Login

Register | Forgot Your Password? | Close
FILE - In this Dec. 31, 2012 file photo, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. gets into an elevator on Capitol Hill in Washington. Gun control senators are discussing revising the defeated background check bill in attempt to revive it. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate rejected an effort Wednesday to expand the use of firearms on some of the nation's most frequently visited federal lands, handing gun control advocates a modest success.

The measure, backed by the National Rifle Association, represented one of two efforts Wednesday by gun rights supporters to take the offensive in Congress. Across the Capitol, a Republican-run House committee voted to make it easier for some veterans with mental difficulties to get firearms.

The rejected Senate proposal would have let people use guns for any legal purpose on lands managed by the Army Corps of Engineers, which oversees nearly 12 million acres that abound in lakes, rivers, campsites and hiking trails. Currently, guns on those properties are limited to activities like target-range shooting and hunting, and weapons must be unloaded while being carried to those activities.

Senators voted 56-43 for the proposal by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., but it fell short of the 60 votes needed for passage.

Eleven Democrats and one Democratic-leaning independent voted for Coburn's plan, underscoring the party's divisions on the gun issue.

Those voting for Coburn's proposal included all four Democrats who opposed the bipartisan bill expanding required federal background checks to more gun buyers that the Senate rejected three weeks ago.

The background check expansion has been the pillar of President Barack Obama's effort to restrict guns following December's elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn. Top Democrats and other supporters hope to win fresh support and stage a new vote on background checks, perhaps next month. Advocates hope that voting for Coburn's proposal might let some senators show voters they support gun rights and give them more leeway to reverse themselves and vote for background checks next time.

Also backing Coburn's proposal were the two chief authors of the defeated background check measure, Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Patrick Toomey, R-Pa.

Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, a supporter of the Manchin-Toomey plan, was the only Republican to vote against expanding gun use on Corps land.

Coburn said gun rights on Corps land should be the same as in national parks and federal wildlife refuges, where federal law has allowed visitors to carry guns since 2010. He said after the vote that he would keep reintroducing the measure until it passes.

"Fifty-six votes, a majority of the Senate believes we ought to have one sane policy" on gun rights on federal lands, Coburn said.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said allowing more guns onto Corps property would increase danger to the dams, flood control systems and other crucial water projects.

"This critical infrastructure is a target for terrorists," she said. Allowing more guns "sets up a national security threat. It endangers people."

Army Corps lands are used for recreation by 370 million people annually, more than visit the property of any other federal agency. About 80 percent of them are within 50 miles of urban areas, making them accessible destinations.

Also Wednesday, the House Veterans Affairs Committee voted by voice to require a judge or magistrate to declare a veteran is dangerous before the person's name is entered in the background check system's database of people barred from getting firearms.

Currently, the Veterans Affairs Department sends the system the names of veterans it has declared unable to manage their financial affairs- 127,000 names since 1998.

Supporters of the measure said veterans who can't handle their money aren't necessarily dangerous.

"It's arbitrary. It's inconsistent and it's unreasonable," Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., chairman of the committee, said of the current process.

The Veterans department opposes the measure, saying veterans in the database already have the ability to appeal.

___

Associated Press writer Kevin Freking contributed to this report.


(Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

share this story:
facebook

153 Comments   |   Join the conversation »
  • Add A Comment 
  • Abuse
    Steve wrote...
    Brain dead Liberals
    aren't asking why the government doesn't enforce the laws already on the books. How many people were prosecuted and convicted for lying on their background form or for selling a gun without the proper check or to a felon.
  • Abuse
    Steve wrote...
    Citing a 2012 report
    "Out of more than 76,000 firearms purchases denied by the federal instant check system, only 62 were referred for prosecution, and only 44 were actually prosecuted."
  • Abuse
    Steve wrote...
    A letter signed by more than 1,000
    Green Berets. There is a 2,929 word letter signed by more than 1,000 Green Berets in support of protecting the Second Amendment and explaining why all Americans should be concerned about doing so themselves.
  • Abuse
    Steve wrote...
    Here is the link to the Green Beret story
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/30/read-the-letter-1100-green-berets-signed-for-protection-of-the-2nd-amendment/
  • Abuse
    mellowyellow wrote...
    Goodness
    I'm a liberal, not brain dead last time I checked. It's people like "Patriot" or "Redcav" who run around calling people names, forcing their opinion behind some chat room rather than actually going out and trying to do something about what they believe. The word cowards come to mind since were calling people names here. How about summing it up to typical politics?
  • Abuse
    mellowyellow wrote...
    part 2
    How about realizing that with or without gun control, criminals will find guns to commit their crimes with, liberal or conservative has nothing to do with it. It's people like Patriot or Redcav who spew their hate that has this country so divided - And to think I fought for their rights to be those spineless humans....
  • Abuse
    OneWonders wrote...
    The ones
    undercutting existing laws are not gun nuts and the NRA, it's the politicians in Congress and even more importantly, the White House. If the sheeple liberals on here could grow a brain, they would realize this. Since this will never happen, certain sheeples on here will only blame gun nuts and the NRA since liberal media is telling them to. Gotta love the sound of a broken record. What's really sad, my farts are smarter than the liberals who can't think for themselves and blame "gun nuts" and the NRA over and over again with no facts.
    Equal Justice, Not Social Justice.
  • Abuse
    mellowyellow wrote...
    I'm a liberal
    and I have guns. I think the NRA has it right in many ways. I'm not a conservative but I certainly am not blaming them for many of the issues facing us today. What's the solution? Name calling and blaming liberals? How about ways to fund mental health care so that it's available to more people. Just an idea.
  • Abuse
    wrote...
    i'd like to appeal
    to giffords to shut the heck up and go away. she voted for that pig of a healthcare bill that will certainly help bankrupt our country.
  • Abuse
    Michoacan wrote...
    Gun nuts and the NRA have done their best
    to ensure that laws on the books are toothless. Example: “The absence of any federal law defining gun trafficking in this country is shocking,” wrote Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) of New York in a recent op-ed about her legislation that would raise gun trafficking to the level of federal prosecution. “We have thousands of laws, but effectively none of them are directly focused on preventing someone from Virginia from driving to New York City, parking their car in a parking lot, and selling hundreds of firearms out of the back of their trunk to criminals.”