Senate Refuses to Act on Modest Gun Control Measures

[TeddyR]

The senate couldn't even get enough votes yesterday to add modest gun control measures (like UBCs) to a Republican bill. In other words, nothing is going to get done. There are some overwhelmingly popular proposals, like UBCs, and I really cannot understand why those aren't getting passed, other than that our elected representatives are failing to do what we hired them to do and are instead cowing to the NRA. On the other hand, there are some states where gun control is a losing issue. Heidi Heitkamp (D - ND) voted against yesterday's gun control proposals. I don't imagine gun control is particularly popular in North Dakota, and her grip on her seat probably too tenuous to survive a vote in favor of gun control.

From the article:

The Senate on Thursday voted down two gun control proposals put forward by Democrats in response to this week’s deadly shooting in San Bernardino, Calif., in a series of votes that highlighted the intractable party divide over how to respond to gun violence.

The Senate rejected a measure from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to expand background checks for guns purchased online and at gun shows on a 48 to 50 vote and an amendment from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to prevent individuals on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms on a 45 to 54 vote. The amendments were offered to an Obamacare repeal package currently being debated in the Senate and they needed 60 votes to be adopted.

Feinstein’s amendment was identical to legislation she previously filed on the same topic, while the expansion of background checks for gun purchases mirrored language championed by Sens. Manchin and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) in 2013, following the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School three years ago this month.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/12/03/senate-democrats-to-force-gun-control-votes-in-the-wake-of-the-san-bernardino-shooting/?hpid=hp_regional-hp-cards_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fcard

[Javaman]

1. untill someone goes in and shoots up congress, nothing will change.

like climate change, until congress is walking around in hip waders, nothing will change.

[riversedge]

15. It just may take something as horrible as that to wake the GOP up.

And to be clear I do NOT want that to happen

[Javaman]

34. neither do I, but we live in reactionary times.

and sadly, it takes something extreme to shock these halfwits into action.

like the rich, something is only bad when it happens to them and effects their bottom line, everyone else, they don't give a whit.

[randys1]

26. Oh those vile fucks are in NO danger, at all. They make sure of that.

[Javaman]

35. and you are right, that's why nothing will be done.

we are living in the kabuki theater monkey poop flinging era.

it's easier for congress to screech and yell, rather than try to understand and change the entropy society.

[Recursion]

51. It happened in 1954. Puerto Rican separatists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol_shooting_incident_(1954)

[pipoman]

2. The reason is pretty simple on UBCs

One type of gun sale doesn’t require a bg check. That is intrastate sale between two people who are not in the business of selling firearms...

The one reason this one very specific type of sale was exempted from the first day in 1993 is because the federal government has no jurisdiction over the sale of used, legal personal property if there is no interstate component to the sale. Nothing has changed. This is why no bills have made it out of judiciary committees in 20 years....same conclusion every time.

[flamin lib]

9. I don't know where you got your Constitutional Law Degree, but I got mine at

wikipedia where with a simple query you will find that all the way back to the Madison court the Interstate Commerce Clause has been coupled to the Necessary and Proper Clause to cover intrastate commerce. As late as the 1990s Antonin Scalia used that combination of clauses to give federal jurisdiction over privately grown marijuana given away freely (medical use).

So in this case you are proven empirically wrong about federal jurisdiction over intrastate sale of guns or anything else.

[librechik]

11. it makes a pretty good excuse, tho

for never doing your job.

[pipoman]

12. Firearms are constitutionally protected whether we like it or not

Pot is illegal at the federal level and in most states. The comparison is apples and orangutans...

[flamin lib]

14. And the necessary and proper clause has been coupled to the interstate commerce

clause almost from the beginning, so the federal government can regulate intrastate sales between private individuals. Please stop spreading the lie about the constitutionality of regulating gunz.

And please stop acting like you have a Constitutional Law Degree unless you can produce one.

[pipoman]

19. What would motivate exempting background checks since 1993

on this one very, very specific type of sale?

Why hasn't a single bill made it out of committee?

No, pretending it isn't so won't change the facts.

[flamin lib]

20. What would motivate exempting the gun industry from consumer protection laws?

What would motivate the passage of the PLCAA?

Hint: it ain't the interstate commerce clause.

Not calling any names but the initials are NRA and all the asshole gun nuts that support it.

You are demonstrably wrong, sir. Please accept it and move on to some other idiotic argument.

[pipoman]

22. Well..

As Bernie and really anyone else knows, they are not exempted from consumer protection laws, they are protected from frivolous law suits....exactly like car makers are exempted from liability for drunk druvers driving their cars.

