world of politics, all at your fair tips. also stay current with the latest episodes of washing journal and find scheduling information for c-span tv networks and c-span radio plus a variety of podcast. it is available at the apple store in google play. download free today. c-span now, your front row seat to washington, anytime anywhere. >> joining us particular talk about gun issues and gun policy and the trends in crime statistics is jim kessler. he is the executive vice president for policy at third way. you are a staffer at the time. 30 years ago in 1994 on the house committee that worked on the 1994 assault weapon band -- ban that was signed into law by then president clinton. can you take us back to that year and what led to that

creation of that law? why was it necessary at the time? guest: i was chuck schumer's legislative director at the time and he was the author of the assault weapon ban and if you looked at gun crime in the 1970's and 80's, the crimes were used with very cheap guns. and 80's, the crimes were used with very cheap guns. some of the original laws about what types of guns needed to be bad if you could band them, -- band --banned if you could ban them -- we moved to these military stout weapons and that -- styled weapons and that was why we moved to this ban.

i can tell you up to the very point that when the speaker bank that gavel down, -- banged the gavel down, we did not know if we had the votes to pass. host: what is a assault weapon? guest: it was coined by the gun lobby as a marketing ploy back in the 80's but what we did was, we said, what are the characteristics of the gun that basically -- you would imagine it more in a military setting fan in a -- band in --than in a self-defense setting. do you shoot it from a hit -- the hip?

assault weapons are then it was a series of characteristics do they have pistol grips? do they have a threaded barrel so you could hold onto the barrel as you fire the weapon in the barrel does not heat up? did it have a bayonet mounts? things like that that cross the line from civilian used to military use. host: here is what, broadly assault rifle been covered. -- ban covered. it focused on models of ar 15's and ak-47s. it banned certain military features and set a high limit on magazines and it was in effect. it expired in 2004. why was there an expiration?

written into that law? guest: believe me, no one that wanted to pass that law wanted and expiration. the key number was, is how do you get to 50% plus one? as the bill went on, what compromises could you make in order to get to that threshold? like i said, leading up to the vote, we never had the number of votes sufficient to pass it until the very day of the vote. one of the final compromises was that it would sunset in 10 years. the thinking was it would be so popular no one would ever repeal it, no one would ever let it go. we were wrong. host: i want you to expand on that in the labatt, i do want to

open up the phones to our callers (202) 748-8001, for . republicans. (202) 748-8000 four democrats and all others. as he mentioned, he was a legislative and policy director for then presented chuck schumer in 19 any for -- 1994. we are taking you back to some of the four debate in here from chuck schumer, i want to get your reaction to what he said then and how much might ring true today. http://twitter.com/cspanwj [video clip] >> we have more heard factually inaccurate words in the last four minutes then we have in a long time. i submit for the record a statement put out on august 10.

i submit -- you may laugh but you know why you are laughing and that is because every time this bill is improved, you find a new rejection -- objection. remember the racial justice act? on the other they said we want the bill except we do not want the racial justice act. there is now $8.4 billion for funding in prison. they are still not for it. they want the truth in sentencing and they got truth in sentencing and they still oppose the rule. they have one excuse after another.

giving to give the american people and up or down vote on the crime bill. the time has come my colleagues, for truth in voting. if you want to do what our constituents are pleading with us to do, which is to make the streets safe, tough laws on punishment, smart laws on prevention, you will vote for these rules, we cannot hide behind any procedural smokescreen. if you bow down this rule there will be no crime bill and the american people will suffer. host: jim kessler, former policy director, what did you hear with those comments? guest: the assault weapons ban was a part of the crime bill. it was a very comprehensive piece of legislation. a lot of painstaking compromise.

it passed by a margin of 235-195. it got republican support by a three to one margin, they voted against it. by a 3-1 margin, democrats voted for it. at the time. i think that speech is very emblematic of the crime debate back then and will be in the medic of crime debates in congress and the future as well. very emotional issues, very easy to play politics with the crime issue. i think it is more ripe for brazen politics than any other issue. on the local level if you look at mayors and governors, and love times the crime debates there are a lot more, i would say measured than on the ground. as you get closer, and further away with congress and a lot of

demagoguery going on. i can tell you the national rifle association was an absolutely bitter foe of the bill. they controlled a lot of members of congress back then. i still think they control a lot of members of congress. it was an epic battle, that fight, we did not know we had it on the bill until the very end. host: chuck schumer said that the streets would be safer with that law. a report from northwestern university a study of 1994 through 2004, is said that the federal assault weapons ban work. in your view, did it work? >> i think there are two gun bills that passed that made a difference in crime, the 1993 brady law. that was a separate law that required background checks for

firearm purchases. that had a larger impact in america then the assault weapons ban. i think the assault weapons ban improved public safety on the street, not as much as the brady law. host: we have plenty of calls for jim, let's first go to laurel, maryland. caller: i was a former police officer. 25 years in washington dc. locked up a lot of gun offenders for violent crimes. i am a staunch second amendment advocate. i believe that all good law-abiding citizens should be carrying weapons if they choose, as long as they make the background checks and get the proper training. i think the bottom line is this. assault weapons are not -- the

problem lies in the court system. it is a revolving door for gun offenders and they should come back with mandatory minimums on crimes that are violent -- crimes that are committed with firearms. that is the only way were going to deter people -- criminals out there is to lock him up -- them up. i believe there is no other way. host: jim kessler. guest: i want to touch on one part of the comment. the former police officer. he says he is a staunch supporter of the second amendment. all law abiding citizen should exercise that right. the key word is law abiding citizens. the brady law, that passing 8093, was the law that required a back -- 1993 was the law that required a background check so we could check to see if they

were law-abiding citizens. there are a bunch of ways to buy the gun legally and bypass those checks. it is one of the ways to reduce some of the violent crime, is to shut off those loopholes in which a firearm goes from being a legal object to and illegal object -- an illegal object. host: two norman, monroe township new jersey. >> i just have one civil question. why do we have more killings in one week, then we have in the whole world -- in all of the other countries in the world, and i am 95 years old. i remember when i went to school, i was told that the second amendment was to protect

citizens from a government -- that was not, we would be afraid the government was corrupt. to take arms against the government, that is treason. it did not make sense. the only way we will stop this is to get rid of all the guns like they have in england and australia and then that will get rid of it. all these laws do not mean a thing. background checks and all that. that is what i have to say. host: jim kessler with the third way. what is your norton -- organization about and views on the second moment? guest: we are a centerleft organization and we look for

pragmatic solutions in sorts of public policy areas. whether you like the second amendment or not, we are stuck with it. it exists, and in this country we have to pass laws and keep people safe around that amendment. there is not going to be repeal of the second amendment, at least not in my lifetime. on guns, the gentleman from new jersey is correct, we have a murder problem and a violent crime problem in this country because we have a gun problem in this country. i once wrote a couple statistics anyway -- anybody can look up. there is a huge proliferation of people buying guns that we have never seen before. in 2005 to 2006, each of those years are typical years, the americans bought 8 million firearms in those years. in 2019 and 2020, and 2021,

americans bought almost 40 million firearms in each of those years. there is really right now and explosion in the purchasing of firearms, and we are also seeing particularly on the state level a loosening of gun laws such that people can quote unquote defend themselves with stand loss in ways that they could never defend themselves before using a firearm. we are heading towards more incidents of gun violence, gun crime, gun carnage into my view because of the huge increase in the purchasing of guns and the loosening of laws, not just purchasing but how you can use them. host: i want to get your thoughts on the sandy hook case that was just settled. it says remington reaches settlement with victim family

agreed to pay $73 million to victim's families. although one of our viewers on twitter says this. the 73 million dollars came from insurance companies. not remington, that is one of the main reasons they settled, in -- insurance company does not care about president. could this cause some pause on the part of gun manufacturers? guest: i hope so. i was pleased and surprised by that decision. there was a law that congress passed in 2005. it was the plaa, protection of lawful commerce act. i am getting the name wrong. it was a law that passed in 2005 that basically prevented virtually any lawsuits against the gun industry to proceed.

it was one of the most reprehensible loss that congress had passed in my lifetime. it gave special protection to the gun industry. it was seen that it would be almost impossible to sue a gun manufacturer. this may have turned that on its head. too early to tell. i think one of the comments on twitter says it was the insurance companies that did it. that gives me some pause on it. i want to look at that more carefully but if you had a gun industry that felt in any way culpable for what was happening with the use of their product, you would see changes in their product that would be about five -- that would be beneficial for the country. host: i want to point out from the foxbusiness report, and they write that the lawsuit should have been dismissed. the federal law that gives brought immunity to the gun

industry but under law, -- under state law, remington could be sued under state law. the supreme court declined that case -- the case. guest: that would be the way to do it. using state statues endowed be the way to do it. on this topic the reason why the , law was passed to protect the gun industry is because plaintiff started to make the same case against gun manufacturers and gun dealers that the plaintiffs were making against the tobacco industry. those lawsuits against the tobacco industry change the way cigarettes were sold and marketed. the gun industry was worried that these lawsuits were going to radically change the way guns will be manufactured and , marketed and sold as well. congress cut the legs out of these lawsuits. host: let's go to darlene in las vegas. good morning.

caller: hope you are both well. there are almost 40,000 gun laws on the books in the united states and nobody seems to give a darn about enforcing them. instead they want to come up with new policies, new laws and they cannot be bothered to deal with the laws on the books. as far as gun manufacturers being sued, we do not get to sue automakers because people drive drunk. people use 3000 pound vehicle and run through innocent bystanders on the las vegas strip. it is absolutely ridiculous. let's build faster and quicker cars so we can, oops, raced down the road and see how may people we can hit. excuse me? sue the gun industry?

i am -- a gun is no threat itself. it is about the user. i have never had to hurt anyone in my life. guest: a couple points on that, let me talk about the 40,000 gun laws. most of those laws are laws to make it easier to buy and sell and transfer weapons and to use a gun. so most of theirs laws that aren't enforcement laws. let's go to the lawsuit situation for a second. you can sue the automobile industry and as one of the reasons why we have seatbelts, airbags, all sorts of safety features. here is an example of why lawsuits against the gun and street, if they were allowed, could be beneficial. every gun begins as a legal product and at some of them drift into the illegal market. the caller that we just talked

to has owned guns for 32 years. she is a responsible gun owner. there are particular gun stores that are the source of thousands and thousands of guns that and up being used in crime. maybe that is just happenstance. people who happen to go into those stores are near high crime areas and that is was happening. or, maybe they are, wink and nod selling firearms to people they know i trafficking them on the black market. if every gun manufacturer knows which store is selling which gun, that is a fact. if gun manufacturers, that week -- in the way that we made drug manufacturers aware was happening with the legal product of opioids and the way doctors were just riveting, if they were made -- were distributing them,

if they were made legally knowing which gun stores were the line shares of the -- line shares of the sales that are being used in crime, there would have to alter their procedures to crack down on it in, and not sell guns to them. they do not because there is no culpability, accountability, possibility and -- anywhere in the chain of the legal gun market. host: i want to bring in another tart -- topic here. it was based and -- on a report from your organization. the report is the crime of the crime narrative and some of the details of that report is that contrary to the media narrative, overall crime rate decrease in 2020 compared to 2019. the spark to homicide is unique to homicides and is an outlier in compared to all other crimes. there appears to be no difference in crime trends

between republican and democrat let states and no change between those with police reform and those that don't. we talked quite a bit this morning in the first hour about the rise in violent crime across the country. what does the third way report ascribes that rise to? how concerned should we be about? guest: we do not all -- know all the 2021 numbers, we do not know if violent crime increased or not, there is some anecdotal evidence that it has. the nevers come in late and spotty. -- numbers come in late and spotty. the murder numbers are reliable. we continue to see a spike in murder, it is very concerning. other crimes, car thefts, a lot of other crimes do not seem to be going up. we will know a little bit more on that probably in the months

ahead. here is another statistic. the homicide rate is 40% higher in states that voted for donald trump then states that voted for joe biden and the homicide rates in many republican states have been habitually higher than in democratic states. so there is a narrative that cities like new york and los angeles and san francisco and chicago and are watching crime. in the case of chicago, it is true. the crime rates in those places and the murder rates in those places are far less then other parts of the country. the point of our report is that not that we shouldn't be concerned about crime. we should. there is a narrative that is developing that is -- that it is happening in certain places because of certain policies, generally liberal democratic policies and that is really not

the case if you look out there. you look at a place like jacksonville, florida, republican mayor and republican governor. voted for republican in the last several presidential election. that has a murder rate higher than new york city, los angeles, san francisco, and most other cities in america. i feel that the crime meme in the press, are focused on particular places and have a political angle to them that is designed to benefit one party, not to enlighten policymakers to get to the right answer. host: to everett and grand junction, colorado, republican line. >> good morning jammin. i would like to talk about the assault rifle or assault weapon definition first and then i would -- i have something to

read for and is real short. this is the definition by the u.s. army a selective fire chambered first a cartridge of intermediate power, and basically assault rifles are capable are -- of automatic fire. that is november 14, 2018. definition. also i am going to read this thing i have pasted on the wall because i am a gun owner and it mind it's me of something. it was not a gun, it was not a bomb, it was not a machete, it was a truck. in two or three minutes it mowed down 84 people that are dead including 10 children. the final sentence there, do you understand now? it is not the weapon, it is the ideology.

ok. host: any comments? guest: i do not think anybody is saying we should not rent out trucks and cars. we really do have an entire system that is designed to put some safety measures, you need a drivers license for example, to get a car. you need to have it registered, that sort of thing. i am not saying every gun needs to have a license registration. let's just realize, most of the world is under, most of america is under pretty common sense legislation and then guns get a radical exception. the other thing is this, we have a murder problem in this country that only a handful of other countries have. places like brazil.

it's the guns. i am not a, ban all guns and repeal the second amendment person, but i do have eyes. i can see in front of me. we have a massive gun crime problem in the united states that is completely unique to the net states. to say there is absolutely nothing we can do on the gun front, on regulations on it, on some laws -- i just think it is simple rigid thinking. host: i have a question from mark on twitter. " what is the percentage of violent crime done on a legally purchased weapon?" guest: the answer isn't quite as simple as the question. every gun begins as a legal

object, is manufactured legally and then distributed to a gun store legally. generally from that gun store, it is sold legally, do a background check etc.. and then most of those guns stay legal, ok? then some drift into the black market. let me give you an example, these statistics are out of date, but it is from a report i did years ago. if you look at the guns that were used in crime in new york city 90% of the guns used in , those crimes were bought from another state. bringing a gun over state lines is illegal. what that means it is, 90% of the crimes -- guns used in crimes in york city were somehow trafficked to the city. when you look at how they --

where they came from, they came from florida, georgia, north carolina, south carolina, virginia. there is a firearm freeway where people by -- guns and states where laws are much more lax, they put 8200 of them in their cars, they drive up all along the east coast -- they put 80 - 100 of them in their car and stake along the east coast. those guns get sold often for cash or for drugs in exchange, they go back and go back and fo. that illegal market is really one of the places where you would want to do crackdowns. we don't have a gun trafficking statute in the united states. gun trafficking, assault weapons, that is a term, it is a term -- another a term of law. there is no federal gun trafficking statute so it is

almost impossible to go after those people, buying a hundred guns in georgia, selling them in new york city, on the streets. host: call from georgia next. we have a -- maria from atlanta on the democrats line. caller: good morning, c-span family. i would like to say, he said the second amendment is not going anywhere. that is one of the problems. it needs to go somewhere. just because the forefathers wrote it doesn't make it right. the second part, they blame it on your environment, your family. it has nothing to do with it. america has a love of guns like the man said from new jersey. until you get rid of guns, you will be talking about this for many years. there is nothing politicians, mayors, nobody can do until you get rid of guns. these families will be crying because america has a love for guns. we can argue, debate, but until you get rid of guns.

thank you. host: mike in ohio. independent line. caller: good morning, c-span. i have two comments, first of all about the second amendment, i believe our forefathers were well-intentioned. the only thing that is wrong with it is the last word, the right to bear arms should not be infringed. i believe the right to bear arms should not be abolished. all of our rights have of men -- infringement, including the first amendment. the nra, which started in 1871 by general burnside, he was a union general in the civil war, not a confederate general, a union general. he started the nra as a organization about the safety and the scientific use of a firearm. it was not about gun rights. it was about gun safety. that the nra was about.

i can't believe, i believe the civil war is proof positive that you can't really, in today's world, general sherman went through georgia like a knife through butter. i'm sure the people of georgia had the same armaments that sherman had. but they couldn't slow him down. the best way to not be attacked by your government is to elect people into government who don't turn against their own citizens. host: another view of the nra from a person on twitter, the pact between the gop and nra was a swamp of money for political power. it was a disaster for the general population especially after half of it was steered into armed cults by fears and lies spread by the gop. it's always about the money and we don't matter. your response? guest: both on that and the color, the nra was a different group many years ago. there was a coup within the nra

in the 1970's and it became very radicalized. then it continued to get more radical. then other splinter groups grew out of it, gun owners of america and a few others, that are even more radical, and to compete for membership, which is what the nra really needs, membership, like a lot of what we have seen in politics, it has become a more radical organization even from the point where it was too far gone to begin with. look. it is a powerful organization. i have fought the nra for 30 years. they mostly win. they are, you know, they have i think a lot of legislators in their pocket. nearly all of them are republican.

they used to play in both parties in the past. they really have abandoned them across at this point. i just think they are part of the toxicity that is in washington dc that we all hate. host: there was a story in the new york post, high-capacity drum magazine used in harlem shooting similar to weapon of war. high-capacity ammunition magazine a crazed gunman used killed a rookie nypd cop. turns the weapon into something that might have been found in war-torn afghanistan. the so-called drum magazine allows for the glock, the weapon to hold an additional 40 rounds to the firearm's usual 10 rounds. would that drum magazine have been illegal under the assault weapons ban? guest: most likely. i'm not 100% sure. most likely it would be.

host: tim in franklin, pennsylvania. republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for allowing me to speak. first of all, the right to self-defense is not a right granted by government. it is one of the inalienable rights granted to us by the constitution. second, you see our society is changing very rapidly. the facial recognition ai, pretty soon, you won't be able to do anything without being surveilled. you know? you see, during the pandemic, how to radical governments -- tyrannical governments, places

where you can't have a gun, australia, new zealand, canada, have gun restrictions, how tyrannical those governments became. host: any comments on that or final thoughts? guest: it is the first time i have heard canada, new zealand and australia listed as tyrannical governments. there is a right of self-defense in this country. we have changed the self-defense laws starting in 2006 in different states. we have created stand your ground laws so it is now not self-defense, it is self offense. if you feel threatened in any way, you basically have the right to shoot someone just because you have no duty to try to calm the situation down or to stand back at first. you can be, you can take offense and we haven't talked about race that much in this conversation, but essentially, this is a

license for white people who are afraid of black people shoot them. that is what we have seen in the last few years throughout this country finally coming to light. within our second amendment right to own firearms, i hope we can add some responsibility to it, or this situation only gets worse. host: jim kessler from third way, we appreciate you being here with us. with us next is rafael mangual. he is the head of research, policing and public policy, public safety for the manhattan institute, a senior fellow there. he is also the author of an upcoming book on the issue coming up in july. criminal injustice, what the push for incarceration and policing gets wrong. we are spending the morning on washington journal talking about these related issues. appreciate you coming on.