Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, expressed skepticism of gun control measures reported to be under consideration by the Obama administration in a Thursday phone call with members of the media.
The Washington Post reported last Saturday that a working group on gun violence led by Vice President Joe Biden “is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors.”
Asked which gun control measures he would support, Begich said, “I’m not supporting anything at this point, and I want to see what those recommendations are.”
Begich continued, “We have to be very careful that we don’t jump to the clamor of emotion. … I don’t believe that we just need to pile on new laws and suddenly that solves all the problems.”
Mental health is also a key consideration in averting incidents like the Newtown, Conn., school shooting that claimed 27 lives on Dec. 14, 2012, Begich said.
“We have to look at the broader picture,” Begich concluded. “So I’d be very cautious about any new laws.”
Responding to another question about whether he would support a renewal of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which outlawed the manufacture of several types of semiautomatic firearms for civilian use from 1994 to 2004, Begich said he is “not interested.”
In his remarks in Anchorage Thursday, Begich also addressed several other issues, including the grounding of the Royal Dutch Shell-owned drill ship Kulluk near Kodiak Island last month, which he called an opportunity for “education” about drilling and shipping in the Arctic region.
“There’ll be a lot of questions, and we have to answer them, and answer them with facts,” Begich said.
Begich said the Kulluk incident is being distorted by opponents of Arctic drilling to advance an argument against oil exploration in the region.
“I think people nationally will like to make this an issue, because some people don’t want anything to happen in the Arctic, and they will use this and exaggerate it,” Begich asserted. “They will stretch it and mold it to try to make their case.”
Begich singled out one drilling skeptic for particular criticism: Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who has declared his intent to seek the seat of Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry, whom President Barack Obama has tapped to become United States secretary of state.
Begich called his would-be Senate colleague “predictable” in his response to the grounding of the Kulluk.
“He’s like a broken record — or a scratched CD, depending on what generation you’re from,” said Begich, claiming Markey has “not been necessarily the biggest fan of some of our issues.”
Markey, who is the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives, released a statement after the Kulluk’s grounding that read in part, “Oil companies cannot currently drill safely in the foreboding conditions of the Arctic, and drilling expansion could prove disastrous for this sensitive environment.”
Begich was warmer in his assessment of a couple of other new Senate Democrats, naming freshmen Sens. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., and Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., as members he believes are receptive to Alaska’s issues.
“We know he’s going to be the right person working with us,” Begich said of Donnelly.
Like Begich, Heitkamp and Donnelly represent states that typically vote for Republicans at the federal level. All three have staked out positions to the right of most other Senate Democrats on certain issues.
Heitkamp appeared on Sunday morning talk shows last weekend to criticize the gun control measures the White House is reportedly mulling, calling them “way in extreme of what I think is necessary or even should be talked about.”
Begich also said he has reached out to all of his new colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats.
“Whoever’s elected, I work with,” said Begich. “We’re going to find common ground where we can and then work with them.”
• Contact reporter Mark D. Miller at 523-2279 or at mark.d.miller@juneauempire.com.
Comments (76)
Add commentIs three a crowd?
Begich gets to be the senior member of the Democrat conservatives. We'll see how long they hold out .....for anything!
Firearms safety
Hey, Mark: I contributed to your campaign last time but I guess you like the NRA's money more. Adios, Tool!
RUMORED
What a nonsense position to take: hear a rumor and then go on the record making statements based on that rumor. Next congress will be having daily updates of the Hollywood gossip columnist so they can make sure to react to the National Inquire stories about who is sleeping with who.
I'm not interested either
In voting again for Mark Begich. He has no backbone.
No rhythm
I don't think he particularly likes the NRA. He's just representing the fact that he lives in a red state and has reelection coming up in two years.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now. If some rational gun reform measures actually come out of Washington (license gun owners, register guns, mandatory safety training, liability insurance...), I would expect him to support them.
Banning 'assault rifles' doesn't make much sense since they're only involved in a tiny fraction of gun homicides - banning them doesn't address the larger problem. If he just blanket stalls any reforms like a good little republican, then I'll feel differently about him.
With him to the right of the dems, and Lisa to the left of the repubs, Alaska could be the meeting place where some of the partisan insanity begins to break down. Let's hope our two senators can step up together to be the adults in the room on many issues.
Comment
It will be interesting to see how liberals like Latitude and conservatives like me see Begich as the election unfolds. As a Democrat, Begich can help gun owners nationwide by insisting that no new laws be considered unless those new laws clearly would have prevented some of these recent mass murders. That rules out banning the sale and manufacture of new so-called assault weapons and new so-called high capacity magazines (which is what the Clinton law did) and rules out changing the law about background checks for private firearms sales. I am not at all against supporting a common sense Democrat, and it's made all the easier for me because none of the Republicans we send to Congress is any more of a fiscal conservative than Begich is.
Fundamentally, I will vote for anyone who will protect my gun rights. Therefore it won't bother me at all to send money to Senator Begich and help his campaign, particularly if he works with the NRA - which seems likely right now. All other issues are just noise to me if the government wants to take my guns. And don't be fooled, that is how this federal government wants this to end.
So far Begich is playing this coming election very well. And I think he is too smart to try to work both sides of the street on guns as Alaskans would easily see through that. He is building a huge war chest (probably $1 million by now), and Big Oil will help him a lot. Liberal voters will have no place to go but Begich, and if Begich can draw in everyone who wrote in Lisa's name he will win.
rough
You are disgusting and ignorant. You sound like that defense lawyer in India. Rape is not a joking matter and should never be trivialized.
Get real Lat. "Alaska could
Get real Lat. "Alaska could be the meeting place where some of the partisan insanity begins to break down" You forget about Don...
Apparently Begich represents
Apparently Begich represents the NRA elite more than the NRA membership and the population as a whole, which is in favor of universal background checks. No one is suggesting repeal the 2nd amendment. Following the NRA spokesman's logic the roads would be safer if we had more drunk drivers on them. You can't legislate the actions of whackos, but you can restrict the number of war weapons the whackos prefer to use.
Anyone supporting these
Anyone supporting these morons is going down in flames!That's why he's not commiting to anything!
Shall Not be Infringed!
http://www.facebook.com/events/406312512782872/
If you want to make your beliefs recognised(Constitutional)check out this concept
February -8th - 2013 10:00AM--12:00PM--Capitol steps
The Govmnt has no business messing with the Constitution in any way,use the correct procedures and get over King Obomas serf mentality!!!
The time is now
For action, not wishy washy political posturing.
-If America is ever to confront its obsession with guns, that time is now. America's murder rate is four times higher than Britain's and six times higher than Germany's. Only an idiot, or an anti-American bigot prepared to maintain that Americans are four times more murderous than Britons, could possibly pretend that no connection exists between those figures and the fact that 300M guns are "out there" in the United States, more than one for every adult.- The Economist magazine.
A good girl with a gun.....
A GOOD GIRL WITH A GUN
On Sunday December 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It’s like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant!
Now aren't you wondering why this isn't a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?
There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, THE MEDIA IS TREATING IT LIKE IT NEVER HAPPENED.
Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week.
Glacier
There are already laws against slaughtering children, or students or whomever in the US, by any means. If your logic were used, since those laws dont work...we should repeal them?
Not an Obsession
This was placed in the Constitution for a reason,Basicly to protect the American people from being a subject to the Government.
It does not matter what type of weapon a person used ,for if they choose to do harm they will.
(The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed)
What part of that is not understood?
Look into all the past Dictators and tyrants and the first thing done was to remove all firearms and the Right to assemble!!
Very Interesting indeed.
And yes statistics can and do get used to muddy the waters in either direction.
Not relevant in this concept====
Dont mess with the Constitution!!
I sent all of our
I sent all of our representatives an email about our second amendment rights and so far Begich was the only one to reply. He pretty much said the same thing in the article and this.
"I have introduced a bill, S. 3325, the Mental Health First Aid Higher Education Act of 2012, to improve mental health services on college campuses. This legislation would establish a program to provide training to faculty members, dormitory resident advisors, and other members of the college community to recognize the signs of mental illness and safely address crisis situations."
I have to give him credit for not having the typical liberal knee jerk reaction to everything and looking at the root cause of the problem..
disappointed in Begich
“I think people nationally will like to make this an issue, because some people don’t want anything to happen in the Arctic, and they will use this and exaggerate it,” Begich asserted. “They will stretch it and mold it to try to make their case.”
Let's look at our own state here, shall we. Highest firearm deathrates.... not stretching that fact or molding it, thats how it is. Begich, if you dont think there is a problem, then you're blind.
Howdy
No, it's clear that new gun laws can only disenfranchise law-abiding gun owners. The advocates for new laws know that. Since there are already laws against murder and that did not stop these mass murderers then it's very clear that more laws would not have stopped them any more than does making a school a "gun free" zone.
The Second Amendment, and the people who wrote it, did not consider hunting. But since you bring it up, the only difference between your hunting rifle, if in fact you have and use one, and what the media and far left call an assault rifle is cosmetic. As a matter of fact, the AR15 cartridge, the .223 Remington, is not powerful enough to be legal (humane) for deer hunting in many places but your hunting rifle might well be a 30-06 or even a .338 Winchester. So once the left grabs the .223s they will come after your 30-06 once they discover that Americans routinely own semi-automatic rifles more powerful than an AR15. Also, a 12 gauge shotgun is in fact a .70 caliber rifle when used with rifled slugs, and most shotguns are semi-automatics. The AK-47 shoots a cartridge that is very much like the 30-30 Winchester in every way. The 30 caliber round that people are now using in their AR15s in part because .223s are not powerful enough for deer is in fact the .30 Remington that Remington offered beginning in the 1920's to compete with the 30-30 Winchester. Again, there is nothing different about these assault rifles that is not merely cosmetic.
When the governor of New York says that hunters don't need large capacity magazines that is code language to say that since New York has archery and muzzle loader seasons hunters do not need to own cartridge firearms. And that is why many liberals are trying to make sure that ammunition is always part of the conversation.
More to the point, gun grabbers have not stopped at semi-automatics in Canada, New York City, Chicago, Australia, and many other places. First they found out who owns the guns by requiring government record-keeping, then a few years later and upon some media blitz that followed an horrific crime, they came for all the guns since they then knew where to find those owned by those who had obeyed the law.
I know absolutely no one who truly believes in the 2nd Amendment that is not an NRA member. I question the honesty and integrity of anyone who says that if a gun or magazine isn't needed for hunting then it's all right for the government to take it.
Howdy, if you really own a rifle then get out and shoot it. Join the Alaskans!
For all the Constitutional lawyers here...
that only know half of the second amendment, you need to read the entire ammendment!
A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Note the part about WELL REGULATED? You have to license your dog, cat, car, so why not register your firearms?
And don't drivel about the slippery slope of gun confiscation. That's the NRA scare tactic to get money from the weak-minded, easily frightened by their nonsense. The Supreme Court settled that question in their Chicago decision.
I was a member but quit in 1982 after they started their psycho-positions instead of representing sensible positions, like gun safety training, limits on magazine capacity, and universal background checks.
I own guns and have no problem registering them.
Rockfish
I am absolutely certain you cannot find one Juneau NRA member who favors background checks for all firearms except that there might be one or two who own gun stores who want the money. Most gun stores now charge $50 to handle a gun for a private sale and the price would go up if the federal government required it for all sales. That is pure income for a gun store, no inventory, no debt payment, just profit.
admec9
You are absolutely incorrect. The Bill of Rights is a statement of the INDIVIDUAL rights that citizens have under the Constitution. The Bill of Rights isn't talking about the government having freedom of speech or religion. It's talking about my right. And the 2nd Amendment doesn't grant that right, it merely acknowledges that it already exists. It says it's a right that cannot be infringed.
By the way, at least one militia unit made it to France in WWI. It was from some town in IN. The militia had all gone away by WWII. Militia units stay together as a unit throughout a conflict, provide their own small arms sometimes including artillery, provide their own ammo for training, and elect their officers.
glacierdogs
Where in town can I pick up an AK-47?
READ THIS
A WELL REGULATED MILITIA,
BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE,
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
NOTICE THE COMMAS AND PERIOD....
lawrence
same question regarding the AK-47. I'm looking to buy one here soon...
PRIVLEGE
Drivers lic,owning a dog,liquer licence,skiing,pilot lic,
i could go on and on but the
Constitution is and will always be the law of the land never to be changed except through the proper method.
Not by King Obama and his socialist leaning tzars!!!!
geedog
I know absolutely no one who truly believes in the 1st Amendment who is not an ACLU member.
So are you a member? Or do you want to repeal the 1st Amendment? It's either-or, because I said so.
It's clear to whom...?
Really, aren't RPG's and anti-personnel mines "arms" as well? And if they are...then it begs the question: Why can't I buy them at Wallmart?
WAY OFF THE MARK
There is no way in He$$ that the argument refering to Explosives and firearms as an example for registration agreement;
you apparently know very little on this differance I suggest you contact the B.A.T.F. and learn the differance.
Latitude
I don't believe in the ACLU. For example, even after the US Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the 2nd Amendment and its meaning the ACLU does not recognize and will not recognize the right to keep and bear arms. The ACLU needs to learn from the NRA! And by the way, unlike the ACLU the NRA supports the United States Armed Forces.
Wrong amendment, geedog
Reread my post...