Political Eye
By

Leigh Ann Caldwell /

CBS News/ January 8, 2013, 2:53 PM

Biden to meet with NRA

Vice President Joe Biden will meet Thursday with the National Rifle Association, "one of many" gun rights groups he will meet with as part of the White House's gun task force to reduce gun violence.

"We look forward to hearing from a variety of organizations," White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday.

"We are sending a representative to hear what they have to say," Andrew Arulanandam, NRA spokesperson, told CBS News.

The NRA and the Obama administration have been at odds on its response to the latest mass shooting, which occurred in Newtown, Conn., last month. The powerful gun lobby proposed placing armed guards in schools, a proposal the president said he is "skeptical" about.

In addition to his meeting with the NRA, the vice president is meeting with gun safety advocates, victims' groups and entertainment and video game industry officials. Cabinet secretaries are also holding meetings with parents, educators and mental health experts.

The president created the task force shortly after the mass shootings in Newtown, Conn., last month. He appointed Biden as the head of the task force and asked for recommendations by the end of January.

President Obama has indicated that he wants Congress to reestablish the ban on assault weapons, which expired in 2004, and limit the size of magazines and expand background checks, including closing the gun show loophole, which allows unlicensed sellers to sidestep checks.The task force is also expected to look at broader efforts that might include a national database and proposals that can be implemented without congressional approval.

Biden has also been conferring with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is a vocal advocate for gun regulation. His group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, launched a TV ad Tuesday to pressure lawmakers to "stand up to the gun lobby."

Roxanne Green, whose daughter was killed in the 2011 Tucson, Ariz., shooting that injured former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., is highlighted in the ad. "I have one question for political leaders, when will you find the courage to stand up to the gun lobby? Whose child has to die next?" Green says.

The timing of the ad is intentional, not only to keep the pressure on lawmakers to act in the aftermath of the Newtown massacre, but because it is also debuting on the second anniversary of the Tucson shooting.

Also Tuesday, Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly, launched a new organization, Americans for Responsible Solutions, in favor of gun restrictions that intends to "[match] gun lobbyists in their reach and resources," the couple wrote in a USA Today op-ed.

When gun safety advocates refer to the gun lobby, there are numerous organizations that promote less gun regulation, but the most powerful is the National Rifle Association, which has spent nearly $10 million since President Obama's inauguration on lobbying activity, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That number doesn't include the more than $30 million the NRA's political action committee and the organization's affiliated political nonprofits spent to influence the 2012 presidential and congressional elections.

The NRA has proposed placing armed guards in schools to clamp down on shootings. It's a proposal the president has rejected.

Despite efforts to maintain momentum on the gun issue, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said over the weekend that Congress must prioritize its early March deadlines around spending cuts and the debt ceiling. "Clearly we will not be addressing that issue early, because spending and debt are going to dominate the first three months," McConnell said Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Andy Triay contributed to this report.

© 2013 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
60 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Red_Beagle says:
If there was a law to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, none of the members of the NRA could have them, because you'd have to be crazy to join the NRA.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Grimm_S says:
It would seem that if the White House cared anything at all about children then they should look at the over 1.2 million murdered each and every year in the liberal name of abortion!
reply
HistoryNote replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
I doubt that will be a topic in the meeting. But you never know.
Mike239239 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Or maybe the high rate of infant deaths in all the red states that don't have abortion clinics
linkicon reporticon emailicon
HistoryNote says:
This meeting may become Biden's defining moment as a politician. The outcome of the meeting, will be eagerly awaited by all Americans - both pro NRA and anti NRA. Does he need to stand up to the NRA? Should he embrace the NRA?
reply
HistoryNote replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
>>>"Biden is Obama's lapdog. He will do exactly as gun-hating Obama instructs him. The VP has zilch power."

Actually, if you read through Joe Biden's bio, he's a fairly good choice for this meeting. He will certainly speak frankly. But the question remains...as to Biden's mission. Did the President send a negotiator, an arbitrator, or the second in command?
linkicon reporticon emailicon
lansky99 says:
Im a member of the NRA, I have guns for hunting. I agree with backround checks and not give guns to just anyone. When I hear idiots like mayor Bl oomburg say, if you cant kill a deer with 3 shots, then that deer should live. Yet his own police officers shoot 30 times at one guy, hit him 5 times and 7 innocent bystanders get clipped, I start to wonder about our politicans.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
naturalcuriosity says:
One shoe bomb and I lose my 4th amendment rights, but 151 dead from mass shootings in 2012 alone and nothing. Why fight so vigorously for your 2nd amendment rights when you so willingly gave up those of the 4th amendment. I don't get it.
reply
HistoryNote replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Excellent post.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
hypnotoad72 says:
Biden will probably be shot by one of those illiterate animals, who have no clue as to what "well-regulated" means and how many armed forces we already have AS official militias to defend this country with.

The NRA needs to get over its uneducated and pathetic self...
reply
bfatz replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
LMAO! the hypocrisy lol
linkicon reporticon emailicon
tsafa1 says:
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to arm people in order to prevent future tyranny. They need the tools to do this.

The term "Well Regulated" in the Second Amendment meant "Well Manned and Equipped " in 1791 as was determined in the 1939 United States v. Miller case after referencing the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. The concept of Government Regulation, as we understand it today, did not exist at the time.

United States v. Miller also determined that the term "Arms" refers to "Ordinary Military Weapons" (not crew operated). American Citizens have the right to Keep and Bear, which means Own and Carry, any weapons that a soldier carries into battle. That includes past, present and future weapons. A Militia consisted of armed volunteers willing to fight with their personal arms and not under government control.

The 2008 Heller v. Washington DC decision reaffirmed that the Right to Bear Arms was an Individual right. The 2010 McDonald v. Chicago decision reaffirmed it yet again and made it clear that it applies to every state, every city and every town in the United States.

To limit the Second Amendment to muskets would be the equivalent of limiting the First Amendment to writings in quill pens.

Liberty is worth the risk of death!
reply
harv823 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
The Supreme Court certainly needs to look at the third word of the Second Amendment which is "REGULATED." Regulated can mean "adjusted." Our gun laws do need adjusted to make it safer for kids in our elementary schools.
Faramir0028g replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Your premise is an opinion. Typical bagger "logic" sad.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
harv823 says:
Biden should NOT meet with the NRA. He should, instead, be sending them a mandate regarding common sense gun safety.
reply
Social_Adjudicator replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
For one to think so highly of the Politicians is for one to think very lowly of themself.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
canislupus16 says:
Most of the people I know who own guns, including both members and non-members of gun rights organizations, favor stricter control over the SALE and TRANSFER of guns to help reduce the possibility of criminals and mentally ill individuals from obtaining or gaining access to firearms in the first place. Who can oppose this? Do we want guns in the hands of the wrong people?
Whatever becomes law, it will never stop all the wackjobs hell-bent on mass killing, but it may likely prevent some - and maybe spare your wife, son, daughter, a co-worker, friend or relative who otherwise could have been at the wrong place at the wrong time. If the saying goes "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," it makes sense to find out who the "outlaws" are BEFORE they acquire firearms. "Outlaw" = someone under indictment or already a convicted felon, mentally defective individuals, drug addicts, illegal aliens, someone who has renounced his citizenship to the United States (thus making them an illegal alien), those subject to an order of protection due to stalking or harrassment or making threats, those guilty of domestic violence, or someone who is a fugitive from justice. Probably being on a terrorist list should get you barred as well.
No system will ever be perfect, but penalities can be increased for those who KNOWINGLY sell, give, or otherwise transfer a firearm to someone on the list - make it 20 years in prison, like for the woman who bought guns for the guy who killed two firemen and wounded two others (in her case, accessory to murder should apply also), a major fine, and forfeiture of all firearms.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Social_Adjudicator says:
If anything needs to be closely examined, it is indeed the 1st Amendment. The Founding Fathers in their wildest dreams, couldn't have conjured up the pervasiveness of the mind altering media and movie industries' and their ability to "run to and fro" acting as "busybodies" in the manner that has come to pass; all the while having the ability to transgress the walls of every citizen's homes through electronic means.
reply
See all 60 Comments