I thought the NRA worked at the pleasure of gun manufacturers?

Don't gun nuts want to be able to cross state lines to buy from unlicensed sellers?

No, you are demonstrably wrongby virtue of 85% not opposed and no passage.

[flamin lib]

23. I beg your pardon sir.

The gun industry IS exempt from consumer protection laws.

The very fact that you dispute this and still seem to believe that magic fairy dust makes the intestate commerce clause exempt from the necessary and proper clause leads me to think that rational conversation with you is not possible.

You lose sir, you get nothing. Good day.

[melm00se]

24. no

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)...protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products are held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligence when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.

Firearms manufacturers and dealers CAN be sued but only in cases as outlined (and emphasized) above.

[randys1]

32. Jaguar has made a new passenger car for sale

It is designed to kill other passenger cars and the people inside them.

That is the reason it exists, to kill.

A week later after a local man purchases one, he drives up behind a family driving to Disneyland and blows them into pieces using a missile and an automatic weapon.

In our current system, Jaguar would be looking at a pretty ugly WRONGFUL DEATH lawsuit.

But if he had just walked up to them with a hand held missile or gun and blew them up, no lawsuit.

[pipoman]

43. Jaguar cannot make that product for sale to the public...next false equivalency?

[randys1]

44. How do you know they cant make a car that has a legal gun attached to it in such

a manner?

No missile , just gun.

But thanks for not getting the point, purposely.

Guns are manufactured to kill, when someone dies, regardless of how, the manufacturer should be held liable.

Common sense, actually.

[pipoman]

45. Oh I got the false equivalency

And understand some who can't grasp the reality of the constitution and bill of rights...pretending 'we should just....', or this ridiculous idea or that is just "common sense"...I get it...

[randys1]

46. Yep, 2nd Am is in plain english and clearly provides for gunz ONLY in well regualated

militias

you are right

[pipoman]

47. Just not according to most who understand the text and

now SCOTUS has solidified the truth of the intent...I know a bunch of wishful thinkers like to pretend words mean things that they obviously do not...even simple words like "the people" are hard for some to grasp...

[aikoaiko]

56. No, the people can have guns to support a militia if needed

It's not that complicated

[pipoman]

25. See above, you've been lied to avout what Bernie and several other Democrats voted for...

No you lose because you haven't provided any believable alternative....'well the nra!!1!' Isn't believable or correct.

Again. ..Why were private intrastate sale exempted in 1993?

Why are they still exempted dispite 85% being ok with bg checks on these sales, manufacturerers and gun store owners obviously would rather every sale have the same restrictions as their sales?

Why can't a bill make it out of Democratic controlled congressional or senate judiciary committee even with Democratic president?

[world wide wally]

3. Dems should keep bringing up the anti-terrorist bill just like Republicans bring up Obamacare

[RKP5637]

5. Exactly!!! The dems need to kick the republicans around as they do to the democrats. n/t

[ileus]

4. online guns still have to be shipped to an FFL.

Same with gun show firearms from licensed dealers.



Why not just go ahead with a no more private sales law of some type?


As for the "terrorist watch list" what and who come to mind. What lands you on the list? and Who?

[dumbcat]

10. Only if crossing a state line

under federal law. Some states require it for in state sales, but not all.

[spanone]

6. the majority leader of the senate must be obeyed......

[meaculpa2011]

7. The Terrorist Screening Center can place anyone...

on its No-Fly List without a warrant, without due process and without giving the accused the right to confront his accuser.

Should being placed on this "List" also strip the accused of all Constitutional protections?

[world wide wally]

8. Just the guns ^

[flamin lib]

13. Nothing in the bill of rights is absolute.

You have free speech but can't yell obscenities thru a bull horn at my house. You have freedom of religion but not if it involves criminal acts. You have freedom of assembly but need a permit for a parade. You have freedom of the press but not for child pornography.

You have a right to own a gun but there are a lot of restrictions including being accused of domestic violence even though there has not been a conviction.

Gunz are not an absolute right.

If someone is on the terror watch list, they can appeal to be removed. No appeal, no gun.

[Lee-Lee]

21. Show me the appeal process for the terror watch list

Not the no fly list, but the terror watch list proposed for this.

In fact, show how one can even find out if one is on it...

I'll wait...

[MGMT]

28. Exactly

If we're going to arbitrarily start stripping people of their rights because they're on some list that has no accountability, who's to say it'll stop at guns? This is a slippery slope that people are cheering on.

