jon: we are awaiting the president's announcement on new gun control with expanded background checks and redefining who can sell a firearm. critics say he's working outside his authority of the white house. jenna: after his discussions with the attorney general and how far he can legally circumvent a gridlocked congress. many republicans and the gun lobby say the president's actions amount to taking the law

into his own hands. joining me now, the editor for "the weekly standard" and "clinton inc .." she says is this it? this ways they have been hyping for how long? they are not doing anything. does that mean there won't be any opposition? >> i think a lot of people are surprised by that quote. a lot of people will fight this stridently. but there isn't a lot the president can do without executive action. what he's doing is a much more limited sphere of things that he actually wanted to do. but there are some things within

his proposals that americans support and get toward the goal they want in having fewer guns in the people's hands. jenna: the president says he knows this won't solve every violent crime in the country. why view this as limited as some say it is. >> gun laws taking executive action. going to congress, congress won't do anything so he's taking it into his own hands. president obama obviously feels strongly about this. but when you look at these changes, they are kinds of small ball and it's astonishing he would use so much political will and political capital has a lame duck president for such small

tweaks that wouldn't actually alter gun laws too drastically even though there will be a fight on their hands and they could be illegal. >> can you explain to our viewers what these laws impact? is it online sales we are look at here? >> among the president's proposals are tighter screening on mental health which is vastly popular among americans to enforce current laws more strictly. adding more resources. eventually what he's saying is people who sell a lot of guns will meet the standard of being a gun dealer. he's change the definition as it is written in the law right now. there was a poll done by gabby

giffords gun control group that showed it was popular. it would extend gun checks at at gun shows. general report overall trends that critics of these executive actions have an issue with among others. what do you think is the politics for the republicans on this. we heard from republican critics on this plan. if you have listen to some political watchers. for the most part for these minor changes the public will be on board. what is the move here? >> sawfs outlined, republicans are likely to pose this for two reasons. one the way president obama is doing this. executive actions, i think all republicans oppose that. the substance of this, there are

limits to these gun rights and there are intentions behind them, and just that -- it's now passed into law by congress which passed into the previous gun laws. more than anything right now the process issues for some people will be process and substance. process has ruined relations between president obama and congress. forget about any big legislative reforms the next year. there would be too much bad blood in the water. obviously this an important topic when the president speaks. you can see the setup happening at the white house. when you take a look at what's happening around the world. i'm curious where you put this as far as priorities. driving the conversation, i wonder if that's where the

conversation should be. >> that's a judgment call. this is something indianapolis been one of the president's priorities. he put a focus on how he can do what he can to change the nation's gun laws to get more guns out of the mix. i think he tried in 2013. it wasn't successful. he probably waited until after the mid-term elections. the point how there was not going to be a lot done. this was his chance. there are a lot of things going none the world. but he will do it at some point. jenna: you take a look at the stock market. gun seals, it's having the opposite effect. nice to have you both, daniel phillip, great to see you. thank you very much. we want to hear from our viewers. do you think the president is acting within his constitutional authority? is this an issue of process or

substance? when you hear about what the president is doing, do you have a problem with that or is it the way he's doing it. jon: the standoff at an oregon wildlife refuge into its fourth day. a local sheriff is telling the armed protesters to just go home. two local ranchers were ordered back to prison. dan springer is live not far from the scene outside of burns, oregon. he has the latest. reporter: we got our first sign the armed anti-government group may be willing to back down soon. ryan bundy said if the people of harley county want them to

leave, they will. they wanted to keep the hammonds out of prison but yesterday they turned themselves in to serve time for burning federal lands. most are critical of the activists taking over a federal wildlife refuge. the local sheriff said it's time for them to go. >> you have said you were here to help the citizens of harley county. that ended when an armed conflict. reporter: a few are blocking a road that leads down to the compound. law enforcement has stayed away, but they have taken over a middle school in burns 30 miles away. many have come out against the

occupiers including the oregon cattleman's association and the local militia. >> they love this country and they know their rights and they want to stand up for them. there are fringe element out there who hold some of our ideas but are willing to take them much farther as in this situation. reporter: we are expecting to hear from the armed occupiers. the f.b.i. said nothing beyond a statement sunday saying they are working on a peaceful resolution. reporter: coming up on "happening now" we'll develop further into this with a former federal prosecutor. jenna: we are awaiting the appearance of the affluenza teen's mom. she is charged with hindering the apprehend of a felon.

he was the subject of an international search. reporter: all the indications we are getting are this will be a very brief court appearance britannia couch later this morning. that she'll waive her right to fight extradition and will then quickly be taken bit s. marshalls where she is -- by u.s. marshalls. tanya couch's lawyer said while the mawb may not agree with what she did, make no mistake. tanya did not violate any law in

the state of texas and she is eager to have her day in court. as for ethan couch, he remained held in mexico city. he's due to meet his attorney there. a highm-profile attorney to decide how he wants to proceed. his attorney has said if he waives his right to fight extradition he could be back in the united states within 24 hours. but the indications we are getting on his part is he will fight. if that is the case. it could be weeks or months before authorities get ethan couch back to the united states. of course, even if they do that and when they do that. they cannot resentence him on that drunk driving charge. the case in which he killed those four people. all they would be able to sentence him on this type is the probation relation if proven, and that could lead to at most 120 days behind bars for ethan couch.

>> thank you. jon: a major pileup on a busy free way. the dow started off the year yesterday with it worst losses since the financial crisis. but a check on how markets are doing today. we'll be take you to the east room of the white house. >> the president is expected to be make something remark on his gun control proposals about half an hour from now. you just saw former pennsylvania senator rick santorum. we'll be talking to him this hour as well. what makes this simple salad the best simple salad ever?

heart healthy california walnuts. the best simple veggie dish ever? heart healthy california walnuts. the best simple dinner ever? heart healthy california walnuts. great tasting, heart healthy california walnuts. so simple. get the recipes at walnuts.org. >> ted cruz is wonderful in reading children's fairytales on

the senate floor. rick santorum spent his time in the senate a little differently. jon: that is part of an ad from gop presidential candidate rick santorum. iowa is a state he won in 2012. the former pennsylvania senator rick santorum joins us now. he obviously takes shots at ted cruz right off the top. he's leading in the the polls in iowa, is he your number one competition? >> the other candidate who don't have the experience to take on the experience to take on the challenges that confront this country. it's only ramping up. as we hear it's only going to get worse under this administration because this president is not going to protect americans and he's not

going to defend us. we are trying to get the seriousness of this election. going up in this elect against hillary clinton, a former secretary of state and former first lady. it would behoove us to nominate someone who can go toe to toe and chart a course based on knowledge and experience. jon: last type when you won iowa you were build as the evangelical candidate and social issues candidate. >> i left the united states senate at a type when we were at war. and i was someone who offered sanctions on iran. the nuclear sanctions, i authored those when i was in congress and overcame president bush's initial opposition to get

them passed. i worked on the armed services committee to outfit our military. when i left the united states senate, i didn't spend four years working on cultural issues. i talked about radical islam because i saw that as the most pressing threat to our national security. four years ago when i was running, i talked about those things. but nobody else wanted to talk about it. the war was over, bin laden is dead. we are taking our troops out of iraq. everything is going to be great. many people are saying that's not the case. i called for to us get involved in syria in 2011 and again most did not do so. but they weren't important in the eyes of america because americans felt i think unfortunately too safe. now it is a big issue and here i am. jon: ways your assessment on the

world situation? >> disaster is too kind of a word. this president ruined every single relationship. you look at saudis. the reason the saudis are reacting the way they are is they don't believe mayor case our reliable ally. they don't believe america will be there for them. he one of our allies feels that way. israel, look at the way we treated israel and the way we dealt with our allies in egypt. we aloud our allies to be overthrown by the muslim brotherhood. and we continue to support the muslim brotherhood coming back in egypt. the president has been on the wrong side. and this conflict between saudi arabia and iran, he's trying to take a position of mediating. iran is our enemy. iran says they want to take wor.

saudi arabia has tried to partner with us and work in cooperation. we won't take side when it comes to those who are clearly have interest in the united states and those who have been our reliable allies in the past. that many why our enemies don't fear us and our allies don't respect us and trust us. jon: last type around 30 days out you were not in the front running but you went on to win iowa. >> i was at 3% or 4% at this time. jon: i wonder if your victory can potentially hurt you? they would say they hand you the ball. >> even after that coming in second and mitt romney having won. >> iia what initially.

so many considered the race over. so we fought back from the presumption, the man with all the money, and we were able to almost grab the nomination. we came within a hair within a couple of states, michigan and ohio in winning this race. we have shown we can overcome adversity and take on the establishment and defeat the establishment. that's what people are looking for, someone who can take the establishment on to win, i'm the guy who can do it. jon: ray bulger's girlfriend could be spending more time behind bars. we are awaiting the president and his announcement of expanding certain gun laws through the use of executive orders. we'll have the details and his live address to the country coming up. i

the medical bills - the credit card debt all piled up. i knew i had to get serious my credit. so i signed up for experian. they have real, live credit experts i can talk to. they helped educate me on how debt affected my fico score. so i could finally start managing my credit. now my credit and i - are both healing nicely. get serious about your credit. get experian. go to experian.com and start your credit tracker trial membership today.

jon: some crime stories we are following. a police chase end in a multiple car pileup and the temporary closing of a california the freeway. the suspect was going the wrong way on the 5 free way. he tried to run away but was shot by police. whitey bulger's girlfriend is planning to plead guilty to a contempt charge. she is already serving an 8-year prison term for helping bulger avoid capture during his 16 years on the run. a puerto rico policeman accused of killing three fellow officers

at work faces 11 charges including first degree murder from an incident stemming from an argument last week. jenna: we are learning from the defense department that one american has been killed and two others hurt during a battle with the taliban. the service member killed and those wounded are part of special operations forces. we are going to take a look at a few stories. with this news breaking it's a stark reminder that we are have much at war in afghanistan. what your reaction to the news, where it happened and what little we know? >> it is that stark reminder that we have warriors on the battlefield protecting tour security by keeping a lid on afghanistan. this combat i am dent occurred

in helmand province. we have seen the taliban making a resurgence even challenging the provincial capital. because america has sent the signal that we are head for the exit. the warriors there are under restrictive rules of engagement and they remain in grave circumstances and today's unfortunate incident is a reminder of that. jenna: we have been told by the president that our combat operations are over in afghanistan, but obviously there is a lot going on on the ground. in the world we are living in today there seems to be a a lot of different crises popping up in a lot of different places. >> the president will have to reconsider the timeline for a drawdown of troops from the country he already has in place. we have seen a rallying cry from

the u.s. military on this. the general on the ground has asked him to consider delaying the withdrawal. i think this also highlights for the american people while our collective attention the last year with the focus on isis. other terrorist organizations are alive and well and flourishing in the middle east. the taliban has had a major resurgence and that's an area we'll have to start look at very closely. jenna: we have been focusing on syria and iran and saudi arabia. we are seeing the sunni monarchy of saudi arabia and the shiia in iran. just for our viewers, saudi arabia executed that shiia cleric who was executed on

terrorism charges. the white house is being watched about how they react to this news. here is a snippet from the press briefing yesterday from our viewers and i'll get your reaction. >> why should the saudis expect the united states will behave like an ally. >> the u.s. has a strong relationship with saudi arabia. but saudi arabia's human rights record is something that's a source of concern on the part of the obama administration and other administrations as well. jenna: cite risk saying that's not the support from allies one should be showing at this time. >> the u.s. government -- this administration in particular has become very adept at dealing with saudi arabia with one eye closed. we do have them on the security

front because we recognize the fact they are probably our best ally in the region. at the same time i think we tends to shy of away from publicly appointing for some of their more egregious violations. and have harbored private suspicions about their sponsorship of terrorism. so two competing issues there. a lot of political will has rallied around not alienating the saudis. they are too important on the security front. jenna: perhaps not having an honest conversation about our ally saudi arabia and possibly iran. if you look at the solutions presented by marco rubio. he says once i'm president, the iran deal goes away and that will be part of the solution. is that enough to making the deal go away? what would be the impact of that

and how it would affect what we are seeing now? >> this administration's coziness with iran is the nexus of this split. our bear hug of iran in pursuit of trying to prevent a nuclear weapon has made them wonder whether they need to be completely responsible for their own security when for such a long time we have been a partner of theirs. we keep giving them reassurances. but what really matters is actions on the ground, and iran continues to violate the terms of the agreement with no consequence. and saudi arabia says we can't guarantee america is going to stay with way it's going to do. we'll have to take actions into our own hands, and they look around and say if america is willing to an abdicate its relationship with israel, they

will throw us under the bus in a second. they are not sure where we stand on this issue. jenna: thank you very much. we'll be right back with more "happening now."

..

jon: a fox news alert, we are less than four minutes away now from president obama's announcement of new executive orders on gun control, due any moment at the white house. scheduled for, as i said, less

than four minutes from now. but the president has a tendency to be late. he is expected to call for expanded background checks for gun buyers. many republicans are calling it more executive overreach by the president. we are told that mark barden, who lost his son daniel in the sandy hook massacre in connecticut, mark barden is going to be introducing the president, and a number of the people who will be joining him on the dais are also people who have been affected by gun violence. we will bring you that announcement as soon as it begins there in the east room of the white house. jenna: well, on the opposite coast, it's day four of a standoff at a federal wildlife refuge in oregon. armed protesters occupied the building there on saturday, they're refusing to leave today. they're demanding the release of ranchers that have been convicted of arson in the past. they also want the federal government to return land they

say was seized unconstitutionally. take a listen. >> it does allow for federal land of any kind, but it has to be ceded properly, they have to get permission from the state legislatures, they have to purchase that land, and they can only use it for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings. jenna: this, of course, is raising all sorts of questions. is there something in the constitution that allows them to do this? is there ground that they're standing on? mark mukasey deals with these issues on a daily basis. what about the constitutionality of this conversation, what this group of protesters is saying that is the division between the federal government and local, the locals? >> jenna, excuse me, i think the word "constitution" and the concept is being thrown around here in a lot of loose ways. there's a bunch of different constitutional issues here. the first one is the constitutionality of the prosecution of the hammond father and son. i don't think there's any debate

that it was a lawful prosecution. they got fourth amendment rights, fifth amendment rights against self-incrimination, sixth amendment rights to counsel, they were convicted by, they went up on appeal, they got resentenced. there's no issue -- jenna: can i ask you briefly about that case? as our viewers have been following this story, this father and son did serve time, then they were released x they have to go back. that does feel odd. >> yeah, the reason is -- jenna: that's the the issue that really brought this all to the forefront. >> exactly. the reason is under the federal arson statute which i believe is u.s. code section 844 when you torch public lands and endanger firefighters who are first responders, there's a five-year mandatory minimum. that's a congressional statute. jenna: so why were they released? >> well, the judge after the trial sentenced them to one yore. the government appealed and said, wait a second, one year? this is a five-year statute. and the ninth circuit, the court

of appeals said, you're right, they have to do five years. and, frankly, the hammonds didn't protest -- got denied certiorari, and they walked back in. jenna: they don't feel they're part of the protesters, that these are separate groups. i'm going to have to take a pause, there's a lot of questions that we have more you, but, jon, we do have some breaking news that we want to make sure we get to before it actually happens. jon: and that's right, jenna. the president is being introduced right now. we expect he'll be out in less than two minutes to make his executive orders on gun control in the east room there of the white house. our bret baier, the anchor of "special report," is standing by. bret, what's the goal today? >> well, jon, the goal is to, basically, get out in front of this. the president's talked about it a lot, he's, as you've seen, been angry about it on the podium in the white house numerous times after mass shootings.

and the white house points out that we're more than 330 or 330 of them last year. so he's going to do these executive actions because he says of inaction in congress. what's interesting is that this really is along the margins as far as expanding who is, has to get licensed as gun dealers. if you look at the recent mass shootings, this would not affect any of those. but the white house is saying even incremental process is -- progress, rather, is progress on this effort. it's obviously personal for the president. he is saying that this is what he wants to move forward with as a legacy item. but as far as the overall impact, there's a lot of question about how far-reaching it would be. jon: we understand that mark barden, who lost his son daniel in the newtown, connecticut, massacre, is the one introducing the president. obviously, the president wants

to surround himself with people who have been victims of gun violence, but there are gun owners out there in this country who feel very strongly about their second amendment rights and feel that, well, this president essentially wants to take guns away from them. >> sure. and this will not do any of that. but there is that sense that if this administration had everything that it wanted, that that's the way that they would go down the road, that's the argument from gun rights advocates. this administration is saying, no, they tried to push congress. congress is not going to do it not just because of republicans, but democrats had some problems with the way the legislation was being formed and talked about. and this executive action is an action short of that. it's important to point out that it can be rescinded if a republican is in office right away, on day one, any of those orders can be rescinded. and number two is that it does

