The recent failure of the U.S. Senate to get a super majority of 60 to support expanded background checks was a big disappointment for gun control advocates—but the fight is not over, it is only beginning. There are significant actions on several levels that we must pursue in our push for more safety for the public from gun violence.
On the federal level, we must see to it that the senators who voted no on background checks—-not only the many GOP senators such as Marco Rubio who voted in the negative but also the four Democratic senators who voted no—-get punished for that action when they run for reelection . We must also make them pay the price if those senators choose to run for other offices. We must also work to get new people elected the House of Representatives who support strong gun control reform—-not only universal background checks, but also assault weapon bans, limiting the size of magazines and preventing straw sales of any kind of gun.And we must work to end the filibuster rule in the Senate requiring a super majority of 60 votes rather than a simple majority of 51 votes to pass legislation. The senate got a simple majority of 56 votes on background checks, but 4 short of a 60 vote super majority. The Senate went against the wishes of 90 % of Americans and against a majority of senators.
These steps on the federal level are necessary but not sufficient. We must also act on the state and local levels. With the mounting casualties in United states of gun violence and with the brutal Newtown Connecticut massacre that left many children dead—several states have recently implemented much stronger gun controls. A perfect example is New York State. Recently, New York increased the types of assault weapons banned by that state,and also limited the size of ammunition magazines that may be sold. New York State also created new provisions for identifying mentally ill people who seek to purchase guns. and also required the recertifying of gun licenses. Elsewhere, Connecticut and Colorado, both who experienced recent mass shootings, have reacted by legislating stronger restrictions on guns.
It is to our advantage to taking the struggle to the state and local level. It forces the National Rile Association and the gun manufacturers who support the NRA to fight back in multiple jurisdictions, spreading out its financial resources rather than concentrating solely on the lawmakers in Washington D.C. Also it encourages states , counties and cities to create gun control reform that is tailored to their populations and their politics.
It might also help if we framed our discussion in terms of ‘gun safety’ rather than ‘gun control’. That might make many law-abiding citizens feel more secure that the government is not out to confiscate their guns. But we must continue the fight on national level—but combine it with working also on the state and local levels.
ROBERT SULZER