continues. host: we are back, and we are going to spend the next hour talking about the house-passed legislation that would expand gun background checks. we are joined by brady president kris brown. discusses recent -- we are joined by brady president kris brown. good morning. guest: good morning. host: the house passed two pieces of legislation on gun laws. what is your reaction? guest: we are thrilled, and we are so pleased with the house leadership, from speaker pelosi to steny hoyer to wit clyburn, and, of course the chair of the gun violence prevention task force.

-- and was elected on having sensible gun laws. this was a historic vote. it is not the first time since 2018 that we had votes in the last two bills. the last congress we did as well, both enjoyed bipartisan report -- support. and as the president of brady, founded by jim and sarah brady, who created our nation's background check system, which has stopped more than 3.5 million sales of guns to prohibited purchases across the country, we believe in this system strongly and apply both bills. what they do -- and i can talk about it in a little more detail -- they strengthen our nation's background check system, which is our best protection that we have in this country to ensure that individuals who should not have guns do not have them. and that is why our background

check system enjoys such strong support across this country. i think pizza may be less popular than the background check system, and efforts to broaden and strengthen them are broadly supported throughout the country. host: let's give viewers background formation on what the bill actually does. the first bill, which was sponsored by preventative mike thompson, would establish background check requirement for gun sales between private parties, prohibiting transfers unless a licensed gun dealer, manufacturer, or importer first takes possession of the firearm to conduct a background check. the legislation would not apply to certain transfers, such as a gift between the spouses. that past 227-203, with 8 republicans report -- voting for and one democrat against. there is also the enhanced background checks act, which was sponsored by representative jim

clyburn. it would increase the amount of time that firearm sellers must wait to receive a completed background check before transferring a firearm to an unlicensed buyer from 3 days to 10 days. that bill passed the house 219-210, with two republicans voting for the legislation and two democrats voting against it. know what is the importance of those two pieces of legislation? what actual change will those praying, if it is passed by the senate and signed by the president? guest: great question. you mentioned the two bills that passed, hr-8, which causes certain gaps in the background check system and ensures a background check is done before every gun sale, and hr-1446, which closes what is called the charleston loophole. let me explain whath each does. r-8 fixes a g -- hr-8 fixes a

gap in the system. jim and sarah past the brady background check law about 27 years ago, just a few weeks ago. during that time, there was no such thing as the internet, and gun shows were not big business. today, they are. as a result of the way that the background check law was passed -- drafted at the time, focused on federally licensed firearms dealers as being the entities required to conduct background checks. that is how the legislation was worded. fast-forward to today, and there are entities that effectively act as ffl's and are selling at gun shows, and under federal law, they are not required to run a background check, technically.

some states have strengthened their laws, but others have not, and the system is designed to ensure a background check occurs before every gun sale. hr-8 ensures regardless where a gun is sold, whether over the internet or at a gun show or at an ffl, that a background check is conducted. there are exceptions to the background check requirement to have always been enshrined in federal law. so if you are doing an enter- -- inter-familial transfer, that is accepted, that is purely a gift. hr-1446 addresses a different issue. that issue, the so-called charleston loophole, exists because, right now, under

federal law, if you go to purchase a gun, and the gun dealer conducts a background check, as they are required to do if they are an ffl, and that background check does not come back instantaneously -- mind you, 90% of all background checks do, come back within 90 seconds -- if that back on check takes longer for any reason, typically because if there is something on someone's wrecker that needs to be investigated, than if more than 3 days pass from when the background check is initiated, the default rule is the sale proceeds anyway, even when no background check has come back. it is called the charleston loophole, because that is how the shooter, who shot the parishioners and the pastor at ame church in charleston was shot, by a shooter who never should have had his gun but obtained it on the fourth day,

when no background check had come back after the dealer called him and said you can come get the gun. what this does is extends the time period for a background check to be completed to 10 days. some states have already done that. then it says, if a background check still has not come back after that 10 day period, the person seeking to purchase the gun can petition the fbi for a completion of that check, and the fbi has 10 additional days to complete that check. in its simplest form, that is the bill, 1446, that closes the charleston loophole and gives the fbi sufficient time to complete background checks on individuals, many of whom need the fbi to complete those checks, but also, it protects individuals across this country from a sale proceeding where no background check has come back on the person yet.

and there is not a small percentage of those with flags that make them prohibited purchasers. in other words, if the background check had come back in time, it would show this person should not be sold the gun, so it is just giving more time for the fbi to complete that process. host: let me remind our viewers that they can take part in this conversation. if you support the house bill that expands gun background checks, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8000. if you oppose the house bill that would expand gun background checks, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8001. keep in mind, you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. and we are always reading on social media, on twitter, @cspanwj, and on facebook, facebook.com/cspan. now i want you to respond to

this. wednesday, a georgia republican spoke on the house floor about the legislation and why he thinks it should not pass. here is what he said. [video clip] >> bottom line is we all know that, by definition, criminals do not abide by the law, and that applies also when they are purchasing firearms. nothing in this bill prohibits this type of individual from obtaining firearms. in fact, the majority of individuals imprisoned for committing crimes with firearms obtained their firearms through theft, the underground market, family members, and the like. but what this bill does is threaten everyday american citizens with up to a year in prison and $100,000 fine for exercising their second amendment right in doing common practices. and to say this does not create

a national gun registry -- you cannot accomplish what is in this bill without a gun registry. the reality is universal background checks do not stop mass shootings. we do not have mass shootings because of a lack of background checks. this bill will not make our community safer. in fact what it will do is because law-abiding citizens to lose more of their second amendment rights. we should not be focused, here in congress, and taking those rights away. we actually should be strengthening the enforcement of laws we already have to make our community safer. host: respond to representative hice there. guest: let me just say it will be no surprise to any of your viewers that i disagree with almost everything that he said. but i will agree, yes, let us strengthen enforcement. that is a tired, old talking point that representatives like him trot out whenever they are opposed to commonsense measures to enhance the brady background

check system, but they put no teeth in it. they say those words, but then they do not fund the atf, do not provide more enforcement authority for organizations and agencies to actually ensure that gun dealers abide by the law. on that i agree, and brady has long said that. that me tell you what i disagree with -- basically everything else he said, because it is just not true. this would not create a registry, absolutely not. there is no way for that to happen from this bill. if it did, we were already have one, because the brady law largely accomplishes all of this. this is just visiting -- fixing gaps in the system that have taken place because 27 years have passed and because the designation of the entity that is required to conduct the background checks, back when the bill was passed in 1993, was a federally licensed firearms dealer.

the because of the internet and gun shows, we have many entities who are effectively acting that way who are not technically required to conduct checks. he also made the false assertion that is sort of a strange thing to make for a lawmaker and very troubling -- that criminals are just going to commit crime, no matter what you do. why would we have any law if that is the case? people will just thieve, commit murder -- that is not insistent with any notion upon which our entire democracy and rule of law is placed. and if it really did not work, well, no one who passed this bill 27 years ago got that memo, because these are the same, tired old talking points that were trotted forward, same about the registration, saying it will not vote, save lives that were put forward 27 years ago. but here is the thing, and this

is uncontestable, because it comes from the fbi. since the brady law was enacted, we have stopped more than 3.5 million sales of guns to individuals who are prohibited purchasers. i use that term because that is what congress defined. these are individuals like convicted felons, convicted domestic abusers that we all agree should not have guns. so i couldn't disagree more, and i will say that i am not alone. you cannot find many places in america today where americans do not agree that this system is really important and that it needs to be strengthened. he is in a distinct minority in terms of his views. host: let's go to some of our callers. let's start with john, calling from liverpool, new york. good morning. caller: how you doing? i definitely support the

background checks. generally speaking, i am in favor of everything i am hearing from the gun control people, the limitation of large bullet magazines, we need that. for expanded background checks. anything that makes common sense. and i really like the way the democrats use -- they used to use "gun control." now it is "common sense gun control." i think what we need is a return to commonsense in this country, and not just on guns, on many things. not to get off topic, but we need some common sense immigration control, we have stopped caravans coming in left and right. it is all about common sense across-the-board, regardless of what the issue is. let's use some common sense. host: go ahead and respond. guest: i cannot agree more on

