Hi 30° | Lo 14°

Letter: Ayotte studied the bill, voted her conscience

Some have claimed, while providing no evidence, that Sen. Kelly Ayotte voted against the so-called background check legislation in exchange for money.

The bill that failed was not a truly a background check bill. It was a registration as a prelude to confiscation bill.

The base bill on the Senate floor used model language from Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York. Besides gun sales, it also applied to temporary and innocent transfers – like letting your spouse borrow your gun for a few hours to take it to the target range. The expansive language would have felonized almost every American gun owner – and that’s not a concept that has 90 percent support.

The Manchin-Toomey substitute avoided the temporary transfer problem. But it was hastily drafted in secret and poorly written. For example, the language, which claimed to outlaw federal gun registration, would actually have legalized one form of registration that is currently banned: building a registry from the sales records that firearms dealers are required to send to the government when they retire from business.

It has become obvious that Ayotte voted her conscience, and New Hampshire should be grateful that she actually studied the bill, knew what it would do and rejected it.

Ayotte says she 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.

In recent days we have seen our TV screens flooded with anti-Ayotte commercials paid for by Bloomberg. Do independent-thinking New Hampshire people really need New York City billionaire Bloomberg to tell us how to vote?


New London

Legacy Comments10

Ayotte obviously did not study the bill, or she would have recognized how easy it would be for her critics to expose her lies about it. And if Ayotte voted her conscience, it is a conscience well within the NRA’s price range.

Looks like the Astro-turfing by the the National Democrat party and their and their puppets at the Monitor didn't work. Too bad NH voters can think for themselves and they like Kelly Ayotte and hey reject the lies of the Bloombergs of this world who want to buy elections.

The bill she voted for does not address gun shows. The bill was political cover for senators too gutless and/or too beholden to the special interests to do what 90% of American people wanted. That is all the GOP is doing these days -- giving cover to the spineless who are more concerned about their own futures than the futures of their constituents.

First and foremost, 90% of the American people did not support this bill in its entirety. Second, since when do we use polls when voting in Congress or deciding our stand on any issue. 68% if the population did not support Obamacare and it passed through dirty tricks, where was your false outrage then? For decades over 60% of the population was against abortion, were you critical then? I just bought two guns, I went through a background check. Nothing in that bill, would have prevented the Newtown tragedy. From the get go, Obama and progressives used it as a political tool to attempt to get more gun control. Obama flying families of the victims on AF 1 and using them as props was shameful and gutless. You are all wet on this one.......it had much more in it than expanded background checks or gun shows. If you want that, let's get a one pager going, would you support that?

Veritas, I was hoping for more than than school -age insult spurting. Think 3-d ,printers will be inhibited by that proposal or any "law"? Would that or any such law stop stabbings, muggings, home invasions? Why would you want a law that criminalizes law abiding citizens for lending a hunting rifle to neighbor? Why do you fear a law-abiding citizen with a weapon more than assailants, rapists and murders? Who is telling you that bis logical thinking & why?

TCB, progressives fear an armed citizenry. Napolitano has stockpiled ammunition, ordered armored vehicles, etc. They fear the citizens they represent because the citizens are aware of the fact that they 'ruling' and not representing the best interest and wishes of the general populace. Bottom line, progressives know that as long as people have guns, they can not rule by soft tyranny or worse.

"Do independent-thinking New Hampshire people really need New York City billionaire Bloomberg to tell us how to vote?" No more than we need the NRA and their lackey's. Unfortunately Senator Ayotte is hardly an independent thinking spokesman for NH. She was the darling of the GOP and special interest groups. Her "famous" conviction could have been handled by a trained monkey since it was a slam dunk case. She left office just in time to distance herself from the FRM ponzi scandal that happened under her watch, with her famous not my job claim. So lets keep some perspective, to keep her office she has to keep in the news. What better way than appealing to nationwide cadre of gun rights fanatics.

"....nationwide cadre of gun rights fanatics." Also known as Bloombergs security detail.

My sentiments exactly Mauser1. When we could vote for comments on this site it saved time by a simple vote, and cheap shots by me at the cheap republicans, :)

Sadly- more school yard insult attempts. Now, let's try again, the ISSUE (not the person)....was. How can any group that only uses ad hom attacks in a debate be taken seriously? Such only describes the powerless.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.