The Way Forward for the Senate’s Gun Violence Bill

Plus: The House finally looks poised to pass a bill to enhance protection for Supreme Court justices.

By
37

Good morning. It’s a busy week on Capitol Hill.

Senators are hoping to finalize a gun violence prevention bill, the January 6 committee continues its public hearings, and lawmakers are carrying on talks for a sweeping China competition package.

A Bipartisan Gun Violence Prevention Bill

I’ve been covering Congress since early 2017. In that time, I have watched the same doomed policy debates play out again and again and again after deadly mass shootings. 

Lawmakers discuss expanded background checks for gun purchases, or grant programs to encourage states to keep weapons out of the hands of those who pose a threat to themselves or others. The talks don’t bear fruit. Republicans are overwhelmingly opposed to most federal gun policy changes.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
37
By
Comments (37)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    It isn’t just Supreme Court justices. The House is holding up a bill providing more funding to the US Marshalls for security for federal judges at all levels. As seen what happened in Wisconsin recently and in New Jersey a couple years ago, this is needed. My mom is a federal bankruptcy judge and she’s very concerned. Perhaps the judges in most danger are those who oversee criminal trials of gang members. This isn’t a partisan thing. It’s common sense.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Bonzai30

    It’s pretty jarring that, in his attempt to bolster Republican support for the proposed gun legislation, Cornyn felt compelled to highlight the following initiatives as those not in the bill…as if these are radical proposals from those pesky Democrats:

    Universal background checks
    Assault weapons ban for 18- to 21-year-olds
    Mandatory waiting period for all gun sales

    Take universal background checks for instance. Almost 90% of the U.S. population supports them, including 77% of Republicans and 72% of NRA members. You know who doesn’t support them, however? The NRA of course, and the Republican members of Congress obviously care more about their NRA score than what their constituents want, the public safety sequences be damned.

    And God forbid we don’t allow teenagers to buy AR-15s before they can buy a beer or that we make someone wait for a few “cooling off” days before getting a gun.

    Collapse
    1. JC

      [Preface: am a supporter of the existing instant background checks and laws. Would be interesting to see all the BLUE urban conclaves adhere, yet their crime rates prove the opposite)

      Posting the marked differences in this case was a reasonable action. The polarity the left engenders with its hostile vagueries, to wit:
      *ASSAULT weapon [a nebulous undefinable term, an infringement on the face of it]
      * Mandatory waiting period [unreasonable impairment, nanny state action again infringement]
      *Universal Background [ANOTHER outright LIE, all states require it, all venues utilize it, each state had it Bureau of investigation that performs background checks.
      * NRA does not... [ Another falsehood, check any reference NRA&ILA support the instant background check systems already in place, side note: The NRA --IS-- its members your stats are in conflict]

      But let us go a step further shall we and mention the other neglected points:
      * High-capacity magazine ban -- this remains a significant issue, and is called out as such
      * Licensing requirement for assault weapon purchase -- direct 2A attack, w/o consensus on 'assault' this is consent to let nameless faces capriciously brand/confiscate at will
      *Criminal penalties for negligent storage: -- abuse of 2nd, 3rd, 4th amendments. Same nameless bureacratic faces, authoized to enter/catalog/remand/prosecute with the step to preventative invasion to simply 'make sure'. Stange how the view of urbanism, in our large overpopulated impactions, is to restrict the freedoms of those who most likely to do the right-thing all predicated on stopping those who do the wrong thing, in the name of public safety. This promotes no general welfare, nor insures the common defense.

      The one area of consensus the bi-partisan group seems to hold up is identifying the mental health issues as the source. As we create greater polarity, as fear drives us to demand and tyranically enforce 'safe-space mentality', as sides square off to threaten "you won't .... " these folks are trying to establish common ground to work from.

      For God's sake, help them.



      Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Peter_Shalen

    Is it true that a man "turned himself into police"? Doesn't he have to go to the police academy first? Maybe you meant to say that he turned himself in to the police. (Phrasal verb "turn in" followed by preposition "to.")

