays]

5. BS

I never said it was principled when Bernie does it... it's grandstanding when he does it as well.. on guns he's worse...

So take you crap somewhere else..

[Nitram]

6. OK, point taken.

Do you feel it would be impossible to decrease gun deaths by even 10%?

[EdwardBernays]

7. well

I haven't seen any politician put forth any proposal that would reduce it by 10%... IMO.

And I've spent WAAAAY too much time looking at the figures, etc.

[hack89]

8. A national anti-suicide campaign would be your best bet

Considering two thirds of gun deaths are suicides. After that a crack down on violent offenders and illegal gun trafficking.

[Nitram]

9. One problem with cracking down on illegal gun trafficking is that the NPR has persuaded...

...legislators to bind the hands of law enforcement in the areas of record-keeping and sharing information about gun purchases. Calls to "enforce the laws we already have" ignore that reality.

[hack89]

10. There should not be a national gun registry

any way to share records without doing that should be implemented.

[Nitram]

11. The NSA could get that info if they wanted it.

The paranoia about a national gun registry was just a fund-raising ploy by the NRA. There's nothing in the 2nd Amendment that prohibits a gun registry.

[hack89]

12. Some people think privacy is important. Other people don't.

I agree with the ACLU on this one.

[Nitram]

14. If your gun privacy is more important than the 32,000 gun deaths a year in the U.S...

Gun rights advocates always argue that the solution is not more regulations but better enforcement. Effective enforcement of existing laws is not possible without better registration and tracking tools.

[hack89]

16. It is not like a registry will save that many lives.

it is irrelevant to suicides - it won't stop them. It is irrelevant for mass shootings - crazy people don't care (lets not forget that Adam Lanza's rifle was registered). It is marginally relevant to criminals except that there hundreds of million of unregistered guns from them to choose from and that by law you cannot force felons to register their guns.

A registry will not stop most gun deaths. So lets talk about things that will actually reduce gun deaths. Suicide is the biggest problem so lets start there.

[Nitram]

17. Let's talk about suicide.

The NRA pushes legislation that would make it illegal for doctors to ask a patient about gun ownership. Exactly the kind of question a doctor should ask a suicidal patient. There should be no guns available in a household in which a suicidal person resides.

[hack89]

18. So let's put mental health patients in a registry instead

Last edited Thu Nov 5, 2015, 10:54 AM - Edit history (1)

Doctors can report people that are a danger to themselves or others. That is what NY does.

[Nitram]

19. How is that going to help the suicidal person who has a gun available in the home? nt

[hack89]

20. Once they are identified as suicidal and entered into the database

the cops can go do a home visit and remove any guns. Not complicated.

[Nitram]

21. But that's not legal, Pat. 2nd Amendment!

[hack89]

22. It is perfectly legal

registration is legal under the 2A.

[Bernin4U]

13. Wait, did anyone claim otherwise?

Or is there a point I'm missing?

Will say this, the idea of holding a mfr or reseller responsible for a legally-sold but illegally-used firearm is pure and simple bullshit.

If you want to make guns illegal, that's one thing. I hate guns. I severely question that the current laws truly fit in with the 2nd Amendment. I severely question that they do more good than harm, in terms of ownership for personal protection. But all of that is at least up for debate.

What should not be up for debate is the idea that operating a business legally can actually become illegal, depending on the actions of your customers, or your customers' customers. Whether it's guns or gumballs doesn't matter. That kind of logic is f**ked.

Fight the NRA, sure. But do it the right way. Not the weak-kneed, passive-aggressive, sneak-in-through-the-back type of way. That's exactly the kind of thing that costs so much respect to the government. I'm glad to learn Bernie knows better.

[Nitram]

15. If a seller does not verify that the purchaser is legally allowed to own a firearm...

...they are indeed responsible in my book. Just as a drug seller is responsible for the OD death of someone they sell drugs to.

As for the manufacturers, Bernie Sanders himself has reconsidered and stated: "On the other hand, where there is a problem is there is evidence that manufacturers, gun manufacturers, do know that they’re selling a whole lot of guns in an area that really should not be buying that many guns. That many of those guns are going to other areas, probably for criminal purposes. So can we take another look at that liability issue? Yes."
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/11/bernie-sanders-gun-manufacturers-may-need-held-liable-gun-crime/