    [House Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                  PREVENTING GUN VIOLENCE: A CALL TO ACTION

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

                                     OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2019

                                   ----------

                                Serial No. 116-2

                                   ----------

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                   Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    45-132 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2021

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
                   MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair

    ZOE LOFGREN, California              DOUG COLLINS, Georgia, Ranking
    SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas                Member
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee		     F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
    HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,          Wisconsin
        Georgia			     STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
    THEORDORE E. DEUTCH, Florida	     LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
    KAREN BASS, California		     JIM JORDAN, Ohio
    CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana	     KEN BUCK, Colorado
    HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York	     JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
    DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island     MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
    ERIC SWALWELL, California	     MATT GAETZ, Florida
    TED LIEU, California		     MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
    JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland		     ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
    PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington	     TOM McCLINTOCK, California
    VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida          DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
    J. LUIS CORREA, California	     GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
    SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas		     BEN CLINE, Virginia
    JOE NEGUSE, Colorado		     KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
    LUCY McBATH, Georgia		     W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
    GREG STANTON, Arizona
    MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
    DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida
    VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas

            PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
                    BRENDAN BELAIR, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

                         KAREN BASS, California, Chair
                        VAL DEMINGS, Florida, Vice-Chair

    SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas, Ranking
    LUCY McBATH, Georgia                     Member
    THEORDORE E. DEUTCH, Florida         F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
    CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana               Wisconsin
    HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York            STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
    DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island     LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
    TED LIEU, California                 TOM McCLINTOCK, California
    MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania         DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
    DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida      GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
    STEVEN COHEN, Tennessee              BEN CLINE, Virginia
                                         W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida

                       JOE GRAUPENSPERGER, Chief Counsel
                        JASON CERVENAK, Minority Counsel

                               C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                          Wednesday, February 6, 2019

                                                                       Page

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chairman of the Committee on the
      Judiciary from the State of New York...........................     1
    The Honorable Doug Collins, Ranking Member of the Committee on
      the Judiciary from the State of Georgia........................     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Aalayah Eastmond, Senior at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School,
      Coral Springs, Florida
      Oral Testimony.................................................     8
      Prepared Statement.............................................    10
    Savannah Lindquist, Student at Old Dominion University, Norfolk,
      Virginia
      Oral Testimony.................................................    12
      Prepared Statement.............................................    14
    Diane Latiker, Founder/President, Kids Off the Block, Chicago,
      Illinois
      Oral Testimony.................................................    15
      Prepared Statement.............................................    16
    Dr. Joseph V. Sakran, Associate Chief, Division of Acute Care
      Surgery, Director, Emergency General Surgery, Johns Hopkins
      Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland
      Oral Testimony.................................................    16
      Prepared Statement.............................................    18
    Maj. Sabrina Tapp-Harper, Commander, Domestic Violence Unit,
      Baltimore City Sherriff's Office, Baltimore, Maryland
      Oral Testimony.................................................    22
      Prepared Statement.............................................    23
    Chief Art Acevedo, Chief of Police, Houston Police Department,
      Houston, Texas
      Oral Testimony.................................................    25
      Prepared Statement.............................................    27
    Dr. Joyce Lee Malcolm, Professor of Law Antonin Scalia Law
      School, Arlington, Virginia
      Oral Testimony.................................................    41
      Prepared Statements............................................    42
    Robyn Thomas, Executive Director, Gifford's Law Center to Prevent
      Gun Violence, San Francisco, California
      Oral Testimony.................................................    43
      Prepared Statement.............................................    45

              LETTER, MATERIAL, ARTICLES SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

    Letter from Fred Guttenberg, submitted by the Honorable Theodore
      E. Deutch, a Member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
      and Homeland Security from the State of Florida for the record.    76
    Letter from Tony Montalto, President, Stand with Parkland, The
      National Association of Families for Safe Schools submitted by
      the Honorable Theodore E. Deutch, a Member of the Subcommittee
      on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security from the State of
      Florida for the record.........................................    79
    Letter from Patricia Oliver, Parkland, Florida, submitted by the
      Honorable Theodore E. Deutch, a Member of the Subcommittee on
      Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security from the State of
      Florida for the record.........................................    81
    Letter from Prosecutors Against Fun Violence, submitted by the
      Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Vice-Chair, a Member of the
      Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Pennsylvania for
      the record.....................................................    88
    Letter from the Honorable Ayanna Pressley, a Member of Congress
      from the State of Massachusetts submitted by the Honorable Mary
      Gay Scanlon, Vice-Chair, a Member of the Committee on the
      Judiciary from the State of Pennsylvania for the record........    90
    Letter from the Mayor Martin J. Walsh, City of Boston,
      Massachusetts submitted by the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon,
      Vice-Chair, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the
      State of Pennsylvania for the record...........................    92
    Report from EVERYTOWN UNCHECKED, over 1 Million on Line Firearm
      ADS, No Background Checks Required submitted by the Honorable
      Mary Gay Scanlon, Vice-Chair, a Member of the Committee on the
      Judiciary from the State of Pennsylvania for the record........    94
    Article from the Washington Post, ``It's time to bring back the
      assault weapons ban, Gun violence experts say,'' submitted by
      the Honorable David Cicilline, a Member of the Subcommittee on
      Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security from the State of Rhode
      Island for the record..........................................   104
    Article from the Atlantic, ``Why Can't the U.S. Treat Gun
      Violence as a Public-Health Problem,'' submitted by the
      Honorable David Cicilline, a Member of the Subcommittee on
      Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security from the State of Rhode
      Island for the record..........................................   107
    Article from the New York Times, ``Wounds from Military-Style
      Rifles? `A Ghastly Thing to See' ,'' submitted by the Honorable
      David Cicilline, a Member of the Subcommittee on Crime,
      Terrorism, and Homeland Security from the State of Rhode Island
      for the record.................................................   110
    Article from Vox, ``America's unique gun Violence problem,
      explained in 17 maps and charts,'' submitted by the Honorable
      David Cicilline, a Member of the Subcommittee on Crime,
      Terrorism, and Homeland Security from the State of Rhode Island
      for the record.................................................   118
    Article from The Hill, ``Orders to seize guns from prohibit byers
      at 10-year high: Report,'' submitted by the Honorable David
      Cicilline, a Member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
      and Homeland Security from the State of Rhode Island for the
      record.........................................................   137
    Letter from Joyce Lee Malcolm, Patrick Henry Professor of
      Constitutional Law and Second Amendment, Antonin Scalia Law
      School George Mason University referencing for the record
      sexual victimization reported by adult correctional
      authorities, submitted by the Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, a
      Member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
      Security from the State of New York for the record.............   146
    Form 990 from the NRA Foundation for the years 2012, 2013, 2014,
      2015 & 2016, submitted by the Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, a
      Member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
      Security from the State of New York for the record.............   147
    Report from Greg Ridgeway, Ph.D., Deputy Director National
      Institute of Justice, ``Summary of Select Firearm Violence
      Prevention Strategies,'' submitted by the Honorable Kelly
      Armstrong, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the
      State of North Dakota for the record...........................   246
    Artical from Hargarten et al. ``Gun Violence: A Biopsychosocial
      Disease,'' submitted by the Honorable Cedric Richmond, a Member
      of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
      from the State of Louisiana for the record.....................   262
    Report from Pennsylvania State Police Trooper, Instant Check
      System Firearms, submitted by the Honorable Madeleine Dean, a
      Member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
      Security from the State of Pennsylvania for the record.........   280
    Report from UC Davis Health Study, ``The Study Does Not Find
      Population-Level Changes in Firearm Homicide or Suicide Rates
      in California 10 Years After Comprehensive Background Check and
      Violent Misdemeanor Policies Enacted,'' submitted by the
      Honorable Andy Biggs, a Member of the Committee on the
      Judiciary from the State of Arizona for the record.............   300
    Study from John Hopkins University--UC-David ``Correction to:
      Association Between Firearm Laws and Homicide in Urban
      Counties,'' submitted by the Honorable Ted Lieu, a Member of
      the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
      from the State of California for the record....................   304
    Study from John Hopkins University ``Effects of the Repeal of
      Missouri's Handgun Purchaser Licensing Law on Homicides,''
      submitted by the Honorable Ted Lieu, a Member of the
      Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security from
      the State of California for the record.........................   311
    Study from New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center
      ``Restrictive State Firearm Laws Correlated to Fewer Firearm
      Homicides, Suicides,'' submitted by the Honorable Ted Lieu, a
      Member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
      Security from the State of California for the record...........   322
    Article from Duke University ``Editor's Note,'' submitted by the
      Honorable Ted Lieu, a Member of the Subcommittee on Crime,
      Terrorism, and Homeland Security from the State of California
      for the record.................................................   324

                                    APPENDIX

    Statement of Whip Steve Scalise, submitted by the Honorable Doug
      Collins, Ranking Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from
      the State of Georgia, for the record...........................   330
    Letter from Savannah Lindquist, Florida, submitted by the
      Honorable Val Demings, Vice-Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime,
      Terrorism, and Homeland Security from the State of Florida for
      the record.....................................................   332
    Statement of Amnesty International USA, submitted by the
      Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the
      Judiciary from the State of New York for the record............   334

                      ANSWERS OF QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Response to Questions from Dr. Joyce Lee Malcolm, Professor of
      Law Antonin Scalia Law School, Arlington, Virginia, submitted
      by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Member of the
      Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security from
      the State of Texas for the record and the Honorable Jerrold
      Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State
      of New York for the record.....................................   350
    Response to Question from Dr. Joseph V. Sakran, Associate Chief,
      Division of Acute Care Surgery, Director, Emergency General
      Surgery, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, submitted for
      the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Member of the Subcommittee
      on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security from the State of
      Texas for the record...........................................   351

                            PREVENTING GUN VIOLENCE:.
                                A CALL TO ACTION

                                  ----------

                          Wednesday, February 6, 2019

                            House of Representatives

                           Committee on the Judiciary

            Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security

                                 Washington, DC

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
    Room 2141, Rayburn Office Building, Hon. Jerrold Nadler
    [chairman of the committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Nadler, Lofgren, Jackson Lee,
    Cohen, Johnson of Georgia, Deutch, Bass, Richmond, Jeffries,
    Cicilline, Swalwell, Raskin, Jayapal, Correa, Scanlon, Garcia,
    Neguse, McBath, Stanton, Dean, Mucarsel-Powell, Escobar, Lieu,
    Demings, Collins, Chabot, Gohmert, Gaetz, Johnson of Louisiana,
    Biggs, McClintock, Lesko, Reschenthaler, Cline, Armstrong, and
    Steube.
        Democratic Staff Present: Joe Graupensperger, Chief
    Counsel, Crime Subcommittee; Ben Hernandez-Stern, Counsel,
    Crime Subcommittee; Milagros Cisneros, Detailee, Crime
    Subcommittee; Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff; David
    Greengrass, Senior Counsel; Susan Jensen, Parliamentarian.
        Republican Staff Present: Brendan Belair, Staff Director;
    Bobby Parmiter, Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel; Jan
    Furo, Parliamentarian and General Counsel; Jason Cervanek,
    Counsel, Crime Subcommittee.
        Chair Nadler. The Judiciary Committee will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses
    of the Committee at any time.
        We welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on Preventing
    Gun Violence: A Call to Action. I will now recognize myself for
    an opening statement.
        The epidemic of gun violence in this country is a national
    crisis and an international embarrassment. In 2017, nearly
    40,000 Americans lost their lives because of guns. In fact,
    every day in America, on average, 34 people are murdered with a
    firearm, and more than 183 people are injured in an attack.
    While no other country in the industrialized world would
    tolerate such statistics--in fact, gun deaths in most of those
    countries barely crack triple digits annually--in the United
    States it is accepted as a grim reality.
        By comparison, in 2011 for example, the United Kingdom had
    146 deaths due to gun violence; Denmark, 71; Portugal, 142; and
    Japan, 30. Last year in the United States, almost 40,000.
        A 2016 study in the American Journal of Medicine found
    that, compared to 22 other high-income countries, the gun-
    related murder rate in the United States was 25 times higher.
    The common factor in all these other countries is that they
    have stronger gun laws. Our country, however, is awash in guns,
    and we have the shameful death toll to show for it.
        Despite the obvious need to address the scourge of gun
    violence, Congress, for too long, has done virtually nothing.
    But now we begin a new chapter.
        Today we will hear from a broad array of witnesses
    representing diverse perspectives on the issue of gun violence.
    They will help educate us on the scope of the problem, and they
    will inform our consideration of various legislative options so
    that we may, at last, take real action to address this crisis.
        As we conduct this hearing today, we are reminded that one
    year ago next week, 17 students and staff were shot to death,
    and 17 others were injured at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High
    School in Parkland, Florida. We have with us Fred Gutenberg,
    who is the father of one of the students who were killed at
    Parkland High School, and we have some others from Parkland
    with us today, too. This horrible incident was just one in an
    ever-increasing series of mass shootings that have shocked the
    Nation in recent years.
        Mass shootings are just one way in which the problem of gun
    violence is manifested in our nation. Every day, guns are used
    in suicides, domestic violence incidents, gang violence, and in
    so many other tragedies.
        Gun violence impacts all our communities: Rural, urban, and
    suburban. No place is immune from its reach, including our
    homes, our streets, our schools, even our places of worship.
        Clearly, we must change our approach to combatting gun
    violence. As challenging as this problem is, however, we do
    have the ability to address it, and to make our citizens safer.
    What we have lacked in recent years is the political will.
        We should remember that the Second amendment does not
    prevent the government from enacting legislation to prevent gun
    violence. As even Justice Scalia acknowledged in his 2008
    opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, an opinion that
    upheld an individual's right to possess a firearm, in his
    opinion for the Court he wrote, ``Like most rights, the right
    secured by the Second amendment is not unlimited.''
        While Congress has done almost nothing in recent years to
    address gun violence, citizens across the country have been
    organizing and demanding action. As a result, several states
    have strengthened their gun laws.
        I am disappointed that in his lengthy State of the Union
    address last night, President Trump did not see fit to even
    mention the need to protect our citizens against gun violence.
    But it is evident from the energy and the crowd in this room,
    as well as the millions of people across the country fighting
    for sensible gun safety laws, that the public is demanding
    national legislation, too.
        I am particularly heartened by the mobilization of so many
    students and young people, from diverse backgrounds and from
    every part of our nation, who are now at the forefront of this
    effort. They join mothers and fathers in calling on us to do
    more to create a future in which children do not fear being
    shot in school or on their streets.
        We have also seen many in our medical community adding
    their voices to the movement, shocked at how often they must
    treat gunshot victims, devastated by the need to console the
    families of those who lost their lives to gun violence, and
    stunned by Congress' failure to address this problem.
        It is now time for Congress to begin answering these
    demands, and that is why we are holding this hearing today. We
    have a large panel of witnesses, and we wish we could have
    included even more people who wanted to testify, including
    current Members of Congress who have worked very hard on this
    issue in recent years. Today, however, is just the beginning of
    our discussion of these issues, and I hope to hear from many
    other people as the Committee continues its work on this
    important topic.
        I want to note that we have with us in the audience today
    several survivors of gun violence, as well as family Members of
    those whose lives were lost to gun violence. I have already
    mentioned one such person. We thank you all for your courage
    and for attending today.
        Congressman Mike Thompson, Chair of the House Gun Violence
    Prevention Task Force, is here as well. He has worked
    tirelessly to bring attention to this issue and is the author
    of H.R. 8, the bipartisan Background Check Act, which now has
    229 co-sponsors, an absolute majority of the House.
        For too long, Congress has ignored the epidemic of gun
    violence that plagues this country. After a particularly
    heinous mass shooting, we sometimes pause to offer a moment of
    silence to honor the victims, but we do not need another moment
    of silence. We do not need more thoughts and prayers. We need a
    moment of action. Today's hearing is the first step towards
    that goal.
        I look forward to hearing from all our witnesses, and I now
    recognize the distinguished Ranking Member of the full
    committee, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins, for his
    opening statement.
        Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all who
    have attended today, and for holding this hearing on gun
    violence in America.
        Any form of violence, with or without the use of a firearm,
    is a reason for concern, and it is our job to offer real
    solutions for families affected by criminal violence. It is
    good and right to reflect on the victims and their stories.
        What do their experiences have in common, and how can
    lawmakers respond to the factors fueling violent crime? America
    has witnessed too many events of mass violence in recent years,
    yet the common factors here are not related to background
    checks for private sales.
        Thomas Reed, a former Speaker of this House, said: ``One of
    the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils
    of this world are to be cured by legislation.'' I will take it
    a step further. Today, I think the greatest cruelty in the
    world is to tell people you will help them in their situation
    with legislation and then try to pass off legislation that
    would do nothing to fix the problems that you claim to fix. In
    legal terms, that is called fraud.
        When we understand what is going on, the evidence has
    shown, as was mentioned earlier--I appreciate the efforts of
    those who want H.R. 8 and many who have signed on, but similar
    gun control measures would not have prevented Columbine, San
    Bernardino, Charleston, or other tragedies. It actually
    indicates our problem today is that we are too far removed by
    the realities of violence, victimization, and murder. We are
    far too comfortable offering bills that constrain law-abiding
    citizens without protecting them from the people who mean them
    great harm. We are far too comfortable talking about tragedy
    without learning its clearest lesson. If we want to combat mass
    violence, we have to address the human factors actually driving
    it. This means acknowledging attempts to criminalize the Second
    amendment do nothing to address these complex factors that turn
    our attention to solutions that would.
        One of my first acts in Congress was to ask President Obama
    why Federal firearm prosecutions failed 35 percent under his
    Administration, while widespread violence continued to infect
    American communities. Chicago, for example, prosecuted only 25
    Federal firearm crimes in 2011, and then saw 506 murders in
    2012. It seems clear that if we are going to be in the business
    of writing new laws to prevent violence, we should at minimum
    commit to enforcing the laws we already have.
        Next door to Washington, Maryland illustrates how miserably
    gun control fails to prevent violence. Maryland requires
    universal background checks, bans assault weapons, restricts
    magazine capacity, and permits to purchase handguns, which then
    must be registered with the state. All these things the gun
    control advocates have asked for, but Baltimore consistently
    ranks among the top five cities for gun violence nationwide.
        Again, I implore my colleagues across the aisle to look at
    our cities and our schools and to respond in a meaningful way.
    We best honor victims of gun violence by looking at the
    evidence. Neither H.R. 8 nor any of the proposed gun control
    measures would have prevented a single mass shooting in the
    last 20 years. When we pull at the stories of tragedy without
    learning from them, we exploit the victims, Mr. Chair.
        In 1999, Columbine destroyed families in Colorado. In the
    weeks before, we knew that the shooters were psychopaths and
    had visually given threats, but nothing was done. Law
    enforcement knew; they failed to intercede.
        Virginia Tech, another issue where the murderer had been in
    voluntary committed outpatient health facilities, but that was
    never uploaded into NICS, and that was not done. If it had
    been, he would have never been able to purchase the firearm.
        A month prior to the Navy Yard shootings, just up the block
    from this room, the murderer filed a police report claiming he
    heard voices in his head. Almost a decade before the massacre,
    he was arrested for shooting out the tires of a man's vehicle.
    He was not prosecuted for the crime.
        A year ago this month, students in Parkland fell victim to
    a shooter who law enforcement and school counselors had
    recommended for mental evaluation in 2016. According to CNN,
    law enforcement received at least 45 calls about the shooter
    and his family, and among the calls was an anonymous tip that
    specifically said he threatened to attack the school, and
    another call to the FBI tip line. The information was never
    forwarded to the FBI's Miami field office, and law enforcement
    took no action.
        If we let these tragedies teach us, we see that we need to
    focus on mental health and missed opportunities. While we are
    careful to understand by no means are all of those who suffer
    from mental health illness violent, we can increase public
    safety by improving our approaches to mental health, our
    compassion and care for mental health, but we also have the
    opportunity to help law enforcement better respond.
        It is my hope that we will begin to look at this problem
    with a larger, more honest approach. The problems of the bill
    H.R. 8 are numerous, and if I were here, many in this audience
    and many of the witnesses here, my question would be to the
    sponsors and co-sponsors why they would give you a bill that is
    written and guts itself internally in the bill and will not
    work.
        These are the things that will affect mental health and
    safety. These are the areas that we need to work on. These are
    the things that we can continue to find common ground, at the
    same time not offering a palliative exercise to say here is
    something that will make you feel better but not help you in
    the end.
        With that, Mr. Chair, I do have one unanimous consent
    request, and that is the statement for the record by Republican
    Whip Steve Scalise. I will have to say also, Mr. Chair, that I
    am very concerned that Mr. Scalise, who everyone in this room
    knows was very publicly involved in a shooting last year, he
    wanted to come, and many times this Committee has offered
    Members the ability to testify and be a part, and then, as we
    have done in the past, leave. Mr. Scalise was denied that
    opportunity. I think that is wrong. Him having to put this into
    the record is something that should be addressed. It goes to
    the hearing that we are looking at right now. We are making it
    sound good, but in the end, those who come looking for answers
    do not find it in H.R. 8.
        With that, I yield back.
        Chair Nadler. I thank the gentleman.
        Without objection, the document will be entered into the
    record.
        Chair Nadler. I want to note for the record the presence of
    Congresswoman Robin Kelly of Chicago, who has been a champion
    of gun violence legislation.
        I want to note that the reason that Mr. Scalise--we did not
    have a separate panel for Members is because we had too many
    Members, not just Mr. Scalise and Mr. Thompson, Ms. Kelly and
    quite a few others, who would have wanted to testify, and we
    decided it is a debatable decision. We decided that rather than
    hear from a lot of our colleagues, who will have other
    opportunities to address this issue in Congress, we would
    rather hear from the witnesses.
        Mr. Collins. Mr. Chair, I understand, except the uniqueness
    of Mr. Scalise's testimony, being denied this voice is tragic
    for all who attend and who have been a part of that, especially
    from his perspective as a lawmaker who will be voting on and
    working with this issue. Just because he probably disagrees
    with the majority should not have been a reason to keep him
    out.
        Chair Nadler. Well, he was not denied because he disagrees.
    Majority Members decided we had to have a hard and fast Rule
    today, otherwise we would have been here all day with Members.
    In any event, that was the decision.
        I will now introduce today's witnesses.
        Our first witness is Aalayah Eastmond. She is a senior at
    Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. She
    has advocated on behalf of young people and people of color who
    experience gun violence. She has also testified before the U.S.
    Senate and has participated in a number of forums on this
    subject.
        Savannah Lindquist is a student at Old Dominion University
    in Norfolk, Virginia, where she studies neuroscience. Savannah
    serves on the North American Executive Board of Students for
    Liberty and has publicly advocated for gun rights. She is also
    active in her local church and holds a number of leadership
    positions in student organizations at Old Dominion University.
        Diane Latiker is the President and Founder of Kids Off the
    Block. In 2003, she opened her Chicago home to youth who felt
    threatened by gun violence. Diane sold her own television to
    purchase computers to provide the young people seeking shelter
    in her home educational programs. People in her neighborhood
    fondly refer to her as Ms. Diane. In 2011, CNN named her as a
    Top 10 Hero of the Year.
        Dr. Joseph Sakran is an Assistant Professor of Surgery,
    Associate Chief of the Division of Acute Care Surgery, and
    Director of Emergency General Surgery at the Johns Hopkins
    Hospital. Dr. Sakran spends the majority of his time taking
    care of injured patients and performing both emergency and
    elective general surgery. Dr. Sakran completed his
    undergraduate degree at George Mason University, trained as a
    medic and firefighter at the City of Fairfax Fire and Rescue
    Department, and received his medical degree from Ben Gurion
    University Medical School for International Health in Ber
    Sheva, Israel.
        Major Sabrina Tapp-Harper commands the Domestic Violence
    Unit of the Baltimore City Sheriff's Office. She previously
    served for 26 years with the Baltimore Police Department, where
    she attained the rank of major. At the Baltimore Police
    Department, Major Tapp-Harper served in a variety of roles,
    from beat cop to commander. She holds a Bachelor of Science
    degree in Criminal Justice from Coppin State University, and a
    Master of Science Degree in Applied Behavioral Science from
    Johns Hopkins University.
        It is now my pleasure to recognize the gentle lady from
    Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, so that she may introduce her
    constituent, Chief Art Acevedo.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chair, thank you.
        To the Ranking Member, thank you both for this hearing.
        Thank you to the witnesses.
        It is my pleasure and privilege to introduce the Chief of
    Police of the City of Houston, who began serving and was sworn
    in on November 30th, 2016. Chief Acevedo leads one of the major
    police departments of this nation, 5,200 sworn law enforcement
    officers, 1,200 civilian support personnel, with an annual
    general budget of $825 million, in the fourth, soon to be third
    largest city in the nation.
        The value of Chief Acevedo's policing is that he
    understands that it is police and community, police and people.
    He believes in good communication, that it is vital for
    successful community, and I can assure you and attest to the
    fact that Chief Acevedo is not a desk chief. He steadily works
    to encourage the bond between the community and its police
    department, whether it is a local parade, a barbecue, or a
    civic meeting. On behalf of the mayor, Sylvester Turner, he
    shows the face of policing. Although he has been a longstanding
    proponent of community policing, he applies that terminology to
    relationships, and he believes in relational policing, which is
    a major part as well of the Chief's position.
        He wants to meet and come in contact with each citizen.
    That is one of the reasons why devastating cases are solved,
    because citizens talk to the Chief. He is the first Hispanic to
    lead the HPD. Chief Acevedo brings a unique understanding of
    concerns of diverse communities in the City of Houston.
        He was born in Cuba. He was four years old when he came to
    the United States. He grew up in California, attended college
    there, and began his law enforcement career in the field as a
    field patrol officer in East Los Angeles with the California
    Highway Patrol.
        He rose through the ranks. One of the best ways of
    ascending to chief is to know your men and women, and he has
    recently, right before Houston, was the Chief of Police in
    Austin.
        We are very delighted that he is now the President of the
    Major Cities Chiefs. He is involved with the International
    Association of Chiefs of Police. He is married and is the
    father of three children.
        I am very pleased to say that even as we have suffered
    tragedies and shootings in our community, Chief Acevedo, who
    has been a stand-up chief and confronted these issues and said
    to the community that we are with you, I do want to offer to
    him again, to the officers that were shot last week, a wish for
    a speedy recovery, having visited them this past weekend. That
    is our collective wish of this