From the Huffington Post, here’s today’s vote on the bill to implement background checks for gun purchases at gun shows and online, the measure that 90% of Americans support. Sixty votes were needed for passage. Bookmark this and keep it handy the next time you go to the polls.
What I think is that with her vote against background checks, Heidi Heitkamp (D. North Dakota) should not get support from Emily’s List. And that organization is going to have to consider whether being pro-choice is enough for a Democratic woman candidate. Pro-gun control is now imperative.
I couldn’t help but notice her in the middle of that sea of red. That would be a very difficult call for me right now, whether to support a woman who has the courage to be pro-choice in such an anti-abortion state but who caved on a no -brainer like background checks. I suppose I’d fall back to my previously stated position, We were women first. But right now I’m mad as hell at the wimps who voted against background checks.
My Senators are both on the wrong side of this. Unfortunately, so are most of their constituents…. 🙁
Luckily mine voted for the bill, because if they hadn’t, I’d have had a meltdown by now. I am not a stupid woman but I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would object to a person having to pass a background check in order to buy a gun.
Fricken disgusting. But I don’t need to bookmark this. I’m not likely to forget. Nor am I surprised. What would have shocked me is if it had been any different. Not THAT would have been a surprise.
I was hoping they’d surprise me and pass the bill. But they didn’t. Once again they lived down to my extremely low expectation of them.
I found the list, too.
What I thought was odd while the media is portraying this as a urban (pro) vs rural (against) –
that’s not how they voted in this state – the cities and populated areas voted against it. (rural for it). Possibly because the major cities are seeing extreme criminal activity by those who repeated willfully break the law and law enforcement seems unable to top it/ judges unwilling or unable to put the criminals in jail and keep them there – and the surge of Mexican drug fights/human trafficking. Must be a regional thing.
The bill must be crafted with care – and not quickly so that more problems are created. This was very long and people were wary with little time to review. (the mental health issue is a nightmare with “approved buyers” lists, how does bill stop criminals from getting weapons? Confiscation of guns when – and is that legal…stuff but be carefully written)
Meanwhile, states can write laws, too – and should. Easier and faster.
In addition, the laws on the books should be strictly enforced ( that’s not being done – the public must pressure to have strict law enforcement. “Murder and assault “covers a large number of crimes.
Some legislators said they were listening to their constituents…maybe they were.
April 15. Gallup polls: “Few Americans mention guns or immigration as the most important problems facing the nation today, despite the current attention lawmakers in Washington are giving to these issues.”
http://www.gallup.com/poll/161813/few-guns-immigration-nation-top-problems.aspx
This issue won’t go away, but the President should be careful not to sound like an angry child calling people names – not how to get things done.
Dignity, calm, and logic, please, dude.
Reflect, consider, and start over.
The bill was by no means perfect or comprehensive. Didn’t even cover private sales. But it was carefully considered, carefully crafted (four months since Newtown), and negotiated by a bipartisan team. It would at least have made a dent in the number of sick or bad people who could walk into a gun show (or go online) and buy a gun with no questions asked. Some states, including Colorado, have passed such laws. But unless all states do, it will remain a simple thing to step across a state line and buy guns. No, the bill wasn’t comprehensive; it wasn’t trying to be. It didn’t address mental health issues, local law enforcement, drug trafficking, gang bangers, assault rifles, or any number of other things. But it was a start. A simple first step. Which makes its defeat all the more frustrating. (I can’t help thinking people who object to background checks must have something to hide.)
As for guns not being the most important issue facing America today, I think that’s irrelevant. There are a lot of issues facing the country — always have been and always will be. If legislators can’t multi-task and address more than one issue at a time, they need to find another line of work. Because governance is never that simple.
4 months is nothing, Act in haste repent at leisure.
State can and must step up. State legislatures should be more responsive to local voters and can move faster.
Here laws have been on the books for a long time about buying guns – even at gun shows. Buyers can’t buy, grab, and leave. Cops at doors. Buyer takes paperwork to cop at table. Background check run right there. Once completed, seller hands gun to cop, who double check paperwork, then sale is complete and there is a watched exit.
Here even with online sales, the gun must be shipped to a registered store/dealer who charges a handling fee and hold gun while running background check and clearing paperwork. Once that is all done, the buyer is called and the gun can be handed over.
Other states can do the same – effective and efficient if there’s the will.
It would probably help legislation pass if the bills only addressed ONE issue without amendments stuffed in about all sorts of stuff. Extra hanging on stuff gives legislators one tiny thing to object to – and the whole bill is lost. Extra stuff adds a smoke screen so public can;t see what their rep is really voting for or against. The bills are too long to read – and people freak that there may be something hiding in there.
Changes need to happen.
You make some very good points. We’ll see what happens next.
What really must happen is a change in the way people solve their problems. Killing and violence is not an acceptable solution for difficulties.
Colorado also instituted background check recently. It’s just appalling to see how many states don’t have them. Frankly, before this became an issue in the last couple of years, I’d just assumed background checks were in place everywhere. I mean, who’d imagine it was legal to sell a lethal weapon without them?
I know – it all surprised me…were people sleeping or that naive?
Maybe you can help share your expertise with others in different states? – several big dog/pet blogger do help lobby for animal rights in multiple states
Think states is the best way to go – too much strutting around and blustering in DC ( and we have to pay them for it)
I’ve no expertise to share, unfortunately. Sure, the states could perhaps do this faster, but I think at least half of them have no intention of doing so. That’s why it needs to be a national law.
Oh, you have stuff to share – you’re on top of things there.
Many states already have applicable laws. People are definitely concerned. Local residents can decide what is best for their state and pass laws accordingly. Prefer to be tolerant and let people choose how to live their lives. Their problems. Their solutions.
Guns get bought, sold, and carried across state lines every day. That makes it everyone’s problem, regardless of what people in any one state or community might think.
Foreign registered (non inspected) cars and buses often with unlicensed drivers are, too – and with deadly consequences.
Fortunately most drivers of vehicles obey the law – like most law abiding gun owners.
Criminals don’t. That’s a problem.
Murder. Rape. Assault. All against existing laws. Criminals break those laws all the time.
That’s a problem. Punish them. Enforce the laws
Risk is a cost of freedom to believe and live as you wish. Tolerance runs both ways. That shouldn’t be a problem.
Then I guess I’m intolerant. I’m not willing to tolerate the sale of guns to anyone without a background check.
Gotta love CO. They listen to their residents and know how to get things done. CO citizens wanted weed available and legalized and it is – despite the fact that possession/transport/selling/buying is against Federal laws and other state’s laws. Despite the fact that some feel it’s a dangerous substance, and damages both physical and mental ( and makes people do wild crazy things). It’s a felony.
But CO stood up and said this is what our people want and we work for them.
CO the land of independent thinkers and doers. A state that can show others just how to do it. A light in the window. (Giggles)
Seriously, no argument about background checks – good to go with those here – and where you are…now to get the rest on board…it’ll happen. State legislatures are faster and more responsive..DC is the land of squirrels – hopeless. (Now more important stuff. Need to catch up on your posts…how was the trip to England?)
Both our pot law and our gun laws were the result of having Democrats controlling both houses of the legislature. Wouldn’t have happened otherwise.
I know – people who listened! WooWhoo!
(trying to find out why the National Instant Criminal BAckground Check System has not been prosecuting those who lie on background check paperwork: steep decline recently- 58% drop in referrals and 70% drop in prosecution – this is critical. What’s going on? OH, it’s the feds – like I said DC squirrels not doing their jobs..will let you know more as I find out..making calls)
Meanwhile hear the 420 Rally is going to be huge – Go local control!
420 will proceed as usual, but I can’t help thinking it won’t be quite as much fun now that weed is legal.
I was wondering. Have a great weekend!
You, too!
Thanks for posting this PT. I’m bookmarking it for sure. And I hope that this really was just round one as the president said.
You’re welcome. I was happy to have found it. I wanted to see the faces of those who voted against this bill.
Seems odd that only ten percent of us agree with the constitutional prohibition against any government jurisdiction infringing on our right to keep and bear arms — no matter how many people believe it’s not so.
This doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights to keep and bear arms — assuming they are honest, emotionally stable individuals. Seems odd to me that 10% of the population would be willing to let criminals and the mentally ill buy guns.