Schumer Targets 2A with ‘Real, Effective Common Sense Gun Safety Measures’

Sen. Charles Schumer is photographed during a spotlight interview with The Journal News editorial board, Harrison, Jan. 18, 2012. ( Melissa Elian/The Journal News )

Sen. Charles Schumer is photographed during a spotlight interview with The Journal News editorial board, Harrison, Jan. 18, 2012. ( Photo: Melissa Elian/The Journal News)

U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer, an ardent gun-grabber, is after the Second Amendment once again, this time with “real, effective common sense gun safety measures.”

Schumer (D-NY) unveiled his latest gun-control salvo in a press release Monday.

“If there is anything that the massacres in South Carolina, Newtown, Virgina Tech, Aurora and so many other places have taught us, it’s that we should be doing everything in our power to prevent weapons from falling into the hands of hateful, evil-doers and the mentally disturbed,” said Schumer.

“It makes no difference when guns are sold or who are selling them—we must prevent deadly weapons from falling into the wrong hands,” he continued. “Our children have seen far too many tragedies in the country involving guns and weapons, and now is the time to put forth real, effective common sense gun safety measures that can save future innocent lives from being taken, without taking away any existing rights.”

Among the gun-control measures the senator is proposing include: a universal background check bill that would criminalize private transfers between law-abiding citizens, a ban on so-called “large capacity magazines,” a bill that would appropriate taxpayer dollars to pay for gun-control research, among others.”

“I acknowledge the right—enshrined in the Second Amendment and the Heller decision—of American citizens to purchase and bear arms, however, just as the First Amendment comes with responsibilities and limits to protect public safety, the Second Amendment does as well,” argued Schumer. “We have to make sure that we as a country are safe and that everyone’s right are respected.”

Schumer’s track record — author of the Brady Bill, lead sponsor of Clinton’s Crime bill, which banned many widely popular and commonly owned black rifles — makes it abundantly clear that he is not interested in anything but rolling back the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. Don’t believe his “common sense measures that can save future lives” B.S. for a minute.

A video from 2012, Schumer discusses gun control:

About the author: S.H. Blannelberry is the News Editor of GunsAmerica.

{ 31 comments… add one }
  • Wayne R Cook April 6, 2018, 6:53 am

    It amazes me that for the lowest category of deaths in this country…the gun is given the most attention of all. Abortion is first on the list of violent deaths, guns are at the bottom. This nation is vastly misinformed by the media.

    Concealed Carry
    in America

    An analysis of the FBI crime statistics found that states that adopted
    concealed carry laws REDUCED:11

    8.5%
    Murders

    5%
    Rapes

    7%
    Aggravated Assaults

    3%
    Robberies

    With just one exception, every public mass shooting in the USA since 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns. Despite strict gun regulations, Europe has had 3 of the worst 6 school shootings.
    In 1982, Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to just 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.18

    Today, the violent crime rate in Kennesaw is still 85% lower than Georgia’s or the national average.

    Based upon Kleck & Gertz estimates of 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year (see source #2). A similar study in 1994 under President Clinton (Source) found this number to be 1.5 million, which would result in guns being used over 47x more often to defend a life than to take one.
    According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, about 436,000 crimes were committed with a firearm in 2008 (Source). This would mean guns are used 5.7 or 3.4 times (using Kleck or Clinton respectively) more often to defend against a crime than to commit one.

    * Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[24] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[25]

    * A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun “for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere.” This amounted to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This excludes all “military service, police work, or work as a security guard.”[26]

    * A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[27]

    * In 2013, President Obama ordered the Department of Health and Human Services and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to “conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it.”[28] In response, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention asked the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council to “convene a committee of experts to develop a potential research agenda focusing on the public health aspects of firearm-related violence….” This committee studied the issue of defensive gun use and reported:

    “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed….”
    “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million….”
    “[S]ome scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey,” but this “estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.”
    “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies….”[29]

    • Wayne R Cook April 6, 2018, 7:00 am

      And from NRA ILA

      As gun ownership has risen to an all-time high, the nation’s total violent crime rate has fallen to a 44-year low and the murder rate has fallen to an all-time low.

      Since 1991, when violent crime hit an all-time high, the nation’s violent crime rate and its murder rate have decreased by more than half, as Americans have acquired over 170 million new guns, roughly doubling the number of privately owned guns in the United States.

      As violent crime has decreased, the number of Right-to-Carry (RTC) states and the number of people who carry guns for protection away from home have risen to all-time highs.

      There are now 42 RTC states, which account for 74 percent of the U.S. population, and 13 million people with carry permits. Permit-holders are statistically more law-abiding than the rest of the public.

      The downward trend in crime, coinciding with the upward trend in firearm acquisitions, is the opposite of what gun control supporters repeatedly predicted over the last 40 years, and the opposite of what they are predicting for the future.

      Violent crime has decreased as gun control restrictions have been eliminated or rolled back at the federal, state and local levels.

      People who use guns to defend against robbery and aggravated assault are less likely to be injured than people who use other means, or no means, of self-defense.

      A survey of felons for the federal government found that 40 percent had not committed one or more crimes because they feared that their prospective victims were armed. Thirty-four percent had been scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim.

      “Hot burglaries,” in which criminals invade homes while home dwellers are present, are much less common in the United States, where many people have guns, than in England, where most people don’t have guns.

      Studies for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Institutes of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that gun control reduces crime.

      The FBI doesn’t list gun control as one of the factors that determine the type and level of crime.

      It’s an article of faith among gun control supporters that more guns equals more crime. For example, in the mid-1970s, the Brady Campaign, campaigning for a ban on handguns,[1] predicted: “There are now 40 million handguns owned by private individuals in the United States—about one gun for every American family. At the present rate of proliferation, the number could build to 100 million by the year 2000 (which isn’t as far off as you think). The consequences can be terrible to imagine—unless something is done.”[2] In 1979, when the group was known as Handgun Control, Inc., it updated its prediction, saying, “Right now over 50 million HANDGUNS flood the houses and streets of our nation. . . . HANDGUN production and sales are out of control.”[3]Gun control supporters have made similar doomsday predictions about Right-to-Carry laws, “assault weapons,” and “large” ammunition magazines.[4]

      More Guns—Since gun control supporters began making these predictions, the number of privately owned firearms has doubled, from about 175 million to about 350 million, including about 150 million handguns.[5] Americans acquire roughly 10 million new firearms annually. The number of Right-to-Carry states has risen from 10 to 42, accounting for three-fourths of the U.S. population.[6] Nearly 13 million Americans have carry permits.[7] The number of the most popular “assault weapon,” the AR-15, has risen from several hundred thousand to over eight million.[8] The number of “large” magazines—used in rifles like the AR-15 and in semi-automatic handguns designed for self-defense—has risen from tens of millions, to a number so large that it seems pointless to venture an estimate.

      Despite gun control supporters’ predictions, murder and total violent crime have decreased by more than half since 1991. In 2014, total violent crime fell to a 44-year low, murder to an all-time low.[9] More guns did not, as it turned out, equal more crime.

      Less gun control – Over the last quarter-century, many federal, state, and local gun control laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive. The federal “assault weapon” ban, upon which gun control supporters claimed public safety hinged, expired in 2004 and through 2014 the murder rate dropped 19 percent. The federal handgun waiting period, for years a priority for gun control supporters, expired in 1998, in favor of the NRA-supported national Instant Check, and the murder rate has since dropped 29 percent. Accordingly, some states have eliminated obsolete waiting periods and purchase permit requirements.

      As noted, there are now 42 Right-to-Carry states. All states have hunter protection laws, 48 have range protection laws, 48 prohibit local gun laws more restrictive than state law, 44 protect the right to arms in their constitutions, 33 have “castle doctrine” laws protecting the right to use guns in self-defense, and Congress and 33 states prohibit frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry. Studies for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Institutes of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that gun control reduces crime.[10]The FBI doesn’t list gun control as one of the factors that determine the type and level of crime.[11]

  • Keith Cattaneo March 9, 2018, 11:53 am

    School shootings happen because 1)nutjobs will always exist and 2) schools have been declared gun free zones. Al Queda chose airplanes as flying bombs because weapons aren’t allowed on airliners. Now we have undercover Air Marshalls. In school settings that would be teachers and administrators carrying concealed. Does it really matter if it makes kids scared that they may be targets? Let’s have reality settle in to our brains and you come up with your own conclusion. We have a generation so soft that only .1% of the US population has joined the military. An old rhyme comes to mind, “suck it up butter cup”. Get your heads on straight, face reality and let’s fix the problem! Making an inanimate object the scapegoat requires very little critical thinking. The question to ask is how do we keep our kids safe? Fix the problem!

