Subscribe to
Posts
Comments

The “Conservatives Against Fred Thompson” have posted a list of votes Fred Thompson has cast which they view as anti-Second Amendment. While I have not been able to verify these statements independently, it looks like they have done their homework. Calling some of these “anti-gun votes” is a bit of a stretch, but if they reveal a pattern of thought, they’re fair game.

Fred Thompson’s Anti-Gun Senate Record

The Conservatives Against Fred Thompson volunteers have compiled a list of proposals supported by Fred Dalton Thompson in the senate that include Gun Bans, confiscations and limitations to the free speech of Gun Rights Advocates. Dates and bill numbers are provided so this information can be easily verified. Summary:

1. Anti-gun terror bill (S. 735 )

On June 7, 1995, the Senate passed an anti-gun terror bill (S. 735) by a vote of 91-8. This version of the terror bill included: a BATF pay increase of $100 million; a provision authorizing “roving wiretaps” allowing government officials to wiretap one’s home if a person under investigation visits the home — even if one had no knowledge the person was a suspect; a weakening of the Posse Commitatus law to give the military more authority to get involved in law enforcement in certain circumstances; a grant of power to the FBI to conduct “fishing expeditions” and secure one’s financial and travel records in certain circumstances without any evidence one has committed a crime; and finally, the “Randy Weaver entrapment provision” which extends the statute of limitations for violations under the National Firearms Act of 1934 from three to five years. Thompson voted in favor of the bill.

2. Anti-gun terror bill — final passage

On April 17, 1996, the Senate passed the conference version of the anti-terrorism bill by a vote of 91-8. The final version of the bill (S. 735) contained several problems, including ones that will: order an “anti-hunter” rifle and ammo study; authorize a $40 million pay increase for the BATF (through the Treasury Department); potentially punish gun dealers (and individuals) for selling ammunition to someone they should have known would commit a violent crime; federalize many state crimes, thus tremendously increasing the scope and jurisdiction of the BATF; restrict the right of habeas corpus in such a way as to severely damage the ability of the courts to rescue honest gun owners who are unjustly incarcerated; allow the government to use “secret evidence” against certain individuals; remove protections against wiretapping wireless data; and require banks to freeze the assets of domestic groups in certain situations. Thompson once again voted in favor of the bill.

3. Taggants in gunpowder

On September 12, 1996, the Senate voted (57-42) to keep an anti-gun amendment off of the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill (H.R. 3756). The Kerry amendment — which Thompson voted for– would have made funds available for a study of tagging explosive materials, including black and smokeless powders (thus setting the stage for registering ammunition). The amendment also sought to further demonize firearms by selectively examining the misuse of firearms by criminals. The study would not examine the number of times firearms are used to save the lives of decent citizens.

4. Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation gun ban

On September 12, 1996, the Senate passed the Lautenberg gun ban as an amendment to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill (H.R. 3756). The Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation Gun Ban disarms gun owners for small (misdemeanor) offenses in the home — “offenses” as slight as spanking a child or grabbing a spouse. This lifetime ban, in certain cases, can even be imposed without a trial by jury. It is also retroactive, so it does not matter if the offense occurred 20 years ago. Thompson voted in favor of the amendment.

5. Free Speech restrictions

On October 7, 1997, the Senate defeated an “Incumbent Protection Bill” (S. 25) which would have resulted in the government regulation of GOA’s newsletters and other communications with its members, while expanding the relative political power of the liberal media and other anti-gun forces. Senators failed in their effort, 53 to 47, to shut down a filibuster of the bill that was ostensibly aimed at reforming campaign finance laws.

6. Smith “Anti-Brady” Amendment

On July 21, 1998, pro-gun Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) introduced an “Anti-Brady” amendment that passed by a vote of 69-31. The Smith amendment would prohibit the FBI from using Brady background checks to tax or register gun owners. Further, the amendment requires the “immediate destruction of all [gun buyer] information, in any form whatsoever.” Finally, if the FBI disregards this latter provision, the Smith language will allow private citizens to sue the agency and collect monetary damages, including attorney’s fees. Thompson, in keeping with his tendency to usually vote for expanded federal police power, voted against this limitation of FBI registration of gun owners.

