WASHINGTON MAYBE HELP THE SIDES
REACH AN AGREEMENT.
NEIL?
>> THANKS, CHAD.
THE FORMER NEW YORK CITY POLICE
COMMISSIONER IS WITH US.
VERY GOOD TO HAVE YOU WITH US.
THERE’S MORE COMMON GROUND
BETWEEN THE TWO PARTS THAN WE’RE
LED TO BELIEVE.
NOT SATISFYING EITHER PARTIES
SCHOOL INTEREST IN RESOLVING
THIS.
WHEN IT COMES TO, FOR EXAMPLE,
GUNS, MAYBE SOME IN QUESTION FOR
THOSE UNDER 21 NOT TO LET THEM
GET SOME OF THOSE GUNS.
WHAT TO YOU MAKE OF THAT?
>> YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK BACK AT
THE SCHOOL SHOOTINGS, ALMOST ALL
OF THEM INVOLVE YOUNG MEN 18 OR
UNDER AND ASSAULT WEAPONS.
SO I KNOW THERE’S NO WAY THAT
CONGRESS IS GOING TO PASS THE
ASSAULT WEAPON BAN AGAIN.
BUT I DO BELIEVE THERE’S A WAY
THAT THIS CAN BE FIXED.
YOU KNOW, UNDER THE FEDERAL
FIREARMS ACT, MACHINE GUNS ARE
AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC, BUT IN
ORDER TO GET A MACHINE GUN, YOU
HAVE TO SUBMIT A PHOTOGRAPH,
YOUR FINGER PARENTS, A LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY HAS TO
CERTIFY THAT YOU HAVE A REASON
TO HAVE ONE.
SO WHY NOT DO THE SAME THING
WITH ASSAULT WEAPONS AND
CLASSIFY THEM UNDER THE SAME
STATUTE AND MAKE SURE THAT
ANYBODY THAT WANTS ONE WITH A
LEGITIMATE REASON TO GET IT.
BUT 18-YEAR-OLD RAMOS CAN’T GO
GET IT INSTANDSLY WITH $2,000.
THAT IS ONE WAY THAT YOU CAN
MAINTAIN THE RIGHT, BUT YOU HAVE
TO GO THROUGH A FEW HOOPS SO
THESE YOUNG KIDS DON’T GET THEM
RIGHT AWAY.
>> Neil: IN NEW YORK, THEY’RE
DEBATING THIS VERY ISSUE AND
PRIOR TO THIS SHOOTING WHERE AT
LEAST SOME OF THESE WEAPONS, I
DON’T KNOW IF THEY WERE INCLUDED
IN JUST ASSAULT WEAPONS, WOULD
BE BANNED IF YOU’RE UNDER 21.
WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THAT?
>> I DON’T THINK JUST UNDER 21
IS GOING TO DO IT.
KIDS CAN GET FALSE I.D.
WHY NOT HAVE THEM GO TO THEIR
POLICE STATION, GET
FINGERPRINTED, GET A PHOTOGRAPH
AND ALSO UNDER THE IRS STATUTE,
IF YOU BUY A MACHINE GUN, YOU
HAVE TO PAY A TAX OF $200.
WHY NOT MAKE IT HARDER TO GET
THEM.
DON’T PROHIBIT THEM.
MAKE IT HARDER THAT THE PEOPLE
THAT HAVE THEM GET THEM
RESPONSIBLY.
AND THESE MOMENTARY THING THAT
THEY GET THEM INSTANTLY DOESN’T
HAPPEN AGAIN.
IT HAPPENS IN ALMOST EVERY ONE
OF THEM.
THEY GET THEM LEGALLY.
>> Neil: THAT WAS THE CASE WITH
SALVADOR RAMOS, THE 18-YEAR-OLD
BEHIND THE ATTACKS AND HE GOT
THESE TWO GUNS LEGALLY AND
WITHOUT INCIDENT.
THERE WAS A BACKGROUND CHECK
WE’RE TOLD.
BUT THAT BACKGROUND CHECK AND
MAYBE YOU CAN HELP ME, IT VARIES
DEPENDING ON THE REGION AND HOW
THOROUGH THEY EXPLORE YOU.
IF HE HAD NO RECORD, NO CRIMINAL
REPORT AND EVEN VIOLATIONS TO GO
BACK TO, THERE WOULD BE NO
REASON FOR HIM NOT TO GET THE
WEAPON, RIGHT?
>> RIGHT.
YOU KNOW, CRIMINAL RECORDS ARE
NOT PERFECT.
YOU ALSO HAVE TO CHECK THE
BOXES.
THAT YOU’RE NOT GOING TO
COURTHOUSE THEM FOR CRIMINAL
PURPOSES THAT YOU HAVE MENTAL
ILLNESS, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
THE FACT IS THEY’RE NOT REAL
GOOD BACKGROUND CHECKS.
THAT’S WHY PUTTING SOME HOOPS IN
THE WAY OF GETTING ASSAULT
WEAPONS FOR ANYBODY.
THE TRUTH IS, THERE’S NO
LEGITIMATE SPORTING PURPOSE FOR
AN ASSAULT WEAPON.
THE ONLY REASON FOR WEAPONS ARE
TO KILL PEOPLE.
WE NEED TO LIMIT THE PEOPLE THAT
CAN GET THEM AND IF WE HAVE TO
HAVE THEM ON THE STREET, LET
THEM BE WITH PEOPLE THAT HAVE
SUBMITTED TO THIS PROCESS.
>> Neil: THAT’S NOT A BAD IDEA.
THERE HAS TO BE AN AREA WHERE
EACH SIDE CAN’T GET WHAT THEY
WANT BUT YOU HAVE TO DO
SOMETHING.
THIS COULD BE A CATALYST TO MAKE
SURE THE WRONG TYPES DON’T HAVE
THE WEAPONS AND THE KIND OF
BACKGROUND CHECKS THAT YOU TALK