  • Ronhart February 15, 2018, 2:14 pm

    Common sense this CHUCK!! A 12 year old can purchase, title and OWN a one ton truck as long as he has the money to pay for it. As a 78 year old retired 20 year veteran I must submit to (and pay for) a background check to get bureaucratic permission to buy and own a single shot .22 rifle. Where is the “common sense” in this???

  • mtman2 November 12, 2016, 12:17 pm

    Bottom line inconfronting anti 2nd-Amendment RIGHTS as written:
    1) Tell them when illegal drug control measures succeed then snd only then would any true American or thinking person even contemplate such nonsense. This pointnor could ever happen- so makes it a moot point-!

    2) It was set forth from the discription of “certain unalienable Rights” in the very Bill of RIGHTS that allowed the Constitution to even be ratified by the Sovereign States.
    So therefore cannot be touched as it clearly states:
    “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
    If it can be touched- then so can’t everything = which leaves nothing.
    Lets get rid of ALL the flying monkey people in OUR system now that the Wicked Witch is dead(or on her way to federal prison).

    Trump CANNOT do it all alone-!!!!!!
    WE must all keep voting the socialist/statist creeps out in every ensuing election and WE can do it to actually- ” Make America Great Again”.

    WE have the ingenius system set up by the Founders for us to use.
    The llate Bill Nojay pointed out that only 7% of NY gun owners showed up to vote in the last two elections that put and kept Commie Cuomo in office.
    So who’s fault is it really-??? Now they have super restrictive gun laws etc.
    Can’t blame the statist’s any more than a rat being a rat- they must be dealt with or they will take over the farm.
    It’s as simple as all Constitutionalist’s showing up and voting.
    WE truly still are the Silent/Moral Majority and why the Far-Left must cheat ~!

  • studi30 July 9, 2015, 10:22 am

    Every one of those far left, libterd nuts like Loughner and Holmes would have been prevented from purchasing their weapons if the HPAA laws didn’t exist. HPAA protects doctor/patient confidentiality, preventing the doctor from reporting their patient to the NICS System. The National Instant Check System is called at point of purchase by a gun dealer at a gun show or store for an instant yes or no on the sale. The NICS is run by the FBI (so Slummer, there is a background check being done)

  • OFBG July 8, 2015, 10:39 pm

    We all know the fallacy of “common sense…measures” but the real concern here is the Senator’s use of the term “gun safety” – just as the Bloomberg groups do – to attempt to disguise his efforts at gun controls, bans, registration, and ultimate confiscation.

  • Pat Finnie July 7, 2015, 7:43 am

    Chuck Schumer is an unwiped butthole spewing what unwiped butthole spew. What would you expect ?

  • Gregory Hawkins July 6, 2015, 9:06 pm

    Whenever you hear a liberal Democrat / communist politician use the terms “common sense legislation” or “we need to do this for the children”, you had better reach for a lubricant because you and your Constitutional Rights are about to be violated. The country doesn’t need more arbitrary Gun Control laws like the Unconstitutional proposals Chuck U. Schumer and his Democrat comrades are proposing. The country needs Crazy Person Control laws. We need laws that go after the real cause of mass shootings, the criminally insane. Our citizens need to be protected from unstable, insane people who can’t function in civilized society and who all too often use firearms when they finally snap and run amok. Schumer only wants to go after the tool that the lunatics use but NOT the actual lunatics using it. The unstable members of our society need to be identified, locked up and kept behind bars or in rubber rooms until they expire. Sane, gun owning citizens do not misuse firearms; crazy people do. Why penalize 99.99% of law-abiding American gun owners for the crazed actions of a miniscule number of insane losers? Schumer and his ilk just don’t get it.

    • Captain Bob April 29, 2016, 1:29 pm

      Well said, Gregory. My key to mark these morons as anti-gun is, whenever they say, “I support the 2nd Amendment BUT…” or in Shitmer’s case, “…HOWEVER…”, you know that they are lying about supporting it. Either you do believe in the 2nd Amendment THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN or you don’t. You can’t say you do and then say you don’t in the same sentence separated by a “but” or “however”. It just shows you up for a slimeball politician who has to try to pander to both sides. C’mon Shitmer, why not be honest and just come out and say that you want to ban all guns?

  • WinchesterMan July 6, 2015, 6:30 pm

    In ole Ckuckles wanting to have “common sense” gun laws must surely mean that our founding fathers had no common sense when drafting the second amendment! Chuck, I’ve studied the founding fathers. The founding fathers were the defenders of freedom. Chuck, you are no founding father. Being Jewish, I would think you would want every freedom loving person to be armed. But no, you are more like Hitler, trying to disarm us all!!! Probably with similar motives.

