Sen. Marco Rubio Marco Antonio RubioOvernight Defense: Pentagon redirects pandemic funding to defense contractors | US planning for full Afghanistan withdrawal by May | Anti-Trump GOP group puts ads in military papers Democrats step up hardball tactics as Supreme Court fight heats up Press: Notorious RBG vs Notorious GOP MORE (R-Fla.) on Friday said that mass shootings like the one in California wouldn’t have been prevented by expanded background checks for gun purchases.

The presidential hopeful appeared on "CBS This Morning" to discuss why he voted against an amendment that would have kept firearms out of the hands of those on the terror watch list.

The Thursday vote came a day after the San Bernardino, Calif., shooting that left 14 people dead and more than 20 wounded.

ADVERTISEMENT

“None of these crimes that have been committed, or in this case what I believe is a terror attack in California, would have been prevented by the expanded background checks,” Rubio said.

He added, “This terrorist that was able to access these weapons is not someone that would have wound up in any database and this is one of the risks of home-grown violent extremism. These are not people that have done anything before who suddenly become radicalized and within months are taking action.”

“None of the major shootings that have occurred in this country over the last few months or years that have outraged us would gun laws have prevented them," Rubio continued.

On Thursday, the Senate failed to pass a new gun control amendment tied to the ObamaCare repeal bill that would have prevented the sale of guns to those on the terror watch list and expanded background checks at gun shows.

When asked about background checks, Rubio noted that expanding the process infringes upon Americans’ right to carry, using his home state’s checks as an example of how they should be conducted.

“I have a concealed weapons permit so that means that my background check is done by telephone, not a three-day wait period and so forth,” Rubio said. “But what they are trying to do now it would not solve any of these problems, and in fact, would impede the Second Amendment right of a large number of Americans.