Preet Bharara:

From CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network, welcome to Stay Tuned. I’m Preet Bharara.

Shannon Watts:

If more guns and fewer gun laws made us safer, we’d be the safest country in the world. We have over 400 million guns in the hands of civilians. Instead we have a 26 times higher gun homicide rate than any peer nation. It’s the guns.

Preet Bharara:

That’s Shannon Watts. She’s the founder of Moms Demand Action, a massive nationwide grassroots organization dedicated to gun violence prevention. Watts started Moms Demand Action as a Facebook group after the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary. The group quickly became one of the loudest voices for common sense gun safety legislation in the country. It now has over eight million supporters and a chapter in every single state. Recently, a bipartisan group of 20 senators announced the framework of a deal on gun legislation in the aftermath of the horrible shooting in Uvalde, Texas. The proposal introduces a few key measures that promote gun safety, but is it good enough? And can it pass a deadlocked Senate? Watts joins me to discuss the proposal, the importance of local organizing, and her thoughts on incremental change. That’s coming up. Stay tuned.

Preet Bharara:

Now let’s get to your questions. So here’s a broad and basic legal question that comes up from time to time. I talk about it in my law class at NYU law school. And it’s a subject of debate in the criminal law community. And the questions are what kinds of considerations lead to a plea bargain? Is the prevalence of plea bargaining a cause for concern? Are there any benefits to a defendant to pleading guilty? Now we have a system in which, whether you like it or not, where there are limited resources. That’s true on the part of the government, even though you think the government has massive resources. With respect to particular matters, they don’t. Often it’s the case, whether it’s a DA’s office or a US attorney’s office, there’s a single prosecutor assigned to the case. There’s a single case agent. With respect to some matters and investigations, obviously you can bring a lot more resources to bear, but overall there are not enough resources to prosecute and certainly not enough resources to go to trial with respect to every case that’s charged.

Preet Bharara:

There’s a hypothetical that I give my class sometimes. Which is what do you think would happen if the percentage of plea bargains in cases in the country, went from whatever it is, 95, 96, 97%, went to 50%? Well, the system would be overwhelmed, and we would have to figure out ways to make up those resources so people could have timely trials. We would need more judges. We would need more agents. We would need more court reporters. We would need more people to staff all the kinds of things that happen in a trial. A trial, and a criminal trial in particular, is a massive labor intensive undertaking.

Preet Bharara:

That is not an excuse for a system in which most cases get resolved by plea bargain. You may be surprised to learn that it’s not just defense lawyers who talk about the onerousness of the pressure to plead guilty and the fact that they’re not enough trials anymore. Other people who lament the lack of trials are prosecutors themselves, also judges. So in an ideal system, I think you would have more trials, and you would have fewer cases where there’s plea bargaining. Because trials are transparent trials, bring out the truth, and everyone is more likely to get a fair shake once you go to trial.

Preet Bharara:

Now that said, it’s often the case that a plea bargain is in the interests of the defendant, depending on the facts and circumstances. Obviously everyone has an absolute constitutional right to trial. That is a right, as I mentioned, of constitutional dimension. And people have that right. And they often assert that right. So people will often ask the question, why do so many defendants plead guilty? And part of the reason is, and I think this is an unfortunate structural fact, the likelihood of sentencing becomes much greater at the end of a trial. That’s particularly so in cases where there are mandatory minimum punishments. And there’s a lot of controversy over mandatory minimum statutes. That’s just a sad reality of the mandatory minimum regime we have in this country. And there are good reasons to say we shouldn’t have that regime.

Preet Bharara:

But even outside the examples of mandatory minimums that might be brought to bear after a conviction at trial, it’s still the case that it’s often to the defendant’s benefit if he or she is guilty to plead guilty to the crimes and engage in some kind of plea bargain. Among other things, in most systems, including the federal system, judges themselves will give some credit for acceptance of responsibility. And that will reduce the sentence.

Preet Bharara:

Second, something that people don’t often consider, particularly if there’s a lot of evidence of guilt, at the time of a guilty plea, the judge doesn’t really have the fullest picture of the conduct and the heinousness of the conduct if its a violent crime, for example. If you go to trial, you can bet that the prosecutor’s office will bring to court every witness, will describe every bit of misconduct in excruciating detail to prove the case, and also to show how reprehensible the conduct was. And I’ve seen it again and again that at the time of a guilty plea, the judge hasn’t really lived through the conduct. After a trial, the judge will have lived through the conduct.

Preet Bharara:

And it’s not always the case. Sometimes it goes the other way. But more often than not, depending on the nature of the misconduct that’s been charged, the judge has a harsher view of the defendant and that person’s conduct after a full trial with lots of witnesses. And you can imagine how pained some of these witnesses are. And to avoid that and to avoid making an even worse impression on the judge, often lawyers will counsel their clients if they’re guilty to plead guilty and get the benefit of perhaps a lower sentence for that reason.

Preet Bharara:

You also have people who are charged with crimes sometimes, but they’re not charged with the full total of the crimes that they’ve committed. So say someone gets caught for robbing a bank, or holding up a bodega. And that’s the crime that’s before the prosecutor’s office and that’s the crime before the judge. But let’s say that person has robbed 10 bodega and knows it. The earlier you plead guilty, it’s just a fact of life, the earlier you plead guilty, the lower the likelihood that prosecutors who are human beings and are busy and are doing a million things, the lower the likelihood they will find evidence of and try to charge the other nine robberies. That’s not how it should be, but it often is that way.

Preet Bharara:

So sometimes the plea bargain for someone who has committed a lot of crimes, or is in the nature of a career criminal, a plea bargain cuts your losses. And obviously the most important category of plea bargaining is something we’ve talked about on the show and I write about in my book, and that is pleading guilty with a cooperation agreement. So not only are you getting the benefit of acceptance of responsibility, but you also have the possibility of a judge coming down below the mandatory minimum. And sometimes, even if there’s been substantial misconduct and substantial evidence of criminality, if you provide substantial assistance to the government in helping to prosecute and testify against other people, usually, but not always, but usually higher up on the totem pole, you get a tremendous benefit in sentencing.

Preet Bharara:

So plea bargaining is a complicated and controversial subject. I understand criticisms of it. I have criticisms of it. There are benefits to it also. It’s an imperfect system that’s based on limited resources and limited information on the parts of defendants and the parts of prosecutors, depending on the circumstances. But there are good aspects and efficient aspects to it also. Let me know what you think.

Preet Bharara:

We’ll be right back with my conversation with Shannon Watts. After the horrible shooting in Uvalde, many, including myself, have wondered is this time different? Then a group of 20 senators introduced a proposal that if passed into law could have a meaningful impact on gun safety. Shannon Watts, a gun violence prevention activist, has been organizing around gun safety legislation for the last decade. Shannon Watts, welcome back to the show.

Shannon Watts:

I’m thrilled to be back.

Preet Bharara:

So let me start by saying, and I think you’ll take this the right way, I love you and your work and I love having you on, and it’s always inspiring and informative and educational, but every time I have you on, I hope I don’t have to have you on again. Does that make sense?

Shannon Watts:

Absolutely. And I hope that I don’t have to be on again.

Preet Bharara:

The first time you were on the show and we started becoming friends was right after the shooting in Parkland in February of 2018. And it was a devastating time. You obviously got involved in this work with respect to gun safety right after Newtown a decade ago. So it’s been a while. So my first question to you is, after you Uvalde happened, or as it was unfolding, what were you thinking? What were you feeling? What was it like for you?

Shannon Watts:

Well, the horrific mass shooting in Buffalo had just happened, not to mention other hate crimes in places like Laguna and Dallas. And I just couldn’t believe that, once again, I was watching news coverage of children and educators being slaughtered in the sanctity of an American elementary school. I mean, as you said, 10 years after I started doing this work as a full time volunteer in 2012. And it just was outrageous to me. And once again, brought back all the memories and the feelings of why I started Moms Demand Action in the first place.

Shannon Watts:

But like the first time, again, that rage turned into getting people off the sidelines, showing people that they needed to act. And we have grown exponentially as an organization in the last few weeks. And I do think that’s because more and more Americans, regardless of political party, regardless of whether they’re gun owners, regardless of whether they’re women or men, they want this to stop. And they know they have to use their voices and their votes to do so.

Preet Bharara:

You know it’s interesting, there’s this debate between and among people who were on the side of favoring more sensible gun legislation, we’ll go through some of what that legislation could look like, and there’s one subset who gets energized and says, “We need to march and we need to get something done.” And another subset that almost seems resigned to nothing happening. And I asked you about this in a way back in 2018. And I asked you about the moment we were in. And if it was a moment that was a real inflection point and would things change, would it be fleeting?

Preet Bharara:

And you said, “It doesn’t feel fleeting. And I’ll just say this I’ve been working on this now for five years,” that was some years ago, and you said, “I don’t know that any moment is fleeting. I think they all build upon one another. People get educated about what the problem is in this country. They decide to get off the sidelines, sometimes slowly, sometimes on mass. But to me, this feels different because I think Americans are so fed up.” Do you stand by that? And how do you think Uvalde builds on top of the prior events in terms of energy for reform?

Shannon Watts:

I do think that more and more Americans are fed up every time there’s a horrific mass shooting tragedy in this country. I think what’s important to not lose sight of is if you go back to when I started doing this work in 2012, it was a completely different political calculus. About a quarter of all Democrats in Congress had A rating from the NRA. Today, none do. This was an incredibly polarizing issue. And we hadn’t created a grassroots army that could go toe to toe with the gun lobby. That happened in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting tragedy. And we’ve had huge progress in school boards and city councils and in state houses.

Shannon Watts:

And what we learned was that Congress is not where this work begins, it’s where it ends. And that we would have to do what I call the unglamorous heavy lifting of grassroots activism. And that would take years, if not decades, to show how corrupt the gun lobby is. And to really loosen the stranglehold they’ve had on our lawmakers finger by finger. If you look at polling in the last few days, you will see that this has more support, this meaning gun safety reform, has more support than in the last decade. And not just among Democrats, but among Republicans and gun owners and men. And that is because there’s been a seismic shift in American politics. And we had to create a grassroots movement in order to make that happen.

Preet Bharara:

You used an interesting phrase, maybe it’s not so interesting, but you said gun safety reform instead of gun control, is that deliberate?

Shannon Watts:

Oh yes.

Preet Bharara:

Explain the language of this movement.

Shannon Watts:

Well the NRA has tried to co-op language and use it to their advantage. And so what they had been saying before the Sandy Hook school shooting was that gun control was about controlling gun owners. And in fact, it’s really gun safety, and it’s about restoring the responsibilities that go along with gun rights. When I started Moms Demand Action as a Facebook page, I actually called it One Million Moms for Gun Control. This was in my kitchen in Indiana. I had no idea that One Million Moms was an anti-gay group, and that gun control was a verboten phrase outside the Beltway.

Shannon Watts:

And so I got a call from a congresswoman, Carolyn McCarthy, whose son and husband had been shot on the Long Island Railway. And she called me and she said, “We have been waiting for women and moms to organize around this issue, but we cannot stand with you if that is your name.” And so very shortly after we became Moms Demand Action. But I can think of so many different ways that the gun lobby has tried to exploit language. When they tried to deregulate silencers, they called it the Hearing Protection Act. I mean, language is important.

Preet Bharara:

Can you address the power and authority of the NRA? You said it in passing a moment ago with respect to the ratings that Democrats have these days. And the NRA was a sort of a big target for blame for a long time. But then in the last number of years, we keep hearing that they’re on the brink of insolvency, there’s scandal within the organization, they don’t have the same pull. So when people blame the NRA now, is that fair or not?

Shannon Watts:

Well, you bring up a really interesting point. So again, let’s go back to 2012. Our theory of change included the idea that if we shined a light on the corruption of the NRA, the fact that it was all about special favors and using donor dollars for expensive wardrobes and lavish vacations, and the fact that they really weren’t supportive of any gun legislation whatsoever, what they wanted to get more guns in more hands, regardless of whether those people were dangerous. If we shined a light on that, that we would win in part because everyone would be on the right side of history.

Shannon Watts:

And we’ve done that. I want to be clear that our work has exposed their corruption. The NRA is weaker than they’ve ever been. They’re hemorrhaging political power and dollars. They tried to declare bankruptcy last year and failed. And they really have been sidelined. What we did not account for was that the right wing would really take that agenda and use it as an organizing principle. So when you look at the most extreme wing of the Republican party, and this includes white supremacists and misogynists and bigots, people who are putting forward truly hateful legislation in our state houses across the country, guns are the organizing principle now for that, right? Guns get people in the door, guns raise money, guns excites the base around a whole host of issues. And so it’s become part of this right wing ideology. And that means that we have to address this culture war now that includes gun extremism.

Preet Bharara:

And so you think this phenomenon is filling the void left by the declining power of the NRA?

Shannon Watts:

I think it’s been embraced by the right wing. And the right wing was given new energy and new power during Donald Trump’s administration. That they’re a very vocal minority. What we have to do is get what has been the silent majority for too long, and that includes everyday Republicans and gun owners and men, we have to get them to use their voice and their vote on this issue. We have to get all lawmakers on the right side of this issue, including Republicans. And so that’s the work that we’ve been doing in the trenches.

Preet Bharara:

So I would take it you would agree with me, given what you’ve just described and just being an observer of the scene, that there’s some subset of Americans who are unpersuadable, who think in a very pure way, if that’s the right word to use, maybe it’s not, that any restriction or regulation on gun ownership or gun buying is an anathema. Even though even Justice Scalia said that was not true. Do you have a sense of what percentage of the electorate has that view that’s unpersuadable? How small is it?

Shannon Watts:

If you look at polling, it’s incredibly small. Again, the threshold for Republicans and gun owners and men who support this has gone way up. And we’re looking at 80% of support for things like a background check on every gun sale, or red flag laws, disarming domestic abusers. This issue is not polarizing in the American public. It’s only been polarizing in the US Senate, and even in some state houses where this vocal minority has been allowed to hold sway and essentially write our nation’s gun laws.

Shannon Watts:

That changed, that dynamic changed when Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action volunteers wearing their red shirts showed up in mass at every gun bill hearing and said, “Nope, not in my community you won’t.” And so we have stopped the NRA’s agenda 90% of the time every year for the last six years in state houses all across the country. We were able to stop Donald Trump, even though he had a Republican majority in Congress, we stopped them from passing the NRA’s priorities for four years. And also playing offense, right? I mean, we’ve had huge success in passing hundreds of good gun laws across the country. So look, I understand that when we watch the news or we hear about this issue, there are lawmakers who are afraid of this armed vocal minority, but they don’t represent the vast majority of Americans who I think more and more are using their voice and their vote on this issue.

Preet Bharara:

Are we focusing too much on the national scene and national legislation, and not enough locally? And the one example that you always give and that others give is, even though we say nothing changed after Sandy Hook or after Parkland, that’s not quite true. In those states, in Connecticut, after Sandy Hook, there were changes made to the laws. And in Florida, which is not a liberal state by any means like Connecticut is, they passed a series of gun reform legislation too. A, should we be focusing more locally, and B, as an organization and as a person who leads the organization, how do you split your time between state fights and the national fight?

Shannon Watts:

Well, we’ve played a lot of defense at the federal level. We’ve had both a Democratic president and Republican president in the 10 years that I’ve been doing this. And now we have an even split in the Senate. So working on federal legislation is certainly important, but we decided when Manchin-Toomey failed, and Manchin-Toomey was a bill that was put forward just weeks after the Sandy Hook school shooting, put forward by Senators Manchin and Toomey. Bipartisan bill that would’ve closed the background check loophole and required a background check on every gun sale in honor of what happened at Sandy Hook school. I was sitting in the Senate gallery when that failed by just a handful of votes.

Shannon Watts:

And I’ll be honest. I thought, okay, the country’s not ready for this. I’ve spent the last few months of my life doing this, and now I’m going to go back to what I was doing before, living my life in Indiana. And instead, our very brilliant volunteers said, “No, let’s pivot and do this work at all levels of government where we live.” We’re going to pass resolutions through school boards that educate families about secure storage. Two million families have received that information now. We are going to pass resolutions through city councils. Just in the last month, we’ve passed five separate resolutions through five separate city councils in the state of Colorado and one in Walnut Creek, California. We are going to pass legislation in our state houses. 20 states now have background checks. We’ve disarmed domestic abusers in 30 states. We’ve passed red flag laws in 19 states, and on and on and on, including secure storage and police accountability legislation.

Shannon Watts:

As I said, we played defense, and we’re also shaping the culture and educating people around secure storage. So all of that work, it never would’ve happened unless Manchin-Toomey failed, frankly. I mean, it was really the last 10 years that gave us the ability to build this eight million strong grassroots army that is now larger than the NRA. And you asked me do we focus too much on federal legislation? I think what we focus too much on are mass shootings. And they get attention, and I get it because it’s so horrific and there’s so many people killed. But mass shootings are about 1% of the gun violence in this country. If you zoom back, it’s really the daily gun violence that’s killing 110 Americans and wounding hundreds more. And it’s mostly done with handguns

Preet Bharara:

But the mass shootings at schools are the things that cause every single family in the country to to go to bed sad and frustrated and anxious for their own children or their friends’ children. And it focuses the mind, unlike random gun violence on the streets of cities all over the country.

Shannon Watts:

It does. And something that’s happened since you and I last spoke is that guns have become the leading cause of death for children and teens in America. But if you go back to Columbine, the Washington Post found that over 300,000 students have experienced gun violence at their schools, right? Gunfire on school grounds. And it certainly an alarming trend, and most occurs in majority minority school districts. And this school year is one of the deadliest in recent history for gunfire at schools. And look, every single instance is trauma. It will stay with these kids forever. It will drastically impact their mental and emotional health, but the most effective way to prevent this from happening is to keep guns out of schools in the first place. And many of the things that we’re we’ve been talking about and that we work on would address this like closing loopholes and background checks, enacting red flag laws, raising the age to purchase a gun, enacting secure storage. Certainly we have seen since Uvalde that we cannot count on good guys with guns to save us from bad guys with guns.

Preet Bharara:

Well, that’s certainly true. And I’m going to come back to that. Can we talk about some policies that have been proposed? First, let’s talk about the ones that I presume you think are not effective. And then we’ll talk about the ones that are effective, and what can actually succeed. There’s been a lot of talk, and it’s not anything to laugh about, but it’s a laughable proposal from my perspective, and I want to get your expertise on it, and explain to people why you may think it’s a silly idea this notion that what causes these massacres, or what enables these massacres, is multiple doors and multiple points of entry into a school. And if it weren’t for the doors, if we just had one door, everyone would be safe. So on school doors, go.

Shannon Watts:

I don’t have a policy, Preet around school doors.

Preet Bharara:

You don’t?

Shannon Watts:

Except that I do have a long running list of things that Republicans blame every time there’s a mass shooting tragedy, especially in a school. And it’s everything from too many doors, not enough doors, Ritalin, violent video games, mental illness, single parents. I mean, the list goes on and on and on. It’s always everything but guns. And look, if more guns and fewer gun laws made us safer, we’d be the safest country in the world. We have over 400 million guns in the hands of civilians. Instead we have a 26 times higher gun homicide rate than any peer nation. It’s the guns.

Preet Bharara:

Okay. Next. Why not firm up the schools? Why not arm the teachers? Go.

Shannon Watts:

Well, we’ve also seen time and time again, most recently in Buffalo and Uvalde, even when there are armed guards, even when there are school resource officers with guns, even when there are 19 police officers, even when there is a border patrol nearby, they cannot stop a mass shooter with an AR-15 and a death wish. And the idea that we would then ask teachers to fill in the gap is asinine and absurd.

Preet Bharara:

Is that the real difference in changing people’s minds with the Uvalde massacre? That obviously is reminiscent of, and as tragic as the Sandy Hook massacre, but this image that I and others have in their head of 19 armed cops in the hallway while kids continued to be shot and killed and were calling 911, has that helped in some way to erase this mythology that all you need is more cops?

Shannon Watts:

I hope so. I mean, that’s what we’ve been saying now for years, right? If you look at the data police officers, highly trained law enforcement, hit a moving target less than 30% of the time. And frankly, any teacher who wants to be armed is probably a teacher who shouldn’t be armed. I know very few teachers who think-

Preet Bharara:

Teachers have mental illness and issues and problems at home. And easy access to a gun probably will lead to more incidental death as well. Is that your view?

Shannon Watts:

Yes. I mean, not only that, it’s so easy to leave your gun in the bathroom or on a desk. And also let’s keep in mind that most school shooters, over 80%, are students. And so you’re asking teachers to shoot their own students. I mean, it’s so disgusting. And especially when we know that these shootings are senseless and preventable. Most school shooters are students who get their guns from home. So if we required secure storage, that would address part of the problem. We also know that many mass shooters, particularly for schools, are under the age of 21. So we shouldn’t be selling them semiautomatic rifles. And we also know that red flag laws, almost always there are warning signs ahead of time, and red flag laws are an important tool that law enforcement can use to temporarily remove guns from someone who’s a danger to themselves or others. And when you look at states like Texas, they have none of these precautions in place.

Preet Bharara:

So you talk about the age, could you first address and explain the science and the medicine behind this thinking that younger people don’t have impulse control in the same way. I mean, is there a scientific basis? Put aside the Second Amendment for now. We’ll come back to that in a moment in the legal perspective. But as a biological matter, what’s your view on that issue?

Shannon Watts:

Well, the science is clear that most humans’ prefrontal cortexes are not fully developed until they’re 25 years old. There’s a reason we don’t rent cars to anyone until they turn 25. There’s a reason you can’t buy beer or cigarettes in most places until you’re 21. And that’s because you’re simply not mature enough to handle the responsibility. I mean, a semiautomatic rifle is a pretty huge responsibility. And when we look at six of the 10 deadliest mass shootings in our nation’s history, they were committed by people under 21. When we look at gun crimes in general, many homicides are, about 18% of homicides, are committed by people between the ages of 18 and 22. They make up about 4% of the population. This data alone shows us that people who are under 21 should not have access to guns. And yet the NRA is working across the country to lower the age limits to have semiautomatic rifles.

Preet Bharara:

Can you explain something to me because I don’t get it? So I don’t agree with the argument, but I understand the argument of people who say, “Well, you can vote at 18. You can serve in the military at 18. The right to bear arms,” they say, “is in the Second Amendment.” And it is to some extent, but reasonable regulation can apply. But they will say, the purists on the Second Amendment, that because it’s a constitutional right and other rights are afforded to people when they’re 18, you shouldn’t take away the right to own the firearm. Those rights should vest when you’re 18. And at the same time, there’s a subset of those folks who I don’t think seem to mind that you can’t buy a handgun until you’re 21. What is the distinction that people who argue in this area make between a handgun and an assault rifle and the 18 versus 21 issue?

Shannon Watts:

I would argue those same people would like to see the age for handguns to be lowered to 18. It’s federal law that you need to be 21 to buy a handgun. Long guns because, decades ago, they were mainly used for hunting, now they’re marketed to men particular as the weapons of choice because they’re expensive and they have high profit margins. Given how many assault rifles are in circulation now, they find it easier to lower the age to have a long gun. But make no mistake. If it were up to the NRA, there would be no age limits to have a gun.

Preet Bharara:

But I don’t see, maybe because it’s not practical, maybe I’m missing it, I don’t see a massive movement on the part of NRA enthusiasts in a campaign to lower the handgun age to 18. Am I just not on the right newsletter distribution list?

Shannon Watts:

Oh no. They absolutely would do that. It has just been federal law. The fact that long guns are not included in that age limit makes it easier for them to do so state by state and even federally.

Preet Bharara:

We’ll be right back with more of my conversation with Shannon Watts after this. Red flag laws, you and I have been talking about them for years. I’m not sure that people fully understand how they work. If you have a change in the age, everyone understands that. You can either buy a long gun at 18 or a 21. Red flag laws vary in their effectiveness. They vary in the language in particular states. Is there a particular red flag law that’s been enacted somewhere in the US that you think is the model and the most effective? And if so, what is it?

Shannon Watts:

Well, first of all, I would say that they vary in their effectiveness in part because you can’t just pass the law without implementing and incentivizing it, right? So in those cities, for example, in states that have red flag laws where they’ve spent a lot of time investing in educating officials on how to use these laws, we see an uptick in effectiveness and usage. And frankly, dangerous people’s guns being removed until police can figure out is this a crisis situation? We know that red flag laws are also sometimes called extreme risk laws. They can help deescalate emergency situations. They are a proven way to intervene before violence, like suicide or mass shootings. We now have these laws in 19 states and Washington DC.

Shannon Watts:

And if you look at, I would say the most effective states, the most recent states that have passed them because they’re the most modern, places like California. And I’ll give you an example, Connecticut, which passed their law, I think about a decade ago, they saw a 14% reduction in firearm suicides. Indiana, which has a much older version of this law, even they saw a 7.5% reduction in firearm suicides after they passed it. Our organization did an analysis of mass shootings between 2009 and 2020. And it showed that 59% of mass shooters showed warning signs. So obviously that’s an important tool for police. And also school shootings. They’re often peers knew about their plans.

Shannon Watts:

So essentially what these laws do they allow, depending on the state, family members, in some places, educators or counselors, certainly police, to get a temporary restraining order from a judge. And there’s due process, right? We often hear that these laws aren’t constitutional from the vocal minority. That’s untrue. Four different states have reviewed these laws and found them to be constitutional. And then police can go in and say, “Okay, we are going to temporarily remove this person’s guns. Are they in crisis? Are they a danger to themselves or others?” And that’s just common sense. I mean, these laws have huge bipartisan support because they do include due process because they are common sense. And we’d like to see more support for states to incentivize and implement them.

Preet Bharara:

So when you think about the hierarchy and the priority of gun reform legislation, and where there’s bipartisan support, you already mentioned universal background checks, which I imagine is the most popular bipartisan thing. Is that so? Do you think that’s what it is?

Shannon Watts:

Well, first of all, background checks have huge bipartisan support.

Preet Bharara:

But you think that’s the number one thing in terms of bipartisan support? Is there anything that polls higher than universal background checks?

Shannon Watts:

I would say that that polls the highest because people know about it, but I also would say it’s incredibly important because it’s the foundation of all background check systems. And without, it’s very difficult to know who is buying guns and whether they should have a gun. And that’s really why we’ve gone state by state to close that loophole in federal law.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. But as everyone knows, states are porous. If you’re in a state that has a background law that’s effective and universal, but the neighboring state does not, it’s not that helpful.

Shannon Watts:

Right. We’re all only as safe as the closest state with the weakest gun laws. And federal law, just to be clear, requires a background check on licensed gun sales. It does not require a background check on unlicensed gun sales. And that’s how millions of people get guns without background checks every single year. And so that is absolutely something we want to close at a federal level. But as I said, we’ve gone state by state, and now done that in 20 states.

Preet Bharara:

So when you go down the list, after universal background checks, is it red flag laws that have the next most high level of bipartisan support, or something else?

Shannon Watts:

I would argue that red flag laws, and also disarming domestic abusers. So federal law does not include dating partners as prohibited purchasers. People who are convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse. We know as many women who are dating partners are now as likely to be killed by intimate partners as people who are spouses. Because women are waiting longer to get married or not get married at all. And so that is a loophole that is just putting so many women and children’s lives at risk.

Preet Bharara:

So you raise that loophole, which is a good segue to the legislation about which there seems to have been a deal. I worked in the Senate for a while and you’ve been working with members of the Senate and the House for a long time. The announcement of a “framework” doesn’t mean you’re going to get legislation passed, but am I correct that you think that the proposed closing of that loophole, the dating partner or boyfriend loophole, as some people call it, is the most important component of this new framework that’s been discussed on a bipartisan basis?

Shannon Watts:

Well, there are a lot of different pieces. I would say that’s very important. We certainly want to address the boyfriend loophole, which is part of the framework. But also giving hundreds of millions of dollars to the states to implement red flag laws as we just discussed. Also making it more difficult for people with criminal histories to buy a long gun if they’re under the age of 21. Stiffer federal penalties for gun trafficking and for straw purchases.

Shannon Watts:

I mean, what we’re seeing so far is a bipartisan framework. It would absolutely be a major step forward in saving lives, and getting agreement, bipartisan agreement, for the first time in 26 years, a generation, on gun safety. And this is really going back to the beginning of our conversation, which is we need Republicans on the right side of this issue. We’ve got pretty much all the Democrats. But we need every single lawmaker to buck the NRA and to be on the side of gun safety. And to say, look, gun safety is not just good policy. It’s good politics. And you will be held accountable for inaction. You will be rewarded for doing the right thing. And that is a seismic shift in American politics.

Preet Bharara:

You said this in on Twitter a few days ago, “While DC pundits race to figure out political winners and losers, the real story here is this framework is significant progress that will save lives. Gun violence is not a political game. It’s life and death and inaction is not an option.” And I totally get that. And I want to explore this a little bit. Do you understand and appreciate the way some people throw their hands up and vocalize disappointment with these steps because they think they’re too modest?

Shannon Watts:

Yes. I wish this legislation went further. But the fact that we have a split Senate, and for the first time in 10 years, actual bipartisan discussions and solutions that will save lives. I mean, that is part of our theory of change. And I wish I could go back to 2012, and there would be wholesale systemic change the day after the Sandy Hook school shooting, like other countries seem to be able to do. Our system is not set up that way. It is set up for incrementalism, which I know is a dirty word, but it’s what leads to revolutions, right? It’s Moms Demand Action volunteers showing up at every single gun bill hearing. It’s bringing cookies to their lawmakers. It’s showing up at school boards and educating people about secure storage.

Shannon Watts:

And look, I want to be clear. We’re not just waiting for this cathartic moment in Congress. We are still working in statehouses right now as these conversations are going on. Just since the Uvalde shooting, we’ve passed sweeping gun reform legislation in New York and Rhode Island and in Delaware. And so this work continues. But we have to acknowledge that this is a watershed moment to be able to pass bipartisan gun safety legislation through Congress.

Preet Bharara:

Just a little bit more on this. So I understand the argument, and I hope it is the correct argument, that you take a first step and then you build on this. And it’s a watershed moment because you have bipartisan support. And it’s been 26 years. And that’s the optimistic way of looking at it. Do you worry that there could be a different consequence? And that is people, to some degree, are either persuaded or shamed into supporting something because of the overwhelming public outcry. And this gives people, including Republicans especially, an excuse not to do anything more. And they can say, “Well, we did this. And so further progress is not necessary.”

Shannon Watts:

Look, I have heard that argument. I don’t agree with it. That is not how political change happens in this country. Marriage equality started with being able to adopt. That was the first step. And gay activists didn’t say, “No, thank you. We’re going to wait till we get everything we want.” Addressing smoking in this country and taking on the tobacco lobby started with a small section of an airplane not being able to smoke, right? Sometimes it is small steps that lead to revolutions. Or as one of my friends said, sometimes entire football games are won by field goals.

Shannon Watts:

And I truly believe that this historic legislation, if passed, will start to show Republicans that they can do the right thing, right? Our theory has been to tell lawmakers, “Do the right thing and we’ll have your back. Do the wrong thing and we’ll have your job.” And we have shown that over and over and over again. And finally we have Republicans who will come to the table and say, “If I vote for this, it probably won’t blow up my political career. In fact, it will help me with swing voters.” And let’s be honest, gun safety voters are the new swing voters when you look at polling. Particularly among women and suburban moms. And I think they know that, at this point, the political calculus shows that it will be more of a liability if they vote against gun safety legislation than if they vote for it.

Preet Bharara:

So I should point out to our listeners that we’re recording this on the afternoon of Friday, June 17th. This won’t air for a few days. We were discussing before we press the record button a lot can happen in six days. So with that caveat, can you make any predictions about how this is going to go? What the legislation will look like in terms of actual language beyond a framework? Let’s start with that. Do you have confidence based on your discussions with people in the room and outside the room that the ultimate language will match the goals and ambitions of the framework?

Shannon Watts:

As of Friday afternoon? Yes. But as you can imagine-

Preet Bharara:

You want to hedge maybe.

Shannon Watts:

… the path is not linear. And there have been been many bumps along the way, but I would say we’re further down this path than we’ve ever been before. And that both sides are negotiating in good faith. And that the framework still stands. The legislative text being put to that framework is still evolving. But I’m very hopeful that we will see this legislation pass the Senate.

Preet Bharara:

Were you surprised when Mitch McConnell put Senator John Cornyn of Texas in charge on the Republican side of engaging in bipartisan talks? How big a deal was that to you, and what did that signal to you?

Shannon Watts:

Well, because the Uvalde shooting happened in Texas, and because Senator Cornyn has been at the table, for example, he was part of the bipartisan group that passed legislation called Fix NICS that just strengthened the background check system a few years ago, because he’s been at the table before, I think he sees himself as a statesman and a leader who thinks this issue is important and who has made this a priority. Again, does this framework do all of the things that we want it to? No. And Senator Cornyn knows that. But we’re not going to go away. As I said, we have eight million supporters now. We’re larger than the NRA. We’re going to keep fighting all across the country up and down the ballot at all levels of government in every election cycle and in every legislative session until we have laws that save lives. And this is one step toward that.

Preet Bharara:

Is there any particular thing you’re worried about that would derail this? Is there a particular argument being made by the NRA, or by other extremists on the right, white supremacists or otherwise? I mean, is there something that you’re in particular worried about that will undo this?

Shannon Watts:

Well, I do think the NRA is sidelined. They’ve been conspicuously silent during this whole process. There’s always going to be the gun lobby groups to the right of the NRA who say any law whatsoever is an infringement on their God given right to carry guns without background checks or training. Hopefully we’ve sidelined them enough to make their voices less important. The framework as it stands is logical. It’s got wide public support. It does save lives. So at this point, I feel like, as I said, we’re further down this path than we’ve ever been. And I feel like the polling that is coming out every single day gives even more wind under the wings of these Republican lawmakers who want to be on the right side of this issue. And frankly, on the right side of history.

Preet Bharara:

One of the things that you have said in this conversation that strikes me so significant and you alluded to it again a second ago, is that in this debate that’s being done at a very high level and at a grassroots level, the NRA feels that it can’t really speak and is somewhat sidelined. Can you just again explain why the NRA who has always been the most vocal voice on these issues on one side of the aisle is quiet?

Shannon Watts:

The NRA was really at its zenith of political power after the Sandy Hook school shooting. If you go back to Columbine, and there are tapes that have been released by media that show the conversations that were happening behind the scenes, do we back down and come to the middle like mainstream America wants us to, or do we double down and not give an inch on any possible solutions passing that would address gun violence? In large part, it was Marion Hammer who has just retired, just announced her retirement from the NRA, but it was in large part Marion, who is a gun lobbyist in Florida, who said we are going to double down. And that’s what we saw Charlton Heston saying at the NRA convention, “You’re going to have to pry my gun from my cold dead hands.”

Shannon Watts:

And then another inflection point was the Sandy Hook school shooting, where it took two weeks for the NRA to come out and say what they said, which was that only a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun. We know that was after many internal discussions and a lot of hand wringing among NRA staff who were split on what do we do? Do we back down or double down? Again, they doubled down. And they had a lot of political power. They had a lot of money.

Shannon Watts:

But because frankly, Moms Demand Action made it part of their goal to expose their corruption, they have been so weakened in the last decade. They have lost in political elections. We outspent them. Our organization outspent the NRA in 2019. We elected Lucy McBath to Congress. She took a seat held by Republicans for 30 years, Newt Gingrich’s old seat. She became a congresswoman. The first thing she did was to pass gun safety legislation through the house. We outspent the NRA again in 2019, and flipped both chambers of the general assembly in Virginia, which is their backyard, where they’re headquartered. And since then we’ve passed over a dozen good gun laws in the state of Virginia. We elected Joe Biden in large part because of the issue of gun safety along with the two senators in Virginia who made it a split Senate. So the NRA has really been weakened.

Preet Bharara:

But what’s fascinating to me is not just that the NRA has a weaker voice, but it’s so weak that they’re choosing not to even use it, right? That there’s some consciousness of that, which to me is even a more devastating indictment.

Shannon Watts:

I totally agree with you. And look, make no mistake. As I said, there’s the vocal right wing who will fill in the gap for the gun lobby. But right now they don’t have a seat at the table. It will take many years for a gun lobby group to amass the same kind of political power and money that the NRA did. And so the fact that they are silent right now speaks volumes about the success of gun safety advocates.

Preet Bharara:

So you’ve done a good job of stating all the places or many of the places where gun safety reform is on the march, so to speak. Are there places in the country geographically where the momentum you fear is in the other direction?

Shannon Watts:

Well, if you look at the United States, I mean, it’s pretty clear what has happened in the last decade is that blue states have become bluer. Even some purple states have become bluer and passed stronger gun laws. We’ve certainly changed the calculus, and made that happen through election work in states like Colorado and Nevada, even New York, where we had a Democratic senator who stood in the way of gun safety legislation for years. And so we’ve now been able to change the makeup of those legislatures and pass stronger gun laws.

Shannon Watts:

But then you can look at states that are red and have gotten redder. And those are states that are passing legislation like permitless carry. And this is a number one priority of the gun lobby. Permitless carry allows people to carry hidden loaded handguns in public with no background check, no training, no permit. And the data shows that gun violence goes up in those states after these laws are passed. That’s sort of intuitive.

Shannon Watts:

But what we don’t want to have is, you talked before about needing strong federal laws because we’re all only as safe as the closest state with the weakest gun laws, we are not safe when red states are dismantling their permitting systems, or when they’re arming teachers, or they’re forcing guns on college campuses or they’re expanding shoot first laws. I’m very heartened by the fact that in the wake of the most recent tragic mass shootings, our organization has just brought in hundreds of thousands of new volunteers. And that includes in the reddest of states and the most rural of areas. And so it is our job now to deploy those people and to show our strength in numbers and to reverse the bad laws that have been passed. And we can absolutely do that.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. You know what’s a little crazy to me? So on the bright side, you’ve had huge increase in membership and in volunteerism after these tragedies happened. But my understanding is also that after these things happen, gun sales go up. Is that true?

Shannon Watts:

Yes, it is. It is true that gun sales have gone up in the last few years too because of COVID and the gun lobby using rhetoric around chaos and fear to boost gun sales. They always take advantage of horrific shooting tragedies to market guns to people. But look, there are other nations with high rates of gun ownership. As I said, we have 26 times higher gun homicide rate than any peer nation. What we need are stronger gun laws.

Preet Bharara:

Well, Shannon, that’s because we have violent movies and video games, and those other countries don’t have that, right?

Shannon Watts:

Well, I always say if it was violent video games that caused gun violence, Japan would have just a crisis of epidemic proportions. And yet they have about 10 gun deaths every year in that country.

Preet Bharara:

Just 10. And how many do we have?

Shannon Watts:

Over 40,000 Americans are shot and killed in this country every single year.

Preet Bharara:

Compared to 10 in Japan. It’s always interesting when people ask politicians to… It seems to me, and I could be wrong, but that’s maybe the hardest question for irrational gun advocates to answer. Is there a harder question than that you see asked to people who are resistant to pragmatic gun reform laws? Like why here?

Shannon Watts:

Which question?

Preet Bharara:

The question why only in America? Why only in America? Because they don’t want to say it’s the guns, because that’s the difference, the number of the guns. But they don’t want to say that. And they always seem stymied. I saw one senator, I think, walk away from the question.

Shannon Watts:

The only argument you can make is that somehow Americans are more evil than people in other nations. I mean, that’s not a very pro-America agenda. It’s obviously the guns. I mean, if the last 10 years have proven anything. Look, this is intuitive. States with stronger gun laws have less gun death, states with weaker gun laws have more gun death. America is a Petri dish of different gun laws. And we can go into states like California and pass strong gun laws, and then extrapolate those best practices to the rest of the country. Or we can go into states like Missouri and pass the worst gun laws and reverse all the good gun laws they had, and extrapolate those worst practices to the rest of the country. It’s up to us. And that’s why we are constantly asking people to go into the polls voting on this issue, right? You need to know where your lawmakers stand on this issue and make this a priority, if not the single issue that you vote on.

Preet Bharara:

Well, that gives me a good transition to one of our final topics. And it’s the case that lawmakers are not the only people who have a say on this. We have this thing called the Supreme Court. And I know you have been watching and others have been watching, and we’ve talked on the podcast about this pending case relating to New York in the Supreme Court, Bruen, emphasizing again, that we’re recording this on June 17th. We could very well get a decision from the Supreme Court before the podcast airs, or before the time when people listen to this podcast can you just in a sentence or two, explain why that is important and whether you’re worried?

Shannon Watts:

So in New York, there is an NRA affiliate. There’s basically an NRA group in every single state. And they want to loosen the permitting system in the state of New York. They want to make it easier for people to access guns. And if the Supreme Court rules with this NRA affiliate, it won’t just impact New York. It will impact the permitting system in seven other states as well, about a quarter of the population in America.

Shannon Watts:

And look, I hope this won’t happen, but if the court strikes down this 100 year law and similar laws in seven other states, I mean, it will just go to show how conservative they are, how out of touch they are with the American public. We see Americans standing up all over the country to make us safer from gun violence. And this would put us all at greater risk.

Shannon Watts:

Now look, if the Supreme Court endangers public safety by wrongly overturning this public carry licensing law, then there are things that lawmakers can do. And this would mainly impact blue states, frankly. Just like we’ve done in the state of Virginia, our volunteers will show up in those states and we can work on campaigns to prohibit guns and sensitive places. We can work on signage campaigns to keep guns out of businesses and daycares. I mean, look, I always say if you close the door, we’re going to come in the window. And you can rest assured that if this Supreme Court case does not go our way, we will still figure out a way to fix it at a local level.

Preet Bharara:

Do you have a prediction?

Shannon Watts:

I don’t want to jinx it.

Preet Bharara:

Okay. That’s fair. I try not to make predictions these days either. So I could talk to you for hours more, but we need you to get back to work. So Shannon Watts, thank you for talking with us. Thank you for your dedication to these issues. Thank you for your service. It means a lot. Thanks again.

Shannon Watts:

Well, thank you for your support.

Preet Bharara:

My conversation with Shannon Watts continues for members of the CAFE Insider community. To try out the membership for just $1 for a month, head to cafe.com/insider. Again, that’s cafe.com/insider. Well, that’s it for this episode of Stay Tuned. Thanks again to my guest, Shannon Watts. If you like what we do, rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. Every positive review helps new listeners find the show. Send me your questions about news, politics, and justice. Tweet them to me at Preet Bharara with the hashtag AskPreet. Or you can call and leave me a message at 669-247-7338. That’s 669-24-PREET. Or you can send an email to letters@cafe.com. Stay Tuned is presented by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network. The executive producer is Tamara Sepper. The technical director is David Tatasciore. The senior producers are Adam Waller and Matthew Billy. The CAFE team is David Kurlander, Sam Ozer-Staton, Noa Azulai, Nat Weiner, Jake Kaplan, Sean Walsh, Namita Shah, and Claudia Hernandez. Our music is by Andrew Dost. I’m your host Preet Bharara. Stay tuned.