Can you be a little louder, Frederica?
They're going to do my volume.
Okay.
Yeah, I'll keep talking.
We're going to be going shortly.
And we don't have a, quote, clock on this.
So I won't be, you know, wrapping you up really quickly
the way I sometimes do.
I'll try to be list generous with my words that I usually add.
You can, you know, just do what you do.
And that is great.
And there's just one other item I should share.
And that is that when I'm speaking with you,
I'll be turning toward a monitor that is actually
to my left on our set.
And if you can see my image, which I believe you can,
it'll look like I'm kind of not looking at you,
but I actually am.
Okay.
Are you looking at me now?
Yes.
Oh, okay.
Am I looking at you?
Straight on.
Yeah.
Look at this little dot in front of you.
No, you're well.
All right.
You're, to me, you are looking directly at me.
And to you, I appear to be kind of profile-ish, I think.
Good, good, good, good.
Ready?
I got it.
Yep.
Let us in my teeth.
Literally.
If you need to deal with that, that's fine.
I think they are set to go.
And just, literally, I just spark gobbling something down.
Okay.
The life of a U.S. representative.
Sure.
I think we are.
Are you ready to go, Congresswoman?
Ready.
Yep.
We're good.
Congresswoman Moore, thanks very much for joining us.
Oh, it is so wonderful always to be with you, Frederick.
So your resolution says legislation is needed to prevent individuals with a history of violence
against women from purchasing or possessing a firearm.
Would that legislation be needed only in the event, in the event that the High Court rules
against current law, which does prohibit that?
Well, we are seeing right now in the Supreme Court a decision that was made at the lower court.
So we're not going to wait a year from now to see what the court does.
We're trying to be really preemptive now so that there won't be any gap in support or
services.
I mean, for 20 years or more, it's sort of been the law of the land that if people go out
and get restraining orders, if there's been a history of violence and domestic violence,
that you really don't have to wait until someone actually pulls the trigger.
And we see that firearms is the 88, almost 90% of the cause of death in a domestic violence
situation, that those interventions can be made.
And so we saw in the Remini case, you know, guy, not a nice guy, had been a, was a
domestic, a violent person.
And when he had his gun taken from him, he appealed it and won that on appeal.
So that issue is before the Supreme Court.
And we are hopeful that the Supreme Court will, will stand up former law.
But until then, we're going to move forward to make sure that there are no gaps in our
ability to protect women from what we see as a rising problem.
Did you get the sense that the court was signaling, signaling that they are inclined to uphold
that 1994 law?
Oh, Frederica, it's really hard to tell.
We were encouraged to see that, you know, only a couple of people, the usual suspects,
you know, Clarence Thomas and, and et cetera, seem to be wanting to, to stay with the
Remini decision, but that other jurists were vigorously questioning in ways that caused
us to believe that maybe they would reverse Remini, but we, you know, we can't depend
on like crossing our fingers to hope that this will happen.
And so we're being proactive.
And so would, would the legislation that you would put forward mirror the 1994 law?
Or would it be expanded?
Well, you know, in 1994, as you know, we passed the violence against women, which was really
foundational.
What we, you know, what the violence against women at allowed agencies and law enforcement
to be able to do is to anticipate.
And it strengthened law enforcement efforts by funding violence prevention programs and
so on.
This challenge that Remini has put forth really sort of threw the whole process through
the roof.
So one of the things that we feel very concerned about is whether or not the Remini decision
will prevent our law enforcement assets from making those interventions as has been, been
the case.
So this is personal for you and you expressed that in introducing your resolution.
What happened that drives you?
Well, Frederica, you know, I'm 72 years old.
So I've been around a long time.
And, you know, when I was in my early twenties, long before there was the violence against
women at long before there were any hot lines to call or anything.
I, you know, then boyfriend pulled the gun out to my head because he, you know, I, you
know, it was too sassy or whatever and threatened to shoot me.
And I, being very foolish, you know, told him to just go on and shoot it or eat it.
You know, and so he just said that was crazy, which I probably was because he could have
shot and killed me.
But he, I guess I'm grateful that he didn't.
But, you know, we should not have to depend on luck because there are too many women who
are not lucky.
There was a report done by End Abuse Wisconsin that I found very, very distressing to be
frank with you.
We had seen a decline in domestic abuse, thanks to the work of a lot of agencies all around
the country.
And the last, the last years, there's been a huge uptick.
And in 2021, 2022, we saw a huge uptick in domestic violence, and particularly with
the use of guns in Wisconsin.
We've seen this have a disparate impact in minority communities, but with regard to
the split between urban and rural communities, it's just about half and half.
So it's not just an urban problem.
It's a rural problem.
And of course, the victims disproportionately seem to be, to be women.
And so, you know, we can't pretend that, that it's not a, a social problem.
That, that women, children, other family members that, that are nearby, aren't affected by
the scourge.
And there's, like I said, there's been a huge uptick in the last couple of years.
In fact, we had some statistics for the state of Wisconsin, which mirror what you were just
talking about.
In 2022, domestic violence claimed 96 lives in this state, 88.5 percent were from a firearm,
firearm.
And as you noted, it's evenly split between rural and urban areas.
And so, those are extremely alarming statistics, as you point out.
Why is it so difficult, though, to kind of translate those statistics into meaningful,
protective policy?
Well, Fredricka, quite frankly, I think that people have elevated, you know, the quote
unquote, second amendment, you know, above and beyond our value for life.
And, you know, it's just seems like there's, when you look at those data, the same data
that you were just sharing, by far, these homicides occur because there's an available
firearm.
And, you know, the remedi case is just such an example.
But here's somebody known, known abuser, you know, caught beating his partner in a parking
lot.
And when a passer-beyer, a stranger, you know, witnessed it and sort of confronted him,
he shot at her and still won this decision in court.
And so, you know, with him, you know, talking about his second amendment rights.
But what about the right of the women to live?
And so we're hoping that the court will recognize that in the heat of the moment, the presence
of a gun is almost a guarantee that somebody, probably a woman, is going to die.
What is the connection between misogyny, violence against women and firearm violence, even the
situation that we're facing in the war?
Let me just say this.
Let me take that last part first.
It was stunning to me to learn that many of the mass shootings that we see are people
who had prior behavior as domestic abusers.
So, you know, it's not a surprise, surprise.
You know, the
violence against women is a mass killer.
But they had been people who had been engaged to domestic violence before the act of being
a mass killer.
So there's very clearly a connection.
And of course, misogyny.
One of the things that occurred when during COVID, when we had all these commercials saying
domestic violence. And I really had to come out and say, my God, there are so many people
who are not safer at home during this period, that COVID really unleashed, I think, a lot
of the misogyny. I mean, one of the things in my stewardship on the ways it means committee,
we had lots of complaints of women experiencing abuse because they got the rescue checks that
we sent out. And many of their male partners would abuse them over the over those resources.
And so, yeah, misogyny, just the environment, I mean, the environment of the pandemic,
you know, and the stressors that that that cause, we think contributes to domestic violence
as well. But I tell you what really contributes to domestic violence is the presence of a gun.
So I'm going more. We leave it there. Thanks very much. Thank you. Be well.
Yeah.
Okay.
I really know I cannot. Okay. So listen, what she was saying is that there, there was some
confusion because my legislation was introduced in domestic violence awareness month, ahead of
the remaining decision. And Patrick is question sort of. Oh, it was just simply it was the
resolution recognized in the intersection as opposed to it being in response to Rahimi.
Okay. The reason I asked about the legislation was because the, you know, the final pages of that
resolution, it said, so be it resolved that we need legislation to prevent individuals with a
history of violence against women from possessing or purchasing a firearm. So, and then the second
point was about prevention, I think. I'm not looking at the resolution now, but that stood out to
me the item about legislation and confused me a little because I didn't understand exactly what
the status of the current law, federal law, was in light of the the Fifth Circuit's ruling in this
case, right? So it's all a little. Yeah, let me ask a question because right now we've been, we've
been just how courts been treating it has it just been a presumption that they could make these
interventions and for the past 20 years.
Okay, so let's let's try to film that over again. That question.
Is that a legit question given all this?
Do you want me to, I can give a different answer. I don't know what your, how your editors will
feel about this. Oh, we can do whatever, but and we're responding to Samara's concern that I, you
know, I didn't tee that up particularly clearly, apparently, but is my, does my question stand?
Would legislation be needed only in the event that the High Court rules against current law,
which does prohibit people under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms?
So it's okay, you're good. Me, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm asking you if you are okay with that question
and the response you'd like to give.
Yeah, yeah. Okay.
Okay, but no.
She's whispering practically. You and I, you and I are the only ones that can't hear this conversation,
but no, you probably can. And she will advise. She says it's okay. She does. Okay. All right.
And it's okay as is or I need to re-ask the question.
Re-ask the question and then use the one you want. All right.
So are we still rolling folks? Yes. Yes. And would you like me to do that, Marissa?
All right. So would the legislation be needed only in the event that the High Court rules
against current law, which does prohibit people under domestic violence restraining orders
from possessing firearms? Well, yes, Rodrigo, this legislation would be needed
were the High Court to uphold the Fifth Circuit decision. I mean, ever since the Violence Against
Women Act was enacted in 1994, courts have been able to deny domestic violence abusers, people
who have court orders denied the possession of a firearm. And so we're concerned that if the Supreme
Court upholds this decision, that legislation would definitely be needed. So we're just being
preemptive. We don't want to wait until, you know, next June, June of 2024 to see what they're going
to do because we absolutely don't want there to be any lapse in the ability for the court
to to deny, you know, a gun to a known batter. And so we think that that this this circuit court
decision could create a lot of confusion and really put women's lives at risk. So we don't
think there was any time to waste. All right. That is great. Is that good with
the collective brain trust? All right. Congresswoman, thank you. And thank you for doing that
and expanding your time with us. I really appreciate it.
Thank you all. Good luck with the editors, Tom. Don't be mad at me. Oh, no, no, no, no one would
ever be mad at you. Well, not under the bus. Not on that score. But thank you. Thank you so much.
And we wish you a happy Thanksgiving. Oh, absolutely. I'll be busy working. Yeah, cutting up
green pepper and onion. That's my task. Nice. Nice. Don't cry too hard. All right. Thank you. Bye.