the points with respect to commonsense gun measures. i want to say, while we had brady obviously -- while we at brady are obviously thrilled that these bills to strengthen the system is a critical first step, john is right. we have an epidemic of gun violence. we lose 40,000 people a year, 41 thousand last year, on average to gun violence. we have had a huge surge in gun violence due to what is called panic purchases, and two thirds of those deaths are suicides. we need comprehensive -- two address comprehensively the issue of gun violence. every day gun violence that happens in communities across

this country is not often discussed. the impact in particular on black and brown communities is devastating, entire communities impacted by this and suffering but a form of ptsd that makes living, basic living, incredibly difficult. so let's be sure -- i want to be sure, as the head of brady, to make a point that these two bills are really important, but so are regulating high-capacity magazines, so is addressing funding for violent intervention programs across this country that are absolutely critical, cdc funding, and ending family fire. that is the death or injury of individuals with unsecured guns in their own home, and that is driving 8 kids a day to be killed or injured with guns in the home, and it is driving suicides and other forms of violence. we need to tackle this as a public of epidemic, and that is why i am so proud we have president biden who really

understands this issue and treats it like that, when key leaders in his administration, like ambassador rice, the head of the domestic policy council, are very focused on that issue. that is appropriate. we can tackle and fix these issues in a way that is 100% consistent with the second amendment. we do not have to choose between our right to safety and our right to own guns. host: let's talk to david, calling from georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you to "washington journal ." i just had to call and correct her on -- he is saying 90% -- she is saying 90% of background checks come back instantly. it is just the opposite. 10% to 15% come back instantly. this system is so bogged down, cannot just take the information and spill out in that kind of

timeframe. i've friends from oregon to west virginia to texas to the midwest , to the tip of florida, and they all tell me the same thing. that it takes too long. the system is tii vigge -- the system is too bogged up. any seller will tell you. so i just had to correct her on that. host: go ahead and respond there. guest: i am using statistics from the fbi. while there are individuals, and i cannot counter it, just keep in mind we have hundreds of thousands of gun sales that happen during any given year. when i say 90% of those happen instantaneously, i mean within seconds, and then 97% of them happen within a minute. the rest of them, yes, they may be delayed, and that is not a small number, given the volume of gun sales we have every year,

but that is why closing the charleston loophole is so important. we think the default rule should be that a gun sale does not occur until a background check is happened that has happened -- has happened. i am sensitive to the point i think the caller is making, and i do want to say our data does not come from the air. it comes straight from the fbi. ultimately, we believe the fbi needs to have appropriate resources to ensure the background check system works as intended, and that means the right data in the system -- i apologize -- the right data in the system and it means enough staffing to meaningfully ensure the background check system works the way that it should. i will tell you the president who invested in that the most is barack obama. he put more resources for executive action, i might add, to the fbi then had been put

there in a very long time. and i hope that we will reassess , in this congress, the appropriate staffing levels to ensure that it continues to work just as it should, which is really to ensure that an instantaneous or nearly instantaneous check can occur for every single gun sale. host: let's talk to bobby, calling from tuscaloosa, alabama. good morning. caller: yes. i totally support the new background checks on guns, because it would give -- it will not stop it all, because anyone who really wants to do harm will find a way to do that harm. but i have a question. i had a friend, her father passed away, and he had long guns, hunting guns. he loved to hunt. he had two handguns.

so her, not knowing anything about guns -- i advertised them for sale in bulletin, and they were sold. and i had a daughter who was in school and worked at night, lived in birmingham, alabama, so i bought her a gun, and she learned how to use it. so the question is, you are saying, for instance, if i passed away, and i do have a revolver, that my wife, she couldn't give that to a friend of mine or a brother of mine? how would she dispose of that? how will a private citizen dispose of a gun, if someone passed, and they had long guns or revolvers, and they want to sell it to someone? would you speak on that for me, please? guest: yes, thank you for that. really good question. the way hr-8 -- and you're referencing hr-8, because that

is the one that requires background checks with certain exceptions. one is inter-familial transfer. your hypothetical would not count as that. it would count as a transfer in a will from one family member to another. but if it is transfer that way, and then your wife, which i think is your hypothetical, wants to transfer it to a friend, a background check would need to be done in that instance. that sounds cumbersome, but really it is not. the system that has been put in place to facilitate this -- keep in mind, half of all states have closed the gap already, and there are systems in place, with federally licensed firearms dealers to do this, just go to a local dealer, and they complete the check with your friend. that is how the compliance works. why is that the rule? because if we had a carve about

that basically said any transfer between two individuals -- if you are friends, it has to be stated as individuals -- could proceed, that would create a huge loophole that a mack truck could drive through it. and to use the analogy that the person on the floor was using, that criminals will just find a way through -- well, we have tightened it, so it really makes that impossible. inter-familial transfers, yes, but transfers between two individuals not related would be subject to a check that would happen at any local ffl. that is the way it is designed to work. host: what are these two bills chances in the senate right now? do you all expect a quick

passage, no passage, a filibuster? guest: that is a really good question. i was really pleased to listen to leader schumer's remarks after hr-8 and hr-1446 passed. what a difference an election makes. leader schumer is committed to at least bring hr-8 to the floor for a vote. i hope that will also include hr-1446. both of these measures are critically important. ultimately what has happened in the last session of congress is the house of representatives passed both these measures, and it sat at mitch mcconnell's graveyard, along with thousands of other bills. the differences bringing it to the floor. and forcing votes on this issue. we do have some republicans who

will absolutely vote for this bill. we know that. we have work to do. to bring others along. what i will say about it is this -- we are working day and night. we have hundreds of thousands of people across this country who care passionately that this gets done. no member of the senate wants to take this vote and vote against this bill, really, in the end. they do not want to do that, because we will make this an election issue. the american people will be unforgiving around this issue. if, for whatever reason, we find delay around bringing this to the senate floor, or we cannot get enough votes, because as you noted in the question, to overcome the filibuster, what this is emblematic of is we have to get rid of the filibuster. if we cannot get this done when 9 out of every 10 americans

thinks this has to happen, it is the only room in all of america where you cannot get 90% of the people occupying that room to agree that this needs to happen. for us, we will push very hard to ensure that these get votes. we will push very hard to ensure that we are getting the kind of support we need, but if ultimately we cannot get the 60, it means we need to end the filibuster. host: let's talk to sarah, calling from new hampshire. caller: good morning. i've been a gun owner my entire adult life. my question is, if i pass a background check, why would i have to wait 5 days? say i have been threatened by my partner, i've gone to get the restraining order, now i want to

protect myself, i pass a background check, now i have to wait 5 days in which that person has an opportunity to killand, k five days ago. i do not think that is fair. the other thing is that i lost a lot of my constitutional rights under the patriot act and now i am losing my second amendment rights, and laws like the person said, criminals break laws, they do not care about laws, and to say that we should not have laws is nonsensical and does not make sense. i have done trades online, and met the person, this is our law, meet them at the gun store, they have to go through a background check or i have to gun through the background check and we do

it through the gun store. i think that takes care of that. i agree that gun shows are a loophole. there should be a way to do background checks at the gun store. host: go ahead and respond before we run out of time. caller: absolutely -- guest: absolutely. i am not sure what the caller what she was referencing in terms of the five day waiting period. that might be a state law, some states have waiting periods. there is nothing in the adderall law that requires a waiting -- any federal law that requires a waiting period. the 10 days is just to complete the background check. the second it is completed the sale can proceed but there is no waiting period. in response to her comment though that one of the things that waiting periods have proven in studies that i have read to

reduce the risk of is suicide. and so, it is something that merits much more attention. her final point is really important. what i described in terms of how a transfer would happen between individuals that she commented on at the end based on what your prior caller asks, -- asked, that is easy and that is how she experienced it herself, and that is exactly the system that we are creating federally, nationwide that will facilitate those kind of transfers from happening going forward, not a difficult thing. host: we would like to thank kris brown for talking us through the house legislation. house, and it does not speak to the bill. i yield back. [end video clip] host: we are back and we are going to continue our discussion on the house passed bill to expand gun background checks. now