[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IMPACT OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA'S GUN LAWS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 9, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-214
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.house.gov/reform
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
56-579 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York TOM DAVIS, Virginia
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania DAN BURTON, Indiana
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio JOHN L. MICA, Florida
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri CHRIS CANNON, Utah
DIANE E. WATSON, California JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York DARRELL E. ISSA, California
JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky KENNY MARCHANT, Texas
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
Columbia VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
JIM COOPER, Tennessee BILL SALI, Idaho
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland JIM JORDAN, Ohio
PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
PETER WELCH, Vermont
JACKIE SPEIER, California
Phil Barnett, Staff Director
Earley Green, Chief Clerk
Lawrence Halloran, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 8, 2008................................ 1
Statement of:
Lanier, Cathy, chief, District of Columbia Metropolitan
Police Department; Phillip D. Morse, Sr., chief, U.S.
Capitol Police; and Kevin C. Hay, deputy chief, U.S. Park
Police; and Robert Campbell, director of security,
Washington Nationals Baseball Club......................... 13
Campbell, Robert......................................... 32
Hay, Kevin C............................................. 26
Lanier, Cathy............................................ 13
Morse, Phillip D., Sr.,.................................. 23
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Hay, Kevin C., deputy chief, U.S. Park Police, prepared
statement of............................................... 28
Lanier, Cathy, chief, District of Columbia Metropolitan
Police Department, prepared statement of................... 17
Morse, Phillip D., Sr., chief, U.S. Capitol Police, prepared
statement of............................................... 24
Waxman, Chairman Henry A., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California:
Memo dated September 9, 2008................................. 10
Prepared statement of........................................ 4
IMPACT OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA'S GUN LAWS
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2008
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry A. Waxman
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Waxman, Cummings, Kucinich, Davis
of Illinois, Tierney, Watson, Lynch, Yarmuth, Norton, McCollum,
Van Hollen, Sarbanes, Welch, Speier, Davis of Virginia, Burton,
Mica, Souder, Platts, Duncan, Issa, McHenry, Foxx, Bilbray,
Sali, and Jordan.
Staff present: Kristin Amerling, general counsel; Michelle
Ash, chief legislative counsel; Caren Auchman and Ella Hoffman,
press assistants; Phil Barnett, staff director and chief
counsel; Jen Berenholz, deputy clerk; Stacia Cardille, counsel;
Zhongrui ``JR'' Den, chief information officer; Miriam Edelman,
Jennifer Owens, and Mitch Smiley, special assistants; Ali
Golden, investigator; Earley Green, chief clerk; Davis Leviss,
senior investigative counsel; Karen Lightfoot, communications
director and senior policy advisor; David Rapallo, chief
investigative counsel; Leneal Scott, information systems
manager; John Williams, deputy chief investigative counsel;
Lawrence Halloran, minority staff director; Jennifer Safavian,
chief counsel for oversight and investigations; Ellen Brown,
minority senior policy counsel; Jim Moore, minority counsel;
Christopher Bright and Howie Denis, minority senior
professional staff members; John Cuaderes, minority senior
investigator and policy advisor; Adam Fromm, minority
professional staff member; Patrick Lyden, minority
parliamentarian and Member services coordinator; and Brian
McNicoll, minority communications director.
Chairman Waxman. The meeting of the committee will please
come to order. Today the committee will analyze the effects of
Federal gun legislation on the District of Columbia.
There are two competing bills we will be considering. One
is H.R. 6691, a bill that would make sweeping changes to the
laws governing the possession and use of firearms in the
District of Columbia. The other is legislation that
Congresswoman Norton will introduce that directs the District
to revise its gun laws as necessary to comply with the Supreme
Court's recent decision.
H.R. 6691 is called the ``Second Amendment Enforcement
Act,'' but that title is a ruse. The provisions in this
legislation bear no relationship to the carefully crafted
Supreme Court decision recognizing a second amendment right to
possess a handgun in the home. Instead, the bill is a wholesale
evisceration of the District's gun laws. It is extreme
legislation being pushed by the NRA that goes way beyond what
the court required in the Heller decision.
The reason we are holding this hearing is so that Members
can understand the homeland security impacts of legislation
like H.R. 6691.
The District is a target-rich environment for terrorists.
The President and the Vice President live here. The Congress
and the Supreme Court are located here. Most Federal
departments have their headquarters in Washington. And hundreds
of foreign dignitaries travel to Washington, DC, each year.
Yet the NRA bill would repeal the District's ban on
semiautomatic assault weapons. In fact, it would allow
individuals to carry military-style rifles like AK-47s, Uzis,
and SKS assault rifles on the streets of Washington.
Next January 20th, the next President of the United States
will be sworn into office. I don't know whether that person
will be Senator Obama or Senator McCain, but I do know that if
the NRA bill becomes law, protecting him will become vastly
more difficult.
On his first day in office, our next President will lead an
inaugural parade down Pennsylvania Avenue. Huge crowds will
assemble to celebrate. How can we expect the Secret Service and
the Metropolitan Police Department to protect the new President
and the public if it becomes legal to possess semiautomatic
assault weapons in the District?
Some members of this committee may know what 50-caliber
sniper rifles are. The same weapons are currently being used by
our military in Iraq and Afghanistan to kill enemy forces and
disable vehicles. They have a lethal range of over 1 mile.
Yet under this bill, there would be no registration
requirement for 50-caliber sniper rifles. There would be no
limitations on carrying them in public. And armored limousines
traveling across the District would face a perilous new threat.
Perhaps the greatest new threat is the repeal of the
District's ban on semiautomatic handguns. These weapons are
regularly and easily concealable. They have a history of being
used in violent attacks like the Virginia Tech and Columbine
massacres, and now they would be legal.
There are other important ways in which District law
protects homeland security. Unlike Federal law, the District
requires background checks for all gun sales, including sales
of weapons at gun shows. And District law requires the
registration of all firearms.
Yet these essential safeguards would all be repealed, and
the District would be effectively barred from enacting firearm
regulations in the future.
My staff has prepared a legislative analysis of the impact
of H.R. 6691, and I ask that it be made available to Members
and part of today's hearing record. And, without objection.
We are fortunate to have some of the Nation's top experts
at today's hearing to explain to us the impact of repealing
D.C.'s gun laws. Cathy Lanier is the chief of the Metropolitan
Police Department. It is her officers who clear the way for
official motorcades and shoulder much of the burden of
protecting Federal and foreign officials.
Phillip Morse is the chief of the Capitol Police. His
officers are primarily responsible for the security of this
building and the rest of Congress.
Kevin Hay is the deputy chief of the U.S. Park Police. His
officers maintain security in and around the National Mall and
the extensive Federal parklands in the Nation's Capital.
And Bob Campbell is the head of security for the Washington
Nationals. His team of security experts protect Washington's
newest venue from attacks.
We also invited the Secret Service and the U.S. Marshals to
testify, but the Bush administration has blocked their
appearance. The Marshals had identified a witness who could
have testified, but the Department of Justice refused to allow
him to do so. They even canceled a briefing that had been
scheduled for committee staff.
The Secret Service told committee staff that they didn't
want their officials to testify for, ``political reasons.''
When the security of the Nation's Capital is at issue,
there should be no political divide. We all have an interest in
making the Nation's Capital as safe and secure as possible.
Today's hearing will be followed by a committee business
meeting tomorrow. The bill I intend to call up will be
Congresswoman Norton's bill. Undoubtedly, there will be an
effort to amend her bill with the text of the NRA bill. The
purpose of today's hearing is to assure that when Members vote
on these two radically different approaches they have a full
understanding of the impacts of these bills.
Our Nation has spent tens of billions of dollars to
strengthen our homeland security. We should not jeopardize that
investment and the security of our Nation's Capital by passing
reckless legislation that virtually eliminates all gun laws in
the Nation's Capital.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Henry A. Waxman
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Waxman. I want to now recognize Mr. Davis, and
then we will recognize the subcommittee chair and ranking
member of the subcommittee that would have otherwise been
holding hearings on this. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I feel for
you. Your leadership has basically already cut a deal, it
sounds like to me, and we are here trying to deal with it, get
the hearings out.
I am disappointed we have convened this morning just to
talk about guns. There is so much more we could and should be
doing to forge a constructive relationship between Congress and
the District. I think the cynical and selective manipulation of
District issues in the service of external political agendas
really diminishes our legitimate oversight and legislative
authority, and I think it is a disservice to the citizens of
our Nation's Capital.
When I became chairman of the Subcommittee on the District
of Columbia, at that point the city was bankrupt. That crisis
was fueled in no small part by congressional failure to
exercise appropriate oversight in our own backyard. Successive
Republican Congresses, working with a Democratic President,
helped save the District, put the city on the road to recovery.
But on issues ranging from D.C. schools, the child welfare
system, multimillion-dollar embezzlements from the tax
department, failing fire hydrants and more, this Congress has
had little time for pressing local matters that I and others
believe the committee should examine.
Just last week a Washington Post editorial commented on the
need for the District to put a ceiling on borrowing. I agree,
and the Congress should reassert its role as the guardian of
the city's fiscal health and creditworthiness. Not through
legislation necessarily, but through oversight and hearings.
So why are we here? Well, yesterday's Washington Post
editorial got it right. This hearing is not really about the
physical safety of District residents and Federal employees. We
are here out of concern for the political safety of some
conservative Democratic Members of Congress. As the Post said,
House Democrats make much of their support for the right of the
District to self-government. Too bad they are willing to
sacrifice this basic tenet of American democracy to the
political self-interests of Members cowed by the powerful gun
lobby.
D.C. is rewriting its gun laws in light of the Supreme
Court's Heller decision. Some would like them to do it faster.
Some would like them to do it differently. And some would like
to do it for them. I support D.C. home rule, and always have,
and I support the rights of the citizens of the District under
the second amendment, rights they have been denied for too
long.
I was on the amicus brief to overturn the Heller decision--
to support Heller. But the two shouldn't be in conflict. Like
the States and counties we represent, the District has self-
governing authority to write the laws under which its citizens
live. But the District, as a Federal city, also has Congress as
its legislature of last resort, and we should exercise that
power thoughtfully, surgically, and sparingly. Hearings on this
don't necessarily overturn the opinion or absolve the city from
its obligations to operate under gun laws that pass
constitutional muster, but it is important that we hear from
the District officials and others on how they will approach the
important public safety problems in the post-Heller world.
In terms of legislation, Mr. Chairman, I feel for you. I
have been where you are. We all know that the deal has been cut
by your leadership to vote on H.R. 6691. So I appreciate what
you are trying to do here today to get some facts out before us
so we can talk about them. One way or the other, it seems the
only sure impact of any legislation dealing with D.C. gun laws
will be that the Democratic House will abandoned its professed
allegiance to home rule.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Davis. I hope we can make
sure from our committee that we don't do that when we get to
the House floor. But I appreciate your statement.
I want to recognize Mr. Danny Davis, chairman of the
subcommittee that has jurisdiction over the District of
Columbia.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just say that I am a strong supporter of home rule for
the District of Columbia. And let me thank you for holding this
morning's hearing. And more so for elevating the significance
of promoting safety and security here in our Nation's Capital.
While the District of Columbia and its gun laws have come
under increased attention after the Supreme Court decision in
the Heller case, let us note that the District and its
residents have long grappled with the issue restricting or
regulating gun ownership, thereby instituting policies for a
specific purpose. And that purpose was to ensure the safety,
security, and well-being of its residents, visitors,
businesses, and in many respects its largest employer, the
Federal Government.
Now I would like to yield to Delegate Norton, whose bill we
are going to be discussing tomorrow in the business meeting.
And I would yield the balance of my time to Delegate Eleanor
Holmes Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Chairman Davis. And may I thank
Chairman Waxman for this early hearing on the National Capital
Security and Safety Act that he and I will introduce today, and
on H.R. 6691, the second of two NRA-inspired anti-home rule
bills, and for the markup of our bill tomorrow.
The two bills under consideration are polar opposites. H.R.
6691, introduced on July 31st, is a near copy of a previous
bill, H.R. 1399, seeking to federalize local D.C. gun laws by
eliminating all District of Columbia jurisdiction over gun
safety legislation. However, the Waxman-Norton bill and
findings address only the limited Federal purpose of assuring
that Federal public safety and security concerns are not put at
risk by the new law the city began to write immediately after
the Supreme Court decision, and that jurisdictions across the
country are writing now as well.
The Federal interest of Congress expressed in the Waxman-
Norton bill would apply to any self-governing jurisdiction.
After the first of two anti-home rule bills failed to get
enough signatures for discharge from this committee, Members
filed H.R. 6691 on July 31st, as Congress adjourned for recess.
In light of H.R. 6691, the chairman and his able staff and
my staff and I have investigated what Federal interest, if any,
might be implicated by the D.C. Council's work in progress to
revise the city's gun safety laws as required by the Supreme
Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.
The bill Chairman Waxman and I will file today respects the
self-governing authority every district expects, and takes no
position on D.C. gun safety legislation, which is the subject
of the two gun bills we oppose. Although Heller was decided on
June 26th, as one of the last decisions decided by the Supreme
Court before it adjourned, the mayor and City Council somehow
managed to enact at least a minimum consensus bill that,
without time for hearings, was necessarily a stopgap measure,
effective only for 90 days.