  • zippy July 6, 2015, 4:07 pm

    Gee, Chuck all those killings were committed by your constituents. Democrats.
    Or as I like to term the party of losers. pro/lib/commie/nazi/loser/defeatocrats.

  • John July 6, 2015, 2:39 pm

    Democrats don’t care about gun safety. What they truly care about is disarming Americans. There are more people killed by DUI accidents per year than gun accidents. But you don’t see the Democrats coming out for legislation to require breathalyzer on cars. All cars! Blow before you go! If they can’t tax it or control it they don’t want it.

    • CJ August 5, 2015, 8:51 pm

      John, don’t hold your breath, the breathalyzers in cars is already being proposed by another liberal congress critter…

  • Bob July 6, 2015, 1:28 pm

    This is nothing more than another ploy to get ‘universal’ gun registration(which will turn into confiscation) and giving the government the authority to say who can or cannot own a gun.

    • Captain Bob April 29, 2016, 1:31 pm

      …and the government will then just say, “no one but the military and the police…”

  • Dean Lefebvre July 6, 2015, 1:18 pm

    I believe that there is absolutely no question as to the meaning of our 2nd amendment that we have the constituional right to own guns.

    I would rather see a Federal Law that makes owning a gun illegally a federal crime with a minimum prison sentence of 5 years and that sentence would increase to 10 yearrs in pridon if caught committing a crime with an illegal firearm.

    No indeterminate sentences it would be 5 and 10 years no parole etc.

    Bill Oriley mentioned this about a week or so ago and I agree. Sentence those carrying a gun illegally to minimum federal prison sentences and illegal firearms and those who use them will be taken off our streets and perhaps our society will be a bit more safe.

    Also I do not have an issue with background checks nor should any other legal gun owner

    • bill kuhlmann July 6, 2015, 4:08 pm

      they tried that back in the 80s in the peoples republic of Kalifornexico. sadly the only thing It did was to give criminal defense shysters a bargaining chip for a plea to a reduced charge. it gave the district attorneys a conviction and the shyster got a reduced charge and lesser sentence for his client. as always the legal system and government interference ruined what would have been a good law.

    • Joe McHugh July 10, 2015, 7:34 pm

      One might call Charles Schumer the Devil’s spawn, but that would be too kind. The greatest lie the Devil ever told to mankind, was that he didn’t exist. The greatest lie Schumer ever told, was that he is not trying to ban all private gun ownership.

      OK, I must apologize for not doing more to defeat “Little Chuckie” at the polls. That’s what we upstate New Yorkers like to call the commissar from New York City. obama is worse, only because he is in a position to do more damage to American citizens.

      If America ever collapses into economic chaos, the guns that Schumer fears so much, will be used to hunt down “pests”.
      Oh, did some of the readers take that to mean the members of the liberal elite? That’s just crazy talk, I don’t even own a gun, and my associates don’t have firearms either. Honestly, I don’t understand the way liberals think sometimes.

      There, that ought to mollify the good people at the N.S.A. center, who are monitoring this forum.

    • Captain Bob April 29, 2016, 1:37 pm

      Dean: Regarding “background checks” I, too have no problem with even “Universal” background checks IF they eliminated page 3 of the 4473 form when a buy or transfer is done. That is the page where the info (Make, model, serial #, type, caliber) is recorded. THIS is the dreaded gun registration and really has nothing to do with a background check. Drop that page and do the check on the PERSON but don’t record the gun info. This is the “back door” gun registration that is feared. With Universal BG checks required, in a few generations (anti-gunners are very patient), the gov’t will know who has every gun and THEN confiscation can begin.

      • mtman2 November 12, 2016, 2:42 pm

        Bottom line inconfronting anti 2nd-Amendment RIGHTS as written:
        1) Tell them when illegal drug control measures succeed then snd only then would any true American or thinking person even contemplate such nonsense. This pointnor could ever happen- so makes it a moot point-!

        2) It was set forth from the discription of “certain unalienable Rights” in the very Bill of RIGHTS that allowed the Constitution to even be ratified by the Sovereign States.
        So therefore cannot be touched as it clearly states:
        “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
        If it can be touched- then so can’t everything = which leaves nothing.
        Lets get rid of ALL the flying monkey people in OUR system now that the Wicked Witch is dead(or on her way to federal prison).

        Trump CANNOT do it all alone-!!!!!!
        WE must all keep voting the socialist/statist creeps out in every ensuing election and WE can do it to actually- ” Make America Great Again”.

        WE have the ingenius system set up by the Founders for us to use.
        The llate Bill Nojay pointed out that only 7% of NY gun owners showed up to vote in the last two elections that put and kept Commie Cuomo in office.
        So who’s fault is it really-??? Now they have super restrictive gun laws etc.
        Can’t blame the statist’s any more than a rat being a rat- they must be dealt with or they will take over the farm.
        It’s as simple as all Constitutionalist’s showing up and voting.
        WE truly still are the Silent/Moral Majority and why the Far-Left must cheat ~!

  • RetNavet July 6, 2015, 12:02 pm

    Chuck U. Schummer is probably in the top-twenty five most vile waste of human flesh masquerading as a duly elected public servant. The only thing that keeps him from breaking into the top-ten is his incompetence to effect as much of his sinister world view as he would like to.
    Besides that he looks like what a rat would if it took on human form and is probably the biological father of that little bastard Anthony Weiner…they do bear a disgusting resemblance.

  • bigtex52 July 6, 2015, 11:13 am

    Chuck Schumer and the words “Common Sense” don’t belong in the same sentence. This liberal clown lies to us about respecting the Heller Decision and the Second Amendment and then expects us to ignore his past actions.

  • MarylandShooter July 6, 2015, 11:01 am

    After these sad events, grabbers want to jump in and tighten the laws making it harder for law-abiding folks to enjoy a civil right guaranteed, like all the other Bill of Rights.

    Here is a sure show-stopper. Ask what law would have prevented THIS killing. In this instant case, no law would have made a difference. The firearm was legally purchased. Nothing they’ve proposed or will propose would have stopped this or even the last 3 tragic shootings.

    They only use them as an excuse to carve yet another segment of the population away from a natural right – the right to self defense.

  • gapineman July 6, 2015, 8:42 am

    I believe Will Rogers said, “Common sense ain’t all that common.” SHUMNER has demonstrated time and again that he seriously lacks common sense…to him that means repealing the 2nd and handcuffing law abiding citizens while allowing the criminal and mentally ill free reign.

  • Wil Ferch July 6, 2015, 8:31 am

    His own duplicitous statement,,,, ” We have to make sure that we as a country are safe and that everyone’s right are respected.”
    OK…what about the rights of law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves and their family ? Oh….that group and that group’s rights don’t quite carry the same weight, it seems.

    Correct….when a lawmaker is quoted saying “common-sense”…..this is extremely offensive as it positions that person in a morally elevated position before the counter-argument even starts ( as if “the opposition” on purpose follows nonsensical approach…how very offensive). It is almost always stated by liberal Democrats….100% ….just look !

  • JiminGA July 6, 2015, 6:27 am

    Anytime a politician used the phrases “fairness” or “common sense” you know they are lying. Because their proposals are neither fair nor common sense. There’s an old saying…”common sense ain’t so common”.

  • Mike Hunt July 6, 2015, 3:31 am

    Just another braindead libtard squawker

  • DRAINO July 4, 2015, 6:04 pm

    There is absolutely no common sense in thinking that more signed pieces of paper will keep criminals from breaking the law. A fools errand, I believe its called. Common sense is realizing that it takes good guys with guns to stop bad guys with guns. It just doesn’t get any simpler than that.

  • Mark N. July 1, 2015, 3:36 am

    How do “large capacity magazine bans” prevent guns from “getting into the wrong hands”? How does research on “gun violence” keeps guns form “getting into the wrong hands”? Who decides what are “the wrong hands”? Will it be necessary, based on the fact that mass murders are committed (mostly) by young adults with no criminal record who successfully pass background checks to undergo mental health screening? Interviews with the local constabulary to see if that person “really needs” a gun? Isn’t this simply a call for the same repressive “may issue” purchasing permit laws now applied in New Jersey to be applied to the whole nation? You know, the ones that require the police to issue a purchase permit in 60 or 90 days that the police (conveniently) have never heard of, and that recently got a woman killed because she could not buy a gun to defend herself against an abusive ex-boyfriend against whom she has a restraining order?

    That would be “yes.”

    • Captain Bob April 29, 2016, 1:43 pm

      No.
      It doesn’t.
      The ant-gunners.
      Nope.
      Likely.
      Yes.
      Absolutely, yes.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend