Posted on 04/16/2013 7:01:33 PM PDT by Red Steel
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Monday introduced two gun bills, one of which is co-sponsored by a group of 10 Republicans, many of whom signed a pledge earlier this month to filibuster attempts to pass gun control.
The measures provide an alternative to the gun control bill the Senate will begin debate on this week, which would expand background checks on gun purchases, crack down on gun trafficking and beef up security in schools. GOP senators have vowed to block that bill, claiming it goes too far and infringes on the rights of gun owners.
Cruz introduced a bill to “protect law abiding citizens by preventing criminals from obtaining firearms.” Among the 10 GOP co-sponsors are Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.), Rand Paul (Ky.), and Mike Lee (Utah), all signers of the filibuster pledge. Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) is also a co-sponsor.
Cruz also introduced an alternative bill aimed at preventing the trafficking and straw purchasing of firearms that does not presently have any co-sponsors.
The text of the bills is not yet available.
A source close to negotiations told The Hill that Republicans are working on further legislation that would focus on enforcing, rather than expanding, the current background-check system and a bill that aims to improve mental health record-keeping.
A focused lobbying effort by families of the victims of the Newtown massacre last week and a background-check deal between Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), a centrist Democrat who has an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association, and conservative Republican Sen. Pat Toomey (Pa.) created momentum for gun control legislation last week.
The Senate voted on Thursday to begin debate on the original bill and amendments despite filibuster threats, but the measure still faces an uphill climb. Democrats will need a handful of Republicans to vote in favor of a final bill to send it to the House, but the party can’t count on all of its members to support a final bill.
Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier pointed to the NRA’s decision to grade lawmakers' votes on a procedural motion for the bill — a move that deviates from the group's standard protocol — as evidence the effort “to prevent such legislation is gaining momentum."
Sens. Manchin and Toomey are working to rally support for their background-check provision, and other senators are working on alternative gun bills, including Sens. Chuck Grassley (Iowa) and Graham.
— Updated at 8:08 a.m.
R
How many crimes have background checks prevented?
Let’s tack an amendment on it that will deny Federal Funds to institutes of higher learning that hire felons convicted of gun crimes, bombings, etc.
I hope “improving mental health record keeping” means only having a citizens RKBA removed by a court of law with the citizen provided a chance to challenge the diagnosis.
follow-up ..Imagine the GOP deploring bombings, and gun crimes, and saying, “We have to keep these Felons away from our kids” ... and the Libs trying to defend the killers ... what a circus, I’d love it !!!
How ‘bout we just submit the Second Amendment and call that good?
Bad wording by the Hill. I’ve read Cruz’s alternative bill will be if you can carry in one state, you can carry in all US states.
Keep dangerous people off the streets and let free men be armed as they see fit.
Its not real complicated.
I don’t care. Selling out our constitution is selling out our constitution.
Cruz is not selling out the Constitution here.
I want to fool around with suppressors on the cheap and without any “help”.
Its OK with me.
Check out this one.
It’s apparently NOT OK with my Bammy Mammy.
As long as “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” is omitted, it is DOA.
I may or may not be extreme, but I am consistent.
TT
While addressing that which they have no authority to address. “..., shall not be infringed.” means what it says. If they were truly honoring the oaths they gave they would introduce nothing at the federal level. Once background checks were introduced the qualifying criterion was changed and they began to include a broader reange of disqualifying criterion. Now misdeameanor crimes are used to deny ownership and possession and crimes of that nature, which happened decades ago with no further incidents in the persons history to warrant a denial, are being used to deny them their right! These guys are further opening the can of worms!
Banning objects accomplishes nothing toward eliminating the misuse of an object by man. Banning the possession of an object for use to some and then continually expanding the criterion for denial of possession results in no one possessing the object. None of this makes sense to me based upon a reading of our founding documents and the writings of the founders.
But then I haven’t yet slept at a Holiday Inn Express.
How many crimes have background checks prevented?
How many crimes have they prevented or solved? By the way, does that remind anyone of "jobs created or saved?"
“Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier pointed to the NRA’s decision to grade lawmakers’ votes on a procedural motion for the bill — a move that deviates from the group’s standard protocol — as evidence the effort “to prevent such legislation is gaining momentum.”
What does that mean? It makes no sense to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.