Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Americans want action on gun control, but the Senate can’t move forward

Shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas

A Texas state trooper places flowers for the victims of the mass shooting at Robb Elementary School, where 21 people were killed, including 19 children.

Jordan Vonderhaar/Getty Images

Yet another tragic school shooting has prompted renewed calls for changes to the nation’s federal gun laws. But with Senate Republicans able to block nearly any bill from being passed, even a proposal that has overwhelmingly popular support seems virtually assured of going nowhere.

An 18-year-old gunman killed 19 students and two teachers at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, on Tuesday. According to media reports, the shooter, Salvador Ramos used two guns he purchased legally on his 18th birthday.

The House of Representatives has passed two bills enhancing background check requirements for gun sales, but the Democrats in charge of the Senate have delayed action in hopes of finding a way around Republicans’ parliamentary blockade.


In general, fewer people (but still a majority) have said they want stricter gun control laws in recent years. In 1990, 78 percent told Gallup the laws controlling the sale of firearms should be more strict. The number decreased over time, hitting a low of 44 percent in 2010. But after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, the numbers crept back up, peaking at 67 percent in 2018. This year, it was back down to 52 percent.

But when asked about specific proposals, the data can be quite different.

In March 2021, Politico and Morning Consult asked people for their opinions on two bills under consideration in Congress.

One would require background checks for all gun purchases. An overwhelming 84 percent said they support the proposal, including 77 percent of Republicans. That bill passed the House 227-203, with eight Republicans voting in favor and one Democrat in opposition.

The bill moved to the Senate 14 months ago, but it was never considered. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer put it on the legislative calendar Tuesday, indicating it could get a vote at some point in the near future.

The same day the House passed the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, the chamber also passed a second background checks bill. Currently, a gun dealer may complete a transaction if the FBI hasn’t concluded the buyer’s background check within three days. This bill would make the seller wait 10 days.

Known as the “Charleston loophole,” the current policy allowed a white gunman to purchase a weapon and kill nine people at a historically Black church in South Carolina in 2015.

Americans of all political stripes are less supportive of that proposal, with just 56 percent of Democrats, 50 percent of independents and 35 percent of Republicans backing it. Nevertheless, Schumer is hoping for a vote on that bill as well.

But Schumer knows the Senate will not pass either bill as they currently stand, so rather than holding an “accountability” vote that would fail but might create material for the campaign season, Schumer says he wants to try to allow time for compromise.

“My Republican colleagues can work with us now. I know this is a slim prospect, very slim, all too slim — we’ve been burned so many times before — but this is so important,” he said Wednesday on the Senate floor.

Advocates for new gun laws are not happy.

While passage of legislation only requires a bare majority, chamber rules allow individual senators to prevent a vote from even happening by engaging in (or merely threatening to engage in) a filibuster. Stopping or preventing a filibuster requires 60 votes, an insurmountable barrier in an evenly divided Senate.

The filibuster is a Senate rule that can be changed with a simple majority vote. Increasingly, liberals have been demanding Democrats change the rules to push through legislation they favor. Last year, they wanted to change or eliminate the filibuster to enact voting rights legislation. This year, abortion and gun control have been the catalysts for renewed calls.

However, two moderate Democrats, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, have repeatedly said they will oppose any changes to the rule.

As long as the filibuster remains intact, the minority will be able to control the legislative process.


Read More

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep ReadingShow less
Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep ReadingShow less
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less
Towards a Reformed Capitalism
oval brown wooden conference table and chairs inside conference room

Towards a Reformed Capitalism

Despite all the laws and regulations that apply to corporations, which for the most part are designed to make corporations more responsive to the greater good, corporations have wreaked great harm on our environment, their workers, their customers, and the general public. Despite all the rules, capitalism can still pretty much do what it wants.

The problem is not that the laws and regulations are not enforced, although that is partly true. The problem is more that the laws and regulations are weak because of the strong influence corporations have on both Congress (this is true of Democrats as well as Republicans) and those responsible for regulating.

Keep ReadingShow less