[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 36, Number 10 (Monday, March 13, 2000)]
[Pages 494-498]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Interview With Greta Van Susteren of CNN's Burden of Proof

March 8, 2000

Memphis Shootings

    Ms. Van Susteren. Mr. President, thank you for joining us today. I 
want to first ask you your reaction--once again, this time Memphis, a 
fireman is dead, a police officer, and others. What's your reaction to 
this shooting?
    The President. Well, as we're doing this interview, of course, we 
don't know all the facts, but it's a tragic thing for the city and for 
the families, because firemen and police, they put their lives on the 
line a lot, but they don't expect to be shot at the scene of a burning 
house. It's a terrible thing. And we just have to find the facts to know 
what happened and whether anything could have been done about it. It's 
very, very sad.

Michigan Shooting

    Ms. Van Susteren. Another tragedy was the death of the 6-year-old, 
Kayla, in Michigan. And you met with her mother----
    The President. I did.
    Ms. Van Susteren. ----this week in the White House. What did you 
tell her?
    The President. Well, first of all, I told her that as a father I 
could only imagine her heartbreak, that 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 really decided they're 
going to commit themselves to try to do things that will make the 
schools 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.

Parental Responsibility for Gun Violence

    Ms. Van Susteren. And one of the specific things is guns.
    The President. Absolutely.
    Ms. 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 libel?
    The President. 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. 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 is--
it's not that far off.
    I mean, the accidental gun death rate in America for children under 
15 is 9 times higher than the rate of 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. But if there is--if it's just total 
irresponsibility or intentionally leaving a gun in a place where a child 
could easily get it, I think they should be held responsible.
    Ms. Van Susteren. Well, you use the words ``knowingly and 
recklessly,'' and that standard, it seems to me, is so different. In

[[Page 495]]

some parts of the country where people have lots of guns, the 
``knowingly and recklessly'' standard is so much different from those 
who might be unfamiliar. How do we decide what's ``knowingly and 
recklessly''----
    The President. Well, I think 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 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 different 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 whether they're identical 
language or not. There are two different ways you could do that.

Gun Control Legislation

    Ms. Van Susteren. You've been battling the gun--trying to get gun 
legislation for some time, and it seems to be a little bit of a logjam 
on Capitol Hill. Where's the dispute? Why can't legislation get passed?
    The President. 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 the 
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, and people who buy guns there. And I just think they're dead 
wrong.
    When we passed the Brady bill, 7 years ago now, almost 7 years ago, 
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 7 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 John 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 that the 
Republicans would let 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.
    Ms. Van Susteren. When I look at this loophole, it seems to me--
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?
    The President. 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 were some provision for holding 
roughly 5 to 8 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 are 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 5 percent as in the first 95 
percent. 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 to 95 percent of the people to have

[[Page 496]]

a 24-hour waiting period. It's going to be interesting to see whether 
they will engage us in good faith on that.
    Ms. Van Susteren. So what can we do with that 5 percent? What's your 
idea?
    The President. Well, you 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 has 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.
    Ms. Van Susteren. In my prior life as a criminal defense lawyer, I 
had to represent a lot of people who used guns in murders, armed 
robberies, and I've got to tell you, I don't think any one of them 
bought it at a gun show or a gun shop. What about those people? What can 
we do about them?
    The President. Well, I think there is no clear and easy answer. What 
we know is that some of this happens there because we've got--the gun 
death rate is 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--if we do all this 
and you still find people with unauthorized guns, they have to be 
punished for that.
    I still believe--I would go further. I think that people who buy 
handguns would 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 will make a difference over the long 
run.
    The other thing I would say is, you've 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, who 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 must 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 
buyback program. I can't imagine why they want to stop that.
    A lot of cities with Republican mayors have done gun buyback 
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're taking that many out of circulation. So those are the kinds of 
things I think ought to be done.

President's History With Guns

    Ms. Van Susteren. Do you have a gun? Have you ever owned one or shot 
one?
    The President. Oh, absolutely. I have owned hunting weapons. I've 
been given--I've never bought a pistol. I've been given pistols by the 
State police and others, and I've never kept them. I've never kept a gun 
in my residence. I've always kept them under secure circumstances 
outside the house when Chelsea was a little girl coming up and all that. 
But I have owned guns. And 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 would be careful how many 
times a year I'd go hunting.
    But I understand this culture. I've been a part of it. And I was 
Governor of a State for a dozen years where half of the people had 
hunting licenses. But 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

[[Page 497]]

bit, it's worth it to save people's lives. We now have evidence that it 
saves lives.
    Nobody complains about going through airport metal detectors 
anymore, even if they have to go through 2 or 3 times, because they know 
it saves lives. People don't say we ought to repeal every speed limit 
or--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.'' Well, there would be an 
uproar if you did that.
    So we should do more without eroding law-abiding gun owners' rights 
to hunt or sport 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. We've got to do more.

Michigan Shooting

    Ms. Van Susteren. Taking a look at what happened last week, if you 
had the legislation that you want, or if we had the legislation the 
Republicans want, Kayla would still be dead. The legislation wouldn't 
have prevented that gun from getting into that young boy's hands.
    The President. 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--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 6-year-old kid in the house wouldn't 
leave a child trigger lock on a gun.

Gun Control Legislation

    Ms. Van Susteren. Which raises the other question. Trigger locks are 
for guns that are from this day forward. What do we do with these 
millions of guns that are already out there?
    The President. One of the things I think we ought to look at is see 
how you retrofit them, where we could sell them, what we should do with 
them. And 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, whether we could get trigger 
locks for them and how we'd do it.
    Right now, I've been waiting--we've been waiting 8 months. Columbine 
happened almost a year ago. Then the Senate passed a bill; the House 
passed a much weaker bill. We've been waiting 8 months for these people 
to get together with the Senate and the House and come up with a bill 
and send it to me.
    And so, I've always tried to focus dealing with the Congress not 
just on what I thought was ideal but on what we would actually achieve. 
And I think every American now knows that the intense lobbying of the 
NRA and the other gun groups has had a profound impact on the House and 
on the Republican caucus in the Senate. 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.
    Ms. Van Susteren. I spoke to a representative of the NRA today who 
said that last summer, they had completely agreed on the bill in 
Congress, but that it was the Democrats and the White House that felt 
that the legislation in the House should be aborted. Is that right?
    The President. No, they agreed on the House bill because it didn't 
do anything to close the gun show loophole. They didn't want--we've got 
to close the gun show loophole. We feel we do. I think they would come 
along now with child trigger locks. I think they would, and I know they 
support 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 
officials, 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 do a background

[[Page 498]]

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.
    Ms. Van Susteren. One final question. The Vice President wants--or 
has suggested that we have photo licensing. What is your reaction to 
that?
    The President. I think it's a good idea.
    Ms. Van Susteren. Why?
    The President. Because I think that it will establish a nexus 
between--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 then it will be easier to track the guns. 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 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 think he's absolutely right about it. 
And there's not a good argument not to do it.
    Ms. Van Susteren. Thank you, Mr. 
President.
    The President. Thank you.

Note: The interview began at 5:30 p.m. in the Roosevelt Room at the 
White House. In his remarks, the President referred to 6-year-old Kayla 
Rolland, who was shot and mortally wounded by a 6-year-old classmate in 
Mount Morris Township, MI; and her mother and stepfather, Veronica and 
Michael McQueen. A tape was not available for verification of the 
content of this interview.