Senator. Chris Murphy has been allowing about on two measures aimed at restricting access and expanding background checks on gun purchases. This was after Murphy and other Democrats held the Senate floor for about 15 hours. It was popularly referred to as a filibuster and it looked like one but as we will here, it did not technically fill the definition of a filibuster, especially the way that practice has evolved in the 21st century. Joining me is René Dan Becton political science professor at the University of Redlands. Welcome. Thank you for having me. Now this look like what we think of as a filibuster. Why was it not talking about that is really no bright line between an actual filibuster it a talk about which is what this pretty much is categorized as. A traditional filibuster is a procedural motion or in activity team to prevent a book from being taken on a piece of legislation. In this case it was actually just a very long winded way of trying to call attention to a measure -- these two amendment that Democrats really want to have considered -- about the control and they wanted to bring it to the American people's attention and to try to force votes on these bills. -- On these amendments. So in this case is actually to try to get something done rather than to prevent it. Now the doctors have been used over and over again recently in the Senate but they are not the kind we would expect. They're not the movie kind. Senators can start filibusters for pretty much any reason. Accepting 2013 -- leaders got together and said -- actually Harry Reid said we need to put a stop to filibusters that are being brought against nominees for very important positions in government so when a presidential nominee comes up, no longer traceable have been changed -- no longer can those particular people be filibustered. As you said Renée, the filibuster is usually used to try to stop legislation even before it gets to the floor but in this case Democrats were trying to put a focus on two amendment that they want the Senate to vote on. Couldn't the Democrats do this any other way? Well, they probably would not have gotten so much publicity as they did. Right? This is really the point of bringing a talk-athon about. They really wanted to bring as much attention and gather as much media focus as they could and witness the tweeting that was going on yesterday by Samantha bee and others who have really brought lots and lots of attention to this issue. Democrats certainly could have talked about this and gone on C-SPAN who watches C-SPAN? Now I guess this is part of what you're going to tell me about this as well because we have seen tentative -- Senators Ted Cruz, Bernie Sanders -- they have also taken the floor for prolonged periods of time to talk about issues they feel are of vital importance to the nation. These are not technically filibusters either. Correct. They are technically not filibusters, but they achieve particular goals and that is to bring attention to an issue that usually is unrelated to whatever the bill on the floor is about. So -- do you expect we're going to be seeing more of this? Absolutely. If you see something that works and in this case the Democrats did end up getting what they wanted. It was not just to get a bow on the Bell with these amendments, it was also to get attention really drawn into these issues. They are trying to take advantage of a window of opportunity that was opened up by the Orlando shooting. In 2007 something similar happened with the Virginia Tech shooting. At that time we had a loophole in the law that allowed people to go ahead and get guns even though they might have had a history of mental illness so Congress fairly quickly passed a law to strengthen those instant background checks. The Democrats are really hoping to capitalize on this opportunity to strengthen gun laws as they see fit. So considering -- So considering where we are now after this terrible shooting in Orlando the GOP voted out several congressional bills in September. Do you think now that they may indeed pass? Probably not. They're going to take a boat and public pressure is certainly building but the breakdown of votes in the Senate is still the way that it has always been. Alesse can stage which really change your mind about these issues they will continue to vote the way they always have been voting. Democrats represent states that support gun control legislation and Republicans tend to come from states where there is really strong support for upholding second amendment rights so it is probably unlikely that diesel actually get past. It is possible, but if history is any guide, there won't be too much movement on it. Of course the other caveat here is -- it all depends on what actually gets proposed. See it and it sounds as if -- if nothing else -- it will get a vote at this point. It will and what is not really being talked about right now is the details. There are a couple of proposals out there. Dianne Feinstein's bill -- a keepsake bell but it is really an amendment to be attached to a larger spending bill and Dianne Feinstein's proposal -- it is quite different than the one John Cornyn has proposed. John Cornyn would like to see a delay -- so if you are a person who goes to buy a gun on the Internet for example or maybe you are on a watchlist, the Department of Justice under his belt would have to actually -- would have the right to delay for three days and in the meantime go to the courts and asked the courts to stop this person from getting a gun. That is a pretty long process but Republicans believe that that will protect peoples rights to buy a gun and also protect people in case they happen to be erroneously placed on that watchlist. I have been speaking with Renée Van Becton political science professor at University of Redlands and Renée thank you so much. Thank you.
A Democratic senator who mourned the loss of 20 children in his home state waged a roughly 15-hour filibuster into early Thursday, asserting as he yielded the floor that Republican leaders had committed to hold votes on expanded gun background checks and a ban on gun sales to suspected terrorists.
With a compromise on the gun issue still improbable, Sen. Chris Murphy stood on the Senate floor for most of Wednesday and into Thursday. Speaking in the wake of the mass shooting early Sunday at a Florida nightclub, Murphy said he would remain there "until we get some signal, some sign that we can come together." He concluded the filibuster at 2:11 a.m. EDT Thursday.
Although Murphy, D-Conn., talked optimistically about his cause, it is unlikely the amendments Democrats are seeking will pass the Republican-run Senate.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., dismissed the Democrats' "campaign talk-a-thon" and urged lawmakers to back legislation favored by the National Rifle Association that would let the government delay firearms sales to suspected terrorists for up to 72 hours.
RELATED: Here’s Where Gun Laws Stand In Your State
Prosecutors would have to persuade a judge to block the transaction permanently, a bar that Democrats and gun control activists say is too high.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said nothing will change as long as "Republicans continue to take their orders" from the NRA.
Murphy spent much of the time speaking about the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in December 2012. He finished his filibuster by talking about one of the young boys who died there.
When Murphy had stood on the floor for more than nine hours, his own young sons, ages 4 and 7, briefly appeared in the Senate gallery.
"I hope you'll understand some day why we're doing this," Murphy said, addressing his oldest son. "Trying and trying and trying to do the right thing is ultimately just as important as getting the outcome in the end."
Democrats have revived the gun debate after 49 people were killed at a nightclub in Orlando, the worst such incident in modern U.S. history. The fight pits strong proponents of the Second Amendment right to bear arms against those arguing for greater restrictions on the ability to obtain weapons.
Murphy's call for the two votes came as presumptive Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he would meet with the NRA to discuss ways to block people on terrorism watch lists or no-fly lists from buying guns. The same day, Trump told a rally in Georgia: "I'm going to save your Second Amendment."
Murphy was joined by more than 30 Democratic colleagues on the floor, many of whom angrily told stories of mass shootings in their own states and called for action.
"The next time someone uses a gun to kill one of us, a gun that we could have kept out of the hands of a terrorist, then members of this Congress will have blood on our hands," said Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., asked: "Where is our spine?"
Attempts at compromise appeared to collapse within hours of surfacing in the Senate Wednesday, underscoring the extreme difficulty of resolving the divisive issue five months from November's election. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who had been involved in talks with Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said there was no resolution.
Murphy, 42, began speaking at 11:21 a.m., and was showing few signs of fatigue when the filibuster ended. By Senate rules, he had to stand at his desk the entire time to maintain control of the floor.
Tourists and staff filled the galleries past midnight, and Democratic Sens. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Cory Booker of New Jersey stayed with Murphy on the floor for most of the debate. Like Murphy, Booker did not sit down for the full 15 hours.
It's been nearly a decade since Congress made any significant changes to federal gun laws. In April 2007, Congress passed a law to strengthen the instant background check system after a gunman at Virginia Tech who killed 32 people was able to purchase his weapons because his mental health history was not in the instant background check database.
Murphy is seeking a vote on legislation from Feinstein that would let the government bar sales of guns and explosives to people it suspects of being terrorists. Feinstein offered a similar version of the amendment in December, a day after an extremist couple killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California, but the Republican-run Senate rejected the proposal on a near party-line vote.
The Justice Department said Thursday it backs the measure. Cornyn and other Republicans argue that Feinstein's bill would deny due process to people who may be on the terror list erroneously.
The Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen, was added to a government watch list of individuals known or suspected of being involved in terrorist activities in 2013, when he was investigated for inflammatory statements to co-workers. But he was pulled from that database when that investigation was closed 10 months later.
