[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]