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...
    Micho, Stop making
    stuff up. Are you dumb to the fact that people are following the law as it is now written? = Yes you are. There is no need for a universal background check since that is already in place. If you actually had a clue on how the background checks are done, you would know that, don't blindly believe left wing media. All that is needed is to close the gun show loophole when it comes to background checks, everything else is already in place. Does the federal government need to know who has what guns, no they don't.
    Equal Justice, Not Social Justice.
  • Abuse
    OneWonders wrote...
    Cont...
    What are the reason the federal government needs to know that information, one would be to tax us, two would be to know where the guns are to confiscate like Hilter, three would be to confiscate them when the gun owner dies and their children or spouse should get them like Feinstein wants. Not saying Obama would do it but it leaves it open to anyone in power to do that. I know you don't believe in the United States and her Constitution, that's clear by your comments and how you spread flat out lies.
    Equal Justice, Not Social Justice.
  • Abuse
    Michoacan wrote...
    We differ in that I don't share your paranoia
    or your odium for the facts. It is easy as pie for the person that wants to rob your family at gunpoint to find willing gun nut gun sellers, face to face, mail order, on line, to get their illicit weapon. No questions asked. You can pretend that this doesn't happen, but the facts do not support you.
  • Abuse
    az83 wrote...
    Michoacan, have you
    heard the saying, Remain silent and be thought a fool or open your mouth and remove all doubt. That's you. Why don't you go back to Mexico where guns are banned and there is no violence. Well, maybe a little violence. Tired of your moronic opinions, based on idiocy.
  • Abuse
    Michoacan wrote...
    Telling people with whom you disagree
    to shut up and go away, after you've insulted them does not speak well of you. It is also futile. Best thing for you to do is ignore my posts. But like most of KTAR's favored conservative demographic, you can't help but see what it is that I have to say next Happy reading!
  • Abuse
    az83 wrote...
    Michoacan,
    You made my point. I never told you to shut up. Guess you didn't understand the saying. Not surprised as you don't seem to get much of anything. You are the only one on here with such an absurd rational.
  • Abuse
    OneWonders wrote...
    Nope, no paranoia for me
    If I was paranoid, I'd believe 100% that Obama was gonna take our guns and our freedom. I left it open for the possibility of it happening from any leader democrat or republican. No paranoia here, just one who knows history and doesn't want history to repeat itself today or in 50 years. No Odium to the facts, I know the facts, I even defended your facts earlier,
    Equal Justice, Not Social Justice.
  • Abuse
    OneWonders wrote...
    Micho Continued
    I also will point out your blatant lies too. I never said the sales don't happen. In fact if you actually read my whole comment, you would know I am for closing the gun show loophole, so those guns aren't sold to criminals. Good try and if AZ83 was talking about you, I am, "Remain silent and be thought a fool or open your mouth and remove all doubt". You proved this with your response to me.
    Equal Justice, Not Social Justice.
  • Abuse
    az83 wrote...
    Michoacan,
    "It is easy as pie for the person that wants to rob your family at gunpoint to find willing gun nut gun sellers, face to face, mail order, on line, to get their illicit weapon." All gun sales from online, mail order require firearms to be shipped to a FFL Dealer that is then required to complete a background check. Ignorant is no way to go through life. That's the problem with anti-gunners, not knowing the facts or terminology related to firearms.
  • Abuse
    Michoacan wrote...
    I can pick up the phone right now
    and call one of my gun nut acquaintances who can sell me one of their guns or hook me up with one of their gun nut buds who will sell me a gun, no questions asked. Don't know what part of the universe you live in, but gun acquisition is as easy as pie for any prior criminal history, wannabe mass murderer in our gun saturated culture. Gun nuts who want to thumb their noses at the notion of private sales background checks haven't the least concern for the safety of the community.

World Class Arizona

  • Avnet

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

Voice For A Better Arizona