Block the will of the people. It seems to me at times that one can only get something done in washington if you are either incredibly and of no sense that boulder going back torture or if you have a tenacious conviction where you on the right side of history and, therefore, you are going to let nobody through your round. Senator chris murphy falls into the latter. He has been a powerful voice in the sense of expand access to health care and a critical policy leader and a champion of progressive Foreign Policy that emphasizes multilateral diplomacy and rights. But has been most closely identified with his tenacious pursuit of measures that would control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction that are too widely held by those are destroying communities with a level of violence and unique to the united states. After decades of an action on the issue of gun safety and gun violence, finally this june 25 thanks to senator murphy, the dam broke. The significant federal Gun Legislation in nearly 30 years was signed into law and because of senator murphy commitment, the provisions in the bill are both historic and come with unexpected republican support. The new law to implement extreme Risk Protection orders and close of the socalled boyfriend lupo, further restricting access to guns for domestic abusers, a significantly strengthened with laws related to gun trafficking and invest 250 million. In passing this bill fighting when it was a to bill relationship and to find consensus, senator murphy has demonstrated that reaching bipartisan legislative agreement is possible even on issues long considered to contentious and to combat it. So my friend, this is not an infrastructure bill. This is guns in america. His work offers hope and dash to overcoming the all too common stand up between our Political Parties and sometimes just one vote within the party. Theres quite possibly a a rop here for achieving results but other issues to examine with senator murphy his approach come here to understand how they can make meaningful compromises moving forward because make no mistake, progress breeds progress. The moral we can get bills like this pass, the more gains we can do to benefit families and communities across the country. So we will unpack the success first by deepening our understanding of this bill, and then by examining how the work around it might inform other legislative campaigns. So senator murphy, thank you and welcome. Thank you so much for having me. I really appreciate the time. Thrilled to be able to engage with you. Im going to start by saluting this remarkable achievement, but i know you would be the first to acknowledge that we have miles to go after the scale of tragedy weve seen in sandia, san bernardino, parkland, orlando, las vegas, buffalo, on and on and so many other towns that have been under siege away from the data headlines. Can you open up by putting his s legislation and perspective for us, whats in the heart of the bill and how will it make our nation safer . Once again my thanks to cap for putting a a spotlight on s piece of legislation and for your years of advocacy to make sure that this nation did not permanently turn its back on this increasing problem in this nation caused by this epidemic of gun violence. I think the most important perspective here, patrick, is the 30 your perspective. Congress has been watching this epidemic of suicide, homicide, and Mass Violence over the course of three decades. And has done nothing about it, despite the fact that there was a clear mandate from the American Public to take definitive steps to address the epidemic of gun violence. A lot of reasons for that but primarily it was a power imbalance. The gun lobby, they had a lot of power in washington and at the Gun Violence Movement in the 90 americans who want to change and very little power. Especially over the last ten years and sandy hook a movement has arisen and that movement has gotten to the point of parity with antiGun Violence Movement come all the moms and dads and students that are marching on the streets, they lobby congress, they have as much power as the gun lobby has. So that set as up for this moment where we were able to break this 30 year logjam and get a bill passed. It is going to save lives. I know a lot of people first intersection with this piece of legislation is about what it is not, and theres lots of time to talk about what is and in this bill, but i but i celebran the bill because its going to save thousands and thousands of lives of both the changes in gun laws but also this deep, meaningful investment in a broken Mental Health system, and historically i think it sets us up for a lot of success in the future. What i know about great social change movements in this country, and account the antiGun Violence Movement amongst those, is that you had to get your first victory before you got your second or third and or fourth. And now that we have tipped the scales, i think we should celebrate whats in this bill but i also think we should expect to be able to do more. Senator, im heartened by what you said about the asymmetry between the gun lobby and average citizens and out the course of the last decade weve seen that asymmetry close with the antigun movement that you described as being as powerful as the gun lobby. There is an antidote ive heard use in the past about the Lgbtq Movement towards rights and what occurred on gay marriage, but first what new to happen on adoption. Could you recount to that and talk me through how we move from aspiration to legislation . So as we were developing this legislation there were obviously naysayers on both sides, clearly on the right there were those who are willing to have no compromise on the issue of guns. But on the left there were many who said this isnt enough, or youre going to give republicans a victory that is short of everything we need. And, of course, that list is long. We want universal background checks. What a bet on assault weapons and highcapacity magazines. But what i know is as i mentioned, if you look at the Civil Rights Movement or the Marriage Equality movement, those movements didnt get everything they wanted their first time legislatively. Marriage Equality Movement in many states first began by legalizing the right of gay couples to adopt, and a lot of people im sure at the time said do not settle for this very small change in law and rights. Because what we want is for equality. But what the movement saw was that by getting that first law change you proved to the movement, to the activists, that your voice leads to change which causes activists to come back for more, and two, you proved to the opponent who ended up supporting those changes that the sky doesnt fall politically when you stand up for peoples rights or when you take on the gun lobby. So those two things are going to happen here. One, i have already seen activists pumped because finally they had seen that for years and years of coming to the capital paid off and so theyre going to come back for more. At second youre going to see these republicans who voted for it go back home and find out that not only did the sky not fall but they are actually going to get support from all sorts of unlikely corners. Thats what ended up happening in the Civil Rights Movement, and the Marriage Equality movement is we grew bipartisan support in part because those that crossed over realized there was much more political gain than the conventional wisdom might hold. And im confident thats what will happen here as well. Not just the republicans but i think as well because we know the work you and others just did also punctured a mythology since a 1994 Midterm Election about why democrats lost the white impossible to support these kinds of measures. With the success youve had from a very early age in electoral politics to now, i know you will understand that there is a little daylight sometimes between electoral compromise and success and what comes out of the legislative chamber. Can you speak a little bit to what this means for campaigning now on both sides . And then im going to embarrass you a bit, senator, by showing a short video clip of yourself as strategic point. Well, let me say a word about the politics. You are very right, the conventional wisdom after 1994 was congress was lost, the democrats lost the congress because of the assault weapons ban. Thats just not true. The assault weapons ban which was part of the 1994 crimes bill was one of the most important parts of that crime bill. We lost congress in 1994 because we have four because we had a president who was unpopular and the healthcare bill which unfortunately had been misconstrued, but for 30 years a lot of democrats said you know what, i just want to stay with in this issue, i cant talk about it. It wasnt until 2018 when democrats finally figured out that if you run strong on issues like universal background checks and assault weapons, yes, you can to get a handful of people who are never going to vote for you in the first place while the majority convince a a whole gp of additional people to turn out that were not going to turn out. In 2018 we saw this giant surge in youth turnout and i was driven in part by candidates who are running on making schools safer. We won district enjoyed that even held by republicans for generations by running an antigun violence activist. Three years ago people wouldve said thats the worst candidate you could run. You cant win in georgia bike riding and that they gun activist. Thats who we ran and won because you know what, people wanted candidates who were speaking truth to power on the issue of guns. So we finally figured that out on the democratic party, and republicans are slowly but surely figuring out the same thing. Thats the georgia example is a perfect illustration of the challenge we have because what you left out in the store is prior to the success that we had, our wonderful senator from georgia, senator ossoff, he ran for the congressional seat and has had some challenges in communicating around gun violence and gun control legislation, and we saw a very short time later that the environment had completely changed. I think thats very important to point out. This is a part where i said i would embarrass you a bit, senator. I just wanted to get to a really important i think strategic decision that occurred. We all know that about a month passed from the horrific shootings in texas to the president signing this bill into law, a body that is to enforce considerable deliberation thats extraordinary. You said already much of what you think is changed in this moment, the asymmetry of our being balanced out, but actually think you did something at the start of this debate that also incentivized different behavior here, senator. When this first happened i like many others i was skeptical that anything would be done. You are presiding over the senate and you made a passionate speech from the senate floor, and in the, and, of course, it went viral, everyone focused on your refrain, what are we doing, why are we here . Theres a portion of those remarks that he think had a powerful vulnerability that finally that moment and i think it signaled the kind of compromise that was possible. I think in this moment you completely choose to move the debate by crete an opening for republicans. I just want to play that clip for for a second and the talk about it. But im here on this floor to bag, to literally get down on my hands and knees and beg my colleagues, find a fastforward path forward here, what with us to find a way to pass laws that make this less likely. I understand my republican colleagues will not agree to everything that i may support but there is a common denominator that we can find. There is a place where we can achieve agreement, that may not guarantee that america never ever again sees a shooting, that may not overnight cut in half the number of murders that happen in america. It will not solve the problem of american violence by itself but by doing something we at least stop sending this quiet message of endorsement to these killers whose brains are i want to play that because for me that is i think when everything changed. I will tell you all consume our news now through social media saw the first two minutes of your speech and i made a cynical comment to a colleague and i said you know, senator murphy showing passion, thats great. Im sure thats going to go viral, and then nothing will happen and will also better about ourselves. When i watch the entire speech i saw that session and so this remarkable vulnerability that you are demonstrating in that moment. If he can clear to me that if there was a chance to a pathway because your public indication was same as what the closer communication was is different than what happens in displays of bill passage of these days. You said at the very start the art of the possible, the attack on the assault weapons ban to languages on the floor that they come you didnt mock in any way what was being offered by republican colleagues. You actually lifted that out and expand on it. It struck me then, senator, over the course of the last two years that you have learned something about how history and its dramas actually just get converted into the path we need for legislation. Can you talk about that as the compromise you set for that and how that led to a change then . Then going to press you to kind of telescope out to talk about what this might mean for other seemingly intractable challenge. Its very nice of you to say, patrick. Im not sure that they had as much intentionality behind those comments that you may think in that i was literally making this up as i went along, which is always a stream of consciousness from a father who was just broken by having to contemplate another Community Going through what sandy hook was going through. But i have some of the same sentiment you did after i gave that speech. Immediately that speech started making its way around the internet, and i thought to myself and said others i feel so impotent. Is this all i can do . Is this the sum total of my contribution, speech lots of people watch that is may be partially cathartic in the moment . And you are also right that, in those remarks, i did extend this very open, unconditional invitation. And i do hope that the way in which i approached my without hyperbole, without political attack is part of what laid the groundwork. But i also think that having tried and failed through these negotiations for ten ten yes also part of that predicate. As you know, relationships matter and his displays andu are going to get involved in negotiating some of the most delicate explosive political issue in politics today, guns, you better have relationships that people can count on so it was a work ive done in previous years with john cornyn on guns, not ever get anywhere but we built the familiarity, it was the relationship i built just this you with thom tillis over some issues related to Foreign Policy and National Security that built our familiarity recs i think it was the speech that helped open up the door for those negotiation but also think it was a lot of the failed attempts at negotiations in the past. Failed negotiations with lindsey graham, Susan Collins failed attempt to get gun trafficking. Allots as much as we assess that as sort of a lack of success of our movement, it actually was a necessary predicate to the ultimate success. I think youre admirably humble about the role you played, our roll your remarks played in profound widespread race that led to the passage of this bill. This speaks to how this effort might be applicable, i open by talking about the failure of our ability to find other elements of the build back better legislation. You strike me, strike this somebody whos in institutionalist. You were talking that day that just about the ability to pass a bill around guns but you seem to be speaking to the level of exasperation that exists with the body itself, not just your own individual but the sense of democratic action and by that i mean small d democratic action as we try to hold the republic together in the most challenging times ever. I think ive heard you speak to come that it speaks to the deficit youve had a run of the to pass legislation. You talk about what happened during the memorial recess where you thought oh boy, if we dont get anything done, they are going to go hang out at the beaches, by time. What happened during the memorial day recess that change the tenor of this emergency, then talk to me as an organizer. I know it for you were in elected office you are an organizer in your community. Talk to me about an organizer about the things that happen in that moment and a constituency became coherent, might be able to help us in how we think about how we approach our organizing work on prescription drugs, on progressive taxation. I think theres a couple elements, its a great question. What happened during the memorial day week was that senators went back home and saw this look of panic in the eyes of parents and kids. I have been in around this issue or ten ten years. Ive never seen a kind of anxiety i saw after uvalde. Part of it, it was a shock to the system. I dont think people knew how to react to something at that school. They had never seen it before. When uvalde happened and parents start to realize that no one is going to protect us from this, congress is going to do nothing, the anger mixed with panic was something unique. Editing many of my colleagues saw that and recognize the very legitimacy of the institution was on the line. If we didnt step up and deliver an answer there were going to be a lot of americans who would just throw up their hands and say i dont know why we sent in a view to washington, you cant protect my kids from violence, you cant act on the thing that matters more to me than anything else, the physical safety of my family. So that was a week in which i think a lot of people saw this from the American Public. But what also was happening during this time was conventional organizer mobilization, ten years into building the antigun laws come that we have the ability to drive rallies and protests and phone calls in a way that we didnt ten years ago. When we returned to washington the following week, almost every single day there was a Major Political action event on the Capitol Campus run by moms, students demand action, none of that was happening in 2013 after sandy hook when were trying to pass a mansion to me bill. So much as there was an organic reaction from the public that move this debate, also the organize reaction from the movement and all the people who are participating in those actions, that also had an effect as well and is nothing the gun lobby could do to match that either organically from its constituencies or on the streets of washington and the halls of congress. As you debated this bill, you said to your colleagues were not lacking but what we are missing are activated voices. How do we galvanize those voices about other issues that, forgive me for saying, are not as when you talk about [inaudible] in the going to give you a second part of it question as they challenge that i think is really proximate to you because you speak about this with a kind of philosophical voice. I remember reading your book about violence in america, violence in any cities. In that book you talk about the experience you have had when you went to a community somewhere outside of hartford, africanamerican committee there confronted you any media said great youre not paying attention to this issue because of sandy hook, as you should, but where have you been all these years works im speaking right now, senator, to the horrific White Supremacists violence that we saw in buffalo, new york. Buffalo came and cody went without action. Uvalde kind of then something happened here. So the first part of my question to you, senator, is how do we continue to animate the voices that were galvanize around this issue, run some of these other issues . What is different about this that maybe needs to be taken up [inaudible] and then how do you close the solidarity, divide across communities that you experience that day in hartford . Two really important big questions. On the first, i think youre right to identify the unique nature of the debate about gun violence because it does tend, whether we like it or not, to be driven by these apocalyptic mass shooting events, and that cadence of political debate really doesnt have a parallel when it comes to immigration policy, housing policy, climate change. Policymakers, they do. They end up listening. I know it sounds countercultural but they do and up listening and feeling sort of gilded into action by young people in a way that doesnt always exist when older people arespeaking truth to power so i counsel other students to make sure you are spending a disproportionate amount of time organizing around young voices. And then this much more difficult question of how we make sure thisisnt just a debate that happens during the Mass Shootings. I dont have theanswer yet. Its heartbreaking to be that weve made a decision in this country that white lives matter more than black lights and we have over and over again. Even national losing cities it doesnt get anywhere near the attention as when Mass Shootings happen in white communities. One way to look at this is to be insistent on talking about the Public Health epidemic that exists and if you care about low performing schools then you have to care about the issue of gun violence because these communities of color in particular in these violent neighborhoods are exposed to trauma levels that are extraordinary because if you constantly fear for your life or you have a close friend or relative that was shot yourbrain is changed. Its like we need to talk about this not just in terms of the number of People Killed in our cities but by the fact that entire neighborhoods of kids are essentially ripped rendered unable to learn or made much more difficult for them to engage in learning because of the trauma the experience being exposed to violence. We have to be unapologetic about explaining the scope of this problem in certain parts of the country. Senator, we have so many questions from the gathered audience here and im going to turn to them. The questions are quite focused on this and what people are feeling are missing from this bill. They have some very specific interrogations that they like to make on things that they hope youre going to be able to work towards someone going to invite those in but i want to take you to another 60 seconds before we get to those to ask you just buy questions from the most desperate states like how do we continue to make our democracy more responsible. It shouldnt have been this hard to get this bill passedbecause 80 percent of americans want these changes. And so to me, the rules of the tenant are just an unconscionable barrier to democracy or to properly. 90 percent of americans want universal background checks. The majority of senators support universal background checks. The president is ready to sign a bill but we cant get it done. So its not surprising a lot of people say wait asecond. We want this. We elected majorities who support it. Weve got a president in the office that wants to sign the bill. And youre telling me that your rules, your own internal rules stop the popular will from being put into law after dark okay, im out. You can understand why people have that reaction. I think one of the most important things we do is change the rules of the senate so when people do their job collecting majorities that support a policy like universal background checks and a president who support that policy actually gets into law. So lets turn to the questions now from our eager audience. There are a number of questions that should be filed under ar 15 ava romero for the issue of weapons is still unresolved. Any possibility of getting bands on the purchase of ar 15s. Why would a civilian purchase such a weapon. Questions from helen also dont agree as a gun owner i dont agree that the average american should have ar 15 even though i feel safer with my personal and gun. Similar question from diane who also asks to that Gun Shop Owners who support lost around increasing the amount of firearms screenings requiredto purchase a gun , is there a way to better mobilizetheir interests. So i you take those altogether center on the partnerships that are possible with in congruent allies maybe. Like Gun Shop Owners but ar 15s. First. Ar 15s are now assumed to be part of the culture war. There in the identity trenches years ago this was a novelty item that you barely heard anything about. How did it so quickly become in our dna and what can we do about it if you can respond to the questions were getting here much of that is the story about the change in the gunindustry and gun market. It used to be that half of American Homes had a firearm. Today that number is down somewhere in the mid30 percent. So the gun industry decided the way they were going to make money is with declining share of american households buying guns was to tell cell more expensive ivy profitable weapons so the gun industry decided they were going to start selling these ar 15s style weapons which come with much higher Profit Margins for them and they were going to build a case that access to these weapons was sort of wrapped up in your sense of americanism and your sense of access to American Values like liberty and freedom. Thats nonsense but that argument has worked in many parts of the country. Theres a belief that Many Americans have that are you are robbing them of their National Heritage if you have any limitation on the kind of lethal firearms that are available to them. And so but we know that so long as theseassailants are better on that Law Enforcement theres very little you can do to stop them. I cant justify or rationalize what those Police Officers did in the classroom. They should have rushed that shooter but at some level you can understand Law Enforcements reticence to walk into a classroom when that shooter is as well armed were better armed than they are. And we shouldnt accept that in a civilized society. We do remember there are parts of this bill, not banning assault weapons that do allow us to take assault weapons away from dangerous people. We find red flag laws in this which is the process by which states the weapons away from dangerous individuals. We created a new waiting for your buyers i argue may have prevented both the Highland Park shooting and the uvalde shooting so agree that we have a lot more to do but there are provisions of the bill we passed that may end up taking away assault weapons from dangerous individuals or preventing those individuals from buying assault weapon in the first place. Im going to shoot your a little bit and asked another one of my questions but then im going to bring in a question from a participant. Barbara davis, i think some of our folks want more detail. She says im quite concerned this new law may have lengthy procedures to prevent a known mentally unstable person from owning a gun. Would you elaborate on the steps in the law that must be taken to keep guns away from unstable underaged persons and your efforts to ban the sale of large magazines. Could you elaborate, could i ask you to take the point of strategy because many of us were struck by the rhetorical concessions that you made around Second Amendment rights in your view of how progressives, democrats should concede how conservatives and Many Americans view the Second Amendment and instead, at the issue in an entirely different way . The first answer here around how these laws work. Its Pretty Simple because we have states that have passed red flag laws that do work. There are other state red flag laws that dont so what we need to do is take the state laws and create a quick process by which you can remove weapons from people who are a danger to themselves or others model that. Or somewhat ironically its an example of a state that has a red flag law that works. In fact there are 8000 different people in florida just over the last few years since the law was passed that have had their weapons taken away from them who were either threatening suicide or threatening violence against others. There are other laws across this country that dont work well so we got todo a better job of sharing the experience of states like florida. And were not going to the same question again. My second question is aboutthe Second Amendment. I do this in my book and ive done this in my speeches. I do believe that our Founding Fathers believed that the common law right of privategun ownership. I dont think Second Amendment is most likely about the privateright of gun ownership. That is mostly about the army of militias at our Founding Fathers did believe that the government couldnt wholesale take weapons away from private citizens. But they also believed in the heavy regulation offirearms. At the time of the founding of the nation, at the time of the drafting of the Second Amendment there was a heavy regulation of firearms. Some individuals who are prohibited from owning firearms, there was a requirement to register your gunpowder. There wererestrictions on where you could carry firearms. So our founders clearly believed in the ability of government to regulate what i think they also believed was a general right of individuals to be able to access firearms and thats a safe space for us to be in. It helps us get changed on because if progressives we dont sort of feed this paranoia some gun owners have that our ultimate objective is to confiscate every weapon and instead focus on the common sense regulation and compartmentalization of that. I think were going to grow support. We have so i understand theres folks in the room who dont think theres any Constitutional Rights for anybody to own a weapon. I disagree but i think by conceding that and getting into this conversation about how we properly restrict that right, were going to get more change done more quickly. You have a sense about how we build strength to strength, i remember on the mansion to me background check compromise you were asked by a reporter whether or not you thought the bill was sufficient and you said it was both insufficient and sufficient and you like and that your then fouryearold and said if my fouryearold asks for ice cream but gets one scoop so hopefully we can get to a second one. There are parallels between young kids and how Congress Works but there are lots. So im mindful of your time here and weve taken up a great amount of it but it would it be possible to get through any conversation these days without touching on the Supreme Courts and last question that ill give you is from david carr scary in. David says senator, there were miraculously the ability to enact the laws posing up and, reimposing a ban on assault weapons sales or on large capacity magazines. Do you have a concern that the Current Supreme Court might strike down such a law as an unconstitutional restriction on Second Amendment rights. I do. Theres nothing in the recent Supreme Court decision which is fairly narrow in its immediate holding that would stop a state or federal government from imposing a ban on assault weapons. Those bands are completely consistent with the broader holding in the heller case. But there is clearly the risk that on this court, there are five votes for a radical reinterpretation of the Second Amendment which would essentially hold that the Second Amendment is absolute. That theres almost no regulation of firearms that is consistent with the Second Amendment which would be completely and wholly inconsistent with the framers intent and completely inconsistent with 240 years of interpretation of the Second Amendment and it is further proved if they were to go in that direction it would be further approved that this five vote majority on the Supreme Court is essentially intending to substitute itself for the congress. They are going to bend the constitution and bill of rights in any way they see fit in order to improve their rightwing view, their extreme ideology on the country so in the ruling thus far there is a hint that more is to, but we also know this. Often on these hot button issues the court will take 10 or 20 years in between rulings. So i dont want policymakers out there to be holding back on common sense regulation because you think that maybe this court is going to invalidate them. Maybe we wont see another ruling for another 15 years so lets go do that step that our constituents want us to do and keep our communities safe and not let this potential extreme direction of this Supreme Court scare us into sitting on our hands. Center, you are always philosophically astute yet powerfully grounded in what concerns most americans and thank you for reminding us of the fact that despite you are unapologetic on these issues that you can lift up the notion that compromise, consensusbuilding is necessary to set a