Senate rejects firearms on more federal lands

May 8, 2013 @ 3:13 pm


FILE - In this Dec. 31, 2012 file photo, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. gets into an elevator on Capitol Hill in Washington. Gun control senators are discussing revising the defeated background check bill in attempt to revive it. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh) | Zoom

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate rejected an effort Wednesday to expand the use of firearms on some of the nation's most frequently visited federal lands, handing gun control advocates a modest success.

The measure, backed by the National Rifle Association, represented one of two efforts Wednesday by gun rights supporters to take the offensive in Congress. Across the Capitol, a Republican-run House committee voted to make it easier for some veterans with mental difficulties to get firearms.

The rejected Senate proposal would have let people use guns for any legal purpose on lands managed by the Army Corps of Engineers, which oversees nearly 12 million acres that abound in lakes, rivers, campsites and hiking trails. Currently, guns on those properties are limited to activities like target-range shooting and hunting, and weapons must be unloaded while being carried to those activities.

Senators voted 56-43 for the proposal by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., but it fell short of the 60 votes needed for passage.

Eleven Democrats and one Democratic-leaning independent voted for Coburn's plan, underscoring the party's divisions on the gun issue.

Those voting for Coburn's proposal included all four Democrats who opposed the bipartisan bill expanding required federal background checks to more gun buyers that the Senate rejected three weeks ago.

The background check expansion has been the pillar of President Barack Obama's effort to restrict guns following December's elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn. Top Democrats and other supporters hope to win fresh support and stage a new vote on background checks, perhaps next month. Advocates hope that voting for Coburn's proposal might let some senators show voters they support gun rights and give them more leeway to reverse themselves and vote for background checks next time.

Also backing Coburn's proposal were the two chief authors of the defeated background check measure, Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Patrick Toomey, R-Pa.

Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, a supporter of the Manchin-Toomey plan, was the only Republican to vote against expanding gun use on Corps land.

Coburn said gun rights on Corps land should be the same as in national parks and federal wildlife refuges, where federal law has allowed visitors to carry guns since 2010. He said after the vote that he would keep reintroducing the measure until it passes.

"Fifty-six votes, a majority of the Senate believes we ought to have one sane policy" on gun rights on federal lands, Coburn said.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said allowing more guns onto Corps property would increase danger to the dams, flood control systems and other crucial water projects.

"This critical infrastructure is a target for terrorists," she said. Allowing more guns "sets up a national security threat. It endangers people."

Army Corps lands are used for recreation by 370 million people annually, more than visit the property of any other federal agency. About 80 percent of them are within 50 miles of urban areas, making them accessible destinations.

Also Wednesday, the House Veterans Affairs Committee voted by voice to require a judge or magistrate to declare a veteran is dangerous before the person's name is entered in the background check system's database of people barred from getting firearms.

Currently, the Veterans Affairs Department sends the system the names of veterans it has declared unable to manage their financial affairs _ 127,000 names since 1998.

Supporters of the measure said veterans who can't handle their money aren't necessarily dangerous.

"It's arbitrary. It's inconsistent and it's unreasonable," Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., chairman of the committee, said of the current process.

The Veterans department opposes the measure, saying veterans in the database already have the ability to appeal.

___

Associated Press writer Kevin Freking contributed to this report.


(Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
More National News
Top Stories

  • I-5 Bridge Collapse
    Three people were pulled from the water after I-5 bridge collapsed over the Skagit River
MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (62)


  • Add A Comment

  • Fuego wrote...
    Timothy McVae
    January 29, 2013 1:31 pm
    proved you don't need an assault rifle to kill large amounts of people.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @fuego
    April 12, 2013 9:06 am
    So because some extremist idiot built a bomb, we should do nothing to help stop gun tragedies. Ok - I get it. So because someone can accidentally back up thier riding lawn mower over thier 2 year old kid's legs (yes, this just happened), we should have no laws requiring safety equipment on lawn mowers? Or because idiots still drink and drive, we should not have laws that try to prevent drunks from driving? This arguement is the DUMBEST I have ever heard.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • CH wrote...
    NRA says more gun control not a serious proposal
    January 29, 2013 7:34 pm
    your right NRA a few kids get killed each month so what. Your rights are more important then dead kids.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • turp63 wrote...
    CH
    January 30, 2013 7:18 am
    Way to make an emotional appeal while standing on little graves
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @turp63
    April 12, 2013 9:09 am
    All the NRA is doing is stomping on those graves and trying to pave over them with thier rhetoric so that you can't see the little graves while claiming that because no one singular effort can stop ALL gun violence that we cannot do anything at all. The NRA tactic is no better (in fact, it's worse). And it appears that you have bought into thier line.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rick W7PSK wrote...
    CH How would banning your so called Assualt Rifles
    January 30, 2013 8:44 am
    Prevent the Connecticut shooting

    It wouldn't, Read the official report (that's being Buried) that his "Assault Rifle" was still in the car, he use hand guns.

    Define what an Assault Rifle is actually, not the spoon fed description the MSM and anti gun crowd is feeding you.

