Photograph by Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP Photo

Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., waves as she ends her speech at the 40th annual Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Md., on March 15, 2013.

Written with Jonathan Salant

Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire says opponents “can’t bully me into changing my vote” on background checks for gun buyers.

The opponents in this case, she says, are New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and President Barack Obama. The mayor, co-founder of Bloomberg LP, parent company of Bloomberg News, is among the mayors in Mayors Against Illegal Guns who announced a new TV ad this week targeting Ayotte for her vote against the background check bill that died in the Senate for lack of 60 votes.

In doing so, the mayors say, Ayotte voted against the 89 percent of New Hampshire voters who support the measure. Ayotte has been singled out more than any of the other Republican opponents of the measure because of where she lives, a swing state that is sympathetic to Democratic causes.

Ayotte says the legislation she opposed, which would require purchasers at gun shows and over the Internet to undergo the same criminal background checks as those buying weapons from licensed firearm dealers, would do “nothing to prevent a deranged individual from obtaining and misusing firearms to commit horrific tragedies like the one in Newtown.”

Original post is Ayotte in Crossfire: ‘Can’t Bully Me’ by Political Capital.

Photograph by Alex Wong/Getty Images

Members of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America wait to enter the office of Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) at Russell Senate Office Building on April 17, 2013 in Washington, DC. The group held a ‘Stroller Jam’ event to call on senators to vote to strengthen gun regulations.

There may be no one senator spotlighted so intensely about her vote against background checks for gun-buyers as New Hampshire’s Kelly Ayotte.

Fifty percent of New Hampshire voters surveyed by Public Policy Polling after the vote said they would be less likely to support her in a future election, compared with 23 percent who called it a positive.

This is a Republican who won her seat in 2010 by a 23-percentage point margin.

Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ Americans for Responsible Solutions is running ads against Ayotte and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

The anti-Ayotte ads encourages listeners to call her and let her know “how disappointed they are by her decision to “go Washington” instead of remaining loyal to her constituents.

There is one group happy about Ayotte’s vote — she was one of four Democrats who voted on principal against the expansion of background checks in the Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada voted no to preserve the right to seek reconsideration as a member of the prevailing side. It failed on a vote of 54-46, with 60 votes needed for Senate approval.

That’s the National Rifle Association, airing a radio ad in the Granite State:

“Washington is full of politicians out of touch with the problems of our lives. While we worry about keeping our kids safe, too many of them worry about keeping their own power. But Senator Kelly Ayotte is focused on meaningful bipartisan solutions to our nation’s problems.”

“That’s because Kelly Ayotte is not just a senator, she’s also a mom who cares about protecting our kids. She knows that they only way to protect our children from tragedies like Sandy Hook is to fix our broken mental health system. That’s why Kelly Ayotte brought Republicans and Democrats together on a bipartisan solution and it’s why Kelly had the courage to oppose misguided gun control laws that would not have prevented Sandy Hook.

“Kelly Ayotte is focused on prosecuting law breakers and fixing our broken mental health system. Call her at 202-224-3121 and thank her for focusing on protecting our kids and our New Hampshire values. Paid for by the New Hampshire men and women of the National Rifle Association.”

Original post is Kelly Ayotte Gets Her Gun Ads by Political Capital.

Photograph by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Boxes of ammunition sit on the shelf at Sportsmans Arms in Petaluma, California.

If proponents of gun safety legislation were counting on a public backlash over the Senate’s vote against expansion of background checks for gun-buyers, they won’t find it here:

Among Americans surveyed by the Pew Research Center on a subject which generally has been found to enjoy 90 percent public support — the expansion of gun background checks — only 47 percent voiced negative feelings about the Senate’s vote while 39 percent had a positive reaction.

The White House and other advocates of gun safety have suggested that senators who scuttled the background check bill will be hearing from voters. Yet this initial gauge of public reaction suggests something less than a groundswell of reaction on the issue.

The Senate voted 54-46 for a bipartisan measure last week — falling six votes shy of the 60 needed to advance it in the chamber. Five Democrats and 41 Republicans voted no, though Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did so to preserve his right to ask for reconsideration of the matter.

Overall, 15 percent of Americans surveyed said they are angry this legislation was voted down and 32 percent said they are disappointed. On the other side, 20 percent said they are very happy the legislation was blocked, while 19 percent said they are relieved.

The national survey of 1,002 adults was conducted April 18-21.

“Republicans and Democrats paid equally close attention to the gun debate last week: 40 percent across party lines say they tracked the events very closely, making it the second most closely followed story last week, after the terrorist bombings at the Boston Marathon.” Pew notes.

Original post is Public Reaction to Senate Gun Vote: 47% Negative, 39% Positive by Political Capital.

Photograph by Alex Wong/Getty Images

Sen. Heidi Heitkamp

As they vow to continue their fight, backers of the expanded firearm background-check measure derailed in the Senate today — beginning with President Barack Obama — are pounding away at poll results showing that 90 percent of American voters support the proposal.

Indeed, a Quinnipiac University survey released earlier this month put the figure at 91 percent in favor of requiring background checks for all gun buyers — language that goes further than the plan unsuccessfully promoted by Sens. Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat, and Pat Toomey, a Pennsylvania Republican.

The political irrelevancy to some lawmakers, though, of what an overwhelming number of Americans from coast to coast may think is underscored by a statement Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota released today shortly before she joined a handful of other Democrats in rebuking Obama and other party leaders to join Republicans in thwarting the Manchin-Toomey legislation.

“I’ve thought long and hard about this, I’ve taken the tough meetings, and I’ve heard overwhelmingly from the people of North Dakota; and at the end of the day my duty is to listen to and represent the people of North Dakota.”

That’s a state with a population just shy of 700,000 as of last year, according to the Census Bureau, in a nation with roughly 314 million residents.

Three of the other Democrats voting against the increased background checks were definitely on the spot – Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mark Begich of Alaska are all on the ballot next year in states that lean Republican and where bucking the National Rifle Association on gun control measures could doom their already dicey re-election prospects.

Heitkamp, 57, didn’t face that type of pressure. A former state attorney general, she won her Senate seat just last November, and so won’t face voters again until 2018.

Regardless, here’s what she had to say after her vote:  “Throughout the debate, I stood firm and protected the Second Amendment rights of North Dakotans. I felt the Manchin-Toomey amendment ultimately would place undue burdens on law-abiding North Dakotans.”

Original post is Heitkamp Gun-Control Vote Puts National Polls in Perspective by Political Capital.

There goes Joe being Joe.

With the Senate set to begin a series of contentious votes on amendments to a gun control bill, including a plan for background checks that was all that was left of the White House’s gun-safety agenda, Vice President Joe Biden grabbed the gavel and presided.

All amendments this afternoon required 60 affirmative votes to be adopted.

Several red-state Democrats, up for re-election this cycle, were evasive in the lead- up to votes, unwilling to commit to legislation opposed by the powerful NRA gun lobby, and making it difficult for Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada to  keep a united caucus.

In the event of a tie vote on any of the amendments, Biden could have been the deciding vote, tilting legislation in Democrats’ favor. It wasn’t even close. The main measure failed on a 54-46 vote.

Always one to make an entrance, the vice president had started with a verbal stumble.

In recognizing Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley from the chair, Biden initially misidentified Grassley as the senator from Ohio before correcting himself.

Grassley chuckled before retorting: “By the way, we’re the state that’s got the first in the nation caucus,” referring to presidential nominating caucuses that will lead the primary voting in the 2016 presidential elections.

Biden, a possible Democratic candidate for president, quickly responded from the chair: “That’s why I corrected myself.”

Original post is Biden: Iowa, Yes, Know it Well by Political Capital.

Photograph by J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo

Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, D-W.Va., left, and Sen. Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., arrive at a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, on April 10, 2013, to announce that they have reached a bipartisan deal on expanding background checks to more gun buyers.

Read it, say Sens. Pat Toomney and Joe Manchin:

The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act.

In the art of bill title as political statement, this one’s a classic.

They put their bill online last night.

 Manchin even autographed his copy of the bill.

That’s the name of the 50-page legislation that a Republican from Pennsyvlania and Democrat from West Virginia are offering in the Senate, which has voted 68-31 to advance the measure toward debate — with some of those voting for it saying they’re only supporting debate, not the bill itself.

Toomey and Manchin are portraying their measure not as gun control, but rather “common sense.”

Comes word from NBC News this morning that supporters already are putting “robo-calls” to work for the senators — appealing to voters in suburban Philadelphia and in West Virginia to support a common-sense measure. The voice on the phone from Americans for Responsible Solutions: Mark Kelly, retired astronaut and husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, who was gravely wounded during a gunman’s attack at a public event. And as the Senate moves forward with the legislation next week, Giffords plans to be there to push for it.

The senators have public opinion on their side: Polls showing 9-1 support for expanded background checks of gun-buyers. And they have the National Rifle Association to contend with, claiming that this is a step toward a national gun registry.

This from Toomey:

“Bottom Line: The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act would require states and the federal government to send all necessary records on criminals and the violently mentally ill to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The bill extends the existing background check system to gun shows and online sales.

