On Guns


From the candidates’ websites:

Linda Andrei

  • Universal background checks – no loopholes
  • Eliminate assault rifles
  • Reverse the Dickey Amendment 
  • Domestic violence conviction or court order – we must eliminate firearms 

Max Della Pia

I served in the military for most of my adult life, so I understand the power and responsibility that accompanies owning and operating a firearm.

I also understand the important role that gun ownership plays in the many communities across this district. In Congress, I will continue to support the right of Americans to responsibly purchase and own certain firearms for the purpose of hunting and protecting their families.

However, we must take strong federal action to curb the epidemic of gun violence that has swept our country.

I support closing the gun show and online sale loopholes around the country that allow people to purchase guns without having to show a license. In addition, I will continue to support a ban on automatic weapons and bump stocks to prevent the type of mass carnage that has become a somber reality for our nation.

Max will be a forceful advocate for gun reform and believes his military background will help bridge opposing sides to finally pass gun reform legislation.

Ian Golden

Guns not listed as a priority.

Tracy Mitrano

I come from a family of hunters and I will protect the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners. At the same time, gun violence is an epidemic in this country and we cannot ignore the ongoing mass shootings in our schools and communities. Research has shown that the number one reason for mass murders in our country is the easy availability of large numbers of guns. There are practical and common sense actions that can and must be taken to ensure those seeking to commit violent acts do not have easy access to guns.

Eddie Sundquist

As a hunter, I understand gun ownership is an incredible tradition in areas like the Southern Tier, and a majority of gun owners practice responsible gun ownership. But, we need to do a better job to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people.

There is a lot of concern about creating a National Firearms Database, but I’m exploring areas to implement a universal background system without the need for such a database to exist.










About whungerford

* Contributor at NewNY23rd.com where we discuss the politics, economics, and events of the New New York 23rd Congressional District (Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, (Eastern) Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben,Tioga, Tompkins, and Yates Counties) Please visit and comment on whatever strikes your fancy.
This entry was posted in 2018, Gun Violence. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to On Guns

  1. whungerford says:

    What is the Dickey Amendment?


  2. Rynstone says:

    Linda Andrei;
    Where can you purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer without a background ?
    What a these universal background loopholes you speak of ?
    What is your description of an “assault” rifle ?
    I believe that the POKULUS filled 2018 Omnibus Bill counters the Dickey Amendment

    Max Della Pia;
    “I will continue to support the right of Americans to responsibly purchase and own certain firearms for the purpose of hunting and protecting their families.” Can you describe these “certain firearms” ?
    Do you know what the Founder’s true intent for the 2nd Amendment was ?
    Can we work at the federal level get to the root cause of violence and gun violence ?
    What is this Gun Show loophole you speak of ?
    You do know you have to do more than “show a license” to purchase a firearm from all licensed firearms dealer ?
    Do you know what a NICS Background check is ?
    Did you know that automatic firearms have been banned for many decades ?
    Your lack of knowledge leads one to believe that you have never purchased a firearm from a licensed dealer. Have you ever purchased a firearm from a licensed dealer ?
    What types of gun reform legislation are you advocating for ?

    Ian Golden;
    I commend you for not speaking about something you may know very little about.

    Tracy Mitrano;
    Do you know the Founder’s true intent for the 2nd Amendment ?
    What are the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners ?
    What are the practical and common sense actions that can and must be taken to ensure those seeking to commit violent acts do not have easy access to guns ?

    Eddie Sundquist
    Have you ever used the NICS Background check ?
    What are some details of this “universal background check system” you speak of ?


  3. whungerford says:

    Rynstone, (aka Gary Perry) putting you head in the sand does nothing to solve the problem of gun violence.


  4. Rynstone says:

    We can’t even solve the problem of teh many deaths from texting on cell phones, talking on phones and other driving distractions like applying make-up and eating while driving cars.

    Should we ban all cars or just the automatic cars?

    Texting while driving is illegal but many innicent people die annually from it.


  5. whungerford says:

    Don’t be silly, Gary–drivers are licensed, cars are registered, if technology could make texting while driving impossible, I would welcome that.


  6. Rynstone says:

    Planned Parenthood takes far more children’s lives than firearms do. Why no public outcry over this?



  7. Rynstone says:

    whungerford, Cmo’n, Technology could easily “outlaw” prohibit texting, talking on phones, drinking and driving under the influence, speeding, smoking and other “sins”.

    We already have breathalizers for convicted drivers, cars could have cell phone blockers, electronics combined with GPS could easily stop speeding, smoking detectors could stop smoking, sensors could always detect two hands on the steering wheel. Cars could not be started without seat belts, insurance and valid license and registration. The list of losing our freedoms and liberties is so east now with technology and teh Progressive Liberals, Marxists, Communists and Socialist welcome it.


  8. josephurban says:

    Ryn. To answer one of your questions.
    Q. Where can you purchase a gun without a background check and what are the loopholes?
    The main loophole is unregulated “private sales” and internet sales and gun show sales. The following states do not require background checks for “private sales” for the purchase of any gun.
    Alabama, Alaska, Arizona,Arkansas, Florida,Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, W. Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

    So a resident of Illinois, which has stronger gun control laws, can drive over the border into Indiana and legally buy a gun at a “private sale”. As a result, state laws controlling guns are rendered more difficult to enforce.

    A child in NY , which has solid laws, can be murdered by a citizen legally buying an assault weapon in Ohio, where there is no license requirement or back ground check for the purchasing of assault weapons by a private sale.

    Hence the need for a sane national gun control policy.



  9. josephurban says:

    Ryn. To answer another question.
    Q. What is an assault weapon?
    A. Using the definition under the SAFE Act, which has been challenged in court and determined to be Constitutional.
    “The Act broadened the legal definition of assault weapon to include those semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic pistols (handguns), and semi-automatic shotguns with one or more “military-style features, such as a telescoping stock, bayonet mount, flash suppressor, grenade launcher and others.”


  10. josephurban says:

    Ryn. To answer another one of your questions.
    Q. What are the Constitutional rights of gun owners?

    A. The exact same as the Constitutional rights of those who do not own guns. There is no difference. Every adult citizen as the right to possess a gun for personal safety in their home. The DC v Heller decision codified that right. And, like any right, this one has limits. According to the SCOTUS decisions states have the right to limit WHO can own guns and WHAT KINDS of weapons are available. There are a number of states with stricter gun control laws, all of which have been upheld by the courts. So, the answer to your question is quite simple. We all have the same rights under the Constitution, along with the reasonable limits to those right. No right is unlimited.


  11. Rynstone says:

    Joe, The NY Safe Act has only been found “Constitutional” by appointed Federal judges in NY State. Some parts of the law have been found unconstitutional by one or more NY State Federal judges.

    The NY SAFE Act has not yet been brought in front of the Supreme Court.


  12. Rynstone says:

    I am with Beck, Coulter, Carlson, Ingraham, Pierro, Lavine, the NRA, Guns for America and other
    gun rights groups and many other conservatives on the 2nd Amendment

    We have enough gun laws that rarely get enforced.


  13. Rynstone says:

    Good testimony on Gun Control legislation


  14. josephurban says:

    Ryn. You made this statement:
    “Joe, The NY Safe Act has only been found “Constitutional” by appointed Federal judges in NY State. Some parts of the law have been found unconstitutional by one or more NY State Federal judges.

    The NY SAFE Act has not yet been brought in front of the Supreme Court.

    Yes. Federal judges do determine whether or not a law is Constitutional. And federal judges have said that the SAFE ACT is constitutional. That is the job of federal judges. That is how the legal system works. You may not like the decisions, but facts are facts.

    There was one part of the SAFE Act that was overturned as unconstitutional. That was the part that mandated a 7 rather than 10 bullet maximum. Since 7 bullet magazines are not common, the court ruled that that was an unreasonable demand. Governor Cuomo agreed and did not challenge that decision. The rest of the SAFE ACT, including increased penalties for those killing cops, was found to be constitutional.

    The SAFE Act was sent to the US Supreme Court by its opponents. Now, the SCOTUS only accepts cases that deal with “constitutional” issues. They take cases where there is a question of whether the Constitution may be violated. It is good to note that the SCOTUS REFUSED to hear the case precisely because there were no constitutional issues involved. In other words, the SAFE Act has passed Constitutional muster.

    So, while it is certainly a legitimate political position to disagree on the LEVEL and AMOUNT of gun control imposed by the government, the false narrative that the SAFE Act is not “constitutional” has been put to rest by the SCOTUS. RIP.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.