A divided Senate answers Orlando with gridlock on gun curbs

[webfact]

A divided Senate answers Orlando with gridlock on gun curbs
By ALAN FRAM and MARY CLARE JALONICK

WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Senate blocked rival election-year plans to curb guns on Monday, eight days after the horror of Orlando's mass shooting intensified pressure on lawmakers to act but knotted them in gridlock anyway — even over restricting firearms for terrorists.

In largely party-line votes, rejected were one proposal from each side to keep extremists from acquiring guns and another shoring up the government's existing system of required background checks for many firearms purchases.

With the chamber's visitors' galleries unusually crowded for a Monday evening — including people wearing orange T-shirts saying #ENOUGH gun violence — each measure fell short of the 60 votes needed to progress. Democrats called the GOP proposals unacceptably weak while Republicans said the Democratic plans were overly restrictive.

The stalemate underscored the pressure on each party to give little ground on the emotional gun issue going into November's presidential and congressional elections. It also highlighted the potency of the National Rifle Association, which urged its huge and fiercely loyal membership to lobby senators to oppose the Democratic bills.

"Republicans say, 'Hey look, we tried,'" said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "And all the time, their cheerleaders, the bosses at the NRA, are cheering them."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the Orlando shootings — in which the FBI says the American-born gunman swore allegiance to a leader of the Islamic State group — show the best way to prevent attacks by extremists is to defeat such groups overseas.

"Look, no one wants terrorists to be able to buy guns or explosives," McConnell said. He suggested that Democrats were using the day's votes "as an opportunity to push a partisan agenda or craft the next 30-second campaign ad," while Republicans wanted "real solutions."

That Monday's four roll-call votes occurred at all was testament to the political currents buffeting lawmakers after gunman Omar Mateen's June 12 attack on a gay nightclub. The 49 victims who died made it the largest mass shooting in recent U.S. history, topping the string of such incidents that have punctuated recent years.

The FBI said Matteen — a focus of two terror investigations that were dropped — described himself as an Islamic soldier in a 911 call during the shootings. That let gun control advocates add national security and the specter of terrorism to their arguments for firearms curbs, while relatives of victims of past mass shootings and others visiting lawmakers and watching debate from the visitors' galleries.

GOP senators facing re-election this fall from swing states were under extraordinary pressure.

One, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., voted Monday for the Democratic measure to block gun sales to terrorists, a switch from when she joined most Republicans in killing a similar plan last December. She said that vote — plus her support for a rival GOP measure — would help move lawmakers toward approving a narrower bipartisan plan, like one being crafted by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

Monday's votes came after Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., led a near 15-hour filibuster last week demanding a Senate response to the Orlando killings. Murphy entered the Senate shortly after the December 2012 massacre of 20 first-graders and six educators in Newtown, Connecticut, but that slaughter and others have failed to spur Congress to tighten gun curbs. The last were enacted in 2007, when the background check system was strengthened after that year's mass shooting at Virginia Tech.

With Mateen's self-professed loyalty to extremist groups and his 10-month inclusion on a federal terrorism watch list, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., proposed letting the government block many gun sales to known or suspected terrorists. People buying firearms from federally licensed gun dealers can currently be denied for several reasons, chiefly for serious crimes or mental problems, but there is no specific prohibition for those on the terrorist watch list.

That list currently contains around 1 million people — including fewer than 5,000 Americans or legal permanent residents, according to the latest government figures.

No background checks are required for anyone buying guns privately online or at gun shows.

The GOP response to Feinstein was an NRA-backed plan by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. It would let the government deny a sale to a known or suspected terrorist — but only if prosecutors could convince a judge within three days that the would-be buyer was involved in terrorism.

The Feinstein and Cornyn amendments would require notification of law enforcement officials if people, like Mateen, who'd been under a terrorism investigation within the past five years were seeking to buy firearms.

Republicans said Feinstein's proposal gave the government too much unfettered power to deny people's constitutional right to own a gun. They also noted that the terrorist watch list has historically mistakenly included people. Democrats said the three-day window that Cornyn's measure gave prosecutors to prove their case made his plan ineffective.

The Senate rejected similar plans Feinstein and Cornyn proposed last December, a day after an attack in San Bernardino, California, killed 14 people.

Murphy's rejected proposal would widely expand the requirement for background checks, even to many private gun transactions, leaving few loopholes.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, defeated plan increased money for the background check system. Like Murphy's measure, it prodded states to send more records to the FBI, which operates the background check system, of felons and others barred from buying guns.

Grassley's proposal also revamped language prohibiting some people with mental health issues from buying a gun. Democrats claimed that language would roll back current protections.

Monday's votes were 53-47 for Grassley's plan, 44-56 for Murphy's, 53-47 for Cornyn's and 47-53 for Feinstein's — all short of the 60 needed.

Separately, Collins was laboring to fashion a bipartisan bill that would prevent people on the no-fly list — with just 81,000 names— from getting guns. There were no signs Monday that it was getting wide support or would receive a vote.

___

Associated Press writers Matthew Daly and Richard Lardner contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2016-06-21

[tigermoth]

Absolutely shameful. The US senate couldn't run a sandwich shop let alone a country. They have just become the laughing stock, (as if they weren't before), and destroyed what little credibility the country ever had.

[kingalfred]

Keep this in public eye all the way to November. Make republicans pay for saying ANYONE can buy an assault weapon its and amendment right. What a joke!

[Pinot]

They always spew that 2nd Amendment bullshit, the one that guarantees Americans a militia with muskets. That's open to interpretation with a new Liberal Supreme Court Justice coming in after the election.

Safety trumps the right to bear AR-15s.

The NRA owns the Republican party and this time it will hurt them. That along with the worst Presidential candidate in history, Cheeto Jesus.

[mike324]

I think the US just needs more uniform stringent measures before one can purchase a gun. More classes/lessons before one can obtain a license. At the same time, there is only so much a law can do to prevent someone from committing a crime.

[OMGImInPattaya]

I wouldn't call deciding that no changes in the nation's gun laws are necessary as "gridlock." That term implies that there is a problem and something needs to be done about it.

If there is a problem, it's Islamic terrorism and the proliferation of "gun free" zones.

Edited June 21, 2016 by OMGImInPattaya

[attrayant]

That must be why Australia, which is essentially a huge gun-free zone, has had so many more gun-related deaths than the USA has.

[Chicog]

It's not as if the Republican controlled House wasn't already unpopular, but frankly anyone standing against a Republican now just needs to run ads showing them blocking legislation to keep assault weapons out of the hands of terrorists and nutcases.

Republicans really are just the NRA's bitches.

[starky]

I wouldn't call deciding that no changes in the nation's gun laws are necessary as "gridlock." That term implies that there is a problem and something needs to be done about it.

If there is a problem, it's Islamic terrorism and the proliferation of "gun free" zones.

I wont pretend to fully understand America's right to bear arms nor am I American so I dont have a dog in this fight but people with your point of view are either real scary/ delusional. So in your utopia where everybody can carry a firearm everywhere. What is the outcome? how do you identify the "bad guys" and how do you ensure more innocents are not getting killed? I imagine there would be some argument that if a highly trained present or ex military, law enforcement or combat veteran was armed and on site of these tragedies he could be trusted to make the right decision putting any potential threats down with the least possible collateral damage. I personally dont see that every tom, dick and harry carrying a gun who has put a few rounds down range, but who would love to think they are, would be capable of or even be an asset in the same situation. I am sure even the vets and professionals would admit to being able to make mistakes. So what if there are multiple assailants all armed and everyone else starts pulling weapons as well? How do you know who is who would be my question and are you capable of making that call? or is it simply a case of as long as I dont get shot its game on? Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. I will never believe more guns will make the world a safer place or as you wish, more guns in more places. Beggars belief.

[attrayant]

It creates a civil arms race, plain and simple. People are going to be wanting the biggest, baddest gun to make sure they always have the upper hand. What could possible go wrong?

[OMGImInPattaya]

It's not as if the Republican controlled House wasn't already unpopular, but frankly anyone standing against a Republican now just needs to run ads showing them blocking legislation to keep assault weapons out of the hands of terrorists and nutcases.

Republicans really are just the NRA's bitches.

It's good to see you're finally catching on...at least a bit. You've managed to identify half the problem...now if the President would protect the borders of the United States from Islamic terrorists and Congress increase funding for mental healthcare there would be fewer gun-related deaths.

[HerbalEd]

It wasn't gridlock of the Senate, it was a roadblock by the Republicans.

[mopar71]

It's not as if the Republican controlled House wasn't already unpopular, but frankly anyone standing against a Republican now just needs to run ads showing them blocking legislation to keep assault weapons out of the hands of terrorists and nutcases.

Republicans really are just the NRA's bitches.

The story is about the Senate, not the House. They are not the same.

[mopar71]

It wasn't gridlock of the Senate, it was a roadblock by the Republicans.

The Democrats voted against some gun control measures as well.

The left leaning ACLU is not fond of the US Gov't's various lists they make of citizens without due process either and I doubt they have been bought by the NRA.

Democrats are - again - just trying to take advantage of a crisis for personal gain.

[OMGImInPattaya]

It wasn't gridlock of the Senate, it was a roadblock by the Republicans.

So when the elected representatives of the people make a decision you don't like it's a "roadblock"?

[MaxYakov]

Keep this in public eye all the way to November. Make republicans pay for saying ANYONE can buy an assault weapon its and amendment right. What a joke!

You are the joke, your Majesty.

The National Firearms Act prevents citizens from owning an "assault weapon" without first meeting extensive requirements. Of course you have no idea what an "assault weapon" is, or have a liberal/media r agenda so I don't even know why you posted (but I have my suspicions - reference 'agenda').

An "assault weapon" cannot be purchased through normal consumer protocols - that's why the Orlando terrorist did not have one. He had a non-military grade semi-automatic rifle. He reportedly also had a Glock semi-automatic pistol which in close quarters would be just as lethal in close quarters, but, mysteriously, I don't see any mention banning or limiting that type of firearm.

The shooter in the Virginia Tech Shooting (Wiki), which killed 32 and injured 17, used two semi-automatic handguns, neither of which would be considered "assault weapons".

Try to educate yourself with this:

Which assault rifles are legal for US citizens to purchase? - www.quora.com

If you continue to misuse the term "assault weapon" we'll have to assume that your confusion or ignorance can be considered as an agenda not supported by fact.

Edited June 22, 2016 by MaxYakov