    [House Hearing, 112 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                NATIONAL RIGHT-TO-CARRY RECIPROCITY ACT OF 2011

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
                             AND HOMELAND SECURITY

                                     OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

                                    H.R. 822

                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 13, 2011

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 112-53

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

          Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    68-298 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2011
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 THE JUDICIARY

                          LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,         JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
        Wisconsin                        HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
    HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina         JERROLD NADLER, New York
    ELTON GALLEGLY, California           ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
    BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia                  Virginia
    DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California        MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
    STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   ZOE LOFGREN, California
    DARRELL E. ISSA, California          SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
    MIKE PENCE, Indiana                  MAXINE WATERS, California
    J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia            STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    STEVE KING, Iowa                     HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
    TRENT FRANKS, Arizona                  Georgia
    LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas                 PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
    JIM JORDAN, Ohio                     MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
    TED POE, Texas                       JUDY CHU, California
    JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah                 TED DEUTCH, Florida
    TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas                LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
    TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania             DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
    TREY GOWDY, South Carolina
    DENNIS ROSS, Florida
    SANDY ADAMS, Florida
    BEN QUAYLE, Arizona
    [Vacant]

          Sean McLaughlin, Majority Chief of Staff and General Counsel
           Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                                     ------

            Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security

                F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman

                      LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas, Vice-Chairman

    BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia              ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
    DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California        Virginia
    J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia            STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    TED POE, Texas                       HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
    JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah                   Georgia
    TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas                PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
    TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania             JUDY CHU, California
    TREY GOWDY, South Carolina           TED DEUTCH, Florida
    SANDY ADAMS, Florida                 DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
    BEN QUAYLE, Arizona                  SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
                                         MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois

                         Caroline Lynch, Chief Counsel

                         Bobby Vassar, Minority Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               SEPTEMBER 13, 2011

                                                                       Page

                                    THE BILL

    H.R. 822, the ``National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011''     3

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in
      Congress from the State of Wisconsin, and Chairman,
      Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security........     1
    The Honorable Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, a Representative in
      Congress from the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member,
      Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security........     9

                                   WITNESSES

    Joyce Lee Malcolm, Professor of Law, George Mason University
      Oral Testimony.................................................    12
      Prepared Statement.............................................    14
    David B. Kopel, Adjunct Professor, Denver University Sturm
      College of Law
      Oral Testimony.................................................    25
      Prepared Statement.............................................    27
    Charles H. Ramsey, Commissioner, Philadelphia Police Department
      Oral Testimony.................................................    51
      Prepared Statement.............................................    53

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    Material submitted by the Honorable Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, a
      Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, and
      Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
      Security.......................................................    10

                                    APPENDIX
                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

    Letter from the Dave Pecchia, Executive Director, Minnesota
      Chiefs of Police Association (MCPA)............................    86
    Letter from Charles H. Ramsey, Police Commissioner, City of
      Philadelphia, President, Major Cities Chiefs' Association......    88
    Letter from Mayors Against Illegal Guns..........................    89
    Letter from Mark A. Marshall, President, International
      Association of Chiefs of Police................................    97

                NATIONAL RIGHT-TO-CARRY RECIPROCITY ACT OF 2011

                                  ----------

                          TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2011

                  House of Representatives,
                  Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
                                 and Homeland Security,
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:59 a.m., in
    room 2141, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable F. James
    Sensenbrenner, Jr. (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Sensenbrenner, Goodlatte, Lungren,
    Forbes, Poe, Chaffetz, Griffin, Gowdy, Adams, Quayle, Conyers,
    Scott, Cohen, Chu, and Quigley.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Subcommittee will be in order.
        I yield myself 5 minutes for an opening statement.
        Many States with concealed carry laws have extended
    concealed carry privileges of reciprocity to residents of other
    States. However, the laws are confusing, vary widely, and
    subject otherwise law-abiding citizens to frivolous
    prosecution. To address this problem, H.R. 822, the National
    Right-to-Carry Act, provides that anyone who has a valid
    firearm carry permit to use that permit in any other State that
    issues concealed weapon permits.
        Individuals carrying a concealed firearm would be required
    to comply with the rules and restrictions of the State he or
    she is visiting. Forty-eight States currently permit concealed
    carry in some manner. Thirty-five States have shall-issue
    permit laws, which require States to issue permits to people
    who meet legal requirements for a concealed carry permit.
        In November, my State of Wisconsin will implement a newly
    enacted shall-issue law, replacing its current prohibition on
    concealed carry. As more and more States adopt the shall-issue
    policy, the idea of national reciprocity legislation makes more
    sense.
        The ability to travel freely and to provide for one's
    defense are the hallmarks of liberty and should be recognized
    by our government.
        Moreover, States with right-to-carry laws have lower
    violent crime rates than States that don't. According to FBI
    statistics, States with concealed carry laws have 22 percent
    lower violent crime rates, 30 percent lower murder rates, 46
    percent lower robbery rates, and 12 percent lower aggravated
    assault rates, compared to the rest of the country.
        It is important to reiterate that this legislation does not
    create a national licensing scheme. Rather, it would require
    States that currently permit people to carry concealed firearms
    to recognize other States' valid concealed carry permits, much
    like States recognize drivers' licenses issued from other
    States. H.R. 822 does not, however, impact State laws governing
    how firearms are used within the various States.
        I have long been an advocate for the Second Amendment, and
    I believe the Constitution provides law-abiding citizens the
    freedom to keep and bear arms. This legislation recognizes that
    the right to bear arms does not stop at the State line and is
    unimpeded by different State governments.
        And with that, I yield back the balance of my time and
    recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, the Ranking
    minority Member.
        [The bill, H.R. 822, follows:]

                                   __________

        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, gun violence remains a major problem in our
    country. As a Nation, we continue to struggle with various
    proposals to address this issue. I believe this bill is a step
    backwards in an effort to enhance gun safety, because it would
    overrule existing judgments enacted by States controlling who
    should be allowed to carry concealed weapons within their
    borders.
        Setting aside for a moment the issue of whether it is a
    good idea to allow or encourage the carrying of concealed
    weapons, it should certainly be unwise and improper for us to
    discard the ability of States to protect the safety of their
    own citizens.
        I cite a letter from the Virginia Association of Chiefs of
    Police to this Committee, stating that, ``H.R. 822 would
    severely undermine State concealed carry licensing systems by
    allowing out-of-state visitors to carry concealed firearms even
    if those visitors have not met the standards of carrying a
    concealed weapon in the State which they are visiting.''
        I would ask, Mr. Chairman, this letter be included into the
    record.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
        [The information referred to follows:]

                                   __________

        Mr. Scott. If a State decides to enter into a reciprocity
    agreement with another State, as many States do, that is their
    right, and they continue to exercise independent judgment about
    how to protect their own citizens. However, we in Congress must
    not strip them of their power to decide how to protect the
    safety of their citizens.
        Also, this bill presents police on the beat with an almost
    impossible challenge of knowing whether an out-of-state permit
    as valid or not.
        Do we have the screen?
        You can see on the screen--I think they are going to show--
    this is a South Dakota permit, and the next----
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. If the gentleman would suspend a bit,
    can we dim the lights here so we can see what is on the screen
    a little better?
        Mr. Scott. This is the South Dakota permit.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you.
        Mr. Scott. And the next, Mr. Chairman, is an Indiana
    permit.
        If you notice, these look apparently easy to forge, to just
    print up. And a cop on the beat wouldn't know whether he is
    looking at a valid permit or not.
        Today, we will hear from Philadelphia Police Commissioner
    Ramsey about the unnecessary problems this bill presents to law
    enforcement and experience he has had, which illustrates why we
    should reject the bill.
        In the Crime Subcommittee, we debate measures which we hope
    will protect public safety. Unfortunately, this will do just
    the opposite.
        I look forward to the witnesses and look forward to
    discussing the issues with them.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you.
        Without objection, all Members' opening statements will
    appear in the record at this time.
        Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
    recesses of the Committee during votes today.
        It is now my pleasure to introduce today's witnesses.
        Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm is a professor of law at George
    Mason University School of Law. She previously taught at
    Princeton, Bentley University, Boston University, Northeastern
    University, and Cambridge University. She is a fellow of the
    Royal Historical Society and a fellow of Robinson College at
    Cambridge University. She served as the senior advisor of MIT's
    securities studies program and a visiting scholar at the
    Massachusetts Center for Renaissance Studies. She earned her
    bachelor of arts, master of arts, and Ph.D. from Brandeis.
        Professor David Kopel is research director of the
    Independence Institute, a public policy research organization
    in Golden, Colorado, and is associate policy analyst with the
    Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. He is an adjunct professor
    of constitutional law at the University of Denver Sturm College
    of Law.
        Before joining the Independence Institute, Mr. Kopel served
    as assistant attorney general for the State of Colorado. From
    1998 to 1999, he served as an adjunct professor of law at NYU.
    And from 2001 to 2009, he was a media columnist for the Rocky
    Mountain News. He earned his bachelor of arts in history from
    Brown, and his juris doctorate from the University of Michigan.
        Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey was appointed police
    commissioner of the Philadelphia Police Department in 2008. He
    currently serves as president of both the Police Executive
    Research Forum and the Major Cities Chief Association.
        In 2007, he was a security consultant to the Washington,
    D.C., Convention Center and the United States Senate Sergeant
    at Arms. During that year, he also served on the Independent
    Commission on Security Forces of Iraq, led now by National
    Security Advisor General James L. Jones.
        Commissioner Ramsey also served as the chief of the
    Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department from 1998 to
    2006. He served in the Chicago Police Department for nearly
    three decades in a variety of assignments, including deputy
    superintendent of the bureau of staff services. He holds both a
    bachelor's and master's degree in criminal justice from Lewis
    University in Romeoville, Illinois.
        Each of the witnesses' written statements will be entered
    into the record in its entirety. I ask each witness to
    summarize his or her testimony in 5 minutes or less.
        And, Professor Malcolm, you are the first up.
        Could you please turn the mike on and pull it toward you?
        And we will reset the clock.

