Liberal groups already are launching efforts to deny re-election money to the four U.S. Senate Democrats who voted against the Manchin-Toomey gun background check amendment today.

The vote was 54-46 in favor – not enough “yea” votes to reach the 60-vote threshold to which Senate leaders have agreed for amendments. The Democrats who voted against the amendment were U.S. Sens. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D.; Mark Begich, D-Alaska; Max Baucus, D-Mont.; and Mark Pryor, D-Ark. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., changed his vote to “no” toward the end as a parliamentary tactic, reserving the right to bring up the bill again.

Baucus, Begich and Pryor all are up for re-election in 2014.

In an e-mail blast, Courage Campaign founder and chairman Rick Jacobs said the Democratic National Committee and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee rely on individual donors from all over the nation to get senators elected – something that’s particularly true for senators in “purple” states.

“Tell the DNC and DSCC you won’t donate a single penny to any Senator who opposes universal background checks for gun purchases,” Jacobs wrote. “The NRA can play hardball – but so can you. We’re the activists, the Democratic base. We’re the people who donate in elections, knock on doors, and get out the vote in tight elections. We’re the difference on Election Day all around the country.

“Sign the petition: ‘I won’t donate a dime or lift a finger to help any Democrat who opposes universal background checks get elected,’” Jacobs urged.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee announced it’ll run full-page newspaper ads against the four Senators.

“Today, the Senate voted against the 91% of Americans who support background checks to stop gun violence,” PCCC cofounder Stephanie Taylor said in a news release. “We’ll be holding accountable Democrats who voted against their constituents by running ads in their states, featuring some of the 23,000 gun owners who have joined our campaign for common sense gun reform”

And Democracy for America spokesman Neil Sroka said “Democrats who were too cowardly to get on the right side of a 90-10 issue like universal background checks better believe that the progressives will remember their spinelessness on gun violence prevention come reelection time. The over 1 million members of Democracy for America nationwide work to elect progressive fighters, not U.S. Senators who can be cowed by the right-wing fringe and gun industry lobbyists like the NRA.”

Some of the Democratic senators who opposed the amendment have explained their votes. Heitkamp issued a statement Wednesday:

“I’ve been adamant from the very beginning of this conversation that the focus should be on mental health issues, full and accurate reporting into the NICS database and ensuring that we are prosecuting criminals in possession of or trying to possess firearms. This conversation should be about what is in people’s minds, not about what is in their hands. I commend Senators Manchin and Toomey for working so hard to bring a serious bill to the floor. However, in its current form I do not see a path for my support. I’ve thought long and hard about this, I’ve taken the tough meetings, and I’ve heard overwhelmingly from the people of North Dakota; and at the end of the day my duty is to listen to and represent the people of North Dakota.”

Pryor posted to his Facebook page Wednesday:

“After talking with Arkansans, I’ve decided to oppose the Manchin-Toomey amendment. It’s too broad, unworkable, and unreasonable for hunters and gun owners in our state. Instead, I’ll support the Grassley amendment that better enforces the laws we already have on the books and protects the rights of law-abiding Arkansans.”

And Begich made his views known before last week’s cloture vote:

“I’ve long believed we don’t need more laws restricting the Second Amendment rights of Americans, we need to better enforce those on the books. So I’ll continue to fight against any new laws which infringe on our rights. At the same time, we can keep our communities safer by keeping guns out of the wrong hands and providing our schools more resources. That is why Senator Graham and I wrote a bipartisan bill which has been supported by both the NRA and mental health groups.”

“I voted today against the so-called cloture motion because I strongly disagree with many of the provisions of the anti-gun legislation currently on the Senate floor. By my vote, I’ll continue to work for the opportunity to consider more sensible measures to make our communities safer. I’ll continue to oppose any proposal that undermines the fundamental rights of Alaskans.”

As a bipartisan deal on increased background checks for gun sales appears to be headed for defeat in the U.S. Senate, some state lawmakers from the Bay Area are celebrating their own progress on gun-control measures yesterday in Sacramento.

The state Senate Public Safety Committee advanced a slew of gun bills on a series of party-line, 5-2 votes yesterday.

Among them were two bills by state Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord.

