In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Arizona shooting has little effect on national gun
ChrisInTempe
Member Posts: 15,562 ✭
Lots of readers commenting on this story today. Ya'll may find it interesting reading. Not just the story, the comments if you follow the link.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2011/02/27/20110227gabrielle-giffords-arizona-shooting-gun-debate.html
Arizona shooting has little effect on national gun debate
Sides still are entrenched despite Tucson shooting
by Ronald J. Hansen - Feb. 27, 2011 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic
In the days after six people were killed and 13 wounded in a massacre near Tucson, many people hoped the shooting spree would spark a new debate about guns in America.
Today, more than seven weeks after the shooting that left U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords with a serious gunshot wound to the head, hundreds of gun-related bills are being considered in statehouses nationwide. But in many cases, the proposals reflect long-standing ideas familiar to both sides of the issue.
Massachusetts, like other states with strong gun controls, is considering a bill to require that guns place unique imprints on bullet casings. The National Rifle Association is again calling for a federal right-to-carry law for gun owners.
Even in Arizona, where several bills are pending that would expand the state's already liberal gun rights, the shooting did not reset the debate.
"We're on the same trajectory we were on before," said Brian Malte, director of mobilization for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "In terms of what the NRA is proposing, I don't think Tucson has had any effect on that."
The lack of change in the legislative agenda may be because of public opinion in the immediate aftermath of the shooting.
January polling by the Pew Research Center found that respondents were about evenly divided on the question of whether they favor protecting general gun rights more than instituting further general gun controls.
By nearly a 2-1 ratio, respondents saw Giffords' shooting as the isolated act of a troubled man.
Jared Loughner, 22, has been indicted on three federal counts related to the attempted assassination of Giffords and the attempted murder of two of her aides. Other charges, including murder, are expected.
Polling was also nearly even on the question pitting gun rights against gun control after Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people and wounded 17 others in the Virginia Tech massacre of 2007.
While specific gun-control issues, like mandatory background checks for all purchases, have found public support, Gallup has noted a 20-year polling trend supporting more gun rights generally and looser gun-control laws.
Small moves in D.C.
Since the Jan. 8 massacre at a Giffords meet-and-greet outside a Safeway store, at least eight bills have been introduced in the U.S. House or Senate that would tighten gun laws or criminalize threats to public officials. Some of the bills are new efforts at legislation that failed to pass before.
The bill receiving the most support from gun-control activists would renew a ban on high-capacity magazines like the one used by the gunman in the shooting near Tucson. Authorities say people at the scene tackled the gunman after he emptied a magazine believed to hold up to 33 rounds.
A measure from U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., would prohibit new magazines from holding more than 10 rounds for the public.
After the Arizona shooting, former Vice President Dick Cheney said "maybe it's appropriate" to restrict high-capacity magazines, as the now-expired 1994 assault-weapons ban did, but that view has not spread among many other Republicans.
McCarthy's bill has 90 co-sponsors, but not one congressional Republican is among them.
U.S. Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., is the only member of his party to sign on to any of the gun-control measures. He introduced a bill that would prohibit bringing guns to official events with members of Congress or candidates for federal office. So far, that bill has garnered only four co-sponsors.
A month after the shooting at the Giffords event, the NRA rejected proposals like McCarthy's and renewed its call for a law allowing gun owners legally permitted to carry concealed weapons in one state to do so in other states with similar laws. Such a bill was introduced Feb. 18.
"The media and the political elites want us to believe that if we just pass another law or two, we can stop a madman bent on violence," Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA, said during a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. "If we could legislate evil out of people's hearts, we would have done it long ago."
Gun-control advocates, meanwhile, acknowledge an uphill fight for legislative changes, especially in Washington, but they claim momentum is building.
"The (Arizona) shooting has really galvanized a lot of people," said Ladd Everitt, a spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. "Progressives and moderates have begun to connect the dots that this is really a matter of ideology."
Everitt cited the McCarthy bill as the one "we think is achievable," acknowledging the conservative makeup of Congress.
Other bills in Washington range from banning suspected terrorists from legally buying guns to closing the "gun-show loophole," a familiar complaint among gun-control supporters that has never found enough votes in Congress. Federal law does not require an instant background check for all purchases at gun shows.
States keep course
Gun laws may not remain static at the state level.
As of Thursday, there were at least 470 gun-related bills pending across the country, according to the Legal Community Against Violence, which advocates gun control. Of those, 172 would tighten gun-control laws, 273 would expand gun rights and 25 were unclassified or amix, according to the group's analysis.
In Arizona, at least 16 bills would affect gun laws. Most would expand gun rights, including a bill that would allow university and community-college faculty with valid permits to carry concealed weapons on campus.
In California and New York, two states controlled by Democrats and historically restrictive for guns, lawmakers are considering bills that would increase gun controls.
New York has at least a dozen bills pending that would restrict guns, from banning .50-caliber weapons altogether to forcing those considered unstable to temporarily surrender their guns.
In California, lawmakers will consider again a bill to outlaw openly carrying unloaded weapons. It is already illegal to openly carry a loaded gun there.
In many less-populous states, the move is toward greater gun rights, as it was before the Arizona shooting.
Last month, the Wyoming Senate approved a measure to allow citizens there to carry concealed weapons without requiring a permit. If it becomes law, Wyoming would join Arizona, Alaska and Vermont as the only states with such laws. A Utah lawmaker is pursuing a similar bill for his state.
"In Wyoming, most of us are pro-Second Amendment," said Skip Hornecker, the sheriff of Fremont County and president of the state's sheriffs and police association, which has technical concerns with the concealed-weapons bill but doesn't oppose it outright.
Wisconsin appeared likely to end its ban on concealed weapons even before the Tucson shooting.
A Montana state senator said the Arizona shooting shows the urgent need to pass a bill that he introduced in December that would allow lawmakers to carry concealed weapons at the Capitol.
"I think what happened (in Arizona) is exactly what could happen right here," Sen. Verdell Jackson, a Republican, told the Missoulian newspaper.
One state senator in Nebraska has introduced four bills that would expand gun rights, including allowing concealed weapons in schools.
Underscoring the partisan way in which gun laws and many other policies are viewed, Republican lawmakers in South Dakota introduced a bill that would require adult residents to own a gun. The bill is intended as an admittedly cynical rejoinder to President Barack Obama's health-care overhaul that requires adults to have health insurance.
"Do I or the other co-sponsors believe that the state of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not," South Dakota Rep. Hal Wick told the Sioux Falls Argus Leader. "But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2011/02/27/20110227gabrielle-giffords-arizona-shooting-gun-debate.html
Arizona shooting has little effect on national gun debate
Sides still are entrenched despite Tucson shooting
by Ronald J. Hansen - Feb. 27, 2011 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic
In the days after six people were killed and 13 wounded in a massacre near Tucson, many people hoped the shooting spree would spark a new debate about guns in America.
Today, more than seven weeks after the shooting that left U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords with a serious gunshot wound to the head, hundreds of gun-related bills are being considered in statehouses nationwide. But in many cases, the proposals reflect long-standing ideas familiar to both sides of the issue.
Massachusetts, like other states with strong gun controls, is considering a bill to require that guns place unique imprints on bullet casings. The National Rifle Association is again calling for a federal right-to-carry law for gun owners.
Even in Arizona, where several bills are pending that would expand the state's already liberal gun rights, the shooting did not reset the debate.
"We're on the same trajectory we were on before," said Brian Malte, director of mobilization for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "In terms of what the NRA is proposing, I don't think Tucson has had any effect on that."
The lack of change in the legislative agenda may be because of public opinion in the immediate aftermath of the shooting.
January polling by the Pew Research Center found that respondents were about evenly divided on the question of whether they favor protecting general gun rights more than instituting further general gun controls.
By nearly a 2-1 ratio, respondents saw Giffords' shooting as the isolated act of a troubled man.
Jared Loughner, 22, has been indicted on three federal counts related to the attempted assassination of Giffords and the attempted murder of two of her aides. Other charges, including murder, are expected.
Polling was also nearly even on the question pitting gun rights against gun control after Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people and wounded 17 others in the Virginia Tech massacre of 2007.
While specific gun-control issues, like mandatory background checks for all purchases, have found public support, Gallup has noted a 20-year polling trend supporting more gun rights generally and looser gun-control laws.
Small moves in D.C.
Since the Jan. 8 massacre at a Giffords meet-and-greet outside a Safeway store, at least eight bills have been introduced in the U.S. House or Senate that would tighten gun laws or criminalize threats to public officials. Some of the bills are new efforts at legislation that failed to pass before.
The bill receiving the most support from gun-control activists would renew a ban on high-capacity magazines like the one used by the gunman in the shooting near Tucson. Authorities say people at the scene tackled the gunman after he emptied a magazine believed to hold up to 33 rounds.
A measure from U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., would prohibit new magazines from holding more than 10 rounds for the public.
After the Arizona shooting, former Vice President Dick Cheney said "maybe it's appropriate" to restrict high-capacity magazines, as the now-expired 1994 assault-weapons ban did, but that view has not spread among many other Republicans.
McCarthy's bill has 90 co-sponsors, but not one congressional Republican is among them.
U.S. Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., is the only member of his party to sign on to any of the gun-control measures. He introduced a bill that would prohibit bringing guns to official events with members of Congress or candidates for federal office. So far, that bill has garnered only four co-sponsors.
A month after the shooting at the Giffords event, the NRA rejected proposals like McCarthy's and renewed its call for a law allowing gun owners legally permitted to carry concealed weapons in one state to do so in other states with similar laws. Such a bill was introduced Feb. 18.
"The media and the political elites want us to believe that if we just pass another law or two, we can stop a madman bent on violence," Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA, said during a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. "If we could legislate evil out of people's hearts, we would have done it long ago."
Gun-control advocates, meanwhile, acknowledge an uphill fight for legislative changes, especially in Washington, but they claim momentum is building.
"The (Arizona) shooting has really galvanized a lot of people," said Ladd Everitt, a spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. "Progressives and moderates have begun to connect the dots that this is really a matter of ideology."
Everitt cited the McCarthy bill as the one "we think is achievable," acknowledging the conservative makeup of Congress.
Other bills in Washington range from banning suspected terrorists from legally buying guns to closing the "gun-show loophole," a familiar complaint among gun-control supporters that has never found enough votes in Congress. Federal law does not require an instant background check for all purchases at gun shows.
States keep course
Gun laws may not remain static at the state level.
As of Thursday, there were at least 470 gun-related bills pending across the country, according to the Legal Community Against Violence, which advocates gun control. Of those, 172 would tighten gun-control laws, 273 would expand gun rights and 25 were unclassified or amix, according to the group's analysis.
In Arizona, at least 16 bills would affect gun laws. Most would expand gun rights, including a bill that would allow university and community-college faculty with valid permits to carry concealed weapons on campus.
In California and New York, two states controlled by Democrats and historically restrictive for guns, lawmakers are considering bills that would increase gun controls.
New York has at least a dozen bills pending that would restrict guns, from banning .50-caliber weapons altogether to forcing those considered unstable to temporarily surrender their guns.
In California, lawmakers will consider again a bill to outlaw openly carrying unloaded weapons. It is already illegal to openly carry a loaded gun there.
In many less-populous states, the move is toward greater gun rights, as it was before the Arizona shooting.
Last month, the Wyoming Senate approved a measure to allow citizens there to carry concealed weapons without requiring a permit. If it becomes law, Wyoming would join Arizona, Alaska and Vermont as the only states with such laws. A Utah lawmaker is pursuing a similar bill for his state.
"In Wyoming, most of us are pro-Second Amendment," said Skip Hornecker, the sheriff of Fremont County and president of the state's sheriffs and police association, which has technical concerns with the concealed-weapons bill but doesn't oppose it outright.
Wisconsin appeared likely to end its ban on concealed weapons even before the Tucson shooting.
A Montana state senator said the Arizona shooting shows the urgent need to pass a bill that he introduced in December that would allow lawmakers to carry concealed weapons at the Capitol.
"I think what happened (in Arizona) is exactly what could happen right here," Sen. Verdell Jackson, a Republican, told the Missoulian newspaper.
One state senator in Nebraska has introduced four bills that would expand gun rights, including allowing concealed weapons in schools.
Underscoring the partisan way in which gun laws and many other policies are viewed, Republican lawmakers in South Dakota introduced a bill that would require adult residents to own a gun. The bill is intended as an admittedly cynical rejoinder to President Barack Obama's health-care overhaul that requires adults to have health insurance.
"Do I or the other co-sponsors believe that the state of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not," South Dakota Rep. Hal Wick told the Sioux Falls Argus Leader. "But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance."
Comments
Any of the Republicans on here care to step up and defend this pr AHEM.......member?
So if you do not have it in a case and carry a rifle to your trunk from your house you are breaking the law.
quote:After the Arizona shooting, former Vice President Dick Cheney said "maybe it's appropriate" to restrict high-capacity magazines, as the now-expired 1994 assault-weapons ban did, but that view has not spread among many other Republicans.
Any of the Republicans on here care to step up and defend this pr AHEM.......member?
Dick Cheney has no heart.
No, seriously, he's been running on batteries and transplanted Panda Bile for decades.
What? Who didn't know this?
So far two US Senators and 1 Representative has announced plans to draft legislation to restrict gun magazines to no more than ten rounds. No word on whether or not we would have to forfeit the magazines over ten rounds that we gun owners already have.
In addition one of the US Supreme Court Justices (Beyer I think I remember that right) who twice voted against the 2A as being for gun rights for individuals has been committing the unheard of actions, from a judge, of campaigning around the country (on television, in the media, etc) making the argument that the 2A DOES NOT provide for individuals to have gun rights. Beyer's main argument is that courts should not pay attention to what our country's founders said, as written in the US Constitution, but we should pay attention to what their thinking was when they wrote the constitution. I assume that anti-constitutional people like Beyer will gladly be the ones who interpet for us common citizens exactly what that would be.
It is obvious we have 4 hard core anti-citizen, anti-gun rights justices on the US Supreme Court. Luckily, we also have 4 pretty strong pro-citizen, pro-gun rights justices on the same court. The remaining justice, Kennedy, is a swing voter and at least in the last two important gun rights cases, he has swung with the pro-gun side. However, and here is where the danger to our gun rights exist, Obama has already appointed two anti-gun justices to the bench. If there are any vacancies with any of the pro-gun justices, what kind of justice will Obama appoint? If that happens, there go our gun rights. Or, if Justice Kennedy starts to swing toward the anti-gun side, there go our gun rights. If Obama is re-elected for another 4 years in 2012, it is almost certain he will get a chance to appoint one or more Supreme Court Justices. If he does, there go our gun rights.
Now, for those here who say that the last two important gun rights cases, even though we gun people had a "win", many here will scream and moan that we DID NOT have a win and in fact lost some rights because of the way the last two Supreme Court decisions played out. I of course say B.S. to that simply because if the complainers here don't like or appreciate the court decision, then maybe they would have preferred that we gun people got ruled against our rights. We can all agree that would have been a real and actual loss. As it is I will take the best I can get from the court and I believe that was the best that we could expect.
The problem lies in that we gun people just plain refuse to link up and provide the incredibly strong, powerful and united front. Only a tiny percentage of the 84 million gun owners in America have done anything, other than voting, to actually help with the gun rights battles.
So, frankly, that means when we lose our gun rights, most of you here brought it on yourself. Maybe that is an insult to some of you here but you know it is true.
it would be damn nice if there were a debate, but all i see in the liarberal media is "our way or no way" and you wanna call that a debate ?? hahaha
Kinda like if Carl's Jr. came out with a big new burger and someone wrote a 20 paragraph article on what vegans and PETA thought about it.
Silly.