WASHINGTON — The discussion on Capitol Hill over proposed gun legislation turned Tuesday to the underlying constitutional issues on which the entire debate pivots.
Scores of families whose loved ones were killed by gun violence - including some parents of children from Newtown, Conn., the site of a mass school shooting in December - packed a hearing room to watch the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights. Legal scholars, lawyers, gun-rights advocates and others testified about the constitutionality of various proposals now being considered by Congress, including the reinstatement of an assault-weapons ban.
“Some say that all we should do is enforce the laws on the books,” said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the chairman of the subcommittee. He listed various measures under consideration, including universal background checks for gun sales, enhanced tools to stem illegal straw purchasing, an assault weapons ban and limits on the capacity of some ammunition magazines.
Durbin added, “All of these proposals are common sense. All of them have strong support among the American public. And all of them are clearly consistent with the Constitution and the Second Amendment.”
Lawmakers tangled over the 2008 Supreme Court decision that struck down parts of the District of Columbia’s strict gun-control law, particularly the majority opinion that found gun rights “not unlimited.”
The interpretation divided along party lines. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, the ranking member on the subcommittee, summed up the position of other Republicans in his opening remarks.
“In my view the divide on this issue is fairly straightforward,” Cruz said. “The focus should be on criminals.”
He said enhancing prosecutors’ tools, including possibly adding a federal statute against straw purchasing, was a place for “potential bipartisan” support.
“At the same time,” he said, “we should continue to respect and protect the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.”
Timothy Heaphy, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Virginia, was repeatedly questioned on the efficacy of current gun laws.When asked to weigh in on an assault-weapons ban, which many gun-rights advocates believe violates the spirit of the Supreme Court ruling because it bans, rather than limits, a specific category of firearms, he said he believed such a ban passed the constitutional test.
While the topics of the hearing varied from proposed legislation on mental-health services in schools to the wisdom of carrying a gun in restaurants, much attention focused around the one area upon which there is an increasing bipartisan consensus: enhanced and increased background checks for gun buyers. Patching holes in the existing laws “are our best opportunity to keep firearms out of dangerous hands,” Heaphy said.
Some Republicans expressed concerns about the wisdom of such enhanced laws - at one point Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., seemed deeply annoyed that he might have to undergo a background check to buy a gun from Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, to improve his hunting outcomes - and their efficacy.
“Some on our side wonder why raise all this fuss about background checks,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, noting that most criminals buy guns illegally.
But the enduring potential of new background checks was underscored by submitted testimony from Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
He emphasized the “need to close existing loopholes that allow criminals to avoid the common-sense requirement that gun sales should be performed with a background check.” Leahy also made some vague references to violent video games, but was silent on the idea of an assault-weapons ban.
Front Section, Pages 2 on 02/13/2013