    Collapse
  4. P Satter

    Thank you for the good overview and for including the link to the article on Tom Rice from South Carolina.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Angie

    Good job detailing what is going on in the Capitol, thanks Haley

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Synchronize Your Dogmas (Bill B)

    The Gun Violence Prevention Bill ought be re-named the Kick The Can Down The Road Bill. While any agreement in Congress is a startling and welcome change to the status quo I can't really get too excited about a such a weak, toothless and ineffective bill.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Synchronize Your Dogmas (Bill B)

    Amazing how quickly Congress can draft and agree on legislation to protect SCOTUS justices and then turn around and provide such weak tea(Gun Violence Prevention Bill) to protect the public.

    One really can't be faulted for coming to the conclusion that the oligarchy protects itself. Is Congress trying to turn us all into the resistance?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ben Connelly

      One is much easier, shorter, simpler, and has less detail. If passed, nobody could claim it as a major legislative accomplishment.

      The other is a more complex bill over a contentious issue that if passed would rightly be claimed as a major accomplishment - the first major gun bill since maybe the 1990s.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Synchronize Your Dogmas (Bill B)

        That might have some weight if one weren’t a problem that emerged in the last ten days as opposed to an increasingly lethal problem for over the last 30 years. Congress is full of lawyers and you’re telling me complexity is the problem? I’d have to take issue.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Ben Connelly

          They aren’t “protecting the oligarchy.”

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Synchronize Your Dogmas (Bill B)

            A bit of hyperbole granted. But I find the insufficency of thier efforts on firearms regulation to protect the general public over decades in stark contrast to the swiftness of thier movement in this case jarring. I don't think complexity explains it.

            Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      JohnM.

      Many of us are fine with the GVPB as written. Last time I looked, I wasn't a member of the oligarchy either.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Synchronize Your Dogmas (Bill B)

        I’m sure a lot of folks are happy with it.

        Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Narwhal

      “Is Congress trying to turn us all into the resistance?”

      Seems unlikely. And seems unlikely to happen.

      If you are really so bothered that one piece of legislation was more able to quickly and easily gain Republican support then maybe you should take it up with those members of Congress who support the one thing but won’t support the other?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Synchronize Your Dogmas (Bill B)

        The contrast in urgency is too stark to be ignored.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Narwhal

          In your opinion, as well as others, but not in everyone’s. And again would some in Congress have preferred to have passed the one thing years ago? Yes. Would they prefer to pass something different and more restrictive in some ways now? Yes. Don’t confuse all of Congress with some in Congress. And don’t assume you speak for everyone.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Synchronize Your Dogmas (Bill B)

            You're welcome to defend the ineffective and weak-kneed response by Congress to the public's concerns under the "this is how government works" umbrella. My point is that it seems to work much faster and more effectively for some than others.

            I don't confuse the whole for it's parts but I can get pretty exercised that the body cannot manage it's own health in order in order to represent the people more faithfully and adequately.

            Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    2sequoia

    Was there a Dispatch this morning? Nothing arrived in my mailbox this morning and it’s normally the first thing I read.

    Collapse
    1. P Satter

      Yes there was.

      Collapse
    2. P Satter

      Yes there was.

      Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Narwhal

    The proposal isn’t ideal for anyone, but that means it may actually pass and something is better than nothing.

    I would have preferred the inclusion of a potential criminal penalty for negligent storage if a death occurred as a result. And a greater restriction on the sale and possession of body armor.

    The expanded background check for those under twenty-one sounds good though. I’m surprised juvenile criminal records and mental health determinations from courts weren’t already a part of those background checks, and they should probably continue until age twenty-five.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    So, this from what I am seeing is a more mental health bill than anything else.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      David Burke

      Cornyn’s tweeted list is a cruel irony.
      Everything he mentioned SHOULD be in a “common sense” bill. Nothing there is an infringement on anyone’s constitutional rights yet would be most effective in slamming down on these crimes and save lives.

      Talk about taking a knife to a gun fight…

      Collapse
      1. Rdtomasello51

        Those things you mention should be in the bill. But the only way anything will proceed until further notice is incremental change. And if it seems weak and ineffective given the enormity of the problem it probably is but I will take anything that at least moves the ball. Inertia is worse

        Collapse
    2. JC

      Agreed, the bulk of it, is and ought to be, directed at the real issue, mental health.

      Collapse