Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump Celebrates His 78th Birthday With Total Capitulation from Republican Critics; Trump Campaign Denies He Called Milwaukee a Horrible City; Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump-Era Ban on Bump Stocks. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired June 14, 2024 - 10:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]

JIM ACOSTA, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. You are live in the CNN Newsroom. I'm Jim Acosta in Washington.

We begin the hour with the fallout from former President Donald Trump's return to Capitol Hill with almost total capitulation from his few remaining critics inside the Republican Party. There was applause in the room. You can see it right there as GOP Senators, whose lives were in danger on January 6th, wished the former president a happy birthday. Trump turned 78 today.

Also yesterday, in a stunning sign of submission, Senate Majority Leader -- Minority Leader, I should say Mitch McConnell, who sharply criticized Trump after the attack on the Capitol, shook hands with the presumptive GOP nominee. That moment was blasted by former Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney who warned that, quote, history will remember the shame, but McConnell, a notoriously savvy political operator, was all smiles after the astonishing about-face.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): The mob was fed lies. They were provoked by the president and other powerful people. There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day, no question about it.

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Did you talk to him directly?

MCCONNELL: Yes, sure we shook hands a few times. He took questions from the audience. And it was an entirely positive session.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: McConnell's colleagues in the House also fawned over the now convicted felon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MATT GAETZ (R-FL): It was a pep rally environment for President Trump.

REP. BRANDON WILLIAMS (R-NY): No, I didn't sense any, dissension. But, you know, I didn't catch everybody's response either.

REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): Well, I saw nothing but overwhelming support for President Trump.

He saw me in there and he was like, hello, Marjorie. He's always so sweet and recognizes me.

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): He said very complimentary things about all of us. We had sustained applause. He said, I'm doing a very good job.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: But during his remarks to House Republicans, Trump also complimented the fictional serial killer, Hannibal Lecter. He reportedly spoke of a great romance with Nancy Pelosi in another life, whined about Taylor Swift, and called Milwaukee, which is hosting the Republican National Convention next month, a, quote, horrible city, a moment Milwaukee's hometown newspaper prominently featured on its front page this morning.

Let's discuss now with one of the Republicans who was in that meeting with the former president, Republican Congressman Tim Burchett of Tennessee. Congressman, thanks very much for being here.

I did want to ask you. There have been these reports about Trump calling Milwaukee a horrible city. I know the Trump campaign has said that that's not true. What did you hear? Did you hear it?

REP. TIM BURCHETT (R-TN): Well, Jim, before I came on, I already called the burn units. I suspect one of us is going to it. But I heard what you said. But he mentioned several other cities in that point and that he was talking about the crime in those areas, such as, I mean, we've had something like 17 shootings in Memphis, Tennessee, over the past week.

So, yes, that's what he was talking about, crime in those cities. And I think that's undeniable, even by you all. It is a complete fact that there's crime in these major cities, and that's what he was alluding to.

ACOSTA: Well, Congressman, I do want to point out, and we do have a graphic to show our viewers, that crime is actually down in Milwaukee this year. It's down 22 percent in terms of homicides, rapes, 19 percent down. Robbery is up 1 percent, but aggravated assault down 12 percent. So, crime, in fact, is down in Milwaukee.

BURCHETT: I can assure you if one of those homicides is a member of your family, that those are just statistics. And when you reclassify statistics, is what we've seen the Department of Justice to do time and time again. That's exactly what happens.

ACOSTA: So, you're saying that the former president was referring to crime in Milwaukee, not the city itself? [10:05:01]

BURCHETT: From what I understood. Yes, I was, I was in there. I mean, I appreciate the media, but none of you all were in there. It was just from folks, like myself, who would casually text you all what was going on. But that's what I, that's honestly what I thought he was talking about.

ACOSTA: And I know during the meeting, you gave the former president some advice on his tone out on the campaign trail. You had talked to him about perhaps offering more solutions than just talking about problems. What did you say? How did he receive that?

BURCHETT: Yes. Well, I talked about it. He was very good at pointing out the problems we've had, you know, $600 out of out of pocket for families now under Biden's administration and President Trump's administration. You know, he made a great comment about steel and China and how he had that working very well. And he talked about how there wouldn't be Russian ships down in Cuba with nuclear capabilities, as they are right now, and nobody seems to be covering that. And that's a pretty dangerous situation, 90 miles off the coast of the United States of America.

And I said to him --

ACOSTA: We've been covering it all this week.

BURCHETT: -- Mr. President, I said, Mr. President, I said, and you do a much better job of telling us how to fix those things, such as the border, having a wall up, stopping illegal immigration, the flow of fentanyl, which you saw was drastically reduced under his administration, which has increased numerically. 14 million illegals have come over the border since Biden has taken the helm. And I stated, I said, Mr. President, you do a great job of explaining those things, and I would encourage you to continue to do that, because Americans know they're hurting right now, Jim. They know things are in a mess.

ACOSTA: I know you and I have talked about immigration before, and I do want to point out that, and you and I have discussed this, that there was a bipartisan effort to crack down on the border, and it was the former president who told Republicans in the House and the Senate to kill it.

BURCHETT: Well, if you look back at the records, I had tweeted about that weeks before that, and I said this is a bad deal. That was a lawyer employment deal. All it said was, when they get to the point of 5,000 people a day, Jim, now 4,999 illegals a day is --

ACOSTA: But why not do something if you have a bipartisan effort?

BURCHETT: It wasn't a bipartisan effort, Jim.

ACOSTA: James Lankford, a very conservative senator from Oklahoma, was a big part of that, as you recall that conversation. BURCHETT: And he's a good guy, but you know good and well that it was catch and release. It was -- and look what it would have done. It would just have employed more attorneys to allow illegals to get into the country. And you know good and well when they get a court date two years out. Dad gummit, they're not coming back to court, Jim, come on. This thing was a -- that was a disaster waiting to happen and it was a terrible piece of legislation. It would not have done anything but hire more lawyers. And it would have just put it into law that we're going to allow 5,000 illegals a day over the border. That's all that bill would have done.

ACOSTA: I did want to ask you about something. Did January 6th come up at the meeting? Did anybody bring that up?

BURCHETT: It might have while I was in the bathroom, but, honestly, you know, the way I get elected is, you know, I knock on doors. I don't come for money like a lot of my colleagues do on both sides of the aisle.

ACOSTA: So, nobody challenged the former president on his actions before, during, after January 6th?

BURCHETT: No, absolutely not, absolutely not. And a lot of people are concerned to the fact that innocent people, there's constituents of mine who came up and left before all the nonsense happened. And the FBI even went to their houses in Knoxville, Tennessee, to ask them what they were doing. And that kind of intimidation needs to stop, Jim. January 6th was an awful thing. The people that crossed over those borders, barriers were breaking the law, no question.

But you still have to ask yourself why the riots that preceded that during the summer from Black Lives Matters and all those other groups, there were no arrests, millions of dollars were taken, lives were lost and federal courthouses were ransacked and nothing was done about it.

ACOSTA: I was at the White House when they tear gassed protesters outside of the White House. But anyway, let me ask you about something else. The reason why I ask about him being confronted on January 6th is that earlier this week, his campaign put out a fundraising email, and I don't know if we have that available to put up on screen to our viewers. And in that email, it says there it is, right there, haul out the guillotine.

Now, I know you were saying just a few moments ago it was an awful day what took place on January 6th. Shouldn't the Trump campaign avoid putting out emails that say things like haul out the guillotine? After all, there were people trying to hang Mike Pence, they were chanting hang Mike Pence on January 6th. Shouldn't they knock that off?

BURCHETT: Absolutely. I don't go for that stuff. You know, I don't do that kind of garbage. You have these people, they're just going to push buttons and that's how they raise money. It's click bait. They get a cut off everything that's done and they want to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and that is the lowest common denominator.

[10:10:02] I don't stand for that garbage. You know that.

ACOSTA: And I know that. So, that's why I'm wondering, why aren't more members of your party saying to the former president, you really should cut this stuff out, ratcheting up the violent rhetoric out on the campaign trail, doing it in campaign emails? There are some other emails from the campaign earlier this week. We can put those up on screen as well. They continue to do this over and over again. And I'm just wondering, you know, where does it all lead? Are you concerned that we could have another January 6th in this country?

BURCHETT: No, I'm not. I think with Speaker Pelosi and the rest understand the significance of that now and how they should have called out the National Guard. And, again, I don't ever see those things. I've never seen one of those pieces of mail. I have no way to verify that. And so, you know, I don't know what's on them, and because, honestly, I don't have the money to give away. So, I doubt I would ever be getting anything in the mail from them.

ACOSTA: All right. Congressman, well, we have a decision at the Supreme Court, got to let you go. But thanks so much for time. I always enjoy the conversations. I appreciate you coming on. Thank you so much.

BURCHETT: Thank you, Jim. And don't forget, you're always welcome into the Burchett administration. You'll be welcome back in the White House.

ACOSTA: All right. I appreciate that. Thanks, Congressman.

I want to go to Paula Reid, our chief legal affairs correspondent. The Supreme Court apparently striking down a ban on bump stocks, do we have that correct? Paula, give us the latest.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: That is exactly right, Jim. This has been one of the most closely watched cases of the Supreme Court term and it's another example of the high court siding with gun rights groups.

Now, we're still going through this opinion, but here the Supreme Court has struck down a federal ban on bump stocks. Now, this was approved by former President Trump and, again, it's the latest example too of the court sort of limiting the power of federal agencies to act on their own.

Now, this is one of a few different cases related to gun rights that we are watching. We're still working our way through this Thomas opinion, but this was originally a challenge from a gun store owner to the classification of bump stocks as machine guns. And the Supreme Court, again, this is one of the biggest cases that they've been examining it here, they have struck down this federal bans.

We're still going through this opinion. We'll have more in a few minutes.

ACOSTA: Yes. And, Paula, I mean, this is a pretty significant ruling. As I recall it, when I was covering the Trump administration, I mean, you were there as well, Paula, this came during the Trump administration. And it was a disappointment to gun rights supporters back then but it came in the aftermath of some major mass shootings in this country.

REID: That's exactly right, and specifically came in 2017 after the mass shooting in Las Vegas, where a gunman, of course, opened fire with a semiautomatic rifle that had a bump stock device that helped him kill 58 people. Hundreds more people were, of course, wounded. But, again, here are the Supreme Court striking down this classification.

ACOSTA: All right. I believe we have Elie Honig standing by. Paula, I'm going to stay with you just a little bit longer. Do we know the breakdown of this decision, how it broke down, who was on which side?

REID: We don't yet physically have the opinion when the Supreme Court releases its opinions. Our colleagues do. They're working through it right now. I don't physically have it, but I'm told that Thomas authored this opinion.

But during oral arguments, we did get a sense of, you know, exactly where people were falling on this. It's not a shock that they have struck this down, but some of the liberal justices, you know, they appeared skeptical, not surprisingly, about doing this. So, it will be interesting to see the exact count in terms of how this split across the justices. And like I said, this is one of two major gun rights cases that we are watching the Supreme Court.

The other one is a question about whether someone who has a restraining order related to domestic violence can own a gun. That is another one that we're watching and waiting for. It's unclear if this is our last opinion for the day or if we'll have any more. So far, we've had to lesser known more technical cases. But this so far this morning is the biggest headline out of the court.

ACOSTA: A very big headline, Paul Reid. Thank you. And just so our viewers know, I mean, this is going to be a disappointment to folks who would like to see more regulation, more laws cracking down on gun violence in this country. Bump stocks allow a shooter to convert a semi automatic rifle into a weapon that can fire at a rate of hundreds of rounds a minute. Some folks would say almost making it like an automatic weapon.

Let me go to Andrew McCabe. He's standing by as well. Andrew, your response to all this.

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, Jim, I'm just walking through the opinion now, but it seems that the court has taken a very kind of a textual approach to the underlying law that makes it illegal to have a machine gun. And so what the ATF did when they changed the rules, essentially banning bump stocks, they classified a semiautomatic rifle, which is not a machine gun, is lawfully owned in this country a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock as a machine gun and therefore essentially banned it as a machine gun.

[10:15:04]

The ruling states that the ATF exceeded their statutory authority when they reclassified semiautomatic rifles with bump stocks as machine guns.

Now, it's well known that the ATF took that action in response to the Las Vegas mass shooting, in which the shooter used several weapons equipped with bump stocks, thus rendering those semiautomatic weapons firing in a way very similar to machine guns.

So, the ATF's reclassification was in response to a bloody massacre and also had the effect of essentially regulating how the rifle works, not how it mechanically functions and how it's classified under the under the law, but rather, like, what is the effect of putting a bump stock on a semiautomatic weapon. This court has weighed in today to say that, no, you can't do that. The law that Congress passed very clearly defines a machine gun as a weapon that fires multiple rounds with one function of the trigger. That is not the same as a semiautomatic weapon equipped with a bump stock. Therefore, ATF exceeded the bounds of their legal authority.

I think people on the gun safety regulation side of this issue will be reasonably very frustrated with what they perceived as a proactive effort by the ATF to render these weapons, semiautomatic weapons that have been essentially converted to fire like a machine gun, illegal. Those guns and the bump stocks that change the way they work will now be once again accessible to anyone in this country.

ACOSTA: All right. Andrew, stay with us. I want to go back to Paula Reid to see if she has more. Paula, what do you know at this point?

REID: I do have more, Jim. Most importantly, I now have the opinion, so we can see the count. As I said before, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion. It was 6-3. The court's liberal wing, led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissented.

Now, in the opinion, Justice Thomas wrote, a bump stock does not convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun any more than a shooter with a lightning fast trigger finger does. Even with a bump stock, a semiautomatic rifle will fire only one shot for every, quote, function of the trigger.

Now in this, what is described to me as a scathing dissent Sonia Sotomayor joined her other liberal colleagues writing, quote, the majority's ruling will have deadly consequences.

Now, this is not specifically a Second Amendment case, but it did once again put the debate about guns in front of the high court. And as I said earlier, this is one of two gun rights cases that we are watching very closely this term. This is the last opinion for today, but we do expect to get more opinions next week on some of these big cases, which could be another one of these questions about guns.

The other question before them is whether someone with a domestic violence restraining order can own a gun. We just sort of looked at a similar issue in the trial of the president's son, Hunter Biden, in Wilmington, where he was convicted for lying on a form about using or being addicted to illegal drugs. There are a lot of questions about the limitations you could put on gun ownership coming back before the Supreme Court. But here, once again, siding with gun rights advocates in this decision about bump stocks.

ACOSTA: Absolutely. All right, Paula, let us know if you have more. I want to bring in two people to talk about this further, Jen Mascia and Stephen Gutowski.

Jen, let me go to you first your response to all this.

JENNIFER MASCIA, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: You know, this actually -- during the oral arguments, several of the court's conservative justices actually appeared sympathetic to this regulation. But they did hint at some discomfort with the ATF's rulemaking authority. This really wasn't, you know, a Second Amendment case. the way we think of it. You know, it really was a question of the ATF's rulemaking authority.

But in the end, the decision really revolved around the mechanics of this gun. Much of the oral arguments focused on whether a bump stock facilitates the firing of a rifle with a single function of the trigger. There was a lot of discussion back and forth about how often a user must thrust forward on the bump stock to keep the trigger firing, and it looks like that is what it came back to for the majority here.

The question is, will this ruling imperil the ATF's ability to regulate other devices and weapons, like machine gun conversion devices of other types? Many of the ATF's regulations rely on similar interpretations of federal law. So, the question is, are all of these devices going to come back?

And the liberal justices were not thrilled about this outcome in the oral arguments. You know, Justice Jackson said Congress in 1934, when banning machine guns, was concerned with the rate of fire, you know, a lethal spray of fire that can hit 30 people at once.

[10:20:06]

It seems strange that they would build in a loophole. So that's kind of where it broke down right along party lines.

ACOSTA: Very interesting. And, Steven, I know I covered that Las Vegas shooting after it happened. I was there with then-President Trump when he visited Las Vegas. And that was an absolute bloodbath. The shooter there was able to, you know, basically fire from the window of a hotel on the Las Vegas Strip onto a country music concert and killed lots of people. What is your sense of what this is going to do in the aftermath of this decision? Are people going to be able to go back to using bump stocks essentially? It sounds like that's going to be the case and essentially convert semiautomatic rifles into what critics believe are essentially automatic rifles.

STEPHEN GUTOWSKI, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yes. I mean, I think the practical effect of this is that bump stocks are no longer considered machine guns under the National Firearms Act which had effectively made them illegal because you can't currently buy new manufactured machine guns since 1986 in the United States under federal law.

So, yes, people will be able to buy bump stocks again. They'll be able to own them. I think a lot of people probably kept them, to be frank with you, didn't turn them in when they were required to. The ATF did not recover many of these devices that at the time there really was just one crime that a bump stock has been used in. It was the worst crime in American history, but I don't think these are a driver of your everyday murder in the United States, obviously. But, yes, the practical answer is these will become legal for people to, to use once again.

ACOSTA: All right. I want to bring in Joey Jackson and Elie Honig. They're also with us as well. Elie, let me go to you first. Your response to this decision.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Jim, this is important, obviously, for the reasons that Steven and others have laid out. Important to note, though, this is not technically a Second Amendment decision. It doesn't have to do with the breadth or scope of the Second Amendment. It's an issue of statutory construction. Does a bump stock qualify as a machine gun?

What we should be looking for on the Second Amendment issue will be coming out of the Supreme Court in the coming days and weeks. They're done for today, but there's another really important Second Amendment case titled the United States versus Rahimi, where a person is challenging the federal criminal laws that say you cannot possess a firearm if you're a certain type of prohibited person. In that case, the question is whether that law should apply to somebody who's subject to a domestic violence restraining order.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on that. They may strike down that law. And related to that, I should note, Hunter Biden, he's not a party to any of these cases, but he was just convicted under a similar statute that says you cannot have a firearm if you are an addict. He's sure to appeal that and maybe months or years from now, that will reach the Supreme Court.

So, the Supreme Court clearly has been taking on these cases, and they're sort of rethinking and reconsidering the prohibitions on gun ownership who are people who are legally not allowed to possess a firearm.

ACOSTA: Yes. And, Joey Jackson, I'm looking at Justice Sonia Sotomayor's scathing dissent in this decision. She wrote that this decision, quote, hamstrings the government's efforts to keep machine guns from gunmen like the Las Vegas shooter. I mean, that is a very scathing response from Justice Sotomayor, and it sounds as though you could say this is not a Second Amendment case.

But if the government is being hamstrung, as she's put it in terms of regulating whether or not people can effectively have machine guns in this country to a lot of folks who want to see more gun safety, they might think this is a Second Amendment case, even though it may not be technically one. JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So, yes. You know what, Jim? To that point, it's a very critical point and important. So, it is a Second Amendment case, but it's not, and let's talk about that. It's not a Second Amendment case because the case itself involved an issue of interpreting what a statute means. Now, you would think that something that would ultimately allow for more bullets to come out of a weapon may classify as a machine gun, right? But no, not says the Supreme Court.

And then I think you have to look at what Congress' role here, right? Congress can easily amend the statute such that it's very clear with respect to what's permissible and what's not. And so what the Supreme Court is saying is, hey, not our job. All we do essentially is interpret to the plain language of the law. So statutorily, it's just about that, that Congress has the authority to do it. They did not. And as a result, the Supreme Court says, it's an interpretation case. We don't view this, you know, the bump stock issue as into the statute.

Now, in terms of the Second Amendment case, Jim, it is. It involves guns. It involves the issue of how you regulate guns. It involves the right to have a gun. And so while it's not technically in keeping with the Second Amendment, I would argue that certainly it really applies and relates to issues concerning the Second Amendment, and it's very concerning.

[10:25:07]

Last point, Jim, and that is certainly the dissent there, very powerful one, but it is the dissent. And until you get a Supreme Court that has more wherewithal with respect to how these laws are interpreted and whether or not you're going to interpret them to protect people against dangerous gun violence, you're going to get more decisions like that, and that's highly problematic.

ACOSTA: Yes. And I guess it's worth noting this did take place during the Trump administration, a very conservative administration, I mean, led by a president who has had a very conservative stance on the Second Amendment and on guns. And one has to think if, you know, if you can't have a regulation take effect that took place during that administration, I have to think that folks inside any future administration maybe wondering how much and how far can they go.

I want to go to Evan Perez. He's our justice correspondent. He's on set with us right now. Evan, Clarence Thomas saying this, a bump stock does not convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun any more than a shooter with a lightning fast trigger finger does. I mean, this really did break down along partisan lines.

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: It did. And I think a lot of this has to do with, you know, the conservative view about the limitations on what federal agencies are allowed to do, that, you know, you can't -- you have to strictly stick to the laws that are passed by Congress and that you're not allowed to do interpretations or come up with interpretations as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms had done here, that, in the view of conservatives, you know, strays from the original intent of Congress.

And so that's really what the issue here is, you know, it is a second amendment issue obviously, but it's also an administrative state issue, you know, for the conservatives here both in Congress and in and in the Supreme Court. But the effect is the same, right? The effect here is that these devices are now -- will now be back on the market and the people who surrendered them to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the ATF, they can now get them back potentially. I don't know what the ATF did with them when they, when these people surrendered them, but that would be the effect of this ruling.

Now, the issue is, as, you know, Justice Thomas is saying is, is that just because you use these devices doesn't make it an automatic weapon or a machine gun, but that's what the ATF is saying. Is that it effectively makes it so because --

ACOSTA: Isn't that why bump stocks exist?

PEREZ: They did. So, you can fire off a lot more rounds than you can than you would without these devices.

ACOSTA: And this happens all the time with firearms on the internet and so on. You can buy all kinds of devices and so on to retrofit these assault rifles the way you want to use them these days.

PEREZ: Right. I mean, the basic level here, it means that, you know me, members of Congress will be able to tackle this if they want to. But you and I both know that the appetite for that either in an election year or ever with the position of conservatives on this issue is pretty close to nil.

ACOSTA: And I do want to try to get a response from Meghan and Shermichael. You're both here. And, Shermichael, you own a gun company. You've talked about this issue in the past. Quick question reaction from you, and then I want to get back to Paul Reid.

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I mean, look, I'm not surprised by the decision. I'm also not surprised that it was authored by Justice Thomas, who also authored the Bruen versus New York case in 2022. There is a distinction between a bump stock and a fully auto weapon. I don't want to get into the nuances of the intricacies of this, but a bump stock uses the reciprocation recoil in order for the rifle to fire at a quicker rate than one pulling your finger. But I'm a competitive shooter. If you're competitive shooter, you can fire a weapon pretty quickly, generally speaking, anyway.

Fully auto allows the trigger to disengage and cycle freely. That is a huge mechanical difference between the two. So, when that -- when you read that quote from Justice Thomas and this is not a machine gun, he is effectively accurate in that description, and that's an important thing to point out.

ACOSTA: This is really going to frustrate progressives, Meghan?

MEGHAN HAYS, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT BIDEN: Absolutely. And, look, I worked for MGM Resorts when this shooting happened, this was devastating to the community. This was devastating, not only financially to the company, but devastating to the community emotionally. This is going to have a huge impact. And, I mean, again, Congress does need to act. The president can't do anything further as we just saw President Trump got overturned. So, I mean, this is going to be -- I think people will rally around this, and this will be another call to action for Democrats.

PEREZ: One last quick thing. I mean, this was -- the bump stock thing had been, you know, knocking around, to your point, even in the Obama administration. There had been this effort to address this. And in the Obama administration, they decided we can't go that far. It doesn't work. The ATF had decided this doesn't work under the current law. And in the Trump administration, they had taken a second look and said, no, actually we can do this. And so that's the irony here is that, you know, it's the Trump administration, as you pointed out, that had a very conservative view on this, that they're the ones that decided to do this.

[10:30:03]

When the Obama administration had decided that the current statutes did not support the ATF.