• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

NH Senator Ayotte has removed all comments suporting 2A from her website

Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
3,387
Likes
3,059
Feedback: 4 / 0 / 0
In the wake of the shooting in Ct last year it would appear that NH Sen Ayotte has removed all comments from her website supporting 2A

I've contacted her office regarding this issue as well as her abject failure to protect our rights in her vote for USA Patriot Act, NDAA and a raft of other big gov progressive legislation.

The fact that she's removed all support of 2A from her website is very troubling and merits a raft of calls, letters and emails from constituents

Issues | Kelly Ayotte - United States Senator
 
Didn't she ride the whole "small government, tea-party" thing to victory? Does that philosophy go out the window as soon as she won? I gotta say, overall I am quite displeased with Ayotte...I really though NH had picked a winner there too.

Not only did she cave and vote to raise taxes this year, but while Rand Paul was filibustering where was she...? Having dinner with Obama and McCain if I'm not mistaken...?
 
Just because she changed some shit on her website doesn't mean she's changed her stance.

E-mail or write the lady, and you'll get her stance. It's solidly pro-2A, stongly anti-gun control.

Talk about "like a weed blows in the wind." That phrase better describes the support of many around here.

- - - Updated - - -

She wore the hat and waved the flag and happily let people believe she was from that faction, but anyone who paid attention to her actions as AG knew she loves the police state and government power.

I have to strongly disagree here. As AG, she authored the opinion that open carry was not a reason to stop and investigate someone, and specifically mentioned "public alarm" at seeing a gun does not trump one's 2A rights. That was a damn unpopular opinion with law enforcement.
 
Just because she changed some shit on her website doesn't mean she's changed her stance.

E-mail or write the lady, and you'll get her stance. It's solidly pro-2A, stongly anti-gun control.

Talk about "like a weed blows in the wind." That phrase better describes the support of many around here.

- - - Updated - - -



I have to strongly disagree here. As AG, she authored the opinion that open carry was not a reason to stop and investigate someone, and specifically mentioned "public alarm" at seeing a gun does not trump one's 2A rights. That was a damn unpopular opinion with law enforcement.

True, but it makes a big difference when the condition and influence of it applies to someone in, or running for public office.
 
she does come from a law enforcement background, so what do you expect. she will flip to stay in "power"

And that would be disqualifier number one for ever receiving my vote. The bias is already established, whether its overtly expressed or not.
 
Just because she changed some shit on her website doesn't mean she's changed her stance.

E-mail or write the lady, and you'll get her stance. It's solidly pro-2A, stongly anti-gun control.

Talk about "like a weed blows in the wind." That phrase better describes the support of many around here.

- - - Updated - - -



I have to strongly disagree here. As AG, she authored the opinion that open carry was not a reason to stop and investigate someone, and specifically mentioned "public alarm" at seeing a gun does not trump one's 2A rights. That was a damn unpopular opinion with law enforcement.

I saw that, thought I would get to trump you by getting her latest response which I only glanced at half asleep on my phone.

I actually read it just now and well, I can't trump your statement.
Here is what she wrote, and yes it is a form letter.

March 8, 2013

Dear soloman02:

Thank you for contacting me regarding recent gun control proposals and other efforts to reduce violence. I appreciate hearing from you.

Like all Americans, I was shocked and deeply saddened by the murders of innocent children and educators in Newtown, Connecticut. As the mother of two young children, it is difficult to imagine the pain felt by the parents of the children who were murdered. My thoughts and prayers remain with the victims, their families, and the Newtown community.

As President Obama said, "no single law or set of laws will eliminate evil." In the wake of this horrific tragedy, I welcome a renewed and thoughtful discussion in Washington and across the country about how we can best prevent senseless acts of violence.

Moving forward, we need to be careful to ensure that we do not infringe on the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. As a former murder prosecutor, I believe our focus should be on enforcing current federal laws to ensure that criminals and those who are "adjudicated as a mental defective" by reason of being a danger to himself or others (as defined by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives at 27 C.F.R. Section 478.11 and prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(4)) do not possess firearms. We also should engage in an honest discussion about improving our mental health system, while working with law enforcement and local community leaders on school safety measures. These are areas where I believe we can achieve bipartisan consensus.

On January 16, 2013, President Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum outlining proposals to reduce gun violence. These proposals include a so-called "assault weapons" ban, universal background checks, prohibiting high-capacity magazines, increasing access to mental health services, and school safety measures. Subsequently, on January 24, 2013, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced S. 150, a bill that would ban 157 firearm makes and models and also limit magazine capacities to 10 or fewer rounds. Other proposals may be offered, and I will certainly review each carefully.

First, any discussion about reducing violence must begin with our Constitution. Our Bill of Rights clearly protects the right to self-defense. The Second Amendment to the Constitution states: "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In 2008, the United States Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller (554 U.S. 570) that the Second Amendment does, in fact, confer an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

As well as respecting constitutional limits, I believe that our laws should protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. I appreciate that many New Hampshire citizens possess firearms for recreation, hunting, and self-defense. In fact, my husband, who is an Iraq war veteran, often participates in shooting competitions at our local fish and game club. Based on my experience as a prosecutor, I do not believe we will stop criminals or mentally ill individuals intent on illegally obtaining and misusing firearms by restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

With those principles as a guide, I do not support a so-called "assault weapons" ban or arbitrary limits on magazine capacities as contained in Senator Feinstein's bill. This legislation is very broad, banning many common models of semi-automatic firearms lawfully owned by citizens, including three very popular models of rifles. While the legislation would grandfather current firearm owners, allowing them to keep the newly banned guns, it would also take the unusual and confiscatory step of requiring the forfeiture of those firearms to the government upon the owner's death.

It is important to understand that there was an "assault weapons" ban in effect from 1994 to 2004. A report submitted in 2004 to the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and the National Institute of Justice evaluated the effectiveness of the ban. That study, conducted by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology at the University of Pennsylvania, found no statistically significant evidence that either the "assault weapons" ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders.

I do believe that there are improvements we should make to our existing background check system to stop criminals and others prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law from obtaining them. For example, all federally licensed firearms dealers are required to contact law enforcement to conduct a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) search regardless of where they sell the firearms. However, there is a deficiency in what records are being entered into NICS. Although it is illegal to sell or transfer a firearm to an individual who is adjudicated as mentally incompetent, many states, including New Hampshire, are not entering all relevant records into NICS. It also appears that in many states, including New Hampshire, once an individual is in the system as mentally incompetent, there is no way to appropriately petition to be removed from this list if he or she has received treatment and is deemed to have recovered.

Following the Virginia Tech tragedy, the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA; Public Law 110-180) was enacted to, among other things, encourage states to make more records available for use during NICS background checks. However, according to a July 2012 Government Accountability Office report, only 12 states dramatically increased the number of mental health records available for use during NICS background checks, and most states made very little progress in entering these records. As of October 2011, there were four states that had not submitted any mental health records at all, and 17 states that had submitted fewer than 10. New Hampshire had only submitted two records. Some states have not entered these records because of concerns that privacy laws, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA; Public Law 104-191), prevent them from providing mental health records to NICS.

We must eliminate legal barriers to ensure that records of individuals who are adjudicated as mentally incompetent get included in the NICS index. We also need to more effectively enforce current laws. Astonishingly, according to the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Virginia, of an estimated 80,000 people who failed background checks under NICS in fiscal year 2012 (e.g., fugitives, domestic abusers, felons, and mentally ill individuals), the DOJ prosecuted only 44 for attempting to purchase a firearm-essentially sending a signal that individuals who are prohibited by law from owning a gun won't be punished for breaking the law by trying to obtain one.

While I believe there is much we can do to improve our background check system and enforce existing laws, I do have concerns with "universal" background check proposals that retain the records of law-abiding citizens in a way that could be used to create a firearms registry that would infringe on privacy rights. I also believe we should respect the current rights of law-abiding citizens to transfer their firearms to family members.

Finally, any discussion of how we stem violence must address the deficiencies in our mental health system. We should re-examine our laws to ensure they are effective. Having worked with law enforcement, I recognize that there are not enough treatment options for mentally ill individuals. A 2006 DOJ study found that 56 percent of state prisoners, 45 percent of federal prisoners, and 64 percent of local jail inmates suffer from mental health challenges. There appears to be a bipartisan consensus that there is much more we can do to improve our mental health system.

That is why I have joined Senator Al Franken (D-MN) in introducing the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Act, which would expand mental health services available to inmates. I also worked with Senators Mark Begich (D-AK) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) to introduce the Mental Health First Aid Act, which is designed to expand mental health first aid training in communities across the nation.

In the weeks ahead, I am willing to work with any of my colleagues who are serious about finding solutions that will prevent mass shootings without infringing on Americans' Second Amendment rights. With a firm commitment to our Constitution, I will carefully review and evaluate all proposals to reduce violence. While there are no easy answers to address mass gun violence in our society, there are steps we can take right now to ensure our background check system is fully enforced while working to improve early intervention with mentally ill individuals.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. As your Senator, it is important to hear from you regarding the current issues affecting New Hampshire and our nation. Please do not hesitate to be in touch again if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,
Signature
Kelly A. Ayotte
U. S. Senator
 
I saw that, thought I would get to trump you by getting her latest response which I only glanced at half asleep on my phone.

I actually read it just now and well, I can't trump your statement.
Here is what she wrote, and yes it is a form letter.

Good stuff, and unequivocally pro-gun. Not wishy-washy at all. Note, too, that she directly hammers home the NRA points about fully enforcing the current background check system (not expanding it) and working for intervention with the mentally ill (not increasing that definition).

And in fairness, anyone who wrote that much NOT as a form letter has not time to do anything else in Congress.
 
Guy joins in January- has one post, in March in which he trashes a politician for a perceived slight. That her web site doesn't mention 2A anything.

Disinformation perhaps?

Yeah she has a law enforcement background- but her response is quite solid for a politician- please point out any other congress critter in New England - hell the NorthEast- who has made more supportive statements regarding 2A rights.

Try to think a little folks.
 
In the wake of the shooting in Ct last year it would appear that NH Sen Ayotte has removed all comments from her website supporting 2A

I've contacted her office regarding this issue as well as her abject failure to protect our rights in her vote for USA Patriot Act, NDAA and a raft of other big gov progressive legislation.

The fact that she's removed all support of 2A from her website is very troubling and merits a raft of calls, letters and emails from constituents

Issues | Kelly Ayotte - United States Senator

Another [troll] ?
 
Ayotte is very much the functional equivalent of Scott Brown.

She ran as a small gov progressive and since being elected has done nothing but allign herself with big gov progressives like McSame, McConnell and others.

Shaheen is a lost cause....there is no turning her from the "dark side". she will never see reason and as such our only recourse is to remove her in (2014) and replace her with someone that WILL defend our rights (ALL of them).

Ayotte on the other hand "may" be salvagable.

The entire point of my OP was to raise awareness to the fact that Ayotte is retreating from her previous support of RKBA

Combine this with her ABYSMAL record on defending our rights and you have a situation where she may sell us out on RKBA to get some bigger deal that she's more interested in.

Spend some time looking at roll call votes over on the US Senate website and you'll start to realize that Ayotte is voting like a big gov establishment progressive and not someone interested in defending our rights or stuffing the fed gov back into its constitutional limits.

Her support of Patriot Act, NDAA and the senate version of SOPA should illustrate the dangerous position we're in with Ayotte........combine that with her failure to attempt to reign in DHS, TSA, EPA and a raft of other runaway agencies and you start to get the picture that unless we hold her feet to the flamethrower we're in for problems.

Ayotte NEEDS to hear from tens of thousands of us and we need to let her know that we've not only noticed that she's backing away from RKBA but that we won't tolerate it if she expects to be anything more than a one term wonder.

Prove she's backing away from RKBA, with real evidence (testimony, voting record, etc), not just "something is gone from her website! Oh, the noes!!" So far, you're the only sheep bleating.

If the troll fits, wear it.
 
So what you're trying to say is that despite the fact that I'm right on every single point in pointing out that Ayotte is publicly waffling on her support of RKBA that I may be a troll?

I'd love to hear more about the thought process that drove you and others to that conclusion :)

No, I said you're wrong on every single point, and that you've offered no proof of "waffling." Makes me wonder who you are and what your 3-total-post agenda is.

You saw her e-mail on RKBA. You can't get much plainer support than that.

Back under the bridge. I see the 3 Billy Goats Gruff on the way.
 
I gotta say, jpk is the only one I see throwing out real facts here...I actually agree with him. He's not saying she's a total loss, but if you look at her record on big issues it's not very reassuring.

Lets not forget too, the entire concept of the "tea-party, small government" candidates was NOT raising taxes...she DID vote to raise taxes this past December/January when all that was going on. Did everyone forget that big debate that was going on around Christmas/New Years already? Well they raised taxes and where are we? Still spending grossly more than we take in...a lot of good that did. I for one, DID see my taxes go up this year, and its discouraging to know it makes ZERO difference in our countries financial situation.

Regardless of her vote, raising taxes would have passed...but I'd like to see her actually stand by what she promised she'd do, and that included NOT raising taxes. In my eyes, her voting yes was just an attempt to "gain popularity" with the more left-leaning masses. If she runs on a platform of small government, lower taxes I expect that be adhered to.
 
Last edited:
jpk- understand- this is a shooting forum, and you join, first post (and frankly most of your posts so far) have been pretty much bashing one politician.

If you can't see that as possibly suspicious, you haven't been paying attention.

I agree Sen Ayotte is not perfect, but she's a hell of a lot better than everything else we've got, and more likely the best we can expect. I don't think Bob Smith would get re-elected in NH if he ran again.

At this point rather than focus energy on a politician who is close to our side- and isn't facing an election until 2016-we should focus on candidates for the 2014 election- when Shaheen, Kuster and Shea-Porter all face re-election.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom