if you all can meet us in front of the department of justice. again, january 23rd. i think it's at 10:00 a.m. if you can meet us there, with ewould greatly appreciate it. thank you. >> thank you guys so much. please join me in thanking our great panel for being here today. [ applause ] if we get a little congested or start coughing, or wiping our noses on our sleeves, we apologize in advance. actually, we're not going to be doing that. but thank you guys all for being here. i'm honored to be here with such great panelists. we have here, myself. ich rachel graber with the national coalition against domestic violence. we kaf kate ranta, survivor and

speaker and activist. if you could wave. we have lindsay nichols, senior university. and we have penny okamoto who is an advocate. and we are here today to talk about picking up the pieces after what i -- as a point of personal privilege, because i am not on work hours, would say qualifies as a complete and total disaster. and because the landscape -- the federal landscape is so different from what we had anticipated, with ehad all these great plans, we were going to push ahead with the violence against women act and we were going to stuff all these things in there. we would take out the obvious things, because we had the red hers and had this great plan. now we're really playing defense. we're on the defense. we're trying to keep in the

protections we were able to get last time for lgbt survivors. we're trying to make sure that nobody's stripped out. so we really, instead of being able to push forward, we are trying to be be the surround in our marginalized communities and make sure that we don't move backwards. a little bit about my organization. we are the oldest national domestic violence organization in the country. your shelters, your advocates. and we actually work -- we kind of -- we're like a little zen di a diagram. we're on a task force of about 30 other national organizations. and a lot of specific

organizations. we work in this framework of unintended consequences. before with emake any decisions, support any policies, we look at how this will impact other organizations, but specifically marginalized communities. so we do have certain areas of disagreement with some of our overlapping goals. which, again, would be the gun violence community. we do have a different take on things. but i'm here, and we're all here to talk about the importance of state statutes. since, you know, at the federal level, like i said, we're playing defense. but there is a lot of room at the state level to make progress. i don't know how much you guys know about the intersection between domestic violence and gun violence, so i'm just going to give you really quick statistics. so about 1,000 people are killed every year by intimate partners,

and most of them are killed by intimate partners wielding firearms. everybody cites all these statistics. the presence of a gun, in the home, it increases the risk of homicides between 500 and 2,000%. but we need to look beyond homicide, right? far more frequently firearms are used as a means of power and control. right? there's this story that my friends at the national domestic violence hotline did a survey, and they talk about an anonymous survivor who said, you know, he has a gun, he keeps it by his bedside, and at night i wake up, he's pressing it against my head and releasing the safety. right? and people say, well, why don't they leave? that's a pretty compelling reason not to leave. the abuser is threatening her, or him, the survivor, the

children. that's a very common tactic. family friends, pets, right? in the national domestic hotline survey, they found that 67% of respondents whose abusers had guns said they believed they were capable of killing them. we do have some federal laws to protect the survivors from gun violence. but they're very outdated. so right now people convicted of domestic violence are prohibited from having firearms. if it's a misdemeanor or felony, of course, because all felonies. but that's limited to current or former spouses, co-habitants or biological co-parents. this is before we had people dating for many years. this was back when people would get married, and they would move in together and have children. and what we're seeing now is you

do have people dating for a lot longer. waiting to have children. building careers. and living apart. so there are a lot of gaps. dating partners are not covered, even though dating partners commit half of domestic violence homicides. people convicted of misdemeanor stalking are not included, even though 76% of people who are killed by intimate partners are stalked first. this is a ten-city study. ex partye protective orders, they are not protected by federal law from gun violence. and that, everybody will tell you, is the most dangerous time for a victim or survivor. obviously, then, universal background checks. that's not happening. we've been working on that for a long time. it will happen eventually. but it's not going to be happening in the next several years. and then there are a lot of

places where federal law can't cover, right? like, for example, we want -- we talk about surrender provisions. we think that an abuser who is subject to a domestic violence prohibitor really should turn in his or her firearms. what's the point of having a prohibitor if they can just keep their firearms and nobody cares and nobody removes them, right? that's not something that can really be done at the federal level. you can have grants to help put in surrender -- you know, help places develop surrender policies. you can have studies. studies are always great. but you can't actually have a mandate. you can't have the federal government going out and having every single abuser surrender their firearms to the federal government. that is just not practical. not practical. so beyond that even, federal

