Placeholder while loading article actions
Tuesday’s vote in the Senate to advance a close bipartisan deal to tighten federal gun laws was, on the one hand, a political miracle, with 14 Republicans joining Democrats to challenge the National Rifle Association and conservative critics, in an election year, no more and no less.
Seen another way, however, strong Republican opposition to a bill that only offered comparatively incremental adjustments to existing gun laws after a growing series of mass shootings demonstrated the resilience of harsh views on the gun rights and highlighted the decline of the inner body. Senate Republicans who are willing to cut even modest deals with Democrats.
The 64- to 34-vote test on Tuesday, which put the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act on track to be passed later this week, provided a roadmap on how the government can still move on. sensitive in a divided time, very carefully, with the right. players, and in the right circumstances.
No player was more crucial than Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Who was used by Deputy Leadership Senator John Cornyn (R-Tex.) After the May 24 massacre. at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas. , and made it clear that the time had come, unlike in the past, for Republicans to reach an agreement on armed violence.
“This time it’s different,” McConnell said Wednesday in a speech that formally supported the deal Cornyn negotiated. “This time, the Democrats came our way and agreed to advance some common sense solutions without revoking the rights of law-abiding citizens. The result is a product I am proud to support.”
McConnell, however, finds himself in the minority of a divided Republican conference, a position he often tries to avoid.
In Tuesday’s test vote, there were only 13 more Republicans, including three who will retire next year and six more who, like McConnell, will not be re-elected until 2026. Another Republican in favor of the deal failed. vote Tuesday, Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.) also retires.
Among the 34 Republicans who voted no Tuesday were several members of McConnell’s leadership team, including GOP Sen. John Thune (SD), the No. 2 leader, and Sen. John Barrasso (Wyo.). 3, and several senators. who have openly flirted with presidential candidates.
Some of those Republicans were among the most open on Wednesday in publicly opposing the deal and warning that a conservative reaction was being prepared that could pull supporters of the deal out of power. One of them, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Summed up the reaction of his constituents to the bill as “fury.”
“People are absolutely furious that this bill does nothing significant to address the wave of national crime. It does nothing significant to address the escalation of attacks on police and civilians,” he said. “I mean, in Missouri, we have a record number of homicides, car thefts, violent crime, and it’s everywhere. And this bill does nothing.”
After Cornyn made a final presentation to his colleagues at a Republican Senate lunch on Wednesday, emphasizing funding for mental health and law enforcement in the bill, as well as the stronger provisions for gun control left out, Barrasso and Senator Ted Cruz (R). -Tex.) Proposed voting on a different bill that completely eliminated gun measures, rather than focusing solely on mental health and school safety provisions.
A larger group of Senate Conservatives also expressed public dismay, including Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), Who told reporters that his office phones were “lit up” with people. that “they are disappointed that we have 14 Republicans voting for it … that we had the Republican base putting that on top.”
Asked about McConnell’s role, he said, “There are a lot of disappointed people … everywhere.”
Meanwhile in the House, top leaders quickly distanced themselves from Senate negotiators, with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calise) and Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) Saying to its members a few hours after Tuesday’s Senate vote that they would oppose it.
A note sent from the Scalise office to GOP lawmakers on Wednesday said the bill represents “an effort to slowly break the rights of the second amendment of law-abiding citizens” and that “it contains insufficient railings to ensure “I know the money is really going to keep the guns out.” from the hands of criminals or to prevent mass violence ”.
“I’m 100 percent against, 100 percent,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a prominent Conservative leader in the House. “That’s wrong, and I hope it doesn’t happen.”
Addressing reporters Wednesday, McConnell said it was “not uncommon” for members of his party to have opposing views. “We see it often,” he said.
In fact, McConnell has blessed several bipartisan agreements with Democrats since the GOP entered the Senate minority last year, including a $ 1.2 trillion infrastructure deal, an industrial policy bill. which aims to increase US competitiveness with China, a postal reform measure and more. In each case, they have seized it, despite obstacles we can scarcely imagine. “
Armed violence, however, was a particularly powerful test, and Uvalde’s tragedy came at a particularly sensitive time, in the midst of a mid-term primary season in which several GOP senators have clashed or are on the verge of ‘face primaries against more conservative rivals.
But McConnell’s allies said there was a political logic to the decision to cut a modest deal with Democrats and show the public that the GOP is not a removable obstacle to action to tackle the drum of mass shootings.
“I think the country wants us to find a common ground in the area of unstable people using guns, to try to get better information on the system to stop some of these shootings,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham. (RS.C.). “When it comes to 80 percent support for these ideas, that’s a national consensus. And, you know, 20 percent, I respect their views, but when the public says, ‘You can’t do any What? “The answer is yes.”
Senator Thom Tillis (RNC), who negotiated the bill with Cornyn, called the bill a “balanced policy” and argued that it would effectively short-circuit future arms control efforts in the same way. that GOP support for the infrastructure bill probably prevented a much larger Democratic bill.
“If you look at what we didn’t do: no mandatory waiting periods, no ban on any weapons that can be legally bought today … I think that’s reasonable and I think most of the American people agree.” , he said. dit.
However, the political reality of Tuesday’s vote was bleak, with the deal backed primarily by Republican senators who are more isolated from the electoral repercussions. Even the two Republican senators in re-election this year who voted to advance the deal reflect this fundamental dynamic: Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) has independent voters and Democrats to survive her re-election effort against a rival more conservative Republican. , and Sen. Todd C. Young (R-Ind.) came out unopposed from a May 3 primary.
Young said Wednesday it was not a guaranteed vote in favor of the final bill, and said he was still “digesting the actual language.” But he praised funding for mental health and school safety in the bill and called the provisions on weapons “very reasonable.” If there is a conservative reaction to the bill, he said, it was not reflected in the comments of his constituents.
“Calls are about 10 to 1 in my office, 10 in favor of reasonable bans” to allow dangerous people to have access to firearms, he said. “For me, it’s just a matter of listening to my constituents and being sensitive, and every now and then the government has to do it, to be sensitive.”
Constituent pressure, however, went in the opposite direction for Senator Cynthia M. Lummis (R-Wyo.), Who expressed some openness to limited arms provisions this month. On Wednesday, he said, Wyoming voters who contacted his office had turned “massively” against the pending deal.
“Everyone is now concerned about the violation of the rights of the Second Amendment,” he said.
Senator Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Who voted against advancing the deal on Tuesday, summed up the message he received from voters as: “Get up.… Don’t give up, don’t give in to the Second Amendment.
However, he declined to criticize McConnell or other Republicans for accepting the deal and predicted that any political repercussions among the Republican base would be fleeting. “And I think at the end of the day … people at home are so caught up in inflation, the price of petrol, that this is not one of the top 10 issues for them.”
Meanwhile, for many of the Republicans who support the deal, the election consequences have nothing to do with it. “I’m not sure it’s good politics,” said Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah. “It will save lives, that’s why it’s good.”
Marianna Sotomayor contributed to this report.