Senate overcomes filibuster, votes to open debate on gun bill
April 11th, 2013
11:40 AM ET
1 year 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.

FULL STORY

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

    This bill would not have prevented Sandy Hook. It will not prevent another Sandy Hook. In fact, by limiting the ability of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, it may CAUSE another Sandy Hook.

    April 11, 2013 12:49 pm at 12:49 pm |
  2. Marco

    Hey Walleye46, in response to your statement... "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." Please take into consideration that extremely large mass murders can be committed entirely without firearms. The source of the murders is not the weapon of choice, but instead the murderer. Once again I will also attempt to enlighten you to the fact that "assault weapons" used by the military are illegal as it is right now and have been so for decades. So you will only see gangsters and criminals come into possession of such weapons not your law-abiding citizen.

    April 11, 2013 12:49 pm at 12:49 pm |
  3. aCriticalEye

    Guest: Your GOP Hate mongering is not welcome. Praises to the GOp members that crossed party line to allow this topic up for discussion. i will be paying close attention to the NRA hate games when GOP reelection time comes.
    PS guest, liberals hold the constitution in high regard, however times do change, and the 2nd ammemdment can and should follow the times.

    April 11, 2013 12:49 pm at 12:49 pm |
  4. Phil

    they can always try to confiscate. not sure that's smart on their behalf but give it a go and see.

    April 11, 2013 12:50 pm at 12:50 pm |
  5. Drew1526

    Unless you are a criminal or really mentally ill, your fear of taking away your right to own a gun is invalid. Prove me wrong.

    April 11, 2013 12:50 pm at 12:50 pm |
  6. Frank

    Have all the laws you want.... Do not touch my AR

    April 11, 2013 12:51 pm at 12:51 pm |
  7. Blah blah the wheel's off your trailer

    @JimPa

    That's the same thing they said in Waco a few years back, no? Be careful what you wish for pally.

    April 11, 2013 12:51 pm at 12:51 pm |
  8. glenn

    Guns don't kill people do. Most gun owners realize that this is the first of many baby steps that will be taken to finally remove the right of all Americans to own guns. First comes background checks, then mandatory registration, then taxation till the point no one will be able to afford and keep a gun all why the second amendment is left intact . My father served in the military and trained on a variety of weapons and the AR-15 was his favorite, he taught me as a boy how to shoot and respect gun ownership. I own several AR-15's and i shoot them at various gun ranges and in competition. An AR-15 is an easy weapon to load, shoot and maintain and yes serves as an excellent home defense weapon. Gun ownership is a right granted to us by the founding fathers, it is not a privilege like driving a care or coaching children's sports. In many parts of the country law enforcement support is slow to react for various reasons. For those who have called for help during a robbery, house break-in, or other life threatening event only to have help arrive too late they know what self defense means and have the right to protect themselves with whatever means the feel is appropriate and not be dictated to by lay individuals.

    April 11, 2013 12:51 pm at 12:51 pm |
  9. KT

    . I would feel much better if they would ban every steak knife in America. If they would just make everyone serialize them the Government could keep up with everyone that owns a steak knofe. I also support banning all sharks from living in the ocean. I would feel much safer wading in the water if there were no sharks there.If we could ban cars I would not have to be worried about being killed in an automobile accident.

    The constitution says that the right to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed

    April 11, 2013 12:52 pm at 12:52 pm |
  10. disgusted

    What, no filibuster?
    Debate?
    What kinda way is that to legislate?

    April 11, 2013 12:52 pm at 12:52 pm |
  11. Len

    Please revisit the 2nd Amendment and read carefully. Also, should google what the supreme court said on 2008 I'm reference to the 2nd amendment. Please educate yourself. Give you a hint..can be regulated....please look it up.

    April 11, 2013 12:52 pm at 12:52 pm |
  12. RealDisgusted

    What would have expanded background checks done to prevent Adam Lanza? Nothing at all! He did not buy the gun. How about getting the black market weapons off the streets?? Does anyone agree?

    April 11, 2013 12:53 pm at 12:53 pm |
  13. John

    Why is a background check from a gun show or an internet site more onerous or unreasonable than a background check from a gun dealer?.......all 3 would serve the same purpose, to REDUCE, the likelihood that a criminal won't get his hands on a desired weapon while he is frothing at the mouth.......nothing will ELIMINATE this, but the current amendment proposed will REDUCE the level of violence. Common sense in action....don' compromise 2nd amendment but improve our system of keeping weapons from people who shouldn't have them.

    April 11, 2013 12:55 pm at 12:55 pm |
  14. Dutch/Bad Newz, VA -aka- TAKE BACK THE HOUSE

    31 Nays:

    Barrasso (R-WY)
    Begich (D-AK)
    Blunt (R-MO)
    Boozman (R-AR)
    Coats (R-IN)
    Cochran (R-MS)
    Cornyn (R-TX)
    Crapo (R-ID)
    Cruz (R-TX)
    Enzi (R-WY)
    Fischer (R-NE)
    Grassley (R-IA)
    Hatch (R-UT)
    Inhofe (R-OK)
    Johanns (R-NE)
    Johnson (R-WI)
    Lee (R-UT)
    McConnell (R-KY)
    Moran (R-KS)
    Murkowski (R-AK)
    Paul (R-KY)
    Portman (R-OH)
    Pryor (D-AR)
    Risch (R-ID)
    Roberts (R-KS)
    Rubio (R-FL)
    Scott (R-SC)
    Sessions (R-AL)
    Shelby (R-AL)
    Thune (R-SD)
    Vitter (R-LA)

    April 11, 2013 12:55 pm at 12:55 pm |
  15. Guest #2

    Why don't we figure out how to enforce the laws we already have?? Adding more laws to an already over burdened system of background checks does nothing but make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to own guns.
    Don't be nieve & think that just because some people want to ban "so called assault weapons & large capacity magazines" this is going to change the issues our nation is confronting w/ violence. People have been killing other people since the stone age... What's next banning butter Knives & forks? Lets deal w/ the issues not the actions of a few crazy people.

    April 11, 2013 12:56 pm at 12:56 pm |
  16. Blah blah the wheel's off your trailer

    Let's face it, most of the gun advocates who have been whining since the Connecticut tragedy, including Lapierre continue to kick up a storm simply because most of them happen to fall into the category of mentally ill, domestic violence offenders, would be terrorists, convicted felons, spousal abusers, drug addicts, alcoholics, white supremacists, (aka Wade Page, the Oak Creek shooter), etc. And those who are not whining and complaining are responsible law abiding gun owners and lawful Americans without guns.

    April 11, 2013 12:57 pm at 12:57 pm |
  17. Paul

    To those who think that shooting a deer with an AR-15 will blow the deer to pieces, I'm looking at you Killadelphia police chief, the only deer an AR-15 will blow to pieces is a deer mouse.

    April 11, 2013 12:58 pm at 12:58 pm |
  18. JB

    How many of you are willing to put your own lives on the line to take "assault weapons" from people?

    April 11, 2013 12:58 pm at 12:58 pm |
  19. Jim B

    The plans to filibuster by the group of Republican Senators to prevent debate was outrageous and immoral! It's great that Toomey and Manchin showed the kind of leadership that has been so lacking in the Senate on gun control. Any American that isn't a criminal or suffering from mental illness should want universal background checks and other common sense gun controls !

    April 11, 2013 12:58 pm at 12:58 pm |
  20. Yep, it's me

    Blah blah the wheel's off your trailer wrote:

    "A matter of fact, lives were saved as a result of this legislation."

    Really? Which lives? The ones at Columbine? The DOJ study indicated that the AWB had no discernible impact on firearm deaths. Even though murders committed with "Assault Weapons" may have dropped slightly, the murders using other weapons rose and made up the difference.

    That being said, I don't know why anyone would oppose background checks if they have nothing to hide. I am a gun owner and I personally think it should be harder to get a firearm of any kind. The reason I feel that way is that I have absolutely nothing in my past that would even raise anyone's eyebrows. Since I have committed no crimes and have no mental illness, I should be allowed to buy any firearm I want. I have no problem with my stability being verified before being sold a device that one could potentially use to cause great harm.

    For the ones that think background checks will lead to a "list" that the "gub'ment" will use to confiscate your guns...unless you pay for everything with cash, use only ammo that you reloaded with materials paid for with cash, and purchase any firearms accessories with cash...there is some kind of record somewhere that you have bought firearms-related material.

    April 11, 2013 01:00 pm at 1:00 pm |
  21. Joel

    Walleye46 – You're right, the only people who need Assault Weapons are soldiers, which is why civilians cannot purchase them. AR-15's are not Assault Weapons. They are semi-auto rifles that perform the same as many other semi-auto rifles that don't look 'mean.' A gun being black and having a pistol grip does not make it more violent than a wooden stock rifle that looks like a hunting rifle.

    April 11, 2013 01:00 pm at 1:00 pm |
  22. Me

    The argument if only one life can be saved is dumb. It can be reversed to say if only one life is saved by carrying a gun isn't it worth it....

    Background checks are already in place but they are not instantly available. Apparently new information for background checks can take years to actually make it into the database.

    How about we improve and enforce the current laws instead of adding more that no one can or will enforce.

    You can't bury problems in laws especially when they can't be enforced. Sadly common sense is lost.

    April 11, 2013 01:01 pm at 1:01 pm |
  23. Bill

    @Hamlet

    You can also hunt deer with a Sherman tank.

    April 11, 2013 01:02 pm at 1:02 pm |
  24. Paul

    How about a rational debate instead of an emotional debate?

    April 11, 2013 01:02 pm at 1:02 pm |
  25. ngiotta

    Attention OldSchool:

    The Heller case decided that firearms that are in common use ARE PROTECTED by the 2nd amendment. There are almost 5,000,000 AR-15's in private hands. I'd say we're covered by the SCOTUS. By the way, I propose that we while we are trying to redefine rights, let's go ahead and limit your 1st amendment rights to post nonsensical comments on websites.

    By the way your Craigslist example is completely BUNK. Craigslist does not allow firearms, ammunition, bb guns, stun guns or any weapon for that matter. Just more Liberal propaganda. If you're going to lie, at least make it a little less obvious.

    April 11, 2013 01:03 pm at 1:03 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8