GOP senators threaten filibuster over gun bill
WASHINGTON — A trio of Republicans threaten to filibuster gun legislation when it comes to the Senate floor, arguing the proposals violate the Second Amendment.
Sens. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee — all Tea Party favorites — say they will “oppose any legislation that would infringe on the American people's constitutional right to bear arms or on their ability to exercise this right without being subjected to government surveillance.”
Their intention is included in a letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
Reid has promised to bring a bill to the floor after the spring recess that would include separate measures to expand background checks on gun buyers, strengthen trafficking laws and improve school safety. The bills have passed the Judiciary Committee, and the background check measure is being tweaked to garner bipartisan support.
White House spokesman Jay Carney acknowledged the challenges facing gun legislation in Congress but noted measures such as background checks and closing loopholes for purchases at gun shows have support from people in all parties.
“Filibusters of efforts to move forward with common-sense measures to reduce gun violence would be unfortunate,” Carney said.
The letter from Paul, Cruz and Lee does not specifically say they will filibuster, but their intentions are clear. The letter says the senators “will oppose the motion to proceed” — which is the step required before a bill can come up for consideration. That means 60 votes would be needed to bring up the gun legislation.
Paul, R-Ky., staged a nearly 13-hour filibuster this year over the Obama administration's drone policy, which ended up delaying a final confirmation vote on CIA Director John Brennan. Cruz and Lee took part in that effort, coming to the Senate floor to ask their colleague questions, so he didn't have to speak the entire time.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Penn State University eyes changes to sexual misconduct case handling
- McCain to protesters: ‘Get out of here, you low-life scum’
- San Francisco blaze kills Mission District resident
- Homeland chief says cuts over immigration puts U.S. at risk
- Police in South Carolina: Family killed man in custody fight
- Darmouth, in effort to quell ‘extreme behaviors,’ bans liquor on campus
- Former Idaho National Guard soldier’s benefits claims yield indictment
- NASA pauses to honor its fallen
- Drone owner still unnamed, works for intelligence agency
- Medicare payments to tie doctor, hospital payments to quality rather than volume of care
- Police to Waze: Not so fast on cop tracker, which they say makes it harder to catch speeders