The late Senator Dianne Feinstein’s career was shaped by a shooting: In 1978, on the same day she told reporters she was quitting politics, Feinstein discovered the body of San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk, who had been assassinated in his City Hall office along with Mayor George Moscone. Then the president of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors, Feinstein assumed Moscone’s position — and spent much of the ensuing decades, from San Francisco to the U.S. Senate, pursuing gun reform.
The candidates campaigning to succeed Feinstein, who died last month, are vying to replace the senator who helped shepherd the 1993 Brady Bill, which established the federal background checks system, and who authored the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. And they’re doing so in a particularly complex election cycle: California is preparing to enter a marathon of elections — two primaries, a special general, and a general election — to fill Feinstein’s seat, a cascade that could result in California having three different senators in the course of a year. Given Feinstein’s centrality to the gun reform movement, voters may have questions about where the Senate candidates stand on the issue.
With that in mind, I sent a questionnaire to the leading candidates in the crowded race for her seat. U.S. Representatives Adam Schiff, Katie Porter, and Barbara Lee returned responses in time for publication. Another Democratic candidate — former Google executive Lexi Reese — did not answer in time for this newsletter. Two Republicans, Eric Early and James Bradley, did not respond, and attempts to reach a third Republican, Steve Garvey, were unsuccessful. We did not send a questionnaire to Senator Laphonza Butler, whom Governor Gavin Newsom appointed to temporarily fill Feinstein’s seat, because she has decided not to run for a full term.
Below are the California Senate candidates’ responses, presented in alphabetical order by first name, and edited for length and style. If you would like to read the candidates’ full responses to the questionnaire, you can do so in the document embedded at the bottom of this page.
U.S. Representative Adam Schiff
Does Congress need to take more action to reduce gun violence or are current laws enough?
Congress needs to take far more action to deal with the scourge of gun violence. We must not resign ourselves to gun violence as our tragic new “normal,” when there are so many reforms that we know would protect our communities and kids, like universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, and an end to the immunity from liability enjoyed by the gun industry.
I have fought to make gun safety reforms a priority for Congress. And whoever is California’s next U.S. Senator will need to live up to Senator Feinstein’s legacy, and fight just as hard as she did for the safety of our kids and our communities.
When Democrats took back the House in 2019, I pushed leadership to make gun safety one of the main actions we took. Still, despite House action, the Senate refused to act or pass legislation that could make a significant difference. I am an original co-sponsor of the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, which would require a background check for every gun sale or transfer, with reasonable and explicit exceptions such as giving a gun as a gift to a close family member, loaning a gun for hunting or target shooting, or providing a gun in a moment of self-defense.
I also am an original co-sponsor of the Enhanced Background Checks Act, which would provide the FBI additional time to complete background check investigations for firearm sales, ensuring that these dangerous weapons don’t fall into the wrong hands.
If more action is needed, what steps would you take to move the issue? Would you vote to limit or abolish the filibuster in order to pass gun reform legislation?
My first priority in the Senate would be to abolish the filibuster so we can pass these common-sense gun safety policies.
Should gun violence be declared a public health emergency?
Yes, Californians deserve to live free from the threat of gun violence. I have pushed the Biden administration to declare gun violence a public health emergency. This would trigger an immediate and systemic response — including funding — to fully address our country’s growing gun violence crisis. We must have a national response to this national public health crisis plaguing communities across California and the country.
How would you vote on the following policies?
- A ban on military-style semiautomatic rifles (assault weapons): Yes.
- Giving the Consumer Product Safety Commission power to oversee firearms: Yes.
- Repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act: Yes.
- Universal background checks: Yes.
- A national Extreme Risk Protection Order (or Red Flag) law: Yes.
- Raising the age to own firearms to 21: Yes.
- Mandatory gun purchase waiting periods: Yes.
- Gun registration: Yes.
- Permits to purchase firearms: Yes.
- Funding for mental health care: Yes.
- Funding for community violence intervention programs: Yes.
- Funding for gun violence research: Yes.
