Gun Control

Clinton Blames New York Gun Violence on Vermont

Trying to impugn Bernie Sanders, she falsely claims his state provides a big share of crime guns in hers.

|

WCAX

In a private meeting with New York legislators on Monday, Hillary Clinton reportedly claimed that Vermont—home of Sen. Bernie Sanders, her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination—is an important source of guns used by criminals in the Empire State. "She said that it's going to be coming out in the very near future that many of the catastrophes that have taken human lives in the State of New York have been the product of guns coming over the border from Vermont," state Sen. Tim Kennedy (D-Buffalo) told Politico. "That's the first I heard it. I think it caught everybody's attention, and we're looking forward to learning more about it."

The main reason this complaint about Vermont was news to Kennedy: It isn't true. In 2014, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 55 crime guns seized in New York were traced to dealers in Vermont. That represented 1.2 percent of the 4,585 gun traces in which the location of the original sale could be identified. Vermont ranked 15th among the states where the crime guns were sold, far behind New York (1,397), Virginia (395), Georgia (386), Pennsylvania (371), and Florida (292).

BATF

Maybe Kennedy misunderstood Clinton, but probably not. Assemblyman Kevin Cahill (D-Kingston) had a similar recollection. "She said that many of the guns that are found to be involved in crimes in this state are found to have their origins in Vermont," he told Politico. "The implication was just that many of the guns that are involved in crimes in this state come from Vermont. That was the implication I got."

Even if Clinton's claim were close to accurate, it would prove absolutely nothing about Sanders' views on gun control, which presumably are what she was trying to impugn by implication. Sanders frequently mentions that he represents a state with few firearm restrictions, as part of his pitch for constructive engagement between Second Amendment supporters and advocates of new gun laws. He brags about his low grades from the NRA, and his stance is quite similar to Clinton's. Although he (unlike Clinton) is skeptical of holding gun manufacturers and dealers liable for the criminal actions of their customers, he supports a federal "assault weapons" ban and "universal background checks" for gun buyers.

Yesterday Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin, a Clinton supporter, described her claim about his state as the sort of lie politicians feel compelled to tell when they run for office. "It is campaign season," Shumlin said. "Therefore, things are sometimes said by all the candidates that sometimes aren't entirely accurate. I would just say this: I think you'd have a hard time convincing Vermonters that New York's crime problems are coming from Vermont." According to WCAX, the CBS station in Burlington, "Shumlin also said that there's no question that heroin in Vermont comes from out of state and is often brought in by New Yorkers."

NEXT: The Judge That Ruled Against Kesha Is Right: Not All Rapes Are Hate Crimes

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Is gun control a top-tier concern even with the Democrat primary voter?

    1. Maybe it will be after it costs the Dems another election.

    2. No.

      Conservative control is, though.

    3. You think they would learn. They were steam rolling team red until they decided to charge hill GC back in early 2013. Finally team red found their spine, and that showed the world that your Godking Mammal could bleed.

      1. “You think they would learn”

        I try and try, but I just can’t wrap my head around Hillary’s appeal. She’s made mistake after mistake after mistake. Her judgement is constantly proven wrong. Hell, even her POLITICAL prowess seems terrible. Why is she the Dem frontrunner? I don’t understand.

        1. She tells them what they want to hear, each and every time, and if anything changes or seems inconsistent from one tale to another her position has simply “evolved.” End of story. Not at all hard to convince a shallow crowd whose opinions ride on their emotions.

          And don’t forget that special place in hell for women who don’t support her.

        2. Because Michelle isn’t running.

          Her appeal is with the back room boys, that it’s her turn, that she’s centrist enough to seem like she could win a general election (especially with the losers the GOP selects). I mean, Bernie, really? Old, white, male, socialist, trying to win a general election? It’s unpossible!

          But I bet if Michelle had entered the campaign, she’s make Hillary look like the liability she is.

          1. Hillary is like the popular girl in high school that everyone hates. Student council, prom queen, year book committee, cheerleader….everyone goes along with it, yet they all hate her guts.

            1. The only problem with this analysis is that the prom queen/cheerleader girl in high school usually also has a pretty face, great figure, dresses well, and knows how schmooze people.

              Hillary has NONE of those qualities, nor do I suspect she did even when she was in high-school way back during the FDR years.

              1. (hangs head in shame)

              2. Money and connexions.

          2. She’s only a liability if Trump doesn’t get the nomination.

        3. Why is she the Dem frontrunner?

          Big fish in small pond.

  2. The main reason this [private reportedly] complaint about Vermont was news to Kennedy: It isn’t true.

    I’m thinking some “official” body (the FEC?) should track candidates’ statements. Three objectively-verifiable lies — or mis-statements, if you will — and you’re *out* of the running.

    1. You want a government body now issuing “4 Pinocchios” and such?!

      1. Well, I don’t want-want it. I’d just like some real, um, responsibility taken for spouting off blatant crap just to try to win an election. One of the commentariat has suggested applying perjury law to campaign promises. So, maybe something like that.

        1. There are some mediocre fact checkers in the private sphere (i.e. internet pundits and the press). This is the way to go, but look at the Hillary and Trump supporters………..it’s pretty obvious that the electorate just doesn’t care all that much about the truth.

        2. My government would change elections to be for contracts, not the candidates directly. As such, politicians could be held liable for breaking literal campaign promises, if said promises were in their contracts.

          On the one hand, candidates who refused to put their stump promises in their contracts would be open to attack from other more honest candidates. On the other hand, candidates whose contracts were full of promises would find themselves hamstrung later.

          It wouldn’t change things dramatically. But it would produce more honest campaigns, I think. Imagine a candidate promising to close Gitmo, or withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, or leave guns alone, or being the most transparent administration in history. Not in his contract? His opponents would hammer that day and night, glossing over what wasn’t in their own contracts.

          You’d probably end up with candidates promising to follow what the party leadership wanted, or what telephone polls wanted, etc — nice malleable promises devoid of meaning. But at least it would be out in the open for all to see.

        3. isn’t that the job of the voters to sift through the fluff and get to reality?

          One more good example of why we need to return senator selection to the states, and return the selection of delegates/electors to the states as well. Far too many people are too lazy/corrupt/ignorant to select directly. Maybe then, too, we’ll get at least the rare candidate that’s got a brain in his head because he won’t be playing to the silly masses, but to seasoned politicians who fear getting dumped if they don’t look after their constituents at least two or three times a year…..

    2. You want a government body now issuing “4 Pinocchios” and such?!

      1. It appears the squirrelz might….

  3. This is like Citizens United and the Drug Wars. They need to go after the supply of speech or narcotics or guns because they’ve given up that they can change on the demand side human nature’s desire to consume these things. Maybe that’s a positive indicator. (Probably not.)

  4. Funny how most of the violence happens where the guns are harder to get, but you have much less of it where the guns are readily accessable to everyone.

    1. Shhh. You’re not supposed to notice this. Or if you do, there has to be some hand waving that still makes someone else’s laws and policies responsible.

    2. And if you notice it’s handwaved as a cultural difference in urban environments. Just don’t point out that that sounds racist.

  5. And she’s tired with Grandpa Gulag’s lies?

    She’s cunt personified.

  6. Sounds like a pretty solid plan dude. WOw.

    http://www.Web-Privacy.tk

  7. guns coming over the border from Vermont…

    Are we still doing phrasing?

  8. Imagine, if you will, this exact date one year from now. This could very well be your president.

    1. I prefer to image that one year from now she will just be another federal prisoner.

      1. Let me pull up a stool and listen to this story of yours.

        1. It starts with Bernie squealing out a primary victory, at which point, the indictment drops on her. Then an increasingly unhinged sanders puts off the moderates, who simply do not show up to vote…

          1. Could you throw in an aneurism?

            1. Another one?

  9. Alt-text: “I did not ? have sexual relations ? with that woman .?”

    1. “……….Huma Abedin.”

  10. Virginia: 395. WE’RE NUMBER ONE

  11. Shumlin also said that there’s no question that heroin in Vermont comes from out of state and is often brought in by New Yorkers

    Is he running for governor of Maine?

    1. New York is not a big opiate producing state. What are we trading for the heroin that we trade for the guns?

  12. Assholes in every state can be traced back to New York.

  13. You’re distracting from the bigger picture, here. It doesn’t matter if these claims are “completely made up” or “just kinda false,” the important thing is that guns are super-duper scary and should be banned for ever.

  14. NY should build a wall along the Vermont border…and make Vermont pay for it.

  15. Not that I would be inclined to defend Commie Sanders, but surely even a daffy old broad like Hillary knows that Sanders is Vermont’s United States Senator and as such doesn’t run the state.

    1. You and your logic

  16. On top of her other shortcomings, Hillary is an incompetent campaigner. No wonder an unknown with a slick “hope and change” speech blindsided her 8 years ago and an old geezer who flunked introductory economics is poised to blow her out of the water again. She is an idiot and not just a crook. Vermont is running guns to NY, eh? Sort of like Colorado is running weed to Nebraska and Oklahoma according to some equally dim bulbs on the other TEAM.

    F-off, Hillary. Go bake some cookies or organize a church bazaar or whatever it is senile old coots like you normally do. You are as useless as your hack TEAM BLUE ideas.

  17. The logic of this always amuses me. “Guns are causing violence in New York because they come from Vermont!” Then why aren’t those same guns causing violence in Vermont before they get to New York?

    1. Cultural differences in the urban environment

      1. Is that a dog whistle I hear?

  18. “She said that it’s going to be coming out in the very near future that many of the catastrophes that have taken human lives in the State of New York have been the product of guns coming over the border from Vermont,” state Sen. Tim Kennedy (D-Buffalo) told Politico. “That’s the first I heard it. I think it caught everybody’s attention, and we’re looking forward to learning more about it.”

    You don’t understand. Hillary Clinton is a magical leader.

    She was educated at Wellesley College and Yale, which are Hogwarts of sorts for training wise leaders.

    She then married the Bill Clinton and sucked his magical Rod of Power, giving her even more divine knowledge about social issues and political leadership.

    Simply, Hillary Clinton can know things that mere mortals do not. She knows that gun problems in NY are caused by Bernie Sanders in Vermont. It’s coming. You can’t know it, because you’re a mere mortal. You can’t see through the fog of the future, the Hillary can.

    Republicans know it, too, but they study the dark arts. They use the divine knowledge for evil, not for good. They never sucked Bill Clinton’s cock, and that’s all you need to know about them.

  19. So the records show state of FIRST SALE. But how long ago was that gun sold new? And how many hands had it legally passed through before someone bought it somewhere and it ended up in New York? Trace data only indicate the first sale as a new firearm. I’ve seen FBI stats indicating that most guns used in crime were first sold an average of ten or twelve years prior to the event where it was seized with criminal connexions. The current system cannot trace every transfer, and if Charlie buys it new then sells it to Pete two years later, even if an FFL and background check are involved, the chain of possession is broken and BATF/trace data cannot show where it went. Find it eight transfers and ten years later, it is impossible to know where it has been. So even if 55 guns were sold originally in Vermont and ended up with a known crime connexion, who knows where it went between, or where it was last purchased/stolen’given'”found”?

    Hillary is so full of brown stuff she should open a fertiliser packaging facility.

  20. LOL. The state with quite possibly the LOWEST crime rate in the nation is responsible for one of the worst?
    Do you need any more proof that the Left in general, and Clinton in particular, live in a bubble?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.