    Why are you willing to give up your rights, because they will be after the rest of your rights after they remove the 2nd.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    It's funny how 'a ban won't work' causes a 'we can do nothing at all' response...
    March 19, 2013 10:55 am
    It's funny -in a very sad way how the 'bans/new laws won't work' crowd also creates a 'nothing will fix it, so you can't do anything at all' response...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cigarillo wrote...
    @Sarge
    April 10, 2013 9:25 pm
    Translating "We'd rather not give up something for nothing" to "Nothing will work, so do nothing" is a barely perceptible skewing of your philosophical opponents' mindset. Those that oppose gun grabbing understand that such bans only impose on the righteous, and that our problems can be only solved by the more complex task of dealing with the wicked.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @cigarillo
    April 12, 2013 9:13 am
    No, it's not skewing anything. It's factually accurate. And what are you giving up - truly? The assault weapons ban attempt is dead. It ain't happening. We're talking about background checks and stopping straw man purchases. How can you possibly think that this makes you give up anything that you aren't already giving up? Particularly since even these are already watered down from 100% with no exceptions to something far less than they were.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    If Babies had guns....
    April 17, 2013 6:25 pm
    There'd be no Abortions.....think about that liberal hipsters......LOL
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mihalyim wrote...
    strawman purchase?
    May 7, 2013 2:24 am
    Nothing in this bill would stop straw man purchasing, which is already illegal! Unless they force mental help personnel to report on everyone who MIGHT go out and hurt others and require everyone to get annual mental check ups more back round checks on gun purchases will do nothing but clog the system.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • murr wrote...
    Look at all the people using her as a prop.
    January 30, 2013 5:20 am
    Im sure she does not feel used at all. By the way, more people die every year drowning. Ban water. you fools, its the water that makes you drown.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    Just to make it fair
    January 30, 2013 6:34 am
    ask the parents of victims of this evil to come in and tell how more gun control will do nothing to stop it.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    Hay hay hee hee ho ho, Hey Planned Parenthood!
    January 30, 2013 6:37 am
    How many babies have you murdered today????
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rick W7PSK wrote...
    Doesnt count
    January 30, 2013 8:45 am
    they don't think that the living thing inside a woman is Real.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SickofSeattleite wrote...
    @ It's me hahahaha
    April 17, 2013 5:33 am
    touche!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • calapete wrote...
    good day today.
    January 30, 2013 5:43 pm
    Giffords speech was spot on and keeps the momentum going.

    Washington is looking at a bill to end the loopholes. All sales must have a background check.

    Fun quote going around from early NRA president Karl Fredrick, 1934.

    "I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses"

    Ahhh the good old days before the NRA was just a tool of the Gun lobby.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • jdeoro wrote...
    Ahhh, the good old days. . .
    January 30, 2013 8:09 pm
    "Certain business leaders may consider "big government" or socialism more of an immediate threat to their interests than communism. Are they allowing themselves to be deluded by their own propaganda to the effect that organized labor in this country is in favor of big government or the nationalization of industry? Nothing could be further from the truth. The main function of American trade unions is collective bargaining. It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government. Unions, as well as employers, would vastly prefer to have even Government regulation of labor-management relations reduced to a minimum consistent with the protection of the public welfare..." George Meany, former AFL-CIO president "The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," Roosevelt wrote in 1937 to the National Federation of Federal Employees. Yes, public workers may demand fair treatment, wrote Roosevelt. But, he wrote, "I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place" in the public sector. "A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government." FDR Ahhh, the good old days, before the unions were feeding off the public tax trough. We can go back and forth throwing out old quotes all day.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • jdeoro wrote...
    Ahhh, the good old days. . .
    January 30, 2013 8:13 pm
    And while we're quoting the ex-NRA president, how about this one, from the same testimony before congress about the national firearms act that your quote came from. . . "You have put your finger on it. My general objections to most of the regulatory provisions are proposed with that in view. I am just as much against the gangster as any man. I am just as much interested in seeing him suppressed, but I do not believe that we should burn down the barn in order to destroy the rats. I am in favor of some more skillful method of getting the rats without destroying the barn. In my opinion, most of the proposals the regulation of firearms, although ostensibly and properly aimed at the crook, do not reach the crook at all, but they do reach the honest. man. In my opinion, the forces which are opposed to crime consist of two general bodies; one is the organized police and the second is the unorganized victims, the great mass of unorganized law-abiding citizens, and if you destroy the effective opposition of either one of those, you are inevitably going to increase crime, because as you destroy the forces of resistance to the human body to disease, you are going to increase disease. So, by destroying the resistance of any body which is opposed to crime, you are going to increase crime. I think we should be careful in considering the actual operation of regulatory measures to make sure that they do not hamstring the law-abiding citizen in his opposition to the crook."
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • TwoTrees wrote...
    Mmm...I love the smell of Truth in the morning.
    February 12, 2013 7:12 am
    tt.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Regularjoe44 wrote...
    Smells like.....
    February 24, 2013 6:09 pm
    Victory
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    CALAPETE
    April 17, 2013 6:27 pm
    How do ya like us now....HAHAHAHAHAHA
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • hnuh wrote...
    To paraphrase the leftist baby killers who said
    February 12, 2013 11:55 am
    "If you don't like abortion don't have one." So, if you don't like "assault weapons" don't have one. The absolute fact is, every successful abortion takes a human life, but not every "assault weapon" does so. BTW, the .223(5.56x45) is not designed to kill people. It is specifically designed to wound people, with the killing happening more as a by-product of the intended wounding. Kind of like the international terrorist in chief's drone program produces a lot of collateral damage among innocent women and children...(outside the US, so far).
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rick W7PSK wrote...
    I guess 20,000+ gun laws
    February 12, 2013 12:06 pm
    just are not enough.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • CH wrote...
    Hay hay hee hee ho ho, Hey Planned Parenthood!
    February 24, 2013 4:06 pm
    your killing me! Thank God yo momma had you! We need a can to kick around. What are Romney chances today?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Kosh wrote...
    ALL Gun Bills Killed
    February 24, 2013 6:27 pm
    Thanks to a Republican Senate in Washington State :)
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }