Background Checks voted down by Senate

On my way home from a late meeting tonight I heard on the radio that the Senate failed to reach 60 votes required to add the expanded background check to the Gun Control bill 54-46. As I checked my email I came across an email from the White House with the subject line "Shameful".

The email stated:

A few hours ago, President Obama stood with parents who lost children in the Newtown tragedy and said: "All in all, today was a pretty shameful day for Washington."

That's because a minority of senators blocked legislation that would have made America safer and better protected our kids. Forty-five lawmakers stood in the way of improvements to the background check system that would keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals and the mentally unstable -- something that 90 percent of Americans support.

You're going to want to hear President Obama explain why he thinks this happened. Watch the video or read the transcript below, then share this so that everyone knows what comes next:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gun-violence/action

-- The President's Remarks --

A few months ago, in response to too many tragedies -- including the shootings of a United States Congresswoman, Gabby Giffords, who's here today, and the murder of 20 innocent schoolchildren and their teachers -- this country took up the cause of protecting more of our people from gun violence.

Families that know unspeakable grief summoned the courage to petition their elected leaders -- not just to honor the memory of their children, but to protect the lives of all our children. And a few minutes ago, a minority in the United States Senate decided it wasn't worth it. They blocked common-sense gun reforms even while these families looked on from the Senate gallery.

By now, it's well known that 90 percent of the American people support universal background checks that make it harder for a dangerous person to buy a gun. We're talking about convicted felons, people convicted of domestic violence, people with a severe mental illness.  Ninety percent of Americans support that idea. Most Americans think that's already the law.

And a few minutes ago, 90 percent of Democrats in the Senate just voted for that idea. But it's not going to happen because 90 percent of Republicans in the Senate just voted against that idea. 

A majority of senators voted "yes" to protecting more of our citizens with smarter background checks. But by this continuing distortion of Senate rules, a minority was able to block it from moving forward.

I'm going to speak plainly and honestly about what's happened here because the American people are trying to figure out how can something have 90 percent support and yet not happen. We had a Democrat and a Republican -– both gun owners, both fierce defenders of our Second Amendment, with "A" grades from the NRA -- come together and worked together to write a common-sense compromise on background checks. And I want to thank Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey for their courage in doing that. That was not easy given their traditional strong support for Second Amendment rights.

As they said, nobody could honestly claim that the package they put together infringed on our Second Amendment rights. All it did was extend the same background check rules that already apply to guns purchased from a dealer to guns purchased at gun shows or over the Internet. So 60 percent of guns are already purchased through a background check system; this would have covered a lot of the guns that are currently outside that system.

Their legislation showed respect for gun owners, and it showed respect for the victims of gun violence. And Gabby Giffords, by the way, is both -- she's a gun owner and a victim of gun violence. She is a Westerner and a moderate. And she supports these background checks.

In fact, even the NRA used to support expanded background checks. The current leader of the NRA used to support these background checks. So while this compromise didn't contain everything I wanted or everything that these families wanted, it did represent progress. It represented moderation and common sense. That's why 90 percent of the American people supported it.

But instead of supporting this compromise, the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill. They claimed that it would create some sort of "big brother" gun registry, even though the bill did the opposite. This legislation, in fact, outlawed any registry. Plain and simple, right there in the text. But that didn't matter.

And unfortunately, this pattern of spreading untruths about this legislation served a purpose, because those lies upset an intense minority of gun owners, and that in turn intimidated a lot of senators. And I talked to several of these senators over the past few weeks, and they're all good people. I know all of them were shocked by tragedies like Newtown. And I also understand that they come from states that are strongly pro-gun. And I have consistently said that there are regional differences when it comes to guns, and that both sides have to listen to each other.  

But the fact is most of these senators could not offer any good reason why we wouldn't want to make it harder for criminals and those with severe mental illnesses to buy a gun. There were no coherent arguments as to why we wouldn't do this. It came down to politics -- the worry that that vocal minority of gun owners would come after them in future elections. They worried that the gun lobby would spend a lot of money and paint them as anti-Second Amendment. 

And obviously, a lot of Republicans had that fear, but Democrats had that fear, too. And so they caved to the pressure, and they started looking for an excuse -- any excuse -- to vote "no."

One common argument I heard was that this legislation wouldn't prevent all future massacres. And that's true. As I said from the start, no single piece of legislation can stop every act of violence and evil. We learned that tragically just two days ago. But if action by Congress could have saved one person, one child, a few hundred, a few thousand -- if it could have prevented those people from losing their lives to gun violence in the future while preserving our Second Amendment rights, we had an obligation to try. 

And this legislation met that test. And too many senators failed theirs.

I've heard some say that blocking this step would be a victory. And my question is, a victory for who? A victory for what? All that happened today was the preservation of the loophole that lets dangerous criminals buy guns without a background check. That didn't make our kids safer. Victory for not doing something that 90 percent of Americans, 80 percent of Republicans, the vast majority of your constituents wanted to get done? It begs the question, who are we here to represent? 

I've heard folks say that having the families of victims lobby for this legislation was somehow misplaced. "A prop," somebody called them. "Emotional blackmail," some outlet said. Are they serious? Do we really think that thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence don't have a right to weigh in on this issue? Do we think their emotions, their loss is not relevant to this debate?

So all in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington. 

But this effort is not over. I want to make it clear to the American people we can still bring about meaningful changes that reduce gun violence, so long as the American people don't give up on it. Even without Congress, my administration will keep doing everything it can to protect more of our communities. We're going to address the barriers that prevent states from participating in the existing background check system. We're going to give law enforcement more information about lost and stolen guns so it can do its job. We're going to help to put in place emergency plans to protect our children in their schools. 

But we can do more if Congress gets its act together. And if this Congress refuses to listen to the American people and pass common-sense gun legislation, then the real impact is going to have to come from the voters. 

To all the people who supported this legislation -- law enforcement and responsible gun owners, Democrats and Republicans, urban moms, rural hunters, whoever you are -- you need to let your representatives in Congress know that you are disappointed, and that if they don't act this time, you will remember come election time. 

To the wide majority of NRA households who supported this legislation, you need to let your leadership and lobbyists in Washington know they didn't represent your views on this one. 

The point is those who care deeply about preventing more and more gun violence will have to be as passionate, and as organized, and as vocal as those who blocked these common-sense steps to help keep our kids safe. Ultimately, you outnumber those who argued the other way. But they're better organized. They're better financed. They've been at it longer. And they make sure to stay focused on this one issue during election time. And that's the reason why you can have something that 90 percent of Americans support and you can't get it through the Senate or the House of Representatives.

So to change Washington, you, the American people, are going to have to sustain some passion about this. And when necessary, you've got to send the right people to Washington. And that requires strength, and it requires persistence. 

And that's the one thing that these families should have inspired in all of us. I still don't know how they have been able to muster up the strength to do what they've doing over the last several weeks, last several months.

And I see this as just round one. When Newtown happened, I met with these families and I spoke to the community, and I said, something must be different right now. We're going to have to change. That's what the whole country said. Everybody talked about how we were going to change something to make sure this didn't happen again, just like everybody talked about how we needed to do something after Aurora. Everybody talked about we needed change something after Tucson.

And I'm assuming that the emotions that we've all felt since Newtown, the emotions that we've all felt since Tucson and Aurora and Chicago -- the pain we share with these families and families all across the country who've lost a loved one to gun violence -- I'm assuming that's not a temporary thing. I'm assuming our expressions of grief and our commitment to do something different to prevent these things from happening are not empty words. 

I believe we're going to be able to get this done. Sooner or later, we are going to get this right. The memories of these children demand it. And so do the American people. 

Thank you very much, everybody.

President Obama complains that "And a few minutes ago, a minority in the United States Senate decided it wasn't worth it. They blocked common-sense gun reforms even while these families looked on from the Senate gallery" as families from Newtown stood in his back drop. The moron that shot up Newtown did not buy his weapons from an online store, gun show or even a registered gun dealer; rather the moron stole them from his mother. That being said, I don't see how forcing law-abiding citizens of the United States to be subjected to a background check would have stopped Newtown. Nor would the background check stopped the daily gun play in the streets of South Chicago.