    TESTIMONY OF JOYCE LEE MALCOLM, PROFESSOR OF LAW, GEORGE MASON
                               UNIVERSITY

        Ms. Malcolm. Thank you. As we all know, there has been a
    national debate in this country for more than 30 years over
    whether more guns in private hands means more crime or more
    guns in private hands means less crime. While the national
    Government has passed statutes like the Brady bill and the
    assault weapons ban, and then allowed it expire, the States
    have also been discussing which route to take. And they have
    been opting one by one to permit their citizens to carry
    firearms concealed, in the confidence that this can both help
    them defend themselves and also deter crime.
        The Americans and the British share a common law view on
    self-defense, which William Blackstone summarizes very briefly
    when he says: ``Self-defense is the primary law of nature, so
    it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the laws of
    society.''
        In America, the people have opted and the States have opted
    to allow the people to be armed. In Great Britain, they have
    preferred to insist that people depend on the police, and they
    have disarmed public citizens more and more.
        And there has been a dramatic difference in the rate, in
    the crime results in both of these. I am just quickly going to
    start with America.
        In America, since crime, violent crime, peaked in 1991, 25
    States have passed concealed carry statutes. And I will ask the
    Chairman's permission to include Wisconsin in the 49 States
    that now permit concealed carry, since I believe it is November
    that it will go into----
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Governor signed the bill, so
    permission is granted.
        Ms. Malcolm. Okay, thank you.
        So there are now, or there will shortly be, 39 of the
    States of the 49 States that are shall-issue States. Illinois
    is the only State that does not permit people to carry
    concealed weapons. And all of these States have trusted to the
    good judgment of the people and their responsibility.
        Since 1991, when crime peaked, millions of guns have been
    purchased and hundreds of thousands of permits have been
    issued. But violent crime has been declining for 20 years. In
    1991, 758 crimes per 100,000 people were recorded. By 2009, it
    was down to 429 per 100,000 people.
        The people who have been registered to carry concealed
    firearms have done so remarkably responsibly. There is a sense
    and an understanding that police cannot protect everyone. And
    in fact, court cases have shown that they have no duty to
    protect.
        In the case here in the District of Columbia, Warren v. the
    District of Columbia, when women sued the police department
    because they had failed to answer 911 when called repeatedly
    for over a half hour, the judge, in finding in favor of the
    police, found what he called ``a fundamental principle of
    American law that a government and its agents are under no
    general duty to provide public services such as police
    protection to any individual citizen.''
        In addition, since citizens are left to themselves, it is
    really important they be able to protect themselves. And of
    course, in the last couple of years, the Supreme Court has
    affirmed that the Second Amendment does guarantee an individual
    right to keep and bear arms in both the Heller case and now in
    McDonald v. the City of Chicago last year.
        In Great Britain, by contrast, since 1920, both parties
    have decided to disarm citizens. So in 1920, they passed a law
    that you had to get a license to carry a handgun and you had to
    have a good reason to get that license. And gradually, what was
    considered a good reason has been ratcheted down, so that by
    1969, self-defense was never a good reason to have a gun. In
    1997, their Firearms Act outlawed all handguns in private hands
    and confiscated those that were already owned and registered.
        In 1953, their Prevention of Crime Act prohibited carrying
    any article for defensive purposes in a public place. And an
    Arizona tourist was arrested, for example, for defending
    herself against three men who attacked her in a subway station
    by using her penknife. When she reported it to the police, she
    was arrested for carrying an offensive weapon.
        They also have a list of weapons for which you get an
    automatic 10-year sentence, and along with rocket launchers and
    machine guns, this includes chemical sprays.
        The result of this kind of disarmament of the public has
    been that gun crime in the United Kingdom doubled in the past
    decade. So having banned handguns and taken them out of the
    possession of people who already had them, they have not
    stopped gun crime. They have simply made it worse.
        In 2009, Britain was judged from studies as the most
    dangerous country in Europe.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
        Ms. Malcolm. Okay.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Malcolm follows:]

                                   __________
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Professor Kopel?

        TESTIMONY OF DAVID B. KOPEL, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, DENVER
                    UNIVERSITY STURM COLLEGE OF LAW

        Mr. Kopel. Thank you, Chairman Sensenbrenner.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Could you please turn on the mike?
        Mr. Kopel. We are slow learners over here.
        The constitutional right to travel is supported by many
    Supreme Court precedents. The Supreme Court's most recent
    decision on the right to travel is Saenz v. Roe from 1999.
    Writing for a seven-justice majority, Justice Stevens explained
    that the nature of our Federal union and our constitutional
    concepts of personal liberty require that all citizens be free
    to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land,
    uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations, which
    unreasonably burden or restrict this movement.
        The Saenz court explained that one component of the right
    to travel is the right to be treated as a welcome visitor
    rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the
    second State.
        In 1868, the 14th Amendment granted a new power to Congress
    to enforce the national citizenship rights of the American
    people. Notably, congressional debate on the 14th Amendment's
    privileges or immunities clause indicated specific intent to
    protect the right to travel.
        Congress discussed South Carolina's notorious 1844
    persecution of Samuel Hoar, an attorney from Massachusetts. He
    had traveled to South Carolina to mount a legal challenge to
    the State law which authorized the capture and enslavement of
    free Black sailors whose ship entered a South Carolina port.
    Incited by the South Carolina Legislature and Governor, mobs
    threatened violence against the attorney, and he was forced to
    leave the State.
        The great Illinois Senator Lyman Trumbull was the author of
    the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery. He cited the Samuel Hoar
    case and Mississippi's prohibition on gun ownership by freedmen
    as examples of the needs for a congressional power to enforce
    national citizenship rights.
        Today, every State but one allows the carrying of handguns
    in public places for lawful self-defense. The large majority of
    these States have reciprocity agreements with other States, so
    that a carry permit issued to residents in State A may be used
    by those residents when they visit State B, and vice versa.
        These States are not the primary problem that H.R. 822
    addresses. A few States, including California, New York, and
    New Jersey, refuse to enter into reciprocity agreements with
    any of their sister States, and they have no provision allowing
    a nonresident to apply for a permit.
        These States impose impediments on interstate travel that
    discriminate against travelers based on the mere fact that they
    are citizens of other States. They deny the right to be treated
    as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when
    temporarily present in the second State.
        Notably, the need to be prepared for self-defense is
    especially acute when one is traveling in a different State. At
    home, one will be familiar with the safety of different parts
    of town at different times of the day. A visitor will not have
    such familiarity and could more easily end up in a dangerous,
    high-crime area.
        Further, tourists and similar visitors are particularly
    targeted by criminals. Their style of dress or mannerisms may
    indicate that they are not familiar with local customs. Because
    they are not local residents, they are known to be less likely
    to be able to make another trip to testify in court against a
    criminal, so the criminal has a greater sense of impunity in
    attacking a tourist.
        To be deprived of the right of self-defense while traveling
    is to be deprived of the constitutional right to travel freely
    and safely throughout the entire United States of America.
        In addition to the right to travel, Congress has the
    constitutional authority to protect American citizens from
    State or local government infringements of the Second Amendment
    right to bear arms. As the Supreme Court explained in District
    of Columbia v. Heller, the right to bear arms includes the
    right to carry weapons in the case of confrontation for the
    core lawful purpose of self-defense.
        The Heller opinion listed some presumptively lawful
    regulatory measures. According to the Supreme Court, ``nothing
    in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing
    prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the
    mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in
    sensitive places, such as schools and government buildings.''
    These are the exceptions that prove the rules.
        Under Heller, ordinary citizens, but not felons or the
    mentally ill, have Second Amendment rights to possess guns. The
    Second Amendment right includes the right to carry guns but not
    in sensitive places.
        Samuel Hoar escaped before the criminals could injure or
    kill him. Many interstate travelers are not so lucky. Congress
    has the clear constitutional authority and the responsibility
    to protect national citizenship rights from infringements by
    State or local governments.
        H.R. 822 safeguards the constitutional right to travel and
    the constitutional right to bear arms and enhances public
    safety.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Kopel follows:]

                                   __________

        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much.
        Commissioner Ramsey?

      TESTIMONY OF CHARLES H. RAMSEY, COMMISSIONER, PHILADELPHIA
                           POLICE DEPARTMENT

        Mr. Ramsey. Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman,
    Ranking Member Scott, and distinguished Members of the
    Subcommittee, for inviting me to testify today.
        This is an important opportunity to discuss a critical
    issue affecting law enforcement organizations across our Nation
    and our ability to serve the public.
        Having had 42 years in policing and law enforcement, I have
    witnessed many important changes in public safety across police
    departments in three cities, first in Chicago for 30 years; and
    as chief here in Washington, D.C., for 9 years; and now as
    police commissioner in Philadelphia, the Nation's fourth-
    largest police department, for the past 3.5 years.
        I also have the privilege of serving as both President of
    the Major City Chiefs Association, which represents the
    leadership of 63 of the largest municipalities in the United
    States, and the Police Executive Research Forum.
        I am here today to urge Congress to oppose H.R. 822, the
    National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act. This bill would
    eliminate the right the States now have to set their own public
    safety laws in consultation with law enforcement professionals.
        This legislation is not aligned with our vision for the
    future of policing. It is counter to what the field of law
    enforcement needs to create safer neighborhoods, towns, and
    cities.
        The Federal Government, under this bill, will compel every
    State to honor every other State's permit to carry concealed
    and loaded guns, no matter how different their standards and
    criteria for securing a permit. H.R. 822 undermines the
    traditional authority of State and local governments to protect
    their citizens with reasonable, constitutional, and community-
    specific laws for carrying hidden loaded guns.
        Every State legislature has intensely debated what minimum
    standards should apply within their borders, and has put the
    standards in place. If a State has decided that a person should
    demonstrate proficiency with a gun before carrying it loaded in
    public, Washington should not second-guess that decision.
        In 2005 in Philadelphia, a man named Marqus Hill had his
    concealed carry permit revoked by the Philadelphia Police
    Department after he had been charged with attempted murder. He
    was able to receive a permit in Florida despite his record and
    then use his Florida permit to carry a loaded gun in
    Philadelphia. He eventually shot a teenager 13 times in the
    chest, killing him on the street.
        H.R. 822 would nationalize the ill-conceived policy to put
    a gun in Marqus Hill's hands. Pennsylvania's current
    reciprocity agreement with 25 other States, including Florida,
    have demonstrated the difficulty and the impact that a national
    policy such as H.R. 822 would impose.
        Consider the following situation, which could happen if
    this bill were to become law. A police officer in Brookfield,
    Wisconsin, has just pulled over a speeding driver who was a
    resident of Texas. The driver presents a concealed carry permit
    from Utah, which grants nonresident permits. There is no way
    for the Brookfield officer to verify that the permit is
    legitimate and up to date. He would simply be required to honor
    it. The consequences for our frontline police officers could be
    severe.
        Congress should not consider a policy at the Federal level
    that has no implementation system. We as police leaders cannot
    leave our officers, whose safety is our first priority, without
    a mechanism to determine if the permit they hold in their hands
    is real and valid.
        Today I represent countless uniformed officers across the
    Nation who oppose this bill, including the police chiefs who
    are members of the Major City Chiefs Association, the
    International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Police
    Executive Research Forum, amongst others.
        As we face the challenge of keeping our citizens and our
    officers safe, I ask Washington to partner with local law
    enforcement agencies and develop reasonable approaches that
    protect citizens, protect our officers, and support States
    rights to provide public safety for their communities.
        And I am happy to answer any questions that you may have.
    Thank you again, and all Members of Committee, for providing me
    with the opportunity to testify this morning.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Ramsey follows:]

                                   __________
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you, Commissioner.
        I will yield myself 5 minutes to start the questioning out.
        Commissioner Ramsey, I think you have a good point,
    relative to not knowing the legitimacy of a concealed carry
    permit that is issued by a foreign jurisdiction, what it looks
    like, and the like. Say this bill passes and a police officer
    makes a traffic stop and somebody pulls out a concealed carry
    permit of questionable legitimacy. What would the officer do in
    Philadelphia, if that happened?
        Mr. Ramsey. If it was questionable now, they would seize it
    and bring the individual in and check further to see whether or
    not it was legitimate. Now that is if it is obviously forged.
    Some of these forgeries are so good, you honestly cannot tell
    the difference unless you have certain equipment in order to be
    able to tell.
        Many of the permits from other States do not even have
    photographs on the permit. In Pennsylvania, we do. But in many
    jurisdictions, it is just simply a card with writing on it. And
    there is no way to really verify. If it is 3 o'clock in the
    morning and you have a traffic stop, there is not even a
    database. You can't even contact radio to determine whether or
    not this is a valid permit, because you can't run it through a
    database like you can a driver's license.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Okay, so the person who used that type
    of document would be detained for at least some period of time
    while the legitimacy of the document is checked out, either at
    a police station or elsewhere? Are you clear on that?
        Mr. Ramsey. I understood your question to be if it looked
    suspicious. In other words, it looked like it had been forged.
    That's different. If you have no reasonable suspicion that it
    is anything other than a legitimate permit, you wouldn't do
    that. You would simply allow the person to go.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Okay.
        Professor Kopel, what do you think about this hypothetical?
        Mr. Kopel. Well, I would say, in the Supreme Court, I have
    represented the International Law Enforcement Educators and
    Trainers Association, which is the main organization that
    trains law enforcement in firearms use. And I think the levels
    of police training are capable of addressing different types of
    identification from other States.
        It used to be, in the olden days, not all drivers' licenses
    had photographs on them, and it was certainly true that, in
    previous decades, if someone was in Colorado, say, with a New
    York driver's license, and they were speeding at 11 o'clock at
    night, the police officer in Denver couldn't call up the New
    York State Department of Motor Vehicles to test the validity of
    that license. And things still worked out all right anyway.
        I think this is something that is addressable by police
    training.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Okay, I yield back the balance of my
    time.
        The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott?
        Mr. Scott. Thank you.
        Professor Malcolm, you mentioned the debate about whether
    or not more guns would increase or decrease crime. Do you think
    more firearms would increase crime or decrease crime?
        Ms. Malcolm. More firearms has not increased violent crime.
    We have had more firearms over the last few years, millions
    more, and violent crime has been going down dramatically. And
    the murder rate has been going down dramatically.
        Mr. Scott. So if we had more firearms, the crime rate in
    your judgment, would go down? Is that what I am hearing?
        Ms. Malcolm. It has gone down.
        Mr. Scott. Okay.
        Ms. Malcolm. I should say that, obviously, when crime goes
    down, there is more than one reason for that. I mean, good
    policing is also important.
        Mr. Scott. Do any States prohibit open carry, kind of Wild
    West, strap it to your waste, unconcealed--do any States
    prohibit open carry?
        Mr. Kopel. Approximately half the States prohibit open
    carry.
        Mr. Scott. Half the States prohibit open carry.
        Commissioner Ramsey, what kind of standards are usually
    imposed in order to get a concealed weapons permit?
        Mr. Ramsey. Well, in Philadelphia, for example, we will do
    a background check on an individual, looking for a criminal
    record. If they have a criminal record, certain misdemeanor
    offenses, such as stalking, for an example, some domestic
    violence, luring a child into a building, impersonating a
    police officer, certainly felonies, DUI convictions, those
    kinds of things, would make a person ineligible for a permit.
        In fact, we have had circumstances where we have denied a
    permit, but that same individual gets a permit from Florida,
    where we have reciprocity with the State Florida, and they are
    able to carry a gun in Pennsylvania, even though we have denied
    them the permit in Philadelphia.
        Mr. Scott. You don't have to be a resident in order to get
    a concealed weapons permit?
        Mr. Ramsey. Well, you do in Pennsylvania, but there are
    States where a nonresident permit is allowable.
        Mr. Scott. Do you have to be physically present to get a
    concealed weapons permit?
        Mr. Ramsey. There are some I am told you can get online.
        Mr. Kopel. If I could just elaborate a little on that?
        Florida is one of several States that issues permits to
    nonresidents. So for example, when I knew I was going to
    Florida on a business trip, you cannot walk into a Florida
    police station on Tuesday morning and then get a permit that
    same day. It is a process that takes weeks, including going to
    your local sheriff's department to get fingerprinted, and then
    the sheriff's department sends those fingerprints to----
        Mr. Scott. Do any States allow this to be done online?
        Mr. Kopel. There may be parts of the application process--
    instead of writing your name and address on a piece of paper,
    there may be some States that allow you to do that online. But
    a completed application would require your in-person
    fingerprints taken by local law enforcement and then sent to
    the Florida Department of Law enforcement, for example.
        Mr. Scott. Is that the case in every State?
        Mr. Kopel. In Colorado?
        Mr. Scott. In every State.
        If this bill were to pass, and a State were to adopt fairly
    lax standards, like, you know, type it online and they will
    mail you your permit, would it be valid everywhere under this
    legislation?
        Mr. Kopel. Actually, for professional interests, I have
    tried--I have done applications for almost every State that
    issues nonresident permits, on a regular basis. And I have
    never seen States with anything lax like that, where you could
    just fill in a form and they wouldn't even verify your
    identity.
        Mr. Scott. Is there anything in the legislation that
    prohibits that? If they just charged enough, it could be a
    great revenue-raiser.
        Mr. Kopel. It is basically following the same system as
    with drivers' licenses, where some States, at least in the
    olden days, used to issue drivers' licenses to 14-year-olds,
    and others to older people, and they had different requirements
    for the amount of training you would have. And States were
    comfortable having reciprocity with each other for their
    licenses.
        Mr. Scott. Do all States prohibit access to a concealed
    weapons permit for someone on the terrorist watchlist?
        Mr. Kopel. I don't know of any State that formally does
    that, because the terrorist watchlist is a secret government
    list that people don't even have access to. I mean, that is
    really McCarthyism at its most extreme, to say somebody----
        Mr. Scott. What about domestic abuse?
        Mr. Kopel. Pardon?
        Mr. Scott. Domestic abuse. Domestic violence.
        Mr. Kopel. Federal law prohibits gun possession by anyone
    convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor. So no State would
    or could issue a carry permit to a person with a domestic
    violence misdemeanor conviction.
        Mr. Scott. And, Commissioner Ramsey, if a person presented
    an out-of-state permit, would there be any probable cause to do
    anything?
        Mr. Ramsey. If there is a State, and we have 25 States
    where we have a reciprocity agreement, then they would be
    legitimate in terms of being able to carry that firearm.
        The problem is that different States have different
    criteria. Now, it has been mentioned, drivers' licenses. You
    can't just go to a car dealership, buy a car, and start
    driving. The step in between is called getting a license. You
    have to be tested, have certain knowledge of rules of the road.
    You have to show proficiency in being able to drive a car.
    There are certain standards that are in place.
        That is not the case with concealed--with gun permits right
    now.
        Some States require a person to show a level of proficiency
    with a firearm and go through certain steps to do that. There
    are other States that don't allow that at all. In fact, I
    believe it was Nevada that recently terminated their agreement
    with both Florida and Utah, but previously they had reciprocity
    agreements, because their standards did not match what they
    considered to be appropriate, and they, therefore, withdrew
    their reciprocity agreement, which a State ought to have the
    right to do that.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        The gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren?
        Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Commissioner Ramsey, thank you for your service in the
    various positions of responsibility you have had.
        Let me ask you this. In the past, one of the arguments,
    strong arguments, has been, over the last 20 years, that if we
    were to allow more carry permits, or, generally speaking, if we
    were to allow more people to have access to personal weapons,
    it would cause the crime rate to go up, that is particularly
    the violent crime rate. The facts seem to be the opposite of
    that.
        And I listened to law enforcement, respected law
    enforcement, was a part of law enforcement as attorney general
    of California when these arguments were made. But I always said
    I would look at the facts as they were presented when people
    said there is a different side to it.
        In your opinion, both representing the group that you are
    here representing and in your personal experience, how do we
    explain the drop in the violent crime rate at the same time we
    have evidence of more weapons available to individuals? And
    there appears to be, over the last 20 years, a larger number of
    concealed permits given by the various States?
        Mr. Ramsey. Thank you, sir.
        Let me just say that the vast majority of people that
    purchase handguns legally are decent, law-abiding citizens that
    do not commit crime. They have no intention of committing
    crime. There is no question in my mind about that.
        In fact, in Philadelphia, for an example, we took a look at
    our homicides just for the first 6 months of this year. More
    than 80 percent of the people who were victims of homicide in
    Philadelphia had previous criminal records that would have
    barred them from buying a gun legitimately or getting a
    concealed permit to carry. Some 88 percent of the offenders,
    same thing.
        So the population that is committing the crime isn't
    necessarily the same population, to a large extent, buying the
    handguns.
        The issue I have is the lax nature of some of the laws of
    certain States that then I would have to accept in my
    jurisdiction should a national concealed carry law be passed.
    There are no standards in place at all for that.
        Mr. Lungren. So you are not against the idea of individual
    citizens having carry permits for concealed weapon?
        Mr. Ramsey. Well, that is a different issue. Personally, I
    don't like it, personally. But I am also a realist, and if you
    already have a jurisdiction----
        Mr. Lungren. Let me ask you that question. Personally, you
    don't like it. At least in my experience, most law enforcement
    people I know that have retired have a right to continue to
    carry.
        Mr. Ramsey. Right.
        Mr. Lungren. So it is good enough for them, but not good
    enough for the average citizen?
        Mr. Ramsey. Well, sir, the average law enforcement--in
    fact, all law enforcement officers, we are trained in the use
    of force. We are trained in how to use a firearm. We undergo
    constant training in that area.
        The average citizen that buys a gun, there is no
    requirement in most jurisdictions that they know how to load
    the gun or how to properly use it. There needs to be checks.
        As you get older, I mean, you get physical disabilities
