Dr. Phil Gingrey is a Republican congressman representing my home district, the 11th of Georgia. He has had a very strong pro-second amendment record in the past, and he was rated A+ by the NRA and endorsed by them in the last election.
Yet, following the Connecticut shootings, he made some disconcerting statements in a speech to a local business group, which I reported on here. In that speech, he seemed to advocate a magazine capacity limit, and an expansion of background checks.
This speech didn’t make much news for those stances, however, because in the same speech he contended that his experience as a gynecologist, working with tense and worried women who could not get pregnant until they somehow relaxed, led him to believe that the stress a woman experiences during rape might prevent her from becoming pregnant as a result. Coming on the heels of Todd Akin’s similar claim prior to the last election, which seemed to lead to Akin’s defeat, this created a media storm that overpowered anything else said that day, apparently to everyone but me.
In any case, I clicked through a link in a Tweet from Gingrey today, to read a press release about government spending, and decided to look at the other documents posted. There was a blog post that caught my eye that I found when I searched for Second Amendment issues:
Protecting our Second Amendment rights
Washington, D.C., Mar 4 –
Since the unthinkable school shooting in Newton, Connecticut, there has been much discussion on how to prevent future tragedies. Americans are all united in our desire to ensure the safety of students and the public at large.
Unfortunately, much of the focus has been on firearms restrictions, many of which are based on false information or unproven theories. These policies would also inhibit a law-abiding citizen’s ability to protect themselves, their families, or respond to public threats.
As you may be aware, in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook attack, I made public comments about some of the policy considerations that I wanted to look at in order to prevent another such tragedy. I spoke publically before consulting with my constituents and key advisors on gun related issues. Since then, I have been convinced that limitations on magazine clips would not prevent any future tragedies, and I have been convinced that larger ammunition clips are actually safer because they allow for less frequent reloading which limits accidental misfire.
In regard to background checks, I want to assure my fellow Georgians that I will oppose any legislation that could lead to any so-called “national firearm registry.” It is my duty to protect the privacy and civil liberties of law abiding Americans and I will fight any measure that could provide the federal government the information it needs to track or confiscate firearms from lawful citizens.
The Obama Administration’s recent attempt to implement radical gun control policies through executive order is a gross violation of our Second Amendment rights. Let me assure you that I will work with House Republicans to oppose these measures in their entirety. This January, I signed two similar letters to President Obama specifically reaffirming my commitment to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens in the face of these looming gun control executive orders.
Safeguarding our Second Amendment rights is of paramount importance, and throughout my tenure in Congress, I have worked – and will continue working – to preserve those rights. The National Rifle Association, of which I am a member, has consistently graded my voting record “A+.” Over a 10-year period, I have supported Second Amendment and sportsmen’s rights legislation 38 out of 38 times.
Since taking office, I have authored or co-sponsored 56 bills to protect or strengthen our Second Amendment rights. To view a complete list, click here.
During my tenure in Congress, I have made defending our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms one of my primary responsibilities. Please be assured that I will continue fighting against any measure that would infringe upon the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.
First, it’s good to see the Congressman making the right call, and being honest enough to admit his first reaction was off the cuff without consulting his constituents. Even if he believed that magazine capacity somehow contributed to crime, it’s good to know that he is capable of listening to reason, and changing his view.
But I would think he would want to make sure this was communicated to those who think this is important. I searched Rep. Gingrey’s Twitter feed and his emails, and didn’t find any reference to this. Now, for one thing, it’s a blog post, and I’m not sure how those are publicized.
In any case, it’s good to see my Congressman is square set in the defense of our Second Amendment rights. I will continue to observe and report.
2 thoughts on “Gingrey On Magazine Bans And Background Checks”
Thanks for sharing this. I’ll give Rep Gringrey props for recanting his previous statement. However…this statement makes no sense to me:
“I have been convinced that limitations on magazine clips would not prevent any future tragedies, and I have been convinced that larger ammunition clips are actually safer because they allow for less frequent reloading which limits accidental misfire.”
For who is a high capacity magazine safer for? The people an active shooter is firing upon?
I feel he’s missing the mark on what his pro 2A constituents believe and who we are. It has nothing to do with tradition, or hunting, or sport shooting. It’s about preserving freedom from the tyranny of government.
I think he meant what you said – they are safer for us, the defenders, because there is less chance of an error with fewer reloads. I admit I haven’t used that as an argument but it makes some sense.
Comments are closed.