ad info

 Headline News brief
 news quiz
 daily almanac

 video archive
 multimedia showcase
 more services

Subscribe to one of our news e-mail lists.
Enter your address:
Get a free e-mail account

 message boards

CNN Websites
 En Español
 Em Português


Networks image
 more networks

 ad info



Burden of Proof

President Clinton Discusses Michigan Elementary School Shooting, Logjam on Gun Control Legislation

Aired March 9, 2000 - 12:30 p.m. ET



WILLIAM J. CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think if the custodial adult, either knowingly or recklessly leaves a gun where a child can get a hold of it, then I think there should be some liability these. I think, you know, it's outrageous that this 6-year- old boy was able to get that gun.


ROGER COSSACK, CO-HOST: Today on BURDEN OF PROOF: In an exclusive interview, President Clinton discusses the Michigan elementary school shooting and a Capitol Hill logjam on gun control legislation and a culture of firearms he learned all-too-well growing up in Arkansas.


CLINTON: I have owned guns. You know, at first, I guess the first gun I has was a .22 when I was 12. I still remember shooting cans off fence posts in the country with a .22 when I was 12. And I've hunted on and off all my life, not a great deal. I have bad ears, so I have to be careful how many times a year I go hunting. But I understand this culture. I've been a part of it.


ANNOUNCER: This is BURDEN OF PROOF with Greta Van Susteren and Roger Cossack.

COSSACK: Hello and welcome to BURDEN OF PROOF.

Last week's fatal shooting in a Michigan elementary school has reinjected the gun control debate into the Capitol Hill landscape. Leading the effort for new provisions in the law is President Bill Clinton.

VAN SUSTEREN: Yesterday at the White House, I sat down with the president for an exclusive interview. He discussed efforts to keep guns out of the hands of children and the tragedy in a first-grade classroom.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) VAN SUSTEREN: The death of the 6-year-old Kayla in Michigan, and you met with her mother...


VAN SUSTEREN: ... this week in the White House. What did you tell her?

CLINTON: Well, first of all, I told her that as a father I could only imagine her heartbreak because there's nothing worse in life than having your child die before you, especially in tragic circumstances. And I told her I would do what I could to reduce the chances of it happening again. And I was very impressed with her. She and her husband, Kayla's stepfather, I think they've really decided they're going to commit themselves to trying to do things that will make the school safer, the streets safer, the kids less vulnerable to this sort of thing, and we talked about some of the specific things we were working on.

VAN SUSTEREN: And I assume one of the specific things is guns.

CLINTON: Absolutely.

VAN SUSTEREN: When you talk about guns, besides being the president of the United States, you're a lawyer, do you think that the responsibility when a young child uses a gun and kills another child, that some of the responsibility may be cast in the direction of a parent or another adult? Should we hold them liable?

CLINTON: I think if the custodial adult either knowingly or recklessly leaves a gun where a child can get a hold of it, then I think there should be some liability there. I think, you know, it's outrageous that this 6-year-old boy was able to get that gun.

And of course, I think there ought to be child trigger locks on these guns, and I think that we should keep working until we develop the technology which will enable us to make handguns that can only be fired by the adults who own them, which it's not that far off. I mean, the accidental gun death rate in America for children under 15 is nine times higher than the rate in the next 25 countries combined.

So, yes, I do. I think there ought to be some responsibility there. Not if there's been a reasonable effort and the child finds a key and gets in a safe or something, you know, but if there is just total irresponsibility or intentionally leaving the gun in a place where a child could easily get it, I think they should be held responsible.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, you use the word "knowingly" and "recklessly," and that standard seems to be so different in some parts of the country where people have lots of guns, that "knowing and reckless" standard is so much different from those who might be unfamiliar. How do we decide what is knowingly and...

CLINTON: Well, I think, you know, maybe if Congress wanted to legislate in this area, this is normally a state law area. And I offered federal legislation in the post-Columbine era to deal with this. The Congress could have a legislative history in which they could actually cite some examples of what, in their view, falls on one side of the line and what doesn't. And I think that would be helpful. Or what the Congress could do if they feel that the circumstances are differ from state-to-state, is to give some incentives for the states to pass such legislation.

I think there are 17 states which have passed legislation that have some form of adult responsibility if children who are below the age of responsibility get guns. But I don't know to -- whether they're identical language or not. There are two different ways you could do that.

VAN SUSTEREN: You've been battling the gun -- trying to get gun legislation for some time, and there seems to be a little bit of a logjam on Capitol Hill. Where's the dispute? Why can't legislation get passed?

CLINTON: Well, I think the main source of dispute now is over closing the gun-show loophole. That is a lot of these -- predominantly, the Republican members of the House, although not all of them, are reluctant to close the gun-show loophole, and a huge number of Republicans in the Senate, although not everyone, 90 percent of them don't want to close the gun-show loophole. That is, they don't want to require people at these gun shows and urban flea markets to have to do the same background checks on people who buy guns there, as gun store owners do when people buy guns there. And I just think they're dead wrong.

You know, when we passed the Brady Bill seven years ago now -- almost seven years, the NRA and their sympathizers said: Well, the Brady Bill won't do any good because criminals don't buy guns at gun stores. Well, it turns out 500,000 people couldn't get guns because they had a record as a felon, a fugitive, or a stalker.

So, now, we ought to go to the huge number of people who do buy them at these gun shows and urban flea markets, which is exactly what the NRA said they did seven years ago. But now that we're trying to get background checks there, all of a sudden they don't want to do it. So I think it's very important to do.

Now, there is some chance of a compromise because Representative Jon Conyers from Michigan and Chairman Henry Hyde from Illinois have talked back and forth about whether there was a way to close the gun- show loophole, and that the Republicans would let it get out of the conference committee, and then we could pass it. And I urged them to work on that yesterday, but I think that's the biggest problem.

VAN SUSTEREN: When I look at this loophole, it seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that one side wants 72 hours to do the background check and one side says, no, 24 hours. Is that the dispute, 24 versus 72?

CLINTON: Well, not exactly, that's only part of it, and I'll explain that. But there is also the question of what records will be checked and what you do with the people who can't be checked within 24 hours.

That is John Conyers offered a 24-hour background check to Mr. Hyde. That is, the Democrats offered to the Republicans a 24-hour background check, as long as there was some provision for holding roughly five to eight percent of the applications that can't be cleared in 24 hours.

That is, believe it or not, over 70 percent of these background checks were done within a matter of an hour; over 90 percent are done within 24 hours. But a small percentage cannot be done, and in that small percentage, the people that are likely to be rejected are 20 times the rate of rejections in the last five percent as in the first 95 percent.

CLINTON: So there's a reason for holding those that can't be checked when the records aren't there. So I think if we can work out something to do with the other 5 percent, we could agree that 95 percent of the people have a 24-hour waiting period. It's going to be interesting to see whether they will engage us in good faith on that

VAN SUSTEREN: So what can we do with that 5 percent? What's your idea?

CLINTON: Well, you just enable them to -- you give the 72 hours for that 5 percent. And if they're at a rural gun show and they don't know what to do because they want to buy the gun and the gun dealer's got to leave and go on to another place, they should just consummate the sale and have to deposit the gun at the local sheriff's office. And then if it clears, they get their gun, and if it doesn't clear, the gun dealer gets his gun back.

VAN SUSTEREN: In my prior life as a criminal defense lawyer, I represented a lot of people who used guns in murders, armed robberies, and I got to tell you, I don't think any one of them bought it at a gun show or gun shop. What about those people? what can we do about them?

CLINTON: Well, I think there is no emerge -- there is no clear and easy answer. What we know is that some of this happens there because we got the gun death rates at a 30-year low, so we know we're doing some good with the Brady Bill, and we know we'll do some more good with this. And we also know that a lot of these guns are passed among criminals or sold out of a trunk by somebody alone that wouldn't be covered by the gun show law.

I think what you have to do there is just do a better job of checking people for guns. And if you find somebody after we -- if you do all this and you still find people with unauthorized guns, they have to be punished for that. I still believe -- you know, I would go further. I think that people who buy handguns should have to pass a Brady background check and a safety check and be licensed. I think we ought to license handgun owners the way we license car drivers. I think that would make a difference over the long run.

But with over -- the other thing I would say is, you got over 200 million guns in this country. Now, that's slightly overstating the case in terms of the danger because a huge number of them are in the hands of collectors who are perfectly law-abiding and have the guns very well-secured. And a lot of them are in the hands of hunters who are law-abiding and have their guns well-secured. But one of the things that I have advocated is a big expansion of the gun buy-back program because, in the places where that's occurred, it's done some good -- where you just give people money to bring in their guns and then you melt them or destroy them otherwise.

And I noted -- just today I was just stunned to hear that there are a number of Republicans in the House of Representatives that want to stop us from doing the gun buy-back program. I can't imagine why they want to stop that. A lot of city's with Republican mayors have done gun buy-back programs, and it's totally voluntary. You bring a gun in, you get a certain amount of money, you gather the guns up and you destroy them. You've taken that many out of circulation. So those are the kinds of things I think ought to be done.


VAN SUSTEREN: Up next, President Clinton's childhood in Arkansas and recollections of his first gun. Stay with us.


The current make-up of the Supreme Court of the United States includes two Clinton appointees, two Bush appointees, three Reagan appointees, one Fore appointee and one Nixon appointee.



VAN SUSTEREN: Yesterday in the Roosevelt Room at the White House, I spoke to President Clinton about efforts to prevent gun violence. The president recalled his youth in Arkansas and the culture surrounding gun ownership.


VAN SUSTEREN: Do you have a gun? Have you ever owned one or shot one?

CLINTON: Oh, absolutely. I have owned -- I have owned hunting weapons, I've been given -- I never bought a pistol, I've been given pistols by the state police and others, and I never kept them, I never kept a gun in my residence. I've always kept them under secure circumstances outside of the house when Chelsea was a little girl coming up and all that. But I have owned guns.

And I -- you know, I first -- I guess the first gun I had was a .22 when I was 12. I still remember shooting cans off fenceposts in the country with a .22 when I was 12. And I've hunted on and off all my life, not a great deal. I have bad ears, so I have to be careful how many times a year I go hunting.

But I understand this culture; I've been a part of it. I was governor of a state for a dozen years that -- where half the people had hunting licenses. But I do -- I do not think it is right for people who are law-abiding to prevent the passage of these laws that will plainly save lives. I mean, you know, it's no big deal for people who are gun owners or people who are handgun owners to have to undergo a background check. And if it's a minor inconvenience for them to wait a little bit, it's worth it to save people's lives. We now have evidence that it saves lives. You know, nobody complains about going through airport metal detectors anymore, even if they have to go through two or three times, because they know it saves lives. People don't say we ought to repeal every speed limit or, you know. You could say, well, most car drivers are law-abiding, so let's just stop licensing car drivers, let's stop giving them driver's-license tests, because most of them are law-abiding. Why, there'd be an outroar -- uproar if you did that.

So, we should do more without eroding law-abiding gun owners' rights to hunt or sports shooting. We should do more to protect ourselves as a community. A lot more. We're the only country in the world that's not doing more, and we've got the death rates to show it. And if we want to save lives, we're going to have to continue to do more. We've got the lowest crime rate in 25 years because we've done more, and we've got to be better, and we've got to do more.

VAN SUSTEREN: How do you -- I mean, taking a look at what happened in the last week, if we had the legislation that you want, or if we had the legislation the Republicans want, Kayla would still be dead. Legislation wouldn't have prevented that gun from getting into that young boy's hands.

CLINTON: Well, it -- no, but if you had adult-responsibility legislation that was clear and unambiguous, at least people would think about it, guys like that would think about it. Even if -- you know, suppose this was a drug house, like they say. Also, depending on how old these guns are, they would come with child trigger locks if you required them for all gun sales prospectively. And I'm not at all sure that even a callous, irresponsible drug dealer with a six-year- old kid in the house wouldn't leave a child trigger lock on a gun.

VAN SUSTEREN: Which raises the other question: If trigger locks are for guns from this day forward, what do we do with those millions of guns that already out there (OFF-MIKE)?

CLINTON: Well, one of the things I think we ought to look at is see what -- how you retrofit them, where we could sell them, you know, what we should do with them. And you know, I'm just -- if I could pass this, then I'd start looking at what to do with the guns that are out there now, and whether we could get trigger locks for them, and how we'd do it. Right -- you know, right now, I've been waiting, we've been waiting eight months. Columbine happened almost a year ago. Then the Senate passed a bill, the House passed a much-weaker bill; we've been waiting eight months for these people to get together, the Senate and the House, and come up with a bill and send it to me.

And so I've always tried to focus on dealing with the Congress, not just on what I thought was ideal but on what we had actually achieved. And I think every American now knows that the intense lobbying of the NRA and the other, you know, gun groups has had a profound impact, especially on the House and on the Republican caucus in the Senate.

CLINTON: But still there are some people who are brave enough to stand up against it and to do reasonable things. So let's get this done and then let's see where we go.

VAN SUSTEREN: I spoke to a representative of the NRA today who said that last summer they were -- they had completely agreed on the bill in Congress but that it was the Democrats and the White House that felt that it was -- that the legislation in the House should be aborted. Is that right?

CLINTON: No, they had agreed on the House bill because it didn't do anything to close the gun show loophole. And so, you know, if they didn't want -- we got to close the gun show loophole. I mean, we feel we do. I think they would come along now with child trigger locks. I think they would -- and I know they support parental -- the custodial parent being held responsible when there's an egregious act there of intentional or reckless allowing a child to have a gun, and I appreciate that. I think they support more gun prosecutors and law enforcement officers, and I appreciate that. I don't know where they are. Maybe they would go along with the banning of the large ammunition clips. They've never been for that before, but they might be for that.

But their new, big bottom line is we must never, ever, ever, ever do a background check on somebody at a gun show unless you can do it in 30 seconds or something. I don't mind going to 24 hours as long as you've got an escape hatch for the people you can't clear in 24 hours, because I'll say again, they are 20 times more likely to be turned down -- that small percentage of people -- than the general population that we can clear in 24 hours.

VAN SUSTEREN: One final question: The vice president wants, or has suggested that we have photo licensing. What is your reaction to that?

CLINTON: I think it's a good idea.


CLINTON: Because I think that it will establish a nexus between the -- first of all, to get a license, you ought to have to pass a safety course and the Brady background check. I think that's good, and I think it'll be easier to track the guns. So we're trying to develop technology to track all guns and all bullets used in crimes and ultimately get them back to where they started, and I think that, for that reason, for crime control reasons and for safety reasons, it would be a good thing to do. Just like with licensed drivers, I think it's a community safety requirement that we ought to do. I feel -- I think he's absolutely right about it and there's not a good argument not to do it.


Enter keyword(s)   go    help

Back to the top   © 2001 Cable News Network. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines.