Senate overcomes filibuster, votes to open debate on gun bill
April 11th, 2013
11:40 AM ET
5 years ago

Senate overcomes filibuster, votes to open debate on gun bill

Washington (CNN) - The U.S. Senate voted Thursday to overcome a Republican-led filibuster against tougher gun laws, clearing the way for a major congressional debate on a package of proposals sought by President Barack Obama in the aftermath of the Connecticut school massacre.

The procedural vote followed a breakthrough by Sens. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia, and Pat Toomey, R-Pennsylvania, on broadening background checks to include private purchases at gun shows and on the Internet.


Filed under: Gun control • Gun rights • Senate
soundoff (188 Responses)
  1. david

    the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting so your comment about hunting with an AR 15 is invalid I have ever to hunt coyote in my state with an sks because there's an abundance of coyote because a bunch of Democrats put a ban on trapping which made population coyotes explode and diminished all other animal populations in my area

    April 11, 2013 12:38 pm at 12:38 pm |
  2. Walleye46

    Forget background checks – CONFISCATE AND MELT DOWN ALL ASSAULT TYPE WEAPONS. That is the only way to stop these mass murders. The only one who needs an assault weapon is a SOLDIER.

    April 11, 2013 12:38 pm at 12:38 pm |
  3. Guest

    Or simply ignorance of the constitution Bill, democrats like to pretend it doesnt exist anyway! You're too funny man, in a creepy way!

    April 11, 2013 12:39 pm at 12:39 pm |
  4. Pensimmon

    Finally, we are beginning to address that part of the 2nd amendment that says 'well regulated". It is absurd in this era to suggest that the purpose of having masses of guns is to protect us from a renegade government. They have nuclear weapons, tanks, guided missiles, fighter jets, drones etc. even your silly mutil round guns won't do a thing if there were ado elm of that sort. Grow up, you are not little boys any longer.

    April 11, 2013 12:39 pm at 12:39 pm |
  5. The Bush and Cheney gang's greaest non-fan

    It's comical how the gun nuts claim they are the patriots in all of this. I don't recall conservatives objecting when their boy Georgie Bush trampled the constitution. I guess patriots are quiet when their guys are the ones revoking freedoms.

    April 11, 2013 12:39 pm at 12:39 pm |
  6. nufsed

    Well, the version of SB 649 I just read would make it illegal for me to let my wife borrow my gun to go to the range.

    If they've made amendments and revisions, they need to put them out there so we can see. What I see now is ka-ka.

    April 11, 2013 12:40 pm at 12:40 pm |
  7. doughnuts

    "We've always supported instant background checks," Wayne LaPierre declared at a Friends of NRA banquet in South Carolina in May 1999.
    Also in 1999, the NRA instituted the "Be Reasonable" ad campaign in support of expanding background checks to apwn shops and gun shows.

    So what's the problem now, Wayne?

    April 11, 2013 12:40 pm at 12:40 pm |
  8. DonnaMP

    machine guns are already illegal to own. are fully automatics..sooo whats the rest of your argument? You already have to have a background check when buying a gun from a dealer so why do we need more rules and laws to say whats already being done? You think a gun safe will prevent a pyschopath from getting a gun out of it? No. My guns are owned very legally, they're kept in the best safe money can buy, bolt mounted to the walls. Thats NOT going to prevent someone that wanted them bad enough from ripping them from the wall and getting them open. Find another argument.

    April 11, 2013 12:40 pm at 12:40 pm |
  9. Guest

    Liberal hypocrisy, the Complicit News Network uses censorship more than the oblabla admin. Transparently failing...

    April 11, 2013 12:40 pm at 12:40 pm |
  10. Bill


    I don't know why I am bothering to write this, since it won't change your mind, but you logic is beyond flawed. That "if only one child can be saved" argument is tired BS. We have decided a long time ago in this country that there are acceptable levels of death that go with liberty. If we follow the logic if "if saving only one life." Then we would ban almost everything. How many die from alcohol related deaths, drownings, obesity related health issues?

    Part of living in a society is liberty is that sometimes people are irresponsible. I don't get to tell you how to run your life and you don't get to tell me how to run mine.

    On a practical note if you think that all these measures are going to do thing one to reduce crime, shooting, or acts of violence you are delusional.

    April 11, 2013 12:41 pm at 12:41 pm |
  11. Blah blah the wheel's off your trailer


    Why are you being so contrary to the facts? No one is saying that this legislation would prevent all illegal sales or transfer of guns or that it would curtail all gun violence or mass shootings in in America. No, the objective of passing a responsible gun legislation is to REDUCE gun violence and to SAVE lives. Hey, if this legislation was to result in saving the life of one of your love ones in some public place, isn't this legislation worth it? Let's face it, one life saved is better than no lives saved. Please try to be reasonable!

    April 11, 2013 12:41 pm at 12:41 pm |
  12. rick

    wow. we average roughly 1 filibuster every 10 years throughout our history. the republicans have filibustered over 400 times in the last 4. this is quite the surprise since they have shown a great willingness to hold the country hostage.

    for all you people harping on the contstitution and your rights – the first amendment says no abridging of freedom of speech. but we have regulated that. it's illegal to defame someone, to leak secrets, to yell fire in a crowded theatre, to distribute child p0rn. the government also has the right to regulate the manufacturing, sales, purchase and ownership of guns. you have a right to bear arms. that does not guarantee you the right to bear any arm you want (ballistic missile) and the government has the right to regulate that. the amendments are not written in stone.

    April 11, 2013 12:41 pm at 12:41 pm |
  13. UrAverageJoe

    Rand Paul is standing up for the constitution, just like he stands up for the constitution when he says a private restaurant owner shouldn't have to serve black people if he doesn't want to . . .

    April 11, 2013 12:42 pm at 12:42 pm |
  14. WouldYouLookAtThat

    I suppose you are one of the ones that hunts deer with an AR-15"

    AR-15's are not effective deer hunting rifles. They are considered too weak to effectively kill a deer, and many states make it illegal to deer hunt with the .223 round. Having said that, AR-15's are absolutely effective, and perfect, for predator and land management hunting... coyotes and wild hogs, respectively.

    April 11, 2013 12:42 pm at 12:42 pm |
  15. Anonymous

    Democrats filibuster (or threaten to) and you call them patriots and love America...Republicans filibuster (or threaten to) and you call them evil American hating demons from hell.... make up your mind.....

    April 11, 2013 12:43 pm at 12:43 pm |
  16. bigdicmcgee

    all this discussion about gun control and no ones seems to remember the reason this was started: School safety should be the topic but the Dems highjacked it into gun control. In no way will background checks or magazine capacity or banning assualt weapons stop or slow down a person that wants to harm/kill large numbers of people.

    If we really want to reduce gun violence then it would take real debate; end the war on drugs and save the prison space for VIOLENT criminals. Any crime committed with a firearm gets an extra 10-20 years in prison. Change mental health care laws to protect citizens. The over-reach by the gun control crowd only shows their end game: they want to disarm the law abiding citizen.

    What are governments capable of: ask people of Jewish decent, Native Americans, African Americans, etc... I know some will say that couldn't happen here.... not in this day and age.... I'm sure thats the exact thoughts of those I have listed at one time

    April 11, 2013 12:43 pm at 12:43 pm |
  17. Greg


    Hi walley, are you going to find all these guns that you want "confiscated?" Since criminals won't turn in their guns to the government, maybe you can go convince them to hand them over... Mass murders will still happen... you my friend are an imbecile.

    April 11, 2013 12:43 pm at 12:43 pm |
  18. Robert

    Obviously, Walleye46, you have no idea what an assault weapon is, or any sense of your nation's history. Timothy McVeigh used racing fuel, fertilizer and a box truck to kill people, including kids in a daycare, in the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Guess we need to ban fuel and fertilizer and melt down all the box trucks.

    April 11, 2013 12:45 pm at 12:45 pm |
  19. John

    What is "creepy" is the 30 second, 100 round assaults in Connecticut and Colorado, that is what is "creepy", not a bunch of Democrats....

    April 11, 2013 12:46 pm at 12:46 pm |
  20. Bob Marshal

    Why does a background check require the gathering and storing information on the gun purchaser. It is the felons information that needs to be shared between the states. There are already a multiple of companies that perform these types of checks everyday, mine being one of them, and we do not store the incoming information and return a simple score. I think this is the point most people object to. It is not the check it is turning the check into a method of creating a gun registry.

    April 11, 2013 12:46 pm at 12:46 pm |
  21. Zach

    Walleye46, you really think that would stop mass murders? You are seriously mistaken.

    April 11, 2013 12:47 pm at 12:47 pm |
  22. OldSchool

    Attention NRA types, YOU DO NOT HAVE AN UNRESTRICTED RIGHT TO ANY GUN YOU WANT. You are mistaken if you think that this is the case, and the Supreme Court disagrees with you. Sane people recognize that reasonable and rational regulations on firearm ownership is absolutely necessary and justifiable (as well as constitutional, as various gun control Acts have withstood Supreme Court scrutiny).

    One thing that I think doesn't go far enough, is that background checks need to apply to ALL gun sale, including private parties. Watch the Vice piece about American gun culture and see how easy it is to buy a gun off of Craigslist without any sort of background check or paper trail, which is entirely legal. This is an illogical oversight if we are talking about "universal background checks".

    April 11, 2013 12:47 pm at 12:47 pm |
  23. Kevin

    My only concern with background checks is that their cost could be increased to limit gun sales. A class III firearm requires the purchaser to pay for a $200 tax stamp. What is stopping them from making all background checks cost unreasonable?

    April 11, 2013 12:47 pm at 12:47 pm |
  24. dwg

    So then if purchasing guns needs everyone registered and I.D.ed It should be ok to do the same with Voters right?

    April 11, 2013 12:48 pm at 12:48 pm |
  25. blake

    Please don't confuse the far left with the facts. The weapons that the Democrats want to ban are not assault weapons, they simply look like assault weapons. Few of the killings that have happened involve the type of weapons the Democrats want to ban. And certainly do bring up the fact that in cities like Chicago (where there are very strict gun control laws) violence and crime are at their highest. Gun control does not reduce violence and crime. It simply prevents law abiding citizens from protecting themselves against criminals (and perhaps in the future, against our own government). Criminals will always find a way to gain access to weapons.

    April 11, 2013 12:48 pm at 12:48 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8