Tucson Shooting Survivors Want Stricter Gun Laws
By Adrianna McGinley
Survivors and family members of shooting victims, including those of the January Tucson shooting that nearly killed Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), joined legislators Tuesday to support bipartisan legislation aimed at tightening national gun laws.
The Fix Gun Checks Act, introduced by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), would require background checks for all gun purchases and would penalize states that fail to enter records into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who has committed to investigating the ATF’s failed “Operation Fast and Furious” program, agreed that legislation to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals is necessary. He added, however, that Second Amendment rights must be protected for law-abiding citizens, specifically veterans that he says were denied their right to bear arms under the NICS Improvement Act.
“While the horrific events in Tucson are still fresh in our memories, as we discuss new gun control laws, we also need to move forward on bipartisan legislation such as the Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act,” Grassley said.
Col. Bill Badger, who survived a bullet wound from the Tucson shooting, and Patricia Maisch, who prevented the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, from reloading, voiced support for the measure.
“Tucson is yet another extremely tragic example of what is at stake each and every time a gun falls or is placed in the wrong hands,” Maisch said. “Changing the past is impossible…but it would be a pitiful shame if no action were taken to change the future. You can take action to improve our broken gun background check system, and I truly believe with all my soul that your actions can save lives.”
Legislators and witnesses emphasized that the proposal is not meant to infringe on people’s rights or take away their guns, but rather to ensure that guns stay out of the hands of dangerous individuals, like Loughner, a diagnosed schizophrenic.
“I believe there’s a right to bear arms, but I also believe it’s not absolute,” Schumer said. “Just as we have limits on the First Amendment…there are reasonable limits on the Second Amendment. I don’t believe it should be seen through a pinhole…but I also believe that limits are very reasonable and we’re talking among the most reasonable limits here.”
Group In Landmark Supreme Court Case Blasts DISCLOSE Act
Talk Radio News Service
The leader of a conservative non-profit group that was at the center of a major Supreme Court ruling earlier this year had harsh words for legislation aimed at adding more transparency to the process by which foreign corporations make campaign contributions.
In 2008, the group, Citizens United, filed an injunction against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for enforcing provisions within the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act -- also known as McCain-Feingold -- that prevented the group from running television ads to promote a documentary film it produced entitled, Hillary: The Movie within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries.
After a federal court ruled in favor of the FEC's actions, Citizens United appealed and the case went before the Supreme Court. In January of this year, the Court ruled in favor of the group, arguing that corporate funding of political elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment.
During a press conference today, Citizens United President David Bossie assailed a recently introduced piece of legislation called the “Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE)” Act, arguing that it does not consider the First Amendment rights of Americans.
The bill, sponsored by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), is aimed at prohibiting foreign influence on American elections, and strengthens the 'Pay-to-Play' law.
“This debate is about one thing and one thing only, the right of all Americans to speak out for or against their elected officials,” said Bossie. “Senator Schumer stated that he hoped this legislation would result in fewer people participating in the political process...if that’s not the definition of chilling free speech, I don’t know what is.”
Craig Holman, a legislative representative for Public Citizen, a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization, offered support for the bill.
“What could be achieved in the DISCLOSE Act is critical disclosure provisions that allow members of Congress and the public to realize...who is financing various campaign ads, who’s behind the campaign ads, and what interest it is that they’re attempting to achieve behind those campaign ads,” he said.