Aa
Background checks take center stage at fractious Senate hearing
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/30/16772370-background-checks-take-center-stage-at-fractious-senate-hearing?chromedomain=firstread&lite
Updated 3:17 p.m. - Democrats looking to sustain public pressure for new gun laws in the wake of the Newtown shootings clashed Wednesday with Republicans and the National Rifle Association over universal background checks, a far less dramatic proposed change than an assault weapons ban or limits on high capacity magazines.
"My problem with background checks is you're never going to get criminals to go through universal background checks," Wayne LaPierre, CEO and chief lobbyist for the NRA, said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence, the first since President Barack Obama laid out new measures to curb gun crime. "None of it makes any sense in the real world."
The obvious drama in the packed hearing room lasted over four hours, with passions running well beyond the normal staid congressional panel. The emotion was heightened by the presence of some major iconic figures in the battle over whether – and how – to tighten federal regulation of firearms.
LaPierre sat at the opposite end of the witness table from Mark Kelly, the husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Critically wounded at a shooting in Tucson in 2011, Giffords opened the hearing with a dramatic plea, haltingly asking Congress to "do something to prevent gun violence."
Mark Kelly, husband of former Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords; David Kopel, law professor at Strum College in Denver; Baltimore Police Chief James Johnson; Gayle Trotter, senior fellow with the Independent Women's Forum; and National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre, are sworn in on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 30, 2013, prior to testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence.
"My wife would not have been sitting here today if we had stronger background checks," Kelly told the committee later in the hearing.
Under current law, people can buy guns through a private seller without getting a background check. It's commonly referred to as the "gun show loophole." The Obama administration's proposal to close this loophole by requiring background checks for all sales of firearms dominated much of Wednesday's hearing.
The exchanges at the hearing illustrated the sharp political divide over changing the nation's gun laws – and the difficulty in enacting any of the more dramatic new measures included in the package the White House is pushing, which includes an assault weapons ban and limits on high capacity magazines.
"The deaths in Newtown should not be used to put forward every gun control measure that has been floating around for years," said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the committee's ranking member.
"Emotion often leads to bad policies," said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who called the 1994 assault weapons ban a "singularly ineffective piece of legislation."
Gabrielle Giffords' husband, retired astronaut and Navy Capt. Mark Kelly, tells the Senate Judiciary Committee that he and his wife are still gun owners and value the second amendment, but stresses that the right to own a firearm demands responsibility and urges lawmakers to revise existing gun control legislation.
Even Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from rural Vermont, did not explicitly endorse the assault weapons ban that Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced last week. But he did call for background checks, sharply challenging LaPierre on the subject.
Slideshow: Ariz. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords
Advertise | AdChoices
The NRA's position on background checks is a switch from the organization's position 14 years ago. "We think it's reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone," LaPierre told a congressional panel in 1999.
A place where there was some common ground: gun trafficking.
“We may be able to work together to prevent straw purchasers from trafficking in guns,” Grassley said, a sentiment echoed by others on the panel.
The obvious legislative hurdles -- on display Wednesday -- help explain why Democrats are relying on a campaign-like strategy and a series of public events to try to ratchet up public demand for stricter regulations on firearms. Giffords' story makes her a compelling public advocate.
"Too many children are dying," she said Wednesday, breaking up the syllables during her testimony.
"It will be hard, but the time is now," said Giffords, who has embarked on an arduous recovery since she was shot in the head, affecting her speech. "You. Must. Act. Be bold. Be courageous. Americans are counting on you."
She walked into Wednesday's hearing, her husband holding her hand and carefully guiding her to her seat in front of the Senate panel.
She spoke for just over a minute; her husband helped her back out of the room.
"Gabby's gift for speech is a distant memory," Kelly said later. "She struggles to walk, and she is partially blind. Her right arm is completely paralyzed."
With help from her husband, Mark Kelly, Gabrielle Giffords, the former congresswoman who was shot and left handicapped after a gunman opened fire at an event in Tucson, Ariz. speaks at a Senate hearing on gun control.
