Jeff Flake Slammed in TV Ad by Mother of Aurora Shooting Victim (Video)

Categories: Guns
jeff-flake-sq.jpg
Senator Jeff Flake
A Valley mom whose son was killed last year in the movie-theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, slams Senator Jeff Flake in an advertisement that's about to hit Phoenix airwaves, thanks to Flake's vote against a proposal for more background checks on gun purchases.

Caren Teves recently made news after showing that Flake had sent her a handwritten note that "strengthening background checks is something we agree on" -- before he voted against an amendment to strengthen background checks.

See also:
-Jeff Flake Now Claims He Could Support Expanding Background Checks for Guns
-Jeff Flake's Poll Numbers Somehow Got Worse
-Jeff Flake "One of the Most Unpopular Senators"
-Flake Thinks His Popularity Is "Below Pond Scum"
-John McCain Bucks the NRA, Supports Expanding Background Checks for Gun Sales

Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the group that's said to be mainly funded by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, says it's going to start running a TV advertisement in Arizona, featuring Teves voicing her displeasure for Flake's vote.



Flake has given multiple explanations for why he voted against the Manchin-Toomey amendment, which fell short in the Senate by a handful of votes.

Flake, initially making a claim similar to the NRA's, claimed that the amendment would have mandated background checks on "all private transfers -- including between friends and neighbors -- if the posting or display of the ad for a firearm was made public."

Flake's initial claim wasn't true, according to those who have looked into it.

Then, CNN reported that Flake explained "the requirement for background checks on Internet sales is too costly and inconvenient" for him to support the bill.

Now, addressing this new advertisement in a Facebook post, Flake claims he did vote to strengthen background checks.

"Contrary to the ad, I did vote to strengthen background checks," he writes. "I voted for the bipartisan Grassley Amendment, which included language from a bill I helped write which strengthened background checks for those with mental illness. The Grassley amendment also included language to increase prosecution of criminals and fugitives who circumvent the current background check system."

According to a fact sheet from Senator Grassley, the "bipartisan" amendment did strengthen background checks (sarcasm, incoming) with proposals for things like "Place limitations on Fast & Furious type operations by DOJ," offer "Second Amendment protections for veterans," and "Require the Department of Justice to explain to Congress why it has or has not been prosecuting gun cases."

The amendment didn't call for any more background checks on gun sales.

Grassley did claim that his proposal would "improve" the background-check system, which Flake apparently interprets as "strengthening" background checks.

Send feedback and tips to the author.
Follow Matthew Hendley on Twitter at @MatthewHendley.



Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
19 comments
chandler
chandler

So sad this lady has decided to pimp for Schumer

yourproductsucks
yourproductsucks

We don't need New York money attempting to play politics in Arizona.  Bloomberg is the Mayor of New York City.  He needs to pay attention to the job his constituents voted him in to do; Tommy Collins?

sonick55
sonick55

Flake is sticking to his campaign promises. A majority of AZ residents do NOT want more restrictions on firearms; especially emotion-centric ineffectual laws. That's not how the country does business.  Obama is mad simply because he made a grotesque ploy of using grieving parents to push a party line issue, and he knows what he did is wrong. He's not mad about the legislation, he's mad that we witnessed his poor behavior. Jeff, your constituents will continue to have your back at the ballot box.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

Actually, the site Matthew claims to show Flake's claim is false only calls it "mostly false", on a technicality, since it wouldn't technically "criminalize" such sales.  The site itself confirms that selling to a friend via facebook would require a background check.  And it's been established that posting an advertisement on a bulletin board is advertising in a "publication".

Matthew also chooses to cherry pick provisions of the Grassley amendment.  It absolutely did contain provisions to strengthen background checks, in addition to the unrelated provision quoted above.


WhoKnows
WhoKnows topcommenter

@yourproductsucks We don't need an unethical clown as a US senator that lies so easily to the people and the media.  Flake got his panties in a bundle after the NRA pulled on his leash.

WhoKnows
WhoKnows topcommenter

@sonick55 100% BS.  Even in AZ, most people wanted expanded checks.  You must live in a hole.

SARdiver
SARdiver

@valleynative And any ambiguity gets thrown to the courts.  Guess how they tend to lean?

I think it would be much easier to expand checks if there was no information about the gun included.  For some reason, the form 4473 includes the make, model, and serial number of the firearm.  If the purpose isn't to register guns, but instead simply identify those who are convicts or have been adjudicated insane, why include any information on the gun?


JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@valleynative You keep repeating this "And it's been established that posting an advertisement on a bulletin board is advertising in a "publication".  How about citing a source that is someone with some level of credibility as a legislative or legal expert.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@WhoKnows He didn't lie.  He favors stronger background checks.  People misinterpreted that to mean that he would vote for the first bill that came along having anything at all to do with background checks.  That's just lousy critical thinking.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@WhoKnows Speaking of living in a hole, it's been made pretty clear already that, while most people like the concept of "expanded background checks", among people who actually knew the contents of this particular bill, it wasn't such a slam dunk.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@JohnQ.Public @valleynative Yes, too bad you don't seem to be able to appreciate the advise.   I believe you're among those who complain that Republicans are never willing to compromise.  I'm not a Republican, but my vote for Franks is just such a compromise.  A choice between a religious nut and somebody who would support Obama is going to come down to the religious nut almost every time, because they're much less likely to do be able to do damage to our country.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@valleynative   Great, Someone who acknowledges having voted for Trent Franks is suggesting that he's in a position to tell others when they are qualified to vote.  That's priceless.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@JohnQ.Public Every politician does that.  Obama does it whenever he's giving a scripted speech, and only lets his true intentions slip out when he's emotional or forgets that he's miked.  Clinton was the master.  If you don't know enough to expect that of every single politician every single time they say anything in public, you shouldn't vote.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

People interpreted Flakes comments exactly as Flake intended them to interpret the comments. Flake worked hard to craft a statement that he know would mislead but us give him the cover he was looking for in advance of the vote.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@WhoKnows @valleynative  It didn't go far enough to do any good, but it went too far for something that wouldn't do any good.

As the Justice Department said about it, it would be virtually worthless unless they also implement nationwide gun registration, requiring that all guns currently owned legally be submitted for registration, although even that wouldn't do a lot of good, because why would a criminal submit a gun for registration?

It went too far in that it would, as one example, require that if I offer a gun for sale via facebook, and a friend wants to buy it, I would have to go through a dealer to sell it to him in order to perform a background check, simply because I had offered it "over the Internet".

WhoKnows
WhoKnows topcommenter

@valleynative @WhoKnows Exactly.  It didn't go far enough!  The only people afraid of this bill would never pass a background check to begin with!

Now Trending

Phoenix Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...