Trigger happy on the filibuster

I supported Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., in his recent filibuster protesting the drone strike program, but there really can be too much of a good thing.

Paul has threatened to filibuster again, this time in opposition to gun regulation measures.  

In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Paul and 12 other Republican senators vowed to filibuster legislation that would expand background checks and crack down on interstate gun trafficking.

One would think this legislation includes confiscating guns or banning high-capacity magazine clips to warrant such dramatic outrage from the filibuster-friendly gang of senators.

However, the proposed legislation is modest at best. We’re talking background checks and gun trafficking here.

Conducting background checks is a policy that works. Studies have shown background checks have reduced the rate of gun-related crime, and they also act as a deterrent from even attempting to purchase weapons.

Where background checks are in place, they work well, but they need to be expanded.

Currently, individuals convicted of prior violent misdemeanors can purchase guns, despite the evidence they are at a substantially higher risk of committing violent crimes in the future.

Denying these individuals weapons and expanding the background checks will reduce violent crime.

Although gun retailer transactions require background checks, private sales and transactions at gun shows do not. The legislation Paul and his colleagues want to filibuster would attempt to close these loopholes.

Background checks aren’t just smart policy — they’re smart politics, too.

Recent polls have shown that 90 percent of Americans support expanding background checks, which is about as many people as you can get to agree on a political issue.

This is a very strong indicator that there is broad, public consensus on this issue, and Paul and the other 12 Republicans who want to block this legislation are out of touch on an issue that almost every American agrees on.

The only notable entity that opposes expanding background checks is the National Rifle Association, which gave more than a $1 million in campaign contributions last election and spent almost $3 million on lobbying in 2012.

One of the senators who has threatened to filibuster is our very own Dan Coats, R-Ind.

I find it odd Coats opposes this legislation so much because it looks to crackdown on interstate gun trafficking, a big problem in Indiana.

Often times, gun trafficking between states occurs when a state with cheaper firearms or lax gun laws borders a state or big city with strict gun regulation.

For example, Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws, but there’s a very high concentration of illegal weapons in the city because of gun trafficking from Indiana.

Thousands of guns are being poured onto the streets of Chicago, and hundreds of gun-related murders take place each year. Indiana is partially responsible for this, accounting for the largest number of guns being brought into Chicago outside of Illinois.

The legislation that will be proposed will include tougher enforcement of this gun-trafficking, and it should be something the senior senator from Indiana supports, rather than something he filibusters.

Expanding background checks and cracking down on interstate gun trafficking is not radical legislation that will lead to the government taking all of our guns.

Quite frankly, these proposals are weak, and I believe there should be much stronger measures taken to combat gun violence.

The threat of a filibuster is an irrational overreaction to modest proposals that do nothing but improve upon existing law.


­— samblatt@indiana.edu