7. Anti-gun Clinton judge appointment

On February 11, 1998, the Senate voted 67-28 to confirm Margaret Morrow to the Federal bench. GOA vigorously opposed this Clinton-appointed judge, as she has not only taken strident anti-gun positions, she has showed herself to be a gun control activist.

8. Anti-gun Surgeon General

Having nominated anti-gun David Satcher for Surgeon General, President Bill Clinton was forced to wait several months as debate raged over his controversial pick. But on February 10, 1998, the President finally realized victory. By a vote of 75-23, anti-gun Republicans teamed up with the Democrats to kill the filibuster over the Satcher nomination. Mr. Satcher was later confirmed by a vote of 63-35. Since the key vote was to end the filibuster, that is the one that was rated by GOA.

9. Ending the filibuster of a major anti-gun crime bill

On July 28, 1999, the Senate ended a filibuster led by Senator Bob Smith (I-NH) — a filibuster intended to keep anti-gun crime legislation from progressing any further. After the 77-22 vote, the Senate moved to send the language of the anti-gun Senate crime bill (S. 254) to a House-Senate conference committee. Thompson voted to break the pro-gun filibuster.

10. Young adult gun ban

The young adult gun ban could severely punish parents who allow their kids to even touch a so-called semi-automatic “assault weapon.” While the amendment allows for certain exemptions, there are some imponderable questions which NO senator could answer, but which a parent would have to answer in order to avoid incarceration. For example: What is a “semiautomatic assault weapon”? The definition, plus exemptions, takes up six pages of fine print in the U.S. Code. Second, a child can handle a banned semi-auto if he is in the “immediate and supervisory presence” of a parent or if he possess a written permission slip from the parent. But what happens when, during a target practice session, the parent walks to the car to retrieve his lunch and the juvenile is no longer in the parents “immediate” presence and does not have a permission slip? A parent can receive jail time for this infraction. The provision passed the Senate on May 13, 1999, with Thompson voting in the majority.

11. Adopting the “Gun Control Lite” strategy

On May 13, 1999, a majority of Senators — including Thompson — defeated a motion to table (or kill) an anti-gun amendment introduced by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Larry Craig (R-WY). This amendment was offered as an alternative to gun control proposals being pushed by Sen. Frank Lautenberg.

12. McCain’s Incumbent Protection (2000 version)

By 59 to 41, the Senate passed S. 27, to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act to include Incumbent Protection provisions. The bill severely curtails the ability of outside groups such as GOA to communicate the actions of incumbent politicians to members and supporters prior to an election.

13. Incumbent Protection (2002 failed filibuster)

This was the key vote in the Senate regarding the odious Incumbent Protection bill in 2002 (H.R. 2356). The legislation finally became law that year. As he had on previous occasions, Thompson voted in favor of the bill.

Source: Conservatives Against Fred Thompson

 

A commentor named Bob Barney added the following, votes that are more
pro-gun:

Here are some other votes which Fred made on guns - that I don’t see listed here:

Voted NO on background checks at gun shows.
Require background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows.
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)50; N)50; VP decided YES
Reference: Lautenberg Amdt #362; Bill S. 254 ; vote number 1999-134 on May 20, 1999

Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations.
The Hatch amdt would increase mandatory penalties for the illegal transfer or use of firearms, fund additional drug case prosecutors, and require background check on purchasers at gun shows. [A YES vote supports stricter penalties].
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)48; N)47; NV)5
Reference: Hatch Amendment #344; Bill S. 254 ; vote number 1999-118 on May 14, 1999

Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows.
Vote to table or kill a motion to require that all gun sales at gun shows be completed by federally licensed gun dealers. Also requires background checks to be completed on buyers and requires gun show promoters to register with the Treasury.
Reference: Bill S.254 ; vote number 1999-111 on May 11, 1999

Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks.
Vote to table [kill] an amendment to make it unlawful for gun dealers to sell handguns without providing trigger locks. Violation of the law would result in civil penalties, such as suspension or revocation of the dealer’s license, or a fine.
Reference: Bill S 2260 ; vote number 1998-216 on Jul 21, 1998

Source: Conservatives Against Fred Thompson

While I have no desire to be “fair and balanced” about gun rights, I think some balance in this discussion is warranted. Thompson has made some powerful statements in support of the right to keep and bear arms, particularly his ABC posting on the Virginia Tech shooting, entitled “Signs of Intelligence.”  Excerpting:

One of the things that’s got to be going through a lot of peoples’ minds now is how one man with two handguns, that he had to reload time and time again, could go from classroom to classroom on the Virginia Tech campus without being stopped. Much of the answer can be found in policies put in place by the university itself.