Not to mention the fact that HIPPA protects the patients right to privacy. Connect the dots people. The Affordable  Health Care Act establishes a non-elected board to dictate to America treatment parameters. Had this amendment passed, one seeking assistance for depression, bipolar, PTSD, etc would have their Due Process Right violated along with their right to privacy as the background checks would have stripped away the privacy of HIPPA. If they were to strip away mental disorders from HIPPA what would be the next item the Health Care Advisory board would look to strip away?

Mr. President you want a solution that meets the common sense approach - then look to allow citizens to arm themselves more. Use that Executive Order power to tell the Department of Education that schools are to require their staff to take fire arms safety classes as they will be carrying weapons going forth. The manic in Colorado choose his target because of the threat of possible guns on the premises at other movie theaters. 

Then to complain against the Senate rule of requiring 60 votes instead of a simply majority; really! The rule is there to protect the minority vote and the people of the United States from the majority passes laws that may discriminate against those not in power. Let's stop the insanity, let's stop treading on the Rights afforded a free society, let's look at the heart of the problem - and the heart of the problem is the criminal element when it comes to gun violence in America. The criminal doesn't obey the law of the land; hence they are a criminal. If mental illness is on the rise then let's look at how we treat it, how we diagnose it, and how we help people be productive members of society - don't take away my right under the veil of "the greater good". That only washes in societies that are not free!

Gun Control find a compromise

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) announced today a bipartisan approach to the gun control debate. The compromise is called  The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act. While legislative language hasn't been penned yet both Senators put forth fact sheets on what the frame work of the bill will look like.

Sen. Toomey posted (http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=965):

Bottom Line: The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act would require states and their federal government to send all necessary records on criminals and the violently mentally ill to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The bill extends the existing background check system to gun shows and online sales.

The bill explicitly bans the federal government from creating a national firearms registry, and imposes serious criminal penalties ( a felony with up to 15 years in prison) on any person who misuses or illegally retains firearms records.

TITLE ONE: GETTING ALL THE NAMES OF PROHIBITED PURCHASERS INTO THE BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM

Summary of Title I: This section improves background checks for firearms by strengthening the instant check system. 

• Encourage states to provide all their available records to NICS by restricting federal funds to states who don not comply.
• Allow dealers to voluntarily use the NICS database to run background checks on their prospective employees.
• Clarifies that submissions of mental health records into the NICS system are not prohibited by federal privacy laws (HIPAA).
• Provides a legal process for a veteran to contest his/her placement in NICS when there is no basis for barring the right to own a firearm.

TITLE TWO: REQUIRING BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR FIREARM SALES

Summary of Title II: This section of the bill requires background checks for sales at gun shows and online while securing certain aspects of 2nd Amendment rights for law abiding citizens.

• Closes the gun show and other loopholes while exempting temporary transfers and transfers between family members.
• Fixes interstate travel laws for sportsmen who transport their firearms across state lines in a responsible manner. The term "transport" includes staying in temporary lodging overnight, stopping for food, buying fuel, vehicle maintenance, and medical treatment.
• Protects sellers from lawsuits if the weapon cleared through the expanded background checks and is subsequently used in a crime. This is the same treatment gun dealers receive now.
• Allows dealers to complete transactions at gun shows that take place in a state for which they are not a resident.
• Requires that if a background check at a gun show does not result in a definitive response from NICS within 48 hours, the sale may proceed. After four years, when the NICS improvements are completed, the background check would clear in 24 hours. Current law is three business days.
• Requires the FBI to give priority to finalizing background checks at gun shows over checks at store front dealerships
• Authorizes use of state concealed carry permit instead of a background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer.
• Permits interstate handgun sales from dealers
• Allows active military to buy firearms in their home states.
• Family transfers and some private sales (friends, neighbors, other individuals) are exempt from background checks.

TITLE THREE: NATIONAL COMMISSION ON MASS VIOLENCE

Summary of Title III: This section of the bill creates a commission to study the causes of mass violence in the United States, looking at all aspects of the problem, including guns, school safety, mental health, and violent media or video games.

The Commission would consist of six experts appointed by the Senate Majority Leader and six experts appointed by the Speaker of the House. They would be required to submit an interim report in three months and a completed report in six months.

WHAT THE BILL WILL NOT DO

The bill will not take away anyone's guns
The bill will not ban any type of firearm
The will not ban or restrict the use of any kid of bullet or any size clip or magazine.
The bill will not create a national registry; in fact, it specifically makes it illegal to establish any such registry.
The bill will not, in any way at all, infringe upon the Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.

Sen Manchin has very similar fact sheet on his webpage as well. Here is the link for comparison: http://www.manchin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=71c2e977-5a10-412c-ad8b-a3339ae525f9

I do applaud Sen. Toomey and Sen. Manchin in finding a starting point of compromise in partisan Washington, but a slippery slope is created by their proposition. The claim that HIPPA doesn't prohibit the reporting of Mental health to the NICS what will be the next aspect of ones doctor/client relationship be violated? Another point of concern is the overreach of the Federal government by threatening States funding, notice they don't say what type, if they don't comply with the mandate of reporting. Yes, I understand it is voluntary but is it really?

Another question I ask myself as I read the fact sheets and hear other proposals on gun control - How does this prevent another school shooting, how does this stop another assassination attempt, how does this infringe upon my God given right to protect my property and family?

The Role of Guns in our society

Nearly every legislative body is discussing the top of gun violence or gun control. For the past few days and including today hearings are being held at the Minnesota state capital on all aspects of guns. Today they will be holding a hearing on ammunition clip size. I know I have blogged prior on the issue of gun control and violence but we still need to keep the focus on the ball.

Just this week the Department of Justice released an argument for the use of Drones to monitor and kill American citizens abroad as well as here in the United States. Mind you that this is the same Department of Justice that felt our brave men and women fighting around the world should issue the Miranda Warning to those that are trying to kill them. People have made the argument that average citizens do not need "assault" or military style weapons in there homes and that our police force should never be out gunned. The fallacy to that point is the Police have nothing to fear from the law abiding citizen and the criminal will find a means to obtain those weapons regardless of what ever law is placed on the books.

It is true that as a hunter I do not need more than four or five bullets in my clip at any one time. Yet to go down that road is a distraction from the conversation. Our Fore Fathers, despite their short comings, understood what it meant to live under tyranny. Those that seek our shores for a better life have a firm grasp on tyranny as well. That understanding and first hand experience of our Fore Fathers is the foundation for implementing the Second Amendment.

Through the ratification of the Second Amendment in the United States Constitution is was forged that every citizen have the capability to fight back tyranny in what ever form it takes. While in my lifetime I may never witness such decay in our ruling class to the point that a King or Queen or Dictator is substituted for the Republic, there does exist that possibility at some point in the future. One step to enact that transformation is to ensure the citizenry has no means of protecting the Republic.

Some reading this will dismiss that last paragraph but look at recent legislation passed through Congress and signed into law. A few examples are NAFTA, Patriot Act, Healthcare Mandate, and now a legal argument for the use of Drones to assassinate Americans here and abroad. Individually these acts and resolutions by our Federal government has eroded our freedom and liberty of a free society. With the Supreme Court ruling that the Healthcare Mandate is Constitutional based on it is a tax opens Pandora's Box to more tax mandates.

Don't be surprised that if a Representative or Senator puts forth a bill to implement a steep tax on the number of bullets one has or on the number and types of guns one owns. Why do you think they are pushing so hard for this national database for background checks and gun registry? It is not to keep criminals from obtaining weapons it is to help them identify where the weapons are so at some point in the future they can levy a tax in hopes of disarming America. Demand your freedom before your ability to do so is taken away!

Real Cause of Mass Shootings?

Today Gov. Cuomo of New York signed into law new legislation that replaced existing law to redefine the assault rifle, limit the size of clips and place more restrictions on gun ownership in New York. Tomorrow, President Obama, surrounded by children, will announce Vice President's Biden's suggestions that President Obama agrees with as he looks to stem the tide of gun violence. Many believe that it will call for the ban on assault rifles and the elimination of large magazine clips.

