Biden: Gun Control "Fight Is Far From Over"

[Robb]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Six months after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, some of the victims’ families are heading to Capitol Hill to remind lawmakers they are painfully waiting for action, while some of the president’s allies are asking him to do more without any new prospects of legislation to toughen gun laws.

The lobbying visit Tuesday and Wednesday is one of several observances gun control proponents are planning for the half-year anniversary of the Dec. 14 massacre of 20 first graders and six staff in Newtown, Conn. The Sandy Hook families and other activists are keeping pressure on lawmakers to expand background purchases for firearm sales, despite Senate rejection of the measure in April and no indication votes have shifted.

Nicole Hockley, who lost 6-year-old Dylan at Sandy Hook, said their family’s pain has only gotten worse as time goes by without the younger of their two sons at home. She says the fight for new laws, which they’ve also taken to several states, has left them emotionally exhausted, but they won’t give up “no matter how long it takes.”

(snip)

Mark Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, said there’s plenty more that the president can do to stem gun violence. But he argued the most meaningful difference has to come from Congress passing a law to make the background checks that are currently required for sales in stores to apply to online and gun show purchases.

Glaze said his group is trying to pressure senators who voted against background-check legislation in April with television ads and a summer bus tour kicking off in Newtown on Friday, the six-month anniversary date, that is scheduled to travel to 25 states. Also, several groups are holding an event in front of the Capitol Thursday.

Read More: http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/06/10/biden-gun-control-fight-is-far-from-over/

[pipoman]

1. Is there any state based activity?

The NRA has been very successful at the state level, why is state level activism mostly ignored by gun control advocates?

[Robb]

3. Heh. "Mostly ignored."

[font color="blue"]
Colorado
House Bill[font color="black"] 1229 (Universal background checks) headed to Governor's Office for signature SIGNED INTO LAW 3/20
[font color="blue"]House Bill [font color="black"]1224 (15-round magazine limit) headed to Governor's Office for signature SIGNED INTO LAW 3/20
Senate Bill 197 (Requires courts order domestic violence offenders surrender firearms) SIGNED INTO LAW 6/5

[font color="blue"]
Connecticut [font color="black"]
Comprehensive Gun Legislation (Universal background checks, assault weapons ban, prohibits sale and purchase of magazines larger than 10 rounds) SIGNED INTO LAW 4/4.

[font color="blue"]
Delaware[font color="black"]
House Bill 35 (Private sale background checks) SIGNED INTO LAW 5/9!
Senate Bill 16 (Requires reporting of lost or stolen firearms) passed by house, headed to governor for signature.

[font color="blue"]
Hawaii
Senate Bill 69 [font color="black"] (Background checks on guns procured out-of-state) APPROVED BY LEGISLATURE!! Headed to Governor for signature!

[font color="blue"]
Maryland[font color="black"]
Senate Bill 281 (Universal background checks, 10-bullet magazine limit, assault weapons ban) PASSED SENATE!] Governor promises to sign!

[font color="blue"]
Washington State[font color="black"]
House Bill 1612 (Sex offender-style registry for felony firearms convictions) SIGNED INTO LAW 5/8!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1262291

[rl6214]

12. Aw, isn't that cute

Posting a link to your own little clubhouse.

[Recursion]

5. We seem to have finally learned this time; several states are advancing regulations

It will be interesting to see how some of them fair in court (I'm looking at you, NY), but the states haven't been silent in this.

[hack89]

11. They tried in Rhode Island and failed.

turns out this blue state has a lot of democrates that own guns - an impossibility I have been told yet here we are.

[premium]

13. N.H. also and very soon, Nevada will join the list

of failed MAIG initiatives.

[Robb]

14. If the Republican governor vetoes it, yes,

Nevada's background check lives or dies with a Republican governor you seem prepared to cheer. Legislation has been sent to his desk, and he'd be the first to veto background check laws since Newtown.

I thought you supported background checks?

[premium]

15. I do support UBC,

but because Bloomberg and his MAIG got involved in Nevada politics with their dumbass ads, we may very well lose UBC.
What you fail to grasp is the fierce independent streak of Nevadans, we don't like outsiders, such as Bloomberg and MAIG, coming into our state and telling us how we should vote, that doesn't set well with us.

So far, the count is appox. 3-1 against Gov. Sandoval signing the bill into law, despite your call for a "barrage" of calls to the Govs. office supporting this bill.
You really need to learn about Nevada politics, I can't stress enough that we are fiercely independent and don't appreciate outsiders interfering.

BTW, this bill passed the NV. Senate by 1 vote, and passed the Assembly by 4 votes, not a overwhelming majority as some would have you believe according to the polls that say 86% are in favor of this bill.
You know where this poll was taken? Mostly in the Clark County area, which includes Las Vegas, not the rural areas of Nevada, which is solidly against this bill.

[Robb]

17. You support background checks, unless Bloomberg does?

Well that's certainly sensible.

[premium]

19. You just don't get it, do you?

I support it, I called the Govs. office and voted for him to sign it, but because of idiot Bloomberg getting involved in Nevada politics with his asinine ads, we're going to lose this one.
Study up on Nevada politics, there has always been an independent streak to politics here and we greatly resent someone like Bloomberg and MAIG, coming into our state and telling us how we need to vote.

[Robb]

21. Both of your state's legislative bodies approved it.

They were elected presumably by Nevada residents who voted for them.

Your Republican governor will go against the will of the legislators because of Bloomberg? Is that what you're saying? And you find this defensible?

[premium]

22. Oh yeah, it was passed overwhelmingly,

The Nevada Senate passed it by 1 vote, the Assymbly by 4 votes, yeah, that's an overwhelmingly majority.
The fact is that the rural counties voted against this bill, but, Clark County, being the heavy weight in the state, voted to pass this bill.
This bill is highly unpopular in the rural counties of Nevada and barely passes muster in the urban county of Nevada.

You very obviously know nothing about Nevada politics, I was born and raised here, I think I have a better perspective on politics here than you do.

[Robb]

23. Do you have some special legislative rule

...requiring the governor to veto legislation unless it passes overwhelmingly?

[premium]

24. No.

But when the phone calls and e-mails are running 3-1 against signing this bill, he's going to go with what his constituents want him to do.
It seems that the pro 2A forces are more motivated than the gun controllers are, despite your call for a "barrage" of out of state callers to support this bill.
Once again, you have no clue how Nevadans view outsiders trying to influence our politics, we highly resent people like you and Bloomberg coming into our state and telling us how we should vote.

[Robb]

25. You keep saying that. Yet it was your legislators who passed background checks.

And your Republican governor is prepared to veto.

Why do you want it so badly to be Bloomberg's fault here?

[premium]

26. If you don't get it by now,

you're never going to get it, but, I'll try one more time.
The NV. Senate, with the majority of Clark County reps. voting for this bill, only passed it by 1 vote, the Assembly passed it by 4 votes, even my rural Dem rep voted against it, what turned the tide against it with Gov. Sandoval, was people like you and Bloomberg and MAIG coming into our state and telling us how we should vote.
Nevada has always been an independent state and highly resentful of outsiders telling us how we should vote,
without that, it's very likely we would have gotten UBC.

It seems that the pro gun rights citizens of NV. are more motivated that the pro gun control citizens of NV.

Get it now?

[Robb]

31. So your Governor wanted background checks?

But since Bloomberg said he should have them, he no longer wants them?

What children inhabit your state's elected offices. My condolences.

[friendly_iconoclast]

28. A supermajority of legislators in Illinois passed a concealed-carry law.

Are you willing to accept that, as well?

[JaneyVee]

4. Not by private parties.

[premium]

9. Even out of state online private party to private party

has to go through an FFL.

[JaneyVee]

10. Pretty good read here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/us/seeking-gun-or-selling-one-web-is-a-land-of-few-rules.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[premium]

7. If it's an out of state sale,

it damn sure well has to go to an FFL in the buyers state where a BCG is done before the firearm can be picked up.

[Recursion]

8. They are not required for private party sales within the same state

I can't just buy a gun from somebody in Maryland and have them mail it to me. I live in DC which is a special case, but if I were in Virginia, I could buy a gun from another Virginian without a background check, assuming that Virginian was not a licensed firearms dealer. And if we wanted, we could arrange that sale over the Internet. He still can't literally mail the gun to me, but he could send it by courier, or we could meet somewhere. This is the loophole we'd like to close; I question how much good that would do, but I can't see any harm it would do so it's worth a shot.

[rrneck]

16. New laws seem to be confined to blue states.

I'm guessing the more expansive the law, the bluer the state. Didn't several red states take a step in reducing gun control laws? The only winner here are those who make a living off the culture wars.

http://www.governing.com/blogs/politics/gov-states-deepening-nations-red-blue-divide.html

There's recently been a flurry of discussion about how the expansion of unified party control and legislative supermajorities in the states has deepened the nation's red-blue divide. Observers often point to moves by increasingly unfettered Democrats and Republicans to push the policy envelope in the states they control as evidence of this rift, especially on hot-button social issues such as gun control and abortion.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-21/opinions/38717672_1_purple-states-red-state-maryland

But the red-state/blue-state fissure seems to be turning into a chasm in the months since President Obama won reelection. After the Newtown massacre, Connecticut and Maryland enacted sweeping bans on assault weapons and other gun-control measures. South Dakota enacted a bill authorizing school employees to carry guns.

North Dakota enacted a bill that, if enforced, seems likely to ban most abortions, while Maryland became one of the nine states (plus the District) that recognize same-sex marriages. Meanwhile, such marriages remain illegal elsewhere and, in 30 states, unconstitutional.

As Ronald Brownstein and Stephanie Czekalinski point out in the National Journal, the chasm doesn’t run only through social issues. Blue-state governors such as Jerry Brown in California and Martin O’Malley in Maryland have engineered tax and budget increases while red-state governors such as Sam Brownback in Kansas are cutting the income tax, the budget and the state workforce. The Kansas legislature is now so far to the right that conservative Brownback finds himself trying to moderate its enthusiasm for budget-slashing.

If you look at the "red blue" map of the United States not as a citizen but as a politician or, more specifically, a lobbyist, it becomes a map or disparate markets where brand loyalty is more important than sound national policy. After the poliitcal theater of Manchin/Toomey where members of the senate no doubt got together and decided who could most afford to vote which way, the issue gets marketed to the states where local franchises feed off the fear and umbrage generated by the issue. That way Democrats in Washington can say, "We tried and it was so close!" while Republicans can say, "That was too close for comfort!" setting up distribution of ideological red meat to smaller markets all over the country. The wider the chasm between red and blue, the more dedicated brand loyalty they command, the more money lobbyists make and the more paralyzed government becomes because of culture war infighting and the more money the 1% makes because of ineffective government. And the American people get ratfucked again.

As robber baron Jay Gould once said, "You can always hire one half of the poor to kill the other half."

[Eleanors38]

18. I was going to wait for the 5th edit of OP, but your post is excellent!

[rrneck]

20. Thanks! nt

[aikoaiko]

27. If Joe Biden hadn't led with the AWB improved background checks might already be law

Putting Joe Biden, who hates rifles with pistol grips, in charge of post Newtown gun control effort was a huge mistake. Hubris doomed the last gun control effort.

If you want improved gun controls you need to keep Jo Biden away from he spotlight.

[Paladin]

29. Gun control advice from you is like celibacy advice from Madonna. (nt)

[friendly_iconoclast]

32. It's not as if you lot have any successes at the Federal level to point at.

Hey, if you want to keep having the mindset that truth resides solely with those that agree with you...
I'll not only accept it, I'll even encourage it!

[Paladin]

34. A scolding for rigid group-think---from a Gun Enthusiast? I don't think so.

[friendly_iconoclast]

35. Oh, it's not scolding at all. Please keep on doing what you've been doing...

[Lizzie Poppet]

30. Absolutely spot-on.

Joe (and Diane) just HAD to use Sandy Hook as motivation to launch another campaign for renewing the (pointless and utterly ineffective) AWB. A classic "ask for a lot more than you really want tactic, perhaps...but it blew up in their faces. Asking instead for what was actually likely to pass, like universal background checks and increased enforcement against traffickers and straw purchasers, would likely have worked - NRA hissyfit notwithstanding.

[Honeycombe8]

33. Yeah, right. Reid had the opportunity to revise the Senate rules on filibustering.

He didn't. He didn't include gun control laws with teeth, so that it would have more of a chance of getting thru a filibuster.

It's history, now. The moment has passed. There won't be another strong, pubic sentiment to push for gun control, now, until the next time a bunch of children are killed like that.