As the U.S. Senate gets back to work today, there’s a lot on the agenda: A budget plan, immigration reform and the question of creating a universal background check. Slate’s John Dickerson explains why he thinks the Senate might actually break through the logjam that has held up legislation in recent years; meanwhile, Talking Points Memo notes that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is growing increasing impatient with the GOP’s filibustering strategy.
On the subject of the universal background checks: Supporters of expanding the checks to nearly all unlicensed gun sales (which is a contentious step I explored here) are holding out hope that they can bring over Republican Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, according to the Washington Post.
Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake has said that expanding those background checks would require too much paperwork; instead, he wants to see more mentally ill people added to the list of prohibited possessors.
During a Sunday appearance on Face the Nation, Arizona Sen. John McCain sidestepped a question over whether he still supported expanding background checks to gun shows, saying that it would depend on how the checks are done.
McCain expressed exasperation with Republican colleagues who are threatening to filibuster the legislation.
“I don’t understand it,” McCain said. “The purpose of the United States Senate is to debate and to vote and to let the people know where we stand. … What are we afraid of?”
This article appears in Apr 4-10, 2013.
I fail to understand Senator Flake’s ‘logic’: expand the list of those prohibited from possessing firearms because of mental illness BUT do not expand the use of the list of prohibited persons. If I understand him, he’d like a comprehensive list and have it continue to be used only by registered dealers, thereby letting prohibited persons buy from private sources, at gun shows, etc., as is the case right now for an estimate 40% of all gun sales. Logic like this should probably merit a place on the prohibited persons list for Senator Flake, don’t you think?
McCain asks, “What are we afraid of?” And the answer is, we’re afraid of John McCain and Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
It sounds to me franklymydears like you want more prohibited possessors but I’m sure that is not what you meant. I actually have a problem with Sen. Flake wanting to expand his list of those who suffer from even minor mental illnesses as prohibited possessors, let alone requiring dads from transferring a firearm that his dad owned to his son without taking it to a FFL.
Where is the debate about psychotropic drugs or how better policing tactics, which are proven to work, would help stem the tide of violence by violent people?
When is enough enough for the firearm prohibitionists; when only the military and police have firearms? Isn’t that the classic definition of a police state?
In 1934 automatics were banned unless the people who wanted one had to pay a tax and register themselves. That wasn’t enough.
In 1968 a massive act was passed placing further limitations on people and creating government schemes. It was the Gun Control Act of 1968. That wasn’t enough.
In 1993 the Brady Law was passed establishing a scheme where anyone who wanted to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer would have to have a NICS check.
In 1994, the 2nd ban on a class of firearms was enacted. That was the ban on semiautomatic rifles with certain cosmetic features.
In 1996 a new prohibited possessor status was created for certain misdemeanor offenses and another law created a Defenseless Victim Zone 1000′ around our schools – Both mandated from the federal level.
These are only the major Federal laws. There is a plethera of others created since 1934 keeping even historic WWII & Korean conflict semiautomatic M-1 Carbines, and others, from being imported, expanding the Defense Victim Zones to federally owned or rented property, etc., etc.
Again, when is enough, enough?
Maybe we should start considering actions that might just work, like better policing techniques – That is of course if people are actually looking for fixes.
Hmmm and I thought the job of the Senate was to do the what the majority of the PEOPLE, who elected him, wanted. Not to let them know where WE stand. And who is this WE the senator is referring to?
Ken Rineer, Aren’t there any number of industrialized countries where firearms are severely restricted, and even prohibited that are fully functioning democracies? What are the “better policing tactics” that you are referring to?
How can we restrict firearms from criminals, when we have no way to regulate the flow of these firearms to the criminals? If we had a registry, and it included every firearm sale, as weapons are used in crimes we could very quickly identify the sources providing those weapons. Due to the incredible power of the NRA we cannot even use federal funds to research gun crimes…..given the phenomenal numbers of injuries and deaths every year, of Americans, from literally babies killing babies, to every conceivable part of American society, year after year, shouldn’t we be at least researching the problem?
I am a lifelong gun owner, honorably discharged US Army veteran, father, and grandfather, and I don’t want my loved ones harmed by some fool who should not have a gun.
It just seem to me that we need to do something different than what we have been doing. Listening to the La Pierres screaming 2d Amendment every time someone says stop killing our kids, has finally made me sick enough to stop and think about this. Guns don’t kill people..but people would not be killing as many people if they did not have the guns…that is simple logic.
So how do we stop this carnage? I don’t know that, but I do know that using the same tired logic that got us to this point is not working, and will not work.