Let's start with Jake Tapper, host of CNN's State of the Union. He described our state being "angry at the lack of leadership."
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), one of the folks involved in the Senate negotiations in response to the school shooting in Uvalde), talked with Tapper.
He says he's "never been part of negotiations as serious as these," noting there are more Rs "at the table talking about changing our gun laws and investing in mental health than at any time since Sandy Hook." And, he admitted, he's seen a lot of failed negotiations, so he's "...sober-minded" that they can get something done.
He said red flag laws, background check changes, and "a handful of other items that will make a difference" are on the table. And while he's not sure they'll be able to meet the 'end of the week' deadline from Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), they're "trying to put a package together,
because I think Republicans realize how scared parents and kids are across this country. I think they realize that the answer this time cannot be nothing, that it's frankly a test of democracy, it's a test of the federal government as to whether we can deliver at a moment of just fierce anxiety amongst the American public. So we're closer than ever before. Let's see if we land it.
What we're talking about is trying to make sure that dangerous or potentially dangerous individuals don't have their hands on weapons. Sen. Cornyn has also talked about his interest in taking a look at how we access juvenile records for these young men who tend to be 18 to 21, committing these mass murders, to make sure that they can't get their hands on a weapon if they have had problems with the law in the past...
He also said what Cornyn's saying is "consistent" with their negotiations.
Listen, we're not going to do everything I want. We're not going to put a piece of legislation the table that's going to ban assault weapons, or we're not going to pass comprehensive background checks. But, right now, people in this country want us to make progress. They just don't want the status quo to continue for another 30 years.
Murphy said they're trying to get to something that will pass, and said "that's why the red flag law is probably the most important" piece.
It's actually about helping states implement red flag laws... not just providing incentives for states to pass new laws, but helping fund existing red flag laws, so that more individuals who are contemplating suicides can have their weapons temporarily taken from them to save their lives.
And what about Tapper's suggestion, that they just take all the laws passed in red-state Florida after the Parkland shooting, and use that as the template? It's a great question. for sure, and Murphy had a good answer, too. Then-Gov. Rick Scott passed the law
because it was the right thing to do, but also because Republican saw it as good politics. And we have to make the case for Republicans that, right now, this is good politics, that, if they want to get reelected, then they cannot stand in the way of the commonsense changes that we're talking about right now.
And, it made sense, Murphy said. It had mental health, school safety, and "some modest but impactful changes in gun laws." That's what he thinks the Senate can pass. And, while he's "more confident than ever" they can get it done this time, he's also "more anxious about failure this time around."
He said when he was home last week,
I have never seen the look on parents' faces that I did. There's just a deep, deep fear for our children right now, and also a fear that government is so fundamentally broken that it can't put politics aside to guarantee the one thing that matters most to adults in this country, the physical safety of their children. And so, I think the possibility of success is better than ever before. But I think the consequences of failure for our entire democracy are more significant than ever.
Also in the classrooms? Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA); he's involved in the negotiations, too, and he talked with Margaret Brennan in the Face the Nation classroom. The conversation started with a question that I have yet to hear answered without a political slant: What has happened to the American people that has taken violence to this level?
Toomey correctly said it's a "complete and multifaceted problem, noting that "criminality in our big cities has escalated enormously, " and he called out some of the contributing factors.
In some cases, it's district attorneys who think their job is to make sure no one goes to jail. That's a problem. And then, of course, we have these -- these horrific sensational massacres, where a young man clearly has just gone completely off the rails and is deranged. And that's a very different set of circumstances. So, it's -- it's a big, complicated problem.
She talked about the negotiations, and reports have said that there won't be an assault weapons ban, or comprehensive background checks - and she wondered if Toomey's proposal to expand background checks is still in. He said he "certainly hope(s)" it'll be in, noting that he and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) have been working on it "for a long time." He said that, "at least for commercial sales there ought to be a background check," and that includes at gun shows and via the Internet.
I don't know that we'll get exactly what Senator Manchin and I developed some years ago. It will probably be something different than that. And that's fine. There are a number of mechanisms you could use to expand background checks.
It "makes sense," he said; "we all agree" that criminals and "deranged, dangerously mentally ill people shouldn't have firearms."
So, we need a mechanism to increase the likelihood that we will identify such a person and prevent them from buying a gun, legally anyway. And so that's the idea behind expanding background checks.
The Manchin-Toomey bill was proposed in 2013, 2015, and 2019, Brennan said, and wondered how this version is different. Toomey said it's "a moving target," discussions are still going on, and they're trying to get something that'll get the requisite number of votes, and he hopes it'll include something on background checks.
Brennan brought up Rep. Chris Jacobs (R-NY), a Buffalo Congressman who dropped his re-election bid after being attacked by his own party for suggesting an assault weapons ban was a good idea. Here's what Jacobs had to say after dropping out.
We have a problem in our country, in terms of both our major parties. If you stray from a party position, you are annihilated. For the Republicans, it came -- it became pretty apparent to me over the last week that that issue is gun control, any gun control.
She wondered if Toomey agreed.
No, I don't. I think there's a wide range of opinions among elected Republicans just as there are among Republican voters across the country. In my case, I wrote a bill with Sen. Manchin and advocated for expanding background checks in 2013, as you pointed out, again in 2015. We voted on it in 2016.
And, while he couldn't get the bill passed, he was "reelected without a primary challenge."
And what about President Biden? Toomey wasn't kind, saying Biden "might have been" a president able to reach across the aisle, but "he's chosen not to take that approach since day one. He has sided with the far left of his party and really not reached out to Republicans."
He gave a speech on this topic where he advocated policies that he knows for sure have no chance of passing the Senate, probably couldn't even get 50 votes, and hold the Democrats, much less get the 60 we would need. So, once again, the president is not being very helpful.
Toomey said it's going to come down to "whether we can reach a consensus" in the Senate.
There are intensive discussions underway. It includes people who have not been engaged on this issue in the past. I can't -- certainly can't guarantee any outcome. But it feels to me like we are closer than we've been since I have been in the Senate.
He hopes they can get a lot more than four Republicans to join the six who are negotiating.
My hope is, we'll get at least half the Republican Conference. You know, that's -- that should be the goal here. We're going to have to be realistic about what can do that.
And, will the Rs risk becoming associated with gun violence if they can't get the votes? His answer? The Second Amendment (Rs have consistently supported it); the Second Amendment (Republican voters expect Republicans to support it); and the Second Amendment (he thinks there's "a place to land that's consistent" with it). He thinks that
I think encouraging states to have some kind of red flag laws could make sense, as long as there's adequate due process. I think there are school safety provisions, there are mental health issues that we could address. So, there are things we could do that would be constructive that are consistent with Republican values, and I'm hoping we'll get there.
I guess we'll have to wait and see what it is, exactly, what it is that Republicans value most.
See you around campus.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!