Nothing Proves the End of Bipartisanship Like Gun Control

Activists have conceded plenty to earn GOP support. The Senate stands in the way.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) at a gun violence memorial on the National Mall on April 14, 2021.Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP Images

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

To hear Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) tell it, the hopes for Congress to pass meaningful gun legislation have simply been diminished, but are not altogether dashed. ā€œThere’s plenty of proof points to show how this issue has changed,ā€ insists the Senate’s leading champion in the Senate for new gun measures. Democrats, once terrified to touch the subject, have wholly embraced stricter gun laws. A few Republican senators have accepted Murphyā€™s invitation to discuss a potential deal to expand background checks. The Connecticut senator even clings to the idea that former President Donald Trump would have reached a compromise on the issue in 2019 if his first impeachment trial had not frayed whatever meager threads tethered him to bipartisanship.

But for all that purported shift, Murphy and his colleagues in the Senate have nothing to show. Since the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School that forged Murphy into the Senateā€™s leading gun control advocate, polls consistently find that a majority of Americans support background checks for every gun sale. Activists have conceded that they’d accept nearly any deal that Republicans would agree to. Yet Congress has not passed a single meaningful gun law over the past decade.

Murphy’s discussions with Republicans have taken on Sisyphean predictability. He approaches his GOP colleagues who claim to be open to compromiseā€”ā€œIā€™m not going to let perfect be the enemy of the good,ā€ he tells meā€”and the ensuing weeks or months of good faith talks result in a dramatic collapse with zero action. His latest effort came to an end last Thursday when he and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) parted ways after two months of negotiations. ā€œWeā€™ve hit a bit of a dead end,ā€ Murphy said. ā€œMaybe itā€™s permanent, maybe itā€™s not.ā€

Some activists privately expressed relief at the latest setback. Murphy’s latest plan aimed to modestly broaden who is required to conduct a background check before selling a weapon, a far cry from the universal background checks activists have long sought. It wasnā€™t even close to the compromise Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) brokered in the aftermath of the Sandy Hookā€”a measure that had four GOP votes but couldn’t overcome a Republican filibuster. ā€œThe only room in America where you couldnā€™t find 60 percent of support for that legislation was the Senate floor,ā€ says Christian Heyne, a gun violence survivor and the vice president for policy at gun control group Brady.

The endless cycle of hope followed by inaction has some gun rights groups at their wit’s end. ā€œSomething weā€™ve been talking about for a long timeā€”that has consistent, high levels of support in pollsā€”keeps getting stuck like this,ā€ says Chelsea Parsons, the vice president of gun violence prevention at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.

There have been nearly 300 mass shootings since Democrats took control of Congress earlier this year, according to the Gun Violence Archive. The pandemic raged alongside an alarming spike of shooting deaths across communities devastated by everyday gun violence. For the better part of a decade, the gun violence prevention movement has done everything it can to encourage both parties to support their issue. Theyā€™ve swayed public opinion, flipped Congress and the White House with the promise of reforms, and even endorsed GOP candidates who supported gun laws when their party would not. They’ve given up dream legislation for the reality of whatever might pass. Yet the intransigence of Republicans persists. And increasingly, the blame is falling on the Senate rules, in which any attempts to pass a gun control bill run roughshod into the filibuster.

Iā€™ve logged hours speaking with Murphy about guns ever since the February 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida that fed the fury of grassroots activists as the midterm elections approached. Murphy laid out his predictions for the post-Parkland era on a steamy New England afternoon in July of that year, as we walked together alongside a busy road in a Connecticut suburb. ā€œIf Republicans get wiped out in 2018, guns have got to be part of their post-mortem,ā€ Murphy told me. ā€œThey will look at the swing districts they lost and see their fealty to the NRA as a major liability.ā€ Then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Murphy assured me, was ā€œgoing to have to do an assessment of the politics on this issue.ā€

McConnell, of course, did not. He refused to bring the universal background check bill to a vote in the Senate after it passed the House in 2019, taking only a fleeting interest in bipartisan legislation after a spree of mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio that August. Murphy, meanwhile, began negotiating yet another ill-fated background checks proposal with the Trump White House, which would have expanded background checks to gun shows and internet sales without centralizing the records of said checks.

ā€œHaving Sen. Murphy reach out and work for bipartisan solutions is ultimately a good thing,ā€ Bradyā€™s Heyne tells me. He points to the fact that the universal background checks bill that passed the House earlier this year, just like the one that passed two years before it, earned a handful of Republican votes. ā€œWeā€™ll always fight for incremental progress. Whatā€™s clear is the current way that our system works, the current way that the Senate functions, the filibuster is just making it impossible for the most basic of things through.ā€

Murphy thinks there are Republican votes in the Senate for a background checks bill, and heā€™s still in talks with other GOP senators, including Toomey and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), on a potential compromise deal. Ultimately, heā€™s on the side of changing the rules, calling it ā€œridiculousā€ that a bill with broad support from the voting public canā€™t become law. ā€œThatā€™s not a functioning democracy,ā€ Murphy declares. ā€œYouā€™ve got to change the rules.ā€

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 canā€™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 wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”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 canā€™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 wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”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