|
|
Amy Klobuchar on Gun ControlDFL Sr Senator (MN); Democratic presidential contender |
Explanation from Wikipedia: The termÿ"boyfriend loophole"ÿrefers to a gap in American gun legislation that allows access toÿgunsÿby physically abusiveÿex-boyfriendsÿwith previousÿconvictions. Prohibitions from owning firearms only apply if the victim was the perpetrator'sÿspouse,ÿcohabitant, or had a child with the victim.
KLOBUCHAR: Everyone up here favors an assault weapon ban. Everyone up here favors magazine limitations, which, by the way, would have made a huge difference if that was in place in El Paso [in a recent mass shooting]. And certainly in Dayton, Ohio, where in 30 seconds, one man guns down innocent people. The cops got there in one minute, and it still wasn't enough to save those people. That's what unites us.
You know what else unites us? And I'll tell you this. What unites us is that right now, on Mitch McConnell's desk, are three bills-universal background checks, closing the Charleston loophole, and passing my bill to make sure that domestic abusers don't get AK-47s.
KLOBUCHAR: Everyone here favors an assault weapon ban. Everyone here favors magazine limitations, which, by the way, would have made a huge difference if that was in place in El Paso [in a recent mass shooting]. And certainly in Dayton, Ohio, where in 30 seconds, one man guns down innocent people. The cops got there in one minute, and it still wasn't enough to save those people.
KLOBUCHAR: What is broken is a political system that allows the NRA and other large, big money to come in and make things not happen when the majority of people are for. The people are with us now. After the Parkland [mass shooting], those students just didn't march. They talked to their dads and the hunters in their family, and they said there must be a better way. Then we elected people in the House of Representatives. And guess what? It changed, and they passed universal background checks. And now that bill is sitting on Mitch McConnell's doorstep because of the money and the power of the NRA. As president, I will take them on.
Amy Klobuchar: That's not confiscation. You could give them the offer to buy back their gun.I look at these proposals and I say, does this hurt my Uncle Dick and his deer stand, coming from a proud hunting and fishing state? These proposals don't do that. Now these Parkland kids from Florida, they started a national shift. You know why? It's just like with gay marriage. When kids talked to their parents and their grandparents, they say I don't understand why we can't put these sensible things in place, they listen. And if we get bested by a bunch of 17-year-olds it's the best thing that ever happened.
KLOBUCHAR: I believe in the Second Amendment and I believe Hillary Clinton does as well. But what she's been talking about here is simply something that the vast majority of the American people believe in, and that is some background checks--which the Supreme Court has left open in its gun decision--that you could have more enhanced background checks. The idea that you shouldn't have stalkers be able to go out and get a gun, I think would [provide] vast hope in saving lives, including the fact that people on the terror watch list can still get guns. Those are some sensible reforms.
A: I did favor extending the ban on assault weapons. Unfortunately, we didn’t prevail.
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.
On page 37, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following: "Allowing Amtrak Passengers to Securely Transport Firearms on Passenger Trains.--None of amounts made available in the reserve fund authorized under this section may be used to provide financial assistance for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) unless Amtrak passengers are allowed to securely transport firearms in their checked baggage.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. ROGER WICKER (R, MS). This amendment aims to ensure that gun owners and sportsmen are able to transport securely firearms aboard Amtrak trains in checked baggage, a practice that is done thousands of times a day at airports across the country. I emphasize that this amendment deals with checked, secured baggage only. It would return Amtrak to a pre-9/11 practice. It does not deal with carry-on baggage. Unlike the airline industry, Amtrak does not allow the transport of firearms in checked bags. This means that sportsmen who wish to use Amtrak trains for hunting trips cannot do so because they are not allowed to check safely a firearm.
Opponent's argument to vote No:Sen. FRANK LAUTENBERG (D, NJ): I object to this disruptive amendment offered by the Senator from Mississippi. He wants to enable the carrying of weapons, guns, in checked baggage. One doesn't have to be very much concerned about what we are doing when they look at the history of attacks on railroads in Spain and the UK and such places. This amendment has no place here interrupting the budgetary procedure. The pending amendment is not germane and, therefore, I raise a point of order that the amendment violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Sen. VITTER: This is a straight funding limitation amendment. Many folks who haven't followed the proceedings on this in the U.N. may ask: What is this all about? Unfortunately, it is about an effort in the United Nations to bring gun control to various countries through that international organization. Unfortunately, that has been an ongoing effort which poses a real threat, back to 1995. In 2001, the UN General Assembly adopted a program of action designed to infringe on second amendment rights. The Vitter amendment simply says we are not going to support any international organization that requires a registration of US citizens' guns or taxes US citizens' guns. If other folks in this Chamber think that is not happening, that it is never going to happen, my reply is simple and straightforward: Great, then this language has no effect. It is no harm to pass it as a failsafe. It has no impact. But, in fact, related efforts have been going on in the U.N. since at least 1995. I hope this can get very wide, bipartisan support, and I urge all my colleagues to support this very fundamental, straightforward amendment.
No opponents spoke against the bill.
Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
The Christian Coalition Voter Guide inferred whether candidates agree or disagree with the statement, 'Further Restrictions on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms' Christian Coalition's self-description: "Christian Voter Guide is a clearing-house for traditional, pro-family voter guides. We do not create voter guides, nor do we interview or endorse candidates."