SB 293 would require all newly made or imported handguns in California be “owner-authorized,” or “smart guns” personalized in a way that would allow them to be fired only by authorized persons. This requirement would take effect eighteen months after the state California Attorney General makes a finding that owner-authorized handguns are available for retail sale and meet stringent performance criteria specified in the bill.

And DeSaulnier’s SB 299 would require that every person whose firearm is lost or stolen must notify local law enforcement within 48 hours of the time they knew, or reasonably should have known, of the loss or theft. If the firearm is subsequently recovered, the local law enforcement agency would have to be notified within 48 hours as well.

“It is critical that we promote safe and responsible gun ownership,” DeSaulnier said in a news release. “These bills will help us prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands, and ensure they are only operated by their lawful owners.”

Also passed by the committee were two bills by state Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco.

SB 47 would prohibit the use of “bullet buttons” or other devices that allow for easily changeable magazines on firearms deemed assault weapons by state law. Such firearms would only be allowed to have ammunition magazines holding up to 10 rounds, which could not be changed without dissembling the weapon; essentially, bullets would have to be loaded one-by-one from the top of the gun.

And Yee’s SB 108 would require all guns to be properly stored when an adult isn’t home. Current law requires that gun owners own a trigger lock or safety lock box for their weapon, but doesn’t require such a device be used on an idle firearm; Yee’s bill would specifically require that any firearm be stored with a trigger lock or in a lock box at a residence when the owner isn’t there.

“The horrors of Newtown and countless other mass shootings are still with us,” Yee said in his own news release. “With this in mind, it is our responsibility to make sure our laws protect the innocent from the threat of gun violence.”

In other Bay Area-based gun policy news, Oakland City Council on Tuesday night unanimously approved a resolution asking the state Legislature to pass a bill creating a bullet tax.

AB 187 by Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland, would impose a 10 percent tax on ammunition to fund crime prevention efforts in the state’s most crime-ridden areas. Bonta had said last month that his bill might merge with another lawmaker’s proposed nickel-per-round tax to fund mental-health screening for children. He also said his tax is mostly about generating money to “combat the gun violence in our communities,” but could have the “secondary benefit” of stemming “rampant sales.”

Oakland Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan, who introduced the resolution along with City Attorney Barbara Parker, issued a statement saying that the bill’s endorsement is part of an effort to work with state officials to stop gun violence.

“This bill would significantly improve our ability to make communities safer,” Kaplan said. “I’m committed to working with leaders at all levels of government to stop gun violence.”

AB 187 is scheduled to be heard Monday, May 6 by the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee.

Forty-seven House Republicans sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner today urging him to refuse to bring to a floor vote any gun-policy legislation that isn’t backed by a majority of Republicans – first and foremost including a push for expanded background checks.

The letter was drafted by Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, and Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga.

“The Second Amendment is the stronghold of our Constitutionally-protected freedoms,” they said in a joint statement. “As constitutional conservative Members of Congress, we have taken an oath to defend those rights from all infringements. However, the push for universal background checks takes the right to bear arms, which should be protected by the government, and transforms it into a privilege granted by the government. This is both unlawful and unacceptable.

“While our hearts go out to the victims of all violent gun crimes, we must not let the emotions of such tragedies dictate policy that will only affect law-abiding citizens,” the lawmakers continued. “Therefore, we urge Speaker Boehner and our Republican leadership to soundly and publicly reject all efforts to breach our Second Amendment protected rights – starting first by standing up to universal background checks.”

I’m having trouble deciphering some of the signatures, and neither Broun’s nor Stockman’s office responded to my request for a clean list. The one California member’s name that I can clearly discern is that of Doug LaMalfa, R-Oroville, a House freshman and former state Senator and Assemblyman who has an “A” grade from the National Rifle Association.

Read the letter in its entirety, after the jump…
Read the rest of this entry »

A vast majority of veterans believe that it’s important for Congress and President Obama to address gun violence, and that responsible gun owners’ Second Amendment rights can be protected while making it harder for criminals and other dangerous people to own guns, according to a new poll.

A tremendous 91 percent of veterans support requiring a background check of everyone who wants to buy a firearm, the poll found, and 99 percent support increasing criminal penalties for people convicted of trafficking guns to criminals.

Rep. Mike Thompson, the chairman of House Democrats’ gun violence task force, released the survey’s results Thursday at a news conference in Washington, D.C.

“As today’s study shows, America’s heroes who have carried guns in defense of our nation overwhelmingly agree that it’s time for Congress to act to reduce gun violence; I’m one of them,” Thompson, D-Napa, said in a news release. “As a Vietnam veteran, hunter, and gun owner, I know that we can keep guns from criminals and the dangerously mentally ill, and respect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. The best way to do this is by expanding background checks. Background checks are the first line of defense against guns getting in the hands of those we all agree shouldn’t have them.”

The poll of 804 registered voters who are military veterans was conducted online from April 2 through 4 by Global Strategy Group on behalf of Center for American Progress Action Fund and VoteVets, both liberal groups; it has a 3.5-percentage-point margin of error.

The poll found that 85 percent of veterans say it’s important for national leaders to address gun violence, and the same number agree constitutional rights can be protected while measures are taken to keep guns away from criminals and the dangerously mentally ill. It also found that veterans’ opinions of the National Rifle Association are split, with 43 percent feeling favorably toward the gun-lobbying organization and 36 percent feeling unfavorably toward it.

Also, 61 percent of veterans support banning high-capacity ammunition magazines, and 58 percent support banning assault-style weapons.

The poll also surveyed how a lawmaker’s support of background checks would affect veterans’ votes. Only 12 percent of veterans said such support would make them less likely to vote for the lawmaker; 58 percent say it would make them more likely to vote for the lawmaker; and 29 percent said the issue isn’t important enough to them to affect their vote.

But the poll also found 31 percent of veteran voters say the NRA’s endorsement would make them less likely to vote for that lawmaker, while 30 percent said it would make them more likely to vote for that lawmaker.

Thompson also Thursday praised the U.S. Senate for voting to allow debate on a gun-control bill.

“Today Senate Republicans and Democrats voted overwhelmingly to reject the shameful filibuster that attempted to deny Americans a vote on legislation that will reduce and prevent gun violence,” he said. “The bipartisan background check legislation that I will introduce and will be voted on in the Senate is enforceable, will save lives, and respects the Second Amendment rights of law abiding Americans. It’s time for Congress to act. The American people are getting a vote in the Senate. They deserve one in the House.”

As President Obama steps up the pressure on Congress to enact gun policy reforms, Bay Area officials and residents are planning to speak and act on the issue this Saturday, April 13.

Rep. Jackie Speier, D-San Mateo, and South San Francisco, Daly City, San Bruno, Pacifica, Burlingame, Colma, Millbrae, Brisbane and Broadmoor police departments will hold a gun buyback from 9 a.m. to noon Saturday at the South San Francisco Courthouse, 1050 Mission Road. Any resident of those cities and towns can surrender weapons, no questions asked, and receive up to $100 cash for a handgun, shotgun or rifle, and up to $200 cash for an assault weapon.

People interested in participating in the gun buyback can call 650-829-3700 for more information. Participants must transport firearms unloaded and in their vehicles’ trunks.

“Fewer guns mean fewer accidents and fewer chances for guns to fall into the wrong hands,” Speier said in a news release.

At the same time, the Silicon Valley North chapter of Organizing for Action – the successor organization to the president’s 2012 campaign – plans a rally against gun violence at 11 a.m. in Centennial Plaza, next to the Mountain View Caltrain station. OFA activists from across the Bay Area will be joined by volunteers and speakers from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, Safety Action, Silicon Valley Community Against Gun Violence, and Parents Against Gun Violence.

I’ll be at a different kind of gun-violence vigil this Saturday: the memorial service for my former colleague Lionel Fluker, who was killed by a stray bullet last Friday night as he drove near his Oakland home. The public service will be at noon in the CP Bannon Mortuary, 6800 International Blvd. in Oakland.

Lionel – a freelance photographer for the Oakland Tribune from 1995 to 2007 – was a man of immense professional talent but even greater cheer and charm. He was among the most upbeat, pleasant people I’ve met in this industry, and his ever-present smile will be sorely missed by all those who knew him. He was 54, and is survived by family members including a 20-year-old daughter, Dominique.

As I’ve spent the last few months reporting on gun policy, one myth has kept cropping up – from an adamant gun-range manager in Shasta County to countless snarky emails I’ve received – to which some gun-rights advocates insist on clinging despite all evidence to the contrary: That Newtown shooter Adam Lanza used handguns, not a semi-automatic rifle considered by many to be an “assault weapon,” in his horrific rampage.

I noted here in January that the myth began with a video clip from NBC’s Today show which reported that Lanza had taken four handguns into the school but left the rifle in his car. That video is wrong; it was based on unnamed sources and aired as the news was still breaking on Dec. 15, the day after the shooting, before authorities had briefed the media on what weapons were actually used. The correct information was released later that day. But this video clip has been reposted so many times since – with or without the knowledge that it’s dead wrong – that Connecticut State Police felt compelled to re-issue the correct information in January.

Today there’s a new statement from Stephen J. Sedensky III, State’s Attorney for the Judicial District of Danbury, who’s been heading the investigation:

(T)the shooter went to Sandy Hook Elementary school where he shot his way into the building and killed 20 children and 6 adults with a Bushmaster .223 caliber model XM15 rifle. The Bushmaster was loaded with a 30-round capacity magazine. Fourteen rounds were in the magazine when the Bushmaster was recovered by police. There was one round in the chamber.

The shooter took his own life with a single shot from a Glock 10 mm handgun. He also had a loaded 9mm Sig Sauer P226 handgun on his person. Recovered from the person of the shooter, in addition to more ammunition for the handguns, were three, 30-round magazines for the Bushmaster, each containing 30 rounds. Located in the area of the shootings were six additional 30-round magazines containing 0, 0, 0, 10, 11, and 13 live rounds respectively. One-hundred-and-fifty-four spent .223 casings were recovered from the scene.

It is currently estimated that the time from when the shooter shot his way into the school until he took his own life was less than five minutes.

The police found a loaded 12-gauge shotgun in the passenger compartment of the car the shooter drove to the school. The shotgun was moved by police from the passenger compartment of the car to the trunk for safekeeping.

Lest anyone engage in baseless accusations that Sedensky is peddling partisan propaganda, it looks to me as if every one of the Connecticut Criminal Justice Commission members who appointed him to his job are Republican appointees themselves.

Not that it matters all that much – torn apart by bullets is torn apart by bullets, no matter what kind of gun fired those bullets. But I do believe it’s impossible to have a serious discussion on gun policy unless everyone accepts the facts. These are the facts.

Sedensky also today released search-warrant information which describes items taken from Lanza’s home and car. See the search-warrant documents here:

Adam Lanza Search Warrants

Rep. Mike Honda has led 42 other House members in urging the Obama administration to omit from its budget amendments that block law enforcement from being able to track firearms used in crime.

The Tiahrt Amendments are a set of policy riders that have been attached, for the last nine years, to annual appropriations bills. They prohibit the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from requiring licensed gun dealers to perform inventory checks; require that background check records be destroyed within 24 hours; and limit state and local law enforcement authorities’ access and use of ATF gun trace data.

The lawmakers sent a letter Tuesday to Jeffrey Zients, acting director of the White House Office of Management and Budget.

“While pharmacies and other fields are required to check for inventory, guns are not. As a result, the restrictive Tiahrt Amendments have allowed thousands of guns to cross our border or to be purchased illegally without any oversight. These guns are now killing innocent Americans and limiting investigations by authorities,” Honda, a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee and its Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science, said in a news release.

“I have worked for years on the Appropriations Committee to repeal these amendments and believe that now is finally the time to put common sense reforms in place to stop the flow of illegal guns and end the violence,” he said. “We must now ensure that the FY14 budget is clean of this language, which has never had a floor vote or a full debate.”

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, among the signatories of Honda’s letter, said the amendments “block access to vital information that lawmakers, police-officers, and federal agencies need to begin to tackle the epidemic of gun violence in our communities. We must treat gun violence for what it is: a public health epidemic, and no one would ever stop the Centers for Disease Control from tracking data on heart disease.”

Others signing the letter include Reps. Jackie Speier, D-San Mateo; Rep. Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael; and Rep. Sam Farr, D-Santa Cruz.

California voters support a wide range of gun-control measures and say it’s more important to protect people from gun violence than to protect Second Amendment rights, according to a new statewide poll.

When asked whether they felt it is more important to protect people from gun violence than protect American’s right to own guns, a majority of California voters — 51 percent — said that they felt it is more important to protect people from gun violence; 46 percent agreed “strongly” with that statement. In comparison, 37 percent of voters said it’s more important to protect the right to own guns, with 32 percent agreeing “strongly.”

The University of Southern California Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll of 1,501 registered voters, conducted March 11-17 by two polling firms – one Democratic, one Republican – has a 2.9-point margin of error.

The poll found about a quarter of Californians own a firearm, compared to about 34 percent of American households as estimated by a recent General Social Survey.

“Politics is a natural outgrowth of culture,” poll director Dan Schnur, a former Republican strategist who directs USC’s Unruh Institute of Politics, said in a news release. “And because the percentage of Californians who own guns is so much lower than the ownership rates of guns in other parts of the country, it shouldn’t surprise us that Californian’s attitudes toward gun control are much stronger than places where people are more likely to own or maintain a firearm.”

The gap between those emphasizing gun-violence reduction and protection of gun rights in this poll isn’t as large as that reported by the Field Poll last month; that earlier poll found 61 percent preferred imposing greater controls while 34 percent preferred protecting gun rights.

Asked about potential ways to curb gun violence, 92 percent of California voters told the USC/Times poll that they support background checks for all gun sales, which the state already requires; only 6 percent were opposed.

On other proposed gun-control measures:

89 percent favor updating the national database used for background checks by improving the reporting of mental health records, while 8 percent oppose;

87 percent favor increasing penalties for those who commit crimes with guns, while 9 percent oppose;

85 percent favor increasing penalties for those who illegally buy, while 12 percent oppose;

79 percent favor requiring ammunition buyers to provide a thumbprint and ID for background checks, while 19 percent oppose; and

71 percent favor requiring all gun owners to be registered, licensed and insured, while 26 percent oppose.

Lots more, after the jump…
Read the rest of this entry »

One of the most controversial gun-control bills introduced in California this year – a move toward taking the 166,000 registered assault weapons that are grandfathered under the state’s ban – is dead, its author said today.

When Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland, introduced AB 174 in January, it declared the Legislature’s intent to end all “grandfather clauses” allowing ownership of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. The bill was gutted and amended Tuesday to address public-school health centers instead.

Bonta said Thursday that he realized his proposal was a non-starter.

“It would be extremely expensive, for one – if you were going to take back guns that have were grandfathered in, you would have to provide market compensation for them,” he said. “I didn’t think that made the most sense from a fiscal perspective.”

Bonta also said he was very aware of the gun lobby’s assertion that any state or national registration of firearms is merely a prelude to confiscation – something his bill actually pursued.

“I didn’t want to have a bill that plays into that argument,” he said. “I wanted to concentrate on some other bills that I thought would be more focused and more effective.”

Bonta is carrying other gun-control bills including AB 187, a 10-percent tax on ammunition sales to fund crime-prevention efforts in California cities most torn by gun violence; AB 180, giving Oakland special dispensation to enact gun regulations more strict than the state’s; and AB 1020, requiring the state to send a letter to gun buyers during their 10-day waiting periods reminding them that “straw purchases” on behalf of those banned from owning guns are illegal.

U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein sounded pretty ticked off when she spoke on CNN a few moments ago about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pronouncing dead her effort to reinstate the federal assault-weapons ban.

Feinstein, D-Calif., said Reid, D-Nev., told her she would have an opportunity for a vote and “I take him at his word.”

More specifically, Feinstein said she left her meeting with Reid under the impression that she’d get a vote both on her overall bill and on a broken-out section that would only ban large-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

“This is very important to me and I’m not going to lay down and play dead,” she told CNN, noting polls show public support for an assault-weapons ban and her bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee last Thursday on a 10-8 vote. “Not to give me a vote on this would be a major betrayal of trust, as I would see it.”

The Judiciary Committee passed the bill on a strict party-line vote, and Reid told reporters Tuesday that the proposed assault weapons ban isn’t holding up against Senate rules requiring at least 60 votes to end debate and move to final passage. It’s been known all along that Reid and several other Democratic senators from relatively conservative states probably wouldn’t support such a bill.

The White House replied that the assault-weapons ban can still be brought up as an amendment, and the votes can be found to pass it.

Polls have shown majority support for an assault weapons ban, though far weaker than that for universal background checks or a large-capacity magazine ban. A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll pegged support for an assault-weapons ban at 57 percent; Quinnipiac University put it at 54 percent; and the Pew Research Center/USA Today put it at 56 percent.