    [Senate Hearing 113-825]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 113-825

                             WHAT SHOULD AMERICA DO
                              ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE?

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                JANUARY 30, 2013

                                   __________

                               Serial No. J-113-2

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    98-436

    PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2017
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      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

                      PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
    DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa, Ranking
    CHUCK SCHUMER, New York                  Member
    DICK DURBIN, Illinois                ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
    AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
    AL FRANKEN, Minnesota                JOHN CORNYN, Texas
    CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware       MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
    RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut      TED CRUZ, Texas
    MAZIE HIRONO, Hawaii                 JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
                Bruce A. Cohen, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
            Kolan Davis, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                          JANUARY 30, 2013, 10:12 A.M.

                        STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

                                                                       Page

    Cruz, Hon. Ted, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas,
        prepared statement...........................................   128
    Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa......     3
    Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah,
        prepared statement...........................................   130
    Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.     2
        prepared statement...........................................   126

                                   WITNESSES

    Witness List.....................................................    67
    Giffords, Hon. Gabrielle, a Former Representative in Congress
      from the State of Arizona......................................     1
    Johnson, James, Chief of Police, Baltimore County Police
      Department, and Chair, National Law Enforcement Partnership to
      Prevent Gun Violence, Towson, Maryland.........................    11
        prepared statement...........................................   108
    Kelly, Captain Mark E., United States Navy, Retired, Americans
      for Responsible Solutions, Tucson, Arizona.....................     6
        prepared statement...........................................    68
    Kopel, David B., Adjunct Professor, Advanced Constitutional Law,
      Denver University, Strum College of Law, Denver, Colorado......     9
        prepared statement...........................................    72
    LaPierre, Wayne, Executive Vice President and Chief Executive
      Officer, National Rifle Association, Fairfax, Virginia.........    14
        prepared statement...........................................   122
    Trotter, Gayle S., Attorney, and Senior Fellow, Independent
      Women's Forum, Washington, DC..................................    13
        prepared statement...........................................   111

                    MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Ackerman, Bruce, et al., ``Statement of Professors of
      Constitutional Law: The Second Amendment and the
      Constitutionality of the Proposed Gun Violence Prevention
      Legislation,'' statement.......................................   183
    American Federation of Teachers (AFT), Washington, DC, statement.   131
    Barden, Mark, and Jackie Barden, ``Make the debate over guns
      worthy of our son,'' The Washington Post, January 29, 2013,
      article........................................................   176
    Bueermann, Jim, President, Police Foundation, Washington, DC, and
      former Chief of Police, Redlands, California, statement........   142
    Greenberg, Sheldon, Ph.D., Associate Dean, Johns Hopkins
      University, School of Education, Division of Public Safety
      Leadership; Former Associate Director, Police Executive
      Research Forum; Former Officer, Supervisor, and Bureau
      Commander, Howard County, Maryland, Police Department; Past
      President, Maryland Crime Prevention Association; statement....   178
    Horwitz, Joshua, Executive Director, Coalition to Stop Gun
      Violence, statement............................................   152
    Kopel, David, ``Guns, Mental Illness and Newtown,'' December 17,
      2012, article..................................................   138
    Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Juliet A. Leftwich, Legal
      Director, letter to Hon. Dick Durbin, a U.S. Senator from the
      State of Illinois, January 28, 2013............................   157
    Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Hon. Thomas M. Menino, Mayor of
      Boston, Massachusetts, Coalition Co-Chair, and Hon. Michael R.
      Bloomberg, Mayor of New York, New York, Coalition Co-Chair,
      January 30, 2013, letter.......................................   160
    Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), National
      Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), New
      York, New York, statement......................................   167
    National Education Association (NEA), Mary Kusler, Director,
      Government Relations, January 29, 2013, letter.................   173
    Nelson, Eliot W., M.D., Professor of Pediatrics, University of
      Vermont College of Medicine, statement.........................   147
    radioiowa.com, ``Law officers tell Congressman mental health
      issues more important than gun ban,'' article..................   136
    Rahamim, Miya, Minneapolis, Minnesota, statement.................   164
    Rodgers, Hon. John, Vermont State Senate, statement..............   192
    United States Department of Justice, Report to the National
      Institute of Justice, June 2004, excerpt.......................   145
    Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, Clint Gray, President,
      January 29, 2013, letter.......................................   191
    Watts, Shannon, Founder, One Million Moms for Gun Control,
      statement......................................................   189
    Webster, Daniel W., Sc.D., M.P.H., Professor and Director, Johns
      Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, statement..........   180
    Zeoli, April M., Assistant Professor, School of Criminal Justice,
      Michigan State University, January 28, 2013, letter............   134

                             WHAT SHOULD AMERICA DO
                              ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE?

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 30, 2013

                                  United States Senate,
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:12 a.m., in
    Room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J.
    Leahy, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Leahy, Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin,
    Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Franken, Coons, Blumenthal, Hirono,
    Grassley, Hatch, Sessions, Graham, Cornyn, Lee, Cruz, and
    Flake.
        Chairman Leahy. We have more than 200 people here today.
    Hundreds more are watching on our Committee Webcast. I expect
    everybody in this room to be respectful of the Senators and the
    witnesses speaking about this very serious subject. That means
    I do not want applause for or against any position I might take
    or anybody else takes. The Capitol Police have been notified to
    remove any audience member who interferes with the orderly
    conduct of this important hearing.
        This, incidentally, is a warning I give at many hearings.
    We are going to hear a lot of different perspectives on gun
    violence, and both Senator Grassley and I will give opening
    statements. But we have a former Member of Congress here, Gabby
    Giffords, who is going to give a brief message, then leave.
    And, Captain Kelly, thank you for your help in bringing your
    wife here.
        Ms. Giffords.

             STATEMENT OF HON. GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, A FORMER
              REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
                                ARIZONA

        Ms. Giffords. Thank you for inviting me here today. This is
    an important conversation for our children, for our
    communities, for Democrats and Republicans.
        Speaking is difficult but I need to say something
    important. Violence is a big problem. Too many children are
    dying. Too many children. We must do something. It will be
    hard, but the time is now. You must act. Be bold, be
    courageous. Americans are counting on you.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Leahy. Captain Kelly, do you want to help Ms.
    Giffords out? I will give you a few moments.
        [Pause.]

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY,
                A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT

        Chairman Leahy. We will return to the hearing, and I thank
    former Congresswoman Giffords and her husband. We will be
    calling up the witnesses shortly, and Senator Grassley and I
    will give our opening statements.
        On December 14, America's heart was broken when 20 young
    children and 6 dedicated educators were murdered. This is the
    first Judiciary Committee hearing of the 113th Congress, and I
    want everybody here to join in the discussion as part of a
    collective effort to find solutions to help ensure that no
    family, no school, and no community ever has to endure such a
    grievous tragedy again.
        We have to come together today as Americans seeking a
    common cause. I hope we can forgo sloganeering, demagoguery,
    and partisan recriminations. This is too important for that.
    Every American abhors the recent tragedies: in just the last 2
    years, in an elementary school in Connecticut, in a movie
    theater in Colorado, in a sacred place of worship in Wisconsin,
    and in front of a shopping mall in Arizona.
        Americans are looking to us for solutions and for action.
    This Committee is a focal point for that process. I have
    introduced a measure to provide law enforcement agencies with
    stronger tools against illegal gun trafficking. Others have
    proposed restrictions on military-style weapons and the size of
    ammunition clips. Others have proposed modifications to the
    background check systems to keep guns out of the wrong hands
    while not unnecessarily burdening law-abiding citizens.
        I am a lifelong Vermonter. I know gun store owners in
    Vermont. They follow the law. They conduct background checks to
    block the conveyance of guns to those who should not have them.
    And they wonder why others who sell guns do not have to follow
    these same protective rules. And I agree with these responsible
    business owners. If we can all agree that criminals and those
    adjudicated as mentally ill should not buy firearms, why should
    we not try to plug the loopholes in the law that allow them to
    buy guns without background checks? It is a simple matter of
    common sense. And if we agree that the background check system
    is worthwhile, should we not try to improve its content and use
    it so it can be more effective? What responsible gun owner
    objects to improving the background check system?
        When I buy firearms in Vermont, I go through a background
    check. I would expect everybody else to.
        Now, at the outset of this hearing, I note that the Second
    Amendment is secure and will remain secure and protected. In
    two recent cases, the Supreme Court has confirmed that the
    Second Amendment, like other aspects of our Bill of Rights,
    secures a fundamental individual right. Americans have the
    right to self-defense and, as the Court has said, to have guns
    in their homes to protect their families. No one can take away
    those rights or their guns. Second Amendment rights are the
    foundation on which our discussion rests. They are not at risk.
    But what is at risk are lives. Lives are at risk when
    responsible people fail to stand up for laws that will keep
    guns out of the hands of those who will use them to commit
    murder, especially mass murder. I ask that we focus our
    discussion on additional statutory measures to better protect
    our children and all Americans. I say this as a parent and as a
    grandparent. Ours is a free society, an open society. We come
    together today to consider how to become a safer and more
    secure society.
        No one begrudges the Government assistance provided to
    victims of mass tragedies made possible by the law we passed
    after the bombing at Oklahoma City. The bill I introduced last
    week against gun trafficking will similarly prove helpful and I
    believe will become an accepted part of our crime control
    framework. It, too, is a common-sense reform. It fills a hole
    in our law enforcement arsenal so that straw purchasers who
    acquire weapons for criminals can be prosecuted more
    effectively.
        Last Thursday, the President nominated the U.S. Attorney
    from Minnesota--and we have two Senators from that State here
    on this Committee--to direct the Federal Bureau of Alcohol,
    Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. And I trust that all
    Senators will cooperate in a prompt hearing and action on that
    nomination and will join in good faith to strengthen our law
    enforcement efforts against gun violence and to protect public
    safety.
        As a responsible gun owner and someone who cherishes all of
    our constitutional rights, as a Senator who has sworn an oath
    to uphold those rights, as a father and grandfather, and as a
    former prosecutor who has seen the results of gun violence
    firsthand in graphic detail, I undertake these efforts with the
    hope that this hearing can build consensus around common-sense
    solutions. Previous measures to close the gun show loophole or
    to improve the background check system have been bipartisan.
    And I hope in this new Congress further improvements will also
    become bipartisan and we can act together as Americans.
        Now, I have said what kinds of measures I can support. I
    will ask other Senators to come forward and do so as well. I
    will ask our witnesses what legislative proposals they support
    to make America safer, and I thank everybody here for joining
    in today's discussion.
        Senator Grassley.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY,
                 A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

        Senator Grassley. Mr. Chairman, I thank you as well for
    this hearing, and thanks to everybody who is here, and
    particularly our witnesses.
        What happened at Newtown shocks our Nation. We will never
    forget where we were or how we reacted when we learned that 20
    very young children and 6 adults were killed that day; or if we
    forgot about that specific instance, you do not forget about
    all the tragedies that have happened recently.
        As a grandfather and great-grandfather, I cannot imagine
    how anyone would commit an evil act like that, and I cannot
    ever begin to know what it would be like to be a relative of
    one of those slain children. We pray for the families who
    continue to mourn the loss of loved ones. We pray for all
    victims of violence, by guns and otherwise.
        Clearly, violent crimes and those who commit them are a
    plague on our society, one that has been with us for far too
    long. We have looked at these issues before, but I welcome this
    renewed discussion.
        I think the need for the Judiciary Committee to hold
    hearings after Newtown is very clear. All over America, people
    were appalled by what happened to those vulnerable and precious
    victims, and we all want to examine sensible actions that could
    reduce the likelihood of future crimes.
        And we have extended a special welcome to former
    Congresswoman Giffords. She was doing what a conscientious
    Representative should do, what I hope all of us do: taking the
    pulse of constituents to represent them in Congress. She was
    representing the people of her congressional district when a
    gunman opened fire. The shooting was a horrible tragedy. But
    her determination to overcome her injuries, progress through
    rehabilitation, and continued contribution to society are an
    inspiration or at least should be an inspiration to all of us.
    I thank her for being here today, and with her husband, Captain
    Kelly.
        Although Newtown and Tucson are terrible tragedies, the
    deaths in Newtown should not be used to put forward every gun
    control measure that has been floating around for years because
    the problem is greater than just guns alone, and I think the
    Chairman's speech indicates that as well. Any serious
    discussion of the causes of gun violence must include a complex
    re-examination of mental health as it relates to mass
    shootings. Society as a whole has changed as well, and that
    statement is made. It is difficult for anyone to measure it,
    but I think you see a lack of civility in American society has
    grown considerably in the last couple decades. You see it here
    in the Congress as well when we are partisan and do not treat
    each other with the respect that we ought to.
        There are too many video games that celebrate the mass
    killing of innocent people, games that, despite attempts at
    industry self-regulation, find their way into the hands of
    children. An example: One video game released November 2009,
    which has sold over 22 million copies in the U.S. and U.K., was
    for foreign distribution because the opening level depicted
    shooting innocent civilians in an airport security line. This
    game was specifically cited in the manifesto of the Norway mass
    shooter as ``part of my training simulation'' for carrying out
    his attacks.
        Where is the artistic value of shooting innocent victims? I
    share Vice President Biden's disbelief of manufacturer denial
    that these games have no effect on real-world violence.
        Above all, we should not rush to pass legislation that will
    not reduce mass killings. Banning guns based on their
    appearance does not make sense. The 1994 assault weapon ban did
    not stop Columbine. The Justice Department found the ban
    ineffective. Scholars have indicated that refining or expanding
    such legislation will not cut gun violence.
        I also question the limitation on magazine capacities.
    Those can be circumvented by carrying multiple guns, as many
    killers have done. We hear that no one needs to carry larger
    magazines than those that hunters use to shoot deer. But an
    attacking criminal, unlike a deer, shoots back. I do not think
    that we may--I do think that we may be able to work together to
    prevent straw purchasers from trafficking in guns.
        The oversight work that I conducted on the illegal
    Operation Fast and Furious shows that there are some gaps in
    this area of law that should be closed. Besides legislative
    proposals, the President recently took 23 Executive actions on
    guns, and without knowing exactly how they are worded, we
    cannot find fault with them, and probably should not find fault
    with a lot of his actions. Despite this administration's claim
    to be the most transparent in history, the text of these
    actions is still not posted on the White House website, only
    very brief statements about what they do. But all of those
    Executive actions could have been issued 4 years ago or after
    the Tucson shooting or after Aurora. Why only now?
        One order directs the Centers for Disease Control to
    research causes of gun violence. Contrary to what you may have
    heard, Congress has never prohibited CDC from researching gun
    violence; rather, Congress prohibited Federal research to
    ``advocate or promote gun control,'' which some Government
    researchers have been doing under the guise of taxpayer-
    supported science. Had Congress actually prohibited gun
    violence research, the President could not legally have
    directed CDC to conduct that research.
        I was taken aback when the President cited the Declaration
    of Independence and the Constitution as sources of Government
    power to restrict gun ownership rights. The Constitution, in
    fact, creates a limited Federal Government. It separates powers
    among branches of the Federal Government, and it preserves
    State power against Federal power. The Framers believed that
    these structures would adequately control the Government so as
    to protect individual liberty.
        But the American people disagreed. They feared that the
    Constitution gave the Federal Government so much power that it
    could be tyrannical and violate individual rights. So the Bill
    of Rights was added. Each of those rights, including the Second
    Amendment, was adopted to further limit Government power and
    protect individual rights. President Obama's remarks turned the
    Constitution on its head. He said, ``The right to worship
    freely and safely, that right was denied to Sikhs in Oak Creek,
    Wisconsin. The right to assemble peaceably, that right was
    denied shoppers in Clackamas, Oregon, and moviegoers in Aurora,
    Colorado. That most fundamental set of rights to life, liberty,
    and the pursuit of happiness are fundamental rights that were
    denied to college students at Virginia Tech and high school
    students at Columbine and elementary school students in
    Newtown.''
        But this is not so. Except for its prohibition on slavery,
    the Constitution limits only actions of Government, not
    individuals. So, for instance, the right to peaceably assemble
    protects individual rights to organize, to protest, and seek to
    change Government action. That right is trivialized and
    mischaracterized as protecting shopping and watching movies,
    and those constitutional rights are not the source of
    governmental power to enact legislation as the President
    suggested. In fact, just the opposite. They were included in
    the Bill of Rights because throughout history governments have
    wanted to shut up those who would criticize government to
    suppress unpopular religions or to disarm people. The President
    cited constitutional protections of individual rights as the
    basis for expanding Federal power over the lives of private
    individuals. This is the same President who exceeded his power
    under the Constitution to appoint recess appointments. So no
    wonder millions of Americans fear that the President might take
    Executive action and Congress may enact legislation that could
    lead to a tyrannical Federal Government.
        So I cannot accept the President's claim that ``there will
    be politicians and special interest lobbyists publicly warning
    of a tyrannical all out assault on liberty, not because that is
    true but because they want to gin up fear.'' This necessarily
    and understandably leads many citizens to fear that their
    individual rights will be violated, and that extends well
    beyond the Second Amendment. It should be a matter of deep
    concern to all of us. The Constitution for 225 years has
    established a Government that is a servant of the people, not
    the master.
        So, Mr. Chairman, as we consider and debate legislation
    arising from these tragedies, I hope that we will proceed with
    proper understanding of the relationship that the Constitution
    establishes between Government power and individual liberty,
    and I hope we will pass those bills that would actually be
    effective in reducing gun violence.
        I welcome the witnesses and look forward to this hearing.
    Thank you very much.
        Chairman Leahy. Well, thank you.
        I would ask that Captain Mark Kelly, Professor David Kopel,
    Chief James Johnson, Ms. Gayle Trotter, and Mr. Wayne LaPierre
    step forward. Just stand behind your chairs for the moment
    while I swear in the panel all at one time. Please raise your
    right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will
    give in this matter will be the truth, the whole truth, and
    nothing but the truth, so help you God?
        Captain Kelly. I do.
        Professor Kopel. I do.
        Chief Johnson. I do.
        Ms. Trotter. I do.
        Mr. LaPierre. I do.
        Chairman Leahy. Let the record show that all five witnesses
    have been sworn in. Please take your seats.
        What I am going to suggest we do, I am going to call on
    each witness--we are going to try to keep to fairly strict
    time, and I will call on each one to give their testimony. Then
    we will open it to questions in the usual way, alternating
    between both sides.
        Our first witness is Mark Kelly. He is a retired astronaut
    and U.S. Navy captain. Captain Kelly recently co-founded
    Americans for Responsible Solutions. This is an advocacy group
    that promotes solutions to prevent gun violence and protect
    responsible gun ownership. He did it with his wife, former
    Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.
        Captain Kelly, please go ahead, sir.

    STATEMENT OF CAPT. MARK E. KELLY, UNITED STATES NAVY, RETIRED,
                  AMERICANS FOR RESPONSIBLE SOLUTIONS,
                            TUCSON, ARIZONA

        Captain Kelly. Thank you, Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member
    Grassley, for inviting me here today. I look forward to a
    constructive dialogue with your Committee. I also want to take
    the opportunity to congratulate Gabby's friend and much
    respected former colleague, Jeff Flake, on his new role as
    Arizona's junior Senator.
        As you know, our family has been immeasurably affected by
    gun violence. Gabby's gift for speech is a distant memory. She
    struggles to walk, and she is partially blind. And a year ago
    she left a job she loved serving the people of Arizona.
        But in the past 2 years, we have watched Gabby's
    determination, spirit, and intellect conquer her disabilities.
        We are not here as victims. We are speaking to you today as
    Americans.
        We are a lot like many of our fellow citizens following
    this debate about gun violence:
        We are moderates. Gabby was a Republican long before she
    was a Democrat.
        We are both gun owners, and we take that right and the
    responsibilities that come with it very seriously.
        And we watch with horror when the news breaks to yet
    another tragic shooting. After 20 kids and 6 of their teachers
    were gunned down in their classrooms at Sandy Hook, Elementary,
    we said this time must be different. Something needs to be
    done.
        We are simply two reasonable Americans who have said,
    ``Enough.''
        On January 8, 2011, a young man walked up to Gabby at her
    constituent event in Tucson, leveled his gun, and shot her
    through the head. He then turned down the line and continued
    firing. In 15 seconds, he emptied his magazine. It contained 33
    bullets, and there were 33 wounds.
        As the shooter attempted to reload, he fumbled. A woman
    grabbed the next magazine, and others restrained him.
        Gabby was the first victim. Christina-Taylor Green, 9 years
    old, born on 9/11 of 2001, was shot with the 13th bullet or
    after. And others followed.
        The killer in the Tucson shooting suffered from severe
    mental illness. But even after being deemed unqualified for
    service in the Army and expulsion from Pima Community College,
    he was never reported to mental health authorities.
        On November 30, 2010, he walked into a sporting goods
    store, passed a background check, and walked out with a
    semiautomatic handgun. He had never been legally adjudicated as
    mentally ill, and even if he had, Arizona at the time had over
    121,000 records of disqualifying mental illness that it had not
    submitted into the system.
        Looking back, we cannot say with certainty, ``Only if we
    had done this, this would have never happened.'' There is not
    just one thing that would have prevented the Tucson shooting
    from being written into the history books.
        Gabby is one of roughly 100,000 victims of gun violence in
    America each and every year. Behind every victim lays a matrix
    of failure and inadequacy--in our families, in our communities,
    in our values; in our society's approach to poverty, violence,
    and mental illness; and, yes, also in our politics and in our
    gun laws.
        One of our messages is simple: The breadth and complexity
    of gun violence is great, but it is not an excuse for inaction.
        There is another side to our story.
        Gabby is a gun owner, and I am a gun owner. We have our
    firearms for the same reasons that millions of Americans just
    like us have guns: to defend ourselves, to defend our families,
    for hunting, and for target shooting.
        We believe wholly and completely in the Second Amendment
    and that it confers upon all Americans the right to own a
    firearm for protection, collection, and recreation.
        We take that right very seriously, and we would never, ever
    give it up--just like Gabby would never relinquish her gun, and
    I would never relinquish mine.
        But rights demand responsibility. And this right does not
    extend to terrorists, it does not extend to criminals, and it
    does not extend to the mentally ill.
        When dangerous people get guns, we are all vulnerable--at
    the movies, at church, conducting our everyday business,
    meeting with a Government official; and time after time after
    time, at school, on our campuses, and in our children's
    classrooms.
        When dangerous people get dangerous guns, we are all the
    more vulnerable. Dangerous people with weapons specifically
    designed to inflict maximum lethality upon others have turned
    every single corner of our society into places of carnage and
    gross human loss.
        Our rights are paramount. But our responsibilities are
    serious. And as a Nation, we are not taking responsibility for
    the gun rights that our Founding Founders conferred upon us.
        Now, we have some ideas on how we can take responsibility.
        First, fix gun background checks. The holes in our laws
    make a mockery of the background check system. Congress should
    close the private sales loophole and get dangerous people
    entered into that system.
        Second, remove the limitations on collecting data and
    conducting scientific research on gun violence.
        Enact a tough Federal gun-trafficking statute. This is
    really important.
        And, finally, let us have a careful and civil conversation
    about the lethality of firearms we permit to be legally bought
    and sold in this country.
        Gabby and I are pro-gun ownership. We are also anti-gun
    violence, and we believe that in this debate Congress should
    look not toward special interests and ideology, which push us
    apart, but toward compromise, which brings us together. We
    believe whether you call yourself pro-gun or anti-gun violence,
    or both, that you can work together to pass laws that save
    lives.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Capt. Mark E. Kelly appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
        Our next witness, David Kopel, is the research director for
    the Independence Institute as well as an associate policy
    analyst for the Cato Institute and adjunct professor of
    Advanced Constitutional Law at Denver University's Strum
    College of Law.
        Did I get that all correct?
        Professor Kopel. Perfect.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you. Go ahead, please.

            STATEMENT OF DAVID B. KOPEL, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR,
     ADVANCED CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, DENVER UNIVERSITY, STRUM COLLEGE
                        OF LAW, DENVER, COLORADO

        Professor Kopel. Thank you, Chairman Leahy and Senator
    Grassley.
        I think to continue the themes that Captain Kelly has so
    eloquently spoken about, gun rights and gun control do not have
    to be culture war enemies. Properly conceived, they can work
    together and reinforce each other. It is important to recognize
    that the Second Amendment is not absolute any more than the
    First Amendment is. It certainly has an absolute core that
    cannot be violated under any circumstances, but that does not
    prohibit all firearms controls.
        Chairman Leahy. Excuse me, and this will not come out of
    your time.
        Professor Kopel. Okay.
        Chairman Leahy. All of the statements will be put in the
    record in full so we can keep close to the time.
        Go ahead.
        Professor Kopel. Thank you. I will keep very close to the
    time.
        And, likewise, gun controls do not violate the Second
    Amendment if they are constructed so they do not violate the
    rights of law-abiding citizens and they actually do something
    constructive, significant, and effective to protect law-abiding
    citizens.
        Captain Kelly talked about the matrix of failure. Twenty
    years ago, I testified before this Committee--some of the
    Senators are still here--about one thing that turned out to be
    part of that matrix of failure, and that was the ban on so-
    called assault weapons. I warned during that testimony then
    that it was based not on the function of guns or how fast they
    fired or how powerful they were, but on superficial, cosmetic
    characteristics and accessories.
        As part of the compromise that eventually led to that bill
    being mistakenly passed by Congress, the bill had a 10-year
    sunset in it and a requirement that the Department of Justice
    supervise a study of the effectiveness of that law. That study
    was--the people that carried out that study were chosen by
    Attorney General Reno's Department of Justice. They did several
    interim studies and then a final study, and they concluded that
    the law had done nothing. It had not saved lives; it had not
    reduced the number of bullets that were fired in crimes. It had
    been a failure. It had, to some minor degree, switched the
    types of guns that were used in crimes, so you had a gun with
    one name instead of another name. But it did not reduce crime
    overall. And, indeed, it was a dangerous bill in the sense that
    so much political attention was distracted by the focus on this
    that it took public attention away from debate on measures that
    might have been more constructive and life-saving.
        Today, police and law-abiding citizens choose semiautomatic
    handguns and rifles, such as the AR-15, for the same reason.
    They are often the best choice for the lawful defense of self
    and others. To assert that such firearms and their standard
    capacity factory magazines are only meant for mass murder is
    truly to libel law-abiding citizens and the many law
    enforcement officers who choose these guns not for hunting, not
    for collecting, but for the purpose for which police officers
    always carry firearms: for the lawful defense of self and
    others.
        Great Britain shows the perils of mass gun confiscation
    that some people have proposed. It has a higher violent crime
    rate than the United States and an especially high rate of home
    invasion burglaries.
        Congress has repeatedly outlawed gun registration because
    of the accurate recognition that in other countries, and in the
    United States, in New York City, gun registration has been used
    as a tool for confiscation. These 1941, 1986, and 1993
    congressional statutes are one way that gun rights can be
    protected against future abuses.
        Unfortunately, the bills about universal background checks
    that have been proposed in recent Congresses with the support
    of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg have often had
    provisions in them for gun registration and for many other
    violations of the civil liberties of law-abiding persons, such
    as allowing gun bans for people who are accused, but acquitted,
    of drug crimes.
        Universal background checks should be available. It was a
    wise move by President Obama in his January 16th press
    conference to begin changes in Federal regulations and their
    interpretation to allow private sellers to access the
    background check system via a federally licensed firearms
    dealer. Many people will choose to take advantage of that, and
    I commend them. But mandating universal checks can only be
    enforceable if there is universal gun registration, and we know
    that universal gun registration in every country in the world
    where it has existed has been a serious peril to gun ownership.
    Universal gun registration was imposed by Canada in 1995 and
    was later repealed in 2012 by the Canadian parliament because
    it was such a fiasco.
        If we want to save lives right now, not with constructive
    reforms that might do some good in the future, there is only
    one thing that will stop the next copycat killer, and that is,
    lawful armed self-defense in the schools not only by armed
    guards but also by teachers. Utah provides the successful
    model. There, a teacher who has a permit to carry after a
    background check and a safety training class everywhere else in
    the State is not prohibited from carrying at the schools. Gun
    prohibition lobbies come up with all kinds of fantastic
    scenarios about the harms that these would cause: teachers will
    shoot each other or threaten students or the students will
    steal the guns. But we have had this policy and practice in
    Utah for many years, and we have never had a single problem.
    And, quite notably, we have never had an attack on a Utah
    school. If we want to save lives, armed defense in the schools
    is the immediate and best choice while other constructive
    solutions make take longer to have an effect.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Prof. David B. Kopel appears as
    a submission for the record.]
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much. As I said, your full
    statement will be placed in the record.
        Chief James Johnson is the police chief for the Baltimore
    County Police Department. He started his career as a police
    cadet at the age of 18. He has more than 30 years of experience
    with the department. He is also the Chair of the National Law
    Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence that represents
    nine national law enforcement organizations.
        Chief, thank you for taking the time to be here. Please go
    ahead, sir.

              STATEMENT OF JAMES JOHNSON, CHIEF OF POLICE,
             BALTIMORE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND CHAIR,
     NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT PARTNERSHIP TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE,
                            TOWSON, MARYLAND

        Chief Johnson. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and
    Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify. I am here on behalf of the National Law Enforcement
    Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence----
        Chairman Leahy. Is your microphone on?
        Chief Johnson. Yes, sir, it is.
        I am here on behalf of the National Law Enforcement
    Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, an alliance of the
    Nation's law enforcement leadership organizations concerned
    about the unacceptable level of gun violence in the United
    States.
        We mourn the loss of gun violence victims, including the 20
    children and 6 adults in Newtown whose lives were cut short by
    an individual armed with firepower originally designed for
    combat.
        More than 30 homicides occur in America each day. Two
    thousand children--and 6 adults certainly in Newtown, are
    amongst those individuals--ages 18 and under die of firearm-
    related violence and deaths every year. In 2011, for the first
    time in 14 years, firearms were the leading cause of death for
    police officers killed in the line of duty.
        In a 1-week period in 2011, the Police Executive Research
    Forum found that gun crime in six cities cost more than $38
    million, and in the year 2010 the cost to the entire country
    more than $57 billion.
        We urgently need Congress to address the rising epidemic of
    gun violence in this Nation. Law enforcement leaders support
    the President's comprehensive approach, which includes
    enhancing safety at educational institutions and addressing
    mental health issues. But on behalf of my colleagues across the
    Nation, I am here today to tell you that we are long overdue in
    strengthening our Nation's gun laws. Doing so must be a
    priority for Congress.
        The organizations in the National Law Enforcement
    Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence urgently call on you to:
        Require background checks for all firearm purchasers;
        Ensure that prohibited purchaser records in the National
    Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) are complete;
        And limit high-capacity ammunition feeding devices to ten
    rounds.
        Seven of our nine groups, including the largest among us,
    also support Senator Feinstein's assault weapons ban
    legislation.
        Federal law prohibits dangerous individuals, such as
    convicted felons and those with mental health disqualifiers,
    from possessing firearms. While background checks are required
    for purchases through licensed gun dealers, no check is
    required for private sales, such as those through online or
    print ads or gun shows. It is a major problem.
        From November 2011 to November 2012, an estimated 6.6
    million gun transactions occurred without a background check.
    Up to 40 percent of firearm transactions occur through private
    individuals rather than licensed gun dealers. Allowing 40
    percent of those acquiring guns to bypass checks is like
    allowing 40 percent of passengers to board a plane without
    going through security. Would we do this?
        Last October, in Brookfield, Wisconsin, seven women were
    shot by a prohibited purchaser who was under a domestic
    violence restraining order. The shooter answered an online ad
    and was able to buy a gun without a check very quickly. Had the
    sale been required to have a check, this tragedy could have
    been prevented.
        Background checks work. They stopped nearly 2 million
    prohibited purchases between 1994 and 2009. We already have a
    national background check system in place. Therefore, extending
    background checks to all firearm purchasers can easily be
    implemented--and it should be--without delay.
        States cannot do it alone. Interstate firearms trafficking
    is a rampant problem, and it must be addressed federally.
    According to ATF, in 2009, 30 percent of guns recovered at
    crime scenes crossed State lines. Maryland recovered nearly
    2,000 last year from outside the State.
        Submissions to NICS must be improved, especially mental
    health and drug abuse records. The 2007 massacre at Virginia
    Tech is a great example of a prohibited purchaser slipping
    through the cracks due to an incomplete NICS background check.
        The ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition
    must be reinstated. Like assault weapons, high-capacity
    magazines are not used for hunting. They do not belong in our
    homes, and they wreak havoc in our communities. Banning these
    magazines will limit the number of rounds a shooter can
    discharge before he has to reload. Reloading can provide a
    window to escape, to seek cover or concealment, or attack the
    adversary, to take down the shooter, as we have heard in
    Tucson.
        In 1998, 4 years after the assault weapons and high-
    capacity magazine ban was enacted, the percentage of firearms
    with large-capacity magazines recovered by Virginia police
    decreased and continued to drop until it hit a low of 9 percent
    of the weapons recovered in 2004, the year the ban expired. It
    hit a high of 20 percent in 2010.
        I have been in law enforcement for nearly 35 years, and I
    have seen an explosion in firepower since the assault weapons
    ban expired. It is common to find many shell casings at crime
    scenes when you go out and you investigate these days. Victims
    are being riddled with multiple gunshots.
        The common-sense measures we call for will not infringe on
    Second Amendment rights, but will keep guns out of the
    dangerous hands of people who are out there to commit danger in
    our society, and excessive firepower out of our communities.
        Generations of Americans, including our youngest ones, are
    depending on you to ensure they will grow up and fulfill their
    roles in the great human experience. None of us can fail them,
    and I urge you to follow the will of the American public on
    this issue and stand with law enforcement on these common-sense
    public safety measures.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Chief James Johnson appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you, Chief.
        Our next witness is Gayle Trotter. She is the co-founder of
    Shafer and Trotter PLC, a law firm here in Washington. She is
    also a senior fellow at the Independent Women's Forum.
        Attorney Trotter, good to have you here. Go ahead, please.

      STATEMENT OF GAYLE S. TROTTER, ATTORNEY, AND SENIOR FELLOW,
               INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM, WASHINGTON, DC

        Ms. Trotter. Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, and
    Members of this Committee, thank you for inviting me to appear
    before you today.
        We all want a safer society. We differ on how to make our
    society safer, and we differ on whether some proposals will
    actually increase public safety. I urge you to reject any
    actions that will fail to make Americans safer and, in
    particular, harm women the most.
        I would like to begin with the compelling story of Sarah
    McKinley. Home alone with her baby, she called 911 when two
    violent intruders began to break down her front door. These men
    were forcing their way into her home to steal the prescription
    medication of her recently deceased husband. Before police
    could arrive, while Ms. McKinley was still on the phone with
    911, these violent intruders broke down her door. One of the
    men had a foot-long hunting knife. As the intruders forced
    their way into her home, Ms. McKinley fired her weapon, fatally
    wounding one of the violent attackers. The other fled. Later,
    Ms. McKinley explained: ``It was either going to be him or my
    son. And it wasn't going to be my son.''
        Guns make women safer. Over 90 percent of violent crimes
    occur without a firearm, which makes guns the great equalizer
    for women. The vast majority of violent criminals use their
    size and their physical strength to prey on women who are at a
    severe disadvantage.
        In a violent confrontation, guns reverse the balance of
    power. An armed woman does not need superior strength or the
    proximity of a hand-to-hand struggle. Concealed-carry laws
    reverse that balance of power even before a violent
    confrontation occurs. For a would-be criminal, concealed-carry
    laws dramatically increase the risk of committing a crime. This
    indirectly benefits even those who do not carry. Research shows
    that in jurisdictions with concealed-carry laws, women are less
    likely to be raped or murdered than they are in States with
    more restrictions on gun ownership.
        Armed security works. Brave men and women stand guard over
    Capitol Hill, including this building where we are now. Armed
    guards protect high-profile individuals, including prominent
    gun control advocates, some of whom also rely on personal gun
    permits.
        While armed security works, gun bans do not. Anti-gun
    legislation keeps guns away from the sane and the law-abiding,
    but not criminals. No sober-minded person would advocate a gun
    ban instead of armed security to protect banks, airports, or
    government buildings.
        We need sensible enforcement of the laws that are already
    on the books. Currently, we have thousands--thousands--of
    underenforced or selectively enforced gun laws, and we fail to
    prosecute serious gun violations or impose meaningful,
    consistent penalties for violent felonies involving firearms.
        Instead of self-defeating gestures, we should address gun
    violence based on what works. Guns make women safer. The
    Supreme Court has recognized that lawful self-defense is a
    central component of the Second Amendment's guarantee of the
    right to keep and bear arms. For women, the ability to arm
    ourselves for our protection is even more consequential than
    for men because guns are the great equalizer in a violent
    confrontation. As a result, we protect women by safeguarding
    our Second Amendment rights. Every woman deserves a fighting
    chance.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Gayle S. Trotter appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much, Ms. Trotter.
        And our last witness--and then we will go to questions--is
    Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president and CEO of the
    National Rifle Association.
        I believe, Mr. LaPierre, you have been there since 1978. Is
    that correct?
        Mr. LaPierre. That is correct, Senator.
        Chairman Leahy. Please go ahead.

              STATEMENT OF WAYNE LAPIERRE, EXECUTIVE VICE
         PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL RIFLE
                     ASSOCIATION, FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA

        Mr. LaPierre. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
    Committee. It is an honor to be here today on behalf of more
    than 4.5 million moms and dads, sons and daughters----
        Chairman Leahy. Is your microphone on?
        Mr. LaPierre. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to be
    here today on behalf of the more than 4.5 million moms and
    dads, sons and daughters, in every State across our Nation, who
    make up the National Rifle Association of America. There are
    4.5 million active members of the NRA, and they are joined by
    tens of millions of supporters throughout the country.
        It is on behalf of those millions of decent, hard-working,
    law-abiding citizens that I am here today to give voice to
    their concerns.
        The title of today's hearing is ``What Should America Do
    About Gun Violence? '' We believe the answer to that question
    is to be honest about what works and honest about what does not
    work.
        Teaching safe and responsible gun ownership works, and the
    NRA has a long and proud history of doing exactly that.
        Our ``Eddie Eagle'' child safety program has taught 25
    million young children that if they see a gun, they should do
    four things: ``Stop. Do not touch it. Leave the area. And call
    an adult.'' As a result of this and other private sector
    programs, fatal firearm accidents are at the lowest levels in
    more than 100 years.
        The NRA has over 80,000 certified instructors who teach our
    military personnel, law enforcement officers, and hundreds of
    thousands of other American men and women how to safely use
    firearms. We do more--and spend more--than anyone else on
    teaching safe and responsible gun ownership.
        We joined the Nation in sorrow over the tragedy that
    occurred in Newtown, Connecticut. There is nothing more
    precious than our children. And we have no more sacred duty
    than to protect our children and to keep them safe. That is why
    we asked former Congressman and Under Secretary of Homeland
    Security, Asa Hutchinson, to bring in every available expert to
    develop a model School Shield Program--one that can be
    individually tailored to make our schools as safe as possible.
        It is time to throw an immediate blanket of security around
    our children. About a third of our schools right now have armed
    security already--because it works--and that number is growing
    every day. Right now, State officials, local authorities, and
    school districts in all 50 States are considering their own
    plans to protect children in schools.
        In addition, we need to enforce the thousands of gun laws
    already on the books. Prosecuting criminals who misuse firearms
    works. Unfortunately, we have seen a dramatic collapse in
    Federal gun prosecutions in recent years. Overall in 2011,
    Federal weapons prosecutions per capita were down 35 percent
    from their peak in the previous administration. That means
    violent felons, violent gang members, and drug dealers with
    guns and the mentally ill who possess firearms are not being
    prosecuted. And that is completely and totally unacceptable.
        And out of more than 76,000 firearms purchases supposedly
    denied by the Federal instant check system, only 62 were
    referred for prosecution and only 44 were actually prosecuted.
    Proposing more gun laws, while failing to enforce the thousands
    we already have, is not a serious solution for reducing crime.
        I think we can also agree that our mental health system is
    broken. We need to look at the full range of mental health
    issues, from early detection and treatment, to civil commitment
    laws, to privacy laws that needlessly prevent mental health
    records from being included in the National Instant Criminal
    Background Check System.
        While we are ready to participate in a meaningful effort to
    solve these pressing problems, we must respectfully--but
    honestly and firmly--disagree with some Members of the
    Committee, many in the media, and all of the gun control groups
    on what will keep our kids and keep our streets safe.
        Law-abiding gun owners will not accept blame for the acts
    of violent or deranged criminals. Nor do we believe the
    Government should dictate what we can lawfully own and use to
    protect our families.
        As I said earlier, we need to be honest about what works
    and what does not work. Proposals that would only serve to
    burden the law-abiding have failed in the past and will fail in
    the future.
        Semiautomatic firearms have been around for over 100 years.
    They are among the most popular guns for hunting, target
    shooting, and self-defense. Despite this fact, Congress banned
    the manufacture and sale of hundreds of semiautomatic firearms
    and magazines from 1994 to 2004. Independent studies, including
    one from the Clinton Justice Department, proved that it had no
    impact on lowering crime.
        And when it comes to background checks, let us be honest.
    Background checks will never be universal because criminals
    will never submit to them.
        But there are a lot of things that can be done, and we ask
    you to join with us. The NRA is made up of millions of
    Americans who support what works . . . the immediate protection
    for all--not just some--of our school children; swift, certain
    punishment of criminals who misuse guns; and fixing our broken
    mental health system.
        We love our families. We love our country. We believe in
    our freedom. We are the millions from all walks of life who
    take responsibility for our safety and protection as a God-
    given, fundamental American right.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Wayne LaPierre appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
        Now, Chief Johnson, let me begin with you, sir, if I could.
    I find in my experience that many criminals are able to get
    guns illegally because they use straw purchasers. In other
    words, a person who has no criminal record, can easily pass a
    background check, goes in and buys the guns, then turns around
    and gives them to criminals.
        But there is no Federal law that makes it illegal to act as
    a straw purchaser of firearms. So last week, I introduced a
    bill that will strengthen Federal law to combat firearms
    trafficking. It would specifically target straw purchasers.
        Do you think there should be such a law?
        Chief Johnson. The background procedures in this Nation are
    seriously in need of modification. Again, 40 percent of those
    acquiring firearms try to do it outside that background
    procedure.
        Senator, you are absolutely correct. Many will use a straw
    purchaser to go in and acquire these firearms. It happens each
    and every day across America. It is a serious problem. And the
    National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence
    supports your initiative to address that issue.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you, Chief.
        We also heard testimony about the safety of women and gun
    violence. Now, I am seeking immediate consideration of the
    Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. I was
    told yesterday that sometime in the next couple weeks we will
    have it on the floor of the Senate for a vote. I do this
    because of concern for domestic violence victims. We have
    statistics that show women in this country are killed at an
    alarming rate by domestic abusers with guns.
        Unfortunately, if a woman has a protective order against
    her abuser, if he is able to get a gun through a straw
    purchaser, of course, he still gets it, but he is not going to
    be able to purchase a gun if a background check is conducted.
    And we have at least one study that says that in States that
    require a background check for every handgun sale, 38 percent
    fewer women are shot to death by their partners.
        Now, do you agree that if we want to keep firearms away
    from domestic abusers who are not supposed to have them anyway,
    we have to improve the background check system and require a
    background check for every firearm purchaser?
        Chief Johnson. Absolutely. I would like to stand in front
    of this group today and say I have spent my years chasing down
    violent armed robbers each and every day. The fact of the
    matter is that as a young patrol officer, most of my day was
    one domestic to another. It was the post that I had. Statistics
    show that when females are killed, it is more likely, over 50
    percent of the time, to be by a spouse or household member. A
    gun in a home where there is a history of domestic violence,
    statistics show that there is a 500-percent increase or chance
    that that person will be victimized by gun violence.
        The State of Maryland in the last several years enacted
    legislation to address this domestic violence issue to allow us
    to go out and seize the guns of domestic violence abusers where
    the spouses went and obtained a protective order. This has been
    very effective, and in my jurisdiction, which averages
    generally about 35 homicides a year--unfortunately, most being
    domestic violence related--this had a significant impact in
    reducing the amount of those domestics. Two of the last 3
    years, the statistic was below the 41-year homicide rate, and I
    credit in this case the Lieutenant Governor of the State of
    Maryland, Lieutenant Governor Brown, for this initiative, and
    it has helped us tremendously.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
        Captain Kelly, Mr. LaPierre has testified that universal
    background checks would not work because criminals would never
    submit to them, and I understand that. But under current law,
    criminals do not have to go through background checks because
    there are so many loopholes--the gun show loophole, no real
    punishment for straw purchases.
        Do you agree that there is nothing we can do to strengthen
    our background checks?
        Captain Kelly. Chairman Leahy, I disagree. I mean, there is
    a lot we can do. The situation that I know best is what
    happened in Tucson on January 8th of 2011. Jared Loughner, the
    shooter in this case, when he purchased a gun, he did purchase
    it through a background check. But there was a lot of evidence
    that could possibly have been in the National Instant Criminal
    Background Check System about him that would have prevented him
    from buying a gun through a background check. So that is part
    of the solution.
        Now, the other problem, let us say he was denied, denied
    the purchase of the gun, which he purchased in November 2010.
    It would have been very easy for him to go to a gun show and
    purchase a gun without a background check.
        So, you know, there are several things that need to be
    done, and in my opinion and in Gabby's opinion, this was one of
    the most important things that we must do to prevent criminals,
    terrorists, and the mentally ill from having easy access to
    guns. Closing the gun show loophole and requiring private
    sellers to require a background check before they transfer a
    gun is--for us, I mean, I cannot think of something that would
    make our country safer than doing just that.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
        Mr. LaPierre, in 1999, you testified before the House
    Judiciary Committee, and you testified, ``Nobody is more
    committed than we are to keeping guns out of criminals' hands.
    That is obviously in our best interest.''
        I assume you are still just as committed to keeping guns
    out of the hands of criminals. Is that correct?
        Mr. LaPierre. Yes, sir.
        Chairman Leahy. And would you agree that we should
    prosecute and punish those who help criminals get guns?
        Mr. LaPierre. If you are talking about straw man sales, we
    have said straw man sales should be prosecuted for years. There
    are about six to eight statutes on the books right now----
        Chairman Leahy. So you agree that we should prosecute and
    punish those who help criminals get guns?
        Mr. LaPierre. If someone is doing a straw man sale, they
    should be prosecuted, absolutely.
        Chairman Leahy. Now, in your testimony in 1999, you
    supported mandatory instant criminal background checks for
    every sale at every gun show. You said, ``No loopholes anywhere
    for anyone.'' Now, today, of course, you said criminals would
    never submit to background checks. Statistics show that plenty
    of them do. Nearly 2 million convicted criminals and other
    dangerous people tried to buy a firearm since 1994, as Chief
    Johnson said, and were prevented.
        So let me ask you this: Do you still, as you did in 1999,
    support mandatory background checks at gun shows? Yes or no.
        Mr. LaPierre. We supported the National Instant Check
    System on dealers. We were here when Senator Birch Bayh, one of
    your colleagues, held hearings in terms of who would be a
    dealer and who would be required to have a license. If you did
    it for livelihood and profit, yes; if you were a hobbyist, no.
        Chairman Leahy. Let us make it easier, though. I am talking
    about gun shows. Should we have mandatory background checks at
    gun shows for sales of weapons?
        Mr. LaPierre. If you are a dealer, that is already the law.
    If you are talking----
        Chairman Leahy. That is not my question. Please, Mr.
    LaPierre. I am not trying to play games here, but if you could
    answer, it would help. Just answer my question.
        Mr. LaPierre. Senator, I do not believe the way the law is
    working now, unfortunately, that it does any good to extend the
    law to private sales between hobbyists and collectors.
        Chairman Leahy. Okay. So you do not support mandatory
    background checks in all instances at gun shows.
        Mr. LaPierre. We do not, because the fact is the law right
    now is a failure the way it is working. The fact is you have
    76,000-some people that have been denied under the present law.
    Only 44 were prosecuted. You are letting them go. They are
    walking the streets.
        Chairman Leahy. Then do I understand back in 1999 you said
    no loopholes anywhere for anyone, but now you do not support
    background checks for all buyers of firearms?
        Mr. LaPierre. I think the National Instant Check System,
    the way it is working now, is a failure because this
    administration is not prosecuting the people that they catch.
    They are not--23 States are not even putting the mental records
    of those adjudicated mentally incompetent into the system.
        Now, assume that if you do not prosecute and they try to
    buy a gun, even if you catch them, and you let them walk away,
    to assume they are not going to get a gun, they are criminals,
    they are homicidal maniacs, and they are mentally ill, I mean,
    we all know that homicidal maniacs, criminals, and the insane
    do not--do not----
        Chairman Leahy. Mr. LaPierre----
        Mr. LaPierre [continuing]. Abide by the law.
        Chairman Leahy. My time is up. With all due respect, that
    was not the question I asked, nor did you answer it.
        Mr. LaPierre. But I think it is the answer. I honestly do.
    The fact----
        Chairman Leahy. It is your testimony.
        Senator Grassley.
        Senator Grassley. Before I ask questions, Senator Hatch
    asked if I would explain to everybody here why he left. He is
    Ranking Member of the Finance Committee, and Senator Baucus has
    scheduled a hearing for 10:45, and he has to be there for that.
        Professor Kopel, was the 1994 assault weapons ban a
    sensible and effective means of reducing gun violence? And,
    second, is there any reason to re-enact a more extensive
    assault weapons ban?
        Professor Kopel. Based on the Department of Justice study,
    the answer was no, that it was something that was tried with
    great sincerity, a lot of people thought it would be a good
    idea, but it did not seem to save any lives that the
    researchers could find.
        The revised law is just more of the same, but it suffers
    from the same fundamental problem. You can have a 1994 law that
    lists some guns by name and a 2013 law that lists more guns by
    name. But the very fact that you are banning guns by name, that
    is just an example of how the law does not address the guns'
    firepower or their rate of fire. It simply--if there is
    something that makes these guns more dangerous, then
    legislation ought to be able to describe it in neutral terms.
    So all these names I think are a sign of exactly what is wrong
    with the bill.
        Now, the present bill, like its 1994 predecessor, also
    outlaws things based on various features. But, again, these are
    not things that have to do with the internal mechanics of the
    gun, how fast it fires, or how powerful the bullets are. They
    are things like whether a rifle has a forward grip. Well, a
    forward grip on a rifle helps the user stabilize it and make
    the gun more accurate so that, if you are deer hunting, the
    second shot is almost as accurate as the first, or if you are
    target shooting or, more importantly, most importantly, if you
    are engaged in lawful self-defense. And that is why you see
    guns like the AR-15 with their standard factory-issued 30-round
    magazines in police cars all over the country, because they
    make the gun more accurate for the core purpose of the Second
    Amendment, which is lawful self-defense.
        Senator Grassley. Okay. Chief Johnson and Professor Kopel,
    listen while I read, and I will ask each of you a question.
    Recently, Iowa law enforcement officials were quoted in an
    article that I ask consent to include in the record entitled
    ``Law officers tell Congressman mental health issues more
    important than gun ban.'' In it, a bipartisan group of elected
    sheriffs and police chiefs offered candid assessments of
    current legislative proposals. One chief of police stated, ``I
    think banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines is
    strictly a feel-good measure. It is not going to accomplish
    anything.''
        Instead, they asked for options for getting mentally ill
    individuals treatment. Chief Jim Clark, Ottumwa, Iowa, added,
    ``We identify some that are mentally ill, they need treatment,
    but we cannot access the system.''
        So, Chief Johnson, what options do your officers have from
    your experience--because I quoted Iowa--currently have in
    dealing with individuals they believe to have untreated mental
    illness?
        Chief Johnson. It is a major problem in America today and
    in my jurisdiction. I am here today to talk about guns and ways
    to stop gun violence, and we know a comprehensive background
    check that picks up these mental health issue disqualifiers
    will make our Nation a safer place. We know that banning high-
    capacity magazines will make our police officers safer. We have
    lost dozens of police officers in America due to assault
    weapons, and we have seen tragedies all across this great
    Nation--Aurora, Newtown, and Webster, New York. An off-duty
    police officer--you are never off duty. He was a police officer
    shot down by an assault weapon. It is a serious problem, and it
    must be addressed.
        Senator Grassley. Professor Kopel, you authored an article
    in the Wall Street Journal last month entitled ``Guns, Mental
    Illness, Newtown.'' And I would also like to have that included
    in the record.
        Is there evidence that mental illness and changes to civil
    commitment laws play a part in mass shootings? And what can we
    do to keep guns away from the mentally ill consistent with our
    Second Amendment?
        Professor Kopel. Well, certainly they play quite a major
    role in homicides in general. According to the Department of
    Justice research, about one-sixth of the people in State
    prisons for homicide are mentally ill. If you look at these
    mass murders where suicidal people try to end their lives in
    the most infamous way possible, in Tucson, Virginia Tech,
    Newtown, Aurora, you have a very strong thread of mental
    illness running through that. And certainly improving the
    background--the data about mental health adjudications, not
    just a psychiatrist's recommendation or something like that,
    but what due process and the Constitution require, which is an
    adjudication, a fair decision by a neutral decisionmaker,
    getting those into the background check system is something
    that Congress started working on after Virginia Tech, and there
    is more progress to be made.
        But it is not just a matter of checks. Even if you have the
    most ideal check system in the world, at the least--and imagine
    these criminals, violent, insane criminals, could never get a
    gun anywhere else--you know, Adam Lanza at Newtown did not have
    background checks. He stole the guns after murdering his
    mother. So the long-term solution is not just about background
    checks. It is about why are these people on the streets in the
    first place.
        All of these killers I have just mentioned could have been
    civilly committed under the civil commitment laws we had
    several decades ago. Those laws were changed because they were
    sometimes abused. But I think we can move back to a more
    sensible position that strongly protects the due process rights
    of people against involuntary commitment, but also gets
    dangerous people off the streets. And that will cost money at
    the State level, but it is money that will be greatly saved in
    the long term through reduced incarceration costs for crimes.
        Senator Grassley. Okay. Ms. Trotter, your testimony
    discussed the need for women to be able to use firearms to
    defend themselves and their families. The law currently permits
    the lawful possession of semiautomatic rifles such as AR-15s.
    Can you tell us why you believe a semiautomatic rifle such as
    an AR-15 has value as a weapon of self-defense? And does
    banning guns which feature designed to improve accuracy
    disproportionately burden women?
        Ms. Trotter. I believe it does. Young women are speaking
    out as to why AR-15 weapons are their weapon of choice. The
    guns are accurate. They have good handling. They are light.
    They are easy for women to hold. And most importantly, their
    appearance. An assault weapon in the hands of a young woman
    defending her babies in her home becomes a defense weapon, and
    the peace of mind that a woman has as she is facing three,
    four, five violent attackers, intruders in her home, with her
    children screaming in the background, the peace of mind that
    she has knowing that she has a scary-looking gun gives her more
    courage when she is fighting hardened, violent criminals. And
    if we ban these types of assault weapons, you are putting women
    at a great disadvantage, more so than men, because they do not
    have the same type of physical strength and opportunity to
    defend themselves in a hand-to-hand struggle. And they are not
    criminals. They are moms. They are young women. And they are
    not used to violent confrontations.
        So I absolutely urge--I speak on behalf of millions of
    American women across the country who urge you to defend our
    Second Amendment right to choose to defend ourselves.
        Senator Grassley. Thank you.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
        Senator Feinstein.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
    holding this hearing, and I want to thank everybody for being
    here, particularly our witnesses, even you, Mr. LaPierre. It is
    good to see you again.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Feinstein. I guess we tangled----
        Mr. LaPierre. We have.
        Senator Feinstein. We tangled, what was it, 18 years ago?
    You look pretty good, actually.
        Chairman Leahy. I will give a little prerogative to the
    laughter, but please go ahead.
        Senator Feinstein. I would like to add something to the
    record, Mr. Chairman, page 44 of the Department of Justice
    report, Assault Weapons as a Percentage of Gun Traces, which
    shows a 70-percent decline from 1992-93 to 2001-02.
        Chairman Leahy. Without objection, so ordered.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        [The information referred to appears as a submission for
    the record.]
        Senator Feinstein. Chief Johnson, I would like to talk with
    you. First of all, I am very grateful for the support of your
    organization, of the Major Chiefs, and the International
    Association of Chiefs of Police, as well as trauma surgeons who
    see what these guns do in tearing apart bodies.
        I have become very concerned, as I looked at the bill
    before in 1993, at the technological improvement in these
    weapons over these years. And one of the things that we have
    tried to do in this new bill is prevent that from happening in
    the future.
        In looking at the AR-15 magazine on a device which is legal
    called a ``slide fire,'' I note that, with practice, a shooter
    may control his rate of fire from 400 to 800 rounds per minute
    or shoot 2, 3, or 4 rounds at a time and just as easily fire
    single shots.
        So this is a weapon--and I think Ms. Trotter is right. It
    apparently is versatile. It apparently is rather easy to use.
    But it has tremendous velocity and tremendous killing power and
    I suspect tears young bodies apart.
        Additionally, it is my understanding that Mrs. Lanza
    actually gave this gun to her son. Is that correct?
        Chief Johnson. These guns used in Newtown were not stolen,
    Professor. They were in the home, accessible to the shooter.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
        Chief Johnson. It is a major problem, safety and security
    of weapons. In my jurisdiction, two school shootings, safety
    and security of the weapons would have made a difference in
    that case. And, Senator, your bill, I salute and applaud you
    for including a safety and security measure.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, thank you very much, Chief. This
    is such a hard debate because people have such fixed positions.
    Police, I think, see killings as they are. Many people do not.
    So in a sense, the straight speak about this issue, the more
    you add highly technologically efficient weapons which are
    originally designed to kill people in close combat, and they
    fall in the hands of the wrong people.
        It is my understanding that Mrs. Lanza's son, the shooter
    in this case, had no mental health record. Is that correct?
        Chief Johnson. It is my understanding that no record
    exists. It is my understanding that there was ample evidence,
    though, amongst those close to him that there was a serious
    problem.
        Senator Feinstein. Which is really something that I think
    we need to tackle today. Mental health laws are usually the
    preserve of the State and the local governments. They provide
    the facilities. Do you have any suggestions there with respect
    to anything that we might be able to do to improve mental
    health laws nationally which might catch people who are a
    danger to themselves or others in this area?
        Chief Johnson. This is a major problem for law enforcement.
    Citizens, police officers, doctors, parents can petition for an
    emergency evaluation when they see behavior that presents an
    individual as being a danger to themselves or others, and it is
    really important that we all do this. And it is a tough
    decision, but sometimes you have to make it against your own
    son. Very, very hard. It could affect their entire life. But it
    has to be done.
        The improvement that needs to be made is we have to have
    this information entered instantly into a data system in the
    event that the individual tries to go out within 24 hours to
    get a gun.
        The fellow in Wisconsin that went into the salon to shoot
    his wife, he wanted a gun fast. He wanted it fast. He was hot.
    He was emotional. He was out of control. And he wanted to get a
    gun fast, and the way you do that is you reach out outside the
    established background check system and acquire it. If that
    record would have been entered into the system, the domestic
    violence order, it would have been entered instantly, like we
    can do today in many areas, that gun could have--a gun could
    have been prevented from getting in the hands of a person who
    is going to carry it out when they are at a high emotional
    stage. This is really, really important.
        Senator Feinstein. We have millions and millions of big
    clips. The Aurora shooter used a 100-round drum. Fortunately,
    it jammed; otherwise, he would have killed more people. I think
    most people believe that, sure, we could have guards at
    schools. I am well aware that at Columbine there was a deputy
    sheriff who was armed who actually took a shot but could not
    hit the shooter there. The question comes: What do you do about
    the malls then? What do you do about our movie theaters? What
    do you do about businesses? We cannot have a totally armed
    society. And that is my feeling in terms of the need to say
    that there are certain categories of guns.
        We actually exempt over 2,000 specific weapons by make and
    model name to create and then ban about 158 assault weapons and
    go to a one-characteristic test.
        You have looked at this bill. Do you believe it will be
    effective?
        Chief Johnson. Yes, ma'am, I do. I believe that
    holistically addressing all the issues in the President's plan
    as well as a comprehensive universal background check
    procedure, banning high-capacity magazines, and banning the
    sale of assault weapons, frankly, collectively, all these
    together will create a system. The best way to stop a bad guy
    from getting a gun in the first place is a good background
    check.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
        As Senator Grassley noted, Senator Hatch has to be at
    another thing. I will recognize him when he comes back. I am
    going to go back and forth going by seniority, and we will go
    to Senator Sessions. But I will also announce that all Members
    can put statements in the record by the close of business today
    as though read.
        Senator Sessions.
        Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I have spent the better part of my career, I guess,
    prosecuting cases, 12 years as a United States Attorney, and
    during that time I gave a high emphasis to prosecutions of gun
    violations. We were one of the top prosecuting districts in the
    country.
        I note in the latest University of Syracuse report, they
    list my district, the Southern District of Alabama, as number
    one in the Nation still today in prosecution of gun violations.
        This is what the University of Syracuse study said,
    however, in its lead comment: ``Weapons prosecutions declined
    to the lowest level in a decade.''
        ``The latest available data from the Justice Department
    show that during January 2011 the government reported 484 new
    weapons prosecutions. This is the lowest level to which Federal
    weapons prosecutions have fallen since January 2001, when they
    were 445 at the time President Bush assumed office.''
        They go on to note some of the declines in various
    categories, and so, first and foremost, I would say to you as
    someone who has personally tried a lot of these cases before a
    jury, written appellate briefs on these cases, that the bread-
    and-butter criminal cases are felons in possession of a firearm
    and carrying a firearm during a crime, both of which are
    serious offenses. Carrying a firearm during a crime, drug crime
    or crime of violence or other serious crimes, is a mandatory 5-
    year sentence without parole. Those prosecutions have declined,
    unfortunately, substantially under President Obama's
    Presidency.
        Chief, does it concern you that comparing total
    prosecutions per month for guns in Federal court with those per
    month in 2011 with those for the same period in 2010, the
    number of filings went down 7.9 percent and were down 28.8
    percent from 2006 in Federal court? Does that concern you?
        Chief Johnson. Senator, I can tell you that in the
    Baltimore County Police Department----
        Senator Sessions. I just asked you if those are the
    numbers, does that concern you?
        Chief Johnson. No, because you do not----
        Senator Sessions. It does not concern you?
        Chief Johnson. Sir, you are not including local
    prosecutions. I cannot stand before you today and tell you of a
    single case in Baltimore County of an illegally possessed gun
    that was not prosecuted at the State level----
        Senator Sessions. Well, are we trying to pass a Federal law
    today or a State law?
        Chief Johnson. Certainly background checks----
        Senator Sessions. That is what you are calling for, is a
    Federal law. We would like to see the Federal laws on the books
    enforced, I suggest.
        And with regard to the crimes of carrying a firearm during
    the furtherance of a violent or drug-trafficking offense, those
    prosecutions declined 27.5 percent between 2007 and 2011. So I
    would just say, first of all, we need to make sure we are doing
    our job there.
        I would also note that although crime is a very, very
    important matter, we should never lose our emphasis on bringing
    down crime. The murder rate in America today is half what it
    was in 1993. We have made progress on that, and we can continue
    to drive those numbers down. It is not as if we have an unusual
    surge in violent crime in America.
        Now, with regard to the background checks and straw
    purchases, let us be frank. Straw purchases are a problem and
    should be prosecuted. I have prosecuted those cases before on a
    number of occasions. I prosecuted gun dealers who failed to
    keep records as required by the law. But the number of
    defendants charged under 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6), making material
    misrepresentations under the Federal firearms law regarding the
    lawfulness of a transfer, has declined from 459 in 2004 to 218
    in 2010. That is about half, a 52-percent decline under this
    administration's leadership.
        I would just say to you, mathematically speaking, violence
    in America is impacted mostly when you are enforcing these
    bread-and-butter violations that are effective, they are
    proven, and they work. They have the support of Mr. LaPierre, I
    think. I know that group supports them. I think everybody
    supports these strong laws, and that is where the rubber meets
    the road. That is where you really begin to impact crime. If
    you can intimidate--and I believe the word is getting out. It
    did in our district, that if you carry a gun in a crime, a
    drug-dealing offense, you could be prosecuted in Federal court,
    given 5 years in jail without parole. And I believe we saw a
    decline in the violence rate and the number of drug dealers and
    criminals carrying guns. But you have to prosecute those cases.
        Mr. LaPierre, it does appear that the straw purchase
    prohibition that is out there, that prohibition seems to me to
    be legitimate, and I support and you said you support the
    prosecutions of it. If we expand the number of people covered,
    but we do not have any prosecutions--I believe you used the
    number 44 was all--there are 90 United States Attorneys in
    America, only 44, only one out of every two apparently is
    prosecuting a single case in a single year. That is the
    weakness in the system.
        Mr. LaPierre. Senator, there needs to be a change in the
    culture of prosecution at the entire Federal level. It is a
    national disgrace. The fact is we could dramatically cut crime
    in this country with guns and save lives all over this country
    if we would start enforcing the thousands of Federal laws we
    have on the books. I am talking about drug dealers with guns,
    gangs with guns, and felons with guns. They are simply not
    being enforced. The numbers are shocking.
        In Chicago, one of the worst areas in the country in gun
    violence by criminals, it is 89 of 90 in terms of Federal
    prosecutions.
        In the entire United States, 62 people prosecuted for lying
    on the Federal background check. I mean, when Dave Schiller and
    Project Exile cleaned up Richmond years ago, they did 350 cases
    in Richmond. I mean, if you want to stop crime, interdict
    violent criminals, incarcerate them, get them off the street
    before they get to the next crime scene.
        Senator Sessions. Well, I agree.
        Mr. LaPierre. Or worse.
        Senator Sessions. My time is up. Richmond was a great
    model, and I would just say I would call on President Obama to
    call in Attorney General Eric Holder and ask him why the
    prosecutions have dropped dramatically across all categories of
    Federal gun laws. And he should call in his United States
    Attorneys and tell them, ``You need to look at your numbers and
    get them up and emphasize these prosecutions.''
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Leahy. Senator Schumer.
        Senator Schumer. Well, thank you.
        First, let me apologize to the witnesses. We have a Finance
    Committee meeting on reconciliation, which probably affects our
    police chief anyway, and so I had to be there.
        And I want to thank you, Chairman Leahy, for organizing
    this important hearing.
        I thank all the witnesses for being here, particularly
    Congresswoman Giffords and Captain Kelly for your testimony. We
    have been moved by your strength, your courage that your family
    has demonstrated in the face of unspeakable tragedy. By being
    here instead of cursing the darkness, you are lighting a
    candle. Thank you.
        Now, I do believe today we have a chance to do something
    reasonable in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook tragedy. But when
    we discuss ways to stop violence, guns must be included in that
    discussion.
        I heard Ranking Member Grassley say that we must go beyond
    guns. That is true. But we must include guns as well. Not
    including guns when discussing mass killings is like not
    including cigarettes when discussing lung cancer.
        But at the same time, I agree. We cannot simply replay the
    usual zero sum political game on guns, or the moment will pass
    us by.
        The Supreme Court ruling in Heller, which struck down the
    District of Columbia's ban on handguns, laid out a good
    framework. It said an individual right to bear arms does exist,
    but it comes with limitations, like every amendment. In other
    words, it is now settled law that the Government is never going
    to take away Americans' guns.
        Progressives need not to accept this decision, but to
    endorse it. We have got to follow it, not just de jure but de
    facto. And it makes sense. You cannot argue for an expansive
    reading of amendments like the First, Fourth, and Fifth, but
    see the Second Amendment through the pinhole of saying it only
    affects militias.
        At the same time, those on the pro-gun side must recognize
    no amendment is absolute. The First Amendment protects freedom
    of speech. It is hallowed. But you still cannot falsely shout
    ``Fire'' in a crowded theater or traffic in child pornography.
    Those are reasonable limits on the First Amendment.
        The Second Amendment has sensible limits, too. My
    colleagues have offered a range of impressive and thoughtful
    proposals on the topic of gun violence.
        For example, Chairman Leahy has introduced a bill on
    trafficking. Senator Feinstein has introduced one on assault
    weapons, Senator Blumenthal on ammunition.
        But for the last several years, my particular focus in the
    area of gun safety has been on responsible gun ownership and
    background checks. Universal background checks is a proven,
    effective step we can take to reduce gun violence. And I
    believe it has a good chance of passing. Federally licensed
    firearm dealers have been required to conduct background checks
    on prospective gun purchasers since we passed the Brady bill.
    And we have seen that they work. Since 1999, the Federal
    background check system has blocked 1.7 million prohibited
    purchasers from buying firearms at federally licensed dealers.
        Yes, we should prosecute them. But the number one goal is
    to prevent a felon from getting a gun in the first place. That
    is what this did 1.7 million times. The current system works
    well. But there are some glaring holes.
        First of all, not all gun sales are covered by a background
    check. The problem, sometimes referred to as ``the gun show
    loophole,'' means that a private seller could set up a tent at
    a gun show or somewhere else and not have to conduct background
    checks on his purchasers.
        Current estimates show that because of these loopholes 48
    percent of gun sales are made without a background check. If
    you are a felon, if you are a gun trafficker, if you are a
    mentally ill person, you know that you can go to a gun show and
    not have any check. So, of course, that is what they do.
        This is not fair, also, to dealers who follow the rules and
    conduct checks. The registered dealers at their gun stores have
    to obey the rules. Why should someone going to a gun show have
    a different rule? There is no logic to it. None. I was there. I
    was the author of the Brady bill, and that was something that
    we were forced to put in the bill, those of us who were not for
    it, as a way to get the bill passed. But the last 15 years has
    proven it does not make sense.
        The second problem with the current system is that not all
    records are fed into the system. This is especially true with
    mental health records. Nineteen States have submitted fewer
    than 100 mental health records to NICS.
        I think we can get bipartisan agreement on a bill that
    solves these problems by doing two things. One, it will prevent
    felons and the mentally ill from getting guns by requiring a
    background check before all purchases. And, two, it will get
    relevant records into the system.
        Now, at the moment, right now, as we meet here today, I am
    having productive conversations with colleagues on both sides
    of the aisle, including a good number with high NRA ratings.
    And I am hopeful that we are close to having legislation we can
    introduce.
        And I would urge the NRA, Mr. LaPierre, and other gun
    advocacy groups to work with us on this proposal. The NRA
    supported our 2007 legislation that improved the NICS
    background check system. And I hope they will reconsider and
    try to do that again.
        It is a simple, straightforward solution. It is one the
    American people support. A recent survey by the New England
    Journal of Medicine found 90 percent of the public and 74
    percent of NRA members support requiring background checks for
    all gun sales.
        I understand, because we have not introduced it, I cannot
    ask the witnesses about it, but I want to tell you what it will
    not do.
        It will not create any gun registry. That is already
    illegal, and it will be repeated as illegal in our law. That is
    particularly for Mr. Kopel. And it will not limit your ability
    to borrow your Uncle Willy's hunting rifle or share a gun with
    your friend at a shooting range.
        It will include reasonable exceptions to make sure we are
    only requiring background checks for bona fide sales and
    transfers. So specious claims about background checks are a
    tactic made by those who cannot argue with the facts.
        Now, I would like to ask Chief Johnson a question or two
    about those checks. Do you agree with the logic that even--you
    know, that we should prosecute people who illegally try to buy
    guns, but even without that, the law has done a whole lot of
    good because people who are felons or adjudicated mentally ill,
    millions have been stopped from buying guns and getting guns?
        Chief Johnson. Since 1994 to 2009, the record is very
    clear. It is a fact that nearly 2 million prohibited purchases
    were stopped. God only knows what they would have done with
    those weapons had it not been for that particular law.
        Senator Schumer. And from a law enforcement point of view,
    would not we rather--we want to do both, but would not we
    rather stop them from having a gun than after they shoot
    somebody or buy a gun illegally, then arrest them and put them
    in jail for that crime?
        Chief Johnson. Yes, sir. You have to address the pathology,
    how you get the gun in the first place. And that is what we are
    trying to achieve here by a universal background check. And I
    am very proud to stand before you this morning to let you know
    that the entire National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent
    Gun Violence, every member of our organization supports
    background checks.
        Senator Schumer. Right. And does it make any sense to
    exclude the same people who sell them in a gun shop or others
    to go to a gun show and not have any background check at all?
        Chief Johnson. It is absolutely insane. Again, it is like
    letting 40 percent of people just pass a TSA checkpoint at an
    airport. It is not an inconvenience. The record shows that
    nearly 92 percent of the individuals that go in to try to do a
    background check at a gun shop, in a minute and a half they are
    done. I cannot write a ticket, a citation in a minute and a
    half. Even with e-tick technology, I cannot do it that fast.
        It is not inconvenient. And it is fair to the gun owner and
    the shop owner, too. Why impose on a shop owner, a gun dealer,
    a federally licensed dealer, more restrictions than you do on
    anyone else? And if you think for a minute you can sell your
    gun to your neighbor that you have known for 10 years, you do
    not know your neighbor. You do not know your neighbor. And the
    only way to make sure that you are safe in what you are doing
    is a comprehensive background check.
        Senator Schumer. One final quick question. Many police
    officers are avid sportsmen. They enjoy shooting, not in their
    official professional duties. The surveys show the overwhelming
    majority of gun owners are for background checks. Does your
    personal experience corroborate that?
        Chief Johnson. It is my understanding that 74 percent of
    NRA members support a background check. I am a hunter. I love
    to hunt. I own several guns. I love going to the range with my
    son who is a police officer today. It is enjoyable. I have met
    many great people.
        Senator Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
        I understand we are not going to go in quite the order we
    said before, but Senator Graham has graciously said Senator
    Cornyn could go. So please, Senator Cornyn.
        Senator Cornyn. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks
    to all of the witnesses for being here today and sharing your
    observations and testimony. I am particularly gratified to see
    Congresswoman Giffords here doing so well and speaking so
    forcefully.
        I hope this hearing serves as a starting point for us to
    consider a range of ideas on this topic. Anything that falls
    short of serious examination and discussion is just window
    dressing, just symbolism over substance. I have a hard time
    telling my constituents in Texas that Congress is looking at
    passing a whole raft of new laws when the laws that we
    currently have on the books are so woefully unenforced.
        I think we can and we should come together to address the
    shortcomings in mental health care, both in the general
    response to mental illness and also in the background checks
    mechanisms we use to screen out prohibited gun buyers.
        We need to ask whether years of deinstitutionalization of
    the mental health population have left America more vulnerable.
    Perhaps it is time to consider our background check laws to see
    if they need to be updated to screen out the growing number of
    people who are subjected to court-ordered outpatient mental
    health treatment.
        It is unclear whether the tens of thousands of committed
    outpatients in this country are falling through the cracks, and
    surely, we can agree that more needs to be done to enforce
    existing gun laws, as I said a moment ago.
        Gun crime prosecutions are down across the board, including
    enforcement of laws against lying on background checks. And,
    Mr. Chairman, I hope we will have a follow-on hearing where we
    will ask administration witnesses to come before the panel and
    to testify why the Department of Justice and other law
    enforcement agencies of the Federal Government are not
    enforcing laws that Congress has already passed.
        It is worth noting that 5 years ago, Congress was asking
    the same questions we are asking right now. In 2008, there was
    an attempt made to strengthen the background check laws
    following the murders at Virginia Tech. Looking back, we have
    to ask ourselves: Did those laws work? Well, the Government
    Accountability Office just last July gave it mixed reviews.
        The GAO reports that only a handful of States have taken
    seriously the responsibility to share mental health records.
    And I am pleased that Texas is highlighted by the GAO as
    outperforming other States in this area. But we have a long way
    to go.
        So I think there are areas where Congress can come together
    right now to examine the nexus between gun crime, violence, and
    mental health care. And I am willing to listen to serious
    ideas, not just window dressing, to try to come up with
    solutions.
        Captain Kelly, I noticed in your testimony you alluded to
    part of what I talked about, which is the fact that at the time
    in Arizona there were 121,000 records of disqualifying mental
    illness for people in Arizona that had not been subjected to
    background checks because the State had not sent that
    information to the Federal Government.
        Could you expand on the significance of that?
        Captain Kelly. Yes, sir. So in the case of Jared Loughner,
    the person who shot my wife and murdered six of her
    constituents, he was clearly mentally ill. He was expelled from
    Pima Community College because of that. There was nowhere for--
    or his parents and the school did not send him anywhere to be
    adjudicated or evaluated with regards to his mental illness.
        Now, Mr. LaPierre earlier tried to make the point that
    criminals do not submit to the background checks. Well, Jared
    Loughner, the guy, the Tucson shooter, was an admitted drug
    user. He was rejected from the U.S. Army because of his drug
    use. He was clearly mentally ill. And when he purchased that
    gun in November, his plan was to assassinate my wife and commit
    mass murder at that Safeway in Tucson. He was a criminal--
    because of his drug use and because of what he was planning on
    doing.
        But because of these gaps in the mental health system--now,
    in this case, those 121,000 records, I admit, did not include a
    record on him. But it could have. And if it did, he would have
    failed that background check.
        Now, obviously, in this case, he would have likely gone to
    a gun show or a private seller and avoided a background check.
    But if we close the gun show loophole, if we require private
    sellers to complete a background check, and we get those
    121,000 records and others into the systems, we will prevent
    gun crimes. That is an absolute truth. It would have happened
    in Tucson. My wife would not be sitting in this seat, she would
    not have been sitting here today, if we had stronger background
    checks.
        Senator Cornyn. Mr. LaPierre, you talked about the laws
    that are already on the books and the fact that the Federal
    Government has a poor record of enforcing current laws. And I
    fail to see how passing additional laws that the Department of
    Justice will not enforce is going to make America any safer.
        But let me just ask you to react briefly to these
    statistics. From 2007 to 2011, the Department of Justice has
    charged 13 percent fewer total firearms cases. In each of the
    years during that span, the current administration has brought
    fewer firearms prosecutions than the year before.
        In January 2011, only 484 new firearm prosecutions were
    initiated by the Department of Justice, the fewest number of
    prosecutions in 10 years. As far as background check
    prosecutions from 2006 to 2010, the number of investigations
    for unlawful possession decreased 26 percent. During the same
    period, 77 percent fewer NICS denials were referred by the
    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms for prosecution.
    Federal prosecutors declined 82 percent more cases over the
    same period. In 2010, out of the 76,125 denied background
    checks the FBI referred to the ATF, a verdict or plea was
    reached in just 13 cases.
        Would you give us your reaction to that record?
        Mr. LaPierre. I think it is tragic, Senator. I mean, the
    fact is, in the shadow of this Capitol, right under everyone's
    noses, in this building, right now there are drug dealers out
    in the street with guns violating Federal law, illegal. There
    is all kinds of drugs and cocaine being sold. By God, gangs are
    trafficking 13-year-old girls. And it goes on day after day
    after day.
        What we have got to do is interdict these people, get them
    off the street before they get to the next crime scene. I
    mean--and get in the real world in terms of checks. I mean, the
    fact is the NRA has been trying for 20-some years--Senator
    Schumer and I went back and forth on ``Face the Nation'' where
    I asked him if he would help get those adjudicated mentally
    incompetent into the system 20 years ago. He said yes, and they
    are still not in the system. And my point is, even if you turn
    up someone on an instant check that is a mentally ill person or
    a felon, as long as you let them go, you are not keeping them
    from getting a gun, and you are not preventing them from
    getting to the next crime scene.
        I mean, we have got to get in the real world of this
    discussion. The problem with gun laws is criminals do not
    cooperate with them. The mentally ill do not cooperate with
    them. So you have got to interdict, incarcerate, interdict, get
    in treatment, and do things that matter. And then you have got
    to put police officers in schools, armed security in schools.
    But let us do the things that work. Let us get serious about
    this.
        I mean, this discussion, I mean, I sit here and listen to
    it, and my reaction is how little it has to do with making the
    country and our kids safe and how much it has to do with this
    decade-long or two-decade-long gun ban agenda that we do not
    enforce the laws even when they are on the books. The Attorney
    General of the United States, Attorney General Eric Holder,
    during the Richmond program called it a ``cookie-cutter
    approach'' to solving crime that, you know, he really did not
    have a lot of enthusiasm about.
        I remember Senator Sessions held a hearing, and the
    Department of Justice testified, well, a drug dealer with a gun
    is a guppy, and we cannot really concentrate on guppies. Those
    guppies are what are ruining neighborhoods, destroying lives,
    and killing people. And we have got to confront their behavior,
    take them off the street because they do not obey all the laws
    that we have right now. We have got to get in the real world on
    what works and what does not work.
        My problem with universal background checks is you are
    never going to get criminals to go through universal background
    checks. For all the law-abiding people, you will create an
    enormous Federal bureaucracy, unfunded, all the law-abiding
    people in the country will have to go through it, pay the fees,
    pay the taxes. We do not even prosecute anybody right now who
    goes through the system we have. So we are going to make all
    those law-abiding people go through the system, and then we are
    not going to prosecute any of the bad guys when we catch one.
    And none of it makes any sense in the real world. We have
    80,000 police families in the NRA. We care about safety. We
    will support what works.
        Chairman Leahy. I am trying to be fair to everybody here,
    and certainly you are going to have a lot more chances to
    speak.
        Senator Durbin.
        Senator Durbin. Mr. LaPierre, that is the point. The
    criminals will not go to purchase the guns because there will
    be a background check. We will stop them from the original
    purchase. You miss that point completely.
        Mr. LaPierre. Senator----
        Senator Durbin. I think it is--it is basic.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. LaPierre. Senator, I think you miss----
        Chairman Leahy. Let there be order.
        [Applause.]
        Mr. LaPierre. I think you are missing----
        Chairman Leahy. There will be order.
        Mr. LaPierre. If you do not prosecute them, you are not
    stopping them.
        Chairman Leahy. Please wait, everybody, for a moment. As I
    said earlier, there will be order in the Committee room.
        Senator Durbin, and then----
        Senator Durbin. I am going to give you a chance, but let me
    just say at the outset, Captain Kelly, thank you. Thank you for
    bringing that wonderful, brave wife of yours today to remind us
    what victims suffer from gun violence. What a heroic figure she
    is, and what a great pillar of strength you are to stand by her
    during this entire ordeal and her rehabilitation. We are so
    proud of her and of you.
        Captain Kelly. Thank you.
        Senator Durbin. And I say with some regret, there should
    have been a hearing just like this right after your wife, one
    of our own, a Member of Congress, was shot point-blank in the
    face at a town meeting in Tucson, Arizona.
        I am sorry it has taken 2 years for us to convene this
    hearing, but it took Newtown, Connecticut, to finally bring us
    to our senses and to open this national conversation. But I
    hope that you will extend to her our best wishes, our love, and
    our support for what she is doing today and what she has meant
    to all of us for this long period of time.
        I also want to say a word about an incident. There was a
    young lady from Chicago, Illinois, 15 years old. She attended
    King College Prep School in Chicago. She was an honor student
    and a majorette, and she marched in the inauguration last week
    here. It was the highlight of her young 15-year-old life.
        Yesterday, in a rainstorm after school she raced to a
    shelter. A gunman came in and shot her dead. Just a matter of
    days after the happiest day of her life, she is gone.
        A lot has been said about the city of Chicago, and I want
    to say a few words, too. Our biggest problem in Chicago,
    according to Superintendent McCarthy, who came to Chicago from
    New York, is that we are awash in guns.
        The confiscation of guns per capita in Chicago is six times
    the number of New York City. We have guns everywhere. And some
    believe the solution to this is more guns. I disagree.
        When you take a look at where these guns come from, 25
    percent plus are sold in the surrounding towns around the city
    of Chicago, not in the city.
        And you look over the last 10 or 12 years, of the 50,000
    guns confiscated in crimes, almost one out of ten crime guns in
    Chicago came to that city from Mississippi. Mississippi. Why?
    Because the background checks there, the gun dealers there are
    a lot easier than they are in other places. And they end up
    selling these guns in volume, and they come up the interstate
    and kill wantonly on the way.
        Here are the basics. I think we all agree--I hope we all
    agree--that the Supreme Court decision in Heller said we can
    have reasonable limitations on a Second Amendment right in
    terms of the type of weapon and the people who own them and the
    background checks on those people. It is something we
    desperately need to do.
        But we know now that 40 percent of the sales are not going
    through the background checks. That is a huge problem. It has
    created this abundance of weapons that are available.
        And the straw purchasers, I salute the chairman for
    addressing this issue on straw purchasers. It is one of the
    worst situations in our State and in the city of Chicago.
        I can point to one gun store--one gun store--in Riverdale,
    Illinois, that accounts for more than 20 percent of the crime
    guns in Chicago. Straw purchasers buy the guns there, and they
    end up in the hands of criminals in the city of Chicago. We got
    to put an end to this. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your bill.
        And let me ask--I am going to ask a question here of some
    of the panelists.
        Mr. LaPierre, I run into some of your members in Illinois,
    and here is what they tell me: ``Senator, you do not get the
    Second Amendment.'' Your NRA members say, ``You just do not get
    it. It is not just about hunting. It is not just about sports.
    It is not just about shooting targets. It is not just about
    defending ourselves from criminals,'' as Ms. Trotter testified.
    ``We need the firepower and the ability to protect ourselves
    from our Government''--``from our government, from the police
    if they knock on our doors, and we need to fight back.''
        Do you agree with that point of view?
        Mr. LaPierre. Senator, I think without any doubt, if you
    look at why our Founding Fathers put it there, they had lived
    under the tyranny of King George, and they wanted to make sure
    that these free people in this new country would never be
    subjugated again and have to live under tyranny.
        I also think, though, that what people all over the country
    fear today is being abandoned by their Government, if a tornado
    hits, if a hurricane hits, if a riot occurs that they are going
    to be out there alone. And the only way they are going to
    protect themselves in the cold and the dark, when they are
    vulnerable, is with a firearm. And I think that indicates how
    relevant and essential the Second Amendment is in today's
    society to fundamental human survival.
        Senator Durbin. Well, Chief Johnson, you have heard it. The
    belief of NRA is the Second Amendment has to give American
    citizens the firepower to fight back against you, against our
    Government.
        Mr. LaPierre. That is not----
        Senator Durbin. So how do you conduct your business in
    enforcing the law and not knowing what is behind that door?
        Chief Johnson. I find it to be scary, creepy, and it is
    simply just not based on logic. Certainly, law enforcement
    across this Nation is well prepared to deal with any natural or
    man-made disaster that will occur. And, frankly, I just--I
    cannot relate to that kind of thinking.
        Senator Durbin. I cannot either. And I cannot relate to the
    need of that man in Aurora, Colorado, to have a 100-round drum,
    100 cartridges.
        Professor Kopel, do you think that is necessary for
    hunting, sports, target practice, even self-defense?
        Professor Kopel. It would be not legal for hunting in most
    States where there are limits on how many rounds you can have
    in a magazine. But as I think you have recognized, the Second
    Amendment is not primarily about hunting.
        What I have been talking about is what the Supreme Court
    said in District of Columbia v. Heller, which is what is the
    core of the Second Amendment, which is the firearms and their
    accessories which are commonly owned by law-abiding people for
    legitimate purposes.
        Senator Durbin. But let me tell----
        Professor Kopel. And those are not--and I am not talking
    about 100-round magazines. I am talking about what police
    officers carry, what citizens carry, semiautomatic handguns,
    typically with magazines of 11 to 19 rounds----
        Senator Durbin. But those are police officers.
        Professor Kopel [continuing]. And rifles.
        Senator Durbin. Those are members of our military.
        Professor Kopel. No, they are not military men. They are
    not coming to attack people. They are coming to protect people,
    and they want to protect--and citizens protect themselves the
    same way that police officers do.
        Senator Durbin. What I am trying to get to is this: If you
    can rationalize a 100-round drum that someone can strap onto a
    semiautomatic weapon, as it did in Aurora, Colorado, and turn
    it loose, killing dozens of people there, and saving lives only
    because it jammed, then you certainly ought to object to the
    laws that have been on the books for 80 years about machine
    guns. Why are they not allowed under the Second Amendment?
        Professor Kopel. According to Heller, because they are not
    commonly used by law-abiding citizens for legitimate purposes.
        Senator Durbin. And 100-round magazines are?
        Professor Kopel. You are the one who wants to talk about
    100-round magazines, and thank goodness----
        Senator Durbin. I sure do.
        Professor Kopel. Thank goodness he had a piece of junk like
    that that jammed, instead of something better made where he
    could have killed more people with it.
        Senator Durbin. Well, that is what it is all about, then?
        Professor Kopel. It is about saving----
        Senator Durbin. We are playing God here?
        Professor Kopel. It is about saving lives. It is about
    saving lives with ordinary magazines. Hundred-round magazines
    are novelties that are not used by police officers or hunters
    or most other people.
        Senator Durbin. Well, Captain Kelly----
        Professor Kopel. But what you are talking about banning,
    Senator, is normal magazines.
        Senator Durbin. Tell us about the lives that were saved in
    Tucson and what it had to do with magazines.
        Captain Kelly. The shooter in Tucson showed up with two 33-
    round magazines, one of which was in his 9-millimeter. He
    unloaded the contents of that magazine in 15 seconds. Very
    quickly. It all happened very, very fast. The first bullet went
    into Gabby's head. Bullet number 13 went into a 9-year-old girl
    named Christina-Taylor Green, who was very interested in
    democracy and our Government and really deserved a full life
    committed to advancing those ideas.
        If he had a 10-round magazine--well, let me back up. When
    he tried to reload one 33-round magazine with another 33-round
    magazine, he dropped it. And a woman named Patricia Maisch
    grabbed it, and it gave bystanders time to tackle him. I
    contend if that same thing happened when he was trying to
    reload one 10-round magazine with another 10-round magazine,
    meaning he did not have access to a high-capacity magazine, and
    the same thing happened, Christina-Taylor Green would be alive
    today.
        I certainly am willing to give up my right to own a high-
    capacity magazine to bring that young woman back, that young
    girl.
        Now, let me continue with what happened that day. In that
    15 seconds--or, actually, with the first shot, a man ran out of
    Walgreen's, a good guy with a gun, with the intent to do the
    right thing, an armed citizen. He came within--he admits that
    he came within about a half a second of shooting the man who
    tackled Jared Loughner and nearly killing him.
        I mean, we almost had this horrific mass murder followed up
    with a horrific accident. The horrific mass murder because of
    the high-capacity magazine and the horrific accident because of
    the armed person there who, with good intention, wanted to end
    something that was--that was going really bad.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Leahy. Senator Graham.
        Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I think I am speaking for a lot of people when they say we
    are heartbroken when a family member is taken through an act of
    gun violence, whether it be a child or anyone else, but
    particularly children. That is just a heartbreaking episode in
    society. And I think most people would appreciate the fact that
    there are thousands, if not millions, of Americans who saved
    their families from home invasions or violent assault because
    they had a gun to protect themselves. And most of us are glad
    it ended well for you. So those are the two bookends.
        And you mentioned, Captain Kelly--and I very much
    appreciate your being here and your service to the country--
    about you and your wife are reasonable Americans. I do not
    doubt that one bit. I am sure you are. The question is: Am I a
    reasonable American if I oppose this bill? Am I a reasonable
    American believing that the Constitution says guns commonly
    used by the population sold for legitimate purposes? Being a
    supporter of the Second Amendment, I do not want to own a gun
    to attack my Government. That is not what I think a legitimate
    purpose is.
        Let us talk about a real-world incident that happened in
    Loganville, Georgia, on January 4, 2013. My basic premise is
    that one bullet in the hand of a mentally unstable person or a
    convicted felon is one too many. Six bullets in the hands of a
    mother protecting her twin 9-year-olds may not be enough. So I
    have got a chart here. At the very top is a .38 revolver, and
    on the right is a 9-millimeter pistol that holds 15 rounds.
        Does everybody on the panel agree that a convicted felon
    should not have either one of those guns? Does everybody agree
    that a mentally unstable person should not have either one of
    those pistols? Okay. Common ground there.
        Put yourself in the shoes of the mother. The guy broke into
    the home. She ran upstairs. She hid in a closet. She got on the
    phone to the police. And she was talking to her husband in real
    time. The intruder broke into the home, had a crowbar, and he
    found them in the closet. And they were confronted face to
    face. According to media reports, her husband said, ``Shoot,
    shoot.'' She emptied the gun, a six-shot revolver. The guy was
    hit five of the six times. He was able still to get up and
    drive away.
        My question is: Put your family member in that situation.
    Would I be a reasonable American to want my family to have the
    15-round magazine in a semiautomatic weapon to make sure that
    if there are two intruders, she does not run out of bullets? Am
    I an unreasonable person for saying that in that situation the
    15-round magazine makes sense?
        Well, I will say I do not believe I am. So I can give you
    an example of where a 15-round magazine could make the
    difference between protecting a family if there is more than
    one attacker.
        Now, back to your point, Captain Kelly. In the situation
    you described, I do not want that person to have one bullet or
    one gun. And the point of regulating magazines is to interrupt
    the shooter. That is the point of all this.
        And I guess what I am saying is that we live in a world
    where there are 4 million high-capacity magazines out there or
    more. I think the best way to interrupt the shooter if they
    come to a schoolhouse is not to try to deny the woman in
    Atlanta the ability to have more than 10 rounds, but to have
    somebody like you, Chief Johnson, meet them when they come into
    the door. I think that is the best way to do it.
        Now, my good friend Joe Biden, who we have very spirited
    conversations about a lot of things, was online recently
    talking to someone in California who mentioned the fact, what
    if there is an earthquake out here and there is a lawless
    situation? In 1992, you had the riots in Los Angeles. I think
    it was the King event. But you could find yourself in this
    country in a lawless environment through a natural disaster or
    a riot, and the story was about a place called Koreatown. There
    were marauding gangs going throughout the area burning stores,
    looting and robbing and raping. And the Vice President said, in
    response to, ``That is why I want my AR-15,'' he said, ``No,
    you would be better off with a 12-gauge shotgun.''
        Well, that is his opinion and I respect it. I have an AR-15
    at home, and I have not hurt anybody, and I do not intend to do
    it. But I think I would be better off protecting my business or
    my family if there was law-and-order breakdown in my community,
    people roaming around my neighborhood, to have the AR-15, and I
    do not think that makes me an unreasonable person.
        Now, Ms. Trotter, when you mentioned that you are speaking
    on behalf of millions of women out there who believe that an
    AR-15 makes them safer, there were a lot of giggles in the
    room, and I think that explains the dilemma we have. The people
    who were giggling were saying to you, ``That is crazy. Nobody I
    know thinks that way.'' Which reminds me of the Harvard
    professor who said, ``I cannot believe McGovern lost. Everybody
    I know voted for him.'' And I bet there are people on our side
    that cannot believe Obama won because everybody they know voted
    against him.
        The point is that we have different perspectives on this.
    And the reason I am going to oppose the legislation, Chief
    Johnson, is because I respect what you do as a law enforcement
    officer. Has your budget been cut?
        Chief Johnson. Yes.
        Senator Graham. Do you think it will be cut in the future?
        Chief Johnson. I am optimistic that it will not.
        Senator Graham. Well, I hope you are right, but I can tell
    people throughout this land, because of the fiscal state of
    affairs we have, there will be less police officers, not more,
    over the next decade. Response times are going to be less, not
    more.
        So, Captain Kelly, I really do want to get guns out of the
    hands of the wrong people. I honest to God believe that if we
    just arbitrarily say nobody in this country can own a 10-round
    magazine in the future, the people who own them are the people
    we are trying to combat to begin with, and there can be a
    situation where a mother runs out of bullets because of
    something we do here.
        I cannot prevent every bad outcome, but I do know and I do
    believe in the bottom of my heart I am not an unreasonable
    person for saying that in some circumstances the 15-round
    magazine makes perfect sense and in some circumstances the AR-
    15 makes perfect sense. And I think our efforts to solve a
    problem that exists in the real world out there from Washington
    by having more gun laws that really do not hit the mark, so to
    speak, politically or situationally, that we are off base, but
    this is why we have these hearings. And I really do appreciate
    the fact that we have these hearings.
        Professor ``Kopel''--``Koppel'' ?
        Professor Kopel. Either one.
        Senator Graham. Okay. Some people on our side say--and I
    will wrap this up, Mr. Chairman--that it is unconstitutional to
    put a limit on magazine size. Do you agree with that?
        Professor Kopel. I think if we follow Senator Schumer's
    approach and say we are going to follow what the District of
    Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court decision says, what that tells
    you is the core of the Second Amendment is the firearms and
    accessories that are commonly owned by law-abiding people for
    legitimate purposes.
        Senator Graham. Is it constitutional to say 10 rounds
    versus 15?
        Professor Kopel. Ten is plainly unconstitutional because,
    as I was trying to explain to Senator Durbin, magazines of up
    to 19 are common on semiautomatic handguns and up to 30 on
    rifles.
        Senator Graham. Okay. I will end with this, Mr. Chairman. I
    do not know if 10 versus 19 is common or uncommon. I do know
    that 10 versus 19 in the hands of the wrong person is a
    complete disaster. I do know that six bullets in the hands of a
    woman trying to defend her children may not be enough. So I do
    not look at it from some academic debate.
        Let us agree on one thing. One bullet in the hands of the
    wrong person we should all try to prevent. But when you start
    telling me that I am unreasonable for wanting that woman to
    have more than six bullets or to have an AR-15 if people are
    roaming around my neighborhood, I reject the concept.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Whitehouse. And then after Senator Whitehouse,
    Senator Lee. Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I have heard testimony in this hearing that
    the Federal gun crime prosecutions number 62 per year, and
    that, ``We do not prosecute any.'' And I was surprised to hear
    that testimony because I was a United States Attorney. And in
    the time that I was United States Attorney, it became an
    absolute priority of the Department of Justice to prosecute
    firearms.
        So I went to every police department in my State to talk up
    what we could do with gun criminals. We set up a special
    procedure where the Attorney General's office, which has
    criminal jurisdiction in Rhode Island, and our office viewed
    gun crimes together to make sure they were sent to the place
    where they could get the most effective treatment. And I
    believe that that continues, although I am no longer a U.S.
    Attorney.
        So I pulled up some quick statistics, and according to the
    Executive Office at United States Attorneys, in 2012 more than
    11,700 defendants were charged with Federal gun crimes, which
    is a lot more than not doing it and a lot more than 62. And the
    numbers are up at the Department of Justice since 2000 and 2001
    by more than 3,000 prosecutions.
        So we may have a debate about whether more should be done
    and who at the witness table actually wants more to be done in
    the way of gun prosecutions, but I think to pretend that the
    number is in double digits or that the number is zero is
    flagrantly wrong and I think inconsistent with the type of
    testimony that Senators should rely on in a situation like
    this.
        I would also add that there has been repeated testimony,
    also mentioned by Senator Durbin, that criminals will not
    subject themselves to a background check. And my response to
    that is that is exactly the point. Criminals will not subject
    themselves to a background check so they do not go into the gun
    shops; and if they do, they get prevented from buying a gun. So
    instead they go to illegal means. They go primarily to the main
    way we distribute guns without a background check, which is to
    the gun shows.
        And so I think to the extent we can expand the background
    check, the very fact that the criminals will not subject
    themselves to a background check provides the kind of
    prevention that Senator Graham was talking about, to keep the
    guns out of the hands of criminals in the very first case.
        Chief Johnson, tell me a little bit about the men and women
    with whom you serve in law enforcement and the type of training
    and screening that is important both in gun use, in gun safety,
    in situational awareness, before they are put in a position
    where they are expected to defend the public with firearms? Is
    that something you just give somebody a gun and say get in
    there and go defend the community? Or how rigorous and how
    cautious are you about the training required?
        Chief Johnson. The process starts well before we even offer
    you a badge. And it is a very robust, in-depth, psychological
    review of whether or not we are even going to allow you to
    enter the force itself. All departments are universal in this
    issue. It includes psychological, polygraph, and other means to
    determine whether or not you have the fiber to have that
    awesome responsibility to carry a gun. The training is
    exhaustive--weeks and weeks of training on how to use the
    weapon, and tactically how to deal with it, how to care for it,
    and how to safeguard that weapon.
        But it does not stop there. Once you are out in the field,
    a very robust psychological services section, yearly training,
    and other safety equipment that must be carried. This talk
    about teachers having guns----
        Senator Whitehouse. That is actually where I was going to
    go. But before we get to teachers, to your knowledge, does the
    military have similar types of concerns and programs with
    respect to arming men and women who serve in our armed forces?
        Chief Johnson. It is my understanding, talking with my
    associates in the military, that public policing mirrors much
    of what the military does.
        Senator Whitehouse. So against that background, tell me how
    much sense you think it makes to have our line of defense be
    armed teachers.
        Chief Johnson. Certainly when we have this discussion, you
    have to--does a teacher have the inner fiber to carry that
    weapon, the awesome responsibility? You are a teacher in a
    classroom. You are an educator. You dedicated your entire life
    to that pursuit, but you have got a sidearm strapped to
    yourself? And you had better have it all the time, because if
    you put it in your desk drawer, your purse, or your briefcase--
    and where you going to leave it?
        Let me tell you something. Carrying this weapon on my side
    has been a pain all these years. I am glad I have it if I need
    it, but let me tell you, it is an awesome responsibility. And
    what do you do in the summertime when you dress down? How are
    you going to safeguard that weapon from a classroom full of 16-
    year-old boys that want to touch it? How are you going to do
    that?
        And certainly, the holsters, I am spending $200 apiece just
    for the holsters so you cannot rip it from my side.
        So these are all the factors that in a robust,
    psychological service section we all face catastrophic changes
    in our lives as we go through divorce and other things that
    bring us down. But you need people to step in, like we have in
    policing, that notice those things and deal with them. This is
    a major issue.
        Senator Whitehouse. We have had cases, including a case in
    Rhode Island, in which trained police officers who were off
    duty responded to a situation, and because they had not been
    adequately trained in how to respond off duty and because they
    were out of uniform, it led to tragic blue-on-blue events.
        Presumably that would have some bearing on armed police
    officers responding to an event in which a lot of armed and
    untrained teachers are trying to defend students in a school.
        Chief Johnson. Well, that is a very important point. Two
    years ago in Baltimore City, an on-duty officer in plainclothes
    was shot by uniformed on-duty personnel, and they worked the
    same shift. It is just in the darkness of the night they could
    not tell. And as Captain Kelly has pointed out, that is a major
    issue in the Tucson shooting.
        Senator Whitehouse. And, Ms. Trotter, a quick question.
    Sarah McKinley, in defending her home, used a Remington 870
    Express 12-gauge shotgun that would not be banned under this
    statute, correct? Under the proposed statute?
        Ms. Trotter. I do not remember what type of weapon she
    used.
        Senator Whitehouse. Well, trust me, that is what it was.
    And it would not be banned under the statute. So it does not--I
    think it proves the point that with ordinary firearms, not 100-
    magazine, peculiar types of artifacts, people are quite capable
    of defending themselves. In fact, that was your example.
        Ms. Trotter. I respectfully disagree. I understand that you
    are also a graduate of the University of Virginia School of
    Law, and you were close to Monticello where Thomas Jefferson
    penned our Declaration of Independence and close to Montpelier
    where James Madison was instrumental in drafting the Bill of
    Rights. And I think you can understand that, as a woman, I
    think it is very important not to place undue burdens on our
    Second Amendment right to choose to defend ourselves.
        Senator Whitehouse. Oh, I have no objection----
        Ms. Trotter. I do not know what weapon she used----
        Senator Whitehouse [continuing]. To that point. My point is
    that the example you used is one that would not bear in
    argument against the proposal that is before us, because that
    Remington 870 Express is a weapon that would be perfectly
    allowed.
        Ms. Trotter. So would it have been unreasonable for her to
    use a different gun to protect her child?
        Senator Whitehouse. I think that if she was using a 100
    weapon--let me put it another way. She would clearly have an
    adequate ability to protect her family----
        Ms. Trotter. How can you say that?
        Senator Whitehouse [continuing]. Without the need for a
    100-round piece of weaponry.
        Ms. Trotter. How can you say that? You are a large man, and
    you are not a teenage----
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Trotter. Tall. A tall man. You are not a young mother
    who has a young child with her. And I am passionate about this
    position. Because you cannot understand. You are not a woman
    stuck in her house having to defend her children, not able to
    leave her child, not able to go seek safety, on the phone with
    911. And she cannot get the police there fast enough to protect
    her child.
        Senator Whitehouse. And my point simply----
        Ms. Trotter. And she is not used to being in a firefight.
        Senator Whitehouse. And my point simply is that she did it
    adequately and successfully with lawful firearms and without
    the kind of firepower that was brought to bear so that the
    12th, 13th, 14th shots could be fired by the man who shot Gabby
    Giffords----
        Chairman Leahy. I am going to have to--and I will let you
    go back. There is another round.
        There are a number of things I could say as a gun owner,
    but I will pass up on the opportunity and go to Senator Lee.
        Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to
    thank each of the distinguished members of our panel today for
    enduring now over 2 hours of this hearing. As a more junior
    Member of the Committee who sometimes gets to ask questions
    last or second to last, I am especially appreciative of your
    willingness to stay this long.
        I think every one of us, both here in this room and
    everyone watching on television, has been horrified by the
    incidents that occurred in Newtown, in Tucson, and elsewhere.
    And I do not think there is one of us that would not like us to
    find a way as a society to put an end to events like this.
        It would be my preference if we could find a way to put an
    end to events like this, without doing violence to the
    Constitution and also without leaving law-abiding citizens more
    vulnerable to crime.
        There are a number of statistics on this, but one statistic
    I have read has indicated that about 2.5 million times a year
    in America, a gun is used to protect its owner, its possessor,
    from a crime. That is quite significant, and that is a fact
    that we need to take into account.
        There has been a lot of reference today to the fact that
    the protections of the Constitution--the protections of the
    Second Amendment right to bear arms--are not unlimited. And I
    agree that they are not unlimited. There are limits. I think it
    is important for us from time to time to focus on what those
    limits are.
        The Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller held
    that the guns that are within the zone of protection of the
    Second Amendment are those that are typically possessed by law-
    abiding citizens for lawful purposes.
        Why don't we start with you, Professor Kopel. Can you tell
    me, is a gun, a semiautomatic weapon, whether a rifle or a
    handgun, that holds more than 10 rounds in its ammunition
    magazine one that could fairly be characterized as one that is
    typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful
    purposes?
        Professor Kopel. In handguns, semiautomatics are 81 percent
    of new handguns sold. A very large percentage of those have as
    standard, not as high capacity but as standard factory
    magazines, magazines between 11 and 19 rounds.
        Another thing that is very common, to get back to Senator
    Whitehouse's issue about the Remington 11-87 shotgun, is
    Senator Feinstein's bill would outlaw that shotgun if it has a
    seven-round magazine on it. It comes with a five-round
    magazine. You can extend it by two or more rounds. And the
    Feinstein bill would outlaw that very standard home defense
    shotgun if it simply has a seven-round magazine.
        So it is all fine to talk about novelty items on the
    fringe, like a 100-round drum, but in practice what is at
    threat of being outlawed that people are actually using is
    their standard-capacity handgun magazines and standard-capacity
    magazines for rifles and shotguns.
        Senator Lee. And what are the law-abiding citizens doing
    with these? In other words, what are the lawful purposes to
    which law-abiding citizens are putting these guns, who own
    them?
        Professor Kopel. Self-defense, target shooting--all the
    purposes which are lawful to possess a firearm. And I would--
    regarding what the chief was talking about, about all this
    extra training that police officers have, well, since I have
    represented the two leading police training organizations in
    the U.S. Supreme Court, I would certainly agree that the police
    have more training for all kinds of reasons, including they
    have the power to effectuate arrests, which ordinary citizens
    do not.
        But the training, in the view of the police training
    organizations, the International Law Enforcement Educators and
    Trainers Association, the International Association of Law
    Enforcement Firearms Instructors, they believe that the
    training that is required in most States to obtain a permit to
    carry a handgun for lawful protection of self--only nine States
    currently violate that by not letting trained citizens carry--
    that that is appropriate, sufficient for people to be able to
    protect themselves, not necessarily to go out and do arrests
    but to defend themselves. And that includes defending
    themselves in their place of employment, including if that
    place of employment happens to be a school.
        Senator Lee. One of the arguments that I have frequently
    heard for making this type of weapon illegal or making any
    weapon illegal if you are using an ammunition magazine
    containing more than 10 rounds is that weapons like these are
    available on a widespread basis; that it is relatively easy to
    buy them in the sense that, you know, most people may lawfully
    buy them and own them. And that is used as an argument in favor
    of restricting access to these weapons.
        In your opinion, does that make it more or less
    constitutionally permissible to restrict their sale?
        Professor Kopel. Well, I think you have hit exactly what
    District of Columbia v. Heller was all about, which, you know,
    you talk about how often are 100-round drum magazines used in
    crimes. Pretty rarely. How often are they used in self-defense?
    Pretty rarely, too.
        Handguns are used--70 percent of gun homicides in this
    country are perpetrated with handguns. And the Supreme Court
    said the fact that these are very frequently used in crimes
    does not mean that under the Constitution you can prohibit
    them.
        So the fact that you can point to any particular crime
    where a gun was misused and say, oh, that proves we have to ban
    this gun or this accessory, is the opposite of what the Supreme
    Court is saying. The Supreme Court is saying you do not look
    only at the misuse of an arm or an accessory, you look at its
    lawful use. Does it have common, lawful use?
        Yes, handguns have common, lawful use. Yes, handgun
    magazines in the standard size of 11 to 19 rounds have common,
    lawful use. And yes, the AR-15 rifle, the most popular, best-
    selling rifle in this country for years, has pervasive lawful
    use.
        Senator Lee. So if we restrict access to these guns, we are
    limiting the ability of individual Americans, law-abiding
    Americans, to use them for lawful purposes?
        Professor Kopel. Yes, and the teaching of Heller is the
    fact that criminals may misuse something does not in itself
    constitute sufficient reason to prohibit law-abiding citizens
    from using a commonly used firearm.
        Senator Lee. Ms. Trotter, do most of the gun-owning women
    that you know have an inclination to abide by the law in
    connection with their gun ownership?
        Ms. Trotter. Yes, definitely.
        Senator Lee. If we were to ban all weapons that contained
    an ammunition magazine capable of accommodating more than 10
    rounds, would most female gun owners that you know abide by
    that law?
        Ms. Trotter. Of course.
        Senator Lee. What about criminals? What about people who
    use weapons like these in connection with crimes? Do you think
    they are as likely to abide by that law?
        Ms. Trotter. By definition, criminals are not abiding by
    the law.
        Senator Lee. Where does that then put women like those that
    you described, women like those that you represent, what kind
    of position does this put them in relative to their current
    position as their ability to defend themselves?
        Ms. Trotter. It disarms the women. It puts them at a severe
    disadvantage, and it not only affects them, but it affects
    anybody that they are responsible for--their children, elderly
    relatives, incapacitated family members.
        Senator Lee. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired.
    I have one question for Mr. Johnson, if I could have--Mr.
    Johnson, according to FBI statistics, about 72 percent of the
    gun homicides that are committed each year in America are
    committed with handguns--4 percent with rifles, 4 percent with
    shotguns, 1 percent with other types of firearms, and then 18
    percent that fit into the category of unknown, but 72 percent
    classified as handguns.
        If 72 percent of the gun homicides are being committed with
    handguns, would that suggest that you would prefer banning
    handguns as well?
        Chief Johnson. Our partnership and, frankly, I have been
    party to no discussion of banning handguns or restricting
    handguns from women or any other group. I do not want to give
    up my handguns. We are here today to talk about a universal
    background check that would help make our Nation safer and
    limit high-capacity magazines that are used in crimes and
    violence across America.
        Senator Lee. Even though far more people die each year from
    handgun-inflicted injuries than from assault rifle-inflicted
    injuries?
        Chief Johnson. We believe the limit on high-capacity
    magazines even for handguns is necessary. No more than 10.
        Senator Lee. Thank you.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
        Senator Klobuchar.
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you. I first wanted to just acknowledge all of the
    families out here who have lost loved ones in shootings. And I
    especially wanted to acknowledge Maya Rahamim, who is here from
    Minnesota, who lost her dad, Reuven, in a horrible shooting at
    the company that he built and loved, a small business in which
    he was killed--along with four other employees and a UPS guy
    who just happened to be there--by a coworker who was mentally
    unstable. And this just happened this fall. So thank you.
        I also was listening to all the statistics here, which are
    very important. I am a former prosecutor. I believe in
    evidence. But the statistic that I will never forget is the one
    from Newtown, Connecticut, shared with me by a relative of one
    of the young victims in that tragedy. And that is that little
    Charlotte Bacon loved her Girl Scout troop. And her Girl Scout
    troop once had 10 girls, and now there are only five left. So
    we have to remember what this is about as we look at solutions.
        For me, as a former prosecutor, I have always believed in
    enforcing the laws on the books. And, Mr. LaPierre, I made it a
    major, major focus of our office to prosecute the felon in
    possession of guns. I think that is clearly part of the
    solution. You cannot lessen the importance of that as we go
    forward.
        But there are other things as well, including the
    recommendations that have been made by Vice President Biden and
    that task force. And I think it is very important that we
    explore those in addition to enforcing the laws on the books.
        I have heard from my sheriffs--Republican sheriffs from all
    over my State--that there are major issues with background
    checks. And so I think I would turn to that first, Chief
    Johnson. We had a guy in Minnesota--this just came out in our
    paper, the Minneapolis paper--who had killed his parents as a
    juvenile, got out, somehow got a permit, and was able to obtain
    guns.
        In fact, when they found him, he had 13 guns in his house.
    And he had a note that he had written to the gunman in Newtown.
    And he also said in the note, ``I am so homicide, I think about
    killing all the time.'' And he was somehow able to get a permit
    and get those guns. This just came out in our local paper. And
    I wondered what you see as some of the biggest loopholes--we
    have talked about gun shows, Internet, private sales--and how
    you think that could help.
        And then I want to get to the thing you talked about, about
    how you can get those background checks done quickly, because I
    come from a hunting State. The last thing I want to do is hurt
    my Uncle Dick in his deer stand. And I want to make sure that
    what we do works. And so if you could address that?
        Chief Johnson. There has been great improvement in the
    Nation. Some statistics show nearly an 800-percent increase in
    data entered into the National Instant Criminal Background
    Check System. That is good. But it is not good enough, and we
    are really failing miserably, nationally, entering that data.
        Statistics I have read indicate that nearly 18 States
    across the Nation submit less than 100 records to the NICS
    system on a regular basis. We have to improve that. Maryland
    has to improve that, in fact. We are not doing enough in
    Maryland.
        Senator Klobuchar. And is it true that about 40 percent of
    gun sales take place at the gun shows?
        Chief Johnson. Statistics reveal that 40 percent of gun
    sales take place at gun shows and other non-licensed dealer
    sales arrangements, nearly 6.6 million guns through that
    process a year.
        Senator Klobuchar. And are more and more people now using
    the Internet to buy guns, as we see in other areas?
        Chief Johnson. I sat with my detectives in the gun squad
    for weeks before I had a chance to come--the honor to come here
    today, and they regularly used Internet, PennySaver classified
    ads. They will go outside the State in many cases. A variety of
    methods are used, including straw purchasers.
        Senator Klobuchar. And you talked a little bit earlier
    about how quickly these background checks can get done. You
    compared it to issuing a ticket. If you could answer that.
        Chief Johnson. The analysis that we have conducted, the
    information I have, I believe it is 92 percent of NICS
    background checks come back in less than a minute and half when
    you go to a licensed Federal dealer. And, certainly, that is
    much quicker than I can write a citation. And I think that
    should be universal. That is what we are calling for. That is
    what is going to make our Nation safer.
        Senator Klobuchar. Mr. LaPierre, do you want to respond
    about the timing on the checks?
        Mr. LaPierre. Sure, I will respond, yes, Senator, to a
    couple points.
        One, the chief is talking about using the Internet to do
    interstate sales. That is a Federal crime and should be
    prosecuted. The only way you can do a sale is to go through a
    dealer, and it has to be cleared through a background check.
        The Senator from Rhode Island talked about the prosecution
    data. I get all that from the Syracuse University TRAC data,
    which is who tracks the initial--the prosecution of the Federal
    gun laws where that is the initial charge.
        And why Project Exile worked in Richmond, Virginia, is what
    they started to do is they caught a drug dealer with a gun.
    They put signs up all over the city saying, ``If you have an
    illegal gun in Richmond, under Federal law you are going to be
    prosecuted 100 percent of the time.'' Drug dealers, gangs, and
    felons stopped carrying guns.
        So the 62 statistic, Senator, was for lying on the
    background check, not total prosecutions for the entire
    country.
        Senator Klobuchar. Mr. LaPierre, if you could--and I know
    you want to discuss this with Senator Whitehouse, but I have my
    question about the timing. Do you agree with the chief here
    that we could do this quickly? And all we are trying to do here
    is close some of these loopholes so we expand some of the
    background checks, but that it still could be done in a way
    that will not interfere with law-abiding gun owners.
        Mr. LaPierre. Well, gun shows right now, according to all
    the surveys, are not a source of crime guns, anyway. It is 1.7
    percent. Where criminals are getting guns is the black market,
    they are stealing them. They are not getting them through gun
    shows.
        But if you are talking about expanding a system that is
    already overloaded, where they are not doing any prosecutions,
    basically, even if they catch somebody--they are saying it is
    like Bonnie and Clyde. They catch Clyde, and he goes home and
    says, ``Bonnie, they did not do anything to me, so let us go
    get a gun and commit our crime.''
        I mean, if you are talking about expanding that system to
    every hunter, to every family member, every relative all over
    the United States, when the system already cannot handle what
    it has, you are creating an enormous Federal bureaucracy. It is
    only going to hit law-abiding people, not criminals.
        Honest people are going to be entrapped into committing
    crimes they had no intention to commit. It is an unworkable,
    universal nightmare bureaucracy being imposed under the Federal
    Government.
        I just do not think that law-abiding people want every gun
    sale in the country to be under the thumb of the Federal
    Government.
        Senator Klobuchar. But it is my understanding that when
    people buy guns, they do undergo a background check. We know
    that and we are just simply trying to close some of these
    loopholes.
        Chief, do you want to respond to this?
        Chief Johnson. Well, certainly when a weapon is purchased
    through a licensed Federal dealer, they undergo a background
    check. But as we have said many times here today, 40 percent of
    these guns are being sold outside that process. This is not
    unreasonable. And certainly I do not consider it a restriction.
    If I buy a gun next year, you know, through a private seller, I
    will go to a licensed dealer to do it. This is not
    unreasonable.
        Senator Klobuchar. And, Captain Kelly, I think you really
    said it best at the very beginning of this lengthy hearing when
    you talked about your belief in the Second Amendment and in
    those rights, but with those rights comes responsibility. And
    you talked about the responsibility to make sure that these
    guns do not get into the hands of criminals and terrorists and
    those with mental illness. And do you see this, the background
    check, as a way of helping to get at this problem?
        Captain Kelly. Gabby and I are both responsible gun owners.
    I bought a hunting rifle from Walmart a few months ago, and I
    went through a background check. It did not take very long.
    And, you know, they were able to very clearly determine that,
    you know, I was a responsible person.
        You know, in Tucson and in many of these cases, there are
    people that either would have failed a background check if the
    right data was in the system, like in the case of Jared
    Loughner, and certainly in that case he would have had the
    option to go to a gun show or a private seller, and I imagine
    he would have gotten a weapon. You know, he was a pretty
    marginalized person. I would imagine--and quite mentally ill
    and did not have much of a community around him. I imagine in
    that case, if he would have not been able to get--not pass a
    background check, and--if there was a universal background
    check. I actually do not see him going on the black market to
    get a gun. And maybe if he did, maybe it would have taken him a
    long time to do that, to find the right place to go. And maybe
    in that period of time, just maybe, his parents would have
    gotten him some treatment, got him on medication. And if they
    did, from what his attorney and the prosecutors have told me,
    on medication he would have never done what he did on that day.
    I mean, so you might not be able to prevent every single
    criminal from getting a weapon, but a universal background
    check is a common-sense thing to do. I mean, if we do them for
    Federal licensed dealers, why cannot we just do it at the gun
    show and for a private sale?
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much. And I was thinking,
    as I listened to you, about all the people in this room that
    have thought those maybes too. Maybe if this had been in place,
    maybe if that had been in place. And I think your
    acknowledgment that it is not one solution for every person,
    for every case, that we have to enforce the laws, but we have
    to do better with background checks, and with the number of the
    proposals recommended out there by Vice President Biden's
    commission, that we can do better.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
        I want to welcome one of our three new Members to the
    Committee, Senator Cruz of Texas. Senator Cruz, you have the
    floor. I apologize that the allergies are causing my voice to
    be so bad.
        Senator Cruz. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is a
    pleasure to serve with you and all the Members of this
    Committee.
        I want to begin by thanking each of the distinguished
    witnesses who have come here today. Thank you for taking your
    time. In particular, I want to thank you, Captain Kelly, for
    your service to this country and for your wife's extraordinary
    journey, for her coming here. Congresswoman Giffords has been
    lifted up in prayer by millions of Americans, and her heroic
    recovery is inspirational. And please know that you and your
    family will continue in our prayers in the years to come.
        My wife and I have two little girls. They are 4 and 2. I
    think no parent, and in particular no parent of young children,
    could watch what happened in Newtown without being utterly
    horrified--utterly horrified at the depravity of a deranged
    criminal who would senselessly murder 20 young children at an
    elementary school.
        Unfortunately, in Washington, emotion I think often leads
    to bad policies. When a tragedy occurs, often this body rushes
    to act. And at times it seems the considerations of this body
    operate in a fact-free zone. I will suggest a philosophy that I
    think should guide this body in assessing gun violence, and
    then I would like to highlight and ask a few questions on a
    couple of points that I think are particularly salient to
    addressing this issue.
        The philosophy I would suggest makes sense is that we
    should be vigorous and unrelenting in working to prevent, to
    deter, and to punish violent criminals. I have spent a
    substantial portion of my professional life working in law
    enforcement, and the tragedies that are inflicted on innocent
    Americans every day by criminals are heartbreaking, and we need
    to do more to prevent them.
        At the same time, I think we should remain vigilant in
    protecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.
    And I think far too often the approaches that have been
    suggested by this Congress to the issue of gun violence
    restrict the liberties of law-abiding citizens rather than
    targeting the violent criminals that we should be targeting.
        And I would point out that I hope some of the passion we
    have seen from Members of this Committee with respect to the
    need to prevent violent crime will be reflected equally should
    we find ourselves in a judicial confirmation hearing with a
    judicial nominee who has a record of abusing the exclusionary
    rule to exclude evidence that results in a violent criminal
    walking free and being able to commit yet another crime. I hope
    we see exactly the same passion devoted to assessing whether
    judicial nominees will enforce our criminal laws and not
    frustrate the administration of justice.
        Three points I think are particularly salient. The first
    is, in my judgment, the proposed assault weapons ban is a
    singularly ineffective piece of legislation.
        I was having a conversation recently with a loved one in my
    family who asked a very reasonable question. She said, ``Why do
    regular people need machine guns?'' And, you know, one of the
    things that happens in this debate is the phrase ``assault
    weapons ban'' gets a lot of people really concerned, and they
    assume, much like the phrase ``military-style weapons,'' that
    we are talking about ordinary citizens running around with M-
    16s and Uzis that are fully automatic.
        Fully automatic machine guns are already functionally
    illegal. Ordinary citizens cannot own them absent very, very
    heavy regulation. This entire discussion does not concern
    machine guns, and yet I would venture to say a large percentage
    of Americans do not understand that.
        I want to begin by talking about the assault weapons ban as
    it was enforced before, and I would ask for slide number 1.
        The assault weapons ban that used to be in effect,
    according to the Department of Justice, ``failed to reduce the
    average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple
    gunshot wound victims.''
        Now, that is the assessment of the United States Department
    of Justice, and that is in 1994. That was the Janet Reno
    Department of Justice under President Clinton that said the
    assault weapons ban was singularly ineffective.
        If we could move to the second slide?
        The Department of Justice likewise concluded that the
    assault weapons ban, ``under it there has been no discernible
    reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.''
        So the reaction to this tragedy in Newtown is for a lot of
    elected officials in Washington to rush to re-enact a law that,
    according to the Department of Justice, did absolutely nothing
    to reduce gun violence.
        Now, why is that? That is not accidental. Because the
    assault weapons ban, if it does not ban machine guns, what does
    it ban? And what it bans, I would suggest to you, are scary-
    looking guns.
        If we could move to slide 3.
        This is a photograph of a Remington 750. It is one of the
    most popular hunting rifles in America. This rifle would be
    entirely legal under this so-called assault weapons ban.
        Now, I have a question for you, Mr. LaPierre. Functionally,
    in terms of the operation of this firearm--this is a
    semiautomatic firearm. You pull the trigger once, one bullet
    comes out. Is the operational firing mechanism in this firearm
    materially different from the so-called assault weapons ban
    that this bill is targeted at?
        Mr. LaPierre. No, it is not.
        Senator Cruz. Now, what the assault weapons ban instead
    targets are cosmetic features. So, for example, I am holding in
    my hand a pistol grip. Under this proposed legislation, if this
    piece of plastic, this pistol grip, were attached to this
    rifle, it would suddenly become a banned assault weapon.
        Now, I would ask you, Mr. LaPierre, are you aware of any
    evidence to suggest that attaching a piece of plastic to this
    rifle would make it in any way whatsoever even slightly more
    dangerous?
        Mr. LaPierre. No, the problem with the bill that Senator
    Feinstein introduced is it is based on falsehoods directed at
    people who do not understand firearms, to convince them that
    the performance characteristics of guns they are trying to ban
    through that bill are different than the performance
    characteristics they are not trying to ban. ``They make bigger
    holes.'' ``They are rapid-fire.'' ``They spray bullets.''
    ``They are more powerful.'' ``They penetrate heavy armor.''
        All of that is simply not true. I mean, the AR-15 uses a
    .223, and then I hear in the media that no deer hunter would
    use something that powerful. I mean, .243s, .270s, 25.06,
    30.06, .308s--dozens of other calibers used in hunting are more
    powerful.
        Senator Cruz. So let me make sure I understand that right.
    This deer rifle, which is entirely legal and is used by
    millions of Americans, is sold in the identical caliber as the
    so-called assault weapons ban, although those look scarier
    because they have a piece of plastic attached to them.
        Mr. LaPierre. And the Ruger Mini-14, which Senator
    Feinstein exempts in her bill, uses .223. The AR-15, which has
    the handle on the bottom, which she prohibits, uses the same.
        Senator Cruz. I am out of time. I want to make one final
    point, if I may, which is there has been much attention drawn
    to gun shows, and indeed the statistic of 40 percent has been
    bandied about. Now, that statistic is unfortunately based on a
    study that occurred before the background check went into
    effect, and so it is a highly dubious figure.
        But I do want to point to what the Department of Justice
    has said, which is in slide 5. The Department of Justice has
    said that firearms used in crimes, 1.9 percent of those
    firearms come from gun shows. So, again, in response to this
    crime, this body does not act to enact anti-crime legislation
    to prevent violent crimes. Instead it targets 1.9 percent of
    the guns, and a substantial portion of those guns were sold by
    licensed firearms dealers who already conducted a background
    check. So even that 1.9 percent, a substantial portion are
    already subject to a background check.
        I would ask, Mr. Chairman, if we have a second round, I
    would like to additionally get into the effectiveness, or lack
    thereof, of gun controls.
        Chairman Leahy. I am going to leave the record open for
    questions. I think, because of the Senate's schedule this
    afternoon, we probably will not have a second round. But I will
    leave the record open so the Senator can submit additional
    questions. I have further questions as well, so I will not have
    time to speak either and will submit my questions.
        Senator Franken.
        Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all
    the witnesses, especially you, Captain Kelly, and thanks to
    your beautiful wife--and I mean beautiful in every way.
        My wife, Frannie, and I were heartbroken for the families
    in Sandy Hook. We were heartbroken for the families in Tucson.
    For those of you who are listening or watching this hearing in
    Newtown, I want you to know that Minnesotans have you in our
    thoughts and our prayers and that we have shared in your grief.
    We shared it when we lost lives at a sign factory--Maya is
    here. She lost her father. This was in Minneapolis in
    September.
        We share it every time we hear gunshots and ambulance
    sirens interrupting an otherwise quiet school night. We share
    it every time we bury one of our sons or daughters.
        I know that a group of students from Red Lake Reservation
    in Minnesota, students who lost their classmates to gun
    violence, made the 1,500-mile drive to Newtown a few days
    before Christmas just to let the people in Newtown know that
    they are not alone, we are all in this together.
        Over the past month or so, I have been talking to my
    constituents about their ideas on how to make our communities
    safer. I travel the State to meet with hunters and school
    officials, with law enforcement officers, with mental health
    experts. I have convened roundtable discussions, and I have had
    many, many conversations. And what I have learned is that there
    is a balance to be struck here. We can honor the Second
    Amendment, and we can honor Minnesota's culture of responsible
    gun ownership while taking basic measures that will make our
    kids and our communities safer.
        So I have cosponsored a bill to limit the number of rounds
    in a magazine. I have cosponsored a bill to require background
    checks at gun shows. I have cosponsored Senator Feinstein's
    bill to ban assault weapons. I am reviewing legislation to
    address gun trafficking. I have supported funding for law
    enforcement programs, and I work every day to carry out the
    work Paul Wellstone--his unfinished work to improve our
    Nation's mental health system.
        Tomorrow I will introduce the Mental Health in Schools Act
    which will improve access to mental health care for kids
    because catching these issues at an early age is really
    important. And I want to be careful here that we do not
    stigmatize mental illness.
        The vast majority of people with mental illness are no more
    violent than the rest of the population. In fact, they are more
    likely to be the victims of violence. But these recent events
    have caused us as a Nation to scrutinize our failed mental
    health and system, and I am glad we are talking about this
    issue in a serious way.
        Police Chief Johnson, I met with some mothers from the
    Mountain View School District in Minnesota whose children's
    lives and their own lives were changed for the better because
    their kids got access to mental health care that they needed at
    an early age. And they got treatment, and their lives were
    improved, and their moms' lives were improved.
        As a community leader and a law enforcement official, do
    you think it will benefit our communities if we are able to use
    schools to improve access to mental health care?
        Chief Johnson. I applaud your initiatives and your work,
    Senator, and the answer is absolutely. As a father with a child
    that has mental health issues, I think this is absolutely
    essential. And my child has access to medical care that she
    needs, but the record shows and reflects that nearly half of
    children and adults in this Nation who are diagnosed with
    mental health issues do not have access to the care they need,
    and it gets even worse after the age of 18. And we are seeing
    this in crimes of violence, and we are seeing this in crimes
    all across our Nation and in my jurisdiction. It is a major
    problem. And I do recognize that most people with mental health
    issues do not go on to commit violent crimes. However, we have
    seen over and over again it seems to be a common thread or
    theme or issue that we must deal with.
        Senator Franken. Again, Police Chief Johnson, I have heard
    from some gun owners who are worried that Congress is going to
    outlaw features that they really like in guns, things like
    pistol grips and barrel shrouds and threaded barrels. Some say
    that these features are merely cosmetic, but it seems to me
    that a lot of these features are not just cosmetic, they are
    functional.
        Can you explain why a pistol grip in the right place makes
    a functional difference, why it is not just a piece of plastic,
    why collapsible stocks present a danger, why bullet buttons and
    some of the other features are dangerous? I think this is a
    crucial point.
        Chief Johnson. I agree completely. It is not just about the
    capacity of the weapon to handle numerous rounds, which
    obviously is absolutely critical in this discussion. And,
    again, we believe no more than 10.
        We use that weapon in policing because of its tactical
    capability, its ability to cool down and handle round after
    round after round; its ability--it is rugged, it is ruggedized,
    it is meant for a combat or environment that one would be
    placed in facing adversaries, human beings, people. That weapon
    can be retrofitted with other devices to enhance your offensive
    capability.
        The weapon itself has features to adjust it, optics sights,
    for example, that can cost hundreds of dollars--and I have shot
    this weapon many times--that would enhance your capability in
    various tactical maneuvers, whether it is from the shoulder or
    the hip, whether you choose to spray fire that weapon or
    individually shoot from the shoulder. The optic sights are
    amazing, the technology advances that weapon has.
        That weapon is the weapon of our time. It is the place that
    we find ourselves in today. And, certainly, I believe it is
    meant for the battlefield and a public safety environment only.
        Senator Franken. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, before I yield my time, I just would like to
    submit the testimony of Miya Rahamim, who is here today. She
    lost her father in a shooting in September in Minneapolis. And
    I would just like unanimous consent to submit her testimony for
    the record.
        Chairman Leahy. It will be. As Senator Grassley and I both
    indicated earlier, there will be other statements for the
    record, as the record will be kept open for questions.
        [The prepared statement of Miya Rahamim appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Leahy. As I also indicated earlier, Senator Hatch,
    a very senior Member of this Committee, had to be at two
    different committees. And I yield now to his time, and then we
    will go to the next Republican. After we go back, it will be,
    of course, Senator Flake.
        Senator Hatch.
        Senator Hatch. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I
    thank all of you for being here today.
        Captain Kelly, I appreciate you and your wife and your
    testimony and your feelings very much. And I appreciated much
    of your testimony, and I am grateful that you would take the
    time to be with us, and it was wonderful to see your wife
    again.
        Let me go to you, Mr. LaPierre. President Obama has issued
    23 Executive actions on gun violence. Can you please discuss
    the commonalities between your organization, the NRA, and the
    Obama administration when it comes to finding ways to reduce
    gun violence?
        Mr. LaPierre. Well, I mean, what we think works--and we
    support what works--is what NRA has done historically. I have
    talked about our Eddie Eagle child safety program, which we put
    more money into than anybody in the country, that has cut
    accidents to the lowest level ever.
        We support enforcing the Federal gun laws on the books 100
    percent of the time against drug dealers with guns, gangs with
    guns, felons with guns. That works.
        We have supported prison building. You have States like
    California where they--I think more than any other State in the
    country they send more inmates back to the street and have to
    put more back in jail for new crimes committed against their
    citizens than any other State in the Nation. New York State is,
    too. I mean, the collapse of the fiscal situation in those
    States has also collapsed the criminal justice system in those
    States.
        I mean, NRA has always supported what works. We have 11,000
    police instructors, and we represent honest people all over
    this country.
        There are 25,000 violent crimes a week in this country. The
    innocent are being preyed upon. The statistics are numbing.
    Those 911 calls are horrible.
        But at the scene of the crime, it is the criminal and the
    victim, and victims all over the country want to be able to
    protect themselves.
        I mean, you know, this whole debate almost puts it into two
    different categories. If you are in the elite, you get
    bodyguards, you get--right here you get high-cap mags with
    semiautomatics protecting this whole Capitol. The titans of
    industry get the bodyguards whenever they want. Criminals do
    not obey the law anyway; they get what they want. And in the
    middle is the hard-working, law-abiding, taxpaying American
    that we are going to make the least capable of defending
    themselves.
        We are going to say, you can have a bolt action rifle, but,
    boy, you cannot have an AR-15. Or you can have a six-shot
    revolver, but you cannot have a semiautomatic handgun. You can
    have four or five or six rounds in your magazine, but if three
    intruders are breaking down your door, you cannot have 15
    rounds because somebody thinks that is reasonable in their
    opinion. I mean, it----
        Senator Hatch. I understand.
        Mr. LaPierre. People want to be able to protect themselves.
    That is why people support the Second Amendment, and that is
    why these bills are so troubling. They do not hit the elites.
    They do not hit the criminal. They hit the average, hard-
    working, taxpaying American that gets stuck with all the laws
    and regulations.
        Senator Hatch. I understand that one of the bills will ban
    well over 2,000 guns. I mean, talking about individual guns.
        Mr. LaPierre. Senator Feinstein's bill bans all kinds of
    guns that are used for target shooting, hunting, personal
    protection. And yet, on the other hand, she exempts guns that
    have the exact same performance characteristics as the guns she
    does not ban. Gun owners know the truth. That is why gun owners
    in this country, the 100 million gun owners, get upset about
    this stuff. They may be the victim of these lies, about taking
    the military term ``assault'' and applying it to civilian
    firearms. But they know the truth inherently, and they shake
    their heads, and they go, ``None of this makes any sense.''
        Senator Hatch. Well, I appreciate that.
        Ms. Trotter, let me just ask you this: In your testimony
    you state that all women in jurisdictions that have concealed-
    carry laws reap the benefits of increased safety, even if they
    choose not to carry a weapon themselves. Can you please explain
    why?
        Ms. Trotter. Yes. Mr. LaPierre mentioned that gun owners
    are very concerned about all these burdens that could be
    possibly put on law-abiding citizens. And I will tell you that
    non-gun owners are concerned about this, too, because you do
    not have to choose to carry to be the beneficiary of laws that
    allow people to carry. And for women, you reap the benefit of
    fewer murders, fewer rapes, fewer possibilities of being a
    victim of violence if the State that you live in does not ban
    anybody, particularly women, from carrying weapons.
        So it is a matter of choice. We are not saying that all
    women should or need to carry weapons. But we need to protect
    the Second Amendment right to choose to defend yourself.
        Senator Hatch. Well, thank you.
        Mr. Kopel, Professor, you wrote an article that appeared in
    the Wall Street Journal on December 18, 2012. In the article,
    you point out that firearms are the most heavily regulated
    consumer product in the United States. Gun control laws are
    more prevalent now than in the mid-1960s when you could walk
    into any store and buy a semiautomatic weapon with no questions
    asked.
        Now, in your opinion, the lack of firearms regulations is
    not a contributing factor to the recent rise in the random mass
    shootings. So what factors have contributed to the rise in
    these random shootings? You may have answered this already, but
    I would like to hear it again if you have not.
        Professor Kopel. No, I have not.
        Senator Hatch. Okay.
        Professor Kopel. For one thing there is a copycat effect.
        Senator Hatch. Could you put your mic on?
        Professor Kopel. Certainly. There is a copycat effect, and
    lots of studies of scholars of these--of all kinds of
    criminals, but especially of these people seeking notoriety,
    show strong a copycat effect. And that is something that makes
    me think we need immediate protection for schools because of
    the copycat danger right now.
        In addition, there was a mass deinstitutionalization of the
    mentally ill starting in the 1960s and going through the 1980s.
    Some of that was because of budgetary issues, and a lot of the
    times the promise was, well, we will put these people in
    halfway houses so they can be partially in the community, which
    is a great idea. But then there was never the funding for the
    halfway houses, and if people walk away, nothing is done to
    followup. Jared Loughner, Adam Lanza, James Holmes--so many of
    these perpetrators absolutely would have been civilly committed
    under the system we had 50 years ago.
        We need to move back toward greater possibility for civil
    commitment for the dangerously, violently mentally ill. It is
    certainly right, as I think both Senators from Minnesota were
    saying, that mentally ill people per se are not any more
    dangerous or violent than anyone else. In fact, sometimes less
    so.
        But there is a subset of them that are dangerously,
    violently mentally ill, and we need to have them off the
    streets before they--so that they cannot endanger themselves or
    others.
        Senator Hatch. Well, thank you so much.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a statement put into the
    record following yours and Senator----
        Chairman Leahy. Without objection.
        Senator Hatch. Thank you so much.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Hatch appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Senator Hatch. I want to thank all of you for being here. I
    think it has been an enlightened hearing.
        And this is not a simple thing, and I have got to say there
    are some freedoms among the mentally ill that have to be
    considered, too. And this is complex. It is not--not easy.
        But I can say this, that I think this has been a
    particularly good panel, and I just appreciate all of you for
    testifying.
        Chairman Leahy. I thank you for that, Senator Hatch, and I
    will yield now to Senator Coons.
        Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Leahy, and thank you for
    convening this important hearing.
        To the panel, thank you for your testimony. And to Captain
    Kelly and to your wonderful wife, Congresswoman Giffords, thank
    you for everything you are doing to bring, I think, an
    important message.
        We as a Committee are wrestling here today and we as a
    country are wrestling with how to respond appropriately and
    effectively to a whole string of horrific shootings. Whether in
    Newtown or in Tucson, whether in a Sikh temple or at a state
    university like Virginia Tech, there are just too many of these
    incidents piled year upon year.
        And I am grateful for all my colleagues who have engaged in
    this thorough discussion today about how do we balance things.
        One of the most important things, I think, is for us to get
    our facts right. A number of my colleagues have made a great
    deal of the number of cases of Federal gun prosecutions going
    down.
        But my staff has pulled the most recent report from the
    Executive Office of the United States Attorneys, and it turns
    out that the number of defendants charged with Federal gun
    violations is actually steady. In fact, in 2011, it was 46
    percent higher than in 2000. So I just encourage all who are
    paying attention to scoring at home the numbers, what matters
    is the number of defendants actually prosecuted with Federal
    gun violations.
        I have got lots of things I would like to touch on, and I
    did want to say at the outset I am grateful that our Vice
    President, Joe Biden, has led, I think, a very broad and
    searching conversation where he has listened, as I have, to
    folks across the country and, in my case, across my State of
    Delaware. And I have heard from parents whose children suffer
    from mental illness and who are really struggling to provide
    the care that they deserve and need--law enforcement officials,
    educators, community leaders, gun owners, sportsmen, people who
    are really concerned about how we strike the right balance and
    how we make our country safer.
        If I could, to Captain Kelly, first, thank you for leading
    Americans for Responsible Solutions. One of the main ideas you
    and your wife have advanced is expanded background checks.
    Could you just explain for me again how it is today that
    convicted felons are able to get their hands on weapons despite
    our current background check laws and how we might fix that?
        Captain Kelly. Well, currently, certainly Senator Cruz
    mentioned earlier the statistic of--I think he said 1.9 percent
    of criminals that committed a crime with a gun----
        Senator Coons. Of prisoners.
        Captain Kelly. Of prisoners. Well, I want to just look at
    that for a second.
        There is also a statistic that says 80 percent--on a survey
    done of criminals, 80 percent of criminals got their guns from
    a private sale or a transfer.
        So by closing that part of the existing loophole, which is
    the fact that with a private sale or transfer, there is no
    requirement to get a background check, you could effectively
    reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals.
        And we know from what happened in Tucson that if there was
    an effective background check, which includes having the mental
    health data and the person's drug use, in the case of the
    Tucson shooter, into the system, and if, in fact, there was no
    gun show loophole, I would contend that he would have had a
    very difficult time getting a gun.
        So the first thing that needs to be done is we certainly
    need to have a universal background check. If background checks
    are good enough for somebody who is a Federal firearms licensed
    dealer, like Walmart, for instance, where I just purchased a
    gun a couple months ago, a hunting rifle, and I had to go
    through a background check, why is not that good for other
    sales, sales from a private individual or sales from somebody
    who is really kind of in business at a gun show?
        Senator Coons. Captain Kelly, if you would, as a gun owner
    yourself, how do you feel that thorough universal background
    checks of the types that you describe, either for purchase of
    weapons or large capacity magazines, how would that affect or
    infringe your Second Amendment rights?
        Captain Kelly. I do not think it would infringe my Second
    Amendment rights at all. You know, I am--I think I am as strong
    a supporter of the Second Amendment as anybody on this panel.
    You know, I have flown 38 combat missions over Iraq and Kuwait
    defending what I believe is our--defending our Constitution.
        You know, I have flown in combat. I have been shot at
    dozens of times. You know, I find it interesting that often we
    talk about putting a security guard in the school. That has
    been brought up a lot. And I actually think, you know, that is
    better than no security guard in the school. But from my
    experience of being shot at and what that actually feels like
    and how chaotic it is, and with the exception of Chief Johnson,
    I would suspect that not many members of this panel--or even in
    this room, for that matter--have been in any kind of a fire
    fight. It is chaos.
        I think there are really some very effective things we can
    do, and one is, Senator, the background check. Let us make it
    difficult for the criminals, the terrorists, and the mentally
    ill to get a gun.
        Senator Coons. I agree with you, and I have agreed to
    cosponsor legislation to this affect.
        But let me ask Mr. LaPierre. I, just at the outset, want to
    say I am grateful for the work the NRA in providing training in
    safe gun ownership to millions of Americans. And I hope you
    will take into account the data I have offered on gun
    prosecutions.
        But I do disagree with a point you made your testimony. You
    said--and I think I quote--that background checks will never be
    universal because criminals will never submit to them. And
    while that may be true, I think the point that Captain Kelly
    makes is telling. And if we in combination put in place tougher
    restrictions on straw purchases and tougher enforcement on
    those who buy guns legally but then sell them to those who
    should not have them, and we put in place universal background
    checks and impose some responsibility on responsible gun owners
    to report lost or stolen weapons in combination, would not all
    of these things effectively move us toward a country where the
    number of those who should not have weapons cannot get access
    to them?
        Mr. LaPierre. Senator, what I think you are going to end up
    with is a huge massive bureaucracy with honestly a huge waste
    of police resources and money that could go into doing things
    in the police criminal justice area that would actually save
    lives.
        That study that you were talking about actually says where
    criminals get their guns--39.5 percent from friends and family,
    37 percent from street or black market, 11 percent from
    licensed dealers, 10 percent by theft, 1.7 percent at gun
    shows.
        Senator Coons. Right.
        Mr. LaPierre. I just think that if you try to do this
    universal background check, it ends up being a universal
    Federal nightmare imposed upon law-abiding people all over this
    country. Criminals will ignore it. The Federal Government will
    not prosecute those who fail it. Senator, the Vice President at
    the meeting we attended said they did not have time to
    prosecute those types of cases. So what is the point of the
    whole thing? If you let the criminal and the mentally ill----
        Senator Coons. Well, Mr. LaPierre, I am almost out of time.
    Forgive me for the brief cycle.
        Mr. LaPierre. Sure.
        Senator Coons. Just to take at face value the data you just
    suggested, it is not just closing the gun show loophole. It is
    also thoroughly enforcing those who transfer weapons bought
    legally to those who should not have them. And an awful lot of
    the folks you cited are getting their hands on weapons
    inappropriately through so-called straw purchases or through
    illegal transfers.
        I just want to ask a question of Chief Johnson, if I might,
    because I see, Mr. Chairman, my time is almost up.
        I think it is valuable to have the input of law enforcement
    professionals. In your view, would this sort of a universal
    background check combined with aggressive enforcement of the
    transfers to those who should not have them be a huge
    bureaucratic mess and a waste of police resources? Or might it
    make a difference on the street for those of you who put your
    lives on the line for us every day?
        Chief Johnson. I have to respectfully disagree with Wayne
    on this issue. Public safety, police, we are ready, we are
    unified on this issue that a universal background check will
    make our society a safer place, will make my police officers
    safer. It is absolutely essential.
        Senator Coons. Well, thank you, Chief. Thank you to the
    panel. I will submit some more questions for the record. I see
    I am out of time.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
        And, again, another new Member of this Committee, Senator
    Flake of Arizona. I appreciate your being here and your
    patience in waiting. If it is any consolation, I had that seat
    years ago.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Flake. That is good to know. Thank you, Chairman,
    for convening this. And thank you to the panel for being here,
    offering such excellent testimony, and for staying so long. I
    will try not to take my full 7 minutes. But I especially want
    to thank Mark for being here. And I know that Gabby is watching
    the proceedings in a room in the back. I just visited here a
    while ago. And I just want you to know, Mark, and I want Gabby
    to know how much we miss her here.
        I was on a call this morning with a few dozen ranchers,
    border ranchers in Arizona, and was reminded that this is a
    practice that she began years ago, to talk about immigration
    issues and to keep them up to speed and to seek their input.
    And I have continued that practice. And I can tell you, she
    offered wonderful representation to the people of southern
    Arizona and she is missed. And I am so grateful to you and to
    her for the public service that you have offered in the last
    year under difficult circumstances and for taking up this new
    cause. So thank you.
        With regard to the Tucson shooting, you mentioned that
    Jared Loughner had had drug use in the past that might have
    triggered some kind of entry into a system that he may have
    been checked, but also the mental health aspect. And that seems
    to be the difficult problem to solve here, listening to the
    testimony, is the nexus between mental illness and some kind of
    entry into a background system.
        In Maryland, I believe it is, there have only been like 56
    mental health records provided to the NICS system. Arizona has
    120,000 entries, but not interfaced with the system here.
        What are the major problems there? And I will take anybody
    who can comment on this. Perhaps, Chief Johnson, you know, or,
    Mark, if you have any ideas? Is it solely privacy issues? Many
    of those have a Federal nexus, and that is something that we
    can deal with here. So I am interested in why it is that it is
    so difficult to have some of the mental health records entered
    into the system.
        Chief, first, do you want to take this?
        Chief Johnson. Well, Governor O'Malley in the State of
    Maryland last week introduced his plans to increase
    significantly data into the National Instant Criminal
    Background Check System. Senator, you are right. Maryland could
    do much better in this area, no question about it.
        Senator Flake. Is this an issue with Maryland or any other
    state? And I am not trying to pick on Maryland at all. I assume
    it is similar with every state out there. I just had the
    figures for Maryland. But is that an issue of just resources?
    Or are there privacy concerns that prevent them from offering
    this information?
        Chief Johnson. I think there is confusion. Data that I have
    seen indicates some 18 States submit less than 100 records to
    the system. I think there is confusion amongst the medical
    community, and even fear. How does HIPAA affect the release of
    this information and this data system? And I do believe, as the
    President's plan has called for, an incentive to incentivize
    States to participate would drastically help this problem.
        Senator Flake. Mark, do you want to comment on that?
        Captain Kelly. Yes, Senator. Thank you for your kind words.
    Gabby misses being here as well.
        Of those 121,800 records that Arizona has not submitted to
    the background check system, I do not know why. I imagine it
    could be something--it might be a matter of resources. You
    know, maybe the funding is not there to have the manpower to do
    that. Possibly, maybe there is not the will. Maybe for some
    reason in the State of Arizona, maybe they do not have a desire
    to share that information.
        I do not know, but I can guarantee you after this hearing I
    am going to try to find out.
        Senator Flake. All right.
        Captain Kelly. I will get back to you.
        Senator Flake. And so will I. I think that that is an area,
    from the testimony today and what we know of this situation,
    where we can have, I think, a real impact here. And so I thank
    you all for your testimony, especially Mark and Gabby for being
    here.
        Captain Kelly. Thank you.
        Senator Flake. Thank you.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you, Senator Flake.
        Senator Blumenthal, I will recognize you next. And I would
    just note, as everybody probably well assumes, you and I have
    had a number of discussions since the tragedy in Connecticut,
    including one phone call I recall when you were just about to
    meet with some of the families. And I have relied a great deal
    on both your expertise, your law enforcement background, but
    also the fact that you are from Connecticut.
        Senator Blumenthal.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
    want to express my appreciation to you for your sensitivity and
    your condolences, and so many of my colleagues for theirs as
    well and the expressions that we have had this morning, and
    also, obviously, for convening this hearing, which is a
    beginning--hardly an end--just a first step in what I hope will
    be a call to action that Newtown has begun and action that is
    really bipartisan.
        Whatever the impressions that may be left by this morning's
    proceedings, I think there is a real potential for bipartisan
    common ground on this issue, because we certainly have more in
    common than we have in conflict on this issue.
        And I speak as a former prosecutor, having served as
    Attorney General in the State of Connecticut for 20 years, but
    also as a United States Attorney, a Federal prosecutor, for
    4\1/2\ years. And I want to thank all of the members of the
    panel for your patience and your staying power today. It has
    been a very informative and worthwhile hearing.
        But I want to say a particular thanks, as others have, to
    Captain Kelly and to Gabby Giffords for your courage and
    strength in being here today, and to all of the victims and
    their families: Steve Barton, who is here from Connecticut, who
    was a victim in Aurora. Many of the Sandy Hook families who are
    not here today I know are here in spirit. Mark and Jackie
    Barden, who lost their wonderful son, Daniel, at Sandy Hook,
    wrote a profoundly moving and inspiring piece in today's
    Washington Post.
        And, Mr. Chairman, if there is no objection, I would like
    to submit it for the record. It is entitled ``Make the Debate
    Over Guns Worthy of Our Son.''
        Chairman Leahy. Without objection.
        [The article appears as a submission for the record.]
        Senator Blumenthal. To Chief Johnson, you are here not only
    in a personal capacity but, in my view, as representing and
    reflecting the courage and heroism of the tens of thousands of
    law enforcement community, police and firefighters and first
    responders across the country, who every day brave the threat
    of gunfire and are often outmanned or outgunned by criminals.
    And I want to thank you for your service to our Nation, as I do
    Captain Kelly for his in our military.
        And just to say, you know, I was in Sandy Hook within hours
    of the shooting at the fire house where parents went to find
    out whether their children were alive. And I will never forget
    the sights and sounds of that day when the grief and pain was
    expressed in the voices and faces of those parents.
        As much evil as there was on that day in Newtown, there was
    also tremendous heroism and goodness: the heroism and goodness
    of the educators who perished literally trying to save those
    children by putting themselves between the bullets and their
    children; and the heroism of those first responders and police
    who ran into that building to stop the shooter, not knowing
    that he was dead when they did; and their being there, in fact,
    stopped the tragedy.
        I want to thank also the community of Sandy Hook. I have
    spent countless hours there, the better part of 3 weeks after
    the shooting and, most recently this past weekend, the
    dedication of a memorial and then time with one of the
    families. And their strength and courage I think has been an
    inspiration to the country and very, very important to
    advancing an agenda of making our Nation safer.
        And one way they have done it--one way, not the exclusive
    or only way--has been through a pledge called the ``Sandy Hook
    Promise.'' This promise I would like to read. We have it on a
    chart here.
        It is, ``I promise to honor the 26 lives lost at Sandy Hook
    Elementary School. I promise to do everything I can to
    encourage and support common-sense solutions that make my
    community and our country safer from similar acts of violence.
    I promise that this time there will be change.''
        I am proud to say Steve Barton has made the Sandy Hook
    Promise. Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly have made the Sandy Hook
    Promise. Tens of thousands of Americans in Connecticut and
    across the country have made that promise, as have I.
        So I want to ask Mr. LaPierre, will you make the Sandy Hook
    Promise?
        Mr. LaPierre. Senator, our Sandy Hook promise is always to
    make this country safer, which is why we have advocated
    immediately putting armed security in schools, fixing the
    mental health system, computerizing the records of those
    mentally adjudicated. I would hope we could convince some of
    these companies--I know they have a First Amendment right to do
    it--to stop putting out such incredibly violent video games
    that desensitize children to violence. And, finally, we need to
    enforce the reasonable gun laws on the books, which we do not
    currently do. That will make----
        Senator Blumenthal. Can I take that as a yes?
        Mr. LaPierre [continuing]. The country safer.
        Senator Blumenthal. Can I take that as a yes?
        Mr. LaPierre. Yes. That is a yes.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
        Mr. LaPierre. We have 11,000 police----
        Senator Blumenthal. And can I invite and urge you to
    advocate that your members, responsible gun owners--and I thank
    them for being responsible gun owners--also join in the Sandy
    Hook Promise?
        Mr. LaPierre. Senator, there is not a law-abiding firearms
    owner across this United States that was not torn to pieces by
    what happened in Sandy Hook. They just do not believe that
    their constitutional right to own a firearm and the fact that
    they can protect their family with a firearm caused the
    problem.
        Senator Blumenthal. Let me ask you this, Mr. LaPierre. You
    and I agree there ought to be more prosecutions of illegal gun
    possession and illegal gun ownership.
        Mr. LaPierre. You know, the problem, Senator is I have been
    up here on this Hill for 20-some years agreeing to that, and
    nobody does it. And that is the problem. Every time we say we
    are going to do it. I will make you this bet right now. When
    President Obama leaves office 4 years from now, his
    prosecutions will not be much different than they are now. If
    each U.S. Attorney did ten a month, they would have 12,000. If
    they did 20 a month, they would have 24,000. Let us see if we
    get there.
        Senator Blumenthal. Chief Johnson, you have testified very
    persuasively on the need for better background checks. Do you
    believe those background checks ought to be applied to
    ammunition purchases as well as firearms purchases?
        Chief Johnson. Our organization supports background checks
    on ammunition sales.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
        And, Captain Kelly, I am just about out of time, but I
    would like to ask you, if you may, you have supported better
    background checks as an advocate of the Second Amendment, and I
    join you in believing that Americans have a strong and robust
    right to possess firearms; it is the law of the land. Do you
    also believe that better background checks on firearms
    purchases would help make both Arizona and our Nation safer?
        Captain Kelly. Absolutely, Senator. While we were having
    this hearing--and we certainly do not know the details, but in
    Phoenix, Arizona, there is another, what seems to be possibly a
    shooting with multiple victims. And it does not seem like
    anybody has been killed, but the initial reports are three
    people injured in Phoenix, Arizona, with multiple shots fired,
    and there are 50 or so police cars on the scene.
        And I certainly agree with you, sir, that, you know, a
    universal background check that is effective, that has the
    mental health records in it, that has the criminal records in
    it, will go a long way to saving people's lives.
        Senator Blumenthal. And improving the quality of
    information in those----
        Captain Kelly. Absolutely.
        Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. Checks would make a
    difference.
        Let me just again thank the panel. My hope is that Newtown
    will be remembered not just as a place but as a promise, and
    that we use this tragedy as a means of transforming the debate,
    the discussion, the action that we need to make America safer.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
        Just so everybody understands, we are coming to a close. I
    will make an exception to the normal rules. Senator Cruz said
    he had one more question. I will let him do that. Then I will
    yield to Senator Hirono, the newest Member of this Committee,
    and she will have the final word.
        Senator Cruz.
        Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I very much
    appreciate your allowing me to ask an additional question.
        I wanted to ask a question of Chief Johnson. Your testimony
    here today was in some tension with what I have heard from
    police officers serving on the ground in the State of Texas,
    namely that--your testimony, as I understand it, was that, in
    your judgment, stricter gun control laws would prove effective
    in limiting crime. And the data I have seen suggests that the
    evidence does not support it.
        If one looks in the District of Columbia, which had the
    strictest gun control laws in this country and banned firearms,
    we saw that when the ban was implemented in 1976, there were
    fewer than 200 homicides. That rose to over 350 in 1988 and to
    over 450 in 1993. That pattern is reflected across major urban
    centers. Those urban centers that have the strictest gun bans,
    for example, the city of Chicago, unfortunately, suffers from,
    according to the latest statistics, 15.9 murders per 100,000
    citizens.
        Your city, the city of Baltimore, has 31.3 murders per
    100,000 citizens. That contrasts with other major urban areas
    such as my home town of Houston, which does not have strict gun
    control laws like the jurisdictions I was talking about, that
    has a murder rate of 9.2 per 100,000, one-third of Baltimore's.
    And, in fact, the city of Austin, our capital, has a murder
    rate of 3.5 per 100,000, one-tenth that of Baltimore.
        So my question to you is: In light of the evidence, what
    empirical data supports your contention that restricting the
    rights of law-abiding citizens to possess firearms would
    decrease crime rather than making them more vulnerable to
    violent criminals? Which is what I would suggest the data
    indicates has happened when it is been done.
        Chief Johnson. We know that nearly 2 million prohibited
    purchasers were stopped from obtaining their firearms since
    1994 to 2009. Senator, I would tell you that your homicide
    statistics would be much greater, and often missed from this
    conversation is the medical intervention that takes place today
    at the EMT level in the field to the shock trauma facilities
    that are very robust in our Nation today. This data would be
    much higher.
        I am here today representing nine major police executive
    leadership organizations, and for the sake of time, I am not
    going to read all those. I think they are a matter of the
    record.
        The problem in areas like Baltimore and New York and
    Chicago, with some of the toughest gun regulations and laws in
    the Nation, is outside weapons coming in. It is about the
    background check problem. It is about acquisition of these
    firearms outside of the normal firearms licensed dealer
    process. And that is what we have to fix.
        In addition, high-capacity magazines are a problem, and
    certainly we are seeing assault weapons used each and every day
    in crimes, and police are seizing these weapons each and every
    day. And, holistically, with the plan that the President has
    laid out and, frankly, some of the bills that have been put
    forth, we can make our Nation a much safer place.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
        We are fortunate to have three new Members of this
    Committee: Senator Cruz, Senator Flake, and Senator Hirono. And
    you, Senator, get the last word.
        Senator Hirono. Are you saving the best for last, is that
    it?
        Chairman Leahy. Well, I was just saying you get the last
    word. You are going to have to prove whether it is the best.
    But I would note to both you and Senator Flake that I occupied
    that seat.
        Senator Hirono. Good to know.
        Chairman Leahy. And you are very patient in waiting. Also,
    I thank Senator Blumenthal for representing so well the
    feelings of the people in Connecticut.
        Senator Hirono.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And I
    would like to thank the panel for this very lively discussion
    on what is a highly emotional subject.
        And, Captain Kelly, I would like to thank you for being
    here because Gabby and I were elected to the House of
    Representatives in the same year, and her courage continues to
    inspire us. And I certainly take to heart her testimony today
    asking us to do something now to reduce gun violence in our
    country.
        And, Chief Johnson, you are literally in the trenches. You
    are on the firing line and I certainly give much credence to
    your testimony.
        We have a lot of hunters in Hawaii, so I certainly
    understand their perspective. And to me, this issue is not
    about abrogating Second Amendment rights. It is about
    reasonable limits on those rights. And one of those areas that
    has already been deemed reasonable is the requirement for
    background checks.
        And so what many of us are saying is what has already been
    deemed reasonable should be a reasonable requirement when guns
    are sold regardless of how or where they are sold. So I hope
    that we can reach bipartisan agreement on the reasonable limit
    of requiring background checks when guns are sold.
        Captain Kelly, I do appreciate your starting your testimony
    today by saying that there is no perfect solution. There are
    all kinds of antecedent environmental issues and community
    issues that lead to gun violence, but I believe that we should
    do that which is reasonable. So nothing is perfect.
        I believe that one of the areas of focus for your
    organization, Americans for Responsible Solutions, is the
    mental health part of what we ought to be addressing that leads
    to gun violence.
        Do you have some key suggestions that Congress can take to
    help address the mental illness problem?
        Captain Kelly. Well, thank you, Senator.
        Well, you know, first of all, compelling States to share
    with the Federal Government the records, the appropriate
    records, of adjudicated mental illness and criminal records as
    well, also within the Federal Government.
        I had a conversation with the Vice President, who talked
    specifically about, you know, intergovernment agencies and
    why--that there has also been, you know, some issues in certain
    Federal Government agencies at times getting the records into
    the background check system.
        So if we could improve the system, close the gun show
    loophole, require background checks for private sellers, I
    think we will go a long way to preventing many of these murders
    and mass shootings in this country.
        We are not going to stop all of them, but there is
    certainly a reason that we have 20 times the murder rate--20
    times the murder rate--of other developed countries. And I
    think that is unacceptable.
        But, you know, like you said, you know, as an organization,
    I certainly think Congress can come together on this issue. We
    realize there is a problem, and it certainly can be solved.
        Senator Hirono. Captain Kelly, it is one thing when someone
    has already been deemed to show signs of mental illness, and
    certainly if there has been any kind of an adjudication, that
    identification is much easier and, therefore, that information
    should get into our system.
        It becomes a lot harder when you are trying to determine
    whether someone is suffering from mental illness and needs
    help. And often these kinds of signs manifest themselves
    certainly in the home, but in the schools. And we do not have a
    lot of psychologists, therapists in our schools.
        Would you also support more of those kinds of personnel in
    our schools so that we can help these individuals?
        Captain Kelly. You know, absolutely. In the case of Jared
    Loughner in Tucson, Pima Community College was well aware, you
    know, that he had some form of mental illness. They expelled
    him over it. Multiple cases of very erratic and disruptive
    behavior in the classroom and outside the classroom.
        But, for some reason, he was not referred, as far as I
    know, to an appropriate mental health authority for an
    evaluation. And I know often those need to be voluntary, but
    his parents, as well.
        I mean, there seems in this case that there was a lack of
    education within the community to get him some effective
    treatment. And it is really--it is actually really sad. Because
    in his case, as I know in many other cases, often you will see
    a man who is paranoid schizophrenic that commits some of these
    horrific crimes. But with treatment, they would never have done
    these things.
        So, absolutely. I mean, we are going to work--at Americans
    for Responsible Solutions--we are going to work to help fix the
    mental health aspect of this, too. It is a big part of it. I
    agree with Mr. LaPierre on that matter. I mean, that is a major
    issue. But so is a comprehensive, universal, a good background
    check, without a loophole, without holes in it, and getting the
    data into the system. Those are critical things that can make
    our communities much safer.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you.
        I do have one question for Chief Johnson. This is an area
    that has not been raised today so far. It has to do with an
    environment that allows bullying to occur in our schools. And
    sometimes bullying can lead to violent situations. I am sure it
    has happened in Baltimore, and just recently in Hawaii, we had
    a situation in our schools where bullying led to fights, and
    the school had to be closed.
        So I think that one of the ways that we prevent escalation
    of violent behavior is to put in place programs that will
    address the issue of bullying, which takes place in just about
    every State. Do you have any thoughts on that?
        Chief Johnson. Yes. The President's plan calls for not only
    funding and an announcement for additional police officers--and
    I believe Congress should support these plans--they also call
    for funding to support additional counselors and psychological
    service providers as well in the schools.
        Certainly, in my particular case and in many jurisdictions
    across America, we have police officers in all the high schools
    and, frankly, the middle schools, costing my jurisdiction
    nearly $8 million a year. And they have a place, but certainly
    we believe that more needs to be done in this area. In my two
    school shootings, in both shootings, bullying was alleged to be
    a factor.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much.
        I want to thank all the witnesses who came here. This was a
    lengthy hearing. It is the first of others we will have. I
    think what we are trying to do--and I hope people realize--on
    this committee is trying to write laws that protect the public.
    Now, I cherish and exercise my Second Amendment rights as I do
    all my rights under the Constitution. But I do not think
    individual rights include weapons of war like land mines or
    tanks or machine guns or rocket-propelled grenades. And where
    do we go as we step back from those levels? I came here to have
    a discussion, hoping to build consensus. Obviously, there is
    more work that needs to be done.
        I think there is one consensus. We all want to do what we
    can to prevent future tragedies and put an end to the violence
    that breaks all our hearts. You know, I live an hour's drive
    from another country--Canada. I do not see the same kind of
    problem there. I want to find out how we can stop what is
    happening. I believe there should be some areas of agreement,
    and I hope the Committee can get together to mark up
    legislation next month--this month is virtually over--and then
    take it to the floor.
        We will respect the diversity of viewpoints represented
    today. We will have hearings that have other viewpoints. We
    have to listen to one another. But if we start with a basic
    thing that we abhor, the kind of violence we see and the
    violence I saw years ago as a prosecutor, let us find which
    steps work and go forward.
        So thank you all, all five of you, very, very much.
        We stand in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 1:55 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                  Additional Material Submitted for the Record

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]