Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co host Cam Edwards says gun control advocates have been quick to demand “more” restrictions after the attempted assassination at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, but much slower to explain what specific law they believe would have stopped the suspect.
In a recent episode, Edwards spoke with Second Amendment Foundation Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros about the shooting, the firearms allegedly used, and the strict gun laws the suspect reportedly passed through before the attack in Washington, D.C.
Edwards said he had seen several opinion pieces and television segments blaming the incident on easy access to guns, but he argued that those claims were missing the harder question: what additional law would have stopped someone who reportedly had no disqualifying criminal record, passed a background check, and bought firearms in California, one of the most heavily regulated states in the country?
“I haven’t seen anybody actually say, ‘Okay, here’s what we need,’ other than more gun control,” Edwards said. “Okay, what exactly are you talking about here?”
California Already Had A Long List Of Gun Rules
Moros told Edwards that anyone legally buying the firearms discussed in reporting from California would already have to go through several steps.
He said the buyer would need a firearm safety certificate, which requires taking a 30-question multiple-choice test on basic gun safety, with a passing score of 70%. Moros said the certificate costs $25 and is usually available through licensed firearm dealers.
The buyer would also need to pass a background check, and because the suspect reportedly bought a handgun, he would need to prove residency with more than a basic driver’s license or ID card.
Moros added that California requires a Dealer Record of Sale fee, which functions as the state’s background check fee, and that the pistol would have to be on California’s approved handgun roster if it was bought new.
He also noted that California has a 10-day waiting period before a buyer can take possession of a firearm.
In other words, Moros argued, this was not a case where someone walked into a store, grabbed a gun, and left without scrutiny. He said the suspect had to “run the gauntlet” of some of the strictest gun rules in the country.
That is the point Edwards kept returning to throughout the discussion. If California already has the kinds of laws national gun control groups often praise, then vague calls to “do something” after this attack do not answer what lawmakers are actually supposed to do next.
Why Edwards Says The Demands Are Vague
Edwards said the suspect reportedly bought guns in California, then took them to Washington, D.C., another highly restrictive jurisdiction where he allegedly violated several laws, including laws related to unregistered firearms and ammunition.
That raised a practical question for both men: what proposed gun control policy would have blocked the suspect before he acted?
Moros said this is where gun control groups often change their tone, depending on where the crime happens.
When a crime happens in a state viewed as gun-friendly, Moros said, gun control advocates often blame that state’s laws directly. But when a crime involves guns acquired in a state such as California, which he said groups like Giffords rate highly, those groups tend to speak more broadly about the country being “awash in guns” instead of naming a missing policy.
“They get very vague in general,” Moros said.
His argument was not that the attack was unimportant or that the crime should be ignored. Rather, he said the suspect appears to have passed the rules already in place, which means the remaining policy demand is either unclear or much more extreme than gun control groups want to admit.
According to Moros, if someone has no criminal record, passes background checks, waits through the waiting period, and buys firearms legally, there may not be a targeted law left to propose short of a broader ban.
Moros Says The Unspoken Goal Is A Ban
Moros told Edwards that when advocates still demand more laws after a case like this, the unstated goal may be much larger than they are willing to say publicly.
“When they still say, well, we need more gun laws, what they’re too cowardly to say, because they know it would cause too much political blowback, is that they want a full gun ban,” Moros said.
That is a strong claim, and one gun control supporters would almost certainly dispute. But it reflects the frustration among gun rights advocates who believe every high-profile crime becomes a reason to push restrictions even when the accused person already bypassed or complied with the laws that were supposed to matter.
Moros compared the difficulty of stopping such an attack to other cases where a person without a clear disqualifying record suddenly decides to commit violence. He said that is an uncomfortable reality, but one that does not disappear simply because people want a law to prevent every rare event.
“What law stops a model citizen from buying guns?” Moros asked, referring to the difficulty of predicting violence from someone who had not already been legally disqualified.
That question is difficult because the answer may be politically unacceptable on both sides. Gun control advocates may argue for more screening, longer waiting periods, permits, or other review systems. Gun rights advocates respond that the more subjective those systems become, the more they risk blocking ordinary citizens from exercising a constitutional right based on speculation.
Assassins And Determined Attackers
Moros argued that assassination attempts are especially hard to prevent through gun control laws because the people who attempt them are often unusually determined.
He pointed to the assassination of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, where the killer used a homemade firearm in a country with very strict gun laws. Moros said that if there is one type of offender least likely to be stopped by gun control, it is an assassin.
“These are typically not always, but often more determined people, sometimes more intelligent,” he said.
Edwards agreed that committed attackers can be difficult to stop through ordinary restrictions, especially if they have no prior record and are willing to travel, plan, or break existing laws. He also noted that even if firearm sales were banned completely, the United States already has hundreds of millions of guns in circulation.
This does not mean laws never matter, but it does suggest the limits of policy when dealing with a person willing to carry out an extreme act. It is much easier to say “do something” than to write a law that would actually identify the dangerous person in advance without sweeping in many people who have done nothing wrong.
Crime Trends Complicate The Debate
Edwards also said gun control advocates are ignoring a larger trend: violent crime and homicide numbers have been moving downward.
He argued that homicides are now at or near their lowest levels in decades, while violent crime overall is near record lows. Moros agreed, saying he expected crime to fall back toward pre-pandemic levels after the COVID-era surge, but instead saw numbers continue dropping below 2019 levels.
“It’s actually stunning,” Moros said.
He pointed to cities such as Philadelphia, saying murders there are far lower now than they were just a few years ago. Moros said he did not know exactly what was causing the decline, but he hoped it would continue.
Edwards said this trend is often left out of commentary that describes the United States as overwhelmed by unchecked violence. He said high-profile crimes can be horrific and worthy of attention, but they should not erase the broader data showing that many forms of violence are declining.
That is a fair point for any public debate. One shocking attack can dominate the news for days, but policy should be shaped by both the rare high-profile event and the broader trend line. If overall violence is falling, lawmakers should be careful about claiming that the country is moving in only one direction.
Community Violence Programs And Other Explanations
Edwards said gun control groups sometimes credit community violence intervention programs for falling crime, and he was willing to allow that some programs may help. However, he said he would not call those programs gun control if they do not restrict people from buying or owning firearms.
Moros said he was skeptical that such programs explain the nationwide decline, since crime is falling broadly across many places with very different policies and programs. Still, he said if states believe those programs work, they are free to fund them.
The discussion briefly turned to California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who Moros said had complained about federal cuts to some violence intervention funding. Moros argued that if California officials believe the programs save lives, the state should pay for them itself, especially given its large budget.
The exchange showed a point of agreement between Edwards and Moros: programs aimed at preventing violence without restricting constitutional rights are more acceptable than laws that limit firearm ownership. They may disagree with how effective those programs are, but they view them differently from bans, waiting periods, or purchase restrictions.
The Waiting Period Fight
Edwards also asked Moros about a legal challenge to Vermont’s 72-hour waiting period, which was being argued before the Second Circuit.
Moros said the case involved historical arguments about whether waiting periods existed or were comparable to anything from the founding era. He said his organization filed an amicus brief focused on history, pointing to old newspaper advertisements showing that firearms were widely available for sale.
Moros rejected the argument that because people in rural areas might have had to wait for travel or shipping in the founding era, modern states can impose mandatory waiting periods by law.
Edwards agreed, saying that a natural delay caused by travel in the 1700s is different from the government telling a person they cannot take possession of a firearm until the state allows it.
Moros said states are reaching for weak comparisons because there were no clear historical waiting period laws to point to.
That debate matters because waiting periods are often offered as one of the more modest gun control proposals. But for gun rights attorneys like Moros, even a short delay raises constitutional questions if it burdens the ability to acquire a firearm.
The Larger Argument After The Attack
By the end of the discussion, Edwards and Moros framed the post-shooting gun control response as a kind of political evasion.
They argued that the suspect allegedly bought firearms in a state with strict rules, brought them into a city with strict rules, and still carried out an attack. Because of that, they said vague demands for “more” gun control avoid the real question of what law would have stopped him.
The answer, in their view, is that there may not be one unless lawmakers are willing to say openly that they want to ban broad categories of firearms or civilian gun ownership itself.
That argument will not persuade everyone, especially those who believe every additional barrier may reduce the risk of violence. But Edwards and Moros are pointing to a real weakness in the debate: public demands for action often sound clear emotionally but remain unclear legally.
After a frightening political attack, people understandably want reassurance that it cannot happen again. The harder truth, as Edwards and Moros argued, is that some threats may not be preventable through another layer of gun laws, especially when the suspect had already passed through many of the rules that gun control advocates normally support.
For them, that is why the language after the attack has become so vague. It is easier to say “do something” than to admit the proposed system already existed in California and still did not stop a determined person from acting.
Growing up in the Pacific Northwest, John developed a love for the great outdoors early on. With years of experience as a wilderness guide, he’s navigated rugged terrains and unpredictable weather patterns. John is also an avid hunter and fisherman who believes in sustainable living. His focus on practical survival skills, from building shelters to purifying water, reflects his passion for preparedness. When he’s not out in the wild, you can find him sharing his knowledge through writing, hoping to inspire others to embrace self-reliance.
