Check out her voting record.
http://www.gunlawnews.org/Representatives/Nancy-Pelosi.html
http://www.gunlawnews.org/Representatives/Nancy-Pelosi.html
Nancy Pelosi
- Thread starter waynedm
- Start date
I doubt anyone on this board is surprised. That's was SF wants, that's what she gives them. But... That's just her record for GUN ISSUES. Look at some of the social issues outside of guns and it gets even worse. She is liberal on pretty much everything. I don't think that America even understands exactly who she is. She represents the same city that is seeking to make spanking illegal!
Waynedm,
Your link is really biased, and I suggest everyone looking at it to actually read it instead of relying on the "analysis".
Take for example, HA389 (third from the bottom of the list on your link):
---
Synopsis
An amendment to require local law enforcement officials to specify, when requested, the reason for denying a NICS check within twenty business days.
Analysis
A good amendment. And probably the only way to discover errors in your record.
---
This is a good amendment. A very good thing. The SUMMARY even says so. I chose this one because almost everyone in the house voted for it, both sides of the isle.
If you then look at the voting record, Pelosi voted FOR this amendment TWICE, but the summary page (your link) says the Pelosi voted "Vote against gun owners twice."
So, I feel compelled to say that this link is absolute rubbish. It contradicts itself. But, then again, there's an old saying about stuff like this: "Welcome to the Internets!"
No doubt, you can be against Pelosi's positions, I simply suggest you read in depth with critical analysis before basing your opinions on a site such as that one. This is somewhere between "Caveat Emptor" and "You get what you pay for"
Your link is really biased, and I suggest everyone looking at it to actually read it instead of relying on the "analysis".
Take for example, HA389 (third from the bottom of the list on your link):
---
Synopsis
An amendment to require local law enforcement officials to specify, when requested, the reason for denying a NICS check within twenty business days.
Analysis
A good amendment. And probably the only way to discover errors in your record.
---
This is a good amendment. A very good thing. The SUMMARY even says so. I chose this one because almost everyone in the house voted for it, both sides of the isle.
If you then look at the voting record, Pelosi voted FOR this amendment TWICE, but the summary page (your link) says the Pelosi voted "Vote against gun owners twice."
So, I feel compelled to say that this link is absolute rubbish. It contradicts itself. But, then again, there's an old saying about stuff like this: "Welcome to the Internets!"
No doubt, you can be against Pelosi's positions, I simply suggest you read in depth with critical analysis before basing your opinions on a site such as that one. This is somewhere between "Caveat Emptor" and "You get what you pay for"
Desert Heat
New member
Most of those left wing crack pots want to take our guns and melt them down. She can say what she wants, but I don't trust her with my 2nd ammendment rights for a second.
Bad amendment in my eyes. A NICS check has nothing to do with local law enforcement. Most people that get denied know damn well why they were denied. If somebody is denied and wants to do so they have that right and the FFL has the paperwork right there for them to appeal the decision. Making local law enforcement or anybody for that matter provide this would cost a lot of money and be a huge hassle.
You don't get a DENY on a NICS check by having errors, you get a delay while they further investigate anything that's questionable. Any errors will be discovered as such, and the Brady law doesn't prohibit the sale of the firearm 3 business days after the NICS check. The only way you get a DENY is if there is something on you out there that's correct, and if you want to protest that you can like I mentioned before.
I don't see any other errors in fact. Sorry my initial reaction was so harsh, but it was the very first spot check I made! 
One point I'd like to make though is that it is not always appropriate to use amendments to characterize voting records. It is a matter of the entirety of the bill plus all its amendments that is voted on, and sometimes a minor amendments will not be added / voted on especially when it is unrelated to the bill it is attached to.
One point I'd like to make though is that it is not always appropriate to use amendments to characterize voting records. It is a matter of the entirety of the bill plus all its amendments that is voted on, and sometimes a minor amendments will not be added / voted on especially when it is unrelated to the bill it is attached to.
Waynedm.. I think knowing why you are denied is extremely important. True most people know why they are denied, but that case can come up that something is attached to your record that doesn't belong. Being able to pursue and expunge any mistake is very important in my mind. Nobody's perfect.
Ive never seen a charge or arrest on a III that was incorrect. I have seen some that were not complete enough, but never one that was erroneous.
As "local law enforcement", its not my job to tell you why you were denied. That database is maintined by someone thats not me, and I have no say in it. There are avenues available, as mentioned, to appeal a denial.
As "local law enforcement", its not my job to tell you why you were denied. That database is maintined by someone thats not me, and I have no say in it. There are avenues available, as mentioned, to appeal a denial.
The point isn't to put more responsibility on person saying no, it is to have some kind of recourse into the database. Hopefully, this situation will never come up. However, if there is an unexpected denial, transparency into the system is a good thing, and can be trivially implemented since it is all computerized.
Luckily, it appears you have never been the victim of identity theft.