BPR Interview: Senator Richard Blumenthal

Richard Blumenthal, senior United States Senator from Connecticut and a Democrat who has advocated for gun control legislation, talks to Brown Political Review’s Henry Knight.

Brown Political Review: What common sense regulations on gun ownership should we implement to address gun violence immediately? What do you propose to mitigate gun violence in the long term?

Richard Blumenthal: In the long- and short-term, there needs to be a comprehensive strategy. There’s no single solution, no one cure for gun violence, and no single state can do it alone because gun trafficking has no respect for state boundaries. Guns can be trafficked across state borders and cause harm in Connecticut, even though they are purchased elsewhere. So I think the strategy has to be a national solution and it may be accomplished in steps, but it really has to include penalties for illegal purchases by one person posing as another, which right now is not even a separate federal crime.

BPR: What are these steps?

RB: So, number one, a ban on illegal trafficking. Number two, criminal background checks on all firearms purchases. Right now there’s a so-called gun show loophole for private sales, which means that 40 percent of all firearms purchases involve no background checks. I’ve also proposed that there be background checks on ammunitions purchases. It’s currently against the law for certain categories of people—convicted felons, drug addicts, seriously mentally ill, domestic abusers and fugitives—to buy both firearms and ammunition, but background checks are not required for ammunitions purchases. Without an accurate and comprehensive background check system, that law is virtually unenforceable. So I think we need to view these laws as means to enforce existing prohibitions, as well as extending those prohibitions to make them more effective. There need to be measures to make the database involved in background checks more accurate and complete. Many states right now fail to provide information that is important, relating to criminal convictions or civil commitments based on mental health. The states need to be strongly encouraged, if not required, to provide that information.

I’ve also supported a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Those measures may be more difficult to achieve, but I think they are doable and we’re working very hard to put together a bipartisan coalition that will support these measures. I don’t necessarily distinguish between short-term and long-term. I’ve said that the effort to reduce gun violence has to be seen as a marathon, not a sprint. Some of the measures are more likely to pass during this congressional session but we can continue working on them and others even after this session. The goal is to accomplish these measures incrementally, step-by-step if necessary. Over what period of time I can’t say precisely. Certainly, the effort has to be longer than a single session.

BPR:  As a gun control advocate, how do you operate amid  pervasive NRA rhetoric that labels almost any common sense action you take an infringement upon Second Amendment rights? How do you convince opponents rooted in America’s tradition of gun ownership that universal background checks, for example, do nothing to the innocent gun owner’s right to bear arms?

RB: First and foremost, I support the Second Amendment, which has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to include an individual right to possess firearms. Responsible gun owners are in favor of many of these measures that reduce gun violence. Even many members of the NRA have said to me that the NRA does not speak for them in opposing any and every measure to reduce gun violence. Newtown has convinced many people that the time has come for this nation to do more to protect its children and its citizens generally against gun violence, which kills 33 people every day. Since Newtown, more 2,000 than people have perished as a result of gun violence. It’s a problem, a scourge, that afflicts rural areas as well as our big cities. Everyone is touched by it. The facts here are the most persuasive evidence that we need better and stronger laws to protect our people.

BPR: Does the NRA stand to gain politically by gravitating towards a more moderate position and accepting some of your more reasonable proposals? Do you see any indication of such a shift?

RB:  I can’t speak for the NRA. Some of the statements really are so irrationally negative that they seem to consign the NRA as an organization to irrelevance. My feeling is that the NRA’s leadership fails to accurately reflect the views of its members. Many of them support responsible, sensible, common sense measures to stop criminals from having firearms and keep firearms and ammunition out of the hands of domestic abusers, seriously mentally ill, criminals, and others who should not have firearms. I think the NRA will have to decide what it wants to do as an organization, but I also think many of its members, perhaps a majority, support responsible steps in keeping our nation safer.

BPR: The NRA’s strategy to combat rising support for gun control seems to partially rely upon the “Connecticut Effect” waning in the upcoming months. Is the “Connecticut Effect” a proper way to frame the debate about gun ownership restrictions, or is it somewhat disrespectful to the families mourning victims of Newtown?

RB: The Connecticut Effect is not going away. If the NRA is counting on the Connecticut Effect dissipating or fading, it’s very mistaken. The conference that we held in Connecticut on February 21, with Vice President Biden speaking, demonstrated how acutely and actively people continue to be affected by the Newtown tragedy. This time is different. This time the country has really mobilized and come together behind the feeling that we need to something about gun violence. I’ve heard again and again and again from families of victims, from people in Newtown, from communities across Connecticut, and from individuals across the country that we need to do something about gun violence. If the NRA’s tactic is to wait for people to lose interest or outrage, I think that strategy is mistaken and misguided. Unfortunately, there continues to be incidents involving gun violence. People continue to be victims of gun violence. That’s an ongoing tragedy. Newtown was an unspeakable and unimaginable, horrific act of gun violence in which twenty innocent and beautiful children and six heroic and courageous educators were killed. But it is unfortunately unlikely to be the last of these kinds of tragedies. In fact, more than 2,000 people have been killed since Newtown as a result of gun violence.

BPR: With that in mind, do you think that the measures taken by President Obama, both his legislative proposals and his executive orders, are a good first step and a step in the right direction?

RB: The President’s proposals and initiatives are a very solid first step in the right direction. The Judiciary Committee will be voting on specific, highly significant measures for legislation.

BPR: Regarding some of those measures, do you see any of them in particular as attracting consensus from both sides of the aisle? Which measures do you see as hard political sells?

RB: All of these measures are viable, politically and practically. The specific steps right now that seem most likely to gain political bipartisanship are background checks and trafficking, and possibly the ban on high capacity magazines, but all are achievable. I’m working hard, as a member of the Judiciary Committee and as a leading proponent and co-sponsor of all these measures, to advocate for them and help put together specific compromise-based versions that will attract bipartisan support. A comprehensive strategy also has to include mental health initiatives. I proposed a mental health first aid bill that provides assistance to teachers, school administrators, and first responders to detect and help provide treatment for people who have serious mental health issues. That is, to recognize those issues and direct people toward treatment. Mental health has to be part of the solution: better services and diagnoses, whether it’s in the schools or elsewhere. School safety also has to be part of a comprehensive strategy so as to make our schools more protective of children against this kind of violence. I think there are a variety of steps that can be taken to improve school safety. Again, it’s not one single solution; it has to be a comprehensive strategy.