 And welcome back to Think Tech. Community Matters. I'm Jay Feindell, and we're talking about gun control and gun violence today with Erin Davis. She's a lawyer who deals in that area in Washington, D.C. And in a moment, we're going to talk with her more seriously. Welcome to the show, Erin. Nice to see you. I always enjoy talking with you about this. And it is, I hate to use the word favorite, but it is one of my favorite subjects because it's so outrageous. And I'm so glad you're doing what you do, you know, representing people who would like to see more controls on gun violence. Welcome to the show. Jay, thank you so much for having me and having me back again. And I am so grateful for people like you who choose to continue to cover this area. It's such an important area. And I'm very appreciative of you taking the time to cover the issue, to think about it, to get these messages out to the Hawaii community. And hopefully we can all make a difference together. Got to try. Everybody's got to do something. And the Lord knows you're doing a lot. And I appreciate that. We should all appreciate that. So, you know, the news recently, news first, of course, is the kids. The kids are walking around with guns. They're shooting their teachers. And on occasion, they're shooting themselves. And I say to myself, gee, how is this possible that kids could have guns in school, carrying it around with their tuna fish sandwich, and their backpack? What is going on here? What are your reactions to this? What do we do about it? We can't arm all the kids. You know, what are the kids going to do to prevent the other kids from shooting the third-party kid? Can't do that. And how do you attack this? Do you attack the parents who somehow either directly or indirectly, negligently or otherwise allow their kids to go to school with a gun in the backpack next to the tuna fish sandwich? Jay, you touched upon such an important issue and really what's covering our headlines today. Whenever I hear a story about a child with a gun and using a gun negligently and really probably not having to wear with all to know what they're doing or know what they're playing with beyond their toys, first of all, it just breaks my heart for the person who shot and for that child who was put in that situation. And really, I mean, I do think it comes back to the parents. It comes back to those people in that child's life who are gun owners and they should be responsible gun owners. I think my call to action for people who do own guns and do have children in their homes is to make sure you lock up your guns, make sure your ammunition is not kept in the gun, make sure your child knows that it's not a toy. And really, I mean, if that gun is locked up, it will save lives. You hear about these unintentional shootings all the time where kids don't know what they're doing. And of course, I can't comment on the specific facts of the Virginia case because they're all just coming out in the news. But I do know that no child should be allowed to take a gun to school in their backpack. And if they are allowed or if somebody is allowing them to do that, those people should be held responsible. That means they should be sued by the family of the child who was injured or the case of Virginia, the teacher who was injured. It seems clear to me, put me on the jury, I volunteer here now to be on that jury. I wouldn't hold that person accountable. How in the world could you have a household where a kid gets his hands on the gun? There was one reported in the Times where the gun was under the bed, under the bed. And the kid was looking under the bed and there's the gun. And it's an object of fascination, sort of an attractive nuisance, if you will. And then he took it to school. You can't do that. You can't do that. And kids are smart. They know where you keep your gun, which is why you have to keep it locked up. Actually, one of the really important programs that Brady has that I would really like flag for any gun owners who are listening to the show tonight is called the End Family Fire Campaign. And what it is, is it's a campaign that's geared at gun owners and teaches them what they need to do to lock up their guns, to keep them safely stored, to prevent injuries like that to children and children and during other children. Of course, we could have fewer guns in the country. And that would probably help. I'm going to talk about some other issues that have come up around this. You know, talk about attractive nuisance. Talk about how guns fascinate kids and other people too. If you sat with your eyes clamped open, like in the movies, that movie, I forget the name right now, Clockwork Orange, where your eyes are pinned open and you have to watch a movie. If I put you in front of a television for one evening, and I showed you all the movies that are available on cable and, you know, on networks, 90% of them involve guns and violence and shootings. The bullets are flying everywhere. Everybody is getting wounded and killed. There's such hatred and vengeance and violence that it extols the virtue, the power of guns. It makes them objects of fascination, attractive nuisance if you will. So it's more than just the seven-year-olds. It's everyone is fascinated. And they think if you're a good guy, you're going to be redeemed at the hospital level. You will survive. They'll do some magic medicine on you and you'll be okay, which is not realistic at all. We live in a gun culture because we are surrounded with culture points, like movies and TV, which people spend three, four hours a night on that, and it enters into their blood process. I know the First Amendment would not allow us to stop those movies from playing, but it seems to me those movies are correlated to this problem, don't you think? I do, Jay. And I really, I would highlight sort of two things that are really interesting to me about what you just said. The first is the question of why are the guns highlighted in this movie and what guns are highlighted. And part of that, I really task on the gun industry. I mean, in my experience litigating cases against the gun industry, what I found is there's a tremendous amount, especially in recent times of AR-15s and guns that quote unquote look cool, being marketed as objects of desire, oftentimes to children and adolescents and the same type of people who would find enjoyment from this movie. So really, I see a lot of times in my cases, and we have lawsuits, frankly, on a marketing theory saying that these guns companies are intentionally marketing firearms in such a way that's attractive to children. And they do it by their advertisements being similar to popular video games. So the way the advertisement looks looks like it would look if you were to pick up a video game as a kid and play it. So the gun industry, I think is certainly a huge problem in terms of this irrational view of why you want guns. And I also think there is an opportunity for Hollywood to make a change. And we've actually, at Brady, we've worked very closely and there's a group of writers and directors who this is on their radar. They recognize that how they tell a story with a gun matters. And my hope is that in years to come, you'll see movies that use weapons in a more realistic way or they choose to use them in different ways so that it's not glorified the way it is in much of Hollywood and in video games by the gun industry. Now, guns are dangerous even on the movie set. Look at Alec Baldwin. That's pretty serious crimp in his life. And of course, the women he shot. So whenever you have guns out, especially guns that do fire, you have the risk of injury and death. I don't know why we need them. Absolutely. And how they look and how they're used on TV is not how they're used in real life. When somebody uses a gun and hits somebody the first time intentionally and that's it. That's not what happens in real life unless you have very, very serious, competent training. So it's also a realistic perception in terms of what they look like, how they're used, and certainly the injuries that occur from them is completely unrealistic and does set a false view. I know this may not track on our discussion as contemplated, but not too long ago, there was a court that struck down the ban on bump stocks, which that was the device used in this mass killing in Las Vegas a couple of years ago. That was really bad what happened there. And it was really bad that a ban on bump stocks wouldn't stick in court. You guys, Brady, must be interested in that sort of thing, wherever Judge goes off the side like that. Absolutely. And part of what we do at Brady is we bring cases and we bring a lot of cases and we bring highly impact driven cases that will go through different levels of court to hold actors of the gun industry responsible for these things. We do a handful of product safety cases to make products safer and certainly products like bump stocks, large capacity magazines, certain types of assault weapons, these are all weapons that harm and endanger our community. And the suppliers who choose to make them, the gun manufacturers do need to be held accountable when they're used in a dangerous way or they're designed dangerously. Talking about gun control, I mean, I feel that you probably know the numbers more accurately, but 400 million guns in this country is really not ideal. And the more guns you have, the more likely they'll be gun violence. It's simple. So here we have Congress at Joe Biden's initiative but passes a gun control bill long, long awaited, okay, but maybe a little, a little dishwater. And my question to you is, how is that doing? Was it going to be a notable restriction on guns? Or is it just for image only, for optics? And how well is it doing? Is it actually working? Will it work? Yeah, Jay, I'm so glad you asked about this. So this is the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which was passed in June of 2022. So it's been about six months since it went into effect. Congress got together and acted shortly after the shootings in Ubalde, in Buffalo, and then Ubalde. And it was certainly a moment in time that the optics were right to put something together. And I flagged this bill as being really important and impressive because this was the first gun violence prevention law that has been passed on the federal level in over 30 years, which is insane when you actually think about it. I mean, obviously, state governments have passed important gun safety laws, but on the federal level, there has not been a bill that's passed until the Bipartisan Safer Community Act. So the historic of nature of that alone is really important. What I would say is that the Bipartisan Safer Community Act did a lot of really good things. For one, it closes the boyfriend loophole, which is a gap in federal law that prevents some individuals who are subject of domestic violence protective orders. It now prevents them from being able to go and legally buy guns. Another thing that the Bipartisan Safer Community Act did is it re-emphasized the importance of trafficking and small and strong purchasing by creating new federal standards around these crimes. It also broadened the definition of engagement in business, which sounds really wonky, but in practicality, what that means is that it allows more regulation on people who sell guns privately, and they now fall under the federal regulations. And also, one of the things I think that it did that was most important was it sought to provide funding for states who want to pass extreme risk protection laws, which are IRPOs. So that allows you to prevent somebody in the short term from being able to have access to a firearm. So those are all the things that it did that we are extremely excited about, and I do think we'll have a lasting impact. But what I will say about the Bipartisan Safer Community Act is that I think that it is a starting point. It's a floor. It's certainly not the ceiling of work that can be done. So it's a great starting point, but my hope is that there will be many, many more federal laws that go into effect that really cover some of the other loopholes and issues that weren't covered by the Bipartisan Safer Community Act, but I think it's a great starting point. Aaron, what was left out? You say Bipartisan, and then you include the Republican Second Amendment guys, so it's like rationality compromising with irrationality, and it's not necessarily the result that should be rational. So what was left out? What were the provisions that the gun control advocates were asking for, which the Republicans didn't want to compromise on, and then you get this thing in the middle? What would you like to see done now? So on a federal level, there's a handful of bills that have passed in one house or the other and haven't necessarily been signed into law or had the support of both Senate and Congress at the same time. One of which, which I think is extremely important, is expanding and strengthening Brady background checks. So when you go to buy a firearm right now, if you're buying it from a licensed dealer, they have to run a background check on you. But if you're buying it in a private sale, they don't necessarily, on a federal level, have to run a background check on you. So closing that loophole in particular would be something that's extremely important, and it's extremely important. In 2018, actually, there was a survey that was done that found that 97% of Americans supported expanding Brady background checks. So that's an example of a law where there's large support throughout all communities across the country, but the politics of Washington have kept it from successfully passing. So that's something on my, certainly high on my wish list. Another ban, which I think would have a tremendous impact in general, is some sort of an assault weapons ban. There was an assault weapons ban under the Clinton administration that had a 10-year window. So it expired, I believe it expired in 2005, if I'm correct on that. And so prior to 2005, you couldn't buy an assault weapon. But once that expired, what's really interesting is as soon as it expired, you started seeing this flood of AR-15 weapons enter into the marketplace and the marketing start on that. And what's also interesting is around the same timeframe that the assault weapons ban expired, you also saw the gun industry succeed with passing the Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act, which is placa. And that's the law that I deal with a lot, which is a special protection that makes it harder for victims of gun violence to bring lawsuits and civil actions and denies them access to justice. Now, you know, I will cover this hopefully in another show, but so if I ask a Second Amendment person, you know, who enjoys the politicization that the Republicans have created around this issue, you know, why do you really want to have an assault weapon? You know, is there anything in your life or anything you see happening on the horizon that makes it helpful or useful to have a military grade assault weapon in your home? It's not really a question of protecting your home. It's not really a question of protecting, you know, your life on the street. It's an assault weapon. It's an aggressive military weapon. You use it in war. That's what it's made for. What is the answer that that person would give? You know, I know this sounds crazy, but people think they're cool. And they think they're cool because they've read ads and they've seen them used in movies and they've seen them in their video games. And the way that they're looked at and talked about is in a way that's appealing. And that has really been a successful marketing campaign on behalf of the gun industry. And that's really why they're popular. That's why you keep seeing them used in mass shootings, because mass shootings of, you know, I would say 18 to 25 year olds who are the, oftentimes the perpetrator of these shooting, it's the same type of gun over and over again. I mean, water guns have more regulations and more safety features than these assault weapons do. And that's the reality of it. Okay, I wanted to ask you a couple of other areas of discussion here. You know, you guys, Brady, which I commend you on your work, as always, you know, are in court, trying to limit the benefits of gun manufacturing and sale and uncontrolled guns in the country with lawsuits. And I just wonder, what is the tone? What is the tone of the judges around, you know, out there and the tone of the lawyers that appear in these cases? I mean, on the other side, maybe where you would be, what is the tone of the juries who listen to this and make determinations? How do people around the country feel about cases which are dedicated to trying to prevent additional guns and trying to prevent gun violence? So, you know, Jay, I think that's a great question. What's really interesting about some of the work that I'm involved in