Red, Blue, and Brady

69: Extreme Risk Protection Orders with Raul Campillo

June 02, 2020 Brady
Red, Blue, and Brady
69: Extreme Risk Protection Orders with Raul Campillo
Red, Blue, and Brady +
Become a supporter of the show!
Starting at $3/month
Support
Show Notes Transcript

Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) allow families or law enforcement officers to petition a court to temporarily restrict a person’s access to guns. The petitioner must submit evidence that this person is a danger to themselves or others. ERPOs save lives, allowing the people who are most likely to notice when a loved one or community member becomes a danger to take concrete steps to disarm them.

The nation’s first ERPO law was passed in 1999 in Connecticut, in response to a mass shooting at the state’s lottery headquarters that left four people dead. ERPOs otherwise sat largely ignored legislatively until 2014, when a young man in Isla Vista, California, committed a string of shootings that left six people dead and more than a dozen injured. Many of the victims were students at the nearby University of California, Santa Barbara. Prior to the shooting, the gunman displayed concerning behavior, prompting a welfare check from police; however, because he had not violated any laws, authorities took no action to disarm him. Following advocacy led by Brady California, lawmakers passed California's ERPO law by the end of the year.

ERPOs again rose to national attention following the mass shooting at Parkland, Florida in 2018. Over the next 12 months, nearly a dozen states followed suit with California, with similar laws going into effect in Nevada and Colorado in the early days of 2020. Nevertheless, misinformation about ERPOs persists.

To get to what ERPOs actually are, and how they are used to save lives, JJ is joined by Kelly Sampson, legal counsel at Brady, and Raul Campillo, a San Diego prosecutor, deputy attorney, and member of the city's GVRO unit.

Mentioned in this podcast:


For more information on Brady, follow us on social media @Bradybuzz or visit our website at bradyunited.org.

Full transcripts and bi

Support the show

For more information on Brady, follow us on social media @Bradybuzz or visit our website at bradyunited.org.

Full transcripts and bibliographies of this episode are available at bradyunited.org/podcast.

National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: 1-800-273-8255.
In a crisis? Text HOME to 741741 to connect with a Crisis Counselor 24/7.

Music provided by: David “Drumcrazie” Curby
Special thanks to Hogan Lovells for their long-standing legal support
℗&©2019 Red, Blue, and Brady

JJ (00:08):
Hey everybody, this is the legal disclaimer, where we tell you that the views, thoughts, and opinions shared in this podcast belong solely to our guests and hosts and not necessarily Brady or Brady's affiliates. Please note this podcast contains discussions of violence that some people may find disturbing. It's okay, we find it disturbing too.

JJ (00:27):
Welcome back everybody to Red, Blue and Brady. Today, we're talking about something incredibly important, extreme risk laws, which we often call ERPOS here at Brady. Now extreme risk laws, they let families, household members or law enforcement officers petition a court to temporarily restrict a person's access to guns. But there is so much misinformation out there about them to explain how they work and maybe more importantly, why they work, Brady's Kelly Sampson and I are joined by the great Raul Campillo of the San Diego's Attorney's Office. Then today in our Unbelievable, But segment we're talking about why using a gun to try and alter the weather is a bad idea. Finally, in our news wrap up, we remember shootings of years past and take a look at the tragedies that continue into today.

JJ (01:30):
I want to thank you both so much for being with me here today, even though we're physically distanced. I appreciate when everybody calls in. So to jump right in, can I have you to introduce yourself to our audience?

Kelly (01:42):
Sure. Hi everyone. My name is Kelly Sampson. I work with JJ at Brady. I'm a lawyer there where I focus on constitutional issues and racial justice.

Raul Campillo (01:51):
And hi everyone. I'm Raul Campillo, I'm a deputy city attorney in the city of San Diego where I'm one of our three attorneys on the gun violence restraining order unit, or GVRO unit. I'm a native San Diegan. And I'm proud to work in law enforcement, alongside San Diego police officers who protect our community. I've been a prosecutor for almost two years and recently joined the GPRO unit full time. And just for those listening in San Diego, we've obtained over 400 gun violence restraining orders since 2018. Our city attorney Mara Elliott was elected in 2016 and early on decided to emphasize gun violence prevention. And because of that breadth of experience and success that we've had our team trains hundreds of law enforcement agencies across the state of California, over 300 different police departments, Sheriff's offices and campus police agencies in 2019 alone. So I'm proud that Mara chose me to be part of that team and for all we do in San Diego, but also for all of California,

JJ (02:42):
I'm surprised that you have a whole unit devoted to this, is that uncommon?

Raul Campillo (02:47):
It is uncommon. Typically, you know, depending on the jurisdiction, whether it's county or, city police departments, they typically have an attorney in their city attorney's or their county counsel's office who files gun violence restraining order units. But we were one of the first to get started a long time ago, and we've been able to grow because of a state grant that allowed us to grow and be able to travel throughout the entire state to be able to train people. So it is unique.

JJ (03:14):
Well, thank you so much for coming on and chatting with us today. This, I think particularly in the time of COVID is really important. We have people asking more and more and coming to our site more and more, you know, particularly for domestic violence resources. So this is really great. And it's good to know that there are some cities that have programs that are doing it, right?

Raul Campillo (03:34):
Yeah, absolutely. And you bring up a good point. We noticed a 40% increase in March and April of us obtaining gun violence restraining orders over January and February. So as people are staying indoors and people are suffering economically and their mental health is deteriorating, gun violence restraining orders have gone up and it's an important tool to protect people right now. So I wanted to just thank you guys for bringing attention to this, putting it on your website so that we don't have more victims. We just have more people who've turned to a gun violence restraining order to protect their family.

JJ (04:08):
So I think that a lot of this begs the question for a lot of our listeners, what are these extreme risk protection orders?

Raul Campillo (04:15):
Absolutely. So it's a civil restraining order, but instead of prohibiting a person from interacting or contacting someone who they've harassed, it's a prohibition to buy, possess, or keep firearms and ammunition. And in California, that's for up to a year. So in California, our penal code calls it a gun violence restraining order, but it's functionally the same thing as an extreme risk protection order. And later this year, we actually are going to be able to extend gun violence restraining orders up to five years. They just amended the law on September 1st, that a new law comes into place. And, you know, you often hear it called a red flag law, and essentially that's called that because families or law enforcement need to go ask a court for that prohibition when they observe behaviors that point to gun violence. And so those are the so called red flags that alert us to the fact that gun violence could potentially happen.

JJ (05:03):
And I just want to be clear though and please don't mind the interjection, that the term red flag has issues. And we've talked about that on this podcast before in particular that, you know, when we say red flag laws or red flags, we have the opportunity to alienate marginalized groups because it can position those with mental health difficulties as a cause of violence when often they are in fact victims of violence. So I think it's just one of those really important language distinctions to remember that this term can, you know, imply a stereotype as opposed to the reality, which is that there are many evidence-based risk factors for dangerousness. And I don't know, I think it's just one of those things where I think it's important to flag that when we say red flag, we might be talking about a gut feeling rather than evidence. Whereas in this process, you know, you actually have 15 evidentiary points that have to be met, right?

Raul Campillo (06:03):
Absolutely. In the state of California, those red flags are actually codified as the factors that a judge, a civil judge, not a criminal judge, but a civil judge takes into account when they're going to determine to issue the order or not. And so these red flags are things like threats or acts of violence, especially suicidal threats and domestic violence threats. Those are the number one, I'd say those are the top two that we really look into for gun violence restraining orders. Some of the other factors are violating of other types of restraining orders, whether it's a domestic violence restraining order or a civil harassment order. Another one is a conviction of very serious criminal offenses prior arrest for felonies and of course, reckless use or display of a firearm. There's a total of 15 factors that are the so called red flags.

Kelly (06:46):
Can you help our listeners understand why are, why would a law like this be important? How does it help reduce gun violence? When, you know, there are so many different aspects to what gun violence looks like, how, what is this tool doing and how is it sort of protecting the public?

Raul Campillo (07:02):
Sure. That's I mean, that cuts right to the chase of, you know, when there's a violent act and we can prosecute something criminally, you know, we can get restitution for the crime victim, but there really is no remedy for gun violence. Typically, you know, when a person is killed by a gun, there's nothing we can do to make that family whole again. So this is a preventative tool and it's important because other methods of preventing a person from committing gun violence take too long to get, or are ineffective in preventing gun violence. So for example, felons in California cannot possess weapons legally, but to be a felon, you have to be convicted of a felony beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court, and you can be out on bail. And it takes a long time for a prosecutor to secure that conviction through a trial or a lengthy plea deal process. But in the meanwhile, that person can be out on bail and may be a significant threat to hurt someone with a gun. And before there was gun violence restraining orders, there was hardly a mechanism to prevent that person from getting a gun and committing whatever crime they had been planning and a GVRO is the tool that lets us prevent gun violence. Because as I said before, there's really no remedy for gun violence. This all stems from the fact that in 2014, the Isla Vista shootings at UC Santa Barbara really caused us, let us see that the shooter had signs, those red flags, serious mental health issues had made violent threats. In fact, the Sheriff's had even gone to his apartment to check in on him because they knew he was having issues and they could not have taken his guns away from him. You know, even if they knew he had it. And so we know what happened next, students and people in Santa Barbara were killed. And so California borrowed from other States, the ERPO laws and, and codified them. And now we have gun violence, restraining order law. And so it's, it's really preventative when other mechanisms don't work a GVRO can work.

Kelly (08:48):
With laws like this, where know the state is able to hear about someone possibly being a danger to themselves or others and, you know, temporarily take their guns away, how is that constitutional? How does that fall in the grand scheme of balancing between letting people live their lives, but then also protecting public safety?

Raul Campillo (09:17):
Absolutely. That's, that's a critically important question. And that actually enters into our thinking every single time we are asked by the police department to consider a GVRO for filing a GVRO. The second amendment protects the right to bear arms. And so we have to meet a very high standard in California to be able to go remove someone's guns from them. And that standard is clear and convincing evidence, which for people who aren't familiar a preponderance of the evidence means a 50% plus one chance that something's going to happen clear and convincing evidence, as it sounds is much higher than that. It's not beyond a reasonable doubt, such as a criminal conviction requires, but a judge looks at it and has to be convinced that it's clear that something is going to happen and that's going to be gun violence in this situation. And what we have to prove is that the person we're taking guns away from is a substantial threat to commit harm to themselves or to others through gun violence. So we don't just use this to try to prevent a person from getting guns in every situation, if someone makes a violent threat, but there's no nexus to firearms, we don't file for a GVRO. There has to be a firearms nexus. So a judge independent judge looks through all these factors and holds us to our burden. And if we can't meet it, they will not issue a gun violence restraining order. It's not a rubber stamp. The judge has to be convinced

JJ (10:31):
I think that that cuts again, right to the heart of one of the things that we hear all the time from people who oppose these orders, which is it's really easy for someone just to come in and maliciously take their firearms. And what I'm hearing for you is that that's simply just not the case. That it's actually a pretty complicated process.

Raul Campillo (10:52):
Yes so in California, right now only two different types of parties can apply to the court for gun violence restraining orders, law enforcement agencies or immediate family members of the person who has a gun who might be a threat for gun violence. We very rarely see a family member apply to the court to get a GVRO because they know if I apply for this and try to have my family members guns taken away, I might get hurt in the meanwhile. So we typically want people to call the police department, have an investigation done, and we can actually get an ex parte gun violence restraining order filed within a day and serve the next day. Police can actually get a gun violence restraining order out in the field with a temporary emergency GVRO where they actually detain the person, call a judge who is on call, they can call them in the middle of the night, wake up a judge who's been assigned to take that call and get it done right then and there. So that situation requires the police officer to explain to the judge right then and there, the circumstances of why that person is a substantial threat to commit gun violence and take care of it right then and there. But if we're doing it with the attorneys with an ex parte GVRO, we have to analyze the report. We have to file the documents. We have to wait for the court to review it. We then have to set up with the police department if it gets issued a search and seizure of that person's weapons from them. And so it's not very easy to get this done. And typically, if we don't think we can meet that clear and convincing standard, we're not going to go after it. And it'd be, it's pretty easy to tell if someone is taking advantage of this law to try to harass someone they know who owns a gun. And in the end, those first two types of gun violence, restraining orders that I talked about, they only last for 21 days, there has to be a hearing to obtain a full one year long gun violence, restraining order after a hearing. And that is when a person can present all their evidence in front of the court to show that they are not a substantial threat of gun violence. So a person still gets to vindicate their rights and present evidence. And within 21 days, I've never seen anyone take advantage of the GVRO laws just to harass someone.

Kelly (13:04):
So if I'm, you know, I let's say I live with my family, including my brother and he lost his job. And I know he has a gun and I'm worried about him because he started to change his behavior. And he's been mentioning that he's depressed and talking about how he might hurt himself. What would I as a family member do next? Like what does it actually look like from the perspective of someone whose family member is a person that they're concerned about from kind of noticing and initially realizing, Hey, I think my loved one is a danger to themselves. What do you, what do you do once you are in that position?

Raul Campillo (13:46):
Sure. So in California, there's a special code. It's the welfare and institutions code section 5150 that says if a person is a threat to themselves, due to a mental health issue, they can be detained for 72 hours for their own protection. And so what we would want you to do is call the police agency , call your law enforcement agency say I'm seeing these red flags and I know that my family member owns a weapon and might try to hurt themselves. And I think that a gun violence restraining order might be a tool to help my family member not hurt themselves or other people. And in that case, the police will come out and do a welfare check on that person on your family member. And if they feel that it meets that standard the 5150 requires they can detain your family member and file a police report. They can submit it to their city attorney's office and say, Hey, we think a GVRO would be necessary here. And we would review it and see what the threats were. So in the police report, it would have you as the family members saying, these are the specific statements that my brother said that he wanted to kill himself, that X, Y, and Z, whatever it is, and we'll see what weapons your family member actually has. We'll see if your family member has a criminal history that involves violence. You know, a lot of times family members don't know that there's actually criminal record behind your family member and may be, they've actually told other people that they were going to harm themselves. So we take all of that into account and say to a judge, here are all the factors that are met of the 15 factors, these ones are met and we think that GVRO is permissible. At which point, if the judge orders it, we would then go in and have the police department seize those weapons. And of course they'd only be seized for 21 days. A family member would be able to have that hearing within 21 days, we like to have family members involve law enforcement because if the person is on the edge and the family member doesn't realize that, there's a chance of violence. And so you want trained professionals to be able to seize the weapons, to know what to look for in the first place, and to be able to lower the tensions in the situation where family members are involved that person who is a threat for gun violence might carry out their act of violence. You'd be surprised how many times a person is thankful that the police have gotten involved to calm the situation down. They actually stipulate to having their guns taken away for a whole year because they know they admit to themselves as soon as they have that wake up call where the police show up, that they are a threat to their family members and their community. And our very first GVRO in San Diego was a person who thanked us for getting involved because he was having mental health issues and stipulated to having the guns taken away. He didn't put up a fight at the hearing. He said, please do take these away. I'm going to harm someone.

JJ (16:48):
I mean, that's incredibly powerful. What is one thing that you wish then that everyone knew about these orders? What is one thing that you really truly wish that Americans just got about this?

Raul Campillo (17:01):
Just that they exist really? I think most people know that if someone is harassing you, if someone is stalking you, even if there's not enough evidence for the police to prevent that person, you can go to civil court and have a judge issue a restraining order. Most people don't realize that if they see red flags for gun violence, they can somehow step in, that would be the number one thing. I think the other thing I would want everyone to know is that the general public is largely behind these. A poll was done that showed that 66% of Republicans, 69% of independence and 78% of Democrats support ERPOs, support gun violence restraining orders, wherein police officers can go and seize the guns from a person. It's even higher percentage support for having family members apply to the court to have them removed. So this is not a politically divisive issue. This is something that when you explain it to a person, they get it, they want it. So I don't know why it's so politically divisive. And I think the voices that are against it, you don't talk loudly, but science, economics, and the public show that this should be a supported policy. And when you think about the fact that, you know, roughly 14 to 17 states, depending on which legislators have acted this year or not have these types of laws, you have to ask yourself why we're not closer to 50. It really could be a useful tool everywhere, but it's not. And that's really a shame. It isn't our goal to go and confiscate guns, that's super important for people to understand. We are not a gun confiscation agency. We are making sure that whatever situation is a threat to people, we remove guns from that situation.

Kelly (18:44):
What if I am a Californian and I am worried about myself, like I'm sensing something's off. I know you mentioned that there have been circumstances where someone has stipulated to the order, but have there been situations slash can there be a situation where a person would seek a GVRO for their own weapons?

Raul Campillo (19:06):
I haven't ever seen that. What I have seen in certain circumstances is family member will call the police because of the situation. We determined that a GVRO is necessary. And instead of us confiscating the guns, we give it to their family member who has a safe, or has a combination that the individual doesn't know. So that their family member holds onto them and will protect the person from getting access to them. But I don't think I've ever seen a person actually say, I need a GVRO on themselves.

JJ (19:40):
II'm thinking then that there are probably other alternatives too. If someone even called and said, I'm interested in taking one of these out against myself, I'm sure someone could also tell them that there are other ways to surrender their firearms in a safe way that doesn't involve this particular avenue. Well, and I'm still really struck by the fact that it's not victims or I suppose people who are worried about being victims that are typically, at least in your experience filing these orders, because I really did think that ERPOs would be predominantly filed by significant others, by family members, by neighbors. But it seems that it's predominantly coming from law enforcement or from law reviewing them.

Raul Campillo (20:23):
I don't think that the public generally knows that these exist. I think that when there's a situation involving violence, they call the police because they think there's a crime occurring. And that's when trained officials in law enforcement see that a gun violence restraining order is necessary because as, and I'll say it again, oftentimes there isn't a provable crime that happens in these circumstances, but there's enough red flags for us to meet that clear and convincing standard to get guns out of the situation. And so I don't think that victims are familiar with this, but I think that in the upcoming year, we have a chance to really educate the public because instead of it just being law enforcement and immediate family members who can petition for a gun violence restraining order on September 1st, we will also be allowing school employees and workplace employees or employers with certain caveats to be able to file for a GVRO. But even in that circumstance, because gun violence could occur in the meanwhile while the order is being prepared and obtained, tat's why law enforcement police officers and sheriffs are really instrumental in keeping the peace in the situation.

Kelly (21:37):
What happens if, you know, there is a person who subject to a GVRO, they, after the process is over, they get their weapons back and they don't have any further incidents. Are there any repercussions around their future ability to have guns or purchase guns or, you know, interact with firearms if you're subject to an ERPO?

Raul Campillo (22:01):
No, as soon as it's expired there's no more restrictions on them through that mechanism. Now let's imagine that a person is convicted of a felony while they have a gun violence restraining order, prohibiting them from getting guns. That other restriction will prevent them from having guns legally, but the gun violence restraining order, the civil process does not. This is not meant to prevent people from possessing guns. It's meant to take guns out of the situation where gun violence may occur. That's a really important but fine distinction. That said when we get to the end of a gun violence restraining order time period, if we see that they have continued to have violent behavior of any kind, or they have other red flags that are popping up that point to gun violence, we will petition the court for a renewal and the court can renew it or not renew it.

Kelly (22:56):
I think that's a really important point to draw out because I could foresee in some circumstances, someone being hesitant to take this step, because they might be worried that it's going to mark their loved one for life or something.

Raul Campillo (23:10):
Yeah. I'd say it's similar to, I mean, if I'm going to make an analogy in a situation, if there's a family custody child custody issue, and if one of the parents files a restraining order against the other parent, as soon as that expires, you know, there's no prohibition. Everyone has their freedom to do what they want to do. It's just a matter of when does it expire and it doesn't apply anymore. It's really very similar to that.

JJ (23:37):
Raul, I wonder in your experience, is there, is there like a racial component, is there a gender component and who these orders are from or where these orders are issued to?

Raul Campillo (23:47):
Well, I guess one way is, which groups of people does this affect, right? Who are we getting gun violence restraining orders issued against, right? Cause in our society right now, especially since this program overlaps with law enforcement, we also have to bring it back to a discussion of economics and race. And we see that, you know, 66% of these gun violence restraining orders have a Caucasian respondent, 16% are Latino respondent, 11% are African American respondents. And so that breaks down to where the population as a whole is. Gun violence affects all areas of the population. And so 91% of gun violence restraining orders have been used on men. Only 9% are on women, which leads me to think that a lot of times people are not calling when a woman is involved, because it really shouldn't be that much of a difference, right? Women commit suicide. And the fact that only 9% of GVROs have a woman respondent means that a lot of times people are either not seeing the signs or don't take the signs as seriously. When it's a woman who's having mental health issues and might be at risk of committing suicide. This epidemic of gun violence touches every community and almost every family in some way. And I would tell people to understand what gun violence restraining orders are, understand what those red flags are, what those factors are, and not be afraid to speak up because oftentimes it's not a mass shooting at a school or at a mall. It's your friend who's going to commit suicide. It's your family member, who's going to commit suicide. And that can be prevented. We have a mechanism for it. And the people who we've gotten gun violence restraining orders against for the most part are very happy we did. This is something that the public supports and people who we've used against largely support.

JJ (25:47):
So I'm going to ask a kind of unfair question, which is, why do you think that then we don't see more support for these, or sometimes we hear a really vocal minority expressing resistance towards these ERPO laws.

Raul Campillo (26:00):
I think that the resistance to them is probably based in the same reason that a lot of people don't know them. If people don't see the examples of how this has protected their community, they're generally going to be nervous that police officers are coming to their house and taking their property, whether it's their weapons or whatever. And I don't blame people for being skeptical of a program that reduces their rights in some way in this circumstance, I would just point to, you know, let's set the human cost to aside and just talk about economic costs. So a study was done by the United States Congress that shows that in 2017, the state of California lost about $18 billion, billion with a B due to gun violence because of medical costs, law enforcement costs, economic impact, lost wages, and many more things. And each shooting costs California roughly over $100,000 in direct measurable costs. That's not hypothetical, that's direct and measurable costs. And so you can see from a governance standpoint, how these are important, we're saving our communities a lot of money in this way. It's much cheaper to have a GPRO program than to not have it because of the amount of money we save. And then we also protect people from dying, which I think is more important than the a hundred thousand dollars. And I think everyone would agree with that. I would point people to find any circumstance where someone took advantage of the GVRO law just to harass someone. And I don't think you're ever going to find that situation. In fact, I believe it's a mistake and a misdemeanor. It's part of the GVRO law, that if you are lying in the process of trying to get a GVRO, that it's a misdemeanor. So if someone tries to do that, they're committing a crime themselves.

Kelly (27:49):
And I know this is a relatively new program, but I'm just wondering if you could talk about some of the results that you've seen from having the ability to protect people and protect their loved ones.

Raul Campillo (28:02):
Well, I'll just put it this, oftentimes it's a person with one or two guns who's involved in either a suicidal threat or domestic violence threat. And in that case, we're protecting themselves and their family members or their significant others from gun violence. You never know when someone is actually going to commit a shooting. People say a lot of things and they don't do it, but we're not going to wait to find out. I do know that in certain circumstances we had I believe it was a member of the water department was going out to check some sort of pipe or some sort of meter and the individual in their house right next to that didn't know what was going on. And recklessly shot outside the window and actually hit the person in the leg. Thankfully didn't kill the person. And when we went and got a GVRO, seized all the weapons in the house, they had a huge cache of thousands of shells and multiple dozens of guns. And it's like, why is this a circumstance? What was this person preparing to do? I don't need to know more other than a person recklessly firing a weapon outside their window, just because they don't know what's happening outside their window for us to say, Hey, this person has presented clear and convincing...they've given us the clear and convincing evidence of a substantial threat of gun violence. So that's just one publicly known circumstance. And I remember even one person recording themselves inside a hotel room with their guns, with bottles of alcohol around, and they were running around their room, looking out windows. I remember seeing that and thinking, all right, this person is very disturbed and this is exactly the type of thing that we want to prevent. It is terrifying. And you know, I won't get more details than that, but I don't know anyone who would ever be against saying, yeah, that's the type of person we want to stop. You know, they had a, a half empty bottle of whiskey and multiple guns, and it was like they were training and filming themselves, doing it that that's evidence of clear, beyond clear and convincing for me to stop them. So that was a success I'd say. But the thing is that we will never be able to prove our successes because when you stop a shooting, you don't have to suffer through it. So yeah, I'd say, I'd say the most significant ones are the people who are threatening suicide, because we know that more than 50% of the acts of gun violence are suicide. And so in that circumstance, we can see statistically that we are preventing deaths. And I definitely think that family members are appreciative that City Attorney's Office in San Diego and Mark Elliott have promoted as one of the biggest ways we can protect our community. And I would say that each time we stop a person from having guns, who's committed, a suicidal threat is a measured success.

JJ (30:42):
Well, I can't thank you enough for this. This was so helpful. I mean, obviously the beginning of a much deeper and longer conversation that needs to be had, but this is just one of those things where I don't understand why we don't have more of them. So thank you so so much for your time.

Raul Campillo (30:56):
Thanks, JJ. Thanks, Kelly. Great meeting you.

Kelly (30:58):
Thank you

JJ (31:02):
In today's Unbelievable, But I give you a warning. As the seasons change shooting at the weather won't suddenly make it different. Why do I have to say that? Because people have tried, for example, back when hurricane Irma hit Florida, the sheriff in Pasco County had to tweet out, quote to clarify, do not shoot weapons at Irma. You won't make a turn around and it will have very dangerous side effects end quote. After a Facebook event called shooted hurricane Irma gathered 54,000 replies of interests. Well, the Facebook group was created as a joke. Many of the replies weren't, here's the thing. Y'all guns, aren't toys. They're not meant to be funny, need to be treating them seriously.

JJ (31:45):
This week in news, we commemorate shootings of years past and take a look at the tragedies that are still continuing to this day. With his death in 2014, 18 year old, Michael Brown's name became synonymous with the growing black lives matter movement and a nationwide debate about unarmed black men being fatally shot at by law enforcement. Brown was shot at least six times, outrage in the community grew swiftly as Brown remained face down in the street for four hours after he was shot and killed. In addition, some eye witness accounts at the scene described Brown as having his hands up when he was shot, as anger grew residents peacefully protest in the streets using the phrase hands up, don't shoot. As the intensity of the unrest increased Ferguson police were criticized for responding with heavy handed tactics, including military style equipment and weapons. May 20th would have been Brown's 24th birthday. Six years ago this month, the nation was rocked by a series of killings and Isla Vista, California. In just 10 minutes, a 22 year old student killed seven people and wounded 13 others, many of whom he shot. The shooter had uploaded videos and documents online where he outlined details. It was a planned attack and his motive to punish women for rejecting him as well as men that he envied. Additionally, on May 19th, just last year, 23 year old Malaysia Booker was fatally shot. Booker was well known in South Dallas and her death drew national attention to the pattern of deadly violence against transgender women of color. A month before she was killed, Booker was catapulted into the national spotlight. After a viral video, showed her fighting back against a mob of attackers at her funeral. Her mother said that Booker once told her she would do whatever it would take to live her truth. Finally, just this Thursday, there was a shooting at the Westgate entertainment district in Glendale, Arizona, where three people were shot at the outdoor mall that opened this month. Despite shutdown orders across the country, shootings have continued and in many cities and areas have increased further straining healthcare systems already taxed by the coronavirus pandemic. Well, the shooting in Arizona and an active shooter situation at the Naval air station, Corpus Christi in Texas attracted national attention. We must remember more than a hundred people die from gun violence across the country. Every day,

New Speaker (34:04):
Airplanes fly what's in this box. What does this thing do? Kids are curious about everything, including guns, learn how to store your guns securely and make your home safer at endfamilyfire.org brought to you by End Family Fire Brady and the ad council.

JJ (34:22):
Thanks for listening as always Brady's lifesaving work in Congress, the courts and communities across the country is made possible thanks to you. For more information on Brady or how to get involved in the fight against gun violence, please like and subscribe to the podcast. Get in touch with us at bradyunited.org or on social @bradybuzz. Be brave. And remember take action.