Associated Press
Sens. Chuck Grassley (R) and Pat Leahy (D) help lead the Senate Judiciary Committee
The debate over how best (or whether) to pursue policies on reducing gun violence isn't limited to one idea or one bill. Indeed, even the most optimistic advocates of new legal limits will concede that given the current congressional makeup, it's hard to imagine lawmakers approving literally every proposal sought by gun-safety proponents.
But at this point, it's also a mistake to assume literally nothing on gun policy can pass. One bill, in particular, appears to be making real progress.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to vote Thursday on a bipartisan gun safety measure designed to curb illegal gun trafficking and purchasing.
The bill, which would toughen the penalties for those who purchase a gun illegally for others to up to 15 years and make gun trafficking a felony, has attracted the most bipartisan support so far of four measures headed for the committee.
The measure is a marriage of a gun-trafficking bill designed by Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the committee, and a similar bill that was being put together between Senators Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, and Mark Steven Kirk, Republican of Illinois. It will be co-sponsored by Senators Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, and Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut.
It's worth emphasizing that Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee and a NRA ally, appears to be largely on board with the bipartisan bill, which is intended to crack down on straw purchasers and illegal gun trafficking.
And while this proposal is just one part of a larger policy agenda, the fact that it's generating bipartisan backing is no small feat -- Greg Sargent yesterday called the progress on the gun-trafficking bill "the most significant movement in the debate over gun reform that we've seen since Obama first unveiled his package of proposals last December."
For proponents of new gun laws, this is the good news. Yesterday, however, brought some discouraging news, too.
A bipartisan effort to approve a universal background-check system, which would close the gun-show loophole among other things, is arguably the single most important element of the larger agenda, and enjoys the broadest and most overwhelming levels of support from the American people.
And while it looked for a while as if the pieces were in place for a bipartisan effort on this, too, at least one key Republican is beginning to balk.
With time running out for talks, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) remains optimistic about reaching an agreement. But gun control proponents have grown skeptical about whether Schumer's main Republican counterpart, Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.), is acting in good faith.
Schumer argues -- and gun control groups agree -- that records must be kept to ensure background checks are conducted before private transactions. Otherwise, any expansion of background checks would be unenforceable, they assert.
But Coburn worries that such a paperwork requirement could lead to a national gun registry, which gun rights groups staunchly oppose, according to Senate sources familiar with the talks.
What's frustrating about this is that the concerns are rooted entirely in paranoia. There is no national gun registry; the proposal would not create a national gun registry; and as best as I can tell, no one actually wants a national gun registry. It's a fear straight out of the far-right fever swamp.
But some Republicans fear it anyway, and those concerns are apparently weighing on Coburn.
This is not to say the background-check proposal is dead, or even dying. But it is fair to say the bipartisan effort, which appeared to be steadily progressing, has hit a real snag.
President Obama has reportedly spent some time reaching out to Coburn directly -- the two have long had a good personal rapport -- but the funny thing about paranoid fears is that logic and reason can't make them go away.
Leave a Comment:
I don't know if nobody wants a national gun registry. I do. But then again, I am in no way able to affect policy. I'd like that anyone buying a gun be responsible for that gun until which time that it is no longer in their possession. If you buy it, you're responsible for it. If it is stolen, you report it. If you don't and it is used in a crime, you are on the hook. If you sell it, it transfers ownership, just like a car or a home.
If you want a weapon, you should be responsible for that weapon.
I can remember a time that's what the NRA was about: responsible gun ownership and use. Sad to see what it's been reduced to these days.
On another topic, I do like the upgrade to a felony for straw buyers. I live in Arizona, where there is entirely too much of this. While federal law has long required notification of multiple handguns, this law does not apply to 'long guns' (this category covers rifles, assault rifles, etc.).
It is not illegal to purchase 20 assault rifles at the same time, declare those for personal use, and no one lifts an eyebrow. When the Obama administration used an executive order to require reporting of multiple long gun purchases in 2011, you wouldn't believe the screams of outrage in this deeply red state. This was an executive order to ATF for gun shop licensing. It is not a law.
The Arizona Republic did some articles on the practice back in Feb of 2011. I'm providing a link to one of those below, and it's well worth the time reading it. Remember this is Arizona, where a concealed carry permit is not required, and it's legal to carry guns into bars.
http://www.azcentral.com/community/glendale/articles/20110220arizona-rifle-sale-law.html
I agree with your post completely, Ms Joanne.....It's obvious that we need major reform in our entire election/political system..Politicians are influenced by special interest above the voting public
Ms. Joanne: I too agree that guns should be registered just like cars, and gun owners should be licensed and have to pass both a written and a practical test just as when you get a drivers license and licenses should have to be renewed every five years just like a drivers license. Gun owners should also have to carry liability insurance, just like car owners.
As citizens we have the right to own guns, just as we have the right to own property -- land, houses, cars, but citizenship carries responsibilities. One of the things that our whole discussion about freedom in this country is missing is a discussion of the responsibilities of citizenship and freedom.
I agree wholeheartedly with you bflynch.
While Rahm Emmanuel pushes for tougher sentencing for criminals with illegal firearms, Obama, on Last Friday pardoned a man in Ga. that was convicted for having an Illegal firearm.
— Larry Wayne Thornton of Forsyth, Ga., sentenced to four years of probation for possession of an unregistered firearm and possession of a firearm without a serial number.
Looks like a lot of common sense is being used by this admin in pushing gun control.
I have to agree that this was an odd pardon given the timing. The man only had 4 years of probation so it was a pretty minor offense but I'd still like to hear the reasoning for the pardon. Of course we won't because presidential pardons are notoriously hush hush.
Hell, yes, I want a national firearms registry. It's an eminently sensible idea, opposed only by crackpots, crooks, paranoids, terrorists, and pusillanimous politicians and pundits.
Me too. Voting's a right, and you have to register to vote. So why shouldn't firearms be registered too?
Hey "Inspector" - what's it look like up there inside your colon?
Does personal property mean nothing to you? The 4th amendment states:
If you think that a national registry would be "reasonable", I would note that in Katz vs US (1967), the Supreme Court established two tests in regards to what counts as reasonable.
1) Does the person being searched have a reasonable expectation of personal privacy?
2) Would society at large also believe that said person should have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
A federal firearm registry would be unconstitutional, for the same reason that that it would be unconstitutional to see if you owned a flat screen TV, a power drill, or what toys you keep in the bedroom.
You don't need to violate my rights to prevent gun violence. All you gotta do is clean up the inner cities where most of this gun violence is happening.
I have to retain my car's registration and have it available upon request for cause by the police. And it's completely constitutional. too.
There went your "HiDef defense"...
Alva
Requiring gun registration is neither search nor seizure by any logical definition. As Doug says a person is required to have a proof of car registration and to show it to the authorities upon request.
With the memory of the Sandy Hook massacre fading somewhat, it will get harder and harder to have any meaningful legislation on any type of gun control. With the NRA pushing for a gun in every school, house, car, you name it they want a gun there. It's pure lunacy to advocate the buying of guns by anyone who has the money to purchase any amount or type of weapons for any purpose. I think the NRA would allow foreign nationals to purchase truckloads of weapons if they could get away with it. This is a far cry from the NRA I knew as a youngster, and they could'nt pay me enough to be a member today. LaPierre should be imprisoned for aiding and abetting criminals.
Everyone should read the article in the new issue of Time (March 11), "Oscar Pistorius and South Africa's Culture of Violence." The NRA and all the gun fanatics seem to think that the U.S. is either already or about to become like South Africa, a bunch of fragmented enclaves protected by armed guards and armed paranoid (I cannot even think of the right word: citizens is not right nor is savages).
One little bit of wisdom that I noticed on some news show this weekend was that in order for a nation or society to exist as a civilized unit the people have to agree to be policed. When our nation was formed, the states agreed to live by the Constitution and the laws that our duly elected lawmakers passed. All this "rugged individualism" is antithetical to a civilized state that is ruled by laws.
What is the point of increasing criminal penalties when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms does not have funds to investigate and arrest these criminals? It is an exercise in futility. The legislation does not penalize the people who sell the strawman the guns who assist in these sales when the sellers fail to investigate the purchaser.
Stop calling it a Gun Violence bill and call it a Violence bill or a Violence against People Bill and you would get a lot more support. It will easier to increase penalties of existing laws ie straw purchases, then new laws. A registry is a popular topic but I really wonder how it would be enforced. Are you trying to get EVERY firearm in existence on a list? That will just never happen. Every firearm sold after a certain date? At some point these laws need to be enforced and I question a states or Federal LE agencies ability to do so. If preventation of violence is the ultimate goal then education, job training and mental health actions will do more to prevent violence.
Owing a gun should mean be accountable for everything that the gun will do. But the fear of personal responsibility keep the fearful from being accountable.
Noting the stringency in the law. It will be federal crime to unlawfully own a gun. Odd but all would be well if personal responsibility was meant to be accountable.
This is very good news. We have very weak laws at the federal level when it comes to gun trafficking. And with each state having a different standard, it makes meaningful gun policy nearly impossible. This bill would crack down on straw purchasers, and would do quite a lot to dry up the source of firearms to criminals and the Mexican drug cartels. I fully support it, and hope it passes.