Marco Rubio on Gun Control

ISIS and terrorists do not get their guns at gun shows

Criminals will ignore gun laws because they're criminals

New gun laws are ineffective, so don't pass them

RUBIO: My position on guns is pretty clear. I believe law-abiding people have a fundamental constitutional right to bear arms. And I believe criminals and dangerous people should not have access to guns. There are laws that protect those two things--but many of these [additional] gun laws are ineffective. They don't do those things. They either infringe on the rights of law-abiding people and do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. And I'm troubled this debate is about guns. It should be about violence. Violence is the problem, guns are what they're using. We are missing a golden opportunity to have an open, honest and serious conversation about these horrific violent acts, because everyone's focused on passing these laws that have proven ineffective.

Has a concealed weapon permit, but does not carry a weapon

RUBIO: I do not, but I have a concealed weapon permit. I don't [carry] because I spend most of my time in airports and in the Capitol where you're not allowed to necessarily carry those around. But let me say this to you: all Americans have a right to that--all Americans have a Second-Amendment right to buy a firearm, to possess one for both self-defense and for sport. And we should be very careful about anything that infringes on that. Now, if someone has an effective way to protect that right and to prevent criminals from getting access to weapons, certainly I think everyone is open to that.

Deal with gun violence, but do it constitutionally

As Speaker, failed to push law allowing guns at work

2nd Amendment is a cornerstone of our democracy

Voted NO on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets.

• The term 'large capacity ammunition feeding device' means a magazine or similar device that has an overall capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition
• It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
• Shall not apply to the possession of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed before 2013.
• Shall not apply to qualified or retired law enforcement officers.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes: Sen. BLUMENTHAL: This amendment would ban high-capacity magazines which are used to kill more people more quickly and, in fact, have been used in more than half the mass shootings since 1982. I ask my colleagues to listen to law enforcement, their police, prosecutors who are outgunned by criminals who use these high-capacity magazines. I ask that my colleagues also listen to the families of those killed by people who used a high-capacity magazine.

Opponent's Argument for voting No: Sen. GRASSLEY. I oppose the amendment. In 2004, which is the last time we had the large-capacity magazine ban, a Department of Justice study found no evidence banning such magazines has led to a reduction in gun violence. The study also concluded it is not clear how often the outcomes of the gun attack depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than 10 shots without reloading. Secondly, there is no evidence banning these magazines has reduced the deaths from gun crimes. In fact, when the previous ban was in effect, a higher percentage of gun crime victims were killed or wounded than before it was adopted. Additionally, tens of millions of these magazines have been lawfully owned in this country for decades. They are in common use, not unusually dangerous, and used by law-abiding citizens in self-defense, as in the case of law enforcement.

Opposes restrictions on the right to bear arms.

The Christian Coalition voter guide [is] one of the most powerful tools Christians have ever had to impact our society during elections. This simple tool has helped educate tens of millions of citizens across this nation as to where candidates for public office stand on key faith and family issues.

The CC survey summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: "Further restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms"

Rated B+ by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record.

While widely recognized today as a major political force and as America's foremost defender of Second Amendment rights, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has, since its inception, been the premier firearms education organization in the world. But our successes would not be possible without the tireless efforts and countless hours of service our nearly three million members have given to champion Second Amendment rights and support NRA programs.

The following ratings are based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionaire sent to all Congressional candidates; the NRA assigned a letter grade (with A+ being the highest and F being the lowest).

What the Grades Mean:
• A+: A legislator with not only an excellent voting record on all critical NRA issues, but who has also made a vigorous effort to promote and defend the Second Amendment.
• A: Solidly pro-gun candidate including voting record.
• AQ: A pro-gun candidate whose rating is based solely on the NRA-PVF Candidate Questionnaire and who does not have a voting record.
• B: A generally pro-gun candidate; may have opposed some pro-gun reform in the past.
• C: A candidate with a mixed record or positions on gun related issues, who may oppose some pro-gun positions.
• D: An anti-gun candidate who usually supports restrictive gun control legislation. Regardless of public statements, can usually be counted on to vote wrong on key issues.
• F: True enemy of gun owners' rights. A consistent anti-gun candidate.
• ?: Refused to answer the NRA-PVF Candidate Questionnaire, often an indication of indifference, if not outright hostility, to gun owners' rights.

Oppose the United Nations' Arms Trade Treaty.

Dear President Obama:

We write to express our concern and regret at your decision to sign the United Nations' Arms Trade Treaty. For the following reasons, we cannot give our advice and consent to this treaty:

1. The treaty violates a 2009 red line laid down by your own administration: "the rule of consensus decision-making." In April 2013, after the treaty failed to achieve consensus, it was adopted by majority vote in the UN General Assembly.
2. The treaty allows amendments by a 3/4 majority vote. When amended, it will become a source of political and legal pressure on the US to comply in practice with amendments it was unwilling to accept.
3. The treaty includes only a weak, non-binding reference to the lawful ownership and use of firearms, and recognizes none of these activities, much less individual self-defense, as fundamental individual rights. It encourages governments to collect the identities of individual end users of imported firearms at the national level, which would constitute the core of a national gun registry
4. The State Department has acknowledged that the treaty is "ambiguous." By becoming party to the treaty, the US would therefore be accepting commitments that are inherently unclear.
5. The criteria at the heart of the treaty are vague and easily politicized. They will steadily subject the US to the influence of internationally-defined norms, a process that would impinge on our national sovereignty.
6. The treaty criteria as established could hinder the US in fulfilling its strategic, legal, and moral commitments to provide arms to key allies such as Taiwan and Israel.