Login

Register | Forgot Your Password? | Close
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)

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.)

share this story:
facebook

153 Comments   |   Join the conversation »
  • Add A Comment 
  • Abuse
    OneWonders wrote...
    Hey Mellow,
    I said "sheeple liberals". I covered the mental health awhile back but the "sheeple's" did care and still blamed the guns, gun nuts and the NRA. I also said I am find with closing the gun show loophole, 4 day wait period is cool with me, if I sell a gun, lets go to an ffl dealer and get a background check for the person buying my gun. New laws like these, works for me. Enforcing current laws, sounds great! Wish the government was responsible enough to enforce laws and not just what they deem worth per administration. (I'll also rip on "sheeple conservatives" too)
    Equal Justice, Not Social Justice.
  • Abuse
    yrreta wrote...
    Found it interesting that
    if you add a pistol grip to a rifle not currently part of the proposed ban, it then would become a rifle that would covered under the proposed ban. Same weapon, same firing capability, just adding a second point to grip. As the NRA stated, the proposed bans are being structured by those who have no knowledge of firearms.
  • Abuse
    yrreta wrote...
    Also think it makes
    good sense to close the gun show loop holes and require background checks for all buyers, as well as enforce and prosecute for the laws. Granted it won’t stop a criminal from getting a weapon, but it will make it more difficult and ultimately keep honest people honest. A background check and waiting period, in my opinion, is not infringing upon your rights…unless you have something to hide, then you might have a problem with it.
  • Abuse
    Steve wrote...
    Micho cites comments from a NY rep
    The same State that was so hell bent on banning guns they forgot to exclude cops from the bill. The same State that if they would of had their way would have passed further unconstitutional laws such as: Confiscation of "assault weapons", Confiscation of ten round clips, Label semiautomatic shotguns with more than 5 rounds or pistol grips as "assault weapons", Limit the number of rounds in a magazine to 5 and confiscation and forfeiture of banned magazines and it goes on and on. Well stated Micho, your source is indeed credible. Lol
  • Abuse
    Steve wrote...
    The ATF botches another gun operation
    http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/atfs-milwaukee-sting-operation-marred-by-mistakes-failures-mu8akpj-188952581.html?abc=Ct5vpWpS
  • Abuse
    wrote...
    WHY ?
    is the NRA fighting even parts of future gun legislation that seems logical to most folks and has nothing to do with the Second Amendment - Whenever you can't figure out something that doesn't make common sense think - MONEY ~
  • Abuse
    Steve wrote...
    In the news today that Obama and the lame stream
    media want to keep hidden. The GDP/Economy shrank. Obama is more interested in NOT creating jobs, he continues to polarize America and tear the Nation apart. He has dissolved the very committee he created to find the answers to jobs. Senator Menedez, the one who employed the illegal alien is in the middle of a scandal, he should never of been re-elected, but hey the DNC machine is hard at work. It also looks like the DNC tried to hide the Sebelius campaign allegations. We are getting everything we asked for and at a very fast pace.
  • Abuse
    wrote...
    Giffords
    Go take a hike nobody cares what you have to say or do but your fellow anti-American Fascists like yourself.
  • Abuse
    Midusdew wrote...
    cars kill
    where is the out rage? every week then number of people that fill 2 jumbo jets die from cars... This station plays that ad... gun deaths don't compare to cars except for maybe in Chicago and NY...I wonder why...
  • Abuse
    az83 wrote...
    yrreta, kinda felt the same
    about universal background checks. Until I found out 1. The FBI will not confirm they are not breaking the law by maintaining a gun registry from background checks. 2. The FBI is required by law to respond withing 5 days for request concerning legitimate gun buyers failing the background check, attorneys who deal with this say it they never, ever, ever get back to you. There eventual response is to "sue us". 3. The system can go down and does for hours or days at a time preventing checks and gun sales. If universal, intentional or unintentional interruptions would prevent any legal gun sales.

World Class Arizona

  • Go Daddy

    World Class People. World Class Company. Go Daddy is a Fortune 100 "Best Companies to Work For."
  • Avnet

    World Class People. World Class Company. Here's information on a Fortune 500 company from Arizona.

Voice For A Better Arizona