The ice may be cracking just a bit in the congressional deadlock on improving public safety by changing gun-related laws.
In a small but encouraging sign of change, a bipartisan group of senators, including Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake, is supporting a narrow change intended to bar, or at least temporarily hinder, people on two “terror watch lists” from buying guns.
It’s a start.
Democrats in the House of Representatives held a daylong sit-in on the chamber floor last week, a move that galvanized supporters of gun laws that would require background checks for every firearm sale and put limits on military-style weapons that can fire dozens of bullets in seconds. They also seek to keep people on the government’s terror watch list – who aren’t allowed on airplanes – from buying guns.
The Democrats were pushing for votes on legislation that would make such changes, but the Republicans refused. Democrats who spoke during the sit-in, which members streamed live online from their phones because C-SPAN cameras were cut off, said they didn’t expect the bills to pass but that it was important to get members of Congress on the record with their vote.
It’s notable that Flake is part of this small bipartisan group. He, along with Sen. John McCain, have been against requiring a background check for every gun sale.
Rep. Martha McSally, a Republican running for re-election in Arizona’s CD2, has said that the problem with keeping people on the no-fly list from being able to legally purchase weapons is a matter of due process. There is no real way for someone to prove they’re on the list by mistake and be removed. So the list shouldn’t be used to obstruct a person’s Second Amendment rights, she’s said.
The compromise, led by Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, allows for U.S. citizens and people with green cards who have been blocked from buying a gun because of the terror watch lists to object in court. They would be awarded attorneys fees if they win.
Let’s not forget that the terror watch lists were created by the federal government in 2003. If there are serious constitutional and accuracy concerns over the lists’ content, how it operates and the quality of information, then Congress needs to take that up, too.
But it does not make sense to say a person is too dangerous to get on a plane or receive a visa because they’re on a list of people who, according to the FBI website, are “those known or reasonably suspected of being involved in terrorist activity” but buying a firearm, including a high-capacity semi-automatic weapon is perfectly fine.
This single piece of legislation will not end gun violence in our country. But that doesn’t negate its value in illustrating that there is at least one small piece of common ground Republican and Democratic lawmakers can find in the high-octane arguments that usually drowns out any discussion about guns in the United States.