    that can afflict you. Do you want someone with advanced stages
    of Parkinson's with a handgun firing----
        Mr. Lungren. No, I wouldn't, but it seems to me if someone
    is older and has less ability to physically defend themselves,
    perhaps the use of a weapon in their own home, or as they are
    going to their car, or in their own business, might be a means
    by which they are able to defend themselves despite age.
        Mr. Ramsey. Well, I am not arguing the in the home part.
    The carry and conceal is a danger to law enforcement. As we
    stop these individuals, we are the ones who have to make the
    stops on the street, sir. We are the ones that have to do that.
        Mr. Lungren. No, I understand.
        Mr. Ramsey. We do it at all hours of the night, 3 and 4 in
    the morning, with individuals, some very dangerous individuals
    that could be carrying falsified, forged documents. We just
    don't need to make it easier for them.
        If a State decides they will allow concealed carry for the
    residents, that is the right to do so. But to have a national
    concealed carry, without any kind of standards----
        Mr. Lungren. Okay, let me ask you about that.
        Mr. Ramsey [continuing]. Is a problem.
        Mr. Lungren. If the legislation had some minimum standards,
    could you support it at that point in time?
        Mr. Ramsey. It depends on the standards, sir. Registration,
    showing proficiency in the use of it, there are a lot of
    standards that would have to be present before I would sign off
    and say that it is a good bill.
        Mr. Lungren. But if we had standards that to your
    satisfaction met the standards you have Pennsylvania for
    example----
        Mr. Ramsey. Pennsylvania, I think, has a terrible law as it
    relates to concealed carry.
        Mr. Lungren. Oh, really?
        Mr. Ramsey. Way to lax. I happen to live in Pennsylvania
    and work in Pennsylvania; it doesn't mean I like the law in
    Pennsylvania. I think it is one of the weaker laws in the
    country.
        Mr. Lungren. Is there any State that you would suggest has
    the proper standards?
        Mr. Ramsey. Sir, I am not a proponent of concealed carry.
        Mr. Lungren. No, I understand. That is obvious.
        Mr. Ramsey. But from your question, then I would have to
    recognize a State, saying that I think that that is the right
    way to go.
        I realize there is a debate on this issue, and I respect
    the opinion of those that have a contrary opinion. But I
    personally do not like the idea of people carrying guns with no
    training, with no understanding of when it is appropriate to
    use force, get lost in a quote, unquote, ``bad neighborhood,''
    everyone who lives in that neighborhood is not a criminal, and
    just because you were afraid, you turn around and shoot
    somebody. I have a problem with that.
        Mr. Lungren. I have a problem with that whether you have a
    permit or not.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Quigley?
        Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I will address my comments to the professors here. I have
    only been here a little over 2 years. What I have learned from
    about States' rights is that people are for them if they agree
    with the issue.
        My questions to you are, where do we draw the line?
        Professor, you made a reference to Justice Scalia's opinion
    in the Heller case, creating the exceptions to the rule, as you
    said. Basically, what the justice seemed to be saying is that
    this isn't an unlimited right and not everybody can have a gun
    of any type anywhere they want, which is appropriate.
        But not all States even take it to that limit, as you
    understand. The Court was saying you can restrict on these
    issues.
        Mr. Kopel. Yes.
        Mr. Quigley. Not every State does that. So what you are
    saying is, those States don't have a right to make their own
    laws, even within the bounds of that Supreme Court decision,
    which I am sure you thought was an appropriate decision.
        So at what point do we draw the line? At what point do we
    say these States rights are important, they follow the Supreme
    Court, and these aren't, because we want uniformity. Does that
    apply to--let's just recognize something else.
        This isn't the only issue in which there is no uniformity.
    Extraordinary issues, which the Court has upheld in many cases,
    those people's fundamental right to have. Are we talking about
    uniformity in laws now that the Federal Government is going to
    dictate about marriage licenses, particularly when it comes to
    an issue like same-sex marriage? Are we talking about alcohol
    laws being uniform? Are we talking about abortion rights being
    uniform? Are we talking about smoking laws?
        You know better than most of us in this room, maybe 20 or
    30 other real sensitive issues, of which there are people who
    are passionate about those rights. Are you saying, well, I care
    about guns, so we are going to create a niche for guns to be
    uniform and dictate from the Federal level, but I don't care
    about the other rights.
        Where do we draw the line?
        Mr. Kopel. I appreciate your concern for federalism, and I
    think you, Representative, are absolutely right that there are
    many people in Congress or elsewhere who sort of switch sides
    on these States rights vs. federalism issues, depending on the
    particular topic.
        I think the principal way to do it is to go back to the
    14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment was created for the purpose
    of giving Congress the power to protect national citizenship
    rights. Now, when they were debating the 14th Amendment in
    Congress, they weren't talking about saying, well, this is
    terrible because one State has one rule on smoking and another
    State has another rule on smoking, or States have different
    policies on alcohol. They had very different policies back
    then.
        Mr. Quigley. You are saying they weren't concerned about
    uniformity?
        Mr. Kopel. On issues like smoking or alcohol, for example,
    which you raised. But they were concerned about protecting the
    minimum baseline of the national citizenship rights on travel
    and on the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment. And
    we know that expressly from the congressional debates, and that
    is with the McDonald decision was founded on.
        In terms of what you talked about, the Heller decision says
    that States can restrict gun carrying in sensitive places, you
    are exactly right that some States go as far as possible on
    that, and other States don't really have those restrictions.
        Mr. Quigley. At all.
        Mr. Kopel. Exactly. This bill appropriately matches that,
    because it says when the visitor is carrying in the second
    State, the visitor must carry only in those places according to
    the rules of the host State.
        So, for example, in Colorado, we say someone with a
    concealed handgun permit could have a gun in the car when he is
    picking up his kids from a K-12 school. Other States wouldn't
    allow that. Whatever State you are in, you have to follow the
    rules about that, as that State defines sensitive places. That
    is what in H.R. 822 right now.
        Mr. Quigley. Professor?
        Ms. Malcolm. Yes, I agree. I think there is a great deal of
    difference between rules on drinking and something that affects
    one of the rights in the Bill of Rights.
        Mr. Quigley. What about the right to be married? You don't
    tie to any constitutional right, that people have a right to
    get married? Or the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on marriage
    rights again and again a constitutional right, Loving and other
    cases such as that?
        Ms. Malcolm. That is a very hot issue. The Supreme Court
    has----
        Mr. Quigley. So is this issue. They are all hot issues to
    the person who cares about them.
        Ms. Malcolm. The Federal Government has a Defense of
    Marriage Act, which supports States rights in this area, so it
    has----
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Gowdy?
        Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Professor Kopel, you agree that the first eight amendments
    apply to the States?
        Mr. Kopel. I think there is substantial evidence from the
    original enactment of the 14th Amendment that was the
    intention. The Supreme Court hasn't taken it all the way for
    all eight, but it has taken it all the way for most of----
        Mr. Gowdy. Well, that would certainly create a very curious
    result, if some applied to the States and some did not. Agreed?
        Mr. Kopel. Certainly, but, for example, the grand jury
    right doesn't currently apply, nor does the Eighth Amendment
    prohibition on excessive fines.
        Mr. Gowdy. Do you agree that there is a constitutional
    right to travel?
        Mr. Kopel. Yes, that is clear. It is one of those things
    that dozens of court decisions have said is necessarily
    implicit in our structure as a national union, and is one of
    the things that the 14th Amendment was specifically intended
    to----
        Mr. Gowdy. Do you agree that there is a constitutional
    right to defend yourself?
        Mr. Kopel. Yes, the Heller decision recognizes a right of
    self-defense.
        Mr. Gowdy. Commissioner Ramsey, while I disagree with you
    on this point, I respect your service and that of others who
    wear the uniform.
        Mr. Ramsey. Thank you.
        Mr. Gowdy. Do you agree that there is a constitutional
    right to defend yourself?
        Mr. Ramsey. Well, I am, unlike the two professors here, not
    an expert in the Constitution. But I would say yes.
        Mr. Gowdy. If there is a constitutional right to defend
    yourself, and the Second Amendment applies to the States, do
    you agree that New York cannot have a different variation of
    the First Amendment than Nevada?
        Mr. Ramsey. Yes.
        Mr. Gowdy. Do agree that Vermont cannot have a different
    Miranda application than North Carolina?
        Mr. Ramsey. I would agree.
        Mr. Gowdy. So you are willing to concede the need for
    uniformity in the administration of certain constitutional
    rights?
        Mr. Ramsey. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Gowdy. Do you agree that there is a constitutional
    right to bear arms?
        Mr. Ramsey. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Gowdy. Professor Kopel, what is the constitutional
    right analysis by which you would limit that right to bear
    arms? 922(g). What is the constitutional construct that one
    would go through to limit your right?
        Mr. Kopel. In the terms of 922(g), you mentioned that, the
    section of volume 18 of the United States Code which creates
    the Federal list of prohibited persons, such as collected
    felons----
        Mr. Gowdy. Right.
        Mr. Kopel. Domestic violence misdemeanors.
        Mr. Gowdy. Right. I know what it is. I was asking what is
    the constitutional construct that you use to support Congress's
    ability to limit the Second Amendment application?
        Mr. Kopel. The argument would be that it is----
        Mr. Gowdy. It is a fundamental right?
        Mr. Kopel. Yes.
        Mr. Gowdy. Would you use strict scrutiny?
        Mr. Kopel. Well, when the Supreme Court says something is a
    fundamental right in the sense that it must apply to the States
    via the 14th Amendment, that is not the same as every part of
    that right getting strict scrutiny.
        Mr. Gowdy. What level of scrutiny which you use?
        Mr. Kopel. The courts are still working that out. And I
    think what that right answer is shown, for example, by the
    Seventh Circuit in the Ezell case, which said Chicago couldn't
    ban target ranges entirely in the city, which if you have
    strict scrutiny or something close to it, for things that
    involve the primary exercise of the right, and you might have,
    as by analogy, if the government tried to restrict the content
    of speech, that would have strict scrutiny.
        On the other hand, when the government sets regulations
    about speech in public places, such as permitting regulations
    to have a parade, things like that, those hit intermediate
    scrutiny. And I think similar----
        Mr. Gowdy. Do you think there can be 50 different
    variations of the First Amendment?
        Mr. Kopel. No. As the Supreme Court articulates First
    Amendment doctrine, of course, every State has to obey that as
    a baseline.
        Mr. Gowdy. Can some States opt out of the requirement that
    you provide legal counsel for people who are facing a term of
    imprisonment?
        Mr. Kopel. Absolutely not.
        Mr. Gowdy. Can they opt out of Miranda?
        Mr. Kopel. Certainly not.
        Mr. Gowdy. Can they interpret cruel and unusual punishment
    differently?
        Mr. Kopel. No.
        Mr. Gowdy. Then why is there no national standard for the
    Second Amendment?
        Mr. Kopel. Because the Supreme Court has--it took them
    about a century and a half to start protecting the First
    Amendment through judicial decisions, and it took them even
    longer to get around to the Second Amendment. And so the
    Supreme Court has not yet articulated the detailed rules.
        Mr. Gowdy. So we are waiting on them.
        All right, I have a little bit of time. I want to Professor
    Malcolm, have you done any studies or are aware of any studies
    with respect to the crime rate among concealed weapon permit
    holders?
        Ms. Malcolm. The studies among permit holders show that
    there are very few permit holders that ever commit a crime.
        Mr. Gowdy. With respect to officer-involved shootings, have
    you done any--respect to whether or not there are any concealed
    weapons permit holders who have been involved in officer-
    involved shootings?
        Ms. Malcolm. There aren't any that I know of.
        I should say that people that are interested in committing
    a crime are not likely to go ahead and register a gun and get a
    permit.
        Mr. Gowdy. Amen to that.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Chu?
        Ms. Chu. Thank you.
        Before I begin with my questions, I want to mention that
    Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a bipartisan coalition of more
    than 600 U.S. mayors, has launched a national campaign called
    ``Our Lives, Our Laws,'' along with major national police
    organizations, domestic violence prevention advocates, and
    faith leaders, to express their opposition to this bill. In
    just 5 days, 45,000 grassroots supporters have signed this
    petition.
        And my first question is to Commissioner Ramsey. In your
    testimony, you mentioned that laws for obtaining permits in
    Pennsylvania might not work in New York. Now, I was in the
    California State Legislature before, and I know how much we
    debated these laws and passed laws that were specific to our
    State. Can you speak a little more on how States should be
    allowed to create permitting standards that best address the
    needs of that State and its safety concerns?
        Mr. Ramsey. Yes, ma'am. I think that just like, as it is
    now, it is not an issue of the right to bear arms. I mean, that
    is covered by the Second Amendment. But this issue of concealed
    carry, a part of that, is being decided on an individual basis,
    state-by-state, as to whether or not they will allow residents
    to carry a weapon concealed, in some cases open carry, outside
    of their home in different places.
        I mean, some jurisdictions have some restrictions as to
    where that can be. Others may not have the same restrictions.
        I think that a State ought to make that decision for
    themselves based on their knowledge of their State, their
    residents, and so forth, and that a national policy in this
    regard is not needed.
        And let me just comment on one thing that was said earlier
    about the right to defend yourself. I believe a person has a
    right to defend themselves. However, we are talking about the
    potential use of deadly force when we are talking about having
    a firearm. This is not the same as getting in a fistfight, or
    whatever.
        And at what level is it acceptable to shoot and kill a
    person? I mean, police, we are trained constantly on use of
    force issues. If a person breaks into your house and is running
    away from you, down the street, can you shoot them in the back
    and kill them?
        I mean, there are circumstances in which use of deadly
    force is not permitted. I don't know if 300 million Americans
    are going to get that same lesson and understand it the same
    way.
        And I have some serious concerns about people, some
    circumstances in a bar, have a drink, or you get heated in a
    domestic situation, in regards to a permit to carry person
    using it--this past weekend, we had a police-involved shooting.
    The person that was shot by police had a permit to carry, got
    involved in a situation waving a gun around, got himself shot.
    I mean, these things can happen.
        Is it the norm? No. But is it a concern? Absolutely, it is
    a concern for me, because, again, it is the use of deadly
    force. You can't take it back. You cannot take it back. And
    that concerns me a great deal, and I think it puts a lot of
    people unnecessarily at risk.
        Ms. Chu. Thank you for that.
        Professor Kopel, a few minutes ago, when Congress Member
    Scott asked you whether individuals convicted of domestic
    violence could legally obtain a permit, you said no. However,
    people are still obtaining concealed carry permits, and here
    are a couple examples.
        In 2009, Clinton Gallagher pled guilty to misdemeanor
    domestic violence, for which he lost his Missouri permit to
    carry concealed weapons. Gallagher then sued the county sheriff
    to have his permit reinstated and won the case. The court held
    that a misdemeanor domestic battery conviction does not prevent
    someone from possessing firearms in Missouri, even though a
    misdemeanor domestic violence conviction disqualifies a person
    from possessing a gun under Federal law.
        In December 2010, Gallagher shot and killed his 6-year-old
    son and then killed himself.
        A second example, Jason Kenneth Hamilton was arrested in
    December 2005 for attempted strangulation of his on-again, off-
    again girlfriend, which led to his conviction for misdemeanor
    domestic battery in June 2006. He was still able to obtain an
    Idaho permit to carry a handgun. And in May 2007, Hamilton shot
    and killed his wife, a police officer, and a church sexton
    before killing himself.
        The county sheriff confirmed that Hamilton had a concealed
    weapon permit despite the domestic violence conviction that
    should have barred him from owning firearms.
        How do you respond to that?
        Mr. Kopel. Well, I would say--have you investigated those
    cases yourself, Representative? Or did you get them from an
    organization?
        Ms. Chu. I got this from an organization.
        Mr. Kopel. Those cases are new to me, so I can't tell you
    much in depth about them. I will certainly look them up and
    find out what I can. I know that sometimes organizations have
    misreported situations, for example, saying that somebody was
    one of these concealed killers when in fact the police and law
    enforcement determined they acted in lawful self-defense.
        But hypothesizing of those facts, if the organization
    provided the facts to you accurately, certainly nobody should--
    if a person is ineligible by Federal law to possess a gun,
    local law enforcement or whoever is issuing the permits would
    be making a terrible error to issue a carry permit to a person
    who by Federal law can't even possess a gun, let alone carry
    one.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
        The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Poe?
        Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you for being here, Commissioner. I appreciate your
    service----
        Mr. Ramsey. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Poe [continuing]. As a peace officer. Having been a
    prosecutor and judge for a long time, I saw a lot of men and
    women come in blue to the courthouse to testify. I appreciate
    your service.
        May I ask the professors this question? The Second
    Amendment, the basis of the Second Amendment, is it a right of
    self-defense or is it, based upon historical precedent, a right
    to protect us from government intrusion? Which of those
    theories, or both, do you believe? Just your personal opinion.
        Professor Kopel first.
        Mr. Kopel. I think if you go back to the origins of the
    Second Amendment and its early interpretation, for which
    probably the fullest exposition as St. George Tucker's
    treatise, which was the leading American law treatise for about
    the first quarter century after the Constitution. He described
    the Second Amendment right as including both of those important
    purposes you said, as well as other purposes, such as hunting.
        The First Amendment has multiple purposes in it of the
    communication that people enjoy with each other just for fun as
    well as finding out information about the government or
    preventing tyranny that way, by speech about what the
    government is doing. So likewise, I would say the Second
    Amendment has many salutary purposes.
        Mr. Poe. Those are at least two of the purposes,
    historically.
        Mr. Kopel. Yes.
        Mr. Poe. As well as hunting, a militia as well.
        Professor Malcolm?
        Ms. Malcolm. Yes, I would agree with that. The two main
    purposes are the right of individual self-defense and also this
    notion that should the government ever become tyrannical and
    deprive you of your rights, that this right would enable you to
    recover them.
        But, you know, it is sometimes called I guess a suicide
    clause, but I think that originally that that was the idea,
    that people would be able to vindicate their right.
        Mr. Poe. Thank you.
        Commissioner, when somebody comes into your State and they
    have a foreign driver's license, I should say out-of-State
    driver's license, from Utah or Texas or wherever, set aside the
    issue of fraud, you generally accept that driver's license?
        Mr. Ramsey. Yes, sir. We are able to run it through our
    communications center. We can to a name check. We can see if it
    is a valid license or not.
        Mr. Poe. Even though States have different rules on who can
    get drivers' licenses? Some require more stricter standards
    than others.
        Mr. Ramsey. Some do, but they do have some standards. I
    mean, driving test, certain age, they can suspend for drunk
    driving. I mean, each one is slightly different, but there are
    some standards in place.
        Mr. Poe. Some have different ages on who can drive, put a
    limit on who can drive. Some States even allow people illegally
    in the country to get a driver's license. You would let that
    person--you wouldn't treat that person with a driver's license
    from some State that is illegally in the country any different
    than you would somebody else in another State, because his
    driver's license on its face, if checked out, is presumed to be
    correct.
        Mr. Ramsey. Well, that would apply whether or not they are
    written for driving without a license. Whatever violation they
    committed that caused the contact to begin with, we would
    proceed with.
        Mr. Poe. I understand.
        Mr. Ramsey. I mean, so traffic as an example, I mean, it is
    not the--I mean, there is a specific charge for driving without
    a license, but they would have been stopped for something----
        Mr. Poe. But you always check their driver's license?
        Mr. Ramsey. We would have, yes.
        Mr. Poe. You always check their driver's license.
        Mr. Ramsey. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Poe. If he stopped for----
        Mr. Ramsey. Everybody should have a driver's license.
        Mr. Poe [continuing]. Speeding or run a red light.
        Mr. Ramsey. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Poe. Make a left turn without a signal, you know, one
    of those.
        Mr. Ramsey. Yes.
        Mr. Poe. In Houston, or in Texas, before we had permits to
    carry, we had this phenomena. We had a tremendous amount, in my
    opinion, of carjackings. It was a simple procedure. It was
    usually a woman that was the victim at night, driving alone. A
    car would pull in front of her. She would pull behind it at an
    intersection. Another car would pull behind her, block her in.
    She is carjacked.
        Those almost stopped overnight, when they got the right to
    carry, because criminals believed that lone female and that gun
    was packing, and she probably was, since there are 461,000
    permits in the State of Texas.
        So that is a self-defense issue. It affects the crime rate
    on that particular type of crime, carjacking, which was, I
    thought, an epidemic.
        Let me ask you this, Commissioner, you have drivers'
    licenses that are little different from State to State. But you
    also have permits that are little different from State to
    State. Do you see the analogy between the two? Or do you still
    think that there should be a difference with permits, firearm
    permits as opposed to drivers' licenses?
        Mr. Ramsey. Well, one, I mean, I personally think that if
    there were going to be, you know, concealed carry--of course,
    there are concealed carry laws, that there ought to be
    standards in place by that particular State.
        But here is where the example that you are using, I kind of
    get lost. If I make a mistake and let a person drive with a
    driver's license that is expired or a forged driver's license,
    that is just a person operating a motor vehicle illegally. If I
    let a person leave with a gun that shouldn't have a gun, they
    potentially can go out and do far greater harm.
        So, you know, I mean, I don't disagree. The carjacking is a
    question of whether or not use of deadly force is justified.
    There are some cases where it is justified. It would be
    appropriate to use it. I just don't think everybody has that
    training to make those distinctions.
        The two neighbors arguing over something between them, and
    someone gets shot, the domestic violence situation, the bar
    where somebody is carrying a gun and it escalates, I mean,
    those are the kind of things that I get concerned about. And
    when you have lax standards, and we have got people--I have
    examples in Philadelphia where a guy attempted murder in
    Philly. He goes to Florida and gets a permit, comes back and
    commits a homicide in Philadelphia.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Quayle?
        Mr. Quayle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Professor Malcolm, you have done a lot of research and
    writing, comparing the crime statistics from the United States
    as compared to Great Britain. In Great Britain, basically, they
    have prohibited handguns pretty much across the board. How does
    the U.S. violent crime rate compare with Great Britain's?
        Ms. Malcolm. Their violent crime rate is much higher than
    ours. The only thing that is different is the murder rate. But
    for all other types of contact crime, their violent crime is
    much higher.
        Mr. Quayle. So after the ban in 1997, violent crimes
    committed with firearms, did they drop or disappear after that
    ban?
        Ms. Malcolm. No, they doubled. They doubled after they
    banned handguns and retrieved all of them from people who had
    bought them and registered them. The amount of crime with those
    very same weapons that had been banned doubled.
        It really was not a very useful exercise. In fact, their
    Olympic team is not--shooting team is not allowed to practice
    or have their guns in the country. They have to practice in
    Switzerland.
        Mr. Quayle. Okay.
        Do you think that concealed carry laws will actually have
    an effect on property crimes as well, not just violent crimes?
        Ms. Malcolm. I think so. I mean, certainly thefts, it makes
    a big difference, or burglary. In Britain, most burglaries are
    live burglaries where the people are home, because the burglars
    aren't afraid anybody will be armed, whereas in this country,
    it's about 13 percent with the people home, because the
    burglars are more worried about armed homeowners than they are
    about the police. So it really is a deterrent.
        Mr. Quayle. Okay, thank you.
        Commissioner Ramsey, earlier in the Q&A portion, we were
    talking about concealed carry for former police officers. Now,
    what would be the reasoning behind a former police officer for
    wanting to carry a concealed arm?
        Mr. Ramsey. Well, I will be honest with you, sir, when that
    law was before Congress, I was not a proponent. I mean, you
    know, listen, when I take his uniform off, that is it. If I
    never see another gun, it is okay with me. That is my personal
    opinion. I had nothing to do with that.
        But again, you are talking about people that have for
    however many years undergone extensive training in not only the
    handling of a firearm, but use-of-force policy. When is it
    appropriate to use a firearm? This bill doesn't contain any of
    those safeguards.
        I mean, the debate about whether or not we should have gun
    registration, should we even report a gun lost or stolen? We
    can't get laws on that.
        I mean, so we pass some shallow law that says that you can
    carry concealed anywhere you want, as long as you get it from a
    State, and Lord only knows what their requirements would be.
    And you don't want to put in anything around safeguards about
    registration, the kinds of crimes that would prohibit you from
    being able to carry a gun, provisions for revocation of that
    permit.
        I mean, all those kinds of things are very, very important.
    But just to say because this State issued a gun, I ought to be
    able to carry it anywhere I want, we have States right now
    whose gun laws are so lax it is scary. And all we are going to
    do is extend that, and you will have this situation where you
    have all these different things. Police officers are not going
    to know all 50 States and their individual laws.
        And as you travel, sir, from one part of the country to
    another, every time you cross the border, do you know whether
    or not that gun in that unlocked glove compartment is legal or
    illegal? I doubt it. I mean, if you go from one State to
    another, you look at a sign that tells you have gone from a
    speed limit from 65 to 55, you kind of know. Are you going to
    have a big sign with all the gun laws on it, that as you are
    driving, you are going to read it and understand what the laws
    are? It is not practical, the way it is being proposed.
        Mr. Quayle. Well, ignorance of the law is never a defense
    in actual committing a crime or not abiding by the various laws
    that are put in place for concealed carry within the different
    jurisdictions.
        But do you think, if a former police officer wanted to
    carry a concealed handgun, wouldn't that go along the lines of
    he is wanting to look out for his own personal protection and
    the protection of his own family?
        Mr. Ramsey. Well, that is a law that was passed by
    Congress, the Federal law that allows retired police officers
    to carry a firearm. Everyone has their own rationale. I didn't
    push that law. I didn't support it. It was probably the FOP or
    some others that were able to get that bill through.
        But again, you know, if you are getting at a double
    standard, getting in this building you have to walk through all
    kinds of security and machines and so forth. We are not going
    to allow people to conceal carry in this building, and I
    understand that. I was the police chief here in July 1998 when
    two cops got shot right in the Capitol. I understand all that.
        Well, give us the same safeguards. That is all I am asking.
    Give us the same safeguards.
        Mr. Quayle. Thank you very much.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr.
    Griffin?
        Mr. Griffin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Professor Malcolm, I want to follow-up on my colleague Mr.
    Quayle's question. I think he referred to some of the
    statistics and research you have done with regard to the U.K.
        Ms. Malcolm. Yes.
        Mr. Griffin. Have you looked at other European countries?
    Have you seen similar data? Have you seen similar data from the
    other countries?
        Ms. Malcolm. Most of them have stricter gun laws than we
    do. But I think the British laws are probably the strictest,
    and they certainly now have the worst record of violent crime
    than any other country in Europe.
        Mr. Griffin. So the statistics that you have seen with
    regard to burglaries and homes, where the occupants have
    firearms vs. those that don't, the statistics, the numbers are
    about the same, in terms of the Netherlands and some of the
    other countries in Europe?
        Ms. Malcolm. I don't really have an exact statistic about
    that. I don't know whether Professor Kopel does.
        Mr. Kopel. If I could jump in, Representative Griffin, I
    wrote a law journal article on this, and it is hard to get from
    most countries data about--you can get total burglaries, but
    then breaking that down into how many are in the home, and then
    of the ones that were in the home, how many were hot burglaries
    with the victims there vs. how many were, like the American
    pattern, where they cased the joint to try to make sure that
    there is nobody there.
        To the extent that there is data, and the Netherlands is
    actually one of those places, and the Republic of Ireland would
    be another, these other countries seem to have much higher
    rates of home invasions, hot burglaries, than the United States
    does.
        Mr. Griffin. I wanted to ask you one more question,
    Professor Malcolm. Could you comment, and then any of you can
    comment on this, can you comment on the role of the right to
    self-defense in the Heller case and the reasoning of the Heller
    case?
        Ms. Malcolm. Yes. Actually, the majority opinion was very
    careful in going through the history of the meaning of the
    Second Amendment. And the basic right to self-defense was very
    much a part of what the Founders had in mind. They were
    preserving their right to self-defense that they had had as
    Englishmen and continuing it. And also there was a very strong
    belief, which remains, that it is sort of a fundamental law of
    nature, that a person should be able to defend himself, that it
    is not very much comfort for the law to come in afterward and
    pick up the pieces. Locke has written about that and
    Blackstone.
        So self-defense was, you know, rightly found, I think, to
    be the primary purpose of it. And I was actually at the oral
    argument before the Supreme Court, and I remember, I think it
    was Justice Roberts asking about whether, under the Washington,
    D.C., law, you know, there was some possibility that you might
    be able to put your disassembled gun together in the middle of
    the night in the dark if somebody entered.
        You know, I think that self-defense was really uppermost in
    their minds, and it is very, very basic. And it is only one of
    our Bill of Rights that actually makes a point of that.
        Mr. Griffin. So it is fair to say it is an underpinning of
    the Heller decision, is it not?
        Ms. Malcolm. It is the main finding of the Heller decision
    that people have a right to have a handgun in their homes for
    their self-defense, yes.
        Mr. Griffin. Okay, thank you.
        Professor, do you have anything to add?
        Mr. Kopel. I would add that the D.C. law that was found
    unconstitutional, one part of it banned acquiring handguns.
    Another part--and it was found unconstitutional. Another part
    of the law said that even if you had a lawfully possessed rifle
    or shotgun in your home, you couldn't use it for self-defense.
    That was against the law in D.C., and that was also found to be
    unconstitutional.
        So the Court was not saying just that you have a right to
    have a gun. But it was also saying that prohibiting self-
    defense is itself something that is unconstitutional.
        Mr. Griffin. Thank you.
        I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
    Conyers?
        Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        This is the most insane bill I have heard of in--well, I
    can't think of one that was less rational than this one.
        I just want to start off our very friendly discussion with
    you about the subject.
        But I do agree with David Kopel in one area, and I am glad
    that you are here today, sir, because you have maintained that
    we might reach a mutual agreement with the National Rifle
    Association and gun control advocates by having mandatory
    safety training and licenses renewable every few years with
    fingerprinting, background checks, and disqualifications for
    people that may have accumulated records of drug abuse or
    alcoholism. Do you still stand by that?
        Mr. Kopel. I am not quite sure what you are quoting from or
    where I have said of that. That is not something in my
    testimony. But I think what you just described is something
    like the concealed handgun licensing system in Colorado that
    another one of my clients I sometime represent, the Colorado
    State Sheriffs Association, drafted, and it is now the law in
    Colorado. Yes, so I think what you just said approximates the
    Colorado law, and I think that is a good law.
        Mr. Conyers. Okay.
        Mr. Kopel. But I haven't said anything about whether that
    should be nationalized at all.
        Mr. Conyers. Now we have three witnesses here. How many
    know that almost 300 African-American youths between the age of
    15 and 24 are injured or killed by gunfire each week?
        Do you know that? Have you ever read that from the Center
    for Disease Control?
        Ms. Malcolm. I also know that----
        Mr. Conyers. I just said, ``do you.''
        Ms. Malcolm. That particular----
        Mr. Conyers. Yes, yes or no.
        Ms. Malcolm. Yes.
        Mr. Conyers. Okay, now, what else do you want to add?
        Ms. Malcolm. I want to add that most of the people who are
    injured with gun violence have a record of previous crimes, or
    are part of a gang. So usually, this isn't something----
        Mr. Conyers. So that makes it kind of----
        Ms. Malcolm. I am not saying it makes it okay, but----
        Mr. Conyers. Okay, all right.
        Okay, let me ask you, have you heard of that before,
    Professor?
        Mr. Kopel. I have similar statistics presented in my book,
    ``Guns: Who Should Have Them?"
        Mr. Conyers. All right.
        And do you know that, Commissioner Ramsey?
        Mr. Ramsey. Yes, sir. I am Philadelphia now, so I live it
    on a fairly regular basis, dealing with gun violence amongst
    young people of color.
        Mr. Conyers. What about, Professor Malcolm, nine children
    and teens die every day from gunfire, one every 2 hours and 45
    minutes. And in 2006, more preschool children--namely, 63--were
    killed by firearms than law enforcement officers--48--were
    killed in the line of duty?
        Ms. Malcolm. I must say, I don't see how denying law-
    abiding citizens a right to be armed is going to help that
    situation, because this violence isn't occurring with
    registered guns.
        Mr. Conyers. So the more guns we bring in, the lower these
    figures might become?
        Ms. Malcolm. Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens to
    protect themselves, so that elderly people can protect
    themselves, so that women alone can protect themselves----
        Mr. Conyers. Preschool children don't normally have a way
    of legally acquiring guns.
        Ms. Malcolm. Well, I agree that some of our schools are
    very violent, and I am not against trying to limit illegal
    guns.
        Mr. Conyers. Well, let me approach it--I like talking with
    you. Let me approach it this way----
        Ms. Malcolm. Okay.
        Mr. Conyers. We have 65 million or more guns out in the
    public right now. Would you say 165 million would help things?
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        Mr. Conyers. Could I get 1 additional minute?
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
        Mr. Conyers. Yes or no?
        Ms. Malcolm. Oh, I think that guns in the hands of law-
    abiding people will prevent crime, but it is very, very
    difficult to get illegal guns out of circulation and these----
        Mr. Conyers. That isn't what I asked you.
        What is your response?
        Mr. Kopel. Representative Conyers, we have a test for that,
    because according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
    and Explosives, we actually now have in this country
    approximately 280 million guns, so as we went from 65 million
    165 million to 280 million, we had a natural experiment about
    what would happen. And the gun crime rate went down, not up.
        Mr. Conyers. So then what about 380 million instead of 280
    million?
        Mr. Kopel. I don't think that the number matters that much.
    It is whose hands they are in. Guns in the hands of criminals
    are extremely dangerous and should be dealt with by law
    enforcement and by the laws. Guns in the hands of law-abiding
    people enhance public safety.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has once again
    expired.
        Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Chairman Sensenbrenner.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you.
        The gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Adams?
        Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Commissioner, is Pennsylvania's information when someone
    purchases a firearm, is it the same test or background check or
    whatever as every other State in the United States?
        Mr. Ramsey. No, ma'am.
        Ms. Adams. So if someone was to purchase a firearm in your
    State, there would be different requirements for an NCIC
    check----
        Mr. Ramsey. Oh, so legally purchase?
        Ms. Adams. Yes.
        Mr. Ramsey. Oh, I am sorry----
        Ms. Adams. I said ``purchase.'' I know that there has been
    some blurring of the lines here, but I am talking about
    purchasing a firearm.
        Mr. Ramsey. I don't know if it is the same in every State.
    I imagine if not, it is pretty close. You have to do the NCIC
    checks. There is a waiting period. There is a process.
        Ms. Adams. I will, in full disclosure, let you know that I
    am a former police officer from Florida.
        Mr. Ramsey. Yes.
        Ms. Adams. And I worked on this a lot. I was actually one
    of those who had to go out when that failed and had to retrieve
    firearms from felons who weren't supposed to have them. So I
    understand the system quite well.
        And I have listened, as it seems that it has blurred
    between gun ownership and gun purchasing. So I wanted to ask
    you that, when you have your records expunged in your State,
    what does that mean?
        Mr. Ramsey. Well, that means that all official records of
    an individual's arrest would be removed from whatever files we
    have.
        Ms. Adams. Could they then get a firearm permit in your
    State?
        Mr. Ramsey. They could get one. If the records have been
    expunged and you ran the records, you wouldn't have anything to
    go on.
        Ms. Adams. So in 2009, when this--I believe it was Mr. Hill
    you mentioned. When he had--in '05, he had his altercation with
    you. But in '09, I believe it was when he went to Florida. And
    at that time, his records were expunged; is that correct?
        Mr. Ramsey. I don't know if his records were expunged or
    not in '09. Eventually--I am not certain.
        Ms. Adams. Okay. Well, that is what the report says.
        So Florida would not have known about the revocation unless
    your State would have notified them.
        Do you notify other States that you have reciprocity with
    when you revoke someone's permit?
        Mr. Ramsey. We do send out notices when we revoke an
    individual. I don't know if all 25 States, if it is done
    electronically, because not every State has that capacity, or
    if it is done by telephone or letter. And I don't know what
    they do with information once they got it.
        Ms. Adams. Well, I can tell you that we would have paid
    close attention to it in our agency.
        So, you know, the reason I am asking these questions is
    because, as a former law-enforcement officer, I have heard the
    description of a 3 a.m. stop. I will tell you that I would be
    happy to know that someone has a concealed firearm permit with
    them, so that I can then ask them to come away from the
    vehicle, ask where their weapon is, actually know if they are
    actually caring.
        It is a lot easier for me to determine the threat based on
    if someone is carrying or not. If they tell me upfront they are
    carrying, at least I know that they are carrying. And then I
    can go forward with whether or not it is a legal permit or not
    a legal permit, but I need to be able to determine if I am
    going to be safe in doing my duties. Wouldn't you agree?
        Mr. Ramsey. Well, if they tell you.
        Ms. Adams. Well, you are saying if they produce this
    permit, it may be false, it may not, and you felt that that
    would be more of a danger to your police officer, whereas I
    feel like if they produce a permit, then they are telling me
    that there could possibly be a weapon within their vicinity,
    and that I am now aware of that. And I felt like that would
    make me feel a little bit more knowledgeable about the stop at
    3 a.m. in the morning, because I have done many of those.
        Mr. Ramsey. Well, my issue was, how do you verify whether
    or not it is a legitimate permit? There is no database----
        Ms. Adams. Well, at that time in the morning, wouldn't you
    be more likely to be verifying where that weapon is and what
    kind of custody there is to it?
        Mr. Ramsey. Well, ma'am, I have probably made more stops
    than you. I have been on the job longer. But at some point in
    time, you are going to be making--at least attempting to verify
    whether or not the permit is legitimate. And it might or might
    not be legitimate.
        Ms. Adams. But the description you gave me, it seemed like
    it was more on the safety of the police officer. And I am for
    safety of police officers. My late husband is on the wall here
    at Judiciary Square, so I really understand what law
    enforcement does and does not do, as being part of law
    enforcement community for over 17.5 years before being elected.
        So the difference that we have heard today, where we have
    seen the lines blurred, is more along the lines of gun
    ownership vs. a permit. If you are not legally allowed to own a
    gun, whether you have a permit or not, you are not supposed to
    be able to purchase that gun; is that not correct?
        Mr. Ramsey. If you are not legally allowed, if you can go
    to another State whose laws are different from your own
    jurisdiction and get a permit----
        Ms. Adams. I am talking about purchasing the gun.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
        The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen?
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        This is an interesting bill, and I am a sponsor. My name
    appears probably as the one you would say is which one doesn't
    belong.
        I passed the right-to-carry bill in Tennessee many, many,
    many years ago, under the belief, as Professor Malcolm says,
    that law-abiding folks who can hit a target, haven't had a
    criminal record in the past, et cetera, and the standards that
    we have, are not the problem. It is the criminals. And the
    criminals are always going to get the guns.
        I have friends that are gunophiles, and they want to carry
    their pistol everywhere. I remember the Saturday Night Live,
    show me your pistol instead of show me your Lark pack or
    whatever, and they are like that.
        And so they talk to me about traveling to different States
    and having a right-to-carry. And I think that makes sense.
        But I do understand a little problem. If you have some
    State that has really lax restrictions, limitations, maybe
    don't even--they wouldn't even necessarily have to have a
    criminal background check. I mean, that is not required by a
    State or some other--is there some way this could be tailored
    in a way that it facilitates people that travel and may be
    temporary, but not necessarily people that forum shop and go to
    another State and get a gun.
        Professor Kopel, Professor Malcolm, do you think there is a
    way to tailor it to the interests----
        Mr. Kopel. Well, I think that is a very reasonable
    question. And the starting point would be to instead of having
    these hypotheticals about State practices would be to identify
    what State is the problem, would be allegedly causing this
    problem.
        Of the States--I don't know of States that, in practice,
    where they issue concealed handgun permits to anyone without
    whoever is in charge doing a background check. If there is
    some--some State laws, the standard like they have in Tennessee
    or Colorado, has a very particular process to follow, and it
    would mandate the background check. Other States that have sort
    of older laws that haven't been brought up to date like the
    Tennessee and Colorado laws, and New York State might be an
    example of that, might not have something formal in their
    statute that says before issuing the permit to a background
    check.
        But my bet would be that in New York, the background checks
    are done, too. So I think it would make sense to say--to first
    find out is there any State where, in real life, permits are
    issued without background checks.
        And I suspect that there----
        Mr. Cohen. Well, we are talking about background checks. We
    are saying you don't get the permit if you have been convicted
    of a gun offense----
        Mr. Kopel. Or anything that makes you ineligible to possess
    a gun----
        Mr. Cohen. The Federal law.
        Mr. Kopel [continuing]. Under the law, or whatever other
    requirements there might be in the State.
        Mr. Cohen. Well, of the States that have carry permits,
    which would you say is--a couple of them, the loosest laws, the
    least restrictions?
        Alaska, I think they give you one at birth, don't they?
    They give you a gun?
        Mr. Kopel. Along with a check from oil fund.
        There are four States that do not require a permit to carry
    a concealed handgun for protection, if you are a person who can
    lawfully possess a gun in the first place. Now, of course, that
    doesn't do anything--have any application to this bill.
        In Alaska, you don't need a permit. You can get a permit,
    which would be valid and does have the mandatory background
    check and then the fingerprints and all that.
        Mr. Cohen. But which are the loosest States other than
    those four? And why--what is the minimum requirements they
    have?
        Mr. Kopel. Most States formally required training and most
    of their rest that don't formally require it do it--have more
    discretionary-type statutes and tend to require it in practice.
        Pennsylvania is one of the States that doesn't have an
    explicit training requirement.
        Mr. Cohen. So, like somebody from Alabama that couldn't get
    a license, they could have gone up to Pennsylvania maybe--do
    you have to be a resident up there?
        Mr. Kopel. Yes, Pennsylvania will not issue to
    nonresidents, but Pennsylvania is one of the many States that
    is reasonable about doing reciprocity agreements with other
    States.
        Mr. Cohen. Well, maybe if the bill was amended to say that
    you had to be a resident of the State at least to get the
    permit, at least that would stop people from shopping in other
    States, if you had to be a resident.
        Do they all require residency?
        Mr. Kopel. There are about I think a half-dozen States that
    will issue to nonresidents. So for example, some States--Maine,
    for example, has only a very few reciprocity agreements with
    other States, but they will allow a nonresident to apply. So I
    as a Coloradoan who might to go to Maine, my Colorado permit
    isn't valid in Maine, but Maine will allow me to apply for a
    permit in Maine.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte?
        Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I appreciate your holding this hearing.
        Professor, is it ``Kopel''?
        Mr. Kopel. Kopel.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Kopel, sorry.
        Just to be clear, H.R. 822 does not affect a State's
    regulations regarding how, where, and when a concealed weapon
    can be carried, right?
        Mr. Kopel. Absolutely right.
        Mr. Goodlatte. And each State's laws regarding carrying and
    use will still apply to everyone within their State lines,
    regardless of whether the person is a resident or not?
        Mr. Kopel. That is right.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Don't most States have pretty broad
    concealed carry laws, often referred to as shall issue or
    constitutional carry?
        Mr. Kopel. That is the norm in the United States.
    Basically, in 41 States, law-abiding adults can either with a
    permit, and a few without needing one, can carry a firearm for
    lawful purposes.
        Mr. Goodlatte. My understanding is that as of next month,
    when apparently one or two States' laws will change, 36 States
    will have shall-issue laws and three will have constitutional
    carry.
        Also, don't most States currently recognize the concealed
    carry permits of other States?
        Mr. Kopel. Yes.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Fourteen have outright recognition, 10
    States automatically recognize permits, and 16 States will
    recognize another State's concealed carry permit, if certain
    conditions are met. So in essence, this bill largely recognizes
    and makes a little more consistent the current state of
    affairs?
        Mr. Kopel. Yes, while also addressing some of those States
    which are the outliers, such as New York or California, which
    do not have any--in New York, there is no way a visitor of New
    York, to New York State, can carry a handgun for lawful
    protection. New York has no reciprocity and New York will not
    issue permits to nonresidents.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Is there evidence that by lowering violent
    crime rates, concealed carry laws help to save money?
        Mr. Kopel. Anything that lowers violent crime rates of
    course will probably save money for the public in the long run.
    Some academic researchers say that there are statistically
    significant reductions in at least some categories of violent
    crime after the shall-issue laws are enacted. Other academic
    researchers say that, at the level of statistical significance,
    that they can't find any statistically significant effects one
    way or the other.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Professor Malcolm, do you have anything to
    add to that?
        Ms. Malcolm. No, I thought the----
        Mr. Goodlatte. You might to get used closer to the
    microphone.
        Ms. Malcolm. Sorry about that.
        No. Could you just repeat the question?
        Mr. Goodlatte. Just is there evidence that by lowering
    violent crime rates, concealed carry laws help to save money
    for individuals, for governments, for what have you?
        Ms. Malcolm. I think that they probably do indirectly by
    having less crime.
        One thing that hasn't been brought up is the amount of
    defensive actions with guns, where people, for the most part,
    just need to brandish the gun to prevent a crime. So there is a
    great deal of saving in that sense.
        But of course, I mean, I think financial issues aren't a
    major thing here. It is, you know, human safety.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Of course. But as Professor Kopel notes, if,
    indeed, you prevent a crime from occurring, you are probably
    also----
        Ms. Malcolm. You save, yes.
        Mr. Goodlatte [continuing]. Resulting in savings in terms
    of the cost of various aspects of our society, the loss to the
    victims, the cost of law enforcement and so on.
        Ms. Malcolm. Oh, yes.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Commissioner Ramsey, are you aware of any
    evidence of crime increasing as a result of jurisdiction
    liberalizing, of any jurisdiction liberalizing its right-to-
    carry laws?
        Mr. Ramsey. I am not personally aware of that, sir. When I
    came to Pennsylvania, they already had a concealed carry law,
    so I have no history there. I came from both Chicago and
    Washington that had pretty strict gun laws. So I don't know
    personally if it has had any effect one way or the other.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Do you have experience with Pennsylvania's
    citizens who have concealed carry permits being more likely to
    engage in criminal activity than those who do not?
        Mr. Ramsey. The ones that have concealed carry permits and
    that have gone through the process are not, for the most part,
    people that we have an issue with, although we just had a
    shooting this past weekend that involved an individual with a
    concealed carry permit. One of our officers, unfortunately, had
    to shoot. But that is not the norm. I mean, that--but it does
    happen on occasion. But it is not the norm.
        Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Forbes?
        Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I apologize I wasn't here to hear all of your
    testimony, because I was in the Armed Services Committee in a
    hearing that we have going over there now.
        But as many of my colleagues have said, our big concern is
    to make sure, especially when we have constitutional rights,
    that we are protecting those rights of our citizens, and we are
    doing so in as consistent a manner as possible.
        My colleague from Virginia raised one of my big concerns,
    which was that I have not seen or read or heard of any evidence
    where concealed carries have increased the amount of crime that
    we have had in those States. And it is my understanding from
    listening to your testimony that none of you have heard of any
    such increases either.
        Would that be an accurate statement?
        Ms. Malcolm. Yes.
        Mr. Forbes. The second thing is that concerns me,
    obviously, is I know if you look at the inconsistency of these
    laws, I am always concerned about an innocent citizen getting
    caught up in something we never intended, not because they were
    bad or wrong, but just because they didn't know what the law
    was at that particular point in time. And it is certainly not
    what our goals are, and we shouldn't be doing that.
        And the last question that I would ask is there any
    evidence we have that, whether or not we have a concealed carry
    law, it is going to have an impact on violent criminals? I
    mean, do we have anything at all that says that it deters them,
    if we don't have it? Or that they use it and manipulate it in
    some way, if we pass these, to increase their violent actions?
        Ms. Malcolm. Okay, I will go first.
        In regard to your comment about innocent people getting
    caught up in doing something that they hadn't realized was
    wrong, one of my colleagues has been doing studies along with
    other people on overcriminalization in our laws. And I think
    that is a real problem and one that one would hope that this
    legislation would help resolve.
        As far as the impact on violent criminals, there is a real
    deterrent impact if criminals do not know who is armed. And I
    think that is one of the benefits of concealed carry, those
    people who are carrying concealed give a benefit to those
    people who don't, because the criminal is not going to know who
    is armed and who isn't, and so they will have to be much more
    cautious. And I think in that sense that it is a really serious
    deterrent.
        And there have been studies, actually, of violent criminals
    or burglars in jail who say that they have been more worried
    about armed homeowners than they have been worried about the
    police. So I think that that is a real impact.
        Mr. Forbes. And you may have given those to us. But could
    you just give us some of the studies to look at, so that we
    can----
        Ms. Malcolm. Yes, they are in my testimony.
        Mr. Forbes. Wonderful. That's great, to be able--anyone
    else have different----
        Mr. Ramsey. Well, I would just like to suggest a different
    point of view. We handle a lot of shootings that are the result
    of robberies gone bad. And a lot of times it is because the
    person being robbed, in the description given by the offender
    who was arrested, made a sudden movement, and they believed
    that movement is toward a gun.
        Well, if you are getting robbed, he has got his gun out.
    You have to get to yours. It can make him shoot quicker than
    they would normally would do. So we can have this debate all we
    want about whether or not it prevents--you never know what you
    prevent.
        But the reality is, we have more and more people being shot
    as part of a robbery where the offender just shoots right off
    the bat or shoots if they make the slightest move, believing
    that perhaps they are armed, because we do have concealed carry
    in Pennsylvania.
        Whether that is the motive or not, I don't know. But it
    just cuts both way. And I just think it is important to get
    that out there, that, you know, this isn't something that, you
    know, I am more afraid to break in a house--they don't want to
    break in a house if nobody's home, period, armed or not. I have
    gone to more crime scenes over 40 years where I have found kids
    that found a gun and shot themselves or a sibling than I have
    finding a person who is trying to break in as a homicide
    victim. That is just a fact over 40 years of service in three
    different cities.
        Mr. Forbes. Commissioner, if I could just----
        Mr. Chairman, one last question?
        Mr. Commissioner, you know, when we asked the professor if
    she had any studies, she said yes and she would give us the
    studies, and they were in her testimony. Are you suggesting
    that if you did not have a concealed carry law, that someone in
    a robbery would be less inclined to shoot someone who was
    making up movement quicker?
        Mr. Ramsey. That is not exactly what I am--what I am
    suggesting is this, sir. I am not an academic. I haven't spent
    my life doing studies. I have just been on the street for 40
    years. So I see what actually happens out there on the street,
    and all of it is not captured in studies. There is no--you
    can't say that it makes a difference if you have it or it makes
    difference if you don't.
        All I am saying is that it cuts both ways. I mean, I can
    tell you incidents where a person thought he had a gun and he
    shot a little quicker than he normally would do, and there are
    others where a person had a gun and was able to defend himself.
        My problem isn't that. My problem is a very broad law with
    absolutely no teeth and regulation in it that is going to bring
    some standardization to the issue, so that we can make sure
    that people properly handle guns, they understand use of force,
    when it is appropriate to use deadly force, because that is
    what we are talking about, not just because you are afraid, but
    because you actually think your life is in jeopardy, or the
    life of another. If you fire a weapon, what does the background
    look like? The same training that we get as police officers, I
    didn't see that in this. All I see is, you will just honor
    everybody else's agreement, irrespective of how weak or how
    poor it is written.
        And we have some that are pretty poor.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. I would like to thank all of our
    witnesses for their testimony today.
        Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days
    to submit to the Chair additional written questions for the
    witnesses, which we will forward and ask the witnesses to
    respond as promptly as they can, so that their answers may be
    part of the record.
        Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days
    to submit any additional materials for inclusion in the record.
        And with that, again, I would like to thank the witnesses.
        And, without objection, this hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record