search
top

Gillibrand on Tiahrt

Gillibrand is changing her position on Tiahrt, but still sticking to her “needs to fixed” language:

Gillibrand acknowledged backing Tiahrt’s repeal by signing the letter, an aide said, but denied making a 180-degree turn on the measure. Gillibrand said instead that Tiahrt needs to be “fixed.

“I have always supported law enforcement having access to all of the information they need to keep us safe, fight against gun violence and keep guns out of the hands of criminals,” she said in a statement.

Gillibrand said there is language in Tiahrt that “specifically says that it will not limit data sharing for law enforcement.”

But she said New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and others “have made clear that the law does, on occasion, obstruct information-sharing for law enforcement.”

I don’t regret donating to her, because she’ll still be better than than likely alternatives.  McCarthy as a Senator would be a disaster for us.  If this is the issue she picked to part with us on, that’s fine if it helps her avoid a primary challenge from the left.  But it calls into question her reliability on other gun rights issues, and is why I put her down as a maybe on the AWB.  Remember that one of her predecessors, Al D’Amato, voted against the 1994.  It’s not out of the question that she will stick with us on that.  We need to pressure her, and give her reasons not to vote yes.

8 Responses to “Gillibrand on Tiahrt”

  1. SayUncle says:

    ‘I don’t regret donating to her,’

    Well, hopefully, you at least kept a receipt.

  2. Sebastian says:

    She’s better than her primary alternatives, and better than Hillary. Even if she’s not shockingly pro-gun, I will consider it money well spent if it means New York isn’t shipping new leaders in the anti-gun movement to D.C.

  3. Stan says:

    “have made clear that the law does, on occasion, obstruct information-sharing for law enforcement.”

    Why do I have a feeling that these “others” are not law enforcement officers. And if there was obstruction wouldn’t it be against the law which she admits contains language that “specifically says that it will not limit data sharing for law enforcement.”? So would not a better solution be to find who is breaking the law and punish them?

    Sigh…

  4. Dock says:

    Well, yeah, the law does obstruct information sharing, if it’s a fishing expedition.

    As it should be.

  5. Tom says:

    ‘I don’t regret donating to her,’

    Yeah, and I don’t regret the first gun bans, and the next ones and the next and the one after that….

    She’s doing the slippery slope slide and has you hooked like a fish!

  6. Sebastian says:

    She had a good record Tom. I’m not likely to send her any more money unless she votes with us on the important stuff. She was worth a try.

  7. Tom says:

    She ‘s walking proof:

    “would you sleep with me for $1million?

    Yes, ok, how about $5.

    what kind of woman do you think I am?

    We’ve established that, now we’re just negotiating price.

    I’d suggested it a few other places, bloggerview her on the record and get specific reasons why she’s flopping on it.

  8. Sebastian says:

    All politicians are prostitutes Tom. They prostitute their votes in Congress for money and votes in elections. The process isn’t really any more complicated than that, and, unfortunately, principle has very little to nothing to do with it.

top