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
    az83 wrote...
    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." Most folks do not have all the facts and info. It's logical only because of the limited biased mainstream media which is where most folks get the news. And it has everything to do with the 2nd Amendment, again, forming opinions without enough information or knowledge is the problem. Expose yourself to the alternate media, it will not kill you. Knowledge can never be bad, only enlightening.
  • Abuse
    misterosr wrote...
    Gun resrictions don't deter criminals.
    Gun restrictions only affect law abiding citizens. If a criminal can't go to a gun show and buy a gun (which technically they can't) then the criminal will either steal one or buy one illegally. The only ones who will be affected by any gun laws are the ones who are already obeying the existing ones. If you ban assault weapons or high capacity magazines then law abiding citizens will be out gunned and unable to defend themselves because the crimanals will not be the obeying the laws and therefore will be the only ones with assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
  • Abuse
    Michoacan wrote...
    Gun laws save lives. Background checks
    and waiting periods, for example, have discouraged impulsive acts of homicide and suicide and screened out millions of would be prohibited possessors. Gun nuts and the NRA believe that since not every act of gun violence can be prevented, that we should make no effort to prevent any act of gun violence. They apparently are ready to accept their own and their families demise at the hands of gun weilders without a whimper.
  • Abuse
    misterosr wrote...
    Really??
    I don't kn ow where you got your information, but there is no evidence that background checks or waiting periods have screened out ANY would be possesers let alone millions, and as for impulsive acts of homicide and suicide, it probably, in most cases, just caused those individuals to choose another methode or weapon. For your information it is because we want the ability to defend ourselves against gun weilding criminals that we are opposed to gun restrictions.
  • Abuse
    Michoacan wrote...
    You don't know because you don't want to know.
    That doesn't change the facts. U.S. Department of Justice,Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics: "From 1994 through 2009, over 107 million Brady background checks were conducted. During this period 1.9 million attempted firearm purchases were blocked by the Brady background check system, or 1.8 percent. For checks done by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2008, felons accounted for 56 percent of denials and fugitives from justice accounted for 13 percent of denials."
  • Abuse
    Michoacan wrote...
    The Harvard Injury Prevention Center
    tells us that many would be suicides who contemplated killing themselves did not do so because they did not have the means readily at hand. They changed their minds once their psychic storm had passed. There is plenty of information on the topic for truth seekers to consider. Gun nuts, by and large, are not truth seekers.
  • Abuse
    OneWonders wrote...
    Micho is right, wait periods and
    background checks do make differences...but only made differences for people who seek legal ways of attaining guns. Take for example the Sandy Hook shooting. The kid went the legal route to buy a gun but there was a waiting period. He was so MENTALLY messed up and wanted to kill so bad that he then acquired firearms illegally. His actions also showed us that he wanted to be stopped and didn't have the mental capability to stop. Now I have no problem with waiting periods.
    Equal Justice, Not Social Justice.
  • Abuse
    OneWonders wrote...
    cont...
    If I am buying a gun, this NRA member can wait 4 days for one. Micho's only problem is "that we should make no effort to prevent any act of gun violence" is wrong and based on her opinion and not fact. Micho is really good at mixing fact with fiction and tries to show that all is fact when she is actually lying for part of things. Well played for idiots to fall for but it doesn't appear to work on any of us smart people.
    Equal Justice, Not Social Justice.
  • Abuse
    misterosr wrote...
    That information
    doesn't change the fact that those would be prossessors were only denied LEGAL access to guns but it doesn't mean that were unable to obtain a firearm by illegal means, which most of them did. As for the Harvard report, that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with gun control it could b about knives poison or something else like a rope for instance.
  • Abuse
    Michoacan wrote...
    The Harvard study has everything to do with
    gun control. But you would need to want to read it for yourself to recognize its import. As for prohibited possessors illegally obtaining firearms, for them it's a simple matter of going to the nearest gun nut who opposes universal background checks and buying the gun of their choice for their next armed robbery/drive by/school shooting. Gun nuts and the NRA oppose non-confiscatory measures as simple as research into gun violence and background checks, which have kept guns out of the wrong hands.

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