In addition to its desperate effort to block criminal background checks on gun-buyers, today the gun lobby is putting forward an amendment sponsored by John Cornyn that would undermine public safety and overturn each state’s ability to set its own laws.

The leading candidate for such an amendment is something the gun rights advocates call “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity” or the “Cornyn Amendment,” named for Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn its chief sponsor.

Key swing votes will be Democrats like Senator Michael Bennet, Senator Bob Casey, Senator Mark Udall, Senator Tom Udall, and Senator Mark Warner – as well as moderate Republicans like Mark Kirk.

If enacted, the Cornyn Amendment would override existing state laws to allow anyone with a concealed gun carry permit issued by one state to carry guns into any other state.

Perhaps, the easiest way to illustrate the problems with this concept is by pointing back to the shooting death of Trayvon Martin just over a year ago. Recall, that’s the case of the Florida teenager who was shot to death by a gun-toting, self-appointed neighborhood watchman named George Zimmerman. Mr. Zimmerman, who does not dispute pulling the trigger but claims the shooting was justified, is awaiting trial for Mr. Martin’s murder.

The concealed carry reciprocity amendment that the gun lobby is likely to push this week would have authorized George Zimmerman to carry his guns anywhere in the country until his permit was finally suspended by the state.

Why is this a problem? Because some states, like Florida, issue gun carry permits to just about anyone, including criminals, known alcoholics, and domestic abusers. In Mr. Zimmerman’s case, he was arrested in 2005 for assaulting a police officer, was the subject of domestic violence restraining orders until 2006, but still had a gun permit in 2012. In fact, even after the shooting of Trayvon Martin, Florida’s extremely lax concealed carry laws prevented police from immediately revoking Mr. Zimmerman’s permit.

While 49 states allow concealed gun-carrying, most states place qualifications on who can carry those guns that go above and beyond the federal laws.

Federal law bars felons from purchasing and carrying guns, but it is silent on whether people convicted, for example, of numerous crimes with three-, six-, and nine-month sentences should be able to carry guns. Therefore, most state legislatures have enacted additional protections barring those kinds of dangerous people from getting permits to carrying concealed guns.

For example, California and 37 other states bar people convicted of various kinds of violent misdemeanor crimes from carrying guns. And, in Texas and 33 other states, anyone who wants to carry a gun has to go through safety training.

Of course, some states have no such protections. And, that’s their choice.

But, why is Congress – particularly members like Senator Cornyn who proclaim a philosophy of limited federal power – trying to override the majority of state legislatures that have enacted responsible, clearly constitutional laws to prevent dangerous people from carrying guns?

In 2009, when Senator Cornyn’s colleague John Thune led a similar effort to pass a national concealed carry amendment, a coalition of hundreds of mayors and police chiefs from across the country rose up to help defeat the bill by two votes. Major law enforcement organizations oppose the Cornyn Amendment, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Foundation, the National Latino Peace Officers Association, the National Black Police Association, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives; National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives, International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators, and the Major Cities Chiefs Association.

Let’s hope that the Senate can once again muster the votes to defeat Senator Cornyn and Senator Thune’s dangerous idea — because if they don’t, expect to see George Zimmermans carrying guns in your neighborhood.

Arkadi Gerney is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress.

The latest conservative outrage is over a story in the Washington Examiner about how new Obamacare forms will ask citizens if they would like to register to vote:

The 61-page online Obamacare draft application for health care includes asking if the applicant wants to register to vote, raising the specter that pro-Obama groups being tapped to help Americans sign up for the program will also steer them to register with the Democratic Party.

On page 59, after numerous questions about the applicant’s identity and qualification for Obamacare, comes the question: “Would you like to register to vote?” The placement of the question could lead some to believe they have to register to vote to get health care.

The story has since been picked up by the Daily Caller, Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA), and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the number two Senate Republican, who tweeted, “How convenient! Register to vote while applying for Obamacare.”

It’s not only convenient; it’s also required by law.

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, also known as “Motor Voter,” requires public agencies that provide public assistance to offer voter registration opportunities. Nowhere are citizens told who to vote for, which party to register for, or even that they have to register at all.

Even if it weren’t legally required, do Republicans think it’s problematic to ask people if they’re registered to vote? A “founding father” of the modern conservative movement, Paul Weyrich, who co-founded the Heritage Foundation and Moral Majority, did actually argue in 1980 that “I don’t want everybody to vote.” In fact, he reasoned, “our leverage in the election quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.” Are Republicans again trying to prevent more people from being registered to vote?

Over the past two years, GOP lawmakers have indeed worked in earnest to pass new voter suppression laws around the country, making it more difficult for minorities in particular to register to vote. The fact that they would object to federal forms complying with federal law because it might result in more people registered to vote falls squarely in line with the GOP’s recent trend on voting rights.

Shortly after President Obama signed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) reauthorization into law, Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) released a glowing press release claiming that a “Cornyn bill” to “eliminate nationwide rape kit backlog” was signed into law. The so-called “Cornyn bill” is the SAFER Act, which was incorporated into the VAWA renewal, and which “provide[s] funding for state and local governments to conduct audits of untested DNA evidence and create[s] a national reporting system to help track and prioritize untested rape kits,” according to Cornyn. By all appearances, it seems like a wonderful law. There’s only one problem.

Cornyn voted against it.

Cornyn was one of 22 Senate Republican men who voted against the VAWA renewal. He opposed the bill because he objected to a provision enabling tribal courts to prosecute non-Native Americans who commit rape or other violent crimes against women on Indian reservations. This provision is intended to combat the virtual lawlessness that faces Native American women on these reservations without the VAWA renewal. A 2010 report by the Government Accountability Office found that federal prosecutors “declined to prosecute 46 percent of assault matters and 67 percent of sexual abuse and related matters” on reservations.

(HT: Steve Benen)