Considering that the Council's own adjournment was at hand,
this temporary District provision shows abundant good faith in
complying with the decision without delaying issuance of
permits to own guns in the District of Columbia. It is fair,
therefore, to inquire whether any comparable public purpose or
good faith is served by H.R. 6691.
H.R. 6691 cannot have been filed because the District has
shown it will not comply with the Heller decision. Indeed, H.R.
6691's fraternal twin, H.R. 1399, was introduced on March 8,
2007, a year and a half before the Supreme Court invalidated
D.C.'s gun safety laws. Nor is the second House bill, H.R.
6691, a reaction to the District's failure to comply with
Heller. The District is complying with Heller, not only with
the temporary measure which has allowed Dick Heller himself to
register his 22-caliber revolver, the temporary D.C. provision
has been in the process of change well before this hearing
today.
The D.C. Council Chair of the Committee on Public Safety
and Judiciary, Phil Mendelson, has notified Council Chair
Vincent Gray of his intention to submit several substantive
amendments that will significantly change the Council's
temporary provision. According to a Mendelson memo of September
9th, the committee chair will seek to revise the temporary
provision's definition of ``machine gun'' in order to allow
most semiautomatic guns to be registered, but with a ban on
extended ammunition clips to make the safe storage requirement
of a trigger lock advisory, relying instead on so-called cap
laws, establishing penalties for child access to firearms--
because cap laws have proven more effective than safe storage
requirements, according to Chairman Mendelson's research--to
repeal time-consuming and largely ineffective ballistic testing
requirements in favor of state-of-the-art microstamping on the
gun itself, and to repeal the one pistol per registration
limit.
I ask that Chairman Mendelson's full memo, Mr. Chairman, to
Chairman Gray be entered into the record.
Chairman Waxman. Without objection, that will be the order.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Norton. Even Mr. Mendelson's amendments may be revised,
not to mention submissions by other Council members after
hearings on the permanent Council bill scheduled for September
18th and October 1st, in time for the earliest action by the
Council. Notwithstanding one's views on the city's temporary
bill or on Chairman Mendelson's proposed revisions, it is
impossible to view them as untimely or unresponsive to the
Heller decision. Nor does the Council's work thus far appear to
endanger the Federal presence, Federal officials or employees,
or visiting dignitaries.
Can the same be said of H.R. 6691? Two days before the
seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attack on the National Capital
Region, we ask the following questions:
Is this broadly permissive bill that would allow high-
capacity Tec-9s and Uzi handguns and military-style
semiautomatic rifles, such as 50-caliber armor-piercing sniper
rifles, AK-47s, and the Bushmaster XM-15 used by the D.C.
sniper, to be carried downtown and throughout our neighborhoods
responsive to Justice Antonin Scalia's narrow 5-to-4 opinion
permitting guns in the home for self defense?
Does the H.R. 6691 provision that would permit teens and
kids to carry loaded assault weapons protect or endanger
Federal officials and employees?
Would the H.R. 6691 repeal of the minimum age of 21 for
possession of an assault rifle enhance or risk the safety of
dignitaries and other federally protected individuals in a city
experiencing an upsurge in juvenile gun violence and gang gun
violence?
How does repeal of gun registration with District police in
the National capital city deter gun violence against federally
protected individuals or address the police task of tracing
guns used in crimes?
Particularly following the attempt on the late President,
Ronald Reagan, by John Hinckley, still confined at St.
Elizabeth's Hospital, why would any Member of Congress propose
repealing the District's prohibition on possessing gun
possession by 5 years on anyone voluntarily committed to a
mental institution?
And why would Members of Congress revise Federal gun law,
as H.R. 6691 would, to allow D.C. residents to purchase guns in
Maryland and Virginia, whose gun laws and regulations differ
significantly, facilitating legal gun-running across State
lines into the District of Columbia?
At today's hearing we will hear from expert witnesses whose
life work and assignments as law enforcement officers in the
Nation's Capital have educated them to the answers to these and
other questions raised by the bills before us today.
We welcome Metropolitan Police Department chief, Cathy
Lanier, who has a unique role in the Nation's Capital as the
chief of police for the largest police force in the region, and
in her former position as the first commanding officer of the
department's Office of Homeland Security and Counterterrorism;
Chief Phillip Morse, Sr., of the Capitol Police, whose
jurisdiction, of course, covers the Capitol and its grounds;
Chief Kevin Hay, whose jurisdiction at the U.S. Park Service
covers the entire National Capital Region; and Bob Campbell,
director of security, Washington Nationals, and a former Secret
Service agent.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you very much, Ms. Norton. In the
absence of the ranking member of the subcommittee, the Chair
wishes to recognize Mr. Sali.
Mr. Sali. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Davis. I
want to thank you for calling this important hearing about the
impact of proposed legislation on the District of Columbia's
gun laws.
As an original cosponsor of H.R. 6691, the Second Amendment
Enforcement Act, I am pleased that such a strong bipartisan
bill has come forward to recognize the second amendment rights
of Washington, DC, residents. This important legislation is in
direct response to the D.C. City Council passing emergency laws
that disregard the Supreme Court's ruling in the District of
Columbia v. Heller case by creating other new restrictions on
District residents' rights.
I am concerned that the new restrictions also violate the
Constitution and the clear meaning of the second amendment, as
drafted by our Founding Fathers. Our Founding Fathers intended
that firearm ownership is an individual right for law-abiding
citizens, a right that in part helps law-abiding citizens
defend their lives, their families, and their property through
possession and use of firearms. With the Heller case, the right
to keep and bear arms is now indisputably an individual right.
Congress must be vigilant to safeguard the second
amendment, which should mean the same thing today as it did at
the birth of our Nation. The second amendment should not be
abridged by the D.C.'s City Council's anti-gun regulations. We
all took an oath to uphold the Constitution, including both
responsibilities to the District of Columbia as well as
withholding the second amendment.
The second amendment states, in part, the right of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Defending
that provision is a matter of obligation on the part of this
body. The D.C. emergency laws need to be brought in line with
the Heller decision, and this legislation does exactly that.
The bill has broad bipartisan support and deserves a vote on
the House floor promptly.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to today's hearing.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Sali.
Well, we do have four witnesses today with us. I want to
introduce them. Cathy Lanier is the chief of the District of
Columbia Metropolitan Police Department. Phillip D. Morse, Sr.,
is the chief of the U.S. Capitol Police. Kevin C. Hay is Deputy
chief of the U.S. Park Police. And Robert Campbell is the
security director for the Washington Nationals, and is a former
Secret Service agent.
We want to welcome each of you to the hearing today. It is
the practice of this committee that all witnesses that testify
do so under oath. So if you would please stand and raise your
right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chairman Waxman. The record will indicate that each of the
witnesses answered in the affirmative. Any prepared statement
you submitted will be made part of the record in full.
We would like to ask each of you, if you would, to try to
limit the oral presentation to 5 minutes. We will have a clock
in the center there. It will be green for 4 minutes, yellow for
1, and then when the time is up it will turn red. When you see
that it is red, we would like you to summarize and conclude
your testimony.
Ms. Lanier, why don't we start with you?
STATEMENTS OF CATHY LANIER, CHIEF, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT; PHILLIP D. MORSE, SR., CHIEF,
U.S. CAPITOL POLICE; AND KEVIN C. HAY, DEPUTY CHIEF, U.S. PARK
POLICE; AND ROBERT CAMPBELL, DIRECTOR OF SECURITY, WASHINGTON
NATIONALS BASEBALL CLUB
STATEMENT OF CHIEF CATHY LANIER
Chief Lanier. Good morning. Good morning, Chairman Waxman,
members of the committee, staff, and guests. My name is Cathy
Lanier, and I am the chief of police for the Metropolitan
Police Department, Washington, DC.
I want to point out that I have seated behind me the
Attorney General, Peter Nickles, as well as Lieutenant John
Shelton, who is in charge of our firearms registration section.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this statement on
the likely impact of H.R. 6691 on public safety in the Nation's
Capital. To begin with, I would like to briefly share with you
what has happened in Washington, DC, since the U.S. Supreme
Court issued its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.
The District of Columbia, both the executive and legislative
branches, fully respect the Supreme Court's decision. We have
demonstrated that respect by taking actions quickly to pass
legislation and emergency regulations to enable the
registration of handguns to ensure that residents already
possessing unregistered handguns could register them without
fear of criminal liability under the District law. The current
legislation and regulations are only temporary, valid for 90
and 120 days respectively, and remain works in progress.
The Council of the District of Columbia will be holding a
hearing next week to continue to elicit comment from the
public, and will amend temporary legislation on September 16th,
and enact permanent legislation soon thereafter.
Today's hearing is another important opportunity to hear a
variety of viewpoints on this issue. After the court ruling, I
mobilized my staff to ensure that the Metropolitan Police
Department's 4,000 sworn members and the public were
immediately educated about the impact of that ruling. At the
same time, I issued a personal message to the public on
community listservs, posted information on our Web site, and
created a 24-hour public hotline. Since the regulations were
issued, the Metropolitan Police Department has registered 23
handguns. We expect this volume to increase now that there is a
firearms dealer in the District of Columbia that has a Federal
firearms license.
Turning to H.R. 6691, I have grave concerns about the
proposed bill, which would prevent the District of Columbia
from registering firearms or taking many other reasonable and
commonly used steps taken by other States and municipalities
across the country to regulate or limit possession and use of
firearms. In layman's terms, this means that anyone not
prohibited by Federal law from possessing a firearm could
legally own a small, easily concealed semiautomatic handgun, or
could carry a semiautomatic rifle on the street, either of
which could be capable of firing up to 30 rounds of ammunition
without reloading.
In my professional opinion, if H.R. 6691 were passed, it
would be far more difficult for the Metropolitan Police
Department and Federal law enforcement agencies in the District
of Columbia to ensure the safety and security of the Nation's
Capital. I say this not just as a police officer, but someone
with extensive experience in homeland security and
counterterrorism.
As Representative Norton mentioned, after September 11th I
served as the Commander of the Special Operations Division for
4 years, and was the first commanding officer of the
department's Office of Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.
In that capacity, I worked extensively with multi-agency task
forces of local and Federal law enforcement agencies to plan
and implement security for critical events like the
Presidential inauguration. In short, I have spent a great deal
of time working with national experts to analyze terror threats
and develop ways to combat them, especially here in the
Nation's Capital.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, demonstrated
what we have known for a very long time, that government
facilities, dignitaries, and public servants are prime targets
for terrorists, both foreign and domestic. Protecting
government officials and infrastructure is a challenge for
every city in the United States, but in Washington, DC, the
likelihood of an attack is higher, and the challenges in
protecting the city are much greater. The District's high
concentration of iconic structures, such as the national
monuments, the White House, and of course the Capitol make it a
highly attractive target.
The high-profile human targets, from the Nation's top
elected leaders to more than 400 foreign dignitaries that make
official visits to D.C. each year, are also obviously an
attractive target.
In addition, any Federal building or career public servant
is a potential target. We have seen this in numerous attacks,
from the Oklahoma City bombing to the 1993 shootings outside of
CIA headquarters in Langley. And overseas, even the families of
high-profile leaders and public servants are frequently targets
of terrorists. I hope that we never see that here in the United
States, but with the many more important U.S. officials and
foreign dignitaries here in this city, it is a possibility that
we need to recognize. Moreover, it is not just well-coordinated
terrorist attacks we need to secure our city against. We must
also consider the unsophisticated lone wolf terrorist, angry at
the U.S. Government for seemingly a small matter such as a tax
return.
The second key vulnerability is due to the sheer volume of
secure motorcades traveling in Washington, DC, on any given
day. Given the daily movements around the city of the
President, the Vice President, and their families, and the fact
that almost 3,000 foreign dignitaries spend time in the city
each year, the routes for their movements cannot be shut down
as they are in other cities. As you know from your own
districts, when the President and Vice President travel outside
of Washington, the roads are cleared of all traffic, parked
cars and such, and spectators are often cleared or kept behind
barricades. We don't do this in D.C., because shutting the
routes for every motorcade would make it virtually impossible
to navigate much of the city on a continuous basis. And we
don't want the Nation's Capital to take on the character of an
armed fortress.
This freedom, however, comes with the cost of higher
vulnerability both for the officials and dignitaries and the
general population. In attempted and successful assassinations
around the world, the first step in attacking a motorcade is
frequently an attack on the security detail with semiautomatic
and automatic firearms. This forces the motorcade to stop, at
which point terrorists can use explosives to attack the armored
vehicles carrying the targeted individual.
In addition to assisting the Secret Service with the daily
movements of the President and Vice President around the city
and protecting foreign dignitaries, the Metropolitan Police
also provide security support for more than 4,000 special
events each year in Washington, DC. Some of these events are
small, like low-profile protests or foot races, and the threat
of a terrorist attack on these events is relatively low.
However, the risk associated with other events are
significant. I would ask you to consider, for example, two
events familiar to almost every American, and I believe
extremely important to the city and the Nation, the Fourth of
July celebration on the National Mall and the Presidential
inauguration. Hundreds of thousands of Americans will be here
for these public events. Imagine how difficult it would be for
law enforcement to safeguard the public, not to mention the new
President in the inaugural parade, if carrying semiautomatic
rifles were suddenly to become legal in Washington.
As another example, I would remind the committee of the
8,000 delegates who come to Washington, DC, from around the
world each fall for the meeting of the Board of Governors of
the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. These delegates
stay at 16 different hotels around the city. Even under current
law, new challenges to protecting these delegates from
terrorist threats arise each year. That risk would grow
exponentially if we also had to protect them from legally armed
lone wolf gunmen staying or working in or around one of the
hotels.
If these scenarios scare you, they should. They scare me.
We have an immediate concern for any life threatened or lost in
a terrorist event. But here in the Nation's Capital, we also
must recognize that any terrorist incident, no matter how
small, would garner worldwide attention and could have
significant international implications. I am certain that the
broader repercussions of an incident in this city is also a
grave concern to everyone in this room.
Finally, on a personal level, the thought of a member of
the Metropolitan Police Department or any law enforcement
officer being injured or killed during such an incident worries
me greatly. The safety of the men and women of the Metropolitan
Police Department serving the city and the country are my
responsibility, and I take that responsibility seriously. My
department devotes significant resources to try and prevent
such an event.
Providing easy access to deadly semiautomatic firearms and
high-capacity ammunition clips, and allowing them to be carried
in a large number of places outside the home will make my job
much more difficult. It is clear to me and others engaged in
everyday securing D.C. against terrorism that our city is
unique. The Federal Government already acknowledges that
authorizing the general public to carry firearms in certain
places is not in the general interests. For instance, as a law
enforcement officer, I can carry my gun almost anywhere in this
country. I can carry it in schools, on airplanes, and in most
public buildings. But ironically, upon entering the Supreme
Court to hear arguments in the Heller case, I learned that even
as the chief of police of the Metropolitan Police Department I
had to surrender my gun when I entered the Supreme Court. The
Federal Government considers the Court building to be so
sensitive that no matter who you are, you cannot wear your
firearm in the building.
I would argue that similar caution should apply to the
District of Columbia. Supreme Court Justice Scalia, writing the
majority decision for the Court, acknowledged that laws
forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as
schools and government buildings are constitutional. The
District of Columbia, as the seat of the Federal Government,
with its multitude of critical official and symbolic buildings,
monuments, and events, and high-profile public officials
traversing our streets every day, is a city filled with
sensitive places. Our laws should reflect that reality.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
today, and I am pleased to answer any questions.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you very much, Ms. Lanier. We will
ask questions after all witnesses have finished.
[The prepared statement of Chief Lanier follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Waxman. Mr. Morse.
STATEMENT OF CHIEF PHILLIP D. MORSE, SR.
Chief Morse. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I
would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you today to discuss the potential impact of the proposed
legislation regarding the District of Columbia's gun ban or gun
laws.
The mission of the U.S. Capitol Police is to protect the
Congress, its legislative processes, Members, employees,
visitors and facilities from crime, disruption, or terrorism.
We protect and secure Congress so it can fulfill its
constitutional responsibilities.
Our history is full of incidents where U.S. Capitol Police
officers have encountered armed individuals during the course
of their duties. Whether the confrontation occurred as a result
of a street crime or from an individual attempting to enter one
of our buildings, every encounter poses a danger to both the
officer and the armed individual.
We all remember the sacrifice of Officer Chestnut and
Detective Gibson at the Capitol in 1998. Just this year, our
officers confronted two individuals in our jurisdiction who
were armed with heavy weapons, one carrying a loaded shotgun,
and the other, who was arrested just last Friday, had a loaded
AK-47 in his vehicle.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, providing
security, protection, and law enforcement services for the U.S.
Congress within the Capitol complex in a post-9/11 threat
environment is a challenging task. My officers must be able to
quickly identify individuals who pose a threat. To do this, we
rely on the provisions of 40 U.S. Code 5104, which states,
``except as authorized by regulations prescribed by the Capitol
Police Board, persons may not carry or have readily accessible
to any individual on the grounds or in any of the Capitol
buildings a firearm, a dangerous weapon, explosives or
incendiary device.''
As the Nation's Capital, Washington, DC, is unlike any
other city in this country. The presence of all three branches
of government, our Nation's leaders, foreign dignitaries, our
national icons, as well as good residents of the city, requires
the combined efforts of multiple law enforcement agencies.
I believe that level of coordination between the local and
Federal law enforcement agencies, and the retraining our
personnel that will be necessitated by the passage of H.R. 6691
will be substantial. Therefore, I would encourage the formation
of a task force of representatives of the law enforcement
agencies represented here today to be established to fully
consider the impacts, proposed provisions of H.R. 6691, and to
address the issues of implementation and coordination
throughout the District of Columbia.
I will be pleased to answer any questions that you may
have.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Morse.
[The prepared statement of Chief Morse follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Waxman. Mr. Hay.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN C. HAY
Mr. Hay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
address the members of the committee today regarding H.R. 6691
and its effect on homeland security and safety within the
Nation's Capital. The U.S. Park Police operate primarily in the
urban areas of the National Park Service in Washington, DC, New
York, San Francisco, California. We have been serving the
Nation's Capital since 1791. We have worked in Federal
parklands in New York and San Francisco since 1974. In 1883,
the U.S. Congress granted the U.S. Park Police the same
jurisdiction and authority as the Metropolitan Police of
Washington, DC.
In 1948, Congress passed the Environs Act, which granted
the force arrest authority on all Federal reservations in the
nine counties in Maryland and Virginia that surround the
District of Columbia. Under Title 16 U.S.C. 1(a) through 6, we
have the same arrest authority as National Park Service rangers
in all areas of the national park system. In addition, we have
been granted State peace officer authority in Virginia and New
York, California, and a more limited version in Maryland and
New Jersey. These authorities are necessary to allow us to
safeguard over 125,000 acres of Federal parkland in the Golden
Gate National Recreation Area in California, the Gateway
National Recreation Area in New York and New Jersey, and of
course here, the parklands in Washington, DC, and the parkways.
The U.S. Park Police work closely with Federal, State, and
local enforcement agencies to maintain the peace on Federal
parklands and in areas of our jurisdictional borders. For
example, in Washington, DC, area, the five Federal parkways
leading into the Nation's Capital were in some cases built to
connect the Federal facilities with the Nation's Capital.
Most of these are now designated as critical
infrastructure. They include on the George Washington Memorial
Parkway areas such as CIA, the Pentagon, and Reagan National
Airport. The Suitland Parkway, we have responsibilities out at
Andrews Air Force Base and the Southeast Federal Center. We
also patrol the borders of Bolling Air Force Base and the Naval
Research Laboratory. On the Clara Barton Parkway, there is the
Naval Surface Warfare Center. On the Baltimore-Washington
Parkway, there is Fort Meade, NSA, NASA, and the Agricultural
Research Center. Finally, on Rock Creek, we often use the Rock
Creek Parkway for Presidential motorcades and foreign
dignitaries going out to the various embassies on Massachusetts
Avenue, which occurred most recently during the Pope's visit.
Pope Benedict.
In Washington, DC, we patrol and handle demonstrations at
Lafayette Park, the Ellipse on both sides of the White House,
the National Mall, which borders the U.S. Capitol, and we are
solely responsible for the protection of such national icons as
the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, and the
Jefferson Memorial.
In California, we patrol the lands on both sides of the
Golden Gate Bridge. In New York Harbor, parts of the Verrazano
Narrows Bridge are likewise on NPS jurisdiction, as is the
Statue of Liberty.
We maintain over 60 MOUs with allied agencies to enforce
the law and keep the peace not only in these NPS areas, but to
assist our neighbors in protecting critical infrastructure and
key resources required under homeland security Presidential
directives. We make over 4,000 arrests and deal with over
10,000 special events and demonstrations per year. We work
closely on a daily basis with local, State, and Federal law
enforcement agencies in the Washington metropolitan area. Our
officers and those of other agencies coordinate activities, in
many instances provide backup to each other. We work closely
with the Metropolitan Police and U.S. Capitol Police during
these special events and demonstrations, which occur on our
areas of contiguous jurisdiction. We also work closely with the
U.S. Secret Service and their dignitary protection mission,
primarily around the White House complex, or while their
protectees are visiting National Park Service locations.
Currently, we are already planning our part in the
inauguration of the next President. As a uniformed agency, the
U.S. Park Police serve a unique and active role in Federal law
enforcement. Since the 1930's, 10 force members have been
killed in the line of duty, 8 here in the District of Columbia,
and 2 on the parkways of Virginia and Maryland.
The Department of Justice's annual report on Law
Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted [LEOKA], reveals that
per capita we are one of the most assaulted agencies within the
Federal law enforcement community. On average we seize 87
firearms annually in Washington, DC.
For example, last week we arrested a suspect with a loaded
12-gauge shotgun with a collapsible stock in Anacostia Park.
The week before, we seized a fully automatic Uzi submachine gun
at 1 a.m., at River Terrace Park from a couple engaged in
illicit activity inside a playground. The far majority of the
weapons we seize are taken from suspects in public places,
often resulting from traffic stops or from contacts related to
drugs or alcohol abuse.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, again I want to thank you and the
members of the committee for inviting me to testify today and
for your continuing work regarding public safety. I would be
pleased to address any questions that you might have.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Hay.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hay follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Waxman. Mr. Campbell.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT CAMPBELL
Mr. Campbell. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Waxman. There is a button on the base of the mic.
Give it a press.
Mr. Campbell. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Waxman. No, I guess I told you to turn it off.
Mr. Campbell. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of
the committee. I am Robert Campbell, Director of Security for
the Washington Nationals Baseball Club. Prior to joining the
team, I served 20 years with the U.S. Secret Service, and
retired in 2003.
Like all ballparks in Major League Baseball, Nationals Park
does not allow fans to carry firearms into the building. We
believe this is a prudent policy that promotes the safety of
fans, players, and others.
Following are some of the factors behind this policy. There
have been instances where players have been the victims of fan
violence, most from projectiles and bodily attacks. Games, by
their nature, can be emotional, and some overly aggressive fans
can be volatile based on the prospects of their teams. Insofar
as alcohol is served, there are occasions when fan behavior is
influenced accordingly. The ballpark is densely populated, with
up to 42,000 people in a confined space. Given our location in
the Nation's Capital, our fans often include dignitaries, to
include heads of foreign governments, and high ranking U.S.
officials, whose security could be compromised if they were in
a situation where there might be firearms present.
Depending upon attendance, there could be as many as 1,000
employees in the ballpark, many of whose duties involve dealing
with customers in fast-paced and sometimes hectic environments.
Their ability to secure firearms safely would be compromised
more than most any other work environment.
Moreover, the ballpark is a secure place where fans can be
assured of a safe, enjoyable atmosphere. We have had no
instances of violent crimes committed against fans in the
ballpark, and very few minor crimes such as pick-pocketing. The
ballpark is surrounded each game by a large number of on-duty
District police officers who are assigned to traffic safety and
other duties. In addition, the team hires a number of off-duty
officers in uniform who provide added security inside the park.
They are supplemented by additional contract security and our
in-house contingent.
In short, we feel that in concert with the Metropolitan
Police Department, we are providing a safe environment for
families to spend together enjoying our Nation's pastime.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I am happy to
answer any questions you may have.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Campbell.
I am going to start off the questions. Chief Lanier, I was
struck by your testimony where you indicated that Washington is
particularly vulnerable to a terrorist attack. Unlike other
cities, we have lots of visiting dignitaries. We have the
President of the United States, the Congress. We also have
monuments that are important to our whole Nation.
You indicated that if other cities had a motorcade, which
would be not as usual as in Washington, they close off the
roads and stop all traffic and keep the visitors and the public
at bay. But you don't feel we can do that in Washington, DC. So
your essential point is that is a different city in terms of
the vulnerability than almost any other city in the country; is
that right?
Chief Lanier. Absolutely. We are the only jurisdiction that
during high-level dignitary moves, including the President,
that we don't clear the entire motorcade route.
Chairman Waxman. Chief Morse and Chief Hay, do you agree
with Chief Lanier's assessment?
Chief Morse. Yes, I do.
Chairman Waxman. Mr. Hay, do you agree?
Mr. Hay. We still have this bill under policy review. It
has not been completed.
Chairman Waxman. I wasn't talking about the bill.
Mr. Hay. OK.
Chairman Waxman. I was talking about the vulnerability,
special vulnerability of Washington, DC, unlike other cities.
Mr. Hay. Clearly, with the amount of dignitaries we get, it
is of a special concern.
Chairman Waxman. Now, the bill, H.R. 6691, which is one of
the bills we are considering, would change the District's gun
laws. Chief Lanier, you described some of these changes in your
testimony. And let me summarize them. The bill would repeal the
ban on semiautomatic assault weapons, including both handguns
and military-style rifles. They would allow people to carry
semiautomatic rifles in public and on District streets fully
loaded. It would eliminate the District's registration system,
and cancel the department's ballistic fingerprint program. And
it would eliminate criminal background checks for secondhand
gun sales.
What impact would these changes have on your job in
protecting security in the Nation's Capital?
Chief Lanier. I think pretty significant. I think the one
thing about having some regulations for management of the guns
that are registered, for example, in the District, offers
layers that are common sense in homeland security. Detection,
deterrence, and prevention is our primary goal.
If you remove all of those barriers, for example a no
registration process, allowing large capacity semiautomatic
weapons, those are the hallmarks of detection, deterrence, and
our goal of prevention. So I think that would have a
significant impact.
Chairman Waxman. Chief Hay, you are the deputy chief for
the U.S. Park Police. Prior to the hearing, my staff talked to
the chief of the U.S. Park Police, Chief Lauro. He expressed
many of the same concerns as Chief Lanier. He said allowing
assault weapons in Washington would increase dangers to
dignitaries and put your officers at greater risk.
Can you explain why the Park Police would be concerned
about a proliferation of these weapons in the District?
Mr. Hay. Well, the bill is still new enough that we have
not really had a good opportunity to complete the policy review
on this bill. We have not been able to completely vet all the
ins and outs of it, where it is going to end up.
Chairman Waxman. Would you be concerned, as your chief is,
that if there is a proliferation of these weapons that would be
a concern?
Mr. Hay. We are always concerned when there is firearms of
any type in and around the parks.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you.
Chief Morse, I understand you share some of the same
concerns as Chief Lanier. Could you elaborate?
Chief Morse. Well, with regard to your question about
proliferation of guns, one of the tools or one of the
advantages that the law enforcement officer has is, you know,
knowing--is being able to discern who is good and who is bad.
Here in the District of Columbia with the gun laws, you know,
when we see a weapon it can only be one of two people, a law
enforcement officer or someone who is in possession of a
firearm illegally. So that is an advantage for us. If you have
a proliferation of guns, it simply makes that job more
challenging. And that becomes an officer safety issue, as well
as a public safety issue.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you. Well, I also wanted to ask
Chief Lanier, we would have legalization of the semiautomatic
assault weapons under H.R. 6691. Currently, the District has a
ban on these semiautomatic weapons and that ban would be
removed. Tell us about your concern about that provision.
Chief Lanier. With all of the large special events we
manage here in Washington, DC, and beginning in 2001, after
September 11th, which became much more difficult for all of us,
the first thought that comes to mind is just preparing for the
Fourth of July celebration on the Mall. After 9/11, it became
so much more difficult for all of us to garner the resources to
actually be able to have checkpoints and funnel people safely
onto the Mall and screen them for any type of potential
weapons, explosives, and things of that nature.
But if that restriction was removed for the automatic
firearms and someone were able to, for example, walk down the
street with a semiautomatic firearm, whether it be a rifle or a
handgun, those checkpoints are fairly useless. You still have a
very large crowd on the Mall. There is no physical barrier to
protection. Snow fencing. And just the backdrop of that being
the Independence Day celebration in the Nation's Capital makes
it an extremely attractive target.
So back to Chief Morse's point. For our officers to
determine who the good guys and who the bad guys are and who
may be outside of that crowd with potential to do massive
amount of damage with an automatic firearms is a huge concern.
So security for any event in the Nation's Capital would be more
challenging for us.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just
ask, going back to the old law, is there any reason someone
shouldn't be able to have a handgun in their home to protect
themselves in a city with high crime? What was the problem with
that?
Chief Lanier. Well, the old law allowed for protection,
self-protection in the home. You are allowed to register
shotguns and rifles, and now you are allowed to register
revolvers. Our concern really has been with the high-capacity
semiautomatic weapons because of the ability for them to do a
large amount damage in a short period of time. And particularly
with semiautomatic handguns, which are easily concealed. They
can be taken into a public place very quickly. But the District
laws never prohibited you from having self-protection in your
home.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Do you know what is the current
status in the city today? If I move into the city today, can I
have a gun? I mean just today, what is the current status?
Chief Lanier. Yes, you can register a handgun in the
District, a handgun, a shotgun, or a rifle in the District of
Columbia. In fact, we have----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. How many people--how can I register
that? I was reading there was one guy you had to register it
with, and that he wasn't always available. How easy is it for
me to register?
Chief Lanier. It is not that difficult. In average, our
turnaround time for the registration process has been a matter
of just a couple of days. We have registered so far in the
District 25, 23, 24 handguns already. There are other
applications in process. And there is now a Federal firearms--
--
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Twenty-three handguns in the last
month. That is it?
Chief Lanier. There are others that are in process. There
is a process to go and purchase the firearms and have them
transferred.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. What if I am being stalked? What if
I am being stalked, let's say, by a boyfriend or something like
that? How long is it going to take me to register?
Chief Lanier. If you can legally register a firearm, you
can register the firearm and have the background complete in
just a matter of 2 or 3 days. I think the turnaround time has
been about 2 days in the District since we started registering.
And there are other protective measures in the District as
well, from the courts and protective orders.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Have any of the witnesses today had
a chance to talk with the Mayor or the Council about the
proposed gun legislation or new emergency rule that is in
place? When are they going to come up with their permanent fix
on this?
Chief Lanier. That is underway as we speak. There has been
a period of comment during the temporary legislation. It is
temporary, as are the registration regulations that we have
issued. They are both temporary. And during that time we have
taken comment from----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Chief, any idea when they expect to
send that to the Hill?
Chief Lanier. They are having hearings beginning on
September 16th. And they will be done shortly thereafter.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Can you give me any idea of what the
Council is going to do?
Chief Lanier. I can't answer that question.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Let me ask Mr. Morse, do you have a
clear understanding of what violates the current gun law in
effect within the District?
Chief Morse. I do.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Could you explain it to me?
Chief Morse. What currently violates? Well, within my
jurisdiction, as I stated in my opening statement, under Title
405.104, you cannot possess a firearm, explosive or incendiary
device within the Capitol complex. So that is the law that I
enforce within the Capitol complex.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK. How about outside the Capitol
complex? Because my question asked you about the D.C. gun laws
applying not just within the Capitol complex.
Chief Morse. Well, as Chief Lanier stated, she stated that
you could possess, if registered, a firearm, a rifle or a
shotgun.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Chief, let me ask you this. How many
handguns were registered in the city prior to the decision?
Chief Lanier. I believe 66,000, is that correct, ever since
the beginning of the law.
Mr. Shelton. Prior to Heller, 21,900.
Chief Lanier. 21,900. And your question about the existing
gun laws, as you asked Chief Morse, is that you can legally,
under the current laws you can have a revolver, a shotgun or a
rifle registered in your home. You cannot carry it on public
space. You cannot have a high capacity semiautomatic firearm.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. It's clear that complying with the
Constitution is going to cause some changes on law enforcement
in the city. In preparing for this eventuality have you
undertaken any effort to learn how other metropolitan areas
handle the existence of firearms in their jurisdictions? Have
you talked to New York and Baltimore and the like?
Chief Lanier. Absolutely.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. And the Council members are in
concert with them?
Chief Lanier. Absolutely.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Do you think your law that comes
forward will be consistent with what other metropolitan
jurisdictions have done?
Chief Lanier. I think the Council has put quite a bit of
effort into not only accepting comment and reaction from the
public locally, but also from other major cities around the
country. I think they will put forth reasonable expectations
for gun laws in the District of Columbia.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. And you've seen the proposed
Childress bill? Have you had a chance to examine that or your
staff?
Chief Lanier. My staff, yes.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. And what's your opinion of that?
Could you support that? You have no position on it?
Chief Lanier. I have no position.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. All right. Thank you.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chief Lanier, in your written statement you described a
chilling scenario in which terrorists use semiautomatic
firearms to stop motorcades, after which they use explosives to
assassinate the target. You also said this scenario has been
attempted and has been successful around the world. How likely
is it that something like this might happen in the District of
Columbia?
Chief Lanier. I can tell you from attending numerous
dignitary protection courses and running dignitary protection
here in the District that the Secret Service can give you a
multitude scenarios. But the most likely scenario for an attack
on a dignitary and motorcade about 80 percent I believe occur
at departure or arrival areas of the motorcade. And the most
successful attacks are by causing a chokepoint or stopping the
motorcade. Typically that is done through the use of firearms
to stop the motorcade by assassinating or targeting the
security detail with firearms which will stop the motorcade and
then make the dignitary typically in an armored vehicle
vulnerable to an explosive threat.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Let me ask you, when we talk about
semiautomatic weapons we're talking about both rifles and
pistols. For example, the AK-47, which has been called the
terrorist weapon of choice, is a semiautomatic assault rifle.
That is the gun that was used in the 1989 schoolyard shootings
in Stockton, CA that killed 6 and wounded 30. There's also the
SKS assault rifle, which in a 2002 ATF report called the rifle
most frequently encountered by law enforcement officers. In
2004 SKS rifles were used to kill police officers in both
Indiana and Alabama. Then there are the semiautomatic handguns.
For example, there is the TEC-DC9 assault pistol. That's the
gun that the Columbine high school killers used in their
rampage, is that correct?
Chief Lanier. Yes.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Semiautomatic handguns were used at
the Virginia Tech massacre last year as well, which killed 33
people and wounded 20 more. Chief, let me ask you, why are you
so concerned about these semiautomatic weapons?
Chief Lanier. It is literally the ability to do massive
amounts of destruction in a very short period of time. And in
the case of the smaller firearms, the handguns, the ability to
conceal them; walk into a school or other sensitive place,
building undetected is what makes it that much more dangerous
in terms of the carnage that can be created. Obviously with a
revolver which fires six shots versus a semiautomatic pistol
that you can shove in your waistband that can fire 20, 30
rounds with a high capacity magazine very quickly is a big
concern for response time for law enforcement.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Chief Morse and Chief Hay, do you
share these same concerns?
Chief Morse. Well, with respect to protecting the Capitol,
the existing law which prohibits firearms is one that allows us
to do our job without some of the challenges that the district
chief or the Park Police would do. Because as I mentioned
before, and just to clarify, we're talking about not weapons in
persons' homes, but vehicles and outdoors in the public space
around the Capitol complex. And currently that is prohibited.
With respect to outside that jurisdiction, outside our
jurisdiction it makes it more challenging to prevent those
types of incidents that the chief was referring to because of
not being able to discern very quickly an incoming threat. So
the proliferation of guns in that respect to be carried freely
about in the public space would make it more challenging for
the officers to discern that threat and certainly prevent it.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. OK.
Mr. Hay. On the 6,000 acres of National Park Service land
within the District it's roughly 16 percent of the District.
There are other National Park Service laws that would prevent
the carrying of loaded firearms. Title 36 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Section 2.4, is a petty offense. And
regardless of whether you were in Yosemite or Yellowstone you
still couldn't have a firearm or here on the National Park
Service lands of the District. So we would continue to enforce
that law.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. So the bottom line is that these
semiautomatic weapons, especially the handguns, are going to
make it far more difficult for all of you to carry out your
duties and responsibilities with the high level of security
that you're actually able to protect all of the individuals
that you're trying to protect?
Chief Morse. Well, it certainly has impacts, and that's
what we're here to tell you about today. And the impact is it
makes it more challenging for us to do our jobs with respect to
protecting, for me anyway, protecting buildings and people. And
those are some of the challenges that I just told you about.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, and thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton. First of all, I want to say that the Capitol
Police and the police in Washington, DC, do an outstanding job.
So what I'm about to say is no reflection on you, OK. So now
you know where I'm coming from already.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. That's the novocaine before the
needle.
Chief Lanier. That's never a good start.
Mr. Burton. I had a lady that worked for me that lived
about five or six blocks from the Capitol. A guy shimmied up
the drain pipe and came in through the window and stabbed her
about five or six times. And the only way she could get away
from him was to beat him off with a pan. And we checked and
found out we had very restrictive gun laws. And had she been
able to have a gun in her home she may have been able to
protect herself when she saw him coming through the window. I
don't believe that a terrorist or a person who is going to try
to do harm here in the Capitol is going to go try get a gun in
Washington, DC. They're probably going to get it someplace else
illegally and bring it into the Capitol and start shooting
people. And the people that live in and around the Capitol up
until now and in Washington, DC, could not have a gun. You
couldn't carry a gun. You couldn't get a license to carry a gun
for your own protection.
Now, right across the river in Alexandria, Virginia you can
get a permit to carry a gun. Now, let me just give you some
statistical data. In Alexandria per 100,000 people they have
5.1 murders. In Washington it's 29.1. Forceable rapes, 19.75 in
Alexandria and 31 in Washington, DC. Robberies, 150 in
Alexandria, 619 in Washington, DC. Aggravated assaults, 152 in
Alexandria, 765 in Washington. Burglaries, 278 to 658.
Larcenies, 1,784 to 2,602. And vehicle thefts 274 to 1,213.
They have a law in Alexandria which allows you to have a gun in
your home without any notification to the law, and you can get
a permit to carry a gun with you. And as a result the
statistical data shows very clearly that right across the river
per 100,000 people you're a heck of a lot safer. Because the
criminal knows if he comes into your home and tries to attack
you you've got a way to respond.
Now, this young lady I talked about a few minutes ago that
worked for me she had nothing she could do. She would be dead
today if she hadn't hit him in the head with a pan. It would
have been a tragic thing. She lives down in Florida, she's got
a family, and she's doing very well I might add.
If you look at the national statistics, I think this is
important, too, nationally, let me get this here real quickly,
Washington as compared to nationally. Washington is 5.75 times
the national average for murder; almost six times as much.
Forceable rapes is 1.33 times worse. Robberies is 3.11 times
worse. Aggravated assault is 2.19 times worse than the national
average. And all violent crimes is 2.63 times the national
average.
So I really appreciate the hard work that the law
enforcement officers do for us. But I will tell you this, when
I leave the Capitol, as 500 other Members of Congress, you
protect the leaders, the leaders have protection all the time.
When we leave and drive one block off this Capitol we're on our
own; 500 Members. You talk about terrorists. One of the targets
of opportunity for terrorists would be Members of Congress. And
when we leave this Capitol we have no security. If you live in
Maryland, you live in Virginia, wherever, you go home alone.
And if a terrorist wants to target you, you're dead meat
because you have no way to defend yourself. You cannot have a
permit to carry a gun. And so as a result you're on your own.
And I just think that's wrong. I think law abiding citizens
ought to be able to if they feel it's in their interest and
their family's interest to carry a weapon they ought to be able
to apply for and get a permit like they can in Virginia right
across the river. And especially people of high profile who
have a reason to carry a gun who carry large sums of money or
whose lives are at risk because they work in this place, they
ought to be able to protect themselves.
We had a Senator, who one of his aides came in and had a
gun with him, and the Senator, as I understand it, has a gun
permit in Virginia. And I think the reason he had that gun with
him all the time was because he felt there might be a threat to
his life. And I think every Member of Congress if you asked
them individually they would say they do worry once in a while
about being attacked by a terrorist or somebody else. And so I
think they ought to have the right to protect themselves once
they leave this Capitol, and right now they can't. You do a
great job while we're here, you do a great job in Washington,
DC, but individual citizens who abide by the law ought to be
able to protect themselves, and especially elected officials in
this Capitol.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Burton.
Mr. Tierney. Ms. Watson.
Ms. Watson. Thank you so much for this very, very necessary
and important hearing, Mr. Chairman. I understand the bill, as
it's currently drafted, individuals could buy and own firearms
without registering with the Metropolitan Police. And I'm
addressing this to Chief Lanier. In your written statement you
said you have grave concern, also your verbal statement. And
can you explain why you have this grave concern and related to
this building that we're in right now?
Chief Lanier. Again, I think that the hallmarks of trying
to prevent any crime from happening, including a terrorist
attack, is having some layered measures of protection. For most
terrorists the risk of failure is worse for them than the risk
of dying and carrying out an attack. So each level of security
measures we have in place that they have to go through that may
cause them to be detected is a security measure that serves as
somewhat of a deterrence. By having to register a firearm you
typically would have to come in and prove your identity, so
that adds another layer of risk for a terrorist. If you remove
that registration process and the other laws around gun
possession and carrying in the District you now have removed a
lot of the illegal acts that a potential terrorist would have
to go through, elevating the risk of detection and being
caught, thus deterring their attack long before they get to
that attack. So I think that those are necessary measures to
send the message that there is layered security in terms of
Washington, DC, as the Nation's Capital, and the registration
process and some laws with gun control are necessary.
Ms. Watson. Now, this is what I understand in your current
firearms registration process. Your department, and I'm just
repeating, also performs a ballistic identification procedure
during which it fires the weapon and retrieves a spent
ammunition to obtain a ballistic fingerprint of the gun. This
allows you to identify and track guns used in crimes, is that
correct?
Chief Lanier. Yes.
Ms. Watson. So how would eliminating--and I want to ask
this of my colleagues too that are in support of the current
bill--how would eliminating the ballistics fingerprinting
process affect the work of your officers? And would you lose--
if you lose that resource would it endanger all of us that are
in sensitive places?
Chief Lanier. Very much the ballistics fingerprint of a
firearm has assisted us in tracking down, locating and solving
numerous violent crime cases. But it is--essentially what it is
described as is a ballistic fingerprint of that weapon. So when
a firearm is discharged, whether the firearm is actually
recovered or not, we can tell from the expended shell casing or
the round that's fired from that gun, if that gun is
preregistered with a ballistic fingerprint on file, which gun
fired that round. So yes, it is important for us, not only for
prosecution of cases which is the ultimate goal, but also for
us to identify potential suspects that may have used that
firearm in the commission of a crime.
Ms. Watson. In addition to the ballistics fingerprinting,
the department has a process which includes a background check.
Now, you'll hear arguments that the law abiding citizen needs
to have a gun. You're not a criminal until you break a law. And
so how do we know if a person is mentally ill but walking the
streets, has an intention to come in here and shoot at one of
us because they didn't like a piece of legislation that we
introduced or supported, and this person has no record? We have
Members of Congress that are in prison today, and they
certainly were law abiding until they broke the law. So how do
we know who registers to get a gun and to use the gun unless we
have everyone register the gun? Can you comment?
Chief Lanier. That's exactly why we have the registration
process that we have. And those who have been convicted of a
crime of violence or have prior weapons charges, those who have
been voluntarily or involuntarily committed to a mental
hospital within the past 5 years, those that have been not
convicted--convicted of a crime of violence, to include
domestic violence, all those things are looked at in our
background process for exactly that reason, to try and
eliminate potential persons from registering firearms that have
potentially used them illegally. And in the scenario given just
a moment ago, you can register a firearm legally if you do not
have that, if you pass that background in the District of
Columbia. So you do have the right to even possess a handgun in
your home right now under the current laws to protect yourself
in your home if you pass that background.
Ms. Watson. Well, you know, without registration we don't
know who is prohibited from driving because they need glasses.
And I'm wearing glasses right now to see you. And if we don't
do a background check he might not have the sufficient vision
to obtain a driver's license and be driving a car. So we
operate in the blind.
And in closing, I just want to say that the only purpose in
eliminating the registration system seems to reduce--is to
reduce the visibility and control of a firearm in the District.
I just think it's a bad idea. In protection of all of us in
sensitive places, we need to know who has a weapon.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you, Ms. Watson.
Mr. Issa.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to try and
narrow very quickly what we're talking about here. Mr.
Campbell, the Supreme Court decision didn't affect you in any
direct way, did it?
Mr. Campbell. No, sir.
Mr. Issa. Mr. Hay, the Supreme Court decision did not
affect you in any direct way, did it?
Mr. Hay. No.
Mr. Issa. OK. Mr. Morse, the Supreme Court decision did not
affect you in any direct way, did it?
Chief Morse. It has not.
Mr. Issa. Ms. Lanier, Chief, it did affect you. You had a
law that was found to be unconstitutional that for decades had
violated an American's second amendment right, isn't that true?
Chief Lanier. It impacted my capacity because I have to
implement new regulations.
Mr. Issa. You were implementing the law. Your department
had arrested, convicted and jailed people for a law that now is
unconstitutional as it was.
Chief Lanier. The District has already revised those
regulations in the temporary process.
Mr. Issa. Let's make sure we keep it narrow. The Supreme
Court struck down a law you were implementing on the day they
struck it down. So you were held that for four decades you had
violated people's second amendment rights by both, I believe,
arbitrarily and capriciously limiting registration and by
outright limiting the people's ability in their own home to
protect themselves with a handgun.
Now, is that your understanding of the Court decision or
are you not familiar with the Court decision?
Chief Lanier. I'm familiar with the Court decision. I
understand the changes that are required by the Court, and we
are in the process----
Mr. Issa. So all this discussion today about heavy weapons,
assault rifles, all of this, is the usual anti-gun stuff. The
Supreme Court said in no uncertain terms that Americans, both
in States and in the District of Columbia, continue to enjoy
the constitutional right under the second amendment in their
own homes to protect themselves, including with the use of
handguns. They held that you were able to have registration as
long as it was not arbitrary or capricious, which I question
the 23 registrations. But having said that, we're going to
assume that it's not arbitrary and capricious. So this entire
hearing here and all the discussion and discussions about
assault rifle, and repeatedly the statement about how AK-47s
with large magazines and attacking motorcades, isn't it true
that what we're really talking about as the city of Washington,
DC, has to do is simply to structure a reasonable ability for
people to purchase, register and keep in their own home
handguns? That is the immediate effect of the Supreme Court
decision, and that is what we have oversight over, isn't that
true?
Chief Lanier. Yes.
Mr. Issa. And are you prepared today to ensure that process
goes forward, and are you able to protect the citizens of
Washington, DC, every bit as well if law abiding citizens in
their own home have registered weapons?
Chief Lanier. Law abiding citizens in the District of
Columbia have been able to register weapons in their home for
many, many years and currently are registering firearms and
handguns in their home for self-protection.
Mr. Issa. Ma'am, we were only talking handguns, and
handguns were what the Supreme Court said you had violated
people's second amendment rights in the District of Columbia by
eliminating that ability.
Chief Lanier. And that's been rectified.
Mr. Issa. OK. Now, I'm just going to just take one more
thing, because I think you should be held to task. I know
people love to talk about how great the police are, and I could
do that too. But this is the murder capital of America off and
on.
Chief Lanier. That's not true.
Mr. Issa. This is the murder capital of America off and on.
You have years in which you are, years in which you're not.
This is an area in which gun violence has been a problem for
four decades, isn't that true?
Chief Lanier. Gun violence is an issue in every major city
in the United States.
Mr. Issa. But isn't the District of Columbia among the
cities in the top three-quarters, let's say, in any given year
of people who are using guns to kill other people?
Chief Lanier. I don't know that statistic off the top of my
head.
Mr. Issa. Well, I guess my question to you is if the
District of Columbia, as I will say here, has been a place in
which gun violence has been a big problem for those four
decades in which law abiding citizens never were allowed to
have pistols in their house, then isn't it just possible that
allowing the law abiding citizens to protect themselves with
pistols in their own home could actually do you help, not harm,
when it comes to reducing gun violence by those who have
already been carrying these guns illegally and using them in
the District of Columbia? And hopefully you will go back and do
the research to realize that the problem is that people with
handguns, as was said earlier, they're all the bad guys or
they're law enforcement, but there's been a lot of them here
while the law abiding citizen hasn't been able to have one.
Chief Lanier. I was asked to come here and talk about the
implications of the bill on homeland security in the Nation's
Capital. If you want to have a discussion about what's behind
violent crime in Washington, DC, and other cities around
America, it's a much different discussion and there's a lot of
other factors besides gun ownership. But you can register a
firearm in the District of Columbia for self-protection in your
home.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Chief. And since the limit of our
jurisdiction is the District of Columbia and not homeland
security, that's why I was trying to narrow on that. And thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Issa.
Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. That is the limit of our jurisdiction. And H.R.
6691 of course does not focus on gun violence in big cities
like the District of Columbia. And that's the work of this
Chief, not your work, not this Member's work. And I want to
focus on what H.R. 6691, which is the bill filed by Members on
the other side, would do with respect to jurisdiction that we
are accountable for. I would like to do it the old-fashioned
way, going back to my former profession, through hypotheticals
and ask you some hypotheticals. They turn out not to be so
hypothetical because Chief Morse and Chief Hay have just talked
about confiscating guns that they found in public. Now, under
current law it's illegal to carry a loaded weapon in public in
the Nation's Capital without exceptions, isn't that correct?
Chief Lanier. Correct.
Ms. Norton. Now, if H.R. 6691 becomes legal, forget for a
moment what effect it will have on a high crime city like the
District of Columbia, like big cities in California, like big
cities throughout the United States, think for a moment through
this hypothetical what effect it will have right here in the
Nation's Capital where these officers are charged with
protecting federally protected people. I want to ask you what
you can do now and what you would be able to do if H.R. 6691 is
passed concerning carrying loaded guns in public. You
mentioned, Chief, the serious issue you always face in the
President's inaugural parade. Now, if H.R. 6691 passed you
could have a long rifle, a semiautomatic SKS rifle with you, or
let's take an AK-47. Now, what could you do now and what could
you do to someone simply standing with that long rifle to view
the parade?
Chief Lanier. Right now they would be placed under arrest,
and it's legal to possess in the District of Columbia.
Ms. Norton. Well, suppose a person has a long rifle after
H.R. 6691 passes; what would you do with an SKS and an AK-47
visible for you to see at the President's inaugural parade?
Chief Lanier. It's legal to possess. There's not much that
we can do.
Ms. Norton. How could you secure that inaugural parade, I'm
asking you?
Chief Lanier. It's going to be very difficult.
Ms. Norton. Let's take a large protest we have here.
They're so common. We had them with the International Monetary
Fund. I don't pick them out, or the World Bank protest, because
they are any more likely to have guns than anybody else. I have
no information, but because it was so huge. I would like to ask
you about those. I know they were hard to control.
You have spoken about concealable weapons, concealable
weapons. Let's take TEC-9s. That's concealable, Uzis,
concealable. Or for that matter the long guns, such as the ones
I previously asked about. Under H.R. 6691 is it conceivable
that you would have at such a large protest both AK-47s in full
view and conceivable Uzis or TEC-9s that you couldn't even see
but which today are illegal in the District of Columbia?
Chief Lanier. That's possible, yes.
Ms. Norton. Is there anything you could do in one of these
mass protests? I'm leaving aside the almost always peaceful
meetings at Labor Day or July 4th, but one of those protests
where people are moving about. Could you secure the World Bank,
the Monetary Fund, the nearby Federal facilities or the
District of Columbia itself if people were able to carry
concealable fully loaded semiautomatic guns or fully loaded
unconcealed military assault weapons at these large protests?
Chief Lanier. It would be extremely difficult. I can't
imagine.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out, there's
a first amendment right to be at these protests, just as the
second amendment right has been cited. Here we give the police
an impossible dilemma.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you very much, Ms. Norton.
Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I guess I'd kind
of be the unpopular person in many people's eyes as the author
of the amendment overturned the D.C. limitation on the right to
bear arms in the District and as also having worked the broker
agreement that I believe will once again protect those rights.
I didn't get a chance to make an opening statement, so I
want to make a few comments here.
Home rule does not give an area the right to overturn
constitutional rights. That's what the Supreme Court
determined. It doesn't give Washington, DC, or any city the
right to overturn free speech, it doesn't give them the right
to overturn freedom of religion, it doesn't give a city the
right to overturn the right to bear arms or any civil right.
This was much the argument that southern States had. When they
didn't like a Supreme Court ruling they tried to reinstitute
around the ban, as D.C. did in this case, come up with a law
that went around the Supreme Court restriction.
Now, the most important thing in the Supreme Court decision
was something we've debated in the United States for years, and
that's what's a militia. A militia is not the military. The
militia are individuals' right to bear arms. The court has
permanently decided that. They gave flexibility for cities to
work in different areas and explicitly said in the court case
that there are some things that cities can continue to do. But
when D.C. came back with a law that says you have to be under
imminent danger, what does that mean; the gun is blazing, that
the gun is pulled, that somebody has busted your door down,
that you just live in the city? I mean, what an absurd standard
and an insult to the rights of the Court--the rights of the
American people. Now, we had a little bit of fencing a little
bit ago about how bad D.C. crime is. Murder capital 7 of the
last 9 years. You can state whether it's improved. Yes, some of
the murders have gone down. Murders have gone down all over the
United States pretty much in every city because we've locked
criminals up. Now as they come back out some rates are moving
again. But there are multiple things, and what is clearly
proven is that the cities that have the gun laws haven't had
any impact on it. In fact, the cities with the gun laws
generally have higher rates of murder. It's counterintuitive.
Why? Because if you disarm the citizens, if you tell them, as
the D.C. ban says, that you have to have your gun locked up so
when a criminal comes into your house under imminent danger
you've got to go find the key, unlock it, put your gun
together, then go find the bullets, how in the world are you
supposed to protect your family? And that is a clear violation
of the rights, and that's what the Court tried to address. And,
in effect, you have armed criminals in neighborhoods and
roaming this city because citizens they know haven't been able
to protect themselves. And the Washington Post had a very
interesting article years ago when I was on staff working with
juvenile delinquency. Nobody bought their guns even in the gun
stores. They robbed people. A couple of them in the juvenile
center took guns from police officers. Unless you're going to
have some kind of an international U.N. Law restricting this I
don't know how you can isolate and claim all the things you're
claiming about, oh, if we just had this gun law we wouldn't
have the people doing assassinations. Reagan got shot during
your gun law. But we wouldn't have all this type of threats to
everybody if all we did was banned it here in D.C. It's an
absurd principle. You can't.
And by the way, there's another assumption here. We're
talking here like, well, these guns kind of walk into a home
all by themselves and start firing. The best way to control
terrorists are through FISA, through intelligence tracking,
through what they do at the Nationals stadium. Quite frankly,
one of my friends and a company in my District helps provide
and plan security for stadiums. The most critical thing is
having intelligence. Yes, you have cameras, you have police
officers around to scare them off, but you need to know where
the risks are and plan as much as you can. It's not clear that
the laws work. As we heard Mr. Issa say a little bit ago, three
of you aren't even impacted this. This shows what a political
hearing this is. Three of you aren't impacted. And the fourth,
the Chief, quite frankly, aren't you a political appointee?
Chief Morse. I am not. I went through a selection process.
Mr. Souder. Not the Park Police. I mean Chief Lanier,
aren't you a political appointee?
Chief Lanier. I've been a member of the Metropolitan Police
Department for 18 years appointed by the Mayor.
Mr. Souder. Pretty much that's what it should be. When a
mayor wins an election they pick somebody who reflects their
views. But you're a political appointee reflecting the
political views. And police officers by the way disagree on the
subject, I'm not suggesting they don't, but that you're
reflecting the political views.
This is a political hearing today. This isn't about
protecting constitutional rights, it's not about legislation. I
mean, if we're going to have a bill, as I'll point out, that
looks into whether or not we're more secure clearly this gun
law has failed in Washington, DC. We should be looking to
figure out how to work it and how to make citizens safe, not
how to reinstitute one of the most failed laws in America. It's
tough to have a law that can fail more than being a leader year
after year in murders. As former Mayor Barry said, it's a
pretty safe place other than the murders.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Souder. Your time has
expired.
Mr. Sarbanes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
your testimony. Chief Lanier, what could people do before the
Supreme Court's decision? What could D.C. residents do to
protect themselves in their homes?
Chief Lanier. D.C. residents have always had the ability to
register firearms for self-protection in the home. They could
register a shotgun or a rifle for self-protection in the home
prior to the Heller case.
Mr. Sarbanes. Prior to the Supreme Court decision. So it's
not like they were completely without any protection as has
been suggested?
Chief Lanier. That's correct.
Mr. Sarbanes. What can they do to protect themselves if you
were to simply do what's required to comply with the Supreme
Court's decision?
Chief Lanier. That is what's under way now and currently in
place. You can now register a handgun for self-protection in
the home as well. I think the City Council and the
administration has been working hard to come up with final
legislation. What is in place right now is only temporary, and
I think when that final legislation is proposed it will be in
full compliance with the Heller decision.
Mr. Sarbanes. In your professional judgment, how much
additional protection would be available to people in their
homes if the current limitations were completely wiped away? In
other words, how much extra do you get? I mean do you view it
as providing a lot of extra protection if you can keep a
semiautomatic weapon, for example, in your possession in your
home?
Chief Lanier. I think the ability to have a handgun in your
home for self-protection or shotgun or rifle is sufficient for
self-protection in the home.
Mr. Sarbanes. It sounds from the testimony like you'll be
able to pretty much effectively do the job of handling the
special dimensions that the District of Columbia presents in
terms of the dignitaries and Federal officials and others,
you'll be able to do that job pretty effectively even as you
comply with the Supreme Court's decision, right?
Chief Lanier. Absolutely.
Mr. Sarbanes. And I've also heard that you have high
anxiety about whether you could do that job effectively if the
provisions of H.R. 6691 were implemented?
Chief Lanier. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sarbanes. Can you just describe, I mean take a rally or
some other event, and let's assume that H.R. 6691 went through,
because you know we assume that things that drastic and ill-
advised won't happen, but sometimes they do. So how would your
department have to kind of reorient itself around a particular
kind of event or special circumstance that you deal with now if
you were operating under those kinds of conditions?
Chief Lanier. I think it was alluded to earlier by Chief
Morse, the first and most significant step is the average
member of the Metropolitan Police Department, there's 4,000 of
us, there's about 15 years on, 15 years of training the same
way, policing the same way, same laws, significant undertaking
in completely revising the way our officers train, think and
perform out on the street, which is a concern for all of us,
because it does change for all of us. But for any large event,
as I said, the easiest thing to kind of relate to is the large
special events that happen here all the time. There are things
from marathons all the way to just annual celebrations like the
Fourth of July. We typically will secure those events with
perimeters that are snow fencing, bike racks. And we try to use
the checkpoint process to eliminate the explosive threat from
getting into a large crowd, 100,000 people on the Mall for the
Fourth of July. The change in that security is drastic because
an automatic firearm, an AK-47, the snow fencing and the
checkpoints are useless because someone outside that perimeter
could shoot into the crowd. And just by mere nature of the
backdrop as Washington, DC, I think that is a potential
reality.
Mr. Sarbanes. If H.R. 6691 were implemented and sort of
wiped away the current restrictions, how would that compare to
the restrictions that exist in other cities across the country?
Chief Lanier. Well, actually, it would make it less
restrictive. From what I understand it, you can purchase a
weapon in another jurisdiction and bring it into the District
of Columbia. So that in itself is less restrictive and I think
a huge concern for us in terms of trafficking of firearms and
being able to know what it is that is on our streets.
Mr. Sarbanes. OK. Thank you.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Sarbanes.
Mr. Sali.
Mr. Sali. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chief Lanier, we're
talking today about homeland security risks, so we're talking
about really a terrorist type event, correct? That's what you
came prepared to talk about?
Chief Lanier. Yes.
Mr. Sali. I want to talk about four different categories of
people. Every day when I walk between my office and the Capitol
building I see lots of people carrying guns. They're your
police officers. And you're not worried about any of them being
involved in a terrorist attack, correct?
Chief Lanier. No.
Mr. Sali. And the law abiding citizens in the District of
Washington, DC, you're not really concerned about them being
involved in a terrorist attack, is that correct?
Chief Lanier. Correct.
Mr. Sali. And then we have common criminals who are
involved in all manner of criminal activity that we've talked
about today. Your level of concern about them being involved in
a terrorist type attack is not typically really great, is it?
Chief Lanier. Well, it depends but it's not what I was
testifying about today.
Mr. Sali. OK. But if we have a real live legitimate person
who is intent on committing a terrorist act, that's a person
that you're really concerned about?
Chief Lanier. I think there's two categories of those types
of person. The lone wolf person who maybe wasn't committed to
committing a terrorist attack and somebody who is under the
influence of drugs or alcohol.
Mr. Sali. Let's group those together. These are the people
you're worried about. And you don't have any expectation
whatsoever that any of the people in that last group would go
and register a handgun of any type, I don't care if you
prohibit or include what firearms. None of them are going to
come register anything under the law as it exists today and the
law as we pass it here or the law as it has existed, that's
correct, isn't it?
Chief Lanier. I can only tell you that from what I
understand even the al Qaeda training manual recommends that
those planning to carry out a terrorist attack do everything
they can to avoid detection by violating laws. So they're
encouraged strongly to not violate laws from traffic laws to
any other law that would raise a level of suspicion.
Mr. Sali. So your testimony before this committee is that
you do have an expectation that terrorists will come register
their guns?
Chief Lanier. I didn't say that. I said that the level of
detection that is recommended and that is trained in
terrorists, that we are aware of, is to not raise the suspicion
of law enforcement by violating laws. I think to remove any
kind of process to raise that level of suspicion would be ill
advised.
Mr. Sali. Well, if that's the case, isn't the--I mean we
have a lot of activity going on in Iraq and Afghanistan and
Pakistan. Is the answer there not to engage in all of the
intelligence work that we're doing, spending an awful lot of
effort there and the military effort, just go pass some gun
registration laws and that will get the job done, you're not
suggesting that?
Chief Lanier. Certainly not.
Mr. Sali. So the point is really there's no real
expectation that terrorists are going to come and register any
weapons of any kind no matter what the law is for the District
of Columbia, correct? That's really what we're getting to.
Chief Lanier. I think by removing the process and having no
visible deterrent, again not the hallmarks of what the
terrorist prevention motto of this country is; detect, deter
and prevent. And I think by removing that registration process
you really are removing one of those barriers or levels of
security.
Mr. Sali. Well, let me ask you this. The overwhelming
majority of even common criminals when they commit crimes,
those guns are not registered with the District of Columbia are
they?
Chief Lanier. That's correct.
Mr. Sali. So once again, if the common criminals don't
generally do that, there's no real expectation that terrorists
would register any weapons?
Chief Lanier. Many of those guns fortunately for us are
taken off the streets when they're arrested before they commit
a crime.
Mr. Sali. Well, let me ask you this. If we're not concerned
for terrorist events, or even just generic criminal events,
with law abiding citizens committing those acts, because they
obey the law, what efforts is your department taking to get at
those criminals and those terrorists beyond registration?
Chief Lanier. We can spend hours discussing the impact of
what my department has been doing for the past several years,
along with all these other departments here, to get at the
terrorist threat through those same measures; detection,
prevention and deterrence.
Mr. Sali. OK. But the rate of murders in the capital city
for our Nation is quite high compared even with most other big
cities across the Nation, do you agree with that statement?
Chief Lanier. Our rate of murder is on average with many of
the large cities in the United States.
Mr. Sali. It's one of the highest in the Nation, you would
agree with that, correct?
Chief Lanier. Currently we are I believe 10th behind nine
other major cities in the United States.
Mr. Sali. So I guess my point is, if you're worried about
terrorists and you're worried even about common criminals to
some degree, how is it that a registration law in the District
of Columbia is really going to make a significant difference
when you've testified today that even for common crimes most of
the guns that are involved there are not even registered with
the city?
Chief Lanier. I don't think I suggested that the
registration process is going stop a terrorist attack.
Mr. Sali. Well, I'm not saying that you suggested that it
would stop a terrorist attack. But you've expressed concerns
about the need to make sure that the types of weapons you talk,
semiautomatic weapons, that somehow those are going to increase
the risk of a terrorist attack if they're in the hands of law
abiding citizens.
Chief Lanier. My testimony today is that there should be
some reasonable measures put in place for the District of
Columbia that is unique to other jurisdictions. With those
measures being in compliance with the Heller decision, I think
there should be some measures to regulate that within the
District of Columbia because of the unique threat that is faced
here.
Mr. Sali. Mr. Chairman, I see my time is up.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Sali.
Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just like to go
back and just remind people that the Supreme Court, and on the
decision I'm primarily citing from pages 54 and 55. Like most
rights, the second amendment right is not unlimited. It is not
a right to keep and carry weapons whatsoever in any matter
whatsoever and for whatever purpose. And it goes on also to
state that the Court finds support in historical traditions of
prohibiting and carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Chief Lanier, I would like to ask you about a particular
lethal type of weapon. It's a long range high powered 50-
caliber rifle that's used by military snipers. These weapons
can penetrate armor and bullet proof glass, they can bring down
helicopters or low flying planes, and they are used by the
armed forces at 35 different countries. These weapons are so
lethal to human targets over enormous distances. A few years
ago in Afghanistan, for example, a Canadian sniper killed a
Taliban shoulder from a mile and a half away. And I've been
told that's the distance between the Capitol building and the
Lincoln Memorial.
Chief, there are currently many restrictions on owning
weapons in Washington, DC. They have to be registered and they
can't be carried in public. And semiautomatic models are
completely banned, for example, like the 50-caliber rifle I
just described, is that correct?
Chief Lanier. That's correct.
Ms. McCollum. And under the NRA bill H.R. 6691 these
safeguards are repealed. There would be no registration, these
weapons could be carried in public and they could be carried
fully loaded with semiautomatic clips. I ask Chief Lanier and
Chief Morse and Mr. Hay, are you concerned about this?
Chief Lanier. Obviously that would be a concern for any law
enforcement officer.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Morse.
Chief Morse. I would be concerned that someone would have
that type of weapon and be adverse to our security.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Hay.
Mr. Hay. Yeah, the 50-caliber rifle brings up all kinds of
concerns for us as well.
Ms. McCollum. There's a picture up here right now, and
they're from a company, a company that's advertising 50-caliber
sniper rifles on the Internet. As you can see, this company is
promoting a product and it's demonstrating the destructive
force of this weapon. In this picture the company is showing
how the weapon can pierce the window of an aircraft cockpit. In
fact I would like to read some of the supporting advertisement
that goes along with it.
So we took the 50-AE and the AR-15 to a range to make some
pudding out of some fairly formidable targets, a McDonnell
Douglas DC-9. That is what they chose to show what they could
make pudding out of.
So I ask the witnesses again, what do you think about this?
Does it concern you that a 50-caliber sniper rifle could be
used to bring down an aircraft, let alone in H.R. 6691 it would
be perfectly legal to carry thisfully loaded in the District?
Chief Lanier. Yes.
Chief Morse. Yes, that's a concern.
Mr. Hay. Yes, we too would be concerned about firearms. As
I mentioned earlier, we would still have Title 36 prohibition
against any firearms, to include the 50-caliber.
Ms. McCollum. The State of California has also recently
recognized the destructive force of these weapons and has
banned them. According to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who
supported the bill, the 50-caliber rifle is a military type
weapon that presents a clear and present danger to the general
public. I would ask you, do you agree with Governor
Schwarzenegger?
Chief Lanier. I think a weapon of that caliber in the
general public is a danger, yes.
Chief Morse. A weapon of that caliber certainly in the
hands of someone who intends to do harm is of grave concern to
me.
Mr. Hay. Yeah, it's really the same answer as the last
time. We're going to take enforcement action on firearms
regardless of the caliber.
Ms. McCollum. Well, Mr. Chair, I would like to thank you
for holding this hearing today. H.R. 6691, supported by the
National Rifle Association, would prohibit the District of
Columbia from doing exactly what the State of California has
done by banning these weapons. It's not only an insult to the
people in the District, it is a potential danger to anyone who
lives or works or visits the city.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you very much.
Ms. Foxx.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the level of
hyperbole here has reached a new high in terms of the
suggestions about what would and would not be allowed under
H.R. 6691. I would really like for somebody to show me in the
legislation where they can point to what is being alleged here.
I think that what my colleague Mr. Burton said needs to be
repeated over and over and over again in this hearing. Clearly
the D.C. gun law has failed in terms of trying to hold down the
crime in this city, since it is one of the highest crime cities
in the country. And I find it really astonishing that the
elected officials and appointed officials here would continue--
want to continue practices that clearly do no good for the
citizens and in fact create harm. You are appointed and elected
to protect the citizens. And when you continue to do things
that clearly don't bring that result it's hard for me to
understand.
I think it was Einstein who said stupidity is continuing to
do the same thing and expecting a different outcome. So
continuing to try to ban citizens from owning the guns that the
Constitution says they can own and expecting a different
outcome, I really find that unbelievable.
And the comment by the Chief that it is sufficient self-
protection to have a handgun, what an arrogant comment to make
about what the citizens of this country ought to be doing. The
D.C. City Council should decide and this Congress should decide
what is sufficient self-protection when we have a Constitution
that clearly states the right of the citizens to keep and bear
arms shall not be impinged by the Congress of the United
States. I find that incredible.
What I would like to know is what else are you doing to try
to hold down the crime rate or to cut down the crime rate in
the District of Columbia other than banning guns, which has
clearly not worked? And my question is only to the Chief.
Because as somebody else has pointed out, the three gentlemen
here are simply window dressing for this event. It's only the
Chief who should be answering this.
So would you please tell us, is the District of Columbia
doing anything else to try to reduce the crime rate here?
Chief Lanier. First I would like to clarify one point. I
would like to clear up misunderstandings. I don't write law. I
enforce it. That is my job. Political appointee, designee,
career law enforcement officer. My job is to enforce law. I
don't make it.
Second, I would like to say, in terms of using the gun ban
or whether guns are allowed or not allowed as the sole measure
of what is behind crime or violent crime in America I think is
absent additional thought that is needed. There are a lot of
things that go into violent crime. Any one factor, whether we
have a gun law or don't have a gun law, is not going to turn
around people who carry out violent crimes overnight. It is a
variety of factors that impact violent crime in this city and
every other jurisdiction in the United States. So I just want
to make sure that you understand that, 18 years in policing,
there is a lot of things that impact why somebody would carry
out a violent crime. It is not just whether they have access or
don't have access to a firearm.
In terms of addressing what else we are doing to deal with
crime in the District of Columbia, there is--again, I could
spend hours discussing all of the things that we are doing in
the District of Columbia from a variety of different agencies
other than law enforcement. Much of the puzzle of what needs to
be solved to deal with violent crime in the city is not solely
law enforcement. There is a variety of social issues that have
to be dealt with as well. And I think the administration has
put the effort behind that through the rest of the agencies in
the District. So I think that will require a separate hearing
for me to sit and discuss all the things that we are doing to
combat violent crime.
Ms. Foxx. Well, I would be satisfied if you just gave me
two that are in your department.
Chief Lanier. Give you two? As a government, the mayor has
put forth in the focus improvement areas in the city where we
are taking out social services, drug and alcohol treatment,
some of those other things that are actually driving crime
issues around the city, taking those out in the neighborhoods
where those crimes are occurring. And it is having a huge
impact on violent crime.
In fact, I should at least get my own commercial in: Armed
robberies are down 15 percent this year, and shootings are down
12 percent. We are right now below our homicide rate for the
previous year. And I think we are starting to have some impact
with some of our crime strategies and initiatives around the
District of Columbia and throughout the region.
We also are doing multiple programs within the police
department to seek out those who are repeat violent offenders
and target those repeat violent offenders. So I assume that
would be sufficient, giving you a governmentwide strategy as
well as a department-wide strategy.
Chairman Waxman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
I am impressed you are able to figure out things to do that
the Congress didn't tell you to do right here at the self-
government of the District of Columbia. I commend you on it.
Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for
holding this hearing.
I think it would be fair to articulate the difference
between the sides here by saying that we on this side do not
believe that the protection of constitutional rights of
citizens to be safe in their homes necessarily requires or is
served by a law that allows all citizens to be able to carry
loaded AK-47s in public within the District. That is not a fine
point, but that is the one we are discussing here.
Chief Morse and Chief Lanier, I would like to ask you about
security right here on Capitol Hill. And it is my understanding
that there is a Federal law that prohibits people from carrying
firearms on the Capitol grounds, section 5104 of Title 44 of
the U.S. Code. So regardless of the law off the Capitol
grounds, this Federal law does in fact create a prohibition so
that if you come into the area near the Capitol or the House
and Senate office buildings with a gun, you are breaking the
law. Is that correct?
Chief Morse. That is correct.
Mr. Lynch. OK. I am going to ask you some obvious
questions, and I apologize for that, but I think, in light of
the previous questions, it is necessary. We all know that the
threat of gun violence on Capitol Hill is not a theoretical
question. As a matter of fact, I know that several weeks ago I
joined both of you in a 10-year anniversary. Back on July 24,
1998, an assailant stormed the Capitol and shot and killed two
of your brave men, Chief Morse, Detective John Gibson and
Officer Jacob Chestnut. And just to point out the difficulty
that your folks face, the Capitol Police as well as all of our
law enforcement here, last Friday, we had another incident, a
gun incident here at the Capitol. And I have some--you could
look at the screen here. Your officers, it is my understanding,
arrested a man with an AK-47 and a grenade and other materials
on the corner of Second Street and Independence Avenue, right
outside the Capitol. I know that all my colleagues in Congress
received multiple alerts on our BlackBerry devices here, and
the area was cordoned off. And it was an excellent job on the
part of all of law enforcement up here on the Capitol, and we
really appreciate it. But what I am trying to do is use this
incident as an illustration of the difficulty in administering
the law that the NRA and my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle there proposed.
Now, there is also a diagram that I have, this is obviously
at the foot of the Capitol--let's see, no, that is not it. How
about the map? There is a map. There you go. OK. That red dot
that you see is the area of the incident that occurred on
Friday, where the gentleman was grabbed with the AK-47 and the
grenade. That is right on the border of what we would call in
this case the federally administered Capitol grounds. That
yellow line that you see underneath the red dot is actually the
border. So, correct me if I am wrong, under the law that is
being proposed by the NRA, an individual could stand on one
side of the street off of the Capitol grounds with an AK-47
legally, a loaded AK-47, and not be in violation of the law. Is
that right, Chief Lanier?
Chief Lanier. That is correct.
Mr. Lynch. Chief Morse, you got the same read on that?
Chief Morse. That would be correct.
Mr. Lynch. OK. Now I want to ask you an obvious question.
How does that create difficulty for you? And how does that put
your folks at risk in trying to administer, you know, a
regulation or a law like that in the circumstances that we find
ourselves here in the Capital city of the United States?
Chief Lanier. Obviously, there are a lot of events that
occur on the grounds of the Capitol. There are protest marches
and concerts and other things that occur on the Capitol
grounds. So, technically, to be outside of that line and
standing outside, if this was passed, you would not be in
violation of the law but still in direct relationship to the
Capitol grounds.
Mr. Lynch. OK.
Chief Morse.
Chief Morse. One of the impacts or implications to my
agency would be that our officers would need to enforce or be
vigilant about two different laws. So, in one instance, under
the Title 40, 5104, they would be able to make an arrest in
that case, and then--and certainly see that perhaps as a
threat, depending upon the actions of the subject. With regard
to outside our jurisdiction, or just outside our jurisdiction,
or within the extended jurisdiction zone the Capitol Police has
responsibility in, we would in fact honor a different law. So
there would be a training implication and certainly one that we
would have to be very proficient in because it is an officer
safety issue as well as a public safety issue. So we would have
to be well versed on the, as we are, on the primary
jurisdiction and where that starts and stops as well as the,
you know, requirements of the law.
Mr. Lynch. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back, but I do want to
say thank you to all of you for the work that you do and the
people that you serve on behalf of all the Members of Congress
and of all of our families.
So thank you very much.
Chief Lanier. Thank you.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Lynch.
Now to Mr. Bilbray.
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate and thank you for holding this
hearing.
As a former mayor of a small town and a chairman of a
county of 3 million, I supervised law enforcement for small and
large jurisdictions. And it is interesting to see how we have
reached this day.
I think, Chief, what year was it that the gun ban was
implemented in Washington, DC?
Chief Lanier. 1976, 33 years ago.
Mr. Bilbray. 1976? And the Supreme Court ruled it was
unconstitutional. And I think that the concern was now the
response by the city on this was unconstitutional, because it
basically took a whole category of firearms and outlawed them.
And now trying to respond to the fact that as the Constitution
gives local control to other cities, does not give local
control to this city, Congress has delegated that authority.
Can't delegate the responsibility for the results, so that is
why we are here today.
Chief, what is the most powerful handguns available to the
general public in the United States today?
Chief Lanier. I would have to defer to my gun expert.
Semiautomatic handguns?
Mr. Bilbray. No, I said what are the most powerful handguns
generally? Would you agree that the 44-Magnum----
Chief Lanier. 44, 45.
Mr. Shelton. I would say the 44-Magnum.
Mr. Bilbray. 357-Magnum?
Mr. Shelton. Very close.
Mr. Bilbray. Are most of those revolvers?
Mr. Shelton. Yes.
Mr. Bilbray. And that has traditionally been the fact.
Chief, what is the difference when you pull the trigger of
a double-action revolver and you pull the trigger of a
semiautomatic pistol?
Chief Lanier. A single-action releases, fires----
Mr. Bilbray. Double-action, I am sorry.
Chief Lanier. The difference is firing one round with a
single action of the trigger versus firing multiple rounds with
the action of a trigger.
Mr. Bilbray. In other words, if I had a Beretta or a Colt
45, and I pull the trigger once on one of those, it would
continue to fire, or would it only discharge one round?
Chief Lanier. No, it would only discharge one round.
Mr. Bilbray. And what would be the results of the 44-Mag or
the 357 if I pulled the trigger once with a double action?
Chief Lanier. One round.
Mr. Bilbray. One round. So it is basically the same. Every
time you pull the trigger, you get one round out there. You
don't spray the neighborhood with bullets, right?
Chief Lanier. Correct.
Mr. Bilbray. OK. Your concern was the fact that with the
semiautomatic is the issue of how large a clip may be legally
produced or may be possessed to be able to go with a
semiautomatic, right?
Chief Lanier. Correct.
Mr. Bilbray. You were how many years in law enforcement,
Chief?
Chief Lanier. 18.
Mr. Bilbray. 18. Maybe because I have been around doing
this for over 30, I may be dating myself now. In those 18
years, did you carry a revolver as your side arm?
Chief Lanier. No.
Mr. Bilbray. OK.
Gentlemen, any of you?
Chief Morse. I did.
Mr. Bilbray. OK.
Mr. Hay. I did as well.
Mr. Bilbray. Do you have experience with the use of a speed
loader with the revolver?
Chief Morse. Yes, I did.
Mr. Bilbray. How long does it take you to reload a revolver
with a speed loader?
Chief Morse. I was pretty proficient, so----
Mr. Bilbray. A couple seconds?
Chief Morse. A couple second, I would say, yes.
Mr. Bilbray. Couple seconds. My point is that the
assumption that a revolver somehow can fire so many bullets
continuously over a period of time as opposed--I mean that an
automatic, semiautomatic can continue to spray bullets when a
revolver, if it has a speed loader system available, can do not
only that but probably more only because they have the ability
to continue the rotation in a very fast way.
And Chief, I appreciate the fact that you are at a
disadvantage because you weren't trained in the use of a
revolver with a speed loader, but I think the argument against
the semiautomatic pistol really gets neutralized when you
realize there is--the availability of a speed loader
neutralizes that whole thing.
So what we are talking about is in D.C., Washington is
talking about having the most powerful handguns available, is a
revolver, but not if they are semiautomatic.
The question, Ronald Reagan's shooting, what kind of
firearm was used to shoot Ronald Reagan?
Chief Lanier. That was a revolver, 38.
Mr. Bilbray. It was a revolver.
At that time, was it illegal to possess handguns in D.C.?
Chief Lanier. It was--illegal to carry.
Mr. Bilbray. How did that happen within the jurisdiction of
the Federal District if it was outlawed and legal possession
was denied within D.C.? How did the Hinckley situation occur?
Where did he get his gun? How did he perform this while this
law was in effect?
Chief Lanier. He violated the law. He was a criminal.
Mr. Bilbray. OK.
How many murders have been committed with handguns since
the ban was put in? Anybody know?
Chief Lanier. I don't know off the top of my head.
Mr. Bilbray. I think we are talking about roughly about
6,000, I think.
Ms. Norton [presiding]. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Van Hollen.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Thank you all for your testimony here today. You know,
everybody on this committee and this Congress is for giving
people more local control and local decisionmaking until it
comes to the District of Columbia, when everybody decides to
substitute their judgment for the people of the District of
Columbia based on the recommendations of those who are charged
with law enforcement authority in the District of Columbia.
Now, I don't think anybody on this panel would dispute the
fact that the District of Columbia now has to conform its law
to the recent ruling of the Supreme Court based on this
provision. No one disputes that, right?
OK. So the issue here, and I think it is important for
people around the country to understand, is the District of
Columbia understands it has to have a new law that conforms to
the Supreme Court ruling. The question is whether or not they
have the ability, the people of this city, based on
recommendations of law enforcement, to enact that law based on
democratic principles. And what we have today is a bill that
says, no, you can't do that; the people of this city cannot
exercise their democratic rights in this area because we are
going to big foot them, and the Congress is going to come in.
And in fact, we are going to prohibit you from passing laws to
regulate guns that have been adopted by the surrounding States,
including my State of Maryland and including the State of
Virginia. Because there is a provision in this bill that reads
the District of Columbia shall not have the authority to enact
laws or regulation that discourage or eliminate the private
ownership or use of firearms. And the word ``discourage'' there
is obviously very ambiguous. And I don't know if you have had a
chance to have your lawyers look at it, but in the State of
Virginia, as in the State of Maryland, we have limitations. For
example, we have a one-gun-a-month limitation. We say that you
can't purchase more than one gun a month.
Under your reading of this law, would that prohibit the
District of Columbia from enacting a statute to limit guns to
one gun a month? Have you had a chance to look at that issue
yet?
Chief Lanier. From what my legal advisers tell me, it is
very broad language.
Mr. Van Hollen. Right. I mean, you could easily read
``discourage'' to say well, that would discourage people from
getting as many guns as they want, right? It would.
Chief Lanier. Right.
Mr. Van Hollen. And so you wouldn't have that authority.
Then there is the provision in here that says we are going to
eliminate the anti-gun trafficking laws, the laws in this
country that prohibit transport of guns across State lines. Do
you know of--is there any other jurisdiction in this country
for which that prohibition, Federal prohibition, would be
eliminated?
Chief Lanier. Not that I am aware of.
Mr. Van Hollen. All right. So now if you are a resident of
the District of Columbia you can cross the line into my State
of Maryland or the State of Virginia, you can buy a gun there
and bring it across the state--the D.C. state line without any
limitation. Isn't that right?
Chief Lanier. Correct.
Mr. Van Hollen. OK. So let me ask you, with respect to
registration, we know that is expressly prohibited here.
Assault weapons, expressly prohibited. From a law enforcement
perspective, is there any reason you can see why the District
of Columbia would be denied the ability to enact local laws
that it thought were important to protect its citizens, deny it
the opportunity that other States and jurisdictions are given?
And in fact, won't it make your job that much harder to do what
you have to do?
Chief Lanier. From a law enforcement perspective, that
significant change in the law would make my job much more
difficult.
Mr. Van Hollen. Right. Would it make it harder for you to
protect the citizens of the United States and visitors here in
the Nation's Capital?
Chief Lanier. It would.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Let me just close by saying that again, there is no dispute
here the District of Columbia has to conform its laws to the
U.S. Constitution. The question is, you know, what process do
we use to go about making those changes? And you got a lot of
people here in Congress that all of a sudden have decided to
substitute their judgment. And the question is the rights of
the citizens to enact the laws to protect themselves and the
safety of this city. This is a mistake, this piece of
legislation.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Norton. Before I call on my friend, Mr. Mica, I would
like to correct a factual error that has been made throughout
this hearing, not by the prior speaker. There has been some,
perhaps not deliberate, attempt to belittle the presence of
Federal officers here. I would like to make clear that the
Capitol Police enforce D.C. law in the extended jurisdiction;
that the Park Police enforce D.C. law throughout the District
of Columbia. These are Federal police who have been called
precisely because they enforce both Federal law and D.C. law.
I am pleased to recognize Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Well, thank you. And I am glad that you made that
clear.
And no one here has a vote on the D.C. Council, do they?
Yeah. You are executing policy. And I am sorry that you are
being subjected to some of this, but you know, it is show time
in Washington right now. But beyond show time, there are some
basic fundamental questions that need to be resolved. And
irrespective of what one of my colleagues said, what is
Congress doing here, he just needs to look at Article I,
Section A, Clause 17, which does give the Congress of the U.S.
jurisdiction to oversee the District.
When I first came to Congress, the District was in total
disarray. One of the things that I will remember best as a
Republican is that we took the District over. We put a control
board in, brought in a chief financial officer. I have kept the
articles of the disarray of the District. Sometimes you
couldn't drink the water. One of my favorite stories is the
Washington Post did a little test, and you could dial 911 or
you could order a pizza. And the pizza actually came before the
emergency vehicles. The District building looked like a Third
World outpost. The mayor I guess had been arrested I guess for
doing drugs. It was shameful that the Nation's Capital had
fallen into such disrepair.
But we took responsibility then, and I am very proud of the
District. The boarded-up buildings are gone. They were running
three-quarters of $1 billion deficit. Now they have done much
better. And the District is a totally different place. And we
gave it back.
But I have a fundamental question. And the only thing that
gets in the way, again, is the Constitution. I remember, too, a
young man who worked for one of my colleagues who came here and
had a handgun, and his apartment was broken into. He brought it
in, didn't realize there was a ban in the District, and someone
broke in, robbed the thing. He shot him. He was charged, and
the burglar was let off. And we have come a long way from that
to the Heller decision, which again would allow people to
defend themselves. Does anyone know of an instance in which a
gun was registered someplace else and the person who was
registered came in and committed a crime in the District?
Chief Lanier.
Chief Morse.
Do you have any----
Chief Lanier. I would have to research that. Not that I am
aware of. It is not something that would be brought to my
attention.
Mr. Mica. How many murders have there been in the District
this year?
Chief Lanier. 129.
Mr. Mica. How many?
Chief Lanier. 129.
Mr. Mica. How does that go to last year?
Chief Lanier. It is below last year.
Mr. Mica. It is? This is a great city. Incredible people.
It has an incredible history. We don't want one murder in this
District. But the fundamental question is the constitutional
question, do the citizens have the right to bear arms? And you
know, some folks want to limit that. Some folks want to expand
those rights that are given by the Constitution. And I am
sorry, again, you are subjected to this. Most of the murders,
though, are done with guns that are illegally obtained, is that
not correct? Are you aware of that?
Chief Lanier. Correct.
Mr. Mica. Correct. And no one knows of an instance where
one weapon has come in which is legally registered where they
have committed. Most of the crimes revolve around drug
trafficking. Is that not true?
Chief Lanier. I would say the majority of violent crimes,
yes.
Mr. Mica. Yeah. Well, I served--one of the subcommittees is
Criminal Justice Drug Policy, and I saw the slaughter here and
Baltimore and other places. And the only thing that makes it
change is zero tolerance. I admire what you did in blocking off
some neighborhoods. But I think if you just look at what
Giuliani did in Washington, you could still walk almost
anywhere in D.C.--I mean, in New York City, day or night in New
York City with a tough enforcement policy. And that is going to
be what is going to make a difference, not what you do--not
what we do with prohibiting or restricting law-abiding citizens
from having weapons.
Yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Mica.
And the last Member to speak is Ms. Speier.
Ms. Speier. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
You know, I find this bill to be preposterous. And to go
from a Supreme Court decision that says to the District, you
have to amend the existing law to this particular measure is
beyond comprehension. And I think as one of the few Members in
the House that has actually been shot five times, I can say
that I think anything like this particular bill is going to do
nothing but harm in the District.
Let me ask Chief Lanier this question, you testified that
there are more than 40 dignitary motorcades a month here in the
District. Is that correct?
Chief Lanier. Thirty-five to 40 on average. Foreign
dignitaries, heads of state that we are responsible for
protecting, yes.
Ms. Speier. So, over the course of a year, there is more
than 500 of these motorcades, some of them not of domestic
dignitaries but of foreign diplomats and dignitaries. Is that
correct?
Chief Lanier. That is correct.
Ms. Speier. So my understanding is that this NRA bill would
allow the District of Columbia residents to legally own and
possess unregistered firearms, including high capacity handguns
and semiautomatic rifles in their homes and in their
businesses, and allow them to hold these guns along motorcade
routes, for instance, legally. Is that correct?
Chief Lanier. That is correct.
Ms. Speier. How would this particular bill affect your
ability to protect these motorcades?
Chief Lanier. If you have seen a motorcade proceed through
the District, the lead of all motorcades, the majority of the
motorcades are led by motorcycle officers from the Metropolitan
Police Department. Sometimes Capitol Police, Park Police,
Secret Service. The motorcycles are used in the lead of that
motorcade because of their agility to move through and stop
traffic to keep the motorcade moving. It would be--in cases
that, again, that I cited earlier where attacks on motorcades
had occurred, it is the use of a firearm to attack those lead
motor officers, those lead security detail officers in an
effort to just cause a choke point and slow that motorcade just
long enough to use another type of weapon to attack typically
the motorcade or armored vehicle that the dignitary is in. That
is our biggest concern with motorcade routes and what is known
to have happened in terms of attacks on motorcades.
Ms. Speier. So it is safe to say that it would make your
job more dangerous and endanger those dignitaries as well?
Chief Lanier. As well, yes.
Ms. Speier. Let me ask you this basic question that is
posed by the hearing. Now, after 9/11 we became extremely
conscious and aware of the kinds of threats that terrorists can
create, particularly here in Washington, DC. There is no
question that this city is a target for terrorists. Do you
think that this bill will help Homeland Security efforts in
this Nation's Capital or make it more difficult?
Chief Lanier. I think it will make it more difficult for my
job as the police chief.
Ms. Speier. Thank you.
I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
I want to thank today's witnesses, the Federal witnesses
who enforce Federal and District law, Chief Lanier, who is a
member of the team, the Homeland Security team of the Federal
Government, as well as, of course, the chief of the
Metropolitan Police force. We appreciate your coming to
describe the effect of H.R. 6691 on Federal security and law
enforcement. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:32 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]