The bill explicitly bans the federal government from creating a national firearms registry, and imposes serious criminal penalties (a felony with up to 15 years in prison) on any person who misuses or illegally retains firearms records.”

And from Manchin:

“Senator Toomey and I are confident that if people take the time to read the details of this important legislation, there will be nationwide support.”

Original post is Toomey, Manchin: Read Second Amendment Rights Protection Act by Political Capital.

Photograph by Chris Maddaloni/CQ Roll Call

Members of Newtown, Ct. clergy set up more than 3,300 grave markers on the Mall during a 24-hour vigil to support the gun violence legislation.

What do Sens. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Roger Wicker of Mississippi have in common?

The same thing that Sens. Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mark Begich of Alaska have in common.

They bucked their parties today in allowing gun-control legislation to advance in the Senate.

The difference is that more Republicans sided with Ayotte and Wicker today in voting yes: 14 others.

No other Democrats sided with Pryor or Begich in voting no.

The vote, the first hard measure of congressional sentiment since the shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, that claimed the lives of 20 first-grade children and six educators  on Dec. 14, was 68-31. The Senate needed at least 60 votes to advance the legislation to debate. The Democrats who rule the Senate, with 53 Democratic seats and two caucus-supporting independents, couldn’t have done this today without Republican support.

The proponents of legislation that is likely to center around a bipartisan agreement for more background checks for gun-buyers crafted by Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania drew support from Republicans such as John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina as well as Mark Kirk of Illinois, Bob Corker of Tennessee and Johnny Isakson of Georgia.

Democrats Pryor and Begich  probably had something else on their minds today: They both face re-election in 2014.

There is a large cast of Republicans who opposed this vote who also have elections on their minds as well, including three for whom the 2016 bell may be ringing: Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, a newcomer to Washington, already is making the rounds of Republican primary states for 2016. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, another prospect for the party’s 2016 presidential sweepstakes, also voted no. So did Kentucky’s Sen. Rand Paul, who has Iowa on his mind. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, focused on his 2014 re-election campaign, voted no as well — after initially threatening a filibuster fight.

In the end, it could serve the Democrats from Arkansas and Alaska who voted against this simple vote to advance a bill to debate with their voters back home.

It’s also possible that the Republicans with eyes on ’16 who voted no will be thanked for that in their party’s caucuses and primaries. Yet, it’s less certain how it may play among a general electorate, whom polls show supporting more thorough background checks for gun-buyers in the aftermath of one of the worst shootings in modern American history by a margin of 9-1.

Nine to one, sort of like 16-2 — 16 who also can read the polls.

Original post is Senate’s Gun-Control Rebels: 16-2 by Political Capital.

Photograph by Timorthy A. Clary/AFP via Getty Images

A man looks at a shotgun during the 8th Annual East Coast Fine Arms Show in Stamford, Connecticut.

Updated at 1:15 pm EDT

Credit Sens. Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey for doing what too few lawmakers of opposing parties do these days.

Talking.

The Democrat from West Virginia and Republican from Pennsylvania have just announced their agreement on a plan for improving background checks for gun-buyers. Manchin, a former West Virginia governor and A-rated member of the National Rifle Association, was among the first in his party to speak out about the need for new controls in the aftermath of the Newtown shootings.

Yet the background checks fall short of what even Manchin suggested was necessary: restrictions on assault-style weapons and mega-ammunition clips like the Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle and 30-round magazines employed in the firing of 154 rounds at a Connecticut elementary school in December, killing 20 first-graders and six educators.

The Senate does not have the votes for such measures, though Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he does have the 60 votes needed to squash any Republican filibuster when he seeks a vote tomorrow advancing the Senate’s gun bill to debate. Americans support tougher background checks by 9-1.

The Manchin-Toomey deal exempts the transfer of guns among family members, and states that there will be no national gun registry as a part of expanded background checks — expanding them for buyers at gun-shows, which account for nearly half of all transactions, and for gun-buyers shopping online.

The agreement will “prevent criminals and the mentally ill from getting firearms and harming people,” Manchin told reporters today, with Toomey at his side. Toomey added: “I don’t consider criminal background checks to be gun control — it’s just common sense.”

Twelve relatives of the 26 victims at Sandy Hook Elementary School are in Washington today to press Congress for action. Today, they saw a bipartisan announcement by a couple of NRA-A-rated lawmakers, and tomorrow they’ll see the start of a debate in the Senate about what Americans can do about all this.

It was said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” today that Manchin and Toomey were seen talking last night at a surprise birthday party for host Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman from Florida.

The families of Newtown hope that everyone keeps talking.

They plan to join Manchin and Toomey this afternoon in an appearance at Manchin’s Senate office. The families and senators are expected to have more to say about the bipartisan effort to close loopholes in the so-called Brady law — the background checks that were legislated after James Brady, press secretary to President Ronald Reagan, was severely wounded in an assassination attempt on the president.

Original post is Manchin, Toomey: ‘Common Sense’ by Political Capital.

Photograph by Charles Dharapak/AP Photo

President Barack Obama wipes tears as he speaks about the elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn., Dec. 14, 2012, in the press briefing room of the White House. Photo by Charles Dharapak / AP

Consider the possibility that these two things are true:

– Nine in 10 Americans support the idea of more stringent background checks for gun buyers. The polls say so, and a share such as nine in 10 is so far beyond margins of error in polling that opinion on this appears clear.

– Better background checks won’t prevent people from picking up weapons of mass destruction and slaughtering 20 children in five minutes, as was done in Newtown, Connecticut.

“Criminals aren’t going to be checked,” the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre argued on “Meet the Press” last weekend. And Adam Lanza, who carried a military-styled assault rifle, other weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines into Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, wasn’t a known criminal until he had killed his mother, 20 first-graders, six educators and himself.

Authorities in affidavits filed in Connecticut this week reported that Lanza, 20, fired 154 rounds from his Bushmaster XM15-E2S semi-automatic rifle, and 10 magazines each capable of holding 30 bullets were found at the scene, many partly or fully emptied. At his home, where he had shot his sleeping mother in the head with the rifle, police found a holiday card from her with a check for him apparently for a semi-automatic pistol.

Yet almost four months since the shootings, polls show waning public support for tougher gun restrictions, and Congress shows less resolve for action with each passing week.

“Shame on us if we’ve forgotten,” President Barack Obama said at the White House yesterday.

What’s happened in the three and a half months since Newtown is that the debate over gun control in Washington has been condensed to the possibility of approving those background checks that most people still support and which the NRA warns will do no good.

So nothing will be done about assault weapons, or 30-bullet magazines, under this scenario, which of course is the NRA’s goal in representing not only the rights of gun-owners but also the business aims of gun manufacturers.  And by constricting the debate to what is potentially a feckless response to the Sandy Hook Elementary shootings, the gun lobby will chalk up another hard-fought victory.

It could also be true that real advocates of gun control should listen to the NRA on this one: Background checks for gun-buyers won’t stop another couple dozen children from dying in five minutes.

Removing weapons of mass destruction from the streets of America might.

Original post is Sandy Hook’s Legacy: Status Quo by Political Capital.

Photograph by George Frey/Bloomberg

A man holds a semi-automatic assault rifle for sale at the Rocky Mountain Gun Show in Sandy, Utah.

Vice President Joe Biden, who has suggested that anyone interested in assault weapons for home protection should go buy a shotgun instead, also sees no value in mega-clips for hunters.

“If you can’t get the deer in three shots, you shouldn’t be hunting,” Biden says. “You are an embarrassment.”

Biden, in an interview airing on National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered,” holds out hope that public pressure will prevail as Congress demonstrates diminishing resolve for any sort of new gun regulation in the aftermath of the Newtown schoolhouse killings.

Addressing the Senate leadership’s rejection of a vote on an assault weapons ban, Biden says:  “y experience, having been the only guy that did this once before, along with Dianne Feinstein and others, is that this doesn’t necessarily happen in one fell swoop.”

“”We are going to continue to push for logical, gun safety regulations,” Biden tells NPR. “Eventually the will of the people is going to prevail and we’re going to keep at it.”

On the proposal for universal background checks for gun-buyers, facing daunting odds in the House, he says: “When the Brady legislation passed back in ’94…the NRA and a significant portion of the opposition were absolutely opposed to it.”

On the checks: “Two million felons have tried to buy a gun and, because of the background check, have been denied. And even with that there is probably a 40 percent loophole that exists in the law.”

On high-capacity ammunition magazines: “It in no way violates anyone’s constitutional right. What is the downside of saying, you can have clips with only 10 rounds in it? What does that violate? Hunting? Sportsmanship? If you need more than 10 rounds to hunt, and some argue they hunt with that many rounds, you shouldn’t be hunting. If you can’t get the deer in three shots, you shouldn’t be hunting. You are an embarrassment.”

On the gun lobby’s fear of gun registration: “You don’t need to register guns to have logical gun safety laws. This is not – there is a healthy gun culture in this country with regard to hunters. They husband their guns and their weapons. They lock them up, they use them responsibly, they pass them down to their children, like my dad. This is about keeping guns out of the hands of people who, constitutionally, the government is able to prohibit from owning those guns.”

Original post is Biden on Gun-Rules: ‘Will of the People’ by Political Capital.