Do you support Governor Gavin Newsom’s idea for a 28th Amendment?
I support Governor Newsom’s proposed constitutional amendment. We must establish the right to protect our lives from senseless gun violence. Common-sense measures that are supported by Republicans, Democrats and independents should be passed so that more needless tragedies are prevented.
Are there other policies that would be more effective at reducing mass shootings?
Disturbingly, there is still a “boyfriend loophole” in federal law that allows abusive partners subject to protection orders and convicted stalkers to access firearms. We must close this loophole to keep our communities safe.
Broadly speaking, we need to prioritize more data collection, and research of gun violence, of tracing and prosecuting straw purchasers and gun traffickers, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, of holding gun dealers accountable, and increasing resources for state and local law enforcement in order to quickly alert their communities to deadly threats and keep people out of harm’s way.
Are there other policies that would be more effective at reducing community gun violence?
Yes. Absolutely. We’ve seen great examples of community violence intervention programs being effective in underserved Los Angeles and California communities and I certainly think it is a promising approach. We need to implement such programs to scale and they should receive the funding and resources necessary to reach more of our youth and communities.
U.S. Representative Barbara Lee
Does Congress need to take more action to reduce gun violence or are current laws enough?
Yes, absolutely. Gun violence is a national public health crisis that endangers every community in our nation. It’s time for Congress to get off the sidelines and take action to prevent these all too frequent and avoidable tragedies. To that end, I am working in Congress to take a comprehensive approach to addressing this violence, including common-sense gun reforms to ensure thorough background checks, close loopholes, and get weapons of war off the street. No family in America should have to live in fear of gun violence.
If more action is needed, what steps would you take to move the issue? Would you vote to limit or abolish the filibuster in order to pass gun reform legislation?
The filibuster has been used throughout our history to stifle progress and to preserve a racist, inherently unfair system. It must be abolished. Doing so will allow progress on a series of important issues to move forward, including common-sense gun reform.
Should gun violence be declared a public health emergency?
Yes, and I have introduced legislation to do exactly that. The United States has more mass shootings than days in a year when most Western nations only have one or two shootings in a year, if any at all. Additionally, gun violence has always disproportionately affected Black and brown people and communities of color, and those shootings almost always go unnoticed. So this is a deeply personal issue for me and one that I’ve worked hard to solve in Congress.
How would you vote on the following policies?
- A ban on military-style semiautomatic rifles (assault weapons): Yes.
- Giving the Consumer Product Safety Commission power to oversee firearms: Yes.
- Repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act: Yes.
- Universal background checks: Yes.
- A national Extreme Risk Protection Order (or Red Flag) law: Yes.
- Raising the age to own firearms to 21: Yes.
- Mandatory gun purchase waiting periods: Yes.
- Gun registration: Yes.
- Permits to purchase firearms: Yes.
- Funding for mental health care: Yes.
- Funding for community violence intervention programs: Yes.
- Funding for gun violence research: Yes.
Do you support Governor Gavin Newsom’s idea for a 28th Amendment?
Yes.
Are there other policies that would be more effective at reducing mass shootings?
We need to loop young people into the legislative process to ensure that the gun control legislation we introduce and pass satisfies their needs and demands. I’ve worked with high school students on legislation before, and I will absolutely work with them on gun control legislation.
To that end, we need to expand mental health programs at the federal level and fund methods to help states expand their own programs. We need to assist educators and school counselors in catching warning signs of a potential shooter to eliminate the risk of gun violence before it happens and also expand treatment for those who are dealing with the mental aftermath of surviving an episode of gun violence or losing a loved one to gun violence. And I’ve led the fight with Senator Padilla to call on President Biden to declare gun violence a national public health emergency so the federal government can dedicate the resources we need to effectively solve this issue.
Are there other policies that would be more effective at reducing community gun violence?
We know that the vast majority of gun violence victims in this country are Black and brown people. I proudly voted in favor of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act and have co-sponsored multiple attempts to ban assault weapons. We also need to expand mental health support and support federal investments in education, jobs, housing, mental health, social justice, and racial justice efforts to give people of color an improved quality of life and steer them away from a violent path.
I am proud to have secured tens of millions of dollars to fund and expand Community Violence Intervention programs in my district as a member of the House Appropriations Committee. CVI programs have been an integral part of Oakland’s gun violence reduction strategy, and with the implementation of the 988 hotline, we’ve expanded direct, immediate access to mental health crisis treatment. CVI programs work, and I will continue to support them in the Senate.
U.S. Representative Katie Porter
Does Congress need to take more action to reduce gun violence or are current laws enough?
Current gun safety laws are not enough. The tragic reality is we know how to keep people safe from gun violence, but we lack enough leaders at the federal level who have the necessary courage to stand up to the gun lobby.
America’s gun violence epidemic is a symptom of a much larger disease: corporate special interests’ outsize influence on our democracy. Like many other industries, the gun lobby uses its power in Washington to block popular policies that would keep people safe. I first ran for office six years ago to shake up the status quo in Washington and stand up to the powerful special interests that dominate D.C., including the gun lobby — and that’s exactly what I’ve done.
If more action is needed, what steps would you take to move the issue? Would you vote to limit or abolish the filibuster in order to pass gun reform legislation?
I strongly support eliminating the filibuster. Created initially to undermine civil rights legislation, the filibuster is still used to slow-walk progress — like meaningful gun safety reforms that would save lives. Senators shouldn’t get to hide behind an archaic rule to avoid taking specific votes.
We also have to institute stronger protections for voting rights, as it’s in the gun industry’s interest — and frankly, the interest of other corporations — to limit access to the ballot box. They can’t buy off politicians if those same politicians don’t get elected.
Should gun violence be declared a public health emergency?
Yes. Gun violence is the leading cause of death for American kids and young adults.
How would you vote on the following policies?
- A ban on military-style semiautomatic rifles (assault weapons): Yes.
- Giving the Consumer Product Safety Commission power to oversee firearms: Yes.
- Repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act: Yes.
- Universal background checks: Yes.
- A national Extreme Risk Protection Order (or Red Flag) law: Yes.
- Raising the age to own firearms to 21: Yes.
- Mandatory gun purchase waiting periods: Yes.
- Gun registration: Yes.
- Permits to purchase firearms: Yes.
- Funding for mental health care: Yes.
- Funding for community violence intervention programs: Yes.
- Funding for gun violence research: Yes.
Do you support Governor Gavin Newsom’s idea for a 28th Amendment?
While I strongly support the policy goals within the proposed amendment, I believe that this proposed constitutional amendment could, in fact, limit our ability to implement other policies that would keep people safe from gun violence. If one concedes that it takes a constitutional amendment to ban assault weapons, then the pro-gun lobby could argue that even more kinds of gun regulation can only occur by way of constitutional amendment. This would hamstring Congress and state legislatures from passing gun safety laws. This opinion is based on numerous conversations with leading constitutional scholars, including my colleague Jamie Raskin.
Are there other policies that would be more effective at reducing mass shootings?
Yes. We need to ban high-capacity magazines in addition to reinstating the ban on assault weapons.
Are there other policies that would be more effective at reducing community gun violence?
We can curb gun violence by investing in what our communities need to thrive: better and safer schools; lower costs for necessities like food, housing, and health care; and more job opportunities. To be clear, we need to make these investments in all of our communities, not just a select few. Black and brown communities, in particular, are too often left behind by our institutions, including our government. When making public investments, the federal government must prioritize equity to ensure funds reach every community, especially those historically left behind by government institutions.
We also need to protect consumers and their families better. Accidents are a leading cause of gun-related deaths among American kids, behind homicides and suicides. As a consumer protection attorney, I can say with certainty that if any other product on the market caused as much harm as guns, it would change significantly and rapidly. In addition to ending broad immunity for gun manufacturers, we need to finally pass federal safety standards and explore meaningful safety modifications like fingerprint scanners and magazine disconnectors. And we have to encourage safe gun storage, especially in households with kids.
View the full responses here:
