Skip to footer

Democrats push for 'no fly, no buy' bill gun legislation

A Democratic senator began a filibuster on Wednesday to force a vote on the so-called no fly, no buy bill.

|
Rich Pedroncelli/AP
Three variations of the AR-15 assault rifle are displayed at the California Department of Justice in Sacramento, Calif. The Orlando shooter used a similar style of rifle, the Sig Sauer MCX.
  • By David Iaconangelo Staff

With an investigation into the Orlando attacks ongoing and feelings still raw, Democrats are seizing the moment to renew their push for new gun-control laws.

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut began a filibuster on Wednesday in an attempt to force a vote on a bill that would prohibit the sale of firearms to people appearing on Terrorist Screening Center no-fly lists. The bill is sponsored by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, a leading advocate of stronger gun-control laws.

In his speech on the Senate floor, Senator Murphy evoked the 2012 murder of 20 schoolchildren and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in his home state, calling inaction on gun-control measures “unconscionable.”

On Tuesday, President Obama also called for the passage of the “no fly, no buy” bill, and renewed his call for an assault-weapons ban, reported ABC News. In 2012, Obama’s campaign for such a ban dissolved in Congress, drawing anger from the president in his post-vote remarks.

Presumed Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton spoke up in favor of both proposals as well in a speech in Cleveland on Tuesday. The Republican nominee, Donald Trump, said in a Twitter post on Wednesday that he would be meeting with the National Rifle Association about the “no fly, no buy” bill. The NRA has fervently opposed that proposal. Mr. Trump has been an unsteady supporter of the NRA’s agendas over the years, having called for a ban on assault weapons and a longer waiting period to purchase weapons in 2000, noted CBS.

A new CBS News survey of public opinion conducted in the days since the shootings at Pulse nightclub found that a majority of Americans say they support a nationwide ban on assault weapons.

Fifty-seven percent of respondents told pollsters they supported the idea, as opposed to 38 percent who said they were against it. Differences in opinion along partisan lines remained stark. A full 78 percent of Democrats said they favored the ban, compared to 45 percent of Republicans. A slim majority of independents (47 percent) were in favor as well.

As The Christian Science Monitor wrote on Tuesday, public support for the ban has flagged in recent years, with only 45 percent of Americans favoring it in December 2015. That’s compared to 80 percent in 1994, when a ban on assault weapons actually went into effect. It expired in 2004.

Public opinion on such measures tends to be volatile, varying according to what public sees as the main issues at stake. When fears about terrorism are in the mix, University of Arizona sociologist Jennifer Carlson told the Monitor, Americans are less likely to want a ban. If the issue is more about mental health, as in the Sandy Hook shooting, the public tends to come out in force for the idea.

This report contains material from the Associated Press.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to Democrats push for 'no fly, no buy' bill gun legislation
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2016/0615/Democrats-push-for-no-fly-no-buy-bill-gun-legislation
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe