You could bowl me over with a feather:
“A coalition of House Republicans is willing to thwart the National Rifle Association’s opposition to broadening background checks for U.S. gun purchases. That may be President Barack Obama’s best chance for advancing tougher gun regulations this year.  Representatives Patrick Meehan and Michael Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania are among Republicans expressing openness to expanding the background-check system, including mandatory screening of buyers at gun shows …â€
I guess we have some more writing to do around these parts. They are betting on not being as bad as the other guy.
The coalition of House Republicans is probably no larger than 40, according to advocates of tighter gun restrictions, though it may grow once such measures advance in Congress.
Forty is a larger than the margin, though the Dems won’t all be together on the issue. The margin is 32 seats the GOP holds over the Demcorats.
This article is loaded with “IFs”…
To me it reads like “universal background checks” could pass”
IF…
… Anything even passes the Senate (high probability)
… House legislation wouldn’t mandate a registry (remember that registering guns does not poll well)
… The process isn’t bureaucratic (in Tom Cole’s own words)
I don’t see how they get a nice round number like 40.
If anything it’s shown is that the mag limit / AWB appears to be DOA among Republicans, including suburban ones.
None of this should be taken as us being comfortable with any outcome that erodes our rights of course, but a “ban” on anything seems to be less of a target in our threat profile.
“They are betting on not being as bad as the other guy.”
Isn’t that what Republicans always count on? Wasn’t that the theme of the last election?
And people went with what was familiar as a result.