is, you know, I really practice and work in states that I don't live in. I work in a variety of different states, red states, blue states, and purple states. And I have noticed a lot of similarities and commonalities is the truth between jurors and people when you actually tell the story of the case. I mean, when it actually comes down to it, you know, gun owners and non-gun owners alike don't want guns being sold and trafficked in negligent ways into the criminal marketplace. They want to keep their communities safe. They want to, they want to hold those accountable when they act negligently because it really not only threatens their own community and their own personal, but it also if negligent gun dealers and manufacturers and dealer, they're allowed to continue in that way, what I found is that gun owners feel like that's going to, that's further also going to try and take away their rights. So I think on the affirmative level of the affirmative cases on behalf of victims of gun violence, I think there's a lot of unity between jurors on all sides of the aisle, which is I think how a lot of the country feels as well. I mean, I don't think you see, you know, certain voices are very loud in this debate. There's a very loud, you know, voice from the NRA, from the gun industry, from the, from people who are very passionate about gun rights and they're loud and they talk a lot and they, you hear what they have to say, but if you actually were to poll most, you know, common sense gun owners, they want safety regulation. They don't want people, you know, who shouldn't have guns having access to them. So I do think there is much more commonality in this issue than necessarily is projected once it becomes a polarized issue and people start talking about my right, second amendment, you know, and all these other issues. Yeah, you know, I can imagine some cities, some courthouse, where there are people outside protesting one side of the other and trying to make their political point all along the lines of the fact that this issue has been politicized. It is no longer a matter of rationality. And this takes me to the fallout from the Supreme Court case about open carry. So we have sort of a national movement. It's kind of like the Republican national movement to, to do trigger law ban abortion in every state they can reach. Maybe including Hawaii, I don't know for sure. And so you have this army of conservatives all around the country trying to take that Supreme Court case and enforce it, limit the limitations on guns. We know that happened in New York. And apparently it's happening in Hawaii. So open carry is a big issue and I don't know why. We've been safe for as long as I've lived here. All of a sudden, we have a gun issue with the legislature. Oh my God. This is not a good thing. It's not a gift to us by any means from the Supreme Court. That's another conversation. But be it as it may, we do have a national effort going on, don't we, to support open carry, including here, right? Yeah. So I think I probably want to, if it's okay with you and we have time to back up a little bit and just sort of talk about the Supreme Court and how we got here very, very high level. And then I would love to come back and certainly dive into all the nuances, which I mean, I think I might put your listeners to sleep if I did that in this moment. But basically what the Supreme, so what's really interesting about, you know, this entire movement and what's going on in this particular window of time in gun violence prevention is that within two days of the bipartisan Sabres Community Act passing and the entire country, you know, uniting about gun violence prevention, the Supreme Court issued their opinion in the Bruin case, which is one of the most aggressive decisions I've ever read truthfully that really, I mean, threaten, you know, it says now that there is an individual right to carry a gun for self-defense outside your home. And when you read it in writing that you just sort of glance over it. But when you actually sort of think about what that means, it can have a tremendous impact on all of our communities across the entire country. The second thing that the Bruin case did was it changed the test in terms of how you actually analyze the Second Amendment. So rather than having this two-pronged test where public safety played a role, the court is now saying that you have to evaluate, you know, gun laws using a very wonky historical analysis. And then it didn't give the lower courts the tools as to what that historical analysis might look like. And then the final thing that the Bruin decision did, which I think is really important and relevant, you know, nationally, but in particular to the residents of Hawaii, is that Bruin says that New York's concealed permit scheme is unconstitutional. And why that's significant to Hawaii is that like New York, Hawaii had really strong laws related to public Harry. So the impact of Bruin, you know, really changed how, you know, whether Hawaii's current scheme could be upheld or whether there needs to be certain legislation passed now fit under this Bruin framework and to continue to continue to for Hawaii residents to be continued to have the same permit scheme and then also, you know, issues around public Harry and Hawaii. So if we want to escape what they did, what the Supreme Court did in Bruin, it falls on us to strengthen our gun control laws here now this year in the state legislature. Absolutely. So what I noted, so I should say when Bruin came down, the state legislature was not in session. So nothing was done immediately on the state level. All four counties in Hawaii did take some action to protect their current scheme. You know, for example, city of Honolulu passed a regulation to bolster their licensing and permitted process based on existing state law. So in Hawaii, localities can control how those standards work. So that was something that that Honolulu did, as well as Honolulu also worked on and there likely will be hearings on a sensitive place ordinance, which is what we consider the fix to, you know, continue the scheme even under the Bruin analysis. Now that the state legislature is back in session, our hope and I think I would imagine the hope of the citizens of Hawaii is that the state will take action. And really what we want them to do is mirror what they've done successfully in other states in these types of laws. But you know, what I what I'd say is the the gun rights people are loud. I mean, they come in, they lobby, they make their points, some are local, some are from the mainland. But really, it's up to the citizens of Hawaii to, you know, talk to your legislatures, tell them this is important, tell them why it's important, tell them you don't want people carrying AR15 down the streets of Waikiki, which, you know, they potentially could if these types of laws are not the sensitive place laws are not put into effect in the right way. So it's really, you know, my call to action for your listeners is, you know, work, work to get this passed because it's going to keep Hawaii safer. And it's really, really important. You know, you alluded to the fact that the anti gun control interests are organized, and indeed they are. And hopefully we can, we can do a show on exactly what that means nationally under the NRA. But they're organized, no question about it. They're everywhere now. And they're trying to do this in many, many states. But tragic in New York, and when I grew up in New York, everybody talked about the Sullivan Law, and the power that it had to keep guns off the street. It was a mainstay of law and order in the city, in a city where law and order is not always guaranteed. And so when you take away the Sullivan Law, which the Supreme Court did, you're left with a problem. What troubles me, though, is that where the gun, the anti gun control interests, the NRA interests are organized, the anti guns, the gun control interests, the ones that you and I would have described to, not so much, not so much organized. So my question to you is, suppose I take your call to action. Suppose I want to do something about this. I want to do something in Hawaii or in a national organization that would have some advocacy in Hawaii. What do I talk to? Where do I go? What organization is that? Where do I send my check, Erin? Well, I would have to give a pitch for my organization. We actually recently started a Hawaii chapter and that's www.bradyunited.org. We are actively involved on all different levels. I mean, you've heard me talk about the legal work that we're doing, but we have a fantastic policy team that's really dialed in and we have a strong organizing team. And it's really through supporters and advocates who are passionate about the issue that we make change. And I think that you talked about the anti, or you talked about the gun rights organization being very organized and being very intentional. But part of it, I think, is that these laws that are being challenged under the Bruin framework are allowing them to be very intentional. So what we're seeing, which is really unique, is that they're challenging these same types of laws all over the country. And they're very intentional and strategic about where they do those. So, for example, you're seeing states and municipalities that have chosen to pass common sense gun safety laws like assault weapons ban like Hawaii, like the city of Highland Park, California, all of these places have been sued and are now facing lawsuits relating to challenges under this new Bruin framework for their gun safety laws. So I think what we can do as a community, what we can do at Brady, what we're, I should say what we can do. We're already doing it, but we will continue doing it and working very hard at it is standing up for these gun safety. First of all, getting these gun safety laws passed. Second of all, standing up with the communities in court when they are challenged. And finally, if bringing legal action, well, not finally, but finally, for me, what I do is bringing legal action against the gun industry to keep our community safer. We are in a strange place. When I was a kid, the NRA was the most benign kind of organization. They had no political side to them at all. And they were all about gun safety and small arms as a sport. Not anymore. It's really interesting where we have gone on this and the threat that you describe not only to Hawaii, but the whole country is really existential. Well, I hope we can get together and do this again. And talk more about the larger forces at play and where they go. Where will they go? Where will this issue go? Thank you very much, Erin. Erin Davis of the Brady Campaign. Great to have you on the show. Thank you, Jay, so much. And thank you again for covering this important issue. And thank you to all of your supporters for watching. And if there's any other information that you'd like, please visit our website, www.bradyunited.org. And certainly, we welcome all kinds of new supporters of all kinds. If you want to know more about the issue, about any of our work or about anything else related to the gun violence prevention movement, please check us out and we would be glad to chat and be a resource for everyone. Thank you, Erin. Aloha. Thank you, Jay. Aloha.