Sirius XM: NICS Denial Notification Act
The following interview was aired on Sirius XM on January 7, 2016. A link to the article can be found here.
Tim Farley: Joining us now on POTUS, Representative Mike Quigley, he’s a Democrat from Illinois’ fifth congressional district and he tweets at @RepMikeQuigley. Congressman, thank you for being here today.
Rep. Mike Quigley: Thanks for having me on.
TF: And thanks for tweeting you were going to be on by the way and preparing all our listeners so that they would know that you would be here today. I really appreciate that. Listen, I wanted to get to first of all, Happy New Year. And then let’s talk about, first of all, the President this week, he issued some executive orders on gun violence and I wanted to bring it up in the context of something you have been working on and maybe you could explain. Obviously it gets very heated whenever the subject comes up on the air and we are taking it from a news perspective. You actually have some legislation you are trying to get through the House, you have cosponsored along with Pat Meehan who is a republican from Pennsylvania. Something called the bipartisan NICS Denial Notification Act, maybe you can lay that out for us.
MQ: Let me start by saying, besides Happy New Year, I think what you saw with the President’s actions this week was a degree of frustration, despite all we have heard and discussed about gun violence in this country, you don’t have to go further than my hometown in Chicago to understand that. I have been here for almost seven years and we haven’t even had a hearing. What we have stretched ourselves to do with the executive orders the President is attempting to move forward with is to try some measure we can get Republicans to support on. Obviously there are other aspects of reasonable measures to deal with gun violence that we think are appropriate, but I think the measure you just talked about was something that we should try, because we did get some bipartisan support out of the box with Pat Meehan and Peter King. And we thank them for joining us on the bill. This bill address people who shouldn’t get guns the vast majority of Americans and NRA members don’t want the wrong people to get their hands on guns, it automatically notifies state and local authority officers for when someone attempts to get a gun who knows they should not. After the Brady Bill, those with mental illnesses were not allowed to buy a gun, certain felons, certain misdemeanors, were not allowed to purchase weapons/handguns when they apply for this at a gun shop, they are on their application attesting that they don’t have any of these (listed there), under this attestment, that they don’t have a felony, they are basically lying, it’s a problem. There hasn’t been nearly enough prosecution on this. So when the Republicans say enforce the existing gun laws, ok let’s give that a shot. This is called lie and try. They are lying about their attestment, trying to acquire a gun. But this bill says “ok if you do that, we are automatically going to notify state and local law enforcement officers, and they can choose to prosecute those who try to illegally acquire a gun by filling out a background check inappropriately.
TF: So what is the appetite for moving forward on this on or in any future Congressional session?
MQ: I have a glimmer of hope that even the hardcore Republicans that are against any form of gun control legislation of that this is something of an easier way to do it, a less provocative to the NRA. The NRA has said they don’t want the wrong people to get guns, but there are people out there who are trying that shouldn’t have guns, even if I am turned down, at least I have a shot at this. This is only one element in the complexities of the issue, trying to keep the wrong people from having guns. This seems to me like a way to call the Republicans on what they are saying. They want to enforce existing gun laws, but the existing gun laws say that certain people shouldn’t have guns. Let’s follow up on that. I was in the Supreme Court when the arguments were being made about the Chicago gun case, it was interesting because I had to go through a metal detector, which was fine, but it tells me that the justices understand that not everyone should have a gun wherever you want. If you were to read the opinion, majority opinion would say there is a second amendment right but like all rights, it is limited. And that has been lost in this debate. Clearly not everyone should be able to get any kind of gun and have it anywhere they want. That’s in the SC decision. I am just taking on one element of one of those three points and calling the Republicans on it. And trying to get this passed.
TF: Congressman, you made an important point here. I was struck by the President the other day when he made his announcement that he was surrounded by people that represented people from Sandy Hook and Charleston, mass shootings, which do not reflect the everyday violence that the President barely touched on but said it happens in Chicago every day, I was wondering if you could speak to the issue and how it affects your District and Chicago and what seems the worst problem… Why is it that it has become such an issue in that city?
MQ: First of all, Chicago always had strict gun laws. But it was a five minute ride out of the city, there wasn’t a Berlin Wall around the city. You can purchase guns in suburbs, or worst yet, cross state lines and go into Indiana and purchase any kind of gun they want. And those who say well Chicago having strict gun laws didn’t help, avoids the fact that neighboring areas had as many guns as you wanted. What is worse yet though in this attempt to have universal background checks, in the gun shows, like in Indiana, you don’t get a background check. A monster loophole in our existing gun laws. I would add to my Republican friends who are opposed to such things is that you are missing the point. OK, let’s enforce the existing gun laws, correct. But there are massive loopholes.
TF: Well the gun shows in Chicago, the dealers who are there …. Sorry, go ahead.
MQ: No, no I was talking about the ones in Indiana.
TF: The gun shows there, if there are dealers there, they do have to perform background checks at those shows, correct?
MQ: No, this is the gun show loophole.
TF: The gun show loophole is that the people who show up at gun shows can buy guns from unauthorized dealers who are selling. So that’s why it is a loophole. Not really the people who are participating who are the authorized dealers who have to have a license to sell. I think that’s why we get caught up in this gun show loophole “loop” if you will between Republicans and Democrats of what there is and isn’t, but this is one of the issues. Straw purchases are not a problem until they are sold; it’s when you sell them to someone without a background check. And that is illegal to do that, correct?
MQ: But you would agree. That you can go to a gun show and buy a gun from a gun show without a background check.
TF: Not from one of the dealers who is there. You could go to the parking lot. But that’s the same with the online purchases, correct? That’s one of the issues is being able to get one at these shows not from an authorized dealer participating at the gun show.
MQ: One of the many loopholes. I encourage you to watch this documentary, Gun Fight, where the victims of Virginia Tech go to gun shows and were told by almost everyone that they could buy whatever they wanted without a background check. So there are enforcement issues there. Correct, the biggest problem at the gun shows is what people buy out of trunks in the parking lot.
TF: You’ve raised another important point that it is not only about what the law is but what is enforced. If people skirt the law, if you sell beer at a liquor store at a bar to someone underage, that is breaking the law... that doesn’t mean you need a different law, you just need to enforce it.
MQ: When you talk about Chicago, let me just reinforce something else. Under our previous U.S. attorney, we had the lowest number of gun prosecutions, illegal sales, in transferring of guns in the country. But our new attorney has pledged to change all of that, but if you look at Chicago from a distance. Why is that a problem? At least 2 good reasons: ready access nearby often illegally and the illegal transport without enough prosecution into the city from Indiana and the States in the South where people make a handsome profit for their efforts.
TF: How much pushback do you get from people in your district who say “look I don’t want more restrictions on guns because I want one in my house to protect myself”?
MQ: Not very much. I suppose that’s something of my district. Where people are more concerned about being robbed on the street like in Ashland and want to feel safe for those I think people understand is look there is no more slippery slope, the Court has ruled that there is a second amendment right, but having a hand gun in your house is one thing but having a rifle designed for war with a 30 round clip, you aren’t protecting your household, you aren’t hunting deer, you are hunting people. So I think the folks are smart enough, we give them credit, to distinguish that. But what concerns me to your point is the debate on the national scale has been avoid subtitles, nuance, and say platitudes and generalities… they won’t get down to the details to how guns are getting into the wrong hands and the wrong kinds of guns. The fact a lot of the advocates benefit from the fact that scaring them encourages them to buy more guns, and to pushback on any touch on handguns. You know, I began today by discussing how there hasn’t even been a hearing in the House on gun violence, we have prohibited research long before I have been here, seven years ago, so this is a hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil on a very serious issue. However anyone feels about it, we aren’t even talking about it or researching it here on Capitol Hill.
TF: It does get very emotional. That’s for sure. Before we go, I would love if we could, since you are on the Intelligence committee, have your takeaway if you will, on a totally different subject about what we have been hearing out of North Korea about their supposed testing of nuclear weapon H-bomb and the reaction that has taken place. Any thoughts on that?
MQ: Initial analysis of this indicates that this wasn’t an H-bomb; it may have had elements within it which would trigger concerns which would make you think this was a fusion reaction here, an H-bomb, but I am very skeptical of that. Regardless, obviously it is a major concern, I am hoping that our allies and China, if we can take more serious actions here to help push us North Korea into a more responsible frame.
TF: Ok, I appreciate you taking that question. Thank you for joining us on POTUS today. We look forward to catching up with you more during the year. Congressman, thank you so much.
MQ: Great, thank you.
TF: Representative Mike Quigley, a Democrat from Illinois representing fifth district joined us to discuss the President’s suggestions, his recommendations, coming from his executive action earlier this week on gun violence. Congressman Quigley tweets at @repmikequigley.
--