Senate rejects Background Check (for Firearm Purchase) Bill

[CleanShavenJesus]

WASHINGTON (AP) — A showdown at hand, Senate supporters of expanded background checks for gun purchasers all but conceded defeat Wednesday in a fierce political struggle pitting the parents of Newtown, Conn., shooting victims and President Barack Obama against the National Rifle Association.

Attempts by gun control advocates to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazine clips faced certain rejection in a series of votes called for late afternoon, four months after a gunman killed 20 elementary school children and six staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

In the hours before the key vote, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., bluntly accused the NRA of making false claims about the expansion of background checks that he and Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., were backing.

"Where I come from in West Virginia, I don't know how to put the words any plainer than this: That is a lie. That is simply a lie," he said, accusing the organization of telling its supporters that friends, neighbors and some family members would need federal permission to transfer ownership of firearms to one another.

The NRA did not respond to a request for comment on the assertion.

Senate critics of the proposal, led by Republicans, said it would infringe on the Constitution's right to bear arms. "The real way to fight gun crime is to prosecute criminals, not law abiding citizens," said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.

Added Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky: "The government shouldn't punish or harass law-abiding citizens in the exercise of their Second Amendment rights."

Senate votes were set on a total of nine provisions, some advanced by lawmakers on each side of an issue in which Democrats from rural or Southern states generally lined up with the overwhelming majority of Republicans.

Whatever the outcome, the events were unlikely to be the last word on an issue that Democratic leaders shied away from for nearly two decades until Obama picked up it after the Newtown shootings.

Vice President Joe Biden was to preside over the Senate for the votes, a symbolic move since each proposal required a 60-vote majority to pass and he would not be called upon to break any ties.

The day's key test concerned the background checks, designed to prevent criminals and the seriously mentally ill from purchasing firearms. Under current law, checks are required only when guns are purchased from federally licensed firearms dealers. The proposal by Manchin and Toomey called for extending the requirement to other sales at gun shows and on the Internet.

Their bipartisan approach was widely seen as advocates' best chance for winning enough GOP votes to change current law in a way that Obama and gun control groups support. But foes had proposals of their own, including one that would require states that issue concealed weapons permits to honor the permits from other states.

In the hours leading to a vote on the background check measure, Democrats Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Republican Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire became the latest senators to announce their opposition.

Numerous polls in recent months have shown support for enhanced gun control measures, including background checks, though it may be weakening.

An Associated Press-GfK poll this month showed that 49 percent of Americans support stricter gun laws, down from 58 percent in January. In that recent survey, 38 percent said they want the laws to remain the same and 10 percent want them eased.

Obama has made enactment of greater curbs a priority on his domestic agenda in the months since the massacre at Newtown, making several trips outside Washington to try and build support. Last week, he traveled to Connecticut, and he invited several parents to fly back to Washington with him aboard Air Force One so they could personally lobby lawmakers.

To an unusual degree for professional politicians, some senators said afterward that they had not wanted to meet with the mothers and fathers of the dead, or said it was difficult to look at photographs that the parents carried of their young children, now dead.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said before Wednesday's vote, "I think that in some cases, the president has used them as props, and that disappoints me."

Some of the parents of the Sandy Hook victims said they intended to watch the votes from the spectators' gallery that rings the Senate floor.

At the White House, press secretary Jay Carney said some of them had met earlier in the day with lawmakers, who he said should "consider who they're representing.

"Ninety percent of the American people support expanded background checks," he said.

Democratic aides said in advance that the day's events would end debate on the issue for the time being. But they added they expect Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to bring it back to the floor in the coming months, after supporters of greater controls have had more time to rally public support.

The NRA told lawmakers it intended to keep track of how the votes were cast, and consider them in making decisions about its efforts in the mid-term elections for Congress next year.

An opposing group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, funded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, said it would do likewise.

The NRA has a long track record in electoral politics, and is viewed by lawmakers in both political parties as unusually effective. Bloomberg's organization has yet to be tested.

The day began with an unexpected announcement from Reid, who has long been a political ally of the NRA. In remarks on the Senate floor, he said he intended to vote for a ban on assault weapons "because maintaining law and order is more important than satisfying conspiracy theorists who believe in black helicopters."

In the AP-GfK poll, among independents, support for stricter gun laws dipped from 60 percent in January to 40 percent now. About three-fourths of Democrats supported them then and now, while backing among Republicans for looser laws about doubled to 19 percent.

The survey was conducted from April 11-15 by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Corporate Communications. It involved landline and cellphone interviews with 1,004 randomly chosen adults and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.

http://news.yahoo.com/background-check-b...itics.html


Pathetic.

[Darkstar]

Added Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky: "The government shouldn't punish or harass law-abiding citizens in the exercise of their Second Amendment rights."

And how do we know that they're law abiding citizens (and not downright insane) without the background checks?

[Minimalist]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...oting.html

And nearly 3,500 dead Americans later the senate shows that it is made of shit.

[Shell B]

To be fair, the only good argument I have heard against this is that states should handle this problem themselves. I'm not anti-gun, but I do believe background checks should be necessary. I just wish we could handle it on a state level because I do not like the feds having too much power. It pisses me off.

[Minimalist]

The states are even worse, Shel.

Look at the collection of republicunts running the deep south.

[Brayton.l]

We have to get a license to drive a fucking car. But maybe this just be a way for the government to find out who has/wants a car. They be coming for my Chevy next! Telling me I cant hoard gasoline and such.

[Creed of Heresy]

Actually, the bill was rejected for more reasons than just the background check. It was the other shit that was in the bill that the senators, the NRA, and people in general had a hard time swallowing. Capacity limitations, auto-fire/assault bans, legality issues for transferring firearms...this isn't shit 90% of the population agree on. If they had just gone for the background checks and not the typical ultraliberal overregulation shit on top of it this bill would have passed and everyone would be happier but Obama had to make a big giant political statement, he fucked up, and now we're all left feeling like we just lost, because, really, we did. >:/

[The Grand Nudger]

To be fair, states and the federal government already require background checks. The background check issue is a loophole of person-person "private" transactions. The federal background checks required of licensed dealers (who the fuck buys a rifle from billybob anyway...godamned rednecks, don't even go in for the quality gear........) are pretty thoroughly enforced - insomuch as they can be, the state bacground checks are much more lax, and overall even licensed dealers like to go the gun shows and make "private transactions".

I think that this one should be isolated and put up for the vote as well, without any baggage that might weigh it down and delay the loophole being closed. I think the system in place trikes a fair balance. They run the check, they keep the check on file for a set period of time, then they discard the record/file it away (so as to avoid making a "list of gun owners"). If you don't give a politician anything else to point at as a screen for activities performed at the behest of his owners it makes pointing the finger a whole hell of alot easier.

(I never understood the capacity thing - in the service we just taped magazines opposite ends to make reloading faster, you just pull down, flip, reinsert. The capacity of the magazine is entirely irrelevant as this takes -maybe- a second to accomplish. But hey, the entire assault rifle thing is something I don't understand, so meh)

[A Theist]

Actually, the bill was rejected for more reasons than just the background check. It was the other shit that was in the bill that the senators, the NRA, and people in general had a hard time swallowing. Capacity limitations, auto-fire/assault bans, legality issues for transferring firearms...this isn't shit 90% of the population agree on. If they had just gone for the background checks and not the typical ultraliberal overregulation shit on top of it this bill would have passed and everyone would be happier but Obama had to make a big giant political statement, he fucked up, and now we're all left feeling like we just lost, because, really, we did. >:/

Actually, the bill was rejected for more reasons than just the background check. It was the other shit that was in the bill that the senators, the NRA, and people in general had a hard time swallowing. Capacity limitations, auto-fire/assault bans, legality issues for transferring firearms...this isn't shit 90% of the population agree on. If they had just gone for the background checks and not the typical ultraliberal overregulation shit on top of it this bill would have passed...

YUP...Barack and his far-left buddies were overly anxious...

[Minimalist]

Actually, the bill was rejected for more reasons than just the background check. It was the other shit that was in the bill that the senators, the NRA, and people in general had a hard time swallowing. Capacity limitations, auto-fire/assault bans, legality issues for transferring firearms...this isn't shit 90% of the population agree on. If they had just gone for the background checks and not the typical ultraliberal overregulation shit on top of it this bill would have passed and everyone would be happier but Obama had to make a big giant political statement, he fucked up, and now we're all left feeling like we just lost, because, really, we did. >:/

Incorrect, Creed. There are a series of 9 amendments each to be voted on separately.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...this-week/

No, this is just the lunatic fringe of gun wielding nutbags having a tantrum while more and more Americans continue to die.

Be happy with yourselves. The blood is on your hands, too.