Candidate Blasted For NRA “A” Rating
BY BUDDY NEVINS
A just week after the Colorado theater shooting, gun control has become an issue in a Central Broward Florida House Democratic primary race.
The issue surfaced in House District 98 when Katie Edwards received an “A” Rating from the National Rifle Association. Her opponent Louis Reinstein had received the same rating by mistake and asked that it be withdrawn.
Edwards’ “A” Rating, which is defined by the NRA as a candidate who is “solidly pro-gun candidate. A candidate who has supported NRA positions on key votes in elective office or a candidate with a demonstrated record of support on Second Amendment issues.”
It is the same rating that conservative Republican Tea Party darling U. S. Rep. Alan West received from the NRA.
Now gun control has opened some space between Edwards and Reinstein, who have virtually identical stands on almost every other issue.
Reinstein says Edwards’ acceptance of the NRA rating is out-of-step with the Democratic leaning district.
Edwards said her views differ dramatically from the NRA despite the “A” rating.
How much gun control means to the voters in Davie, Plantation and Sunrise is hard to gauge. All polls show gun control is on few voters minds compared to education and the state budget.
Edwards said that since Reinstein has begun attacking her on gun control, only two voters have contacted her to question her position.
She said gun control was a distraction, since there was very little chance of any such legislation being passed in the NRA-friendly Florida Legislature.
“I could introduce any legislation and it would be turned down or struck down,” she said. “This is political posturing. Of all the issues we are facing, this is not in the forefront of the voters’ minds.”
Reinstein countered with this e-mail:
“My opponent and I have a serious disagreement about what is important for our neighbors in District 98. We also clearly disagree on Constitutional interpretation—but this is also a distinction between Democrats and Republicans as evidenced by the laws passed by our Republican-led Legislature and Governor Scott. Does she really believe that it is okay to bring a gun into a movie theater or on a college campus? She must have answered “Yes” to this to receive an ‘A’ rating by the NRA. We have too many examples from as recent as in Colorado and Virginia that tell us we need to stand strong against the extreme positions of the NRA. Does she think that this State should become more like the old Wild West allowing the open carry of firearms? She must have answered “Yes” to this to receive an ‘A’ rating by the NRA. These are the positions that my opponent has wholly adopted and which is evident by her ‘A’ rating from them. When was the last time you saw a Democratic candidate endorsed by the NRA in a Democratic Primary? The NRA is so sure about her that they are even sending out mailers on her behalf! Her support for extreme positions such as the ones taken by the NRA is another reason why she is not right for District 98.
LR”
Edwards, in message sent from her cell phone, put distance between the NRA and herself concerning some of the issues that concern the group. The NRA has been skeptical about background checks, waiting periods and doctors being able to question patients about gun ownership.
She wrote:
“If he (Reinstein) is a “constitutional lawyer” as he says he knows the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) rulings on State gun control laws and the tendency of SCOTUS to strike down laws that violate the Second Amendment.
Yes, I believe in reasonable, common sense restrictions like background checks, waiting periods, and doctors being able to inquire and inform about gun ownership.
I have a law degree as does my opponent and I have a better grasp of Second Amendment litigation apparently.”
Here is her rating on the NRA website:
District 98
| Katie Edwards (D) | Grade: A | Contact | ||
| Status: Candidate | ||||
| Louis Reinstein (D) | Grade: ? | |||
| Status: Candidate |
July 31st, 2012 at 1:08 pm
Reinstein is desparate. At least his name has now been published somewhere, most voters thought Edwards was running unopposed.
July 31st, 2012 at 3:07 pm
Am I missing something? The legislature just passed in the last few years a law that got rid of all city and county ordinances on gun control. That is NOT a constitutional issue AT ALL and at any point that law can be repealed by the Florida Legislature. Once again Chameleon Katie is trying to play all sides and pretend to be whatever she thinks will get her elected. We need genuine people in Tallahassee not former Republican, Chameleon Katie.
FROM BUDDY:
The U. S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed a very broad interpretation of the Second Amendment. It recently ruled on a Chicago gun control law, calling it unconstitutional, and many believed that was the beginning of the court outlawing many other state, county and city gun laws.
Technically you are right. Many of the state gun laws can be changed by the Legislature. But Florida’s Legislature voted (HB 45) in 2011 to outlaw city and county gun control laws. The vote was 85-33 in the House and 30-8 in the Senate. Do you really believe that the anti-gun folks will capture enough votes to turn that around anytime soon? We will have a blizzard in Broward first.
July 31st, 2012 at 4:36 pm
The NRA and the Deomcratic Party embrace very different gun control policies. They do not mix. This endorsement cannot be good for Edwards and worse she seems to defend it.
July 31st, 2012 at 4:37 pm
A candidate with an “A” rating from the NRA does not share progressive Democratic values. In this case it is not a surprise. In 2010, Edwards was a lobbyist running for a House seat in South Dade and marketing herself as a conservative “Blue Dog” Democrat. Now she moves into Broward and suddenly rebrands herself as a liberal. I’m not buying it.
July 31st, 2012 at 5:21 pm
Reinstein should be ashamed of himself for playing the politics of the GOP and campaigning negatively.
This is a non-issue. It is like saying I stand for raising taxes and giving them to education. The Republicans will never raise taxes and the Republicans will never control guns.
July 31st, 2012 at 5:40 pm
The legislature didn’t “outlaw city and county gun control laws.” Those were outlawed since 1986. Cities (as they often do) just chose to ignore the law because there was no penalty attached. What the legislature did was attach penalties to a law that was on the books
July 31st, 2012 at 5:41 pm
I make all my candidates go negative when we are behind in the polls and are losing in the race. Louis Reinstein and Scott Israel are getting crushed by Katie Edwards and Louie Granteed. I will just keep taking their money even though I know neither have a chance in hell to win.
FROM BUDDY:
This is most likely not Amy Rose, the political consultant handling Reinstein’s campaign.
July 31st, 2012 at 5:55 pm
It’s clear this is a non-issue. Reinstein is desperate. Ms. Edwards has run a good positive campaign. We’ve already voted absentee for her.
July 31st, 2012 at 6:56 pm
“Does she really believe that it is okay to bring a gun into a movie theater or on a college campus?”
Is it really so crazy to think that a law abiding woman, who passes a background check to obtain a concealed carry permit, should not be able to legally carry a weapon to defend herself while walking to her car after a late movie or a late class?
I would like to see the statistics of how many legally licensed concealed weapon permit holders actually commit any gun related crime. I suspect the figure is miniscule.
Here’s a news flash for the democratic candidates – not all Democrats (or most independents) are opposed to reasonable concealed carry legislation and don’t think this is an “extreme position of the NRA.”
July 31st, 2012 at 7:49 pm
Buddy you’re absolutely correct. Those laws will probably not be changed nor will new gun control laws be enacted any time soon. If that is always used as an excuse though, you can change that probably to a definitely.
As far as this being a non-issue, of course its a non-issue, however, it is another piece of the puzzle of Katie Edwards. She is definitely an attractive candidate on paper, but her transformation from a conservative democrat running in south miami to a progressive candidate running in central broward bears scrutiny. Broward County has seen enough of politicians who put their ambitions above the public good and some her decision in the past raise questions as to what kind of public servant she will be if elected.
July 31st, 2012 at 8:27 pm
Edwards had already been outed as a moderate back on July 2nd, when the Political Hurricane endorsed Louis Reinstein:
http://thepoliticalhurricane.com/2012/07/02/political-hurricane-endorsement-louis-reinstein-for-state-house-district-98/
“Edwards… can work with Republicans and is a social moderate… Fortunately District 98 Democrats have a better choice. Louis Reinstein is a fresh young face on the scene in Broward County. Reinstein has taken strong progressive stands on a number of important issues… Reinstein has shown leadership on progressive causes when compared to his opponent attending local rallies and activist gathering when his opponent has been absent. Louis Reinstein is precisely the type of young, thoughtful Democrat that southeast Florida progressives should embrace. In the Democratic Primary for House District 98, the Political Hurricane strongly endorses Louis Reinstein.”
July 31st, 2012 at 8:31 pm
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/07/the_aurora_shooting_bulletproof_vests_swat_gear_and_body_armor_refute_the_nra_.single.html
James Holmes, the alleged perpetrator of Friday’s movie-theater massacre in Aurora, Col., […] wore a ballistic helmet, a ballistic vest, ballistic leggings, a throat protector, a groin protector, and tactical gloves. He was so well equipped that if anyone in that theater had tried what the National Rifle Association recommends—drawing a firearm to stop the carnage—that person would have been dead meat. Holmes didn’t just kill a dozen people. He killed the NRA’s answer to gun violence. […]
August 1st, 2012 at 5:03 am
Reasonable restrictions are warrented and do not cross the line in gun ownership. I have owned guns in the past. There is a difference between reasonalbe background checks to help prevent either criminals or unballanced or mentally challanged people from legally owning guns. What is the NRA affraid of ????
August 1st, 2012 at 8:43 am
Dear news for the naive: Did Holmes have a concealed weapon permit?
August 1st, 2012 at 11:30 am
Whether Holmes had a concealed weapon permit or not is irrelevant. Holmes’ body armor gave him full protection against anyone else in the theater, regardless of whether or not they had weapons, concealed or otherwise.
August 2nd, 2012 at 12:07 am
Naive, you and most people seem to have a misconception about body armor. Firstly, his face, arms, hands and feet were totally unprotected. A shot in any of those places would have likely stopped him, even if it did not kill him. Secondly you seem to think that body armor is a magic bullet shield. A bullet may not pierce the armor, but if you think it would be harmless, just wrap yourself in a couple of thick blankets and let me take some whacks at you with a baseball bat. The impact is similar.
August 2nd, 2012 at 9:01 am
So here’s the situation. Holmes has body armor as well as four guns and more than 6,000 rounds of ammunition. On top of that, he began the assault by detonating multiple smoke bombs before opening fire in the theater.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/colorado-movie-theater-shooting-suspect-bought-guns-6000/story?id=16817842#.UBpzT_3nZww
Sam the Sham and the NRA would have us believe that somebody in the theater with a properly permitted concealed weapon (e.g., a small handgun, which is much less accurate and harder to aim than the pricey assault rifles Holmes apparently had) would have been able to pull out that concealed weapon, use some kind of X-ray vision to detect the body armor Holmes was using, accurately aim it through the blinding smoke at a relatively small location not covered by all the body armor, and then successfully hit the rapidly moving body-armored assailant who just happens to be unloading 6,000 rounds of ammunition in that person’s general direction.
This person would presumably NOT be wearing heavy, expensive body armor, and would also be giving up the opportunity to hit the floor or otherwise take cover in hopes of possibly avoiding the heavy hail of bullets.
The NRA / Sam the Sham claim that concealed weapons are an effective solution to the problem of gun violence is just naive bullshit.
No concealed weapon would have stopped Holmes.
August 2nd, 2012 at 3:07 pm
Dear News for the Naive,
You are right. No concealed weapon held by you would have stopped Holmes. You would have been too busy shitting your pants and hiding behind women and children.
Holmes might have had 6000 rounds but is unlikely to have been carrying it. He shot probably only about 100 rounds, certainly less than 200. At the first sign of trouble, his gun jamming, he left the theater. When caught by the police, he meekly gave up. I doubt he would have stuck around long if someone returned fire in the theater.
No matter what other arguments there are, if I was in that theater, I would rather be armed than unarmed. People can guess one way or another what would have happened, what could have happened or what should have happened, I am saying that an armed concealed carrier with some guts and some training would have had more options than an unarmed individual and could have made a difference.
August 2nd, 2012 at 4:52 pm
People with concealed permits are not the ones committing crimes.. George Zimmerman being an exception.
That case clearly illustrates what happens when someone with a concealed permit lacks proper training. Police officers go through psychological screening and training before packing heat. It’s not unreasonable to expect folks who want a concealed permit to do the same. Of course, the NRA would argue what a violation of one’s constitutional rights that is. I say screw the NRA. I have a concealed permit, and I didn’t need them to tell me how or why to get it.All they want to do is flood the market with guns. It’s nice to think all bravado and say that had I been in the theater in Aurora that night I would have taken the guy out. The reality is that even with my concealed permit and all my training and gun safety courses, the suddenness and confusion of the moment would probably not give an armed civilian any type of advantage. A highly trained police officer would have been caught off guard. Now add in a bunch of armed, untrained, and freaked-out civilians to the mix, and this type of intervention would most likely only make the situation worse. Imagine trying to take out the shooter and accidentally killing someone else. Best advise I would give is to get a concealed permit, get proper training, and pay attention. Then, go live your life like you normally would. Stop thinking that where you sit or what show you attend will affect your ability to react. Or that backing your car into a spot will make a difference.Maybe these things could make a difference. Maybe they could make the situation worse. How these events ultimately unfold is at the mercy at God.