[davidn3600]

16. None of those proposals would have stopped any of the mass killers

Most of these shooters passed background checks. Most of them have no criminal history. None of them were on terrorist watch lists.

You are going to pass laws that will have no effect.

[bigwillq]

27. .....

[Rex]

17. If they didn't care after 20 children were massacred, why would they care now?

It is obvious Congress is too cowardly to take on the gun lobbies. They might get cut off from the money spigot.

[spanone]

58. they are on the n.r.a. payroll

[smirkymonkey]

18. This country is seriously effed up.

These gun threads are making my blood boil. I can't believe that this nation can't take a sane, reasonable position on the issue of gun control. The gun humpers must have it their way or no way all the time.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

29. If Joe Manchin proposed it.....

Heidkamp could support it.

She's been awful.

[restorefreedom]

30. we need new congresspeople who are unowned

and the will en masse to vote them it

[octoberlib]

31. They're arming Isis followers and

other terrorists and this should be used against them. Not that I think it'll make much difference.

[Fast Walker 52]

38. exactly-- the GOP is clearly openly on the side of arming terrorists. Freaking insane that people

support them.

[Squinch]

33. Is this a gloat, Teddy?

[TeddyR]

39. Not at all

I think I've made it clear (1) that I oppose confiscation/bans on firearms and (2) I broadly support measures to increase gun safety and keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill. For me, that would include UBCs and mandatory training for gun ownership (as an aside, I also oppose open-carry laws, even though I don't think they contribute to gun violence).

I favor the bill introduced by Manchin, as do something like 80% of Americans, regardless of political affiliation. The Republicans who voted againsst a bill that has the overwhelming support of the American public should be held accountable. Unfortunately, they probably won't be.

And as an aside, I don't necessarily blame Heitkamp for her vote. This bill apparently had zero chance of passing. If she had been the deciding vote against that would be another story.

[Lizzie Poppet]

36. "The amendments were offered to an Obamacare repeal package currently being debated..."

So these Senators offered these measures as amendments to a bill they were going to end up voting against, anyway? This is all just pointless grandstanding on BOTH sides.

[LanternWaste]

41. I don't perceive accurately illustrating the GOP maintaining a double-standard

I don't perceive accurately illustrating the GOP maintaining a double-standard as pointless grandstanding, but as it's not skewering one of my sacred cows, I can readily understand our difference in perception.

[Lizzie Poppet]

42. I don't honestly think the specific issue matters much to me.

I've had contempt for that kind of inside-the-Beltway shenanigans for as long as I can remember, really.

[Fast Walker 52]

49. Why don't you care about the rejection of simple and common sense

gun control measures?

[Lizzie Poppet]

50. Planted axiom.

Nice try...

[Fast Walker 52]

54. so you do care, right?

[Lizzie Poppet]

59. Yep.

I'm an advocate of a number of reasonable, potentially effective regulations. I actively worked on the campaign to bring universal background checks to Oregon (we did it!). I'm a gun owner (competitive rifle shooter and I keep a couple of handguns for self-defense), but there are some gaps in our gun laws that I think can be filled without infringing on anyone's rights.

Make no mistake: I think the most important steps we can take to reduce violent crime have nothing to do with guns and everything to do with social and economic justice. None of the steps we might take with guns would even come close to the positive effects of making significant progress towards establishing genuinely equal opportunity. But we can still make improvements to our gun laws...

[Fast Walker 52]

60. ok, thanks-- I generally agree

I'm super frustrated by the lack of action.

[Fast Walker 52]

37. This has me disgusted beyond belief

[One_Life_To_Give]

40. Not surprising, it sort of makes sense

Very little has changed. If you don't trust government nor believe in it's abilities. Have bought into the rugged individualism idea. Then the only person who could possibly defend you is you. Seems very consistent to me that the party that supports government programs is for additional rules while the one that thinks everything government does it does poorly wants to do it themselves.

Not saying it is right, just that it is predictable.

[Fast Walker 52]

48. I still feel obliged to point out that the GOP is favor of giving guns to terrorists in the US

who is our real enemy here?

[tazkcmo]

53. You are SO wrong!

The GOP is in favor SELLING guns to terrorists in the US! Not giving! Giving is un-'murikan.

[Fast Walker 52]

55. my bad, thanks for the correction

[northoftheborder]

52. Totally disgusting. Let's clean house next year. Even in Texas.

[aikoaiko]

57. Why propose antigun legislation that would not have stopped these murders