WASHINGTON – While the first bipartisan agreement on gun security in years is being formed on Capitol Hill, Republicans and Democrats are working to maintain the compromise by sending various messages about its scope and implications.
Democrats, who called for much broader steps to control arms, said that if passed, it would be the most significant legislation on the issue in decades. Republicans, who fear fear of crossing their base to fight weapons, instead focus on proposals they keep out of the agreement, including bans on guns or ammunition and raising the age for buying firearms.
The contrast between the way Democrats and Republicans support the proposal – large and monumental versus purposeful and limited in scope – reflects the complex policy on the issue and the fragility of the coalition that has come together to try to break the stalemate.
“This will undoubtedly save lives and will be the most significant arms action the Senate has taken in nearly three decades,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat and majority leader on Tuesday, while acknowledging that the framework is far from everything Democrats want to achieve.
It wasn’t long before Senator John Cornin, a Texas Republican who played a pivotal role in the talks, laid out a large-scale chart on the Senate floor, entitled “Ideas Rejected in the Negotiations,” as he carefully explained what his party agreed to. as important – what he did not have. He noted that Republican proposals rejected by Republicans include universal scrutiny of the past, a ban on high-capacity magazines and a ban on weapons of attack for 18- to 21-year-olds.
Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, said Tuesday he felt “comfortable” with the bipartisan framework that has emerged and will support a final bill that follows its parameters, another sign that Republicans are committed to holding the coalition together. to agree and demonstrate to their colleagues that it would be politically safe to support him.
Efforts are at a critical juncture, as negotiators on both sides are struggling to translate the deal in principle into a legislative language that could garner 60 votes in the Senate. The measure under discussion will require increased scrutiny of prospective gun buyers under the age of 21, make it more difficult for domestic abusers to acquire firearms, and provide federal subsidies to states to pass so-called red flag laws to keep guns out of hand. dangerous people, among other steps.
Democrats entered the talks two weeks ago with modest hopes, eager to simply demonstrate that it is possible to break the deadlock and pass some kind of legislation on gun safety after a mass shooting, and acknowledged that it would have to be limited in order to attract enough Republican support to pass.
Political stakes were high, even if expectations of a major breakthrough were not. As President Biden’s poll dwindles as he struggles to advance most of his agenda, he and Democrats are desperate for any legislative victory to support his presidency and their prospects for the midterm congressional elections.
At the same time, after the massacre of 19 children and two teachers at an elementary school in Uwalde, Texas, Republicans acknowledged that they must catch up with their own political reality: that the vast majority of voters, including their own, support at least some security measures of weapons, including intensified checks on the past.
However, they oppose the reaction of their right flank, trying to downplay the idea that they have given the Democrats a reason on the issue of weapons.
Appearing on Fox News this week, Mr Cornin assured viewers that “states that do not have red flag laws will not be forced to pass them” and that the proposal includes “no new restrictions on law-abiding gun owners”.
“Part of the problem we’ve been facing is that people are reading things in the bill that aren’t there, so it’s a process of trying to explain what’s there and what’s out there,” Mr Cornin said in a brief interview with Tuesday.
It is a matter of political necessity for Republicans as the right wing mobilizes against compromise. Representative Colonel Laurent Bobert, a Republican from Colorado, called the senators who signed as “slippery RINO” – Republicans by name only – while the American Firearms Association, a massive gun rights group that raises funds outrage over a potential deal, said the “treacherous bastards” Republicans involved who want to “disarm this whole country.”
Spokeswoman for former President Donald J. Trump said he was outraged by Republicans who adopted the framework. “We need to stop these RINOs from joining the Democrats,” spokeswoman Liz Harrington told conservative media, saying red-flag laws would turn the United States into a “Soviet Union.”
(After a series of mass shootings in Dayton, Ohio and El Paso, Texas, in 2019, Mr. Trump called for red flag laws.)
“I think we’re more interested in the red wave than the red flags, quite honestly,” said Sen. Kevin Kramer, a North Dakota Republican, Tuesday after Mr. Cornin presented the outline of the emerging bill in closed session. GOP Senate lunch.
Democrats have their own challenges in staying united behind the proposal, as progressives have expressed concerns about its limited scope and approach.
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat, said she was concerned that the proposal, which would allow law enforcement for the first time to review juvenile and mental health files for gun buyers under the age of 21, could lead to ” criminalization ”of children.
Mr Schumer tried to discuss everything the bill would do, noting the importance of intensified background checks for people under the age of 21 and closing the so-called boyfriend door, a long-standing priority for gun safety activists.
However, critical obstacles remain unresolved.
Mr Cornin told reporters on Wednesday that he was concerned that states without red flag laws would not be eligible to receive funding for crisis intervention programs. Both Democrats and Republicans have also hinted at disagreements over who exactly will be covered by the closure of the boyfriend’s door, which aims to involve dating partners in banning gun abusers. The ban currently applies to spouses.
“At some point, if we fail to reach 60, we will have to reduce some of them,” Mr Cornin said, warning that the drafting stage could be extended to next week.
Sen. Christopher S. Murphy of Connecticut, the Democratic’s chief negotiator, said he did not expect anything to fall out of the final bill and was confident it would be approved.
As they spread various messages about what the arms deal would do and what it wouldn’t, both Democrats and Republicans have legitimate arguments.
Because the bar for a breakthrough in the history of guns in Congress is low – no significant federal gun legislation has been passed since 1993 – the modest move is still considered important.
This dynamic may be unsatisfactory for Democrats, frustrated that they need to accept growing progress and adopt only some of the policies they believe will save lives, but this could lead to political gain for them, strategists said.
“They have a great achievement to talk about, and they also have a lot of room for a very fruitful discussion on what still needs to be done to tackle gun violence and mass shootings,” said Jeff Garin, a Democrat sociologist. “The reality of Senator Cornin’s position is that provisions that Republicans do not include in the bill are very popular with the vast majority of voters. These are the policies that will be contested in the by-elections. “
And while the difference in accents may reflect how divided the country is in terms of weapons, some have said it is also a sign of progress.
“The way Republicans and Democrats are sending this message shows me that they are serious about doing something,” said James P. Manley, a former top adviser to former majority leader Sen. Harry Reed.
Add Comment