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...
    Michoacan, of course you
    can buy a gun from one of your acquaintances no questions asked, that's the mexican way. But most responsible gun owners ask questions and would not sell to anyone they suspect should not own a gun. Haven't figured out that saying yet, uh. Keep working on it, maybe get someone to explain it to you.
  • Abuse
    az83 wrote...
    Michoacan,
    Do you get tired of being wrong? We sure are. Wrong about buying guns without background checks online and mail order. Always wrong. Very ignorant, then add arrogance to boot. Everyone always has to correct you to the facts. I'm starting to think maybe it's not just ignorance but the inability to process knowledge.
  • Abuse
    Michoacan wrote...
    You were right about this. I was wrong.
    .
  • Abuse
    Michoacan wrote...
    I occasionally err in my assertions.
    I accept that I am imperfect. What stands out the most to me is that when I provide verifiable fact about the successful outcomes of the background check systems, gun nuts and the NRA start whistling and staring off into the distance. With millions of prohibited possessors turned away from getting weapons that they shouldn't have, it makes sense to expand the system to all sales. Gun nuts and the NRA offer no sensible objection to this wildly popular initiative.
  • Abuse
    az83 wrote...
    Michoacan, I commend you..
    for admitting error. The verifiable facts you provide are usually only part of the picture or in this case one big puzzle. Need to look at all the pieces. Criminals buy guns from other criminals or they steal them. As most criminals are stupid, they do stupid things like try to buy a gun knowing they will probably fail a background check, they just wanted to make sure.
  • Abuse
    az83 wrote...
    Michoacan, here's the problem..
    1. The FBI refuses to acknowledge if they are or aren't developing an illegal firearm registry from background checks. 2. Buyers are sometimes mistakenly turned down on background checks, the FBI has 5 days to respond to request. Lawyers involved say they never, ever do this or make any corrections. The FBI says "sue us". 3. The background check systems goes down for hours or days at a time. This stops all gun dealers from doing checks, no gun sales by dealers. If checks were universal, the system going down whether unintentional or intentional would stop any gun from being sold legally.
  • Abuse
    az83 wrote...
    Universal background checks..
    would be considered a tax. You cannot tax a right, it is illegal. Being forced to pay a fee to have a FFL holder for the service of completing a background check is the problem. Private citizens cannot run these on others.
  • Abuse
    Michoacan wrote...
    A background check is not a tax.
    Every right that we are free to exercise comes with lawful restrictions and responsibilities. Second Amendment rights are no different. Temporary inconvenience because of slow, sometimes bungling bureaucracy happens. That does not mean that it is illegal.
  • Abuse
    Michoacan wrote...
    I assume that you have the same objection
    to any other taxes assessed, such as the sales tax.
  • Abuse
    az83 wrote...
    Michoacan,
    Please do a little research on subjects before forming an opinion. I read an article on the subject and "rights" cannot be taxed. Plain and simple. You seem like a somewhat intelligent person, why constant ignorance to the facts. Plus, you seem confused about what a "right" is. You bring up sales taxes, when I buy something from a private buyer I am not forced to pay a sales tax. I not even sure if shopping is considered a right. We are talking universal background checks, not shopping. And what about the 3 reasons against UBC?