Two more horrific shootings happened in America recently. They will join the increasingly-long list of all the other horrific shootings from the past few decades. There are enough of them at this point that the news media even separates them into sub-categories, such as "horrific shootings just within Colorado" (remember Aurora? Columbine?). We've mourned so many for so long -- with absolutely nothing happening politically as a result -- that it's easy to get cynical and pessimistic about the chances for any meaningful changes to our gun laws getting enacted now. After all, if the massacre of 5-year-olds at Sandy Hook Elementary School didn't get anything passed, why would these two? But this time, things might -- just might, mind you -- be different. We might see at least the tightening of our rather lax background-check laws, this time. Which isn't much, but it's more than has ever succeeded in recent memory.

Currently, there are two gaping holes in the background check law -- which two recent bills passed in the House of Representatives would close. The first bill would improve the "Charleston loophole," by increasing the number of days a background check will effectively have from three to ten. This loophole was named because it was exploited by a White supremacist in Charleston, South Carolina, who then shot up a Black church. The shooter was legally prohibited from purchasing a gun, but because his background check took longer than three days, by default he was able to buy the gun he used to commit domestic terrorism. Most background checks -- nine out of ten of them -- are completed almost instantly, but the ones that take longer are much more likely to be denied. The House has already passed a bill which would extend the background check period to ten days, which is seen as long enough for almost any background check to be completed. This isn't perfect -- why not just draft the bill to state that no purchases are allowed until the background check is complete? But it would be a whole lot better than what we've got now, that's for sure.

The second big hole in the current law is the "gun show loophole." This is somewhat of a misnomer, since the loophole doesn't exempt all gun show sales from background checks. It really should be called the "private sales loophole," since that's a much more accurate description. The bill the House just passed would eliminate this loophole completely. It would make it illegal for anyone who is not a gun manufacturer, importer, or dealer to sell a gun, anywhere in the country. If two private parties decided to transfer a weapon, they would have to use a licensed dealer as an intermediary, which would make a background check required for all gun sales, period. Currently, non-federally-licensed individuals are free to sell guns (and some of them do, at gun shows) without performing such a background check. This is obviously a rather large loophole.

Both of these measures poll with a stratospheric amount of public support (above 90 percent). And yet, the National Rifle Association and the Republican Party have blocked any Democratic efforts to close these two gaping loopholes in the past. These bills will both have to make it through the Senate in order to get to President Joe Biden's desk. And neither will be able to use budget reconciliation, so they'll need at least 10 Republican senators to vote for them. That's admittedly a high bar.

But maybe this time will be different. There are a number of reasons why this might be the case.

The first and perhaps biggest reason is that the N.R.A. is in shambles, a shadow of its former imposing self. The organization has been absolutely torn apart in an internecine battle for power that has spilled over into the courts. This has consumed the attention of the N.R.A. and disgusted not a few members. Their revenue stream is reportedly way down, and they've been noticeably absent from the past few election cycles. So maybe, by sheer coincidence, the strongest lobby against commonsense gun law changes has effectively shot itself in the foot (metaphorically speaking, of course).

As of this writing (more and more information is still being released), Joe Biden just came out in favor of another (much more ambitious) gun restriction -- a revival of the assault weapons ban -- even though the police in Colorado have not yet identified the weapon used (witnesses have called it a rifle, but that's about it). This makes me wonder, personally. The White House may know more facts than have been publicly released, which is possible. But there's another intriguing possibility -- that Biden knows an assault weapons ban would be almost impossible to pass, and therefore he is intentionally introducing it as a lightning rod for the Republicans. If the assault weapons ban gets all the heat and fury from the right (this line of thinking goes), then the other two bills will be seen as nowhere near as extreme, and essentially not worth fighting all that hard against. I already have suspected Biden of adding the hike in the minimum wage to the draft of his pandemic relief bill for precisely that reason. If so, it worked like a charm. All the GOP's fury was trained on the minimum wage hike, and therefore one of the most progressive anti-poverty bills ever passed snuck by them. Could Biden be attempting a similar maneuver with gun safety bills? It's certainly possible.

Of course, I will fully admit, all of that is pure conjecture on my part. I have no inside information to back this idea up at all. Just to be clear.

The third reason I have some cautious optimism that this time could be different is that the Republican Party lost a big demographic group in 2020 -- the suburbs. Specifically, suburban women. And the vast majority of suburban women see no problem whatsoever with instituting truly universal background checks. The idea is wildly popular with all demographics (even gun owners), but even more so among the very suburban women the GOP is going to desperately try to reclaim in the 2022 midterms. This might -- again, just might -- be enough to convince 10 Republican senators that these two bills are worth passing. And that voting for them won't do even red state politicians any political harm, back home.

Voting against such commonsense reforms may harm them, though. Democrats would commit political malpractice not to make this an enormous issue in suburbs across the land during next year's campaign. The slogans all but write themselves, as the following headline illustrates: "Republicans Want To Make Voting Hard And Gun Ownership Easy." That's a pretty potent political slogan to run on in the suburbs, you've got to admit. And even Republicans in Congress may realize this. One can only hope.

The final reason I have for at least a little optimism that these bills will pass is that if they are stopped by the filibuster's 60-vote requirement, they will then be added to a number of popular bills Chuck Schumer is soon going to hold votes on (which will all fail to get 60 votes). This is going to take months, but Schumer's playing a longer game on this than most people. If he can prove how much damage the filibuster is doing to the legislative branch and the ability to govern for the entire federal government, he may be able to convince all the Democrats in his caucus that the time for filibuster reform has indeed come. Without such fresh proof of Republican intransigence on critical matters for the public, Schumer (and everyone else advocating filibuster reform) will have a much weaker argument. But, as noted, this would take months to play out, and so universal background checks on gun sales might have to wait until (at the earliest) this fall to even have a chance of passage (after the filibuster is reformed).

Of course, the first three reasons might be enough. The diminution of the N.R.A., the GOP's worries about suburban voters, and Biden's gambit (if indeed that's what it is) of an assault rifle ban all might have a much higher chance of success (for the two bills the House has already passed) than that last one. One way or another, it might just be enough. The determining factor may be how quickly the public's attention shifts. If everyone's forgotten about the Georgia and Colorado shootings in a month's time (which, sadly, might indeed prove to be the case), then the chances anything will actually happen will go way down.

However (and also quite sadly), there is a chance that by the time the Senate actually gets around to holding a vote on these bills another horrific shooting will be even more fresh in the public's mind. After all, America experiences these massacres on a frighteningly regular basis now.

As I said, I remain more optimistic that at least these incremental changes to the background check laws -- ushering in almost-universal background checks for all sales -- than I have been in at least a decade's time. I have been disappointed before (we all have), but this time the politics just seem a little different, at least to me. Maybe it'll be enough, this time.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant