If you support an assault weapons buyback program, would it be voluntary or mandatory? If mandatory, how would you enforce it? How much would it cost?

“I would support a voluntary buyback program and would spend as much money as needs to be spent.”

If you support a red-flag law, how would it work?

“I am open to a range of different models for a federal red-flag law, but currently envision a plan with judicial oversight as its cornerstone. I believe a judge will have to make each decision, including the time period (and given this stricture, I don’t believe there should be a minimum or maximum time period). Judges should make each decision based on their assessment of whether or not a person is a danger to themselves or to the public. If a judge believes a person is dangerous, they should be able to remove their guns. And anyone should be able to flag another person, so long as they have reason to believe the person is dangerous (meaning it could be a friend, relative, teacher, doctor, therapist, police officer, or even a stranger who has been given reason to believe someone is dangerous). The person from whom guns are taken would need to petition the court to get their guns back.”

If you support a gun licensing plan, would you require a license for all guns, or only some?

“We should require a license to own a gun. I believe all types of guns should require licensing.”

Would the licensing requirement apply retroactively? If so, how would you enforce that?

“Yes, I believe gun licensing should apply retroactively, with a significant period of time as a grace period. After the grace period, individuals who have failed to get licensed will be subject to fines and possibly other punishments.”

If you support a registration requirement, would it apply retroactively? If so, how would you enforce that?

N/A

How much funding would you allocate for research on gun violence, and which agencies would receive it?

“I would consult with organizations dedicated to fighting gun violence, including advocacy groups, police officer organizations and medical professionals, along with C.D.C. staff and members of Congress to determine how much funding is required for research on gun violence.”

Would you expand the A.T.F.’s regulatory authority? If so, how?

“I would need to expand the A.T.F.’s authority to deal with various new laws, including red-flag laws, licensing requirements, background checks and more. I would also be open to expanding it in other ways, as needed.”

Without a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, how will you make your gun policies a reality? Would you support eliminating the filibuster?

“I do not support eliminating the filibuster. It was a bad idea when Harry Reid first did it for judicial nominations, and it has been even worse since Mitch McConnell expanded the ‘nuclear option’ to Supreme Court nominations. Even if Democrats take control of the Senate, there’s no guarantee we will maintain it, so eliminating the filibuster will inevitably come back to bite us. I am open to reducing the number of votes required to overturn a filibuster (to 55 instead of 60), so that should make it easier to pass common-sense gun policy reforms. However, if need be, I would work directly with Republican senators as well as with the people themselves throughout the country to win support for needed gun reforms. This issue is so vitally important — with the people’s help, we must be able to convince a few sensible Republicans of our point of view.”

Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms outside of the context of a militia?

“I do believe Heller was rightly decided, though I recognize that the founders’ intent was not entirely clear. I believe that hunting and self-defense are more than valid reasons to own guns, so I would never want to unduly restrict gun ownership in such a way that those are infringed upon. Importantly, the majority in the Heller decision found that reasonable restrictions are well within the scope of the Second Amendment. Therefore, it is appropriate to draw lines and make restrictions to keep our people safe, which is why I support a range of common-sense reforms.”

What do you think the Second Amendment means?

“I do believe in an individual right to bear arms, as the Supreme Court decided in the Heller decision. Their opinion included the following statement: ‘Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.’ This decision removed the ‘slippery slope’ argument — that limiting the right to bear arms in any way is a slippery slope to a total ban — which is very important. Much like our First Amendment freedom of speech does not mean we can shout ‘fire!’ in a theater, the Second Amendment does not mean the right to bear arms is unlimited.”