Virginia, like 39 other states, allows citizens with training and legal permits to carry concealed weapons. That means that Virginians regularly sit in movie theaters and eat in restaurants among armed citizens. They walk, joke, and rub shoulders everyday with people who responsibly carry firearms — and are far safer than they would be in San Francisco, Oakland, Detroit, Chicago, New York City, or Washington, D.C., where such permits are difficult or impossible to obtain…

…So Virginians asked their legislators to change the university’s “concealed carry” policy to exempt people 21 years of age or older who have passed background checks and taken training classes. The university, however, lobbied against that bill, and a top administrator subsequently praised the legislature for blocking the measure…

…The statistics are clear. Communities that recognize and grant Second Amendment rights to responsible adults have a significantly lower incidence of violent crime than those that do not. More to the point, incarcerated criminals tell criminologists that they consider local gun laws when they decide what sort of crime they will commit, and where they will do so…

…Whenever I’ve seen one of those “Gun-free Zone” signs, especially outside of a school filled with our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, I’ve always wondered exactly who these signs are directed at. Obviously, they don’t mean much to the sort of man who murdered 32 people just a few days ago.  Source

 

Speaking to reporters in Miami, Thompson was quoted this way:

On the day South Florida mourned a slain police officer, Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson stopped in Miami and stuck firmly to his guns over what he says is the unnecessary call for limiting the right to bear arms.

‘’I do not think that abrogating Second Amendment rights is a good idea,'’ the Republican said at the Versailles in Little Havana.

‘’The amount of violence created on the street by these kinds of weapons is very, very small,'’ Thompson said. “It’s too bad. It’s horrendous. Any kind — whether it’s a knife or an IED [improvised explosive device] or a gun — innocent people, especially law enforcement officers, are vulnerable all the time; we know that. But on balance, you’ve got to ask what is good for society and what does the Second Amendment say.'’ Source: The Miami Herald

Speaking at the Lakeland Rifle and Pistol Club’s gun show on 9/15/07, Thompson said:

“It’s never made sense to me why when you have violent crime in the streets the first thing people want to return to is restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens.” Source: The St. Petersburg Times

None of the top level candidates (meaning those who are showing substantial support in the polls) are pure on gun rights. This group would be Giuliani, Romney and Fred Thompson. Probably the only “candidate” who is really “pure” on the Second Amendment is Ron Paul, and as I have said before, I don’t see Ron Paul as having a real chance of being elected president. Also, Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee are excellent on gun rights.

It is legitimate to ask if it is better to vote your principles and let the chips fall where they may, even if it means that a far more anti-gun candidate will be elected, or to make some compromises with the real world and support people who have a reasonable chance of actually being elected. Everyone has to make this calculation for themselves. Among the top echelon players, Thompson appears to be the strongest candidate on the Second Amendment, at least for now.

18 Responses to “More on Fred Thompson and Gun Control”

  1. on 06 Sep 2007 at 10:43 pmRichard in Austin

    Fred sounds great, he really does.
    He makes all the right noises, sounds real folksy.
    He sure talks a good Constitutional line of patter.

    - BUT -

    What he does is not very impressive. His voting record can be verified, and frankly, it sucks. He also happens to be a member of the CFR, and he believes that the government’s first priority is to protect itself. No thank you, I’m not buying.

    As far as I’m concerned, only Ron Paul will do - he has more honor and integrity than all the rest of the candidates combined.

    http://freedomjoyadventure.blogspot.com/

  2. on 08 Sep 2007 at 12:49 pmJohn Fox

    I guess in an ideal world a pure 2nd. Amendment politican would be wonderful. However, we live in a world that will have another Clinton for President. I believe Thompson will be our best chance.

  3. on 08 Sep 2007 at 12:56 pmWill S

    I don’t think there’s any doubt in my mind as to how Fred Thompson stands on The People’s 2nd Amendment Right; his record is crystalline as opposed to Mitt Romney or Rudy Guiliani. The only two candidates that I believe mirror Senator Thompson’s views are Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter. Not to mention Fred’s last name is Thompson.