In trying to counter the emotional testimony, Republicans repeatedly praised Giffords’ perseverance and focused on trying to raise doubts about whether the measures Democrats had proposed to combat gun violence would work. They insisted current gun laws aren't being prosecuted effectively.
“This discussion, I sit here and listen to it, and my reaction is how little it has to do with the problem of keeping our kids safe and how much it has to do with the decadelong, two decadelong, gun ban agenda when we don’t even enforce the laws on the books,” LaPierre said.
Wednesday's hearings were the first in a planned series of sessions on gun laws. Leahy said Wednesday that he plans to begin the process of crafting a gun package in his committee next month. With Obama and Vice President Joe Biden publicly making the case for new laws, gun control advocates expect any action to begin in the Senate; the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has shown little appetite for taking up the issue.
Advertise | AdChoices
In the wake of Newtown, a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 56 percent of Americans believe gun laws should be more strict. The survey showed just 7 percent believe gun restrictions should be less strict.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Tuesday that he planned to bring gun legislation to the Senate floor -- though with an open process that could allow senators to make changes. Such a process would likely make it harder to pass the bill.
“It’s very clear that there’s going to be a bill brought out of the committee, brought to the Senate floor, and there will be an amendment process there,” Reid said. He added that senators would be allowed to “bring up whatever amendments they want that deal with this issue.”
Updated 3:17 p.m. - Democrats looking to sustain public pressure for new gun laws in the wake of the Newtown shootings clashed Wednesday with Republicans and the National Rifle Association over universal background checks, a far less dramatic proposed change than an assault weapons ban or limits on high capacity magazines.
"My problem with background checks is you're never going to get criminals to go through universal background checks," Wayne LaPierre, CEO and chief lobbyist for the NRA, said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence, the first since President Barack Obama laid out new measures to curb gun crime. "None of it makes any sense in the real world."
The obvious drama in the packed hearing room lasted over four hours, with passions running well beyond the normal staid congressional panel. The emotion was heightened by the presence of some major iconic figures in the battle over whether – and how – to tighten federal regulation of firearms.
LaPierre sat at the opposite end of the witness table from Mark Kelly, the husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Critically wounded at a shooting in Tucson in 2011, Giffords opened the hearing with a dramatic plea, haltingly asking Congress to "do something to prevent gun violence."
Mark Kelly, husband of former Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords; David Kopel, law professor at Strum College in Denver; Baltimore Police Chief James Johnson; Gayle Trotter, senior fellow with the Independent Women's Forum; and National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre, are sworn in on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 30, 2013, prior to testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence.
"My wife would not have been sitting here today if we had stronger background checks," Kelly told the committee later in the hearing.
Under current law, people can buy guns through a private seller without getting a background check. It's commonly referred to as the "gun show loophole." The Obama administration's proposal to close this loophole by requiring background checks for all sales of firearms dominated much of Wednesday's hearing.
The exchanges at the hearing illustrated the sharp political divide over changing the nation's gun laws – and the difficulty in enacting any of the more dramatic new measures included in the package the White House is pushing, which includes an assault weapons ban and limits on high capacity magazines.
"The deaths in Newtown should not be used to put forward every gun control measure that has been floating around for years," said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the committee's ranking member.
"Emotion often leads to bad policies," said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who called the 1994 assault weapons ban a "singularly ineffective piece of legislation."
Gabrielle Giffords' husband, retired astronaut and Navy Capt. Mark Kelly, tells the Senate Judiciary Committee that he and his wife are still gun owners and value the second amendment, but stresses that the right to own a firearm demands responsibility and urges lawmakers to revise existing gun control legislation.
Even Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from rural Vermont, did not explicitly endorse the assault weapons ban that Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced last week. But he did call for background checks, sharply challenging LaPierre on the subject.
Slideshow: Ariz. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords
Advertise | AdChoices
The NRA's position on background checks is a switch from the organization's position 14 years ago. "We think it's reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone," LaPierre told a congressional panel in 1999.
A place where there was some common ground: gun trafficking.
“We may be able to work together to prevent straw purchasers from trafficking in guns,” Grassley said, a sentiment echoed by others on the panel.
The obvious legislative hurdles -- on display Wednesday -- help explain why Democrats are relying on a campaign-like strategy and a series of public events to try to ratchet up public demand for stricter regulations on firearms. Giffords' story makes her a compelling public advocate.
"Too many children are dying," she said Wednesday, breaking up the syllables during her testimony.
"It will be hard, but the time is now," said Giffords, who has embarked on an arduous recovery since she was shot in the head, affecting her speech. "You. Must. Act. Be bold. Be courageous. Americans are counting on you."
She walked into Wednesday's hearing, her husband holding her hand and carefully guiding her to her seat in front of the Senate panel.
She spoke for just over a minute; her husband helped her back out of the room.
"Gabby's gift for speech is a distant memory," Kelly said later. "She struggles to walk, and she is partially blind. Her right arm is completely paralyzed."
With help from her husband, Mark Kelly, Gabrielle Giffords, the former congresswoman who was shot and left handicapped after a gunman opened fire at an event in Tucson, Ariz. speaks at a Senate hearing on gun control.
In trying to counter the emotional testimony, Republicans repeatedly praised Giffords’ perseverance and focused on trying to raise doubts about whether the measures Democrats had proposed to combat gun violence would work. They insisted current gun laws aren't being prosecuted effectively.
“This discussion, I sit here and listen to it, and my reaction is how little it has to do with the problem of keeping our kids safe and how much it has to do with the decadelong, two decadelong, gun ban agenda when we don’t even enforce the laws on the books,” LaPierre said.
Wednesday's hearings were the first in a planned series of sessions on gun laws. Leahy said Wednesday that he plans to begin the process of crafting a gun package in his committee next month. With Obama and Vice President Joe Biden publicly making the case for new laws, gun control advocates expect any action to begin in the Senate; the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has shown little appetite for taking up the issue.
Advertise | AdChoices
In the wake of Newtown, a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 56 percent of Americans believe gun laws should be more strict. The survey showed just 7 percent believe gun restrictions should be less strict.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Tuesday that he planned to bring gun legislation to the Senate floor -- though with an open process that could allow senators to make changes. Such a process would likely make it harder to pass the bill.
“It’s very clear that there’s going to be a bill brought out of the committee, brought to the Senate floor, and there will be an amendment process there,” Reid said. He added that senators would be allowed to “bring up whatever amendments they want that deal with this issue.”
I wish people would concentrate less on saying "that won't work" and try brainstorming something that will work.
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Agreed. And really, that should be a common goal for all.
It is a tough one. Any definition will have to be carefully crafted. But I believe we can do it. Its going to take a lot of good will and hard work, and everybody is going to have to give a little.
The people who are screaming "NOBODY needs an assault weapon - BAN THEM" and the people who are screaming "they are trying to take away our guns" are not going to get everything they want. This is going to take compromise. I wish people would concentrate less on saying "that won't work" and try brainstorming something that will work.
I think we need to consider everyone's wishes here. I believe we all want the same thing - to prevent the kind of thing that happened in Sandy Hook. Surely if we focus on that we can work something out that preserves the second amendment and still keeps assault weapons out of the hands of people like Adam Lanza.
The people who are screaming "NOBODY needs an assault weapon - BAN THEM" and the people who are screaming "they are trying to take away our guns" are not going to get everything they want. This is going to take compromise. I wish people would concentrate less on saying "that won't work" and try brainstorming something that will work.
I think we need to consider everyone's wishes here. I believe we all want the same thing - to prevent the kind of thing that happened in Sandy Hook. Surely if we focus on that we can work something out that preserves the second amendment and still keeps assault weapons out of the hands of people like Adam Lanza.
Again, I'm all for this type of background check but know it will receive some of the biggest backlash if the definitions include medication use. And that would be a secondary issue if then people actually became fearful of treatment due to rights being taken away.
Tough one to solve.
Agree that they need to address many areas to work on this problem and am glad they are coming up with ideas and working on it.
Tough one to solve.
Agree that they need to address many areas to work on this problem and am glad they are coming up with ideas and working on it.
Improved access to care is certainly going to help.
I am suggesting that certain classes of weapons, e.g. assault weapons, require a higher level of scrutiny in the background check. I think it might help if, to purchase that type of weapon, the purchaser is required to sign a HIPPA waiver for the limited purpose of assessing mental health records.
Yes, it will be necessary to have clear definitions. That's one of the things that is going to require some time and study. And its not a complete solution. But there doesn't seem to be one single answer to this problem. We need to approach it on several fronts.
I am suggesting that certain classes of weapons, e.g. assault weapons, require a higher level of scrutiny in the background check. I think it might help if, to purchase that type of weapon, the purchaser is required to sign a HIPPA waiver for the limited purpose of assessing mental health records.
Yes, it will be necessary to have clear definitions. That's one of the things that is going to require some time and study. And its not a complete solution. But there doesn't seem to be one single answer to this problem. We need to approach it on several fronts.
I am all for these background checks as I'm a convert to the 'change gun laws' cause. But I wonder if there isn't some fear for how they judge "mental problems." If someone has a history of depression or anxiety and has taken an SSRI or other class of antidepressant that is commonly prescribed--- would that be cause to deny them access to guns? And then it gets into the HIPPA laws. It's tricky.
It will have to be clearly defined. I think the other avenue to mental health is making access to care easier and to try to destigmatize it.
It will have to be clearly defined. I think the other avenue to mental health is making access to care easier and to try to destigmatize it.
People do break, its true. And no background check can predict that. But at least we can keep assault weapons out of the hands of people with known mental problems. Background checks can do that.
God you watch too many soap operas if you believe this really works in real life as a common excuse for criminal actions. If you've ever known anyone to get in a bar fight over a girl - you will see how little this works. Even if it is validated by the other persons actions and witnesses.
You don't know how powerful the mind is and what it can do. Normal people can just snap. The courts have a definition for that and recognize it as a defense.
temporary insanity n. in a criminal prosecution, a defense by the accused that he/she was briefly insane at the time the crime was committed and therefore was incapable of knowing the nature of his/her alleged criminal act. Temporary insanity is claimed as a defense whether or not the accused is mentally stable at the time of trial. One difficulty with a temporary insanity defense is the problem of proof, since any examination by psychiatrists had to be after the fact, so the only evidence must be the conduct of the accused immediately before or after the crime. It is similar to the defenses of "diminished capacity" to understand one's own actions, the so-called "twinky defense," the "abuse excuse," "heat of passion," and other claims of mental disturbance which raise the issue of criminal intent based on modern psychiatry and/or sociology. However, mental derangement at the time of an abrupt crime, such as a sudden attack or crime of passion, can be a valid defense, or at least show lack of premeditation to reduce the degree of the crime.
temporary insanity n. in a criminal prosecution, a defense by the accused that he/she was briefly insane at the time the crime was committed and therefore was incapable of knowing the nature of his/her alleged criminal act. Temporary insanity is claimed as a defense whether or not the accused is mentally stable at the time of trial. One difficulty with a temporary insanity defense is the problem of proof, since any examination by psychiatrists had to be after the fact, so the only evidence must be the conduct of the accused immediately before or after the crime. It is similar to the defenses of "diminished capacity" to understand one's own actions, the so-called "twinky defense," the "abuse excuse," "heat of passion," and other claims of mental disturbance which raise the issue of criminal intent based on modern psychiatry and/or sociology. However, mental derangement at the time of an abrupt crime, such as a sudden attack or crime of passion, can be a valid defense, or at least show lack of premeditation to reduce the degree of the crime.
Why does he have mental issues? He maybe a normal person who just had a break. It happens to sane people."
NORMAL people dont have mental breaks from reality and go out and shoot bus drivers and kidnap horrified children. They are MENTALLY ILL if they do so.
NORMAL people dont have mental breaks from reality and go out and shoot bus drivers and kidnap horrified children. They are MENTALLY ILL if they do so.
Why does he have mental issues? He maybe a normal person who just had a break. It happens to sane people. I have anxiety issues does this mean I can't own a gun because it is a "mental issue".
The conversation is not being had about the large picture of what drove Timmy to join a gang or what drove him to committ a crime with a gun. What is being talked about is how bad guns are. You can do as much damage with a glock and 2 clips as you can with an AR. Any rifle you buy is not automatic and your not firing 30 rounds in 5 seconds. Smoke and mirrors. Remember duck and cover? Well this is no different. Preception that your going to be safer.
The conversation is not being had about the large picture of what drove Timmy to join a gang or what drove him to committ a crime with a gun. What is being talked about is how bad guns are. You can do as much damage with a glock and 2 clips as you can with an AR. Any rifle you buy is not automatic and your not firing 30 rounds in 5 seconds. Smoke and mirrors. Remember duck and cover? Well this is no different. Preception that your going to be safer.
"What is not being talked about is what made a person pick up a gun to committ a crime. Why because it's too tough of a conversation to have."
But this is being addressed as well..I agree that the conversation needs to be louder. Take that guy in Alabama for example, he clearly has mental issues..How was he able to get a gun? In the President's gun policies, he wants a database where the mentally ill are recorded especially if they try to go buy a gun. That right there is a start to it. Also, i understand when people say banning AR's or high capacity magazines won't change anything but I have to say, it will. If those are stopped from being manufactured these ,mass shootings and inner city violence will reduce. maybe not significantly but they will reduce. There are more than one thing that we need to do as a country to have our gun violence under control. These steps like Universal background checks is a step in the right direction..
Take a look at the testimony of one of the parents that lost his son at Sandy hook. He outlines common sense ways to help prevent another one of these shootings. They are sensible and I think achievable. He touches on this particular issue about mental health.
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/30/a-sandy-hook-parent-gives-testimony-the-senate-should-have-heard/
But this is being addressed as well..I agree that the conversation needs to be louder. Take that guy in Alabama for example, he clearly has mental issues..How was he able to get a gun? In the President's gun policies, he wants a database where the mentally ill are recorded especially if they try to go buy a gun. That right there is a start to it. Also, i understand when people say banning AR's or high capacity magazines won't change anything but I have to say, it will. If those are stopped from being manufactured these ,mass shootings and inner city violence will reduce. maybe not significantly but they will reduce. There are more than one thing that we need to do as a country to have our gun violence under control. These steps like Universal background checks is a step in the right direction..
Take a look at the testimony of one of the parents that lost his son at Sandy hook. He outlines common sense ways to help prevent another one of these shootings. They are sensible and I think achievable. He touches on this particular issue about mental health.
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/30/a-sandy-hook-parent-gives-testimony-the-senate-should-have-heard/
Here is the problem and it always has been the problem. People want to blame the gun and how the person got the gun. What is not being talked about is what made a person pick up a gun to committ a crime. Why because it's too tough of a conversation to have.
Background checks and weapons ban all have good intentions but what is that going to do for Derek in Chicago who only has a mother and he spends more time on the streets with his boys then he does with a book or in school. ADDRESS THE REAL ISSUE.
No that will not be addressed, these gum laws are a smoke screen to make you feel safer.
Background checks and weapons ban all have good intentions but what is that going to do for Derek in Chicago who only has a mother and he spends more time on the streets with his boys then he does with a book or in school. ADDRESS THE REAL ISSUE.
No that will not be addressed, these gum laws are a smoke screen to make you feel safer.
I watched this today and it was AWESOME!..Gabby Giffords was GREAT! Mr. Wayne Lapierre looked like a fool up there...I have confidence that Universal background checks WILL pass...EVERYONE that buys a gun should go through a background check EVEN private sales....I hope the Assault Weapon and magazines get banned as well..Times are different now and the American people know something needs to be done and they support the presidents plan...It really is just common sense..
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