government is responsible for enforcing federal laws, right? the state government cannot enforce federal laws. so if we are concerned about holding abusers who break the law related to firearms, if we're concerned about holding them accountable, it has to be state laws. because if we want the state to prosecute it, right? the federal government, they have other things. they are not going to be going out and prosecuting people who violate the federal domestic violence prohibitor. you know, so it's really important to have fixes at the state level regardless of what is happening at the federal level. so that's just kind of a little general background. and we'll move on to the kate ranta. her ex-husband stalked her to her apartment and shot her and

her father twice each in front of her then 4-year-old son. is your son here today? >> my older son is. >> your older son is here today. welcome to kate's older son. since the shooting, kate has become an activist against violence against women. and gun violence, as a co-founder against women against violence epidemic wave. a survivor fellow for gun safety and national spokesperson for gun sense in america. kate is featured in two documentary films, making a killing, guns, greed and the nra, and finding jen's voice. has appeared in "rolling stone," "huffington post," and other digital publications, and participated on various panels. she spoke on the capitol steps this summer with nancy pelosi and told her story to large rally crowds. thank you, kate, for being here. >> thank you.

so usually when i'm on these panels, i'm here to tell my story about, you know, our shooting. and give those details. and i kind of wanted to take it in a different direction on this panel, because it is domestic violence specific. the climax of my story is what rachel said, that my ex stalked me to my apartment and he shot through a door, behind which my dad and i were pushing to try to keep him out. so the bullets came through the door. my young son was standing right behind me. he came in and shot some more. and, you know, the long story short is that we did get out safely. my dad lived. you know, we have injuries that we deal with every day. including ptsd. my son is now 8, and in 2nd

grade. and he's doing really, really well. but that situation -- and i was speaking with rachel earlier, was so preventable. because there were so many red flags that this was going -- this was lethal and this was going to be the outcome. and it's -- you know, i missed a lot -- it's not my fault, but i missed a lot of red flags throughout the relationship of the coercive control. he would take out -- he had many, many weapons. at least two shotguns and many, many handguns in the home. and he would take them out and clean them in front of me. and kind of play with the laser, and he knew i was uncomfortable with it. so it was definitely, you know, like -- it felt threatening.

but two years prior to the shooting, we had an incident where he tried to leave the home. he had picked an argument with me and he tried to leave the home with our son, who at that point was 2. and he left. and i had called the police. and they came. and he was really cool and calm. and, you know, he was military, so he had these military coins and he was giving the copies to the cops. and i was hysterical. it was the first time it had escalated to that point. previously it had been, you know, controlling, emotional, psychological abuse. so one officer pulled me aside and said, if he didn't hit you this time, because he threatened to, he raised his fist but he didn't actually hit me, he was like, he'll do it again, so you

need to go get a restraining order. so i did. i went the next day. it was like i was so naive. nobody tells you about all of these steps that -- and all these hoops that you have to go through, and you're traumatized while doing it. i got the -- i was granted the temporary restraining order. and this happened in florida. so under florida law, the police were able to go into the home once he was served with the restraining order and remove all the guns from the home. but the night that they were doing that, an officer told us, well, yes, we can go in and take these guns, but understand that because this is a temporary restraining order, he can go out the next day and buy a new gun. so there was like zero protection for us at all. and that's what he did. my understanding, i still don't know all the details, we haven't even gone to trial yet and it's

been almost five years, my understanding is he did get the gun legally. so it's like, what has to happen for women and children to be protected. what about our rights. what -- you know. he had all the signs that this was going to happen. and even the night of the shooting, it had all started because i was leaving. i was going to be going out that night. and when i got in my car, all the hazard lights lit up and it said low tire pressure. so i walked around the car and he had slashed the tires. so i couldn't leave. and at that point my temporary restraining order had expired. the judge would never make it permanent. i had gone back probably four times in front of this judge to try to get it permanent.

he continued to harass me, he continued to stalk me. he wouldn't do it. it expired. i went back three other times to get a restraining order and was turned down. i wasn't even protected by a piece of paper at that point. so when i called 911, and the cop came, female cop, she was, like, there's really nothing that we can do. like i couldn't prove that it was him. and she was like, well, you should probably go tomorrow and get a restraining order. and i was like, well, i've been turned down for three, so i don't know what good that's going to do. it was weird. it was like ominous. almost like i knew something was going to happen. because i said to her, he's going to have to kill me before you people do anything about this. and literally, 20 minutes later he came and shot us. and i remember her -- she was one of the responders.

i remember her over me, on the ground saying, i'm sorry, i'm sorry, i'm so sorry, i'm so sorry. there's just so many systems that have to change. and we can talk about guns and gun loopholes and all of this all day long, but it's so much more pervasive than that. especially with the intersect n intersectionality between domestic violence and gun violence. so thank you. >> thank you, rachel. i appreciate being here. it's kind of an honor. i do a lot of sort of technical stuff so i don't often get to speak in public so i really do appreciate it. and it's something i need a lot of practice in. so this is a good opportunity to do that. so i am going to try to communicate some of the sort of more technical stuff. because i think it really helps for people to understand that.

especially if -- and i really do hope this happens. people are communicating themselves with legislators, actually with people who are going to be voting on proposals. it helps to understand what you can about the what proceeds ales really do and why they're so important. so something -- and a lot of what i said is sort of -- rachel's already said it, but i'm going to say it again. as rachel said, like our gun laws are really weak on a national level. there are loopholes everywhere. and we -- you know, we can do things piece by piece. that's the way we are forced to act. because of the political situation. those things do make a difference. but we have to keep going, right? one little win is not going to be enough. it will make a difference, it will save some lives, and that's why we do it, but we have to keep doing that. on the federal level, you know, there are some basic provisions.

but they're filled with loopholes. so there's a background check level. at a gun store there has to be a background check. but if, you know, the person is not a formal gun dealer, just selling guns over the internet or at a gun show, generally a background check isn't required by federal law. but then the states have stepped in, and 19 states at this point, at least for handguns, do require a background check. and that means that people from those states, that they're selling the guns on the internet, are subject to this requirement. background checks are really important, because in the legal framework level, that's how we prevent people who shouldn't have guns from having guns. right? it's not -- this isn't about enforcing the prohibition so that we can jail people who have

guns illegally. this is preventing people from getting guns in the first place. because their history indicates that they shouldn't have them. and that history very often involves domestic violence. it involves of the person is subject to a protective order, or the person is -- has been convicted of domestic violence crimes. so those are the -- that's sort of the basic framework. and the other thing i want to mention, the main theme, first of all, our gun laws are really weak, but the second theme is, we're making a lot of progress. step by step. especially in the area of domestic violence. i mean, this is an area where since 2008, 40 new state laws have been enacted. and each one of those laws saves lives. each one of those laws makes a difference. so at the state level, this is something that can be done.

right? this is something that can actually be done and get a win. and that means that -- and the reason for that is really this. you know, when you're talking to congress, it's going to take hundreds of phone calls maybe to make a difference. if you're talking to a state legislator, a vote may be swayed by a few dozen phone calls. so there's a serious difference there. and something can actually happen that's very positive. so this past year, for example, well, not this past year, this past year nevada, a ballot initiative passed a loophole. the year before the state legislature in oregon closed the loophole. there's ongoing progress on that level. even though, you know, we think congress at the federal level is not going to close that loophole, changes at the state level are happening. on an ongoing basis. and we need to keep up the

pressure to make that continue. more specific to domestic violence, as rachel said, you know, this is an area where we need state laws. right? federal laws, even if they were super strong, which they're not, local police and state police are more likely to be focused on enforcing state laws. so changes at the state law will make it -- are likely to make a serious difference. a third of the states don't actually prohibit gun possession while someone is subject to a protective order. so federal law does sort of a little bit. but in a third of the states, there's no corresponding state law. so that is a big loophole in and of itself. and two-thirds of the states don't prohibit gun possession by a person who has been convicted of a domestic violence crime if

it's a misdemeanor. another big loophole, right? these are huge loopholes. that means that state and local enforcement in those states will not do anything do anything to from domestic abusers' hands. so police officers, it's not their problem because there's no law on the books about it. however, as i said, progress is being made. in 2015, oregon, alabama, south carolina, nevada and louisiana all enacted laws that add prohibitions to mirror the federal law so that's a large number of states and they are not the kinds of blue progressive states that you think are the ones acting. these are states where -- they are red states but progress can still be made. one of the -- another issue that rachel mentioned is this gap regarding dating partners, so people who aren't married, never

lived together, don't have children together, they're not covered by the federal law. but among the states that do have a gun prohibition on the books, most of those state laws do cover abusive dating partners so that's an issue where sort of the state, there's a difference between the state laws that do exist and the federal laws. that is something that even the state laws that didn't cover that, they are changing so they do cover dating partners. and also, stalking, so about 11 states prohibit someone convicted of stalking from possessing a firearm. some examples of recent laws on this topic, in florida in 2012, a law was enacted that prohibits gun possession when someone's been issued an injunction against stalking or injunction is basically a protective order,

injunction against stalking. in utah, in 2013, a law was enacted that permits a court to prohibit an individual in a dating relationship with an abuser from possessing guns in certain situations and these prohibiting of possession of guns in certain situations, that basically means the person's ineligible so they can't pass a background check. in hawaii, in 2015, a law was enacted that adds stalking to the definition of crime of violence, meaning that convicted stalkers can't possess guns. so all over the country, in many different states, action is being taken and laws are actually getting passed. we are not just talking about bills being introduced or proposals. we are getting the law changed. this is structural change that makes a really big difference. another issue that rachel mentioned was the problem with actually getting guns out of the hands of abusers when they fall

into these prohibited categories, when they lose their gun eligibility. the best way to enforce a gun prohibition is to really ensure that the abuser gives up his guns. about half of the states, at least, allow a court to include a surrender provision in the words of the protective order but that means half the states don't. and that's a problem. a much smaller number of states cover situations where the person's convicted of a domestic violence crime so it's kind of shocking but when people are convicted of crimes, there is often a gap with getting -- taking their guns away even though those crimes actually make them ineligible to possess those guns. soes the strongest versions of these laws when they do get passed imposes some sort of

requirement that the abusers prove they have actually done this and that's usually just a form of a piece of paper, a receipt, so from the law enforcement agency or a gun dealer saying yes, i have the person's guns, the person doesn't have them anymore, and just the simple fact of requiring the abuser to provide that receipt or piece of paper to the court really seems to get the abuser to actually surrender a lot more guns. because someone is watching them, right? someone is holding them accountable to comply with the gun prohibition. so some examples of recent laws on that topic are laws that were enacted in maryland, tennessee and iowa in 2009, colorado in 2013, minnesota, washington, wisconsin in 2014 and delaware in 2015. and then finally, one more big

loophole as rachel mentioned was the temporary restraining order issue. and this is the facts that the way the legal system works is when somebody goes to get a restraining order, the court may issue something immediately but it's temporary, in other words, and the actual hearing hasn't happened yet so the abuser gets notice of the hearing, gets to go to the hearing and that might be a couple of weeks before that happens. during that period of time, the federal law doesn't apply so the person can still -- the abuser can still pass a background check and in some states, nothing is done to remove the guns during that period of time either, that the abuser might already have. that has been a very difficult lift in terms of actually passing legislation and that's because -- largely because the gun lobby is hammering this idea

that oh, it's a violation of the man's or the abuser's rights to take away their guns before a hearing and it's really a perversion of what due process means from a legal perspective because this is something that's only -- only takes a couple of weeks and during that time there's a really really serious danger to the victims. even though this is a heavy lift, connecticut this year did enact a law that covers this period so a person in connecticut who is subject to a temporary restraining order is now prohibited from possessing guns and the guns have to be removed during that period. so that's a big win this year for the community at this intersection of doe mmestic violence and guns. we are looking to expand on that to see what other states we can

pass those kinds of laws. i think i forgot to talk more about my own organization at the beginning of my little speil so i will do that quickly. the law center to prevent gun violence was created in 1993 after a big shooting at a law firm. at that point all the lawyers got together and said what's going on, how does this -- how do these things happen. they looked at the data and statistics about gun violence in this country and then looked at the laws and they realized the laws are filled with loopholes and they are just blatantly obvious and the epidemic of gun violence is just overwhelming so they got together and formed this organization. we have been working on primarily at the state and local level strengthening gun laws as much as we can, and as rachel mentioned, this past year we merged with a much newer organization called americans for responsible solutions which

was organized by gabbi giffords and mark kelly a couple of years ago, and that merger, it's synergy in its greatest form because it gives us a much stronger platform to spread our message and it gives them the legal expertise they really need to accomplish their goals. so i think if anybody wants to talk more about that, i'm happy to discuss it with any of you. >> thanks, lindsay. if you guys are curious about your state and how your state's firearms law compare to other states, at the law center they have a great report card for all 50 states and the district of columbia? >> i'm not sure if we include -- >> maybe not the district of columbia. probably not guam or the northern mariana islands. yeah. check out the website. a lot of great information. thank you, lindsay.

moving on, i actually just met penny yesterday? yesterday. but she comes highly recommended. i have heard wonderful, wonderful things about her so it's really exciting to get to know her. she has been working on gun violence since 2000 when she was a coordinator for volunteers of the million mom march in portland, oregon. she joined the board of directors in 2000 and has been the executive director since 2010 and executive director of cease-fire oregon since 2015. her work includes policy and research. miss okamoto co-authored cease-fire oregon's plan to relieve gun violence and the education compiling results of mass shootings in countries who ban or permit military style firearms for the oregon public health association conference. miss okamoto holds a bachelor of science degree in biology and was a research biologist.

she believes we can drastically reduce gun violence through better laws and by changing the public's perception of guns and gun violence. i should have made this '14 instead of '11. thank you. >> thank you so much. i can't tell you how honored i am to be here today and be with just all these incredible women. i'm truly honored. a lot of people think i had some sort of terrible shooting in my history to have been working at this for so long but the truth of the matter is that of course in '97 there's a shooting in oregon, i should say i'm from portland. i'm from the chicago area but i have lived in the portland, oregon area for 22 years. the thursdton high school shooting, and in '99, the columbine shooting and so many in between there. it was in 2000, on a day that happens rarely, because it was a leap day, a little boy got his

uncle's gun at his home, the uncle was staying at the home. he took it to school and shot to death kayla rollins. she was 6 years old, at that time the youngest victim of a school shooting until sandy hook. i remember thinking how can this be happening. i have a degree in science and can look this thing up and i'm going to figure it out and look at the statistics. i looked at the statistics and thought if people just knew, if they only knew what the statistics were they would understand. of course, that's incredibly naive. i know that's not the case anymore. i was very lucky i was going through actually looking through, thinking what can i do, i was actually looking through ms. magazine and there was an ad for the million mom march. i said that's it. that's what i'm going to do. that's what i have been doing. so that's how we got started. cease-fire oregon has been around since 1994 as a c-3, and as a c-4 since 2000-2001 and actually we started a pac a year

ago. we have been working for a long time before sandy hook happened really just playing defense. we were very successful actually at getting the state of oregon to make sure they are putting mental health data into nix which is something we don't talk about. make assure your state is putting mental health information into nix so people who have been adjudicated mentally ill won't so easily get a gun. since then, i do like to blow our horn a little bit only because of the work we have done in the past, the work with cease-fire oregon and cease-fire oregon education did, when sandy hook happened, three days before sandy hook, there was a town center shooting. two people were shot to death, a young woman was injured in the shooting. so there was -- that really galvanized people and of course, sandy hook, people just freaked out. we were inundated. but by that time, though, cease-fire oregon, we know the laws, knew the legislatures, had

coalitions. so we had all that foundation work done basically. we had actually already done work with domestic violence advocates as well. we had everything really in place. i think that's one of the things that helped. another thing that really helps in oregon is that wegovernor wh amazing. governor kate brown. the former governor had to step down. don't even get me started. anyway, governor kate brown has been amazing. she's a very, you know, kind of small woman, she's little, and to see the weight of the state, to see the violence directed towards her, this little tiny fierce, fierce woman, is just amazing. i'm so proud to be here today

because of her but i actually got this great quote. i have to back it up. i don't know how many of you know but last august i think it was, we got some, i'm going to call them yahoos who decided they don't like the governor, her stand on gun violence, prevention, what she's going to do so they will teach her a lesson. they took a mannequin, dressed it as kate brown, hung it in effigy on the capitol steps and burned it because of her work on gun violence prevention. here's what kate says. i shouldn't call her kate. i'm sorry. governor brown says. she said quote, if they're going to burn in effigy every time i stand up for gun safety they are going to run out of mannequins. [ applause ] >> that's what the governor said. i have some of her executive orders here actually. she's going to work to close the boyfriend loophole so we already have sb 525 which gives women some protection.

not just women but men, people, victims of domestic abuse some protection. we have a really strong effective background check law and actually, got some moms demand action folks here. when they brought this law in, when i first saw this law i was mad. like there's no way we are going to pass this. there's no way. you have like, if you are going to buy a gun, used to be you could just, you just did the sale. then we were going to say well, how about if you just call the oregon state police because we are point of contact, you can call the state police and do a background check. no. no, no, no. the gun lobby are hideous and they are like no, we can't have that bill. so we came in with this awesome bill, if you're going to buy a gun you have to go to a federally licensed firearms dealer van them do the background check right there. there are a few exceptions for people who actually live like 40

miles away from anything and a couple minor exceptions. also, there are exceptions for people who are family members so talking parents, sibling, grandparents, et cetera, up to first cousins, aunts, uncles and their spouse or domestic partner. but the law also states that you cannot transfer a gun to someone you know or reasonably should know is a prohibited person. we feel we are very covered in all that. we are pretty lucky as far as that's concerned. so we had this great law we realized that what you were talking about and what you were talking about in terms of if there's not -- if people haven't been co-domiciled, haven't lived together, if they don't share a child together, then there are loopholes that can prevent people from -- that can allow people to continue to get guns. we are actually going to be working on something called the boyfriend loophole and again, this is because of what governor brown has been stating, that will say it doesn't matter if you are domiciled together or not, if you have a child

together or not, if you are just dating and not living together, this is still going to prevent you from getting a gun if you have some type of stalking order. i'm just going to, i hate kind of doing this to you but i just want to make sure i don't miss anything. she also wants to close the charleston loophole which of course i particularly bring up today because of dylann roof's admission last night. i don't know if any of you guys heard that. here are other things, though. she's going to strengthen existing law through executive order to give law enforcement the tools they need to track and analyze gun sales. what this means is that if you are going to get a gun, you are going to buy a gun, you fail a background check, it gives the opportunity for local law enforcement, not just oregon state police but local law enforcement to find out why did you fail that background check. if you are a felon you are under arrest because it's illegal to do that. that's incredibly important to do.

i actually won't get into some of the national stuff she's going to do just because of lack of time. but we do have this information on our website, cease-fire oregon.org, and we have a legislative site. right now we are featuring federal legislation because we don't go into session until february 1st in our state but i will update that. there's a lot of legislation at the federal level you really need to be looking at. if you think your states can't make a difference on the federal level, states' rights. won't go into that, but states' rights can help with a lot of things including forced mandated government concealed carry. okay. just a couple other things i really want to talk about. so talking about coalitions. a coalition really, we have the domestic violence coalition. sometimes they're no, get away from us, we don't want to deal with guns because the gun crazies will come out. they do anyway. it's not just that. it's making sure everybody gets to vote.

in the state of oregon because of governor kate brown, we have motor voter. when people go to register for their driver's license they register to vote. you have to opt out of it. then you get sent in your mail a ballot because we vote by mail. the more people who are voting, the better it is for domestic violence issues and for all sorts of issues of gun safety. so that's a great coalition you want to make sure you're with, okay? you also want to make sure, there are faith coalitions, all these other coalitions but another one people don't think about is your public health partners. because we go to the public health, they tell us all this data and all this great information, then what i want to do is take the information that they have and turn it into actionable items. of course, the best one i think is for mothers against drunk drivers. friends don't let friends drive drunk. really simple. says it all. betsy came up with a good one. do you guys know betsy?

yeah. might be some betsys here. they say friends don't help friends commit suicide, lock your guns. very reasonable actionable item. one of the things, we need our laws definitely but we really need to work on changing what we are talking about in terms of gun violence. we need to start talking to kids when they are under 5 years old. you know what? people who are really, i don't know, whatever adjective you want to use, that's why i'm not in public relations, who are really smart, strong, brave, i don't know what you would use, don't settle their arguments at the point of a gun, even a toy gun. speaking of toy guns, this is another great place where we can have a partnership. we got rid of candy cigarettes. you guys remember candy cigarettes, right? some of you. the younger ones don't. yeah. yeah. yeah. but we give them toy guns. and a shout out to jessica jinn.

because there are kids here, there are other toys we don't give our children. even though -- we have some young people here. even though, you know, even though it's not like a gun, they are going to grow up and learn how to use guns. guess what? they will learn how to grow up and use other things, too, but we don't give them as toys, do we. sorry about that. sorry. another thing that oregon is going to be doing is we are going to be working on extreme risk protective order. this is the gun violence restraining order. washington state just passed this by referendum. we are going to be working on this in the state of oregon and basically it says if someone is entering a crisis, family member has an opportunity to talk to a judge and have weapons removed. so another thing kate brown is going to be working on is, i feel like i'm a spokesperson for kate brown, i'm not. it's just part of this whole kind of coalition and what we can do and what needs to be done. dispossession of guns and

relinquishment of guns. making sure that we can do that. a shout-out to the police officers because i have talked to them about how they do this and it's not like come on, give me your gun. they talk to them like look, this is a bad situation and why don't you just let us have the guns for awhile and we are going to make sure this doesn't turn into a worse situation. we are here to protect you. things like that. they do a great job. it's pretty amazing. another thing that is not addressed in gun violence, i don't know why, it's something you really talked about and that's the intimidation, men and women and children and animals face at the point of a gun. we don't talk about that. we really need to talk about how we get people to realize it's not cool to pull out a gun to intimidate people. and this is the kind of thing where we really reach out to our partners like gun owners for responsible ownership who came out of the town center shooting.

this would be paul kemp, jenna uhl, robert uhl, what messages would you say to people who are gun owners who try to intimidate people. they know better than i do how to reach those people. so really what that comes around to is changing the cultural expectations of what gun owners would demand of other gun owners. we also need to really look at how are we going to tackle the issue we have in oregon because oregon, we have four million people in oregon, half of them live in the portland metro area. we have great sheriffs, great law enforcement but we also have sheriffs, like sheriff hanlon who is investigating the community college shooting which happened over 14 months ago now. he said, he's like sandy hook, i'm not sure if that really happened or not. really? it just happened at your school in your backyard. you think mass shootings happen now? by the way, i know people who live there. sheriff hanlon never went to the

crime scene that day. never went. know where that report is? we don't either. he hasn't done the report yet. over 14 months he hasn't finished that report. another thing, too, is he testified against our background check bill. so what are we going to do with sheriffs, you go to a sheriff, he's like don't worry, little lady, buy yourself a gun. that will save your life. we need to make sure we have other law enforcement talking to these people and saying look, this is not working. it's a law, we have got to enforce it. it's a law for a reason. so i don't want to take up much more of your time but we do have a plan to reduce gun violence in three to five years and a lot of this is from daniel webster, congressman blumenauer, it's on the website, well documented. three basic ideas. we want to increase standards for gun ownership. not just people, right now if you have a misdemeanor on domestic violence, can't get a

gun, right? we need to do that for all misdemeanor violence, even if it's just for ten years. if you have been convicted of drug and alcohol abuse, we know people with drug and alcohol convictions are far more likely to commit a gun crime. that's one thing. increase standards of gun ownership. there's more on there i won't belabor it. two, increase accountability of federal license firearms dealers. when you go into a drugstore to pick up a prescription there's all sorts of security devices to make sure you're not stealing things. we need those in our federally licensed firearms dealers. that's something from dr. daniel webster. there's more on that on the website. third, safety measures. whether we are requiring mandating training. in fact, in oregon if you are getting a concealed hand gun license, you are not required by law to even touch a gun to get a concealed hand gun license. can you imagine if we said you know, you want to drive in oregon, you got to watch a video and tape a class, it's about

four hours but you don't have to drive a car. same kind of thing. so increase standards for gun ownership, enhanced accountability for federally licensed firearms dealers, increased safety standards. really, the final thing i want to leave you with, look outside your realm for other partners. go to the public health. certainly go to all the people you are already working with but think about not just who is getting elected but how we are voting and how people are getting to their polls because that brings into all of it and messaging, messaging, messaging, messaging, messaging. how do i talk to gun owners, how do i talk to whatever group you are addressing. that's worked very well with us. finally, this will be it, after sandy hook, million mom march, brady was already there, we got gun owners for responsible ownership welcomed them. welcome them. people ask me why do you have so many gun violence prevention

groups in oregon, why aren't you just one. i say we are like a family of super heroes. moms demand action oregon, i keep putting this here because she's a mom, 80,000 people in the state of oregon alone. cease-fire oregon, tons of history and expertise on this issue. brady campaign, all the stuff brady has. we are all like a bunch of super heroes all working together, domestic violence partners bring in that. bunch of super heroes. everybody is welcome at the table. people say who do i join? join them all. but i'm the executive director cease-fire so join them all but give to us. don't want my board to be unhappy. >> i'm afraid we all have so many great things we want ted t share with you we have gone over time. i think probably we might be milling around if you have questions afterwards but we need to vacate this space so people can have lunch and move on to th