  4. on 08 Sep 2007 at 2:04 pmLee in SC

    I thought Thompson would be a great alternative until I studied his voting record and it is obvious that is is a definite “Anti-Gun, Anti-2nd Amendment” candidate.

    Ron Paul is the only REAL Pro 2nd Amendment Candidate to vote for. He also is not a CFR member nor a United Nations backer. I wish I had a million bucks to donate to his election fund. He is a real American…..

    Oh, and I am an ex US History and Government teacher if that is of any value today.

  5. on 09 Sep 2007 at 7:15 amJack Hamilton

    What a crock to try and smear Fr4ed Thompson as being anti second amendment. The fact is those trying to pass that drivil off are simply liars. They should never be trusted in an outhouse with a muzxell on. Dispicable to try and strech this crap as being anti gun. The man grew nup with guns and owns more fire arms than these liars will ever see.

  6. on 09 Sep 2007 at 5:49 pmflab0y

    voting recors are voting records. show a man’s intentions

  7. on 17 Sep 2007 at 1:11 amJeff Jacobson

    I am not really sure about Fred as yet: but he does appear to be the best choice in 2008. I wish we could eliminate the parties altogether and have ALL CANDIDATES COME FROM THE GRASS ROOTS! Sadly we are a long way off from that. I Have noticed that many people support Ron Paul, but he is not the perfect candidate either. I think he would be better in a cabinet position.At any rate, I view Thompson as the most conservative candidate with any kind of chance of winning against the democrats: as such, he is the obvious choice in primaries. I wish to add, that I will hopefully publish a book tentatively titled “The Greater of Good” In this book, I outline plans for an amendment to the constitution that would “eliminate the dominance of the political parties” I call this the “Elimination Electoral Process”. The goal of this process is to draw the candidate base from the grass roots and even the playing field between the rich and poor. If we accomplish this, then we will finally have a chance at leaders who reflect our true beliefs rather than the choices offered by a few very rich interests.

  8. on 17 Sep 2007 at 1:36 amJeff Jacobson

    I have a question , does anyone out there have info on Thompson’s position on the war? I personally believe that we had no choice but to go into Iraq, for several reasons, but I feel that we have not conducted the war with the right mind set or tactics. My son in law was killed in Karbala by the some of the the “Al Sadr Group”. We allowed them to retain”Small Arms”, including RPG’s when we had the chance to disarm them. They are a conquered people, not a liberated friend and we should treat them as such. We have an obligation to WIN EVERY WAR WE BECOME INVOLVED IN!!!!! We are Americans and must behave as we did in World War II! We can debate the wisdom of the reasons for initial involvement latter, but since we are already in this , we must see it through to victory. How does it serve us to lose? I think we should simply send in a huge number of troops, and completely take possession of Iraq until it is stable, and until we have recovered the cost of the war. We will have to rebuild the infrastructure of this country in order to realize any profits from this(which will benefit the Iraqi’s as well) but we must make it worth our effort ! I wonder how Fred Thompsom would proceed in this war. Anyway if any one has heard his position please post it here? Thanks

  9. […] Seems his record isn’t that stellar. […]

  10. […] In a good post, Front Sight, Press examines Fred’s record on his votes that could affect gun rights. Good comments, too. […]

  11. on 18 Sep 2007 at 7:32 amRobb Allen

    Never fails. Post anything about anyone and a Ronnite pops in to tell us how the only one who can save the constitution as well as the United States is RON PAUL! For a bunch of Libertarians, they sure seem anxious to give one man a lot of power.

    Ron Paul has a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected president. Ron Paul has the exact opposite chance of getting Hillary! elected if he tries to run as an independent. He *will* suck away enough votes to ensure that.

    Now, back to Fred. Can anyone narrow down his reasoning for voting for some of these items? Politics isn’t a game where you get to stick 100% by your principles. Sometimes you have to give a little to gain something (a tact Ron Paul fails to attempt, and therefore fails to get anything done which is why I believe he’d fail as President).

    I abhor the McCain Feingold act and his voting for it is a stain again him, but at this point no other (viable) alternative is available.

    All politicians to me are evil, so it’s always going to be a lesser of them when I vote.

  12. on 18 Sep 2007 at 11:08 amcountertop

    Oh come on now.

    That site is a crock of shit. Its put out by Kansans for Life. To try and smear Fred Thompson as being anti gun is complete and utter bullshit - though it tends to be par for the course for the entire looney side of the right wing (and that statement is also 100% directed at the dishonest scamsters at GOA - even though I have no proof of their involvement in this site yet)

    To try and mix gun rights with abortion politics is outrageous, and we gunnies need to scream from the tree tops on this.

    All these votes are bullshit. What, he was going to vote no on a bill that passed 92-8??????? Are they crazy??? Do they really want Hillary in office (in the case of the money grubbing lying POSs at GOA, I’d say yes - all the better to fund raise off of).

    Taggants in gunpowder???? Oh yes, like Thompson wanted a national registry of gunpowder. They know, as well as everyone else, that is not what was being sought. Rather it was a (not well thought out) response to the explosives in the Oklahoma bombing.

    You know what . . . its not even worth criticizing the rest . . . they are attacking him because he voted on the nomination of someone to be Surgeon General?? And a judge???? Are they serious????? Does their shit not stink??????? Didn’t we just engage in that battle for the last 6 years, arguing that “elections” matter and the President who won has a right to nominate those he likes to vacancies?????

    Come on know!!!

  13. on 18 Sep 2007 at 11:47 amSyd

    Countertop, did you even read the article? The balance of my article is very pro-Fred. Further, it’s not “bullshit” if he in fact cast those votes. You may not agree with their agenda (I certainly don’t), but if he cast those votes he has to own up to them. They are fair game. If there are legislative skeletons in the closet, I’d rather find out about them early rather than later. If his voting record is being misrepresented, then it’s “bullshit,” but I believe they are being faithful to the record as far as I have been able to check.

    Also, very few people are pure “one-issue voters.” They often care about a constellation of issues. One common link is pro-gun and anti-abortion, just as many liberals are anti-gun and pro-abortion. So, the political discussion usually proceeds around groupings of issues rather than just one.

    Finally, why would an anti-abortion group be trying to torpedo Thompson? His statements on abortion have been unambiguously anti-abortion.

    Honestly, I think you’re over-reacting just a bit.

  14. on 18 Sep 2007 at 2:40 pmcountertop

    Syd,

    My anger (scorn) wasn’t directed at you (and sorry for being testy, but having to deal with PETA folks day in and day out and then the crap that GOA pulls just gets irritating).

    Your post itself is fine, its the Conservatives Against Fred post put up by the Kansans For Life that irritates me.

    His record is certainly his record, but to color this as an anti gun voting record is ludicrous and dishonest and they know it.

    As far as why anti abortion groups want to target Thompson???? Well, in the national election they probably don’t. But in a primary, a candidate like Thompson threatens to significantly reduce their influence as they see him easily take support away from the much more conservative issue candidates like Brownback (Abortion - and he’s from Kansas if you wnt to put 2 and 2 together) or Tancredo (Immigrations) etc without paying his appropriate dues to their sub issue. Its not that he’s anti abortion, only that he threatens the ability of them to have a strong showing for Brownback.

  15. on 18 Sep 2007 at 3:32 pmRick C

    I dunno, lately, most of the posts put out by Ron Paul True Believers make me think “I’m the only one Constitutional enough in this race, that I know of,” *BOOM*

  16. on 19 Sep 2007 at 9:48 amRich

    The reality is that we can be one issue and say that Ron Paul is the only one but he has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning. So he ends of being a Ross Perot, draining votes away from other candidates.

    Can Fred win it - I don’t know. He is more pro 2A than any other others including the current president. I voted for bush because of what the alternative would be not that I was all that thrilled with him.

    To me the major good he had done is gotten two fairly conservative judges on the Supreme court.

    Will I vote for Fred, Given the current crop most likely. Will I be very happy, most likely not but I will be happy if we don’t get Hillary.

    Actually, make that very happy if we don’t get Hillary.

  17. on 19 Sep 2007 at 10:25 amgeekWithA.45

    I concur w/ Countertop.

    The Kansan’s recitation of Fred’s votes is a fundamentally dishonest (mis) representation of his position on gun issues, and needs no further consideration.

  18. […] 7)http://www.snubnose.info/wordpress/rkba/more-on-fred-thompson-and-gun-control/ […]

Leave a Reply