Tuesday’s Senate vote to push for a close bipartisan agreement to tighten federal gun laws was, on one level, a political miracle, with 14 Republicans joining Democrats to defy the National Rifle Association and strongmen. Conservative critics – in an election year. Elsewhere, however, Republicans strongly opposed a bill that offered only comparatively gradual changes to existing gun laws after a series of mass shootings demonstrated the resilience of hardline views on gun rights and gave the body the upper hand. interior. the GOP of the Senate which is willing to conclude even mediocre agreements with the Democrats. The 64-to-34 test vote on Tuesday, which put the bipartisan Safe Communities Act on track later this week, provided a roadmap for how governance can still occur on sensitive issues in a divided age – very carefully, with the right players and under the right conditions. No player was more critical than Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Who used the trusted senior Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) In the aftermath of the May 24 massacre at an elementary school. 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 is different,” McConnell said Wednesday in a speech that formally endorsed the deal negotiated by Cornyn. “This time, the Democrats came our way and agreed to push for some common sense solutions without compromising the rights of law-abiding citizens. The result is a product that I’m proud to support. “ McConnell, however, is in the minority of a split Republican convention – a position he usually tries to avoid. In a test vote Tuesday, only 13 other Republicans backed the deal, including three who will step down next year and six who, like McConnell, are not ready for re-election by 2026. Another Republican backed the deal by not voting in favor. Tuesday, Senator Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.), Also retires. Among the 34 Republicans who voted no Tuesday were several members of McConnell’s leadership team – including Senator John Thune (SD), No. 2 GOP leader and Sen. John Barrasso (Wyo.), No. 3 – and many senators who have openly flirted with the presidential candidacies. Some of those Republicans were among the most outspoken on Wednesday who publicly opposed the deal and warned of conservative reactions that could oust supporters of the deal from power. One of them, Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Summed up his voters’ reaction to the bill as “mania.” “People are outraged that this bill does nothing to tackle the national wave of crime. “It makes no sense to tackle the escalating attacks on police and civilians.” “I mean, in Missouri, we have record numbers of homicides, car robberies, violent crimes, and they are everywhere. “And this bill does nothing about it.” After Cornyn made the final proposal to his colleagues at a Republican luncheon in the Senate – emphasizing mental health and law enforcement funding as well as stronger gun control provisions – Barrasso and Senator Ted Cruz (R -Tex.) proposed passing a different bill that would abolish gun ownership altogether, instead focusing solely on mental health and school safety provisions. A wider group of Senate Conservatives also expressed public frustration, including Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), Who told reporters that his office phones were “lit up” with voicemails that were “disappointed that 14 Republicans voted” “We had the Republican base to put it on top of that.” Asked about McConnell’s role, he said, “There are a lot of frustrated people. Everywhere.” In Parliament, meanwhile, top leaders quickly distanced themselves from Senate negotiators – with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) And Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) Telling members a few hours after Tuesday’s Senate vote that he would oppose it. A memo sent Wednesday from the Scalise office to GOP lawmakers said the bill represented “an attempt to gradually eliminate the rights of law-abiding citizens in Amendment 2” and that it contained insufficient protective railings to ensure that money would be “They are really available to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals or to prevent mass violence.” “I’m 100 percent against – 100 percent,” said Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a prominent Conservative leader in Parliament. “This is the mistake we have to make and I hope it does not happen.” Addressing reporters Wednesday, McConnell said it was “not at all unusual” for his party members to have opposing views. “We see it often,” he said. In fact, McConnell has blessed many bipartisan agreements with Democrats since the GOP entered the Senate minority last year, including a $ 1.2 trillion infrastructure deal, an industrial policy bill aimed at boosting U.S. competitiveness with China. , a measure of postal reform and much more. In each case, they have seized it, despite obstacles we can scarcely imagine. “ Armed violence, however, was a particularly powerful ordeal, and Uvalde’s tragedy came at a particularly sensitive time – in the midst of a midterm qualifying season in which several GOP senators faced or are about to face the race against more conservative challengers. But McConnell’s allies said there was political logic in the decision to strike a modest deal with the Democrats and to prove to the public that the Republican Party is not a fixed obstacle to action to tackle the drum of mass shootings. “I think the country wants to find some common ground in the area of volatile people using guns in an effort to get better information in 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, this is a national consensus. And, you know, 20 percent – I respect their opinions, but when the audience says, “Can’t you do something?” the answer is yes. “ Senator Thom Tillis (RN.C.), who negotiated the bill with Cornyn, called the bill a “balanced policy” and argued that it effectively short-circuited future arms control efforts – just as the GOP’s support for The infrastructure bill probably prevented a much larger partisan Democratic bill. “If you take a look at what we did not do – no mandatory waiting periods, no arms embargoes that can be legally purchased today… I think it makes sense and I think the majority of the American people agree with that,” he said. However, the political reality of Tuesday’s vote was strong, with the agreement being backed mainly by Republican senators who are more isolated from the electoral implications. Even the two GOP senators who voted to push for the deal on Tuesday reflect this fundamental momentum: Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) relies on independent and Democratic voters to survive an attempt to re-elect a more anti-Semitic Republican challenger, and Sen. Todd C. Young (R-Ind.) Withdrew unopposed from the May 3 primary. Young on Wednesday said he had no guaranteed vote in favor of the final bill, saying he was still “digesting the real language”. However, he praised the funding of mental health and school safety in the bill and described the provisions on weapons as “very reasonable”. If there is a conservative reaction to the bill, he said, it was not reflected in the comments of his constituents. “The 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 listening to my voters and responding, and occasionally the government really needs to do it – respond.” However, constituent pressure went in the opposite direction for Senator Cynthia M. Lummis (R-Wyo.), Who expressed some openness to limited arms provisions this month. On Wednesday, she said, Wyoming voters who contacted her office had turned “en masse” against the pending agreement. “Everyone is now worried about the Second Amendment rights being violated,” he said. Senator Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Who voted against the deal on Tuesday, summed up the message he received from voters: “Stand up. … Do not give up, do not leave any room for the Second Amendment. “ He declined to criticize McConnell or other Republicans for adopting the agreement, however, and predicted that any political implications for the GOP would be “elusive”: agree to disagree after that. “And I think at the end of the day, people back home are so caught up in inflation, the price of gasoline, that this is not a top-10 issue for them.” For many of the Republicans who support the deal, meanwhile, any electoral consequences are out of the question. “I’m not sure it’s a good policy,” said Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah). “It will save lives – that’s good.” Marianna Sotomayor contributed to this report.