Mother Jones, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map?page=2; has posted a guide to mass shootings in the United States dating back to 1982. 62 mass shootings in all took place over the past 30 years. I took a look at the past ten years of history. Per the shootings reported by Mother Jones we 29 mass shootings with 475 people killed and injured. What the article doesn't discuss is the method used outside of the fact that they were shootings. Let's compare that ten year record to homicides reported in Chicago for 2012.

RedEye data, http://homicides.redeyechicago.com/, has listed a link to all homicides reported in 2012 and by method. After downloading the data and stripping out anything not gunshot related one is left with 442 people killed by gunshot. Now the data doesn't discern from handgun, shotgun, assault rifle, etc. 442 people were killed by gunshot in 2012 alone while we saw 475 people killed and injured during mass shooting over tens year period. Now, I do not diminish the deaths nor mock those that senselessly perished during mass shootings but we need to put the numbers into perspective as we allow our elected officials to use the Second Amendment as a hot political potato.

We can all agree that access to an assault rifle is not for hunting of any sort and the same time we can all agree that guns do not kill. What I mean is that a ridiculous it is to shield your pro-gun stance based on the recreational exercise of hunting as a reason to own an assault rifle lays on the same plane of logical argument of the anti-gun advocates that claim the gun is the killer. The gun does nothing until someone picks it up and uses it.

That person can use it to provide food, target practice, protection, and mass shootings. Again it goes back to the person behind the trigger and their intent on if the gun is being used with respect or being abused. Looking back at the list that Mother Jones put together a common theme exists among the shooters; degrees of mental illness. The trouble is that its not nearly as sexy or politically correct to put our thumb on mental illness as it is on the gun. The gun is the smoke; yet that smoke cannot materialize without the flint - human being.

While I do not promote the notion that returning to the arcane methods of dealing with mental illness and sending the medical community back into the Stone Age, there is something to be learned. Rumor has it that President Obama will address the mental illness aspect insofar that during the background check one will be searched, violating HIPPA in the process, for a history of mental illness along with a felony record. How do we tackle this slippery slope? If we say today it is okay to background check for mental illness what doors will that open for other illnesses for services or rights? When will someone in our political elite display a sober temper and re-direct the ship and deal with the issue at hand - the person behind the gun?

Gun Control!?!?!?!

This past Thursday I attended the School Board meeting for Watertown-Mayer school district. While my purpose to be there was due to my role with the Watertown-Mayer SEAC, the School Board had a topic on the agenda to discuss school safety; specifically ensuring the kids are safe from a mass shooting. Several residence showed up for the meeting and offered their opinions on the how to keep the school safe. Suggestions ranged from more surveillance  more buzzer's for prime entrances, to having a roaming officer and then to the point of arming the teachers and administration.

It will not be long before a member of Congress brings before their respective chamber a bill that would restrict gun ownership in some manner. A lot of the talk shows have focused on the "assault" rifle an the large magazine clips that many of these guns have. As rule of law no weapon is permitted to be fully automatic which means that one would have to pull the trigger every time they wish to expel a bullet or a short burst of bullets. That being said, one doesn't have to be a genius to turn the semi-automatic into a fully automatic.

Recently a newspaper published those with conceal and carry permits in Westchester county in New York. Why on Earth would this type of information be made public? The newspaper just gave thieves, rapist, arsonist, and other thugs a road map for which houses to invade and which ones to avoid. Some claim that the gun is the threat to our safety. In Westchester County, now thanks to the paper, the lack of having a conceal and carry permit has made one a target!

Second Amendment does deny the Federal Government from restricting gun ownership or the right for "one to bear arms". Anti-Gun advocates argue that the Founding Fathers didn't envision assault rifles to be covered and that no one needs one to hunt with them. First let's take the hunting aspect off the table because the Second Amendment didn't materialize because the Founding Fathers needed to hunt. Besides, if one has ever heard one of my Uncle's shoot his bolt action rifle during the deer hunting season you'd swear it was semi or even fully automatic.

The gun in of itself cannot harm anyone as it takes a human or some other action for it act. Society doesn't have a healthy respect for the gun and that is our root cause. When you hear a child shoot another because they found their parents handgun it is do to the lack of respect given to that gun. Now I am not blaming the child directly; rather it is the lack of respect that parent gave the gun by not properly securing the gun and explaining to the child the purpose of the gun.

We don't need to control the access to weapons; rather we need to gain respect for the potential outcome that weapon can become. We need to educate society on usage of guns to gain the respect, understanding, and responsibility gun ownership brings.Banning assault rifles does not make us more safe; rather it prevents us, as a society, to have the means to protect our populous in the event that our government, or another government, because tyrannical or invades.

Violence in America

The tragic and senseless killing of 28 innocent lives yesterday in Newtown, Connecticut is a microcosm of the ills our society faces today. Unfortunately Americans and the world will talk more about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, and mental disorders than what is really at the heart of these senseless acts. Guns don't kill people; rather it is the person behind the gun that does. President Obama spoke on the shooting and expressed his concern as a parent which is commendable.  Yet, President Obama stated, "And we're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this; regardless of politics."

Mayor Bloomberg has come out and said, "President Obama rightly sent his heartfelt condolences to the families in Newtown. But the country needs him to send a bill to Congress to fix this problem. Calling for 'meaningful action' is not enough."

Rep. Jerold Nadler (D-NY) on the Ed Schultz show yesterday said, "These incidents, these horrible, horrible  incidents...are happening  more and more frequently. And they will continue to happen more and more frequently until someone with the bully pulpit, and that means the President, takes leadership and pushes Congress."

Really? So the answer to stem the tide of violence that has rocked our society - Newtown, Oregon Mall, Colorado movie Theater  the Temple in Wisconsin, Arizona Congresswoman - is to limit the ability to own guns? The trouble is not the method of choice - in these cases a gun - rather it is societies loss of core family values. The demands on the family unit has eroded the respect, understanding and nurturing of core family values.

Our educators will be the first to state the fact that over the past several decades students have become increasingly disrespectful to them, to each other and to authority figures. Part of this stems back to the family unit where it is no longer common place for a family to have a single bread winner. Instead most family units are fractured due to the need of two incomes to make ends meet. Items like internet, cell phone, computers, TV's, and Xbox are considered necessities  The concept of a family dinner is being eroded due to dual income households and the use of television as a baby sitter or a pacifier for out children.

Take a moment today and over the holiday season as you gather with family to evaluate the importance of the material objects in  your life and how they contribute to the erosion of core family values. It is very possible that one may understand that events like Newtown are not the guns fault but lies right inside the family unit.

A win for State rights: Thune Amendment fails passage

State Rights were defended yesterday in the Senate when an amendment presented by Sen. John Thune (D-S.D.) fell two votes short, 58-39, of passage. Dissenters used State Rights and the increase of gun violence as their key reasons for voting against this amendment. For years the States have seen an erosion of rights afforded them by the Constitution either by passage of legislation or the end run by mandates on Federal money.

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does allow for all Americans to keep and bear arms. Sen. Thune argued that “An individual should be able to exercise their Second Amendment constitutional right and be able to travel through individual states as long as they live by the laws of those states.” I agree with Sen. Thune and nearly every state that has ‘conceal and carry’ law state that only permits approved in that state are recognized. That being said, if it our right as Americans to keep and bear arms, then no state or federal regulation ought to bar anyone from bearing arms across state lines.

Why ‘conceal and carry’ when one has the right to openly carry? Sen. Dianne Feinstein warned that Thune’s amendment “is a grave threat to public safety. Concealed-weapons laws that work in rural states may not be suitable in urban areas. What’s good for Iowa or Alaska may not be good for California or New York.” Sen. Feinstein listen to yourself and apply that logic to other legislation and issues facing our nation; gay marriage, smoking bans, or Cap and Trade.

The NRA states that “the right to self defense does not end at state lines.” I agree completely with the NRA and the supreme law of the land already gives one the right to “bear” arms across state lines. All one has to do when crossing state lines, regardless if one has a ‘conceal and carry’ permit, is to keep their gun visible at all times. The Supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution, already permits this. Openly bear your arms and exercise your Constitutional right!!!!