♪ >> H WAYNE: WELCOME TO AT ISSUE.

I'M H WAYNE WILSON.

THANK YOU, AS ALWAYS, FOR JOINING US ON THE PROGRAM.

TODAY WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT GUN RIGHTS AND LET ME START BY JUST READING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO YOU.

IT'S VERY SHORT.

A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

WE'LL DISCUSS THAT AND MUCH MORE WITH RICHARD PEARSON, WHO IS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ILLINOIS STATE RIFLE ASSOCIATION.

RICHARD, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US ON AT ISSUE.

>> RICHARD: GLAD TO BE HERE.

>> H WAYNE: ALSO WITH US IS PHIL ANDREW.

HE'S THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ADVISOR FOR THE GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION EDUCATION CENTER.

PHIL, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

>> PHIL: GLAD TO BE WITH YOU.

THANKS.

>> H WAYNE: LET ME JUST OPEN THE CONVERSATION BY HAVING BOTH OF YOU -- WE'LL START WITH RICHARD FIRST, BUT HAVE BOTH OF YOU JUST GIVE ME YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

I READ IT.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO YOU, RICHARD?

>> RICHARD: WELL, TO ME, IT MEANS THAT THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS BY INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN, THOUGH, THAT THEY'RE NOT -- THERE ARE NOT SOME REGULATIONS CAN'T BE IMPOSED ON CITIZENS.

WE FOUND OUT THAT IN THE HELLER CASE IN 2007 OR '8 >> H WAYNE: 2008.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA VERSUS HELLER.

>> RICHARD: SO THERE'S SOME REGULATION.

BUT THE DEBATE IS GOING TO BE FOR ALWAYS HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH AND HOW MUCH IS TOO MUCH.

SO THAT'S THE ISSUE THAT WE'RE ALWAYS PROBABLY AT LOGGERHEADS ABOUT.

BUT WE THINK THAT INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS CAN OWN FIREARMS FOR SPORT, SELF-DEFENSE, THAT SORT OF THING.

>> H WAYNE: PHIL, YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

>> PHIL: SURE.

VERY SIMILAR.

THAT IT'S THE -- CERTAINLY BEEN INTERPRETED AS THE LAW OF THE LAND THAT WE HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO FIREARMS AND AS RICHARD POINTS OUT, IT'S NOT AN UNFETTERED RIGHT.

THAT IT'S SUBJECT TO LIMITATIONS.

AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE COURT AND, YOU KNOW, AS A NATION WE'RE STILL FIGURING OUT.

THE ONLY THING I DISAGREE ON IS THAT THERE'S NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT -- OR THE SECOND AMENDMENT THAT SPEAKS TO SPORT.

IT REALLY SPOKE TO SECURITY.

AND THE NOTIONS OF SECURITY HAVE OBVIOUSLY EVOLVED OVER TIME.

AND, YOU KNOW, THAT ALSO SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION OF HOW THE CONSTITUTION AND ITS INTERPRETATION WOULD EVOLVE OVER TIME TO MEET THE NEEDS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TODAY.

BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, THE COURTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR AND THE COURTS ARE INFORMED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE PRECEDENT THAT, YOU KNOW, PRIOR DECISIONS HAVE CREATED.

>> H WAYNE: RICHARD, DID YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT?

>> RICHARD: WELL, THE COURTS DO HAVE TO INTERPRET THAT.

I'D LIKE TO USE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AS AN EXAMPLE.

IT'S BEEN INTERPRETED PROBABLY 100,000 TIMES IN 100,000 COURTS AND WE HAVEN'T DECIDED ON IT YET.

SO ISSUES COME UP EVERY YEAR ABOUT THE RIGHT TO -- FREEDOM FROM SEARCH AND SEIZURE AND THAT SORT OF THING.

AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT HAPPENS IN THE COURT SYSTEM AND THE CONSTANT REINTERPRETATION OF THE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION, BUT THOSE ARE THE -- YOU KNOW, IT GOES ON.

>> H WAYNE: LET ME THROW OUT SOME EXAMPLES OF WHERE WE MIGHT BE IN DISAGREEMENT AND HAVE EACH OF YOU RESPOND TO THOSE PARTICULAR ISSUES.

IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER.

BUT LET'S START WITH A PROPOSED NATIONWIDE BAN ON ASSAULT WEAPONS.

INCLUDED IN THE CONVERSATION I'D LIKE YOU TO DEFINE WHAT AN ASSAULT WEAPON IS, IF THAT'S POSSIBLE.

RICHARD FIRST.

>> RICHARD: WELL, THERE'S NO REAL DEFINITION OF ASSAULT WEAPON.

I THINK MR. CLIING MAN SAID IT'S WHATEVER CONGRESS SAYS IT IS.

I WOULD HAVE TO KIND OF AGREE WITH HIM ON THAT.

IT IS WHATEVER CONGRESS SAYS IT IS.

WE THINK IT'S ONE THING.

MR. ANDREW WOULD THINK IT WOULD BE SOMETHING ELSE.

BUT, YOU KNOW, THE REAL TRUE ASSAULT WEAPONS FROM WORLD WAR II, WHICH WERE TORPEDOES AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

THOSE WERE TERMED ASSAULT WEAPONS THEN.

BUT NOW WE WANT TO CHANGE IT TO SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARMS AND THAT SORT OF THING.

OF COURSE, WE DON'T WANT TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION TO THAT.

SO THAT'S WHERE THE DEBATE COMES AND THAT'S WHERE THE -- THE CONGRESS WILL HAVE TO FIGURE THAT OUT.

>> H WAYNE: PHIL ANDREW?

>> PHIL: YOU KNOW, I WOULDN'T DISAGREE WITH THAT.

AN ASSAULT WEAPON IS REALLY A TERM THAT NEEDS TO BE DEFINED BY THE POLICY MAKERS, BY CONGRESS AND YOU KNOW, THAT IS A SUBJECT THAT GREAT MINDS NEED TO GET TOGETHER AND HELP DEFINE.

WHAT IT STILL BEGS IS ARE THERE CERTAIN WEAPONS THAT PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR GREATER -- IN MASS AND TARGETED VIOLENCE THAT WE WOULD WANT TO EXTEND GREATER CONTROLS TO BECAUSE OF THE GREATER REALITY OF THE THREAT.

AT THE TIME THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS COMING INTO PLAY, IT WAS A TIME OF MUSKETS AND PISTOLS, SINGLE SHOT.

ONE COULD ARGUE THERE'S SOMETHING DEMOCRATIC ABOUT THE NOTION OF GATHERING TEN FRIENDS TO BE DESTRUCTIVE AND TO ACTUALLY CREATE AN ELEMENT OF THREAT, WHEREAS TODAY, SOMEBODY COULD PICK AN AR-15 UP AND MOW DOWN FOLKS IN A WORKPLACE, WHICH THAT PARTICULAR WEAPON HAS BECOME THE WEAPON OF CHOICE OF THOSE INVOLVED IN TARGETED AND MASS VIOLENCE.

SO THE POLICY QUESTION IS, ARE THERE CERTAIN WEAPONS THAT DESERVE GREATER SCRUTINY IN TERMS OF CONTROL AND ACCESS THAN OTHER WEAPONS BECAUSE OF THEIR CAPACITY AND THEIR LETHALITY IN REALLY UNTRAINED HANDS >> RICHARD: YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER IN THE TIME OF FLINT LOCKS AND MUSKETS, THEY WERE THE ASSAULT WEAPONS OF THE TIME.

SO THE TERM -- YOU KNOW, THEY WERE USED BY MILITIAS AND BY THE BRITISH.

THEY WERE THE SAME FIREARMS THAT THE CIVILIANS HAD THAT THE ARMIES HAD, THAT THE MILITIAS HAD.

THEY WERE ALL THE SAME FIREARMS AND THOSE FIREARMS CHANGE OVER TIME.

AND SO WE ANY THAT THE DEFINITION CHANGES OVER TIME, TOO.

SO TODAY IS THE AR-15 AND IN VIETNAM IT WAS THE BEGINNING THE M-16 AND THE M 14 AND BEFORE THAT THE M-1 AND BEFORE THAT IT WAS THE 1903 SPRINGFIELD AND SO FORTH AND SO ON ALL THE WAY BACK.

SO WE THINK THAT CITIZENS SHOULD BE ABLE TO OWN THOSE.

THEY SHOULD USE THEM CERTAINLY RESPONSIBLY.

WE ALSO THINK THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY THAT SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO OWN THEM.

AND I -- IF THEY HAVE A VIOLENT HISTORY OR SOME OTHER HISTORY WE DECIDE IS BAD, THEY SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO OWN THEM.

>> H WAYNE: I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT ISSUE IN A MOMENT.

FIRST, LET ME TURN BACK TO PHIL AND ASK, IS THERE A LIMIT THAT THEY'RE SUGGESTING FOR MAGAZINE SIZE?

>> PHIL: THAT'S NOT A POSITION THAT GPEC HAS TAKEN NOW ON ASSAULT WEAPONS.

WE'RE FOCUSED ON SOME DATA, EVALUATED AND STATISTICALLY AND IMPORTANT MEASURES THAT ARE DESIGNED TO AND HAVE PROVEN IN OTHER STATES AND JURISDICTIONS TO REDUCE FIREARM VIOLENCE.

ONE OF THE DIFFICULTIES IN THIS ISSUE IS THAT IT USUALLY STARTS AT THE PLACES THAT WE DISAGREE.

AND RICHARD AND I, AS -- WE WERE TO LOOK SHOULDER TO SHOULDER AT THE DATA, WHAT WE'D FIND IS THERE ARE ABOUT 40,000 GUN-RELATED DEATHS IN THE UNITED STATES EVERY YEAR AND ROUGHLY 2/3 OF THOSE ARE SUICIDES.

YOU KNOW, IN SUICIDE INTERVENTION, IT REQUIRES A VERY, VERY DIFFERENT PUBLIC POLICY POSTURE AND INVESTMENTS TO PREVENT THOSE SUICIDES THAN, SAY, GUNS THAT ARE BEING SOLD ILLEGAL TRADE AND ILLEGAL SALES OF GUNS.

THAT'S THE VERY DIFFERENT POLICY POSITION.

SO THERE'S OFTEN BIG AREAS OF OVERLAP WITH CONCERN FOR PUBLIC SAFETY THAT, YOU KNOW, REASONABLE PEOPLE CAN AGREE ON.

AND THAT'S ACTUALLY WHAT'S HAPPENING A LITTLE BIT IN ILLINOIS.

AS WE UNDERSTAND THE DATA BETTER AND WE UNDERSTAND GUN-RELATED DEATHS BETTER, WE'RE ABLE TO CRAFT VERY SPECIFIC PUBLIC SAFETY MEASURES THAT ARE FOCUSED ON REMOVING GUNS FROM DANGEROUS PEOPLE AND PREVENTING THEM FROM GETTING THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

BUT NOT REALLY INTERFERING AND IN SOME CASES ACTUALLY EASING THE ABILITY OF LAW ABIDING RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS.

>> H WAYNE: LET'S CONTINUE THAT CONVERSATION THEN.

OF COURSE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SITUATIONS WHERE SOMEONE WITH A MENTAL HEALTH RECORD SHOULD NOT HAVE OWNERSHIP OF WEAPONS, CORRECT?

>> RICHARD: WELL, DEPENDS ON WHAT MENTAL HEALTH RECORD IT IS.

BUT FOR THE MOST PART, THE ANSWER IS YES.

I MEAN, YOU HAVE TO -- IF PEOPLE ARE UNSTABLE, THEY SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO HAVE FIREARMS.

IF THEY DO TAKE TREATMENT AND THEY ARE DECLARED STABLE BY SOME PROFESSIONAL, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO REGAIN THAT RIGHT.

OKAY?

WE THINK THAT THERE'S SOME PEOPLE WHO HAVE MINOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES AND IF THEY PROVE TO BE GOOD CITIZENS OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS AND DON'T DO ANYTHING WRONG AND DO THE RIGHT THINGS, WE THINK THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO GAIN THEIR RIGHTS, TOO.

WE DON'T THINK THAT A PROHIBITION OF ANY RIGHT NEEDS TO STAY A PROHIBITION IF A PERSON CAN REHABILITATE THEMSELVES WITHIN CERTAIN LIMITS.

LIKE, IF YOU MURDER SOMEONE, IT'S OVER.

OKAY?

BUT THOSE SORTS OF THINGS.

WE THINK THAT RIGHT TO REHABILITATION IS IN THERE AND EXTENDS ALL RIGHTS.

BUT WE ALSO THINK THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE -- HAVE MENTAL PROBLEMS NEED TO SEEK HELP AND WE NEED TO -- THE STATE OF ILLINOIS AND ALL OTHER STATES NEED TO PROVIDE THAT MENTAL HELP FOR THOSE PEOPLE TO STABILIZE THOSE PEOPLE >> H WAYNE: PHIL, I SUPPOSE THE QUESTION MIGHT BE, THE DIFFICULTY IS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHEN IS A PERSON REHABILITATED, WHETHER THAT BE SOMEONE WHO IS COMMITTED A CRIME IN THE PAST OR HAS SOME SORT OF MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE?

>> PHIL: WESHLTION LL, YOU KNO ISSUE STARTS IN ADVANCE OF THAT.

IF YOU TAKE A CLOSE LOOK AT THE DATA, THE VAST MAJORITY OF MASS AND TARGETED VIOLENCE AND EVEN INTERPERSONAL MURDERS WHERE PEOPLE KNOW EACH OTHER, THERE IS A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COMPONENT.

SO, YOU KNOW, IN ILLINOIS, WE'RE -- WE TAKE A HARD LOOK AT THOSE CRIMINAL HISTORIES AND THERE ARE SOME ASSAULTS AND SOME, YOU KNOW, CRIMES THAT DON'T PROHIBIT YOU FROM GETTING A GUN.

BECAUSE WE DON'T ATTACH NECESSARILY THE RISK TO THAT -- THAT SOMEBODY HAS DONE SOMETHING IN THE PAST TO THEIR BEHAVIOR WITH A GUN.

BUT IN THE CASES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, WHERE SOMEBODY IS HURTING THEIR SPOUSE, THOSE HAVE AN INCREDIBLY HIGH LEVEL OF NEXUS WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE IRRESPONSIBLE OR CRIMINAL USE OF FIREARMS.

IN THOSE CASES, ONE, WE NEED TO PREVENT THEM FROM GETTING GUNS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

AND FROM ANY SOURCE.

MEANING, A PRIVATE SALE OR THROUGH A GUN STORE OR EVEN, YOU KNOW, ORDERING THEM FROM OTHER PLACES.

AND SECONDLY, WHEN THEY DO DEMONSTRATE THOSE BEHAVIORS, WE NEED TO REMOVE THEIR GUNS IMMEDIATELY AND AS RICHARD POINTS OUT, IF THEY SOUGHT HELP AND THEY'VE GOTTEN THE PROPER INTERVENTIONS AND THEY PROVE THAT -- YOU KNOW, THAT THEY ARE NOW IN A COMMUNITY STANDARD FOR, YOU KNOW, NOT PRESENTING A PUBLIC SAFETY RISK, THOSE RIGHTS CAN BE RESTORED.

IN ILLINOIS, WE HAVE A FIREARM RESTRAINING ORDER THAT'S ONLY BEEN USED A FEW DOZEN TIMES.

BUT OBVIOUSLY, KNOWING THAT THERE'S A NUMBER OF THESE SHOOTINGS ARE RELATED TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, WE'VE GOT TO WORK HARDER TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE RECORDS ARE UPDATED QUICKLY AND WE SEPARATE THEM FROM THE WEAPONS SOONER TO PREVENT THOSE TRAGEDIES FROM HAPPENING IN THE FIRST PLACE.

>> H WAYNE: WHAT ABOUT THAT, RICHARD, IN TERMS OF MAKING SURE THAT WE QUICKLY IDENTIFY THOSE INDIVIDUALS AND WOULD THAT EXTEND TO SUCH THINGS AS FINGERPRINTING, THINGS OF THAT NATURE?

>> RICHARD: FINGERPRINTING WON'T REALLY HELP IN THAT REGARD.

WHAT HAPPENS IS PEOPLE NEED TO SEEK HELP AND WE NEED TO PROVIDE HELP FOR THOSE PEOPLE AND TO AVOID ALL OF THAT.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATIONS, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES THINGS JUST EXPLODE.

AND THEY DO.

BUT -- SO WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT THAT.

WE DO HAVE A FIREARM RESTRAINING ORDER.

WE HAVE A RED FLAG LAW IN ILLINOIS.

SO WE HAVE ADDRESSED THOSE PROBLEMS.

WE ARE NOW ADDRESSING A DIFFERENT MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM AND WE'VE LOOKED AT SOME -- I LOOKED AT SOME LAST WEEK THAT HELPED DEAL WITH THESE SITUATIONS AND WE NEED TO PROBABLY FUND THOSE BETTER SO PEOPLE HAVE A WAY TO GET TO THOSE.

AND SO I THINK THAT MENTAL HEALTH ASPECTS OF THIS ARE IMPORTANT.

I WILL SAY THAT I HAVE BEEN DISAPPOINTED IN ILLINOIS BECAUSE THEY HAVE UNDERFUNDED MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES OR MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT IN THIS STATE AND I THINK THAT THEY CERTAINLY NEED TO DO THAT MORE AND GIVE PEOPLE MORE OUTLETS TO GO TO, TO PREVENT THESE PROBLEMS.

>> H WAYNE: LET'S GO TO -- I'LL TURN TO PHIL FIRST.

BUT LET'S GO TO THE QUESTION OF WHAT -- SURVEYS INDICATE THAT A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE IN FAVOR OF A UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECK.

PHIL, SHOULD WE HAVE A UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECK?

>> PHIL: YES.

WITHOUT QUESTION.

I MEAN, THERE'S JUST NO WAY OF KNOWING WHO IS APPLYING TO RECEIVE GUN RIGHTS.

IN ILLINOIS, WE HAVE A -- YOU KNOW, A VERY GOOD SYSTEM WITH OUR FOID SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS FOR A BACKGROUND CHECK FOR THE COMPLETION OF THAT BACKGROUND CHECK.

IT DOES A DEEP DIVE TO ACTUALLY SEPARATE THOSE RECORDS IF THERE'S A BATTERY.

IS IT A BATTERY THAT WAS A DOMESTIC BATTERY THAT WOULD BE A PROHIBIT TORE AND DOES IT SEPARATE?

WHERE THE STATE OFFICIALS HAVE DIFFICULTY IS WHEN THEY'RE CALLING OUT TO OTHER JURISDICTIONS THAT MAYBE DON'T HAVE THEIR RECORDS UPDATED, THEY'VE GOT TO DO A DEEPER DIVE AND THAT REQUIRES TIME.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ACTUALLY MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE THERE IS IF APPLICANTS WERE TO SUBMIT A FINGERPRINT, THAT ACTUALLY SPEEDS IT.

BECAUSE THE ABILITY TO CONNECT THAT THIS FINGERPRINT IS UNIQUE, IT SAYS THE PERSON IS WHO THEY SAY THEY ARE AND THAT MATCHES VERY QUICKLY WITH WHATEVER RECORD IS OUT THERE.

THAT WOULD ACTUALLY SPEED THINGS.

NOW, YOU KNOW, THE NOTION THAT EVERYBODY IN THE STATE NEEDS TO SUBMIT FINGERPRINTS, YOU KNOW, FOR A GUN RIGHTS, THAT MAY BE DIFFICULT FOR SOME FOLKS.

BUT IN MANY CASES PEOPLE ARE ALREADY SUBMITTING FINGERPRINTS FOR THEIR PROFESSION, FOR PROFESSIONAL LICENSES AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE USING -- OPEN TO iPHONES AT THIS POINT.

IT SPEEDS THE ABILITY TO GET LICENSES BUT IT ALSO ALLOWS US TO BLOCK AND REVOKE PRIVILEGES WHERE THEY -- THEY EXIST.

WE DO NEED A UNIVERSAL SYSTEM.

YOU CAN SEE NOW WHERE THEY'VE GONE TO A SYSTEM IN TEXAS AT THE MOMENT WHERE YOU DON'T NEED ANY BACKGROUND.

YOU DON'T NEED ANY LICENSE AND IF SOMEBODY BUYS THEIR GUNS THERE AND THEN BRINGS THEM UP INTO ILLINOIS, IT CREATES A UNIQUE PUBLIC SAFETY THREAT THAT WE CAN'T PREDICT WHO IS GETTING FIREARMS AND WHO IS NOT AND SEPARATING LAW ABIDING, RESPONSIBLE FROM THE -- THOSE THAT ARE A PUBLIC SAFETY THREAT.

>> H WAYNE: RICHARD, THE QUESTION OF UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECK AND FINGERPRINTING?

>> RICHARD: WE TALK ABOUT FINGERPRINTING, THE FINGERPRINTING, WE BELIEVE THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.

WE SHOULD NOT REQUIRE FINGERPRINTS FOR ANY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.

IF ANYONE WANTS TO SUBMIT THEIR FINGERPRINTS VOLUNTARILY, THAT'S ENTIRELY UP TO THEM.

WE WOULD RESIST ANY REQUIREMENT OF FINGERPRINTS BECAUSE WE THINK IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE.

YOU HAVE FOUR OR FIVE MEMBERS IN A FAMILY.

YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR THE FINGERPRINTS.

YOU HAVE TO DO A LOT OF STUFF.

IT'S A LOT OF MONEY OUT OF POCKET.

WE THINK IT'S A PROHIBITOR TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND WE'RE OPPOSED TO THAT.

AS I SAID, THEY WANT TO SUBMIT THEIR FINGERPRINTS, I HAVE A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT, I SUBMITTED MY FINGERPRINTS.

THERE ARE OTHER ELECTRONIC FORMS OF FINGERPRINTS THAT THE STATE POLICE HAVE IF THE LAW PERMITTED, PEOPLE COULD DO THAT.

BUT AS FAR AS STOPPING ANY OF -- OF THESE VIOLENCE ISSUES, I DON'T THINK THE FIRNGER PRINTS WITH HELP WITH THAT.

IT HELPS IN RARE CASES.

NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.

WE TALK ABOUT DOING THOSE THINGS AND THE -- SO I THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE OPTIONAL.

THE SECOND PART OF THE QUESTION?

>> Peggy: >> H WAYNE: THE UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS.

>> RICHARD: IN ILLINOIS WE HAVE A SYSTEM.

SO IF I SELL A GUN TO YOU, AND I GO TO THE STATE POLICE PORTAL AND I CHECK YOUR FOID CARD, IT TELLS ME WHETHER IT'S VALID OR BEEN REVOKED OR BEEN -- OR WHATEVER HAS HAPPENED TO THE FOID CARD.

YOU GET AN APPROVAL NUMBER.

THAT APPROVAL NUMBER, YOU HAVE TO KEEP WITH THE SALE.

YOU HAVE TO KEEP IT FOR TEN YEARS AT THE PRESENT TIME.

AND THE FOID CARDS ARE REALLY KEPT UP TO DATE IN ILLINOIS.

WE HAVE ONE OF THE BETTER SYSTEMS OR MAYBE THE BEST SYSTEM FOR MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES AND SO YOU GO THERE AND EVERY NIGHT THEY SWEEP THE FOID CARD, IF ANYTHING COMES UP IN ANY COURT RECORD ANYWHERE OR ANY HOSPITAL FILES ANY MENTAL HEALTH RECORD OR ANYTHING, IT SHOWS UP.

WE'VE GOTTEN COOPERATION FROM THE CLERKS OF THE COURT AND OF THE COUNTIES TO SUBMIT THOSE RECORDS ON TIME, FAST.

IF ANYTHING HAPPENS IN COURT.

WE REALLY HAVE AN EXCELLENT SYSTEM.

TO REQUIRE PEOPLE TO GO GET A -- TO GO THROUGH A GUN DEALER, WHICH IS VERY EXPENSIVE, WE DON'T LIKE THAT IDEA.

WE ARE DOWN TO ABOUT MAYBE 1100 FIREARM DEALERS IN THE STATE.

AT ONE TIME, THREE YEARS AGO, WE WERE AT 2200.

THERE ARE NO FIREARM DEALERS IN COOK COUNTY.

THERE ARE NO -- SO IF A PERSON WANTS TO TRANSFER A FIREARM IN COOK COUNTY, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE SUBURBS TO DO IT.

A LOT OF THOSE PEOPLE DON'T HAVE PUBLIC -- ONLY HAVE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.

>> H WAYNE: PHIL, THE QUESTION OF THAT, BUT ALSO LICENSING OF VENDORS, GUN VENDORS.

>> PHIL: SO, YOU KNOW, WHAT RICHARD HAS DESCRIBED IS WHAT THE PROPOSAL BEFORE THE ILLINOIS LEGISLATURE RIGHT NOW AND THAT SEEMS TO BE A GOOD STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION OF, YOU KNOW, FINDING A WAY THAT FOLKS THAT CAN'T ACCESS A PHYSICAL GUN DEALER, THAT ARE ABLE TO USE A STATE POLICE PORTAL TO VERIFY WHO THEY'RE SELLING THEIR GUN TO.

AND WHETHER THEY ARE, YOU KNOW, LEGITIMATE.

THAT THEIR GUN LICENSE, FOID CARD IS CURRENT.

THAT ALLOWS FOR THAT SORT OF ADDITIONAL CHECK AND REALLY THE PEACE OF MIND THAT THAT GUN SELLER THAT HEY, I'M DOING THIS IN A RESPONSIBLE WAY AND GIVING THIS TO SOMEBODY THE STATE HAS DONE A BACKGROUND CHECK ON.

THAT HOPEFULLY WILL SOON BE ILLINOIS LAW SO THAT WE CAN, WE CAN REGULATE SOME OF THOSE PRIVATE TRANSACTIONS AND HAVE CONFIDENCE IN WHO WE'RE EXCHANGING GUNS WITH.

IN TERMS OF -- THE SECOND HALF TO THAT QUESTION?

>> H WAYNE: LICENSING OF VENDORS.

>> PHIL: YES.

GUN DEALER LICENSING IS -- OBVIOUSLY, THEY NEED LICENSES FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, BUT ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THERE IS THAT ATF IS COMPLETELY UNDERFUNDED AND OVERWHELMED.

AND SO THEY'RE UNABLE TO EFFECTIVELY POLICE THE GUN DEALERS OUT THERE.

AND EVEN WHEN THEY DO, THEY FAIL TO TAKE ANY SERIOUS ACTION IN TERMS OF ENFORCEMENT WHEN THEY DO FIND VIOLATIONS.

THE TRUTH IS, AND RICHARD KNOWS THIS AS WELL, WELL OVER 95% OF THE GUN DEALERS ARE TOTALLY IN COMPLIANCE AND DOING A WONDERFUL JOB AND FOLLOWING THE LAW.

IT'S ACTUALLY ABOUT 5% OF THE GUN DEALERS -- THIS IS INCLUSIVE OF ILLINOIS -- THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR 80% OF THE ILLEGAL TRANSACTIONS, THE ILLEGAL GUNS OR GUNS LINED UP IN CRIME.

JUST A SIMPLE USE OF DATA TO FOCUS OUR RESOURCES IN AND ATTENTION ON BRINGING THOSE 5%, WHETHER IT BE THROUGH EDUCATION.

MAYBE THEY NEED TO BE PUT OUT OF BUSINESS AND HAVE NO INTENT OF COMPLYING.

MAYBE IT'S A TRAINING ISSUE.

WE'VE GOT TO BRING THEM INTO COMPLIANCE SO THEY'RE NOT UNDERMINING THE GOOD WORK THAT THE REST OF THE GUN DEALERS ARE DOING AND FOLLOWING THE LAW.

>> H WAYNE: YOUR RESPONSE, RICHARD?

>> RICHARD: THE 5%, THE SO-CALLED 5% OF THE GUN DEALERS LIVE IN AREAS THAT ARE HIGH CRIME AREAS.

AND SO A LOT OF THE FIREARMS THEY SELL WIND UP IN THE HANDS BY WHATEVER CAUSE IN THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS.

BUT THAT'S NOT THE GUN DEALER'S FAULT.

IF I GO TO YOU AND I BUY A FIREARM AND I PASS MY BACKGROUND CHECK AND YOU GIVE ME THE FIREARM, YOU KNOW, YOU ALMOST HAVE TO DO THAT.

OTHERWISE, IF YOU DON'T GIVE ME THE FIREARM, YOU'LL BE SUED FOR DISCRIMINATION OR YOU COULD BE SUED FOR DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE SOMEBODY DIDN'T LIKE THE WAY YOU DID IT OR SOMETHING.

SO THE PROBLEM IS NOT WITH THOSE DEALERS.

THE PROBLEM IS IN THE AREAS THAT THEY LIVE IN.

BUT BY THE SAME TOKEN, YOU CAN'T LIMIT A PERSON'S SECOND AMENDMENT OR ANY OTHER RIGHT BECAUSE OF THEIR ZIP CODE.

SO WE HAVE -- THERE'S A PROBLEM THERE.

THE PROBLEM THAT I SEE IS -- AND IT'S GOING ON IN CHICAGO RIGHT NOW.

IT'S VERY UPSETTING TO A LOT OF PEOPLE, INCLUDING ME.

IS THAT WHEN A PERSON IS PICKED UP FOR HAVING -- BEING AN ILLEGAL GUN OWNER AND THEIR FIREARMS ARE CONFISCATED, THEY'RE SIMPLY LET OUT OF JAIL AND THEY'RE BACK ON THE STREET LITERALLY WITHIN AN HOUR.

AND THEY CONSTANTLY, THEY KEEP REPEATING THIS.

THERE'S NO WAY TO KEEP THEM IN JAIL LONG ENOUGH TO STOP THAT.

>> H WAYNE: I WISH WE HAD MORE TIME.

THERE'S SO MUCH MORE TO TALK ABOUT.

LET ME SAY THANK YOU TO BOTH OF MY GUESTS.

I'M SORRY WE DON'T HAVE MORE TIME.

IT'S A VERY SERIOUS ISSUE.

WE HOPE TO CONTINUE IT AT A LATER DATE.

LET ME SAY THANK YOU TO PHIL ANDREW, WHO IS WITH GPEC.

MORE PROFESSIONALLY KNOWN AS THE GUN -- THE GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION EDUCATION CENTER.

AND TO RICHARD PEARSON, WHO IS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ILLINOIS STATE RIFLE ASSOCIATION.

THANK YOU FOR BOTH JOINING US ON AT ISSUE.

WE'LL BE BACK NEXT WEEK WITH ANOTHER EDITION OF THE PROGRAM.

THIS TIME WPTV IS CELEBRATING 50 YEARS OF SERVICE TO CENTRAL ILLINOIS.

WE'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY AND WHAT THE FUTURE MIGHT HOLD NEXT TIME ON "AT ISSUE."

.

♪ ♪