Elections

Risch, Crapo favored two of four gun bills that failed Monday

The Senate voted Monday on four gun proposals intended to keep guns out of terrorists’ hands. None received enough votes to pass.

“It is not surprising that some are trying to use recent tragedy to change the Second Amendment rights in our Constitution,” Sen. Mike Crapo said in a combined press release with Sen. Jim Risch after the votes. “We must not allow these attacks to result in diminishing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.”

The proposals came from both sides of the aisle:

▪  A bill by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., would have given the government broad authority to block gun sales to people who’ve been subject of a terrorism investigation in the past five years.

▪  Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, proposed a 72-hour delay when anyone who has been on a federal terror watch list within the past five years tries to buy a gun.

▪  Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, promoted legislation to bolster federal databases to make it easier to notify law enforcement if someone under investigation as a terrorist in recent years tries to buy a firearm.

▪  A measure proposed by Chris Murphy, D-Conn., aimed to expand background checks to the sales of firearms at gun shows and on the Internet.

Risch and Crapo voted in favor of the bills put forward by the Republicans and against those promoted by the Democrats.

“Enacting new regulations on guns raises difficult questions about the protection of a constitutionally guaranteed right,” Sen. Jim Risch said in the prepared release. “No one wants potential terrorists or those who wish us harm to have access to a weapon, but in keeping weapons out of these people’s hands it is vital we guarantee law-abiding Americans’ rights are not denied without due process. I believe Senators Grassley and Cornyn both offered amendments that thoughtfully balanced the protection of constitutional rights with the need to improve public safety. Their legislation would update and improve our current processes, provide necessary judicial oversight, and defend against an administration that would attempt to overreach its authority.”

  Comments