The level of gun violence in the United States has accelerated since 2018, when 58 people in Las Vegas were mowed down by a man from a hotel window, and 17 others were shot dead at a Florida high school.
And just this March, a Colorado shooting spree in a grocery store resulted in 10 deaths, while in Georgia, three massage parlour attacks killed another eight people.
Following these incidents there was renewed hope that Congress and the president would act to stem the violence. According to the Gun Violence Archive (a highly credible non-profit research organisation), overall firearm deaths have risen 23 per cent this year compared with last year, and 40 per cent compared with 2019.
But nothing meaningful has happened in the three months since then. To understand the situation broadly, it's helpful to consider some recent developments.
First, just this month, federal district judge Roger Benitez struck down a 32-year-old ban on assault rifles such as the AR-15 (a weapon similar to the M-16) in California. That the law unconstitutionally limited Californians from arming themselves with weapons he said were "fairly ordinary, popular rifles" useful for "home defence" and comparable to Swiss army knives.
Also this month Texas governor Greg Abbott signed a law, which goes into effect on Sept 1, allowing people to carry holstered handguns, even if they lack permits to carry firearms.
At the national level, this year, the House of Representatives has passed two sensible measures designed to curb irresponsible gun-related behaviour. One of these would expand background checks on those seeking to purchase firearms from the Internet. The other would give federal authorities 10 days to conduct background checks on purchasers.
President Joe Biden has said he is eager to sign both bills into law, but both of these modest attempts seem unlikely to pass in the Senate, where 60 votes are required. Democrats have only 50 US senators, so even if all of them favoured a gun-control bill, they would not be able to meet the threshold necessary to pass the bill.
So the first step for gun-control advocates in the Senate is to cobble together 50 votes, perhaps by persuading a few moderate Republicans to join them (something which has happened on other types of legislation), knowing that votes would turn into 51 when Vice-President Kamala Harris is asked to cast the tie-breaking vote, and the bill, or bills, could become law.
The problem then would be the filibuster — a Senate provision allowing a minority of senators to block bills from coming to a vote by the full Senate unless 60 members vote to close debate and call for a vote.
It is unpleasant but necessary to remember what happened in 2018, following the Florida high-school shootings, when 67 state laws were passed in the US, enacting tougher gun-control measures — showing just how popular gun control was to the public at large.
That year, the House of Representatives approved two bills, one to extend background checks for private sales, and the other lengthening the time period for sellers to conduct checks on purchasers of firearms, and neither bill was brought to the Senate floor for discussion, much less a vote. Now the same situation looms over a nation where gun violence has worsened.
If Congress passes the two laws approved by the House, there is no guarantee that either will pass muster with the Supreme Court. In the meantime, there is no immediate cure for the strange ruling, and accompanying language, of federal judge Benitez, or the decision by governor Abbott to cater to gun enthusiasts by liberating would-be gun-slingers in his state.
But there is a possible source of relief in the Senate. The two bills passed by the House are minor, but could provide a springboard for future restrictions, provided the public approves of the measures, which polls show they already do. Despite the modest restrictions of these two measures, they would form a national "umbrella" covering all states.
So could some gun-control relief be delivered, perhaps by this summer? Yes, if the filibuster is blasted out of existence once and for all. Today, at least 48 Democratic senators would support such a move, so only two more votes are needed. And the end-goal could be secured in an indirect manner, by challenging senators with a bill other than that of gun control.
The most likely such a bill would be the newly proposed voting rights act, passed by the House in March — which Republicans are ready to block if and when it comes up for a vote. Since the only way a vote on gun restrictions can be secured is by eliminating the filibuster altogether, using voting rights as the vehicle for doing so makes good sense.
Eliminating the filibuster is, at this time, the only viable path to national gun-control legislation. If Senate Democrats are serious about gun safety, they will seriously consider this option.
The writer is a Professor at HELP University.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the New Straits Times