Last week it was reported that authorities searching for clues in the Boston Marathon bombing were hampered in their efforts because of an NRA backed law that prevents tracing explosives. Had the law not been in place, the investigation might have moved along quicker and perhaps could have saved the life of a policeman who was shot by one of the bombers.
In addition to that, current laws on the books also allow anyone to purchase up to 50 pounds of explosive powders without a background check.
That may be about to change:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday introduced a bill that would require background checks to be run on anyone buying explosive powder, a reaction to last week's Boston Marathon bombing.
Reid introduced the bill, S. 792, for Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who has been out sick for much of the year. But in a press statement, Lautenberg said the Boston bombing shows that background checks are needed for explosive materials.
"It defies common sense that anyone, even a terrorist, can walk into a store in America and buy explosive powders without a background check or any questions asked," Lautenberg said Tuesday. "Requiring a background check for an explosives permit is a small price to pay to ensure the safety of our communities.
The bill would not only require background checks on purchases of the powder, but would also stop the sale of explosives to suspected terrorists, and require a permit to make homemade explosives.
Last week Republicans filibustered gun background checks, so it will be interesting to see if they'll have the guts to actually do something about this, especially when it's a law that could have helped just days ago in the investigation of a terrorist attack.
More to the point, will Marco Rubio once again block any legislation that would protect the public safety of his constituents? Given his track record, I would say the chances of him doing anything that the public wants doesn't stand the chance against his big donors like the NRA.
I sincerely hope he'll prove my assumption wrong.