Senators in Staunch Opposition Over Gun Control Reach Compromise to Improve Background Checks

“A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”

Semi-automatic rifles line the walls of a gun shop in Lynnwood, Washington.Elaine Thompson/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

The day after a new poll revealed that 95 percent of American voters support universal background checks for gun purchases—a record high—a bi-partisan group of lawmakers introduced legislation to improve the federal background check system.

The measure would not mandate a background check for every gun sale. The “compromise” legislation, as the senators put it, would instead focus on requiring state and federal agencies to do a better job of entering criminal history records into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), as is already required by law. The Fix NICS Act would penalize federal agencies that fail to properly input records and incentivize states to improve their overall reporting.

The group of seven senators sponsoring the bill is led by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), who has an A+ rating from the NRA, and includes four Republicans and three Democrats—Sens. Chris Murphy (D-CT), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), all prominent gun safety advocates.

“It’s no secret that I believe much more needs to be done,” Sen. Murphy said in a statement on Thursday. “But this bill will make sure that thousands of dangerous people are prevented from buying guns. It represents the strongest update to the background checks system in a decade, and provides the foundation for more compromise in the future.”

The bill was inspired by an apparent loophole that came to light in the wake of the tragic mass shooting at a baptist church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, that left 26 dead earlier this month. The shooter had a history of domestic abuse; as a member of the Air Force, he’d been court-martialed for two charges of domestic assault, sentenced to 12 months of confinement, and was kicked out of the military in 2014 with a Bad Conduct Discharge. Technically, his crimes prevented him from legally buying a gun, but the Air Force never submitted the criminal records for the the NICS database, allowing him to pass a background check and purchase a gun. It’s unclear how frequently this occurs, but the Trace found that it may be a much wider problem than this isolated incident.

“Mass murderers in Sutherland Springs, Charleston, and Blacksburg were legally prohibited from accessing firearms, but gaps in NICS allowed each of them to walk out of a gun store with the weapons used to commit their crimes,” said Sen. Blumenthal. He told the New York Times, “It may seem to many like a baby step, but a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, and this one could well be important in breaking the ice of complicity that has paralyzed Congress.”

This isn’t the first time that lawmakers have introduced a law to force federal agencies to better comply with existing gun-control laws. In 2007, the House voted to close a loophole that allowed the Virginia Tech gunman to purchase weapons despite having been committed to a mental hospital. It provided grant money for states to update the background checks database, adding more criminal records and mental health information, and was similarly viewed as a compromise bill between lawmakers with opposing political views. A co-sponsor, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), said at the time, “This act will ensure that the background check system really is instant and accurate.” 

There has been improvement in reporting on both criminal backgrounds and mental health since then, but ten years and several mass shootings later shows there is still much to be done.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate