I want you to understand the deep connection that the issue of guns and gun violence has with the work of the Luskin School of Public Affairs. Among the other focuses is a focus on Mental Health. Guns are the single biggest killer of women. They are the single biggest cause of successful suicide. It turns out people may try to take their own life more often than we would like, and its a tragedy, but we are not very good at it unless there is a gun present. If there is a gun present, the possibility of fatalities skyrocket. Guns tear at the fabric of american society, but as you will hear in tonights lecture, you can argue that they are written into the fabric of american society, or at least so their advocates and manufacturers would tell us. We will talk a bit more about that. Its also important to understand that guns are a racial issue. Put succinctly, as the Second Amendment is for white people. When more than 100 armed men descend on the kentucky state capital, nothing happens. If 1000 armed africanamerican men descended on the kentucky state capital, i would ensure you nothing would not be in the option of outcomes. Whether it is immigration, whether it is crime, incarceration, violence against women, Mental Health issues, suicide prevention, and many other issues, guns are deeply connected to the work and challenges that we try to address at the Luskin School. Tonights event was pulled together by my colleague brad rowe. Few faculty at the Luskin School have a resume as diverse as brads. Brad has a degree in economics from wisconsin and a degree in Public Policy from the Luskin School. Hes worked on campaigns for nonprofits, and educational advocacy, and for a time, his own consultancy with the late mark kleiman. In addition, brad has Motion Picture and television credits to his name. Brad has a particular expertise in canadas policy, and he worked with the late mark kleiman, a retired professor from Public Policy here, both when he was here and at nyu. Brad has additional expertise in youth policy, particularly around criminal justice. Hes a lecturer in the department of Public Policy, and this spring, will be teaching Public Affairs 136, canadas policy, in the spring quarter. In thee is any students 4 00 p. M. On monday afternoons. After one of the latest Mass Shootings, and i honestly cant remember which, which says a lot about the size and scope of the problem, brad called me furious. He said, we have to do something. He said my Childs School has been locked down twice in the last 18 months. This is not how people in a just and Orderly Society live, and hes right. So, to take over the master of ceremonies job for the evening and to direct our festivities and all of our discussion, i introduce you to brad rowe. [applause] brad you cant hit me like that. Thank you, though. Those were my sentiments, and they are my sentiments. So, thank you for saying that. I apologize, as gary noted, i do have a history as an actor. I can sometimes act like i dont feel a certain way. This is not one of those issues. I first of all want to acknowledge that we are on the soil of ucla. We are a land grant institution. We recognize the native people as the traditional caretakers of the los angeles basin. We pay our respects to the ancestors, elders, and relatives of these people. [applause] in late 2007, i took a trip to help out my sister heidi in nebraska, omaha, nebraska. She was a floor manager for a cosmetic brand. On december 5 of 2007, when a 19yearold entered the mall, he shot and killed eight and wounded four. One of the employees was looking directly at my sister before he was shot and killed. The young man then turned the gun on himself, a suicide note filled with a message of hate. He wrote, just think though. Im going to be fucking famous. I accompanied my sister as she accompanied four friends and coworkers. While not technically a victim of the shooting, the trauma left scars. Some that have yet to heal. Im not going to ask for a show of hands, but it is my guess that a lot of you dont have a clear recollection of the specific incident i referred to. If you are born after 1992, you get a hall pass. That is most of the students who are here. Thats ok. My point is though, and gary made the same point with my contact for him, is how such a remarkable and tragic day has unfortunately become lost among the series of tragic days just like it. Some people talk about desensitization or the new normal, but this is not normal. It is unlike anything else in the world. One of the catalysts for the event coming together, gary mentioned i reached out to him, and it was that my sons high school had gone on lockdown for the second time in three years. First included a suspect carrying a semi automatic rifle behind his high school. My niece, just had coffee with her last week, shared that they keep a portable toilet in the event they have to go on lockdown. A work colleague of mine today shared that she lost two friends in the el paso shooting and she fears going to the movie theaters. If you ask, people will tell you that they have been affected by gun violence. But we have to ask. I am here today wearing my Public Policy hat. One of the first things that we do when trying to analyze a Public Policy problem is we bring the relevant experts and stakeholders together. Thank you all for being here today. We then have those stakeholders weigh in and define the issues. We task that group with proposing areas of investigation or action that can advance knowledge of the issues and solutions, and i propose we first start out with points and goals that gun opponents and advocates can agree upon. I cant recall anyone advocating against these. Everyone would like a reduction in death and mayhem. Liberty, everyone would like to be free from actual or perceived threats and the restrictions these dangers impose on our everyday lives. And the pursuit of happiness. We want fewer moments and days impacted by toxic stress, ptsd, anxiety, depression, and other mental diseases exacerbated by the gunrelated death and mayhem. Today, we have brought that group of experts together, not only those that you will see on the stage, but many of the organizations and individuals represented in this audience today. With you here tonight, i am hoping we will succeed in better defining the issues, and i hope we can task this group with proposing areas of investigation or action we might pursue as a collective. The problem at first blush seems fairly straightforward. Abnormally high numbers of people being killed and wounded either at the hands of an assailant as in homicide or in their own hands as in suicide. Equally as tragic are the accidental deaths. As professor mark kaplan, who could not be with us today, noted, total gun deaths are almost 40,000 a year, and 60 of those are suicides. It would seem to me this is a Public Health problem, if not an epidemic. These numbers are in the same ballpark as deaths related to automobile accidents and opioid misuse. These deaths are more concentrated among black males. A small percentage of these deaths involve a mass shooting incident, as defined by four or more dead. It is the senseless killings of others that causes society the greatest grief and outrage and mobilization. We need only mention the names columbine or sandy hook or parkland, and it evokes the worst images of fear we have around gun violence. What seems clear is we cannot depend on the rush of adrenaline, the indignation, the inspiration that we feel after a tragic event to carry us through the hard work of policy reform. In preparing for this event, the speakers wanted to make sure we included a discussion on mass casualty events, but we wanted to offer more of a broader view of the issues. What we are angling to do is to share some of the collective wisdom that exists on the stage and open it up to questions with you all. Thank you for sharing your time with us. We are very fortunate to have a gathering of so many brilliant and very talented groups. I do want to acknowledge the gun advocates. We need you here. We need your voices. We need your background. We need your histories. To become a part of the conversation. Our policymaking and pr efforts have become too antagonistic and disrespectful and just enough to put on a bumper sticker. It is not that simple. You are entitled to a voice and to be heard, and please do not be shy. If we do hope to develop longlasting gun reform, it cannot be done without consideration for the legitimate claims of gun advocates. As you listen to our speaker and think about how you want to engage and consider that this can be a hopeful story, the house has earmarked 25 million for gun research recently, which brings me to the point that state and local reform may not be as effective as federal regulation. Our keynote speaker, roxanne dunbarortiz, she hails from the state of oklahoma. She talks about in her most recent book loaded a disarming history of the Second Amendment, she grew up in a gun culture. After reading her wildly successful on Indigenous Peoples history of the United States, comments she made about the Second Amendment, she was asked if she could write a book about that, and she said yes. She includes concepts in this book like the fetishization of guns and the Second Amendment after the civil war. Characters like jesse james and billy kidd and the romance that we had with these ideas that were wrapped up in the missouri postconfederate guerrilla warfare groups. She speaks as deftly as she does about the black panthers as the emerging image of the mass shooter being a white male. The idea produced in that book will illustrate just how embedded and complex the gun issue has become throughout our american history, and somehow, she makes it all so digestible. The work of a true wordsmith, a dedicated researcher, and a seeker of truth, it is my honor to present to you our keynote speaker, dr. Roxanne dunbarortiz. Please come to the stage. [applause] prof. Dunbarortiz well, thank you, brad, for your endearing comments. We are gathered here on the ancestral territory of the tongva nation. It is an honor to speak on this 25th anniversary of the luskn school of Public Affairs. I want to thank dean segarra and the organizers of this event. Tommy, who cant be here tonight, who did so much of the work, brad and mark kaplan, and thanks to professor adam winkler and ismael ileto for joining me in conversation following my talk. Thank you all for being here tonight and youre concerned about the troublesome crisis of gun violence. My deepest sympathies go to the survivors of gun violence and those whose loved ones have been victims of this violence. You are always in my mind when i talk about this problem and the Second Amendment. As brad mentioned, essential to what informs my research talking and writing on the gun cult in the United States is the fact that i grew up in an all white Rural Oklahoma Community with guns and the bible. Southern baptist. Also essential to my experience with guns, in the early 1970s, for a year, i was a member of an armed radical left group in southern louisiana. We amassed a lot of guns. We were members of outdoor and indoor gun clubs and frequented gun shows, but fortunately never had occasion to fire the weapons beyond practice, but we practiced a lot. That is to say i am intimately familiar with all kinds of handguns, rifles, ammunition, including reloading shotgun shells, and what i call gun love. A firearm slung over your shoulder or a ninemillimeter browning tucked under your belt create a sense of amplified power without which you feel naked and vulnerable. Guns are awesome, and they are also beautiful objects that are addictive. Many objects may be used to kill someone, including the human hand, but only firearms are made for that explicit purpose. At the time of my gun love, as i call it, the early 1970s, approximately 50 of the homes in the United States contained a firearm. 112 million guns and a population of 200 million. That is one or two guns per person, most of them single shot rifles or shotguns. But about half of the population owned a gun at all. Most, half, did not own any guns at all. Here in the 21st century, the number of guns privately owned in the United States has reached 390 million. Thats the latest estimate. In my book, which was published two years ago, it was 300 million. It is already dated in terms of how many guns, and this is in a population of 330 Million People. The United States population is a little over 4 of the worlds population or a tiny part of the worlds population, but nearly half the world but our gun ownership accounts for half the worlds guns. One half, 50 . So, these guns, 121 firearms for every 100 u. S. Adults, are mostly highcaliber sidearms and rifles, mostly semiautomatic. This means each gun owner possesses an average of eight guns. Because only one third of the population now owns any guns at all. 70 have no relationship with guns at all. I call these gun hoarders, people who own eight or more weapons, if they say its for selfdefense well, eight . Do you really need eight . They are addicts, just as i was when i became addicted to having that sense of power. The Pew Research Center has found that the general profile of gun owners in the United States differs substantially from the general public. Roughly three fourths of gun owners are men, and 82 are white. Taken together, that is 61 of adults who own guns are white men. Nationwide, white men make up only 32 of the u. S. Population. So, what is the majority of white men so afraid of . They are real scaredy cats. We cannot to make sense of gun hoarding and the cult of the gun if we dont deal with White Nationalism. We cant deal with White Nationalism without dealing with United States history. I am an historian, and i feel this is how i can contribute to the understanding of this seemingly senseless gun proliferation and violence. Centuries of racial and economic domination by white men are integral to United States culture, views, and institutions. The ongoing influence of this history is compounded by a general lack or refusal of knowledge and acknowledgment of the three centuries of white settler colonial savage violence in seizing indigenous land across the continent and the legacy of 2. 5 centuries of legalized racial slavery, followed by another century of totalitarian control of africanamerican individuals and communities through such practices as convict leasing, legal segregation, rampant institutional racism, red lighting, police killings, mass surveillance, criminalization and mass incarceration. The United States was born of aggressive war. The firearms industry was the First Successful modern corporation, the brainchild of alexander hamilton. The Springfield Armory in western massachusetts was established by the Continental Congress in 1777. The constitution created a fiscal military state, that is a state primarily designed for war. 1990, after returning retiring as chief justice of the Supreme Court, the late Maureen Ebert wrote a long and impassioned plea for gun control, arguing that the Second Amendment was dated and no longer needed. Lets look at the history, he wrote. First, many of the 3. 5 Million People living in the 13 original colonies depended on wild game for food. A good many of them required firearms for their defense from marauding indians. He argued that hunting for food or killing indians were no longer necessary, so the Second Amendment should be done away with. Racist as his language is, he is right about firearms being used by white settlers to kill indians and violently appropriating their land, but regarding hunting, actually the early settlers, as well as postindependent white rural settlers, primarily used domesticated cows, hogs, and chickens for food. Nearly all of their hunting was commercial for the huge for trade, and they mostly used trapping rather than firearms, taking the skin and leaving the carcass to rot. Trade, and they mostly used trapping rather than firearms, taking the skin and leaving the carcass to rot. White settler guns use was not about hunting, nor is the Second Amendment about hunting. It never was. Guns were used to kill indians over a period of four centuries. The Second Amendment mandated to the settler population that right to form their own militias and carry that out. Many guncontrol advocates many guncontrol advocates and politicians maintain that the Second Amendment is about states continuing to have their own militias, emphasizing the language of wellregulated in the Second Amendment. As if this is manifested in the existing National Guard. However, the respective state militias were already authorized by the u. S. Constitution when the amendment was added. The constitution recognized the already existing britishestablished colonial militias as state militias. In article one, section eight of the constitution. Given what are now the States National guards are descended from the state militias provided for in the constitution, why would an amendment be added to call for militias . The militias referenced in the Second Amendment were voluntary and self organized settler militias, not state militias. State militias were empowered in article one, section eight, clause 15 of the constitution to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrection, and repel invasion, which is pretty much what the National Guard does. In the early 20th century, the law spelled out the National Guard in modern terms, but it did not invent the National Guard. It was taken from the state militias. The militias of the Second Amendment were related to settlers seizing land from its owners, the indigenous nations. Some observers in even the heller decision idealized anglo fiercelyarmers as independent and fearing big brother government, an argument now being taken up by some antiracist white groups, but what colonial anglo settlers considered oppressive was any restriction that colonial authorities put on them in regard to obtaining land by violence. The United States authorities, on the other hand, and with the Second Amendment, gave free rein to settler militias as the shock troops and foot soldiers of empire. Historian Charles Sellars wrote, cheap land held absolutely under the seaboard markets capitalist conception of property swelled a patriarchal honor to heroic dimensions in rural america. The fathers authority rested on his legal title to the family land. Where european Peasant Holdings were usually encumbered with obligations to some elite, the American Farmer held in see simple. Seized simple. Seized simple land, the augmenting feature of the patriarchal persona, sustained his honor and untrammeled will. This extraordinary independence inflated American Farmers conception of their class far above peasantry, even when they were dirt poor. In a book written in the early 1800s, historian joseph doddridge, a minister and early settler in the ohio country, wrote that on the frontier, every man was a soldier. From early in the spring to late in the fall was almost continually armed. Their work was often carried on by parties, each one of whom had his rifle and Everything Else belonging to his war address. Ress. R address d these were deposited in some Central Place in the field. A sentinel was stationed on the outside of the fence so that on the leased alarm, the whole company repaired to their arms and were ready for combat. In a moment. What or who did they fear . What was out there . Grizzly bears . No. The french . The british . No. It was none other than the native people they had displaced, usually very recently, attempting to recover their fields and villages or to prevent for the expansion of armed settlers. The Second Amendment thus reflects the federal governments dependence on individual armed men organizing themselves to invade and take native territories. Taking land by force was not an accidental or spontaneous project or the work of rogue characters. The violent appropriation of native land by white settlers was seen as an individual right in the Second Amendment, second only to freedom of speech. Settler militias and armed households were inscribed as settler rights for the destruction and control of native peoples, communities, and nations. With the expansion of plantation agriculture by the late 1600s, they were also used as slave patrols, forming the basis of u. S. Police culture after emancipation. That is the inseparable other half of the settler colonial reality that is implicit in the Second Amendment slave patrols. Organized white settler violence is what became and what in what became the United States began in 1607, jamestown, and continued in the violent march across the continent to the 1890s, at which time all Indigenous People were under lockdown on scattered reservations, on a landbased 1 of the former 100 of the continent. That long intergenerational struggle, violent struggle to take the land is why descendents of those mostly anglo and scotch irish settlers today believed believe they are the authentic lords of the United States and should govern, a kind of blood right. Today, they make up the majority of gun horders, the majority of the republican partys elected representatives and officials, and the majority of trumps supporters. Obviously, not all descendents, including myself, of these old settlers are of this type. In fact, most of us have come who have come from that and turned against it are far more militant than anyone else who is fighting racism, White Supremacy, and gun violence. What is it that brought these people back to power . I say back to power because at the end of world war ii, the United States social, economic, and political order was solidly and confidently a white patriarchal protestant republic dominated by corporations with investments in financial reserves, along with a massive military machine that would soon be called the militaryindustrial complex. Although an elite class, the 1 , symbolically, of white male bankers, industrialists, and real estate giants owned most of the countrys wealth. All white people benefited and still do from what w. E. B. Dubois called the psychological wage of whiteness. The u. S. Population was 89 white in 1950. Africanamerican descendents of enslaved africans lived under jim crow in the former Confederate States and were ghettoized and discriminated against when they escaped the south for northern and Coastal Industrial urban areas and were stopped by Police Forces like the Los Angeles Police department, resembling slave patrols. Native americans were abandoned on land basins that could not support life, forcing most to work in nearby or faraway cities, while congress legislated termination of indian status in 1953. During Harry Trumans second term as president , a red scare was launched, 1950 to 1954, usually identified with senator Joseph Mccarthy and attorney roy cohen, against alleged communists in the u. S. Government, the army, all institutions, hollywood. The antijewish context or subtext, i would say, of this campaign became obvious with the 1953 execution and show execution of the rosenbergs. Anticommunism and the fear of working lurking foreign menace became a subtext of White Supremacy. Then came the bombshell of the 1954 Supreme Court decision ordering desegregation of schools, a bombshell for this white republic. The genealogy of the ascension of constitutional original is originalism and the rise of White Nationalists organizations begins with this Supreme Court decision to desegregate schools. It was obvious that the writing was on the wall, and White Supremacy was on the decline. This was in the midst of a very intensive Civil Rights Movement that did not just start in the 1960s, but with the founding of the naacp by w. E. B. Dubois. And others in 1901. That is how the Supreme Court thier came about, their strategizing for it. The backlash quickly took form. Populist White Christian nationalism formed the basis of the ku klux klan, and anticatholicism was included in that. And the klan rose again in the 1960s. White Citizens Councils formed in southern and border states, labeling all policies and acts of desegregation as communist or jewishcontrolled. The john birch society, birthed in 1958 in massachusetts by the scion of the welch candy fortune, produced an ideology, a plan of action, and even a military arm, the minutemen. Fred koch of the Koch Industries was a Founding Member of the john birch society. They chose orange candy as the breeding ground, which once gave rise to the slogan, as orange goes, so goes the country, and ever. It while orange has become different, unfortunately. This highly public reassertion of White Supremacy and the birch societys methods of establishing activist local chapters, mainly run by conservative women from the Kitchen Table it was called the Kitchen Table strategy to take over School Boards and pta chapters across the country became a hallmark of the new right movement, coinciding with the rising visibility and politicizing of the rightwing evangelical movement opposed to roe v. Wade and the right to abortion, and of course, the humiliating loss of the war in vietnam. This is also when Mass Shootings began. These were White Nationalist responses to the Great Success of the Civil Rights Movement, and the Civil Rights Movement went on to represent far more than it spawned the Puerto Rican Movement for independence, the chicano movement, especially here in california. The farmworkers movement, red power, which actually did away with termination. And many other groups, and especially, the Womens Liberation Movement and the lgbt liberation movement. In a way, the Second Amendment was a ticking time bomb. It was there. The National Rifle association was one of the formations transformed during the period of white right wing resurgence. Until 1975, the nra had not regulations and had the secondfetish of amendment. By the time of the 1977 nra convention, the right wing Second Amendment foundation and its lobbying arm, the Citizens Committee for the right to keep and bear arms, founded in Washington State in 1974 by White Nationalists, seized leadership of the nra. It was then that the nra centered the Second Amendment as its main concern, making it into i call it the church of the Second Amendment. The nra. Carter was the primary actor in this coup that transformed the nra. Carter, following the career path of his father, had been a u. S. Border chief with a checkered past. He killed a fellow teenager who was mexican and was sentenced to three years in prison, which was overturned soon after, so he did not serve any time. As a u. S. Border patrol chief, carter was the head of the mid1950s operation wetback. That was the official title of the program. A violent, corrupt, racist round up and deportation of people of mexican descent, many of whom were u. S. Citizens. Ronald reagan, as president in the 1980s, was an nra enthusiast as well as supporting nationalists vietnam war war p. O. W. Rambo movement. Reagan was the first president to speak at nra conventions. So a large majority of u. S. Citizens, with reverence for the constitution that sometimes seems not very healthy, accept the sanctity of the Second Amendment. Following the 2008 Supreme Court heller decision, which ruled the Second Amendment for the first time, there was a Supreme Court ruling the Second Amendment was an individual right to bear arms. Gallup asked in a poll, do you believe the Second Amendment to the u. S. Constitution guarantees the right to americans to own guns, or do you believe it only guarantees members of state militias such as the National Guard units the right to own guns . 73 agreed it was an individual right. 20 said it was not. So the cult of the gun is not limited to the hard core gun dozens of weapons, or to the one third of the population that owns guns, but the majority of population which considers the Second Amendment a sacred right. I think the acknowledging of the original purpose of the Second Amendment is key to understanding gun culture in the United States. I agree with professor adam winkler, who you will hear speak soon, that it is not realistic to repeal the Second Amendment, but we can discredit it and thereby discredit the nra. It will not be easy, but i doubt that any commonsense firearm regulations can be enacted until the Second Amendment is understood to represent White Supremacy and genocide. Finally, i will end with this, we must talk about the relationship of u. S. Militaristic culture and gun violence. 44 of military veterans, mostly from the army and marine corps, they become once civilians. Military service is the strongest predictor of gun ownership. White nationalists also proliferate in all branches of the u. S. Military, especially the army and marine corps. They call their cause a racial holy war, and they are preparing for it by joining the ranks of the worlds most powerful war machine, the u. S. Military. On february 14, 2018, the anniversary is this friday, one year, a gunman opened fire with a semiautomatic ar15 rifle at the Marjory StonemanDouglas High School in the affluent miami suburb of parkland, florida, killing 17 people and injuring 17 others. Witnesses identified nikolas cruz, a 19yearold former student at the school, as the assailant. The shooter is also from an affluent family and had been enthusiastic member of the Junior Reserve Officers training corps, or jrotc, from age 11 until he was expelled from the school his junior year. Cruz wore the jrotc uniform when he carried out the massacre and was captured without resistance a few hours later wearing the uniform. Surviving students organized quickly and effectively, holding wellpublicized rallies calling for gun control. Three of the murdered students were, like the shooter, also members of the jrotc. They were 15yearold peter wang, 14yearold martin decue, and 14yearold alayna patty. Peter was wearing his junior rotc uniform when he was killed. The United States army organized a military funeral for the fallen cadets and other students spoke lovingly of their classmates devotion to jrotc and their intentions of joining the army. Jrotc is a federal Program Sponsored by the United States armed forces. There are over 3000 jrotc units operating in every state. More than a halfmillion middle and High School Students are enrolled at any one time and practice shooting in school cafeterias. The National RifleAssociation Provides the targets and money for these programs. This normalization of militarism for children belies the reality that u. S. Militarism is integrally related to domestic gun proliferation and violence. Thank you. [applause] thank you, doctor. All right, how about another round of applause for dr. Dunbarortiz. An incredibly informative book. Signing copies afterward if you are interested. We will bring up a panel now and keep the conversation going. The first person i want to bring up is an antihate crimes and antigun violence activist and cofounder of the asianamericans advancing justice award. His brother joseph was a Filipino American postal worker who was tragically murdered in 1998 in a crime of hate. He was delivering mail when he encountered a member of the area an nation iny nearby Granada Hills with a semiautomatic weapon. Three children, a teen counselor, and an Office Worker were wounded while 250 children played nearby. He then encountered joseph. The shots were fatal. Josephs family and friends were left to pick up the pieces and to honor joseph. President clinton sent these words of condolence violence in our society hurts all of us, but what you have had to endure is personal. Please welcome to the stage ismael. [applause] all right, next on our panel, i would like to introduce adam winkler, a professor at the ucla school of law and a specialist in constitutional law, the Supreme Court, and gun policy. He is author of gunfight the battle over the right to bear arms in america. Also on the table. It is a fantastic book and a detailed account of how we got to be where we are, through the lens of the legal apparatus surrounding our constitution and its amendments. He centers the book on a landmark 2008 case, the district of columbia versus heller, which invalidated the laws of handguns the law banning handguns in washington, d. C. The book gives the reader what feels like an intimate account of the gun rights advocates and a gun control lobbyist perspective on gun ownership. Please welcome to the stage uclas own adam winkler. [applause] ok, i think this is going to pick up. Can you hear me . Fantastic. Do we have dr. Dunbarortiz miked up as well . There ago. There we go. Fantastic. What i wanted to do was start out we would like to turn the floor over to joseph for a moment. He is the one on the panel with the panel with lived experience and let him describe not only the very truncated account that i offered, but as he described it the continuing ways of experience that his family has gone through over the past 20 years. Thank you. Good evening. I would like to first thank the dean for reaching out to me and for allowing me to be part of this panel, which is very personal. It has affected our family dearly. Im also very happy to be here. I have godsons and goddaughters at ucla. Back about 20 years ago, there was a shooting at the north valley youth center. One of the families is back there, i believe. There they are. A gunman from washington, the state of washington came down here to the l. A. Area, drove around for a day, saw there were armed guards at ucla, then decided to drive into the valley and focus on the north valley because it did not have armed guards to take him on. He went into the center and shot up the whole center with 70 rounds. Wounded five people. He then drove around, carjacked an asian lady. He came upon my brother who was delivering mail on that hot summer day. He asked my brother to mail something for him. And my brother reached out to get the mail, and he was shot nine times. He was shot twice, then my brother turned around to run away and he was shot seven more times, twice in the head. It was very shocking to our family to find out that he was gunned down in that way. It was a very traumatic summer. Just two months prior to this, my father passed away from a heart attack. So our family was just getting back into normal life when this happened. My brother was targeted because hes Asian American and worked for the government. The white supremacist person that did this was he was sending a message to wake up america, as he said when he confessed in vegas a couple days later. What drove our family to speak out was a couple things. How my brother was overlooked a lot of times in the media. He was just described as a postal worker that was gunned down. And i thought that was a little oversight of what happened. I wonder what the outcry would have been if the description of that event was a Childcare Center in north valley was shot up and some people were injured. I wonder what the outcry would have been for the Jewish American community. So my family and i, we became active in speaking out against hate crimes and gun violence. It has affected our family very, very much, more than you would think. You hear so much of it going on right now. All they cover on the news is what happened that day, the person that got shot. Are they in the hospital, did they survive . And nothing happens. You dont hear anything about the family and the effect of such violence. It has been 20 years, and my wife and i, we have been going across the country speaking at different universities in panels like this to bring awareness of gun violence and how it can affect every one of us and also, of course, the issue of hate crimes that are tied into the use of guns and a lot of these incidents. About 10 years after my brother was killed, we were being honored in washington, d. C. , by the national adl program, where an actor told our story. There were about 3000 people there. Our son at that time was nine years old. He has been going with us to all the different universities and story, andelling the it never dawned on him the full extent of it until he heard it from an actor that narrated our story. And he basically broke down on the stage when he realized exactly what happened to his uncle. So when people ask about gun violence, how has it been 10 years, and 20 years now, it still affects our family. You see, my sister has always been i have twin younger sisters, and one of them has a hard time dealing with the killing of my brother. So this past year, after the 20th anniversary, she could not deal with it anymore and she took her life. So when people say how has this thing affected you or affected our family, it has been 20 years since my brother was killed, and yet our family, we lost two immediate family in this incident. And theres a lot of discussion on how to have stronger gun laws and so forth. Ive been part of a lot of forums. Ive been part of a lot of events to buy guns and melt them down, rancho cucamonga, part of the hearings on selling less bullets in l. A. City and so forth. And yet things are still happening. And its every day now. Said, it like somebody is almost so common that you cannot even say which one happened last week or just today. So its going to take a lot. We heard the keynote speaker talk about the history of the guns in our society, in the culture of the United States, how it goes back into the 1500s, 1400s or 1500s, and is going to take a lot. But in my opinion, she mentioned the orange in the white house. I think we need to replace to really make a difference in our quest for a safer and more Humane Society. I mean, we dont really need as the keynote speaker said, an average of eight guns to protect yourself. I dont know, take martial arts or something. [laughter] but we we are glad to be part of this discussion. And i think more of this panel seems to be done in every community so that people will know or get awareness of what we are dealing with. Its a very complicated matter. I dont think we will ever get rid of the Second Amendment, and thats not what im advocating for. Everybody has a right to arm themselves in defense. I dont think we need those mass assault rifles to do that. We are not going to solve it overnight or within a month or within this election year, but it has to take steps in changing the thinking. And like the keynote speaker ult, understanding the called understanding how we got to this point. And im very proud to be part of this panel. You know, when she talked about her i got one of those letters, hate mail from that group saying, you know, we need to go back to the philippines and be responsible for my family. And even in that letter, they said they were in the military and the Police Departments and i should do the responsible thing. And it was signed by that group. She mentioned that it brought me back to the hate mail that we got. Im very happy to be part of this panel and maybe bring awareness to the importance of this issue of gun violence. We have so many issues we have to deal with. You know, just the issue of getting rid of some senate republicans, but anyway [laughter] im going to end with that. Thank you. [applause] adam, can you approach this from the legal perch . Can you share with the audience where we are right now in the state of california, nationally, what wiggle room is there for any meaningful reform if that is the direction we are going or not going . Prof. Winkler thank you, its an honor to be part of this panel. Those comments were very moving and powerful. To talk about the legalities after your personal experience almost seems wrong. And, roxanne, and wonderful keynote. Thank you for drawing those connections between our history and guns and violence and hierarchy in america. So, today where we stand is the Supreme Court reads the Second Amendment to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. The court said that in 2008 for the first time in american history, that the Second Amendment unambiguously protect the rights of handguns in your home for personal protection. The Supreme Court has not really said very much more than that. That you have the right to have a handgun in your home for personal protection. The court has not made clear whether you have the right to have an assault style rifle in your home for personal protection, and most courts have upheld restrictions on military style rifles. The court has not said whether you have the right to have a firearm with a highcapacity magazine in your home. But most courts, lower courts have upheld such laws when they have been enacted. The court has not made clear whether you are allowed to carry guns in public and under what conditions. Another major open question for the Supreme Court, but one that even in the absence of being answered by the Supreme Court is being answered in american politics very frequently. We have 40 states that have now loosened their laws over the last 30 years to allow people to carry guns on the street more often. So we are in a space where the Second Amendment has been read to protect the individual right to bear arms. Not much has been added other than that. I think many people who follow this area feel the Supreme Court is likely to step back into the Second Amendment fray and read it more expensively than it has previously, maybe even to outlaw bans on military style rifles or to outlaw bans on highcapacity magazines or to say it is a constitutional requirement for cities like los angeles to allow people to carry guns on our streets. We dont know, but the Supreme Court has taken a turn in recent years with two new appointments both of whom are likely to be strong progun, antiguncontrol votes. That is happening at the same time where american politics seems to be moving in the other direction. Over the last few years we have seen a real reinvigoration of gun safety Reform Movement that was pretty moribund in america for quite some time. There were organizations and people were active, but it was not a high priority item on the Democratic Party political agenda, and the possibilities of reform seemed pretty few and far between. But now we see, for instance, every major candidate for president in the Democratic Party making gun control of their signature issues. We are likely to see it play a big issue i think in the 2020 campaign. We have this divide where american politics is moving in one direction. At least in some ways, growing gun safety Reform Movement. At the same time the Supreme Court seems to be moving the other direction, likely to expand Second Amendment rights. Thanks, adam. Roxanne and ismael, where historically are we with that mobilization effort . You have seen it firsthand and historically where are we . He is saying we are moving in the direction of more mobilization. Is that true from your experience . Dr. Dunbarortiz i think so. I see it everywhere. I have going ive been going around the last two years since the book came out and always have had activists who are working very diligently and with each other in communities. I think one of the things when i was writing the book, that i became aware of, was the differential between the powerful, energized gun Rights Movement and the fact that because they are organized in chapters, the nra in these chapters in the community, even if the nra disappeared as a structure, it would go on because its very local. And all the nra really does is monitor each and every legislature in the whole country, down to the county sheriff and the people who walk kids across i mean, everything. They have monitors. Then they inform the local people that this person doesnt pass the test, you know, of gun rights, get them unelected, or run someone against them. That is how they have packed congress on the republican side in the senate and local legislature all over the country. So that energy, that Community Energy that i see in oklahoma in the county where i grew up, that excitement when they are there and organizing, i was not seeing that with the guncontrol advocates. It was more because so many families,ors or have there is a sadness like ishmael was saying. It never leaves. Think that passion that has to be there and the local thenizing, i also think concentration on federal laws, that would be nice, but it is not very likely. Most gun laws are local and state. Thanis a lot harder work going in lobbying congress. Legislatures do not meet yearround. That is what has to be done. I see more of that now. I just want to make sure our time check does that include q a or do we have additional time for q a . Sounds good sounds good. Ishmael, your comments . Experience i do not think we have moved any farther along the line since my brothers killing. Back then, my mother and my wife were part of the womens march against guns. We did all kinds of marches everywhere. We heard all the politicians say enough is enough. We heard all the thoughts and prayers that is about all you hear from the elected officials. When the Parkland Student high school happened last year, im a strzok driver i am a truck driver for ups and i was driving across nebraska and talking to my partner, nothing will happen, nothing will happen, nothing will be changed, i was so wrong. The moved to the people for state of florida to change some laws. I think that is what we will people,more involved but at the same time, it always boils down to who is in the office, who is in the senate, who is in congress, who can change the laws. If we can do all of the panels, all the conferences we want, nothing will change, nothing will move towards a Safer Society until we change the ones that could change the law. To likeoils down this year, election year. Whoever has relatives in other thees that we can change makeup of the congress to see the change in gun laws. Otherwise it will be the same thing over and over and we will still have the Mass Shootings and nothing will be done about the Mental Health care and all that areher things part of the Mass Shootings we have in the United States. That is my feeling. I think we can do all the marches we want, all of the analysis we want, and like the keynote speaker said, understanding how the Second Amendment came about and changing the views of how a Second Amendment should be practiced is the only way we will change the culture. I think the conversation gets stuck, you have someone saying this is my version of reasonable and bump stocks or background checks or Mental Health checks or different types often we runut against the slippery slope argument, which is any reform is a move toward complete civilian disarmament. Where is there room for compromise in the conversation and where do we get to the point we can actually see change . Are working in groups that are activists. What are some of the tools you have seen on the legal trail that people can invest energy or study or research or get involved in . If the goal is to find something that will bring democrats and republicans together, it does not seem like there is a lot that will have a Significant Impact that will overcome that divide. In part that is not the story of guns, that is the story of political divide. We do not find much compromise on any issue in america today. Guns is not going to be the one that will bring us all together. There is bipartisan reform for some kinds of reform. For instance, red flag laws. These are gun violence prevention orders where Law Enforcement or family members can go to a court and have someone who is going through a crisis have their guns removed for a short time. That is an area where we have seen reform in red states and blue states. Lindsey graham, for instance, has a proposed bill in the senate to increase gun violence prevention orders and maybe have a federal financing mechanism. That is one of the few areas where you see bipartisan agreement about some kind of reform in this area. Weve also seen a lot of bipartisan agreement on reform, taking guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. Beyond that, we have not seen a lot we do not see a lot of space for compromise. I do not think you will see more gun reform as a result of compromise. I think you will see more gun Safety Advocates elect more people to congress. It is one thing to march, marching is important as a form of political activism, but at the end of the date you have to get people to vote on that issue. When enough people are voted into office, we will see gun control move. We see that at the state level today. Where the federal government has stalled on issues of gun reform. We see a lot of activity at the state level going in both directions, making our laws looser in some states and more restrictive in some states like california. That is not because of compromise. It is because Political Energy supports the gun safety Reform Movement in those states. Like i say, we are seeing a reinvigorated Gun Control Movement that hopefully can overcome that sense of fatalism that nothing can change. Brad final comments on areas we can find commonality or make some progress . I think it isiz a chicken and egg thing. People whohave support gun control elected to office, but how do you do that in aa congressperson lives where they are going up against the incumbent who is a republican lets say in the central valley, which i know well. A lot of guns. It is a red state within a blue state. Attempts to flip those seats. When they do, they do not talk about guns, the candidate on the democratic candidate does not talk about guns because he will not get elected if he does. You have this dilemma of that that isf blue and red kind of intractable because it is partly the politics but also partly the guns. Congress lets say it is a majority. Overwhelming majority democratic. It does not mean they will do gun control and it does not mean the senate will. I think the social movements are going to be more important than candidacy to change things. Brad ismael . Think mr. Winkler was right that we need compromise between the two parties to move laws. Said, there are some areas where more people are of the gun loving part of society. I am sure we can find compromise and having a more common sense gun control. We will not get rid of everything, but we need to step towards a more Humane Society where we can take out the mass killing assault rifles. It is an issue we need to involve everybody. A small group is not going to of thethe overall aspect gun ownership and gun culture in america. Brad thank you. I think we have time for two questions. Do we have microphones . Hereve a gentleman right i agree that much stronger gun control regulations should be enacted. But one thing i agreed with you in your opening comments, you said we need to include the progun supporters in the conversation. Im thinking about mainstream not extremists but mainstream gun rights supporters. You said they needed to be included in the conversation. But i was struck you didnt invite, or maybe you did, but why dont we have two of those people here tonight . Thats a really good question. I would put it back to the school, as well, which was we wanted at a breadth of expertise to cover the areas issued. Obviously, billy graham dr. Ortizs book and her thesis, and we would continue doing these events and bringing people together. We made an effort to invite people who had other opinions to join us tonight for the conversation. So we would like to and i agree, we can do better. Thank you. Dr. Ortiz remember a third of the population owns guns. So i think what we really need to do is concentrate on the 70 who dont own guns, obviously they are not progun, or they would own guns. If we organize the majority, im not sure we should spend that much time, just myself, knowing i dont think it is worth the time to try and convert them. Maybe you dont know many of them. But i think we should work on the 70 . I wanted to clarify, i do agree it should be part of the conversation. I dont necessarily mean to sway other people, but to make people who are gun reform advocates familiar with the reasons people do support gun ownership. I think its important. Thank you for bringing that up. One person may have the microphone already. We will try and focus on making sure yeah, right that there. You with the stripes. You can hear me without a microphone. Here we go. Thank you to all of the panelists. It is really illuminating, and we appreciate everything you have to say. I have a question for professor winkler. The gun manufacturers, we havent heard much about them tonight in the corporate greed and the money being made over this carnage. Im wanting to know, is there any hope in lawsuits and bringing this to the public through those lawsuits to try and take away the profit motive of these killings . Can those lawsuits succeed . Where do we stand on this . Brad thats a great question. of course, you cant understand americas relationship with guns without understanding the relationship of the Gun Companies and the role of those Gun Companies in providing this is a consumer good to civilians and propping up the demand for guns. We see the rise over the last 20 years a real preference among gun consumers for these military style rifles. That didnt just happen. Thats a result of Marketing Campaigns and efforts to bring these weapons and make them popular in gun communities. Certainly, that is part of the work of the Gun Companies. Not that we would not expect that. Gun companies are making guns and marketing their goods. We have had success using lawsuits to get at some other industries for various kinds of illegal practices. The Tobacco Companies are the best example. Largely in fear of what happened with the Tobacco Companies, that litigation led to the discovery of a lot of information about their deliberations and what they knew about the dangers of smoking. The Gun Companies pushed congress to talk to adopt a law, the protection for lawful arms act, that really has shut down most of the lawsuits against Gun Companies trying to either bring them down or trying to reveal information. There are lawsuits still bubbling up trying to expose some of the exceptions in the federal law that provide that immunity. One coming out of newtown currently against remington. That particular lawsuit has moved forward into the discovery phase. The fact that lawsuit has moved that far has surprised a lot of people in the community. We will see where that goes. Right now it is very difficult to use lawsuits to open up these companies, either to liability, or discovery, get information about them because of these federal protections. Several candidates have promised if they are elected, they will repeal the protections. Whether they will be able to are not, thats another question. That goes back to our families at the Jewish Community center. In 2005, they reenacted the law where we cannot sue u. S. Gun manufacturers. We can sue the people who make the tobacco families or any other industries, but we cannot touch the u. S. Gun manufacturers. So we go, how did that come about . Again, it goes back to whos in congress. I mean, how did the law pass . I dont know what the law is about turning that back or repealing that, but if we get the right people, im sure it can be repealed. Brad i think thats all the time we have. Please round of applause for our , a panel. Thank you, dr. Ortiz for her keynote speech. I want to thank our sponsors, women against gun violence, department of family medicine, ucla firearms Violence Research center, the Health Equity network of the americans, ucla law, Ucla Law School of Public Affairs department of social welfare, and Public Policy. Thank you for coming tonight. Appreciate it. Thank you. 2020 was a sort year for women. With the election of kamala harris. It happened under the year we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the womens right to vote. Sunday night on q a, journalist on herhor eileen weiss book about the ratification of the 19th amendment that granted women the right to vote. It passes the house come has to be two thirds majority. It passes by a margin very small. It passes the senate with only two vote margin. There are senators who are sitting after the house passes it actually in 1918 and it takes until june of 1919 before it passes both houses. The senate knew they were sending it out for ratification in the states, what is called an off year, when most state legislatures were not going to be in session. That was sort of purposeful, to make it more difficult. So the separatist had to convince 30 governors separatists had to convince the governors. Elaine weiss on cspan q a. Next, george will talks about the Trump Presidency and the future of the republican. Mr. Will is a former republican who changed his Voter Registration to unaffiliated in the first year of the trump administration. This is an hour