|
|
John Cornyn on Gun ControlRepublican Jr Senator (TX) |
CORNYN: Adam Lanza stole his mother's guns. A background check wouldn't have stopped that incident. A background should have stopped James Holmes in Tucson. It should have stopped the Virginia Tech shooter because their background check information about his adjudicated mental illness was not forwarded to the FBI's background check. In other words, I think the mental illness issue is the common element that we ought to be focused on. But I'm not for symbolism over substance. I think we can't just pat ourselves on the back and say we're passing enhanced penalties for trafficking or other issues or background checks when they don't really go and solve the problems that caused these terrible tragedies.
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.
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).
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:
Press release in support: Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS) cosponsored legislation to allow law-abiding citizens with concealed carry privileges to take firearms across state lines. Hyde-Smith has added her support to the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act (S.446), which would allow qualified individuals to carry a concealed handgun into another state in accordance with that state's laws. Concealed carry permits are not transferrable between states under current law.
"For law-abiding gun owners with concealed carry permits, this legislation would affirm their ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights in other states with right-to-carry laws," Hyde-Smith said. "This is sensible legislation that recognizes states' authority to issue firearms licenses and permits, while supporting the rights of gun owners."
Boston Globe Op-Ed (12/14/17) in opposition, by Mayor Marty Walsh: We're grateful for the common-sense laws that help us do our jobs. We will fight any national policy that threatens to send us backward. That includes a bill called the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. It would force each state to recognize the concealed-carry standards of every other state, even those with dramatically weaker standards for who can get their hands on a gun. Given that the gun lobby has blocked the creation of a national database, it would be extremely difficult for local police to determine whether those out-of-state permits were even legitimate. Law enforcement all over the country strongly opposes this legislation.
If the US Senate passes Concealed Carry Reciprocity, people from other states who have criminal histories, who would never pass a background check in Massachusetts, would be able to carry a loaded, concealed gun into our neighborhoods. We know this is a bad idea. Our police officers, our neighbors, and the responsible gun owners of Boston agree.
The Christian Coalition inferred whether candidates agree or disagree with the statement, 'Further Restrictions on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms ?' Self-description by Christian Coalition of America: "These guides help give voters a clear understanding of where candidates stand on important pro-family issues" for all Senate and Presidential candidates.