not affect state gun laws. this is federal laws. and gun rights advocates say the federal government should spend more time enforcing the current federal laws that have actually been less enforced by some 30% over the last ten years. jon: let's bring into the conversation somebody who knows the law quite well, our fox senior judicial analyst, judge andrew napolitano. from what you know of what the president is announcing here, judge, well, what do you make of it? >> well, i agree with the political analysis that our colleague bret baier just gave. legally, the president is on very thin ice because requiring people to have licenses for occasional sales of guns has been rejected three times by the congress. so the president can't write that requirement into the law when the congress has expressly declined to do so and actually defeated attempts to amend the statute to that effect. jon: kind of interesting.

we're waiting -- the president has been introduced, but we're waiting for him to appear. there's obviously a loud round of applause from his supporters who are gathered there in the east room. now president obama with these remarks on executive action on gun control. once again, mark barden there, the father of daniel barden, a 7-year-old who was killed in the newtown, connecticut, massacre. vice president joe biden at his side, let's hear the president's announcement. [applause] >> thank you, everybody. please, have a seat. thank you. [cheers and applause] thank you, everybody. [cheers and applause] thank you. thank you, everybody. please, please, have a seat. thank you so much. mark, i want to thank you for your introduction. i still remember the first time

we met, the time we spent together and the conversation we had about daniel. and that changed me that day. and my hope earnestly has been that it would change the country. five years ago this week a sitting member of congress and 18 others were shot at a supermarket in tucson, arizona. it wasn't the first time i'd had to talk to the nation in response to a mass shooting, nor would it be the last. fort hood, binghamton, aurora, oak creek, newtown, the navy yard, santa barbara, charleston,

san bernardino. too many. >> too many. >> and thanks to a great medical team and the love of her husband mark, my dear friend and colleague, gabby giffords, survived. she's here with us today with her wonderful mom -- [applause] thanks to a great medical team, her wonderful husband mark -- who, by the way, the last time i met with mark, this is just a small aside, you may know mark's twin brother is in outer space -- [laughter]

he came to the office, and i said how often are you talking to him. he says, well, i usually talk to him every day, but the call was coming in right before the meeting, so i think i may have not answered his call. [laughter] which made me feel kind of bad. [laughter] that's a long distance call. [laughter] so i told him be his brother -- if his brother scott is calling today, that he should take it. [laughter] turn the ringer on. [laughter] i was there with gabby when she was still in the hospital x we didn't think -- and we didn't think necessarily at that point that she was going to survive. and that visit right before

memorial. about an hour later, gabby first opened her eyes. i remember talking to mom about that. [laughter] but i know the pain that she and her family have endured these past five years and the rehabilitation and the work and the effort to recover from shattering injuries. and then i think of all the americans who aren't as fortunate. every single year more than 30,000 americans have their lives cut short by guns. 30,000.

suicides, domestic violence, gang shootouts, accidents. hundreds of thousands of americans have lost brothers and sisters. or buried their own children. many have had to learn to live with a disability or learn to live without the love of their life. a number of those people are here today. they can tell you some stories. in this room right here, there are a lot of stories. there's a lot of heartache. there's a lot of resilience, there's a lot of strength, but there's also a lot of pain. and this is just a small sample.

the united states of america is not the only country on earth with violent or dangerous people. we are not inherently more prone to violence. but we are the only advanced country on earth that sees this kind of mass violence erupt with this kind of frequency. it doesn't happen in other advanced countries. it's not even close. and as i've said before, somehow we become numb to it, and we start thinking that this is normal.

and instead of thinking about how to solve the problem, this has become one of our most polarized, partisan debates. despite the fact that there's a general consensus in america about what needs to be done. and that's part of the reason why on thursday i'm going to hold a town hall meeting in virginia on gun violence. because my goal here is to bring good people on both sides of this issue together for an open discussion. i'm not on the ballot again. i'm not looking to score some points. i think we can disagree without impugning other people's motives or without being disagreeable. we don't need to be talking past one another, but we do have to feel a sense of urgency about it. in dr. king's words, we need to

feel the fierce urgency of now. because people are dying. and the constant excuses for inaction no longer do. no longer suffice. that's why we're here today. not to debate the last mass shooting, but to do something to try to prevent the next one. [applause] to prove that the vast majority of americans -- even if our voices aren't always the loudest or most extreme -- care enough

