Plus, the National Conversation on gun laws. Look im willing to have an intelligent discussion about it but not in the middle of a crisis. After the biggest mass shooting weve had in modern american history, if now is not the time well when is . We talk to gun control advocate mark kelly as well as a leading conservative making the case against new laws. And president gets a firsthand look at storm horse powerravaged puerto rico. I hate to tell you, puerto rico, but you have thrown our budget a little out of whack because weve spent a lot of money on puerto rico. And thats fine. We saved a lot of lives. This is mtp daily, and it starts right now. Good evening, im chuck todd here in washington. Welcome to mtp daily. Perhaps nothing frustrates the public more than many sides than whats going on right now in american politics. First off this country is reeling from its deadliest mast shooting in history. You take out the word modern history. This is just history a. Lot of folks are concerned about what our leaders are going to do to preev this from happen andeing again and again and to prevent this from happening to loved bun or at the least, lowering the odds of it happening again, or perhaps so brutally. A bunch of our leaders right now dont want to touch the issue one bit. [ inaudible ]. Look, we have a tragedy. Well be talking about gun laws as time goes by. Where do you come down on the silencer bill . Well talk about that later. I think its premature to be discussing legislative solutions f there are any. We can have that discussion at another time. But its a typical political tactic by some on the left. A motive is yet to be determined and it would be premature for to us discuss policy when we dont fully know all the facts or what took place. That dialogue does need to occur but i dont think now is the time for this. Anyone who talks about anything political today should really in all honesty should rethink why were here. Thats right. Even democratic senator joe manning doesnt want to talk about it. He led his partys last effort to tougher gun laws after the tragedy at sanny hook elementary school. There are plenty of democrats who are riled up. But its the same sort of rhetoric that never seems to break through with the other side. If we dont panic now when will we . This is not about politics it is a policy of public health. People should be furious. The hunting culture is big deal in my state. I dont know anybody who goes deer hunting that needs to retrofit a gun to fire hundreds of rounds a minute of the its to slaughter people. Heres the question that frustrates the public. What are we debating. Outlawing bump stocks, thats what senator mccaskell is talking about. Is that it . Are we debating the kind of guns people can have . How about the kinds of ammunition . Or is it about who gets to have them . In this case the argument gets worse because we have no idea what motivated the shooter in las vegas. Thats highly debatable especially if Mental Illness is involved. Others might say the motive is irrelevant when you can legally amass an arsenal. For them its about restricting access to the weapons regardless of who uses them. Others might say the biggest problem is the Cultural Divide or the power of the gun lobby or the industrys Marketing Campaigns aimed at kids. In fact during the Campaign Donald trump jr. Appeared in a promotional video for a company that makes gun silencers. He praised the product line because in part it might make guns easier for kids to use. You have got to be kidding he moo. That thing is awesome. Its about safety. Its about hearing protection. It is a health issue frankly for me. You know . Getting little you know, little kids into the game. It greatly reduces recoil. Its just a great instrument. There is nothing bad about it at all. It makes total sense. Its where we should be going. Folks, there is no doubt about what the Second Amendment does say. But at what point does a persons right to bear arms start infringing on his neighbors right to live safely and freely. If you ever caught yourself checking the exits while at a concert hall or School Assembly just in case you probably are already ready to have that conversation. You would think our leaders should be able to have it toochltd for the latest on the investigation into the Las Vegas Shooting im joined by Pete Williams our justice correspondent. We talked earlier. I wont leave people in suspense, we know very little on motive right now other than the best lead is his girlfriend. She will be back later this week. They are calling her a person of interest. Marilou danley has been living with him. She is from the philippines. She left the u. S. Last week before the shooting happened before he checked into the mandalay bay and spooel she will be back in the next few days. They very much want to talk to her. Chef sort of kept tabs on where she is. They are on the misic they will be able to talk to her. Obviously they hope she can give some answers whether she knew why he might have done such a thing, has he ever made comments that would lead to something, did she know he was preparing for anything . Did she do anything to help him . All person questions for her. There is some financial transaction history we learned about him today, too. Both his gambling history and there are reports about money he may have sent to her. We dont know if it was to her. Okay. Probably to her. He sent last week 100,000. Wired 100,000 to the philippines, which is where her relatives are from, where she was worn, and thats where she have. In terms of the gambling we know more about how much of a high roller he was. Any time you have a transaction at casino thats over 10,000, it has to be reported. These transaction reports are filed. There were 16 of these in the last couple of weeks. So that means 16 transactions of at least 10,000 a piece. We dont know whether these were wins or losses but we know that is just sort of an example of how converse ant he was at being a high rolling gambler. The digital surveillance of him, whether in the hotel, which we know Casino Hotels have some of the best technology tracking people, but he seemed to be equipped with a lot of equipment as well. Some. He had a camera in the hallway which they have made clear we heard about it yesterday. 2 sheriff just a moment ago talked about it. Said it was in essence his surveillance camera so he could watch people coming down the hallway towards his room. What do we know about his weapons stockpile, everything so far is legal . Yes. Everything purchased in person . How recently . What do we know about how recent that was purchased . We dont know all the purchases. He had 42 weapons. Many of which he bought in the last several months in nevada and some in utah. You can buy a weapon and one state and take it home with you to another state. Some were high perred sniper rifles with scopes and bipods on the front barrel to help you stabilize it. Others were ak15, socalled assault weapons that had bump stocks on them that allows the gun to be fired at a very, very rapid rate. They are legal. Everything so far purchased legally . Yes. There is no sense he did anything illegal on that front . No, and he has no criminal background, nothing in his background that would make him unqualified to buy a gun. Did he do special training to use these weapons . Was he a regular at a range . They are certainly talking to gun ranges but it doesnt require special training to use these weapons. He was converse ant with them. He has hads for years, he was no stranger to firearms. Pete williams, still an amazing amount we dont know when you compare this to every other incident sadly that you have covered over the years. True. Earlier i spoke with captain mark kelly, the husband of a senator who was shot in a mass shooting in 2011. They now advocate for stricter gun regulation. I began by asking him that the white houses claims that now in the immediate aftermath of sunday nights shooting that now is not the time the talk about gun regulation. Well, i used to say that myself. But when you see, you know, the increase in number of Mass Shootings and 33,000 americans dying every single year on average from gun violence, another 100,000 people getting shot, you know, if after the biggest mass shooting we have had in modern american history, if now is not the time, well when is . Do you worry, though, that you have people that arent listening . Yeah, there are a lot of people arent listening. That are in some ways i felt like watching yesterday unfold politically, you had the trauma of it all, but politically, gun control advocates were having a conversation with themselves, and gun rights advocates were having a conversation with themselves, ridiculing each side, each other, but not talking to each other. And im thinking, boy, there is a reason we couldnt do it after sandy hook and there is a reason we cant have the conversation right now. We dont ridicule anybody. I am a gun owner. We try to reach across that aisle if you want to call it that between some people that are advocating for responsible gun laws and the people that are gun guys, often rural, have a lot of firearms. I have stood on tables in the atomic cafe in bismarck, north dakota and talked to these people, what could keep communities safer things like background checks, gun trafficking legislation, these dont affect them individually but they have been told by a corporate interest that this is affecting their right. The argument becomes this, every policy government, i feel lying the gun control lobby i know the word lobby makes people angry but on the gun control advocates its always legislation. Immediately the right is able to push off legislation with two answers, one is, well, it wouldnt have stopped this one. Or the second is, but that infringes upon my rights. First of all on the it wouldnt stop this one its often hard to find one single thing that would stop a specific incident. Sometimes the background check thing would work. Often, you know, if we look around the country in states that have stronger background check laws, there is, without a doubt, there is a lot less gun violence. And states with weaker laws have more gun violence. These laws do matter. I would agree with the argument that its often difficult to find a specific situation. In the case with what happened in vegas the other night, heres a guy who had some form of automatic weapon, we dont know what the situation was, maybe he modified them, maybe he had an attachment that helped them fire in auto. If you would have restricted these things maybe it would have made this situation less deadly. Is there ever it seems as if in the political debate here the gun rights side wins because they usually win these debates because they make it about their freedoms, personal freedoms and constitutional rights. Is there a constitutional right in there that would protect somebody from a neighbor what is a gun stockpiler . From a neighbor who is wanting to accumulate all of these automatic weapons and potentially while they may not do something somebody else may use them for no good. What is the rights for somebody there . We have a constitutional right in the Second Amendment to possess a firearm. According to the Supreme Court decision dc versus hellerings what that means is you have the right to own a gun to protect yourself in the home. At the same time in the majority opinion, Anthony Scalia said that also means that the government has a right to regulate what that means, what kind of gun, where you can have it. So we do have the ability to regulate that, and we should. You know, people have the right to own a firearm to protect themselves if they are responsible. But other people also have a right to be safe in their community. You know, the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is at the top of the constitution. We have a right to that. We have a right to safe communities. And they can be safer. We dont have to have 33,000 people dying every year. Realistically, what do you expect any advancement in your cause to come out of this . We have been fighting over the last six months to make sure three bad things dont get passed here in the u. S. Capitol. The concealed carry reciprocity. Silencers, the legalization of eye lensers. Imagine what that parking lot, that venue would have been like if this guy had a silencer, if nobody or few people could hear it. It was debatable whether it was fireworks to begin with. How many more people would have died if he had silencers on these weapons. We were fighting that. What we should be doing is advancing here in washington, d. C. Positive legislation, you know, that will make communities safer. We do that around the country. Our organization, the one that gaby and i start americans for responsible solutions we have helped pass over 200 pieces of legislation in the states. This place here in d. C. Is a lot trickier. Markcaly, ill leave it there. Until we meet again, hopefully its not after yet another tragedy. Thanks for having me on. You got it. Im joined by david french a writer for national review, an attorney with a concentration in tugsal law, an iraq war veteran and somebody who isnt afraid to have this debate no matter what time of day you have it. Mr. French nice to see you sir, thanks for coming on. Thanks for having me. Appreciate it. Let me ask you on this idea that now is not the time to have this conversation. What do you make of that elected leader response . Because it is now a standard response on that one side of the aisle. I hate to be cynical you about it but it is a politicalcal tactic. It is a an evident to push a conversation beyond a news cycle or two. Thats what it is. I do think there is there are a lot of people who very sincerely want to mourn the victims, want to support First Responders. You can do both of those things at the same time. It seems very clear that what we are dealing with is a political tactic in that moment because its not necessarily the moment that some folks want to engage on this issue. Like i said, you are not afraid to engage on this issue, and you are not afraid to push back at probably some of the thing that mark kelly is pushing. Let me ask you this, where do you see the line . When does its a question i asked him. When does someones right to bear arms get to the point where it potentially infringes on someones right to attend a concert in an outdoor setting and not feel like it is an unsave safe experience . I think there is an offense answer to that. Someones right infringes on my rights the instant they start to menace me or threaten me with that weapon. Its difficult to use this particular shooting as some sort of paradigm with which to analyze the gun debate. I mean for a lot of the reasons that you have been talking about in your show, this is an extraordinarily unusual event on ground after ground after ground. But if you are talking about normal the normal life that we live in this country, your right to keep and bear arms infringes on my rights the instant you start to menace me. One of the things i would say in support of Second Amendment, thats exactly why i should be entitled to carry a weapon for example, to protect myself the moment that somebody else violates my rights in a life threatening manner. So when you hear about that, a gun owner and a Second Amendment supporter, when you hear about that collision of rights, says well, i need to be prepared and i need to be able to defend myself and my family when someone crosses that line. What about, though, the idea that says, wait a minute, i would like to know that you are a responsible gun owner. And i want to put regulations that make sure im fine with you having a gun, but i would find it in my rights that i want to make sure you are a responsible gun owner. You know what, i want extra amount of regulation, i want extra licensing, i want this or that. What about that line . I would argue it is a realistic ask of our rights, thats for sure. I think it is a realistic ask. And i think say we have a realistic answer. The answer is the present level of regulation that we have particularly as applied to concealed carried permit holder provides that date. The law says that a concealed carry citizenship is safer than a police officer. Thats how lawabiding the concealed carry community is. The problem we have with gun violence in this country is by and large a problem of a of criminals who obtain guns unlawfully. Thats the problem the primary problem we have. Las vegas is different. I was just going to its not just frankly, all of the recent Mass Shootings, if you want to go over the decade a large majority of them, the shooter acquired the weapon legally, not illegally. Thats absolutely right. Right. So then the question is, what about this idea that there was nothing in the Second Amendment that said what type of arm you could bear. And so there seems to be why is it that we cant seem to draw a reasonable line on saying you know what, look, there is going to be an extra set of regulation on certain weapons. We outlawed machine guns a long time. We outlawed silencers except for people that could go through an extra process perhaps until we see what congress does. Whats wrong with that line . And why do you think we are not willing why does the gun lobby or the gun rights advocates not willing to try that . Well, i had say that the line exists with machine guns, for example, truly automatic weapons, is a right kind of line to draw. That we have effectively and properly drawn that line. Other lines, i think it begins to get much more difficult. Lets talk about the socalled assault women. Which is a fictional term. Its talking about semiautomatic rifles that look like military rifles. When you are talking about semiautomatic witnesses you are talking about exactly the kind of weapons that millions and millions of americans use for selfdefense. We do draw lines. I think one of the things that often gets lost in this debate is people will say well we need some regulation. Well, we do have some regulation. And actually when it comes to machine guns its been very, very effective without violating the Second Amendment. What do you make of the Bump Technology . If you can take a semiautomatic and essentially turn it into a automatic weapon you have certainly violated the spirit of the law . Yeah, i have no problem with an extenting a ban on extending regulations that apply to automatic weapons to weapons that have a bump stock. I think that you are exactly right. You are evading the intent of the law. But i will tell you this, i dont think it will have much