[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning again, everyone. What a bipartisan gun control agreement in the United States Congress? A bipartisan compromise. Is this a good thing because compromise is good? Moving the ball forward, if you want some gun control is good, take what you can get, or is this bad because it's not all that much really and it lets the Republicans say, "Okay, we did something, let's move on"?

We'll get a gun control advocate's take on this in just a second. Let's go through some details. On Sunday, a bipartisan group of senators announced an agreement for gun safety legislation in response to the mass shootings last month in Buffalo and in Uvalde, Texas, as well as elsewhere, of course. The agreement promises to enhance background checks to some degree, especially for those under the age of 21, and help states fund red flag laws, as they're known. We'll explain a little more about what those are. We keep hearing that phrase.

This agreement now needs to be translated into actual law. It's being moved from the conceptual agreement stage to actual language and we don't yet know for sure if they're going to be able to find the language that 60 senators will sign off on. Here is Senator Chuck Schumer, the majority leader speaking on the Senate floor yesterday.

Senator Chuck Schumer: For the first time in a long time, the Senate has a path forward on legislation that will save lives, reduce gun violence, and keep our community safe. Make no mistake about it. We have a lot of work left to do before we actually pass a bill, but yesterday's announcement was a positive and necessary step in the right direction.

Brian Lehrer: "Step in the right direction, but a lot of work to do before the agreement becomes a bill," says Chuck Schumer. By the way, before we get into the guts of it and the politics of it, just to put it in context, not everything is moving in that direction. In Ohio yesterday, Governor Mike DeWine, moderate Republican in some ways, signed a bill into law that would make it easier for teachers and other school employees to carry firearms into schools.

Now carrying guns to school has been on the books in Ohio for some years now, but they previously required 700 hours of training and approval from the school board. The training hours have now been significantly curtailed. One report I saw said you only need one day of training now to carry a gun into an Ohio school as a teacher. We'll try to confirm that.

Joining me now to respond to the news of the bipartisan deal on gun safety in Congress, whether activists think it goes far enough, and to talk about some of the response to the segment is John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, the largest gun violence prevention organization, they call themselves, in the United States. John, thanks for coming on. Welcome to WNYC.

John Feinblatt: Oh, thanks, Brian. Happy to be with you today.

Brian Lehrer: First, let's go through some of the details of this agreement as you understand them, and then we'll get your opinion about them. It would help states fund red flag laws. How so?

John Feinblatt: Well, the problem with red flag laws is it's one thing to pass a law, it's another thing to actually use it. I think we learned our lesson in a very tragic way just in the last few weeks in Buffalo, where this was an exhibit one, a textbook case of how to use a red flag law, but nobody took that tool out of the toolbox. What red flag laws do is allow law enforcement and parents, and in some states like New York, teachers, and perhaps in other states, mental health professionals, to actually petition a court for the temporary removal of guns when somebody's a danger to themselves or others.

What this law is going to do, if it is signed by the president, is it's going to incentivize states to do more training. Maryland's done a great deal of training. Even Suffolk county in New York has done a great deal of training on this. In states where people are trained how to use them, they save lives. This is an important feature of the bipartisan deal that's been struck.

Brian Lehrer: Is there an issue with red flag laws of what actually defines somebody who's dangerous enough to have guns taken away or to be prohibited from buying them?

John Feinblatt: Well, you have to go to a court. You can't just willy-nilly and take them away. You have to go to a court and make a showing and a judge decides whether somebody is endangering themselves or others, and judges make those kinds of decisions every single day.

Brian Lehrer: All right. Next, this agreement would expand background checks for those under the age of 21. What's the current state of background checks, and what does this bipartisan group propose?

John Feinblatt: Well, what this would really do is require a much more intensive investigative period for anybody under 21 buying a long gun, including an assault weapon. I think that's extraordinarily important in both the Uvalde and in Buffalo. We had 18-year-olds buying assault weapons that they used in these mass shootings. What this is going to do is give the time for a more intensive investigative period when somebody's under 21. I think it's an important step to make sure that guns and particularly assault weapons aren't getting into the wrong hands.

Brian Lehrer: New York Times reports that the provisions include closing the boyfriend loophole. Can you explain what that loophole is and how the Senate can close it with legislation?

John Feinblatt: Yes, this one's very important because under current federal law, anybody who has been convicted of a domestic violence offense or has a permanent order of protection against them is prohibited from buying a gun, but this is a pretty anachronistic law because it only applies to married couples. That's why it's called the boyfriend loophole. Most states have actually caught up with the current constellation of family patterns in this country, but the federal government hasn't, and this will put that to rest.

Intimate partners who have been involved in domestic violence [unintelligible 00:06:43] long-term boyfriends and girlfriends will be included and that's just really important.

Brian Lehrer: Two provisions in the agreement would crack down on illegal sales and purchases. One would clarify what it means to be a federally licensed firearms dealer and the other would penalize straw purchasing. Can you briefly explain straw purchasing and why these two measures are in the agreement?

John Feinblatt: Yes. Straw purchasing essentially is when a prohibited purchaser uses a confederate who can pass a background check to go into a gun store, and what's a typical situation is the prohibited purchaser is picking out the gun, the prohibited purchaser is dry firing the gun, discussing the features of the gun with the salesperson, but when it comes time to fill out the background information, they use a confederate, who has hardly been involved in the transaction, to fill out the paperwork so that the sale will go through.

It's important to be able to make sure that the straw purchaser actually comes under the federal trafficking laws. Important because this is a very, very typical scenario that goes on every single day. In fact, you might remember when Mike Bloomberg was mayor, he sued 20 gun dealers, and the typical situation that was simulated was a straw purchasing situation.

Brian Lehrer: There was a sting where the dealer knew that it was a straw purchase?

John Feinblatt: Dealers know it almost 9 out of 10 times. It's pretty obvious what happens because you've got the prohibitive purchaser doing everything in the transaction, except filling out the paperwork.

Brian Lehrer: The status of federally licensed firearms dealer, is that ambiguous?

John Feinblatt: This is a really important issue. The law basically says that if you're in the business of selling guns, you have to get a license and perform a background check. The problem is in the business is not really defined. It's almost up to the seller to decide whether they're in the business or not.

It would actually, Brian, be a little bit like going to JFK today and there'd be two lines, one where you could go through a magnetometer, you'd have to be wanded, and the other line you could just walk through and it would be up to the traveler to decide which line they belonged in.

You see this all the time, for instance, at gun shows where you've got two tables side by side with almost the exact same inventory. One person is a licensed dealer, the person next to them basically says, "I'm really not here very much. I do it three or four times a year. This isn't really my main business. I'm not going to run background checks." Which table would a criminal go to? Which table would a far-right armed extremist go to? Obviously, the one where you don't have to conduct a background check.

Brian Lehrer: Many of the proposals listed in the agreement include mental health funding. Axios breaks it down like this. Investing to increase access to mental health and suicide prevention programs,  funds to expand mental health and supportive services in schools, including early identification and intervention programs, funding for school safety resources, and investing in telehealth resources. Are there more provisions for mental health than for actual gun limitations?

John Feinblatt: I think there are many more provisions actually for gun limitations. Look, there's no doubt about it, you want more funds for mental health in this country, but I think we shouldn't make a mistake here. The truth is that if you compare the United States to any developed country in the world, we've got the same incidence of mental health, the same incidence of inpatient psychiatric admissions. The difference is we're awash with guns and there's an easy access to guns and the other countries aren't.

Brian Lehrer: Although the Governor of Texas Greg Abbott, when he was defending the gun laws after the Uvalde Elementary School massacre, he said we've had basically the same gun laws on the books, including the availability of what we call assault weapons for many decades, but the incidence of mass shootings with these weapons has markedly increased in recent years.

We have to conclude, according to Greg Abbott, that the issue is not assault weapons, the issue is declining mental health in the population. How would you, as an advocate, on the other side, respond to that?

John Feinblatt: I would say that Texas is weakening its gun laws under Governor Abbott for years now.

Brian Lehrer: It's easier to get a gun than it used to be and that's another variable?

John Feinblatt: Without a doubt, it's easier to have a gun in public than it used to be. The truth is that Governor Abbott has been on a basically march to weaken Texas gun laws.

Brian Lehrer: You want to give me your take on Ohio, in that context? I looked up what I mentioned-- really, my producer looked up, what I mentioned in the intro. Yes, 24 hours, you could get-- In Ohio, if you work for a school, it used to be 700 hours of training to be allowed to carry a firearm as a potential good guy against a potential bad guy as a teacher or other school personnel, 700 hours of training.

Now you can get it in 24 hours, according to the New York Times. I guess that's why I thought a day. If you did it for 24 hours straight, you could go into school tomorrow with your gun. That's a remarkable reduction in this new law signed by Governor Mike DeWine, right?

John Feinblatt: My reaction in a word, it's insane. The truth is schools are the last place you want war guns, and it's certainly the last place you want untrained people handling guns. The worst situation you could possibly imagine is guns getting into the hands of teenagers because a teacher who's not trained in safe storage or safety practices, [unintelligible 00:13:11] leaves their gun in the desk, leaves the gun in their briefcase, leaves their gun in their pocketbook. The idea that we would expose more young people, and give them easier access to guns is absolutely insane.

Brian Lehrer: Now, back to the Senate, the bipartisan agreement does fall short on some key measures that gun safety activists have been advocating. A federal ban on assault weapons, not in it, an increase in the minimum age for buying semi-automatic firearms, age increase across the board, not in it, and gun safety activists are having mixed reactions to the agreement. Here's Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action.

Shannon Watts: This is incredibly historic. For the first time in 26 years, we have a bipartisan agreement on a framework for creating gun safety legislation.

Brian Lehrer: Enthusiasm there, and here's Ryan Deitsch who survived the Parkland shooting.

Ryan Deitsch: I think, more than anything, this package is to gain brownie points for senators and to give them some credit for doing the bare minimum, which I don't think they deserve.

Brian Lehrer: There's a contrast, John. Where do you and your organization stand?

John Feinblatt: Look, it is historic. This didn't happen after Sandy Hook. It didn't happen after Parkland. Finally, we've got a bipartisan framework that breaks a 26-year-old log jam. That is an important step forward. Is there more to be done? Without a doubt, but this is actually a significant progress that's going to save lives and that's the bottom line.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, we can take a few phone calls on this. Quick reaction. We've just been going through the details. If you're on the gun control side, or the gun right side, if you are in the Senate today, would you vote for this deal as we've laid it out? 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692. You can also tweet @BrianLehrer. After the October 2017 shooting in Las Vegas, John, which killed 58 people and injured hundreds of others, the department of justice issued a rule to ban so-called bump stocks, the devices that convert a semi-automatic firearm into an actual machine gun.

The difference, correct me if I'm wrong, is that you don't have to pull the trigger each time to keep firing. That was not something that required legislation. Former President Donald Trump just told the Department of Justice to issue the rule. Can you explain that and whether that's an option for President Biden in any ways that we aren't talking about yet?

John Feinblatt: Yes. We're really talking here about the difference between what can be done by executive action and what requires legislation by Congress. In the case of the bump stocks, this was really just an interpretation of law, and that is something that you can do by executive action. I would point out, far more recently than 2017, just in the last month or so, the president used executive actions to ban the so-called ghost guns.

Quite frankly, ghost guns are probably the biggest threat I've seen in the years I've been working on this issue because these were basically mail-ordered guns that you could put together in less than an hour with the right tool. They weren't serialized, meaning you couldn't trace them, and you didn't have to have a background check to buy them. They came right to your mailbox, just go online and get them.

Brian Lehrer: Let's take a phone call. Here's Anna in Brooklyn, who, I think, is calling on the mental health resources aspect of the agreement. Anna, you're on WNYC. Hello.

Anna: Hi, thanks so much for having me. Can you hear me okay?

Brian Lehrer: Yes, just fine.

Anna: Great. I just wanted to comment on the idea of expanding mental health services because I know that that is often a thing that is put out there when the issue of gun violence comes up, and just want to note that it's not like you can just turn on and off the spigot of mental health services. Mental health services are provided by people who receive years and years of training and are presumably working in the field.

There's already a workforce shortage around mental health clinicians. To really address the mental health needs, which obviously goes beyond just people who we might be concerned about being violent with guns, given all the issues that have come up with the pandemic, et cetera.

That's a multi-year investment, not just in creating new programs, but training people, maintaining programs. When that's not paid attention to, what really happens is you're just stealing from Peter to pay Paul. Just as a brief example, under the former mayoral administration, the first lady, her theme, for lack of a better word, was to expand mental health services through this Youth Thrive Initiative.

There were all these new programs that were created. I worked in child welfare on issues around trauma and mental health. What we found is that all these master social workers who were working in foster care programs were just leaving and going over to these new Youth Thrive Programs, which were 9:00 to 5:00 office spaces. They didn't have to go out into [unintelligible 00:19:10] They didn't have to get all that.

Brian Lehrer: Then you had shortages in the other ends of the field?

Anna: Yes.

Brian Lehrer: Is there a way, in your opinion, that this could be funded effectively at the federal level so it wouldn't be robbing Peter to pay Paul, as you put it?

Anna: My personal opinion is you need to do two things. One is really look at the capacity of training programs, which would be schools of social work, et cetera, to expand their capacity, which is a huge infrastructure and their own internal capacity issue, but also look at things like training, more like lay paraprofessionals, other people that might be working in certain settings to not  necessarily do intensive therapy with someone who has serious mental health issues but to provide some level of--

Brian Lehrer: Support and screening and identification.

Anna: Something like support, right.

Brian Lehrer: I'm going to leave it there. Thank you for a very interesting and important call. You can't just throw money at something and expect that it's going to work. You have to really do it right. Don in Morris County, you're on WNYC. Hi, Don.

Don: Hello, Brian. Thanks for taking my call. I feel strongly about this issue and I feel very disappointed in the so-called agreement that the Democrats are making with the Republicans on this bill. I would call it a surrender. With regards to the mental health requirement that the Republicans are pushing, I would support that because I think we need to understand better the mentality of anybody that would want to have an assault weapon. Thank you for taking my call.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you for making it. One along those lines, John, from Twitter, listener writes "The bipartisan gun laws being proposed are still the tiniest most incremental steps that the GOP would allow to go forward so they can continue to keep their NRA ratings up, and it goes on from there." What do you say to that tweeter and that caller?

John Feinblatt: Look, I think that this agreement, would be the first to say, isn't going to accomplish everything. The truth is that it breaks a historic log jam, a 26-year-old log jam and it is going to save lives. I think that we shouldn't lose track of one important thing, which is, at this very moment, many states around the country are enacting very strong laws as well.

The Congress is not the only arena here to save lives. State laws are extraordinarily important. Governor Kathy Hochul, as you know, just signed an important package of new gun safety laws, and even counties and cities are doing it. In fact, in Westchester county, just this month, they passed an ordinance requiring warnings, akin to cigarette warnings at gun stores when you buy a gun. Important to know, Congress is not the only arena here to save lives.

Brian Lehrer: Before you go, let me play one more clip of Chuck Schumer on the Senate floor yesterday, and then ask you where this goes from here and what you worried about losing from this agreement when they actually start writing the law in detail. Here's 30 seconds of Schumer.

Senator Chuck Schumer: Americans have waited long enough for us to take action. Too many lives, too many have been already lost. Too many families, too many have been left grieving. While we can't undo the tragedies of the past, we can act now to make them less likely in the future. This framework, if enacted into law, will do precisely that. I urge all of us to continue working to pass gun safety legislation soon.

Brian Lehrer: All right, so there's Chuck Schumer. Let me get in another call, maybe two for you if we can do these very quickly. Larissa in Fair Lawn, you're on WNYC. Hi, Larissa.

Larissa: Hi, Brian. Hi, John. I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action in New Jersey-

John Feinblatt: Thank you.

Larissa: -and I definitely-- Thanks, John. I stand with you and Shannon on being cautiously optimistic about this legislation. We've been working really hard, at the federal level, and this is huge. My only concern was the school safety resources aspect. Do you know what that might entail? We talk a lot about the concerns of hardening and militarizing our schools even more, and it would be concerning me that they might be wanting to add more guns and perpetuating the good guy with a gunness with that.

Brian Lehrer: Larissa, thank you very much. 20 seconds for this, John.

John Feinblatt: First of all, I want to say to you, this bill would not have happened without you. It was people like you, Students Demand Action volunteers, Moms Demand Action volunteers that made sure that the senators don't look away. When it comes to the school funding aspects, you're right to have some concerns, and the proof will be in the pudding, and we're going to watch the details of it very closely. We all want school safety, but we don't want it to be counterproductive.

Brian Lehrer: Last question. The Washington Post reports enough Republican senators support the framework to be to filibuster. However, disagreements could still delay the proposal as lawmakers draft the legislation ahead of a June 24th recess. A Republican aid also told the Axios, this is an agreement on principles, not legislative text. The details will be critical for Republicans, particularly the firearms-related provisions. Again, a 22-second answer, and then we're out of time. What do you see as the biggest potential sticking point as they try to turn a concept into a piece of law?

John Feinblatt: Look, there are two more steps that have to be taken. One is this has to be translated into bill language. The second is that the president has to sign it. There is a basic agreement about the framework with 10 Republicans signing off and 10 Democrats signing off on it. I think we are in the road to break a 26-year-old log jam in Congress. That is something that we should feel very good about because it's going to translate into save lives in this country.

Brian Lehrer: John Feinblatt president of Everyone for Gun Safety, the largest gun violence prevention organization. Everytown, I should say, not everyone. Of course, if you get everyone in every town, well, then you don't have a debate anymore. John Feinblatt is president of Everytown for gun safety, the gun violence prevention organization. Thanks for joining us today.

John Feinblatt: Thank you, Brian.

Copyright © 2022 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.