about a little boy like daniel to come together and take common sense steps to save lives and protect more of our children. now, i want to be absolutely clear at the start. i've said this over and over again. this also becomes routine. there's a ritual about this whole thing that i have to do. i believe in the second amendment. it's there written on the paper. it guarantees a right to bear arms. no matter how many times people try to twist my words around, i taught constitutional law, i know a little bit about this. [laughter] [applause] i get it. but i also believe that we can find ways to reduce gun violence

consistent with the second amendment. i mean, think about it. we all believe in the first amendment, the guarantee of free speech, but we accept that you can't yell "fire" in a theater. we understand there are some constraints on our freedom in order to protect innocent people. we cherish our right to to privacy, but we accept that you have to go through metal detectors before being allowed to board a plane. it's not because people like doing that. but we understand that that's part of the price of living in a civilized society. and what's often ignored in this

debate is that a majority of gun owners actually agree. a majority of gun owners agree that we can respect the second amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking few from inflicting harm on a massive scale. today background checks are required at gun stores. if a father wants to teach his daughter how to hunt, he can walk into a gun store, get a background check, purchase his weapon safely and responsibly. this is not seen as an infringement on the second amendment. contrary to the claims of what some gun rights proponents suggested, this hasn't been the first step in some slippery slope to mass confiscation. contrary to claims of some presidential candidates apparently before this

meeting -- [laughter] this is not a plot to take away everybody's guns. you pass a background check, you purchase a firearm. the problem is some gun sellers have been operating under a different set of rules. a violent felon can buy the exact same weapon over the internet with no background check, no questions asked. a recent study found that about 1 in 30 people looking to buy guns on one web site had criminal records. one out of thirty had criminal records. we're talking about individuals convicted of serious crimes; aggravated assault, domestic violence, robbery, illegal gun possession. people with lengthy criminal histories buying deadly weapons all too easily. and this was just one web site within the span of a few months.

so we've created a system in which dangerous people are allowed to play by a different set of rules than a responsible gun owner who buys his or her gun the right way and subjects themselves to a background check. that doesn't make sense. everybody should have to abide by the same rules. most americans and gun owners agree. and that's what we tried to change three years ago after 26 americans, including 20 children, were murdered at sandy hook elementary. two united states senators, joe manchin -- a democrat from west virginia -- and pat toomey, a republican from virginia, both with a grades from the nra -- that's hard to get -- worked

together in good faith consulting with folks like our vice president who's been a champion on this for a long time to write a common sense compromise bill that would have required virtually everyone who buys a gun to get a background check. that was it. pretty common sense stuff. 90% of americans supported that idea. 90% of democrats in the senate voted for that idea. but it failed. because 90% of republicans in the senate voted against that idea. how did this become such a partisan issue? republican president george w. bush once said i believe in background checks at gun shows or anywhere to make sure that guns don't get into the hands of people that shouldn't have them. senator john mccain introduced a bipartisan measure to address

the gun show loophole saying we need this amendment because criminals and terrorists have exploited and are exploiting this very obvious loophole in our gun safety laws. even the nra used to support expanded background checks. [laughter] and by the way, most of its members till do. most republican voters still do. how did we get here? how did we get to the place where people think requiring a comprehensive background check means taking away people's guns? each time this comes up we are fed the excuse that common sense reforms like background checks might not have stopped the last massacre. or the one before that. or the one before that. so why bother trying?

i reject that thinking. [applause] we know we can't stop every act of violation, every act of -- violence, every act of evil in the world. but maybe we could try to stop one act of evil, one act of violence. some of you may recall at the same time that sandy hook happened, a disturbed person many china took a -- in china took a knife and tried to kill with a knife a bunch of children in china. but most of them survived. because he didn't have access to a powerful weapon.

we maybe can't save everybody, but we could save some. just as we don't prevent all traffic accidents, but we take steps to try to reduce traffic accidents. as ronald reagan once said, if mandatory background checks could save more lives, it would be well worth making it the law of the land. the bill before congress three years ago met that test. unfortunately, too many senators failed theirs. [applause] in fact, we know that background checks make a difference. after connecticut passed a law requiring background checks and gun safety courses, gun deaths decreased by 40%. 40%.