six, eight years ago. and all you have to do is get their phone number from walgreen's or c.v.s., they're all up there too, and you can get your prescription, your doctor see to inyour prescription and mail it to them and you can get the drugs from there and they're a lot cheaper than they are here. guest: lots of people are going to canada, mexico, importing from elsewhere. the reason they're doing it is because drugs in this country are too expensive. you can buy a drug in canada for a fraction of what we pay in this country. we don't believe that that's the long-term best solution. wode like to fix our drug price -- we'd like to fix our drug pricing problems here with a made in america set of reforms and see to it that people get the drugs they need at affordable prices. host: patients for a-- patientsforaffordabledrugs.org. if you want to find out more

about the organization and its effort, david mitchell is the president and >> "washington journal" continues. host: this is stephen gutkowski of the washington free beacon joining us. he's a staff writer talking about the various efforts on gun legislation being discussed. good morning to you. guest: good morning to you. thanks for having me on. host: of the various pieces we've heard since the shootings in both dayton and el paso, what has the most success as of today? guest: as far as legislation at the federal level goes, i think the most likely to pass or come up for a vote even is red flag legislation. being worked on by lindsey graham and richard blumenthal. they announced they'd had a deal although er on texts, they have not released the text yet. so we're not sure on the details of that beyond what's been --. so basics reported. but essentially that bill would be federal grants for states that adopt red flag laws that

meet certain guidelines that will, i guess we'll see once of the text of the bill is out. host: walk us through the fundamental idea of red flag laws. how do they work? guest: red flag law or a gun violence restraining order, they're also called, essentially it allows, depending on the state, it allows somebody who is either a family member or in some cases police or, you know, even your -- people you work with, to petition a court for a restraining order which temporarily -- which allows law enforcement to temporarily seize someone's firearms from them if they present evidence that they're a danger to themselves or others. now, there's a lot of controversy around these laws. because some people, you know, one side says there's not enough due process protections, which is obviously a fundamental important thing when you're talking about removing someone's firearms.

given that affects their second amendment rights. and the other side believes that these are important measures to prevent mass shootings. but also, in more cases, suicides. host: who it comes to the laws themselves, the proposals, even though republicans are talking about pushing that forward, what's the idea of many of the republicans on capitol hill on its face, do you have a sense of that? guest: i think this one has more support than things like a universal background check law or assault weapons ban or magazine bans. because you've seen republicans come out already publicly support this. rubio has supported the general idea and he has his own proposal. graham obviously is the chairman of the judiciary committee and he's been working on this for month news to and his big push in the aftermath of the latest two shootings is red flag law. so i think -- you've also seen the president express support, as well as the majority leader,

mitch mcconnell. so i think that there's a lot more support in the republican party for something like a red flag law. there's also plenty of skepticism and the idea that the details -- the devil's in the details in these things. host: what's the main point of concern in skepticism? guest: the main point of concern for red flag laws that there won't be strenuous enough due process protections. someone's accused of being a threat to themselves and others and you can petition a judge but if the person is not able to defend themselves against the accusations or have a hearing in a reasonable amount of period of time after the guns are taken, you know, obviously that presents constitutional issues and that's where the concerns come in. host: our guest with us to talk about these various proposals that are making their way or at least being discussed on capitol hill. if you're a gun owner and you want to ask questions, 202-748-8000. all others, 202-748-8001.

you can also tweet us your thoughts @cspanwj. where does the president stand on these various things being discussed? guest: the president is the president, right? so he's made a number of different states about being open to universal background check proposals, and as well as red flag law proposals. and i believe he's made statements saying he doesn't support an assault weapons ban, which i think most republicans don't. many democrats certainly do. but as far as concrete proposals, we don't necessarily have something like that yet. from the president or from congress beyond what we've heard out of lindsey graham and rich blumenthal on their red flag deal. host: when it comes to the topic checks, what's been the main concern? because there are background checks already that exist. what's the difference in the

term universal? guest: the way federal law works currently, if you're, quote in the business of selling firearms, if you have a gun che been the main store or you make a substantial profit off of selling guns, a living, g it for a living, you have to become licensed by the federal government and so those people who are licensed, they're what he is -- what's regulated. those individuals. that's how the current system works. any time they do a sale, there's a background check. so if you go to gaun store, there's a background check. if you buy a gun from them at a gun show, if you buy from a licensed dealer, someone at a gun store, you have to do a background check. if you buy onlined from a licensed dealer, there's a check. nd federal law does not regulate private sales. private individuals, i should say. so the used market, if someone sells a private -- a private individual sells gun to another private individual in the secondary market, within their own state, then there's no federal regulation on that, a background check is not required. universal background checks require background require bac

on those sales as well. basically on almost any transfer of the gun between two people would have to have a broupped check. except usually there's exceptions for family members. several states have adopted this -- these kinds of laws. i think there's eight or so right now, eight to 12, mainly your bluer states have universal background check laws. so essentially the proposal is to make that federal law. so all gun transfers in the united states would have to go through the background check system. host: you listed all those venues someone can buy a gun. we have people who call into this program and say there are ways around that from every venue listed. what's the reality to that? can someone buy a gun without a background check? guest: certainly you can buy a gun legally without a background check if you're in a state where they don't have a universal background check law. and you're doing a private sale. and you're not a prohibited

person. somebody who is a convicted felon, who has been adjudicated mentally ill. it's never legal for those people to buy guns. they may be able to do it illegally, certainly they can break the law. but as far as the law concerned, it's illegal to ever sell a gun or let someone hold a gun if they're a prohibited person and it's illegal for them to do it. so as far as the effectiveness of background checks, especially in regards to universal or especially in regards to the recent shootings, the last three attacks, all three of those shootings went through the legal process and had a background check and passed it. so, as far as this as a response to these recent shootings, this kind of proposal, it wouldn't necessarily have stopped these particular shootings. advocates say it would generally reduce crime. that's the claim at least. host: we've had discussions about gun legislation after sandy hook. we've had it after a member of

congress was shot. we had it after several members were shot. is there something different this time about the discussion going none capitol hill? guest: you know, the hard to say as far as what's -- what politicians think. i don't know. i think the proof will be in what's to come legislatively. you know, there is obviously sort of cycle these things. you see support of gun control in the media after a horrible attack like we've seen recently. then as we get further away from those events, support for them in public polling drops. it's likely to see something like that happen again. host: let's take your first caller. this is from jim in illinois. a gun owner. you're on with steve gutkowski of the washington free beacon. hello. caller: good morning, gentlemen. how are you guys?

host: fine, thanks. go ahead. caller: i'm a gun owner and i live in the country and i have a gun range and i just would like to say, it's fun to shoot water jugs and steel targets. but also on another note, you know, as much as we'd like these mass shootings to go away, i doubt very much if they ever will. so in saying that, that means every time we have one, year after year, and the congress ends up making more laws and restricting it year after year, you chip and you chip and you chip away, eventually you have nothing left but dust. so -- when do we quit chipping? we have 22,000 gun laws on the books right now that needs to be enforced. host: thanks, caller. guest: yeah, i mean, i think there's a legitimate point in there about enforcing current

laws. certainly you've seen many of these mass shooters, including the one in dayton, from details we've heard already, where it's likely that they could have been made into a prohibited person. they could have been prosecute forward crime that would have made them prohibited from owning guns or they could have been involuntarily committed as we saw with swub like the parkland -- someone like the parkland shooters. there are a lot of things under current law, regardless of what you think about the future proposals, that could prevent a lot of these shootings. and it takes somebody doing something, saying something, and in some cases it takes law enforcement following through on those tips and that evidence that's available to them. so i do you this that -- think there is more that can be done with current law to prevent these sort of horrible attacks. host: from virginia, carol. good morning. caller: good morning.

y response to this potential red flag law is that we are laypeople to diagnose, to pick up the science of suicide. some people will pick up the sign -- signs of suicide. some people will pick up the signs but many people do not dnt, they -- cannot, they do not have the knowledge. now, do we not think that if the kennedy family missed that diagnosis of someone they loved, that we can expect everyone else to prevent suicides in their family? and families who go through this, it is a very painful, guilty moment. .o i see this as not doing much my own opinion is we need to get the powerful guns, the one with the big -- 100-magazine shots,

this is what needs to be done. and i think what we're trying to do with the red flag is to make us feel good, to make us feel when in e done nothing reality we will have done very little. i am not a gun owner. i do have military people in my family. i do have hunters in the family or have had in the past, it's something i personally don't check with people's preferences. host: thanks, caller. guest: obviously the signs of suicide can be difficult to defect for some people. red flag laws are not a guarantee you'll be able to prevent all suicides, of course. i think there's a lot of legitimate concerns as well of people sort of making false accusations in order to take someone's guns away from them

without the proper protections for that. that's something that has been very controversial with these proposals so far. host: from ohio, this is will, a gun owner. hi. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i'm an elderly gentlemen and a long-time hunter and i would like to say, one thing that bothers me, it seems like many of these gun laws are based on untruths. one of the biggest ones is when i hear guns are so readily available today compared to what they used to be. that is not simply true. when i was a younger person, 16, 17 years old, you could walk into your local five and dime and buy an m 147b grand rifle, which was -- m 17b had grand rifle, which was used in world war ii, much more powerful than the we haves they have now. you put -- weapons they have now. you put dound 100, you buy the gun, no background check, no anything. so when people say guns are so

readily available, that's not true. they were much more. our local high school actually had a shooting range in the basement. and kids would bring their guns to school and shoot after class. i mean, it has something to do with society, not with the guns. and that's what i'd like to say. thank you very much. guest: yeah, i think there's a lot of truth to that. certainly our first federal firearms law wasn't enacted in 1934. we've seen a number, at least three or four more since then, absolutely guns are more regulated now than they were in the history. host: this idea of the ar-15 or assault weapons this comes back into the conversation. is it the same type of conversation we've heard about this weapon in previous gun shootings? has something changed about this type of weapon? what you have experienced? guest: no. this is not a new debate that

we're having. certainly as the caller just -- one of the points that gets brought up a lot is the ar 15 is a .223 round which is an sbeer immediateat cart raj which is between your immediate yam cartridge and full-sized cartridge. but you have a lot of people that have misconceptions about how these firearms work and believes -- beliefs that they're somehow more powerful than your hunting rifles or something like that. which is not necessarily true. or really not true at all. but as far as the debate goes, you have people who want them banned and on the other side it's the most popular rifle in america and there's millions of people who own them and don't want them banned. host: stephen gutkowski, we've heard the president talk about the influence of the n.r. namplet this discussion -- n.r.a. in this discussion. president trump: i have a great relationship with the n.r.a. i have a lot of respect for the people at the n.r.a. and i have already spoken to them on numerous occasions.

numerous occasions. and frankly, we need intelligent background checks. ok? this isn't a question of n.r.a., republican or democrat. i will tell you, i spoke to mitch mcconnell yesterday, he's totally onboard. he said, i've been waiting for your call. he's totally onboard. i spoke to senators that in some cases -- friends of mine, but pretty hard-line senators, hard-line and when i say that, i say that in a positive way. hard-line on the second amendment. and they understand, we don't want insane people, mentally ill people, bad people, dangerous people, we don't want guns in the hands of the wrong people. i think that the republicans are going to be great and lead the charge, along with the democrats. i spoke yesterday to nancy pelosi, we had a great talk. i spoke to chuck schumer, we had a great talk.

and chuck schumer in particular loves my china policy, as you probably know. i said, i can't believe, it you actually like something that i'm doing. he said, not like, love. so chuck schumer is great on the china situation. which we are winning and winning big and china wants to goed is -- wants to do something but i'm not ready to do something yet. 25 years of abuse, i'm not letting that go fast. we'll see how that works out. but on the background check, on background checks, we have tremendous support for really commonsense, sensible, important background checks. host: stephen gutkowski, going back to the first part of the statement, the n.r.a., he seemed open as far as conversations he's had with them about their concerns. what are the n.r.a.'s concerns about the president actually doing something? guest: he's had several conversations with the c.e.o. of the national rifle association and then also i had a story last

week about the white house reaching out to the head of the second amendment foundation and the citizens committee for the right to keep and bear arms. certainly the white house is concerned about what gun rights supporters think about moving forward here. what they are willing to support and what they're not. the n.r.a. itself has come out and said they would not support a universal background check law at the federal level. they have offered support for some red flag proposals nat -- in the past. they have obviously the concerns i laid out earlier about those bills. but i think as far as the universal background check law goes, which the president was talking about there, the politics of that would be i think a stretch to get that passed. you need 14 republican votes, you have two left from the last time in 2012 when they had a bill. and so you need to get 12 more.

i think it would take a very strong effort, continuous effort from the president himself, to push that bill in order to give enough to convince enough republicans to go -- it's not even clear would you get all of the democrats in the senate to vote for it. people like doug jones in alabama may oppose something like that. i think it would -- he'd have to spend a lot of political capital to get something like that passed and it's unclear what the benefits for him would be politically speaking at least. so it's hard to look at the math for things like universal background checks and assault weapons bans and see them getting to 60 votes just practically. host: let's hear from mike in south carolina. caller: hi, good morning. having to do with universal background checks, everyone is in agreement, all the voters, republicans and democrats, that it should be done.

and it should be something that people will have to wait until that background check has been completed to own a weapon. what is the urgency? does someone need a gun right away so they can go do something with it? even guns sold in gun shows, there should be a reasonable time for the proper government agency to be able to do a thorough background check for everyone's protection. if people -- if politicians have a problem with that, then it goes back to the lobbyists and the n.r.a. and the gun manufacturers, supporting them for their campaigns. and the question would be, who are politicses really loyal to? do they represent the voters of the united states of america who put them in office? and will do what we want them to do? or are they going to do what the lobbyists and the manufacturing companies, corporations are telling them to do because they're giving them money to get re-elected? thank you.

guest: yeah, well, mine, certainly i think many people do oftentimes need guns immediately. that's why the background check system is meant to be instantaneous. for self-protection. there's more than 100 million people in the country report having a gun in the home and many of them say -- a large majority say they use it for self-defense. there certainly are situations where people do need guns immediately. stalkers or threats to their lives, things like that. as far as support for universal background checks, it certainly does poll well. i think that's clear through polling over the years. but at the same time what a lot of people don't realize is that it doesn't actually do that well, these laws, as ballot initiatives which are, you know, presented directly to voters. nevada passed one but only by

about 1%. and maine defeated one. so the polling, there's clearly a disconnect between the polling and actual voting on that issue. host: from new york, this is noel. hi. caller: hi. i appreciate you taking my call. as far as background checks, i want to know who is going to give the background checks on that ose folks in chicago shoot -- these drug dealers, they've got all the guns they want. and i don't see anybody talking about it. illinois has the strictest gun laws in the country, you can't even drive through the state unless -- i mean, you can't have a legal handgun and drive through the state. i mean, i've got a permit in new york state and several other states and -- to own handgun, and you can't even drive through illinois. yet all these guys, these drug

dealers, they've all got guns of they shoot them up. there were over 1,600 shootings in chicago alone since the beginning of the year. i don't hear anybody talking about taking their guns away. boy, they want to make sure that somebody isn't going to go crazy, though. they want to do background checks on people. i just don't get it. it's lunacy. they terrorize people of chicago and their neighborhoods and what happens? the police, their hands are tied, the police try to do them anything, they call them racist. this is ridiculous. nobody's safe there. nobody would go there. i don't see nancy pelosi making any speeches there or any of these democrat presidential candidates going to south chicago and making any big speeches about taking the guns away from people. it's just ridiculous. host: ok, caller. thank you. what do you think about those comparisons that you've heard?

guest: yeah, guest: one of the main criticisms of universal background checks as well, essentially criminals don't get their guns this way. they don't go to gun shows. they don't -- they are not going to comply with a universal background check law. i think studies show, especially out of the university of chicago, that people who have been convicted of gun crimes, generally they report getting their guns from friends, people that they know in a legal transfer, essentially. or they are stolen. would a universal background check law affect those sorts of trans, actions -- transactions? probably not. that's one of the big criticisms. olivia habinck tony in florida, gun owner, hi. caller: how you doing. i'm just appalled of the general ignorance. i have some questions to ask people. do people know what an assault rifle is? can anyone define it?

secondly, under what authority is the federal government going to do background check on private sales or red flag laws? i support those things but i want them at the state level. c-span just going this fueling the outrage machine doesn't help. why doesn't c-span do a series on federalism on the types of guns and on gun laws so people can make intelligent decisions? olivia habinck we have had segment on gun laws over the year. i invite you to go to the website to check those yourself. if you go to the website yourself and type in gun laws at the top of screen, you'll see he put out there as far as things we have taken in and discussed on this program to your topic. to your other aspects, go ahead. >> certainly there is a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding out there when it comes to terminology with firearms. that's a legitimate problem. especially in media, frankly.

but also when it comes to politicians, which can be, obviously, severe issue if you are trying to legislate something you don't understand. this is another common critique you see among gun rights proponents that a lot of politicians and media members don't even understand the things they are talking about wanting to ban. they don't understand the firearms, culture, a lot of these things. i think that's for the most part very true. not necessarily c-span, but a lot of my colleagues in the media, i think, are less than educated on this issue and on capitol hill as well. that's an important issue. olivia habinck by the time congress comes back into session, what is the likely -- it : what is the likelihood will have waned? guest: likely, based on the istory of how this has gone. as we get further away, the

pressure to just do something, anything, sort of wanes. i don't think that means you won't see hearings and you won't see even legislation. you could certainly see legislation. specially the red flag laws. the issue not going away. all together. generally what happens is that as emotions cool, support for these sorts of proposals wanes. i will say that there has been a different, at least in the he democratic party, in the last several years develop embraced gun control to greater degree than you have seen in recent history, since the 1990's, because there had been general consensus in the democratic party gun control is not a winning issue for them. they seem to have changed that point of view for most of the candidates running, even the

frontrunner, joe biden, has been aggressive on his gun control standses. -- stances. certainly we'll see if that play pays off. hillary clinton was more aggressive than barack obama was nd she lost. host: what do you think you'll be covering when it comes to the gun debate? guest: all sorts of things. i tried to focus on a wide breath of issues john federal legislation and mass shootings which is what gets the bulk of attention in our media as a firearms beat reporter i try to broaden the coverage beyond that. i will certainly continue to follow the red flaling laws. i'll continue to follow the -- flag laws. i'll continue to follow the developments of the n.r.a. they have obviously had some internal arguments over there. i have been covering that exfencively.

i'll keep -- extensively. i'll keep up on federal legislation is the most important thing. then how the gun community lives day-to-day, i show a range time on youtube we are profiling a 15-year-old competitive shooter from virginia. she's at the top of her sport. we just finished shooting some interviews with her. that will be coming out soon as well. try to cover the breadth of the issues. st: steven gutowski, covers firearms for free beacon, >> tonight on the communicators. pres. trump: people come up to me and say i can't all you. these are people who are good at what they do. they say they make it absolutely impossible. recentill talk about the

presidential social media summit where the president discusses social media censorship and what should be done about it with robert from the heritage foundation and patrick hedger from the competitive enterprise institute. >> as consumers, we can certainly demand that as users of facebook and twitter and google, if we are going beyond that platform, we -- they will respect our ability to committee -- comedic eight. -- communicate. >> they are getting a billion views on the products that he is putting out. >> watch the communicators tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span two. announcer: watch book tv for live coverage of the national book festival on saturday, august 31, starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern. we have interviews with justice

her bader ginsburg and book, my own words. sharon robinson talks about child's of the dream. rick atkinson, author of the british are coming. and thomas malone, founding director of the m.i.t. center for collective intelligence, discusses his book, super minds. live, saturday, august 31 at 10:00 a.m. eastern on book tv on c-span2. announcer: every year, c-span awards federal ships -- fellowships to several middleton high school teachers who have demonstrated innovative methods of incorporating see sprint -- c-span programs in the routine. they join c-span for four weeks in july to develop new teaching materials. they lead the c-span summer educators conference. one