Tragedy might not change debate on gun-law reform
By The Los Angeles Times
Published: Tuesday, Sept. 17, 2013, 9:39 p.m.
WASHINGTON — A leading advocate of stricter gun safety laws argued earlier this month that momentum had not stalled in Congress and cited one “inevitable fact” as proof.
“There will be another mass shooting. And when it happens, members of Congress will have a lot of explaining to do,” said Mark Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
That shooting occurred on Monday, claiming 12 lives at a secure facility about a mile and a half from the Capitol. And yet, sponsors of gun legislation doubt whether the Navy Yard shooting would change the stubborn political reality that led to the defeat of a bipartisan proposal in April.
“It is unclear if yesterday's tragedy changes the atmosphere sufficiently to yield a different outcome,” said Sen. Patrick Toomey, R-Lehigh County, who drafted an amendment to expand checks with Sen. Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va., that failed to muster 60 votes to be adopted.
“The Senate spoke on this issue,” he said, “and we came up five votes short.”
Manchin said it would be “ridiculous” to revive the plan “if there's not enough support.”
The shooter, Aaron Alexis, entered the Washington Navy Yard with a shotgun he purchased a day earlier at a Virginia gun store, along with two boxes of ammunition.
It was not clear whether the Manchin-Toomey proposal would have prevented him from obtaining it, which is one reason lawmakers expressed skepticism that the incident would revive the legislation in Congress.
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.
- Senate plan aims to overhaul Fannie, Freddie
- Lerner emails looked for way out of difficulties at the IRS
- U.S. denials of specialized work visas soar
- Documents show guilty D.C. businessman gave $600K for Hillary canvassers
- Nominee to head NSA leery of delays inherent in 3rd-party collection of telephone data
- Wiretaps to be included in Blagojevich appeal
- Mo. man freedin editor’sdeath sues for $100M
- 5th Amendment cited in N.J. bridge inquiry
- House pushes for data about GM defect
- NTSB chair Hersman steps down
- Georgia wants ‘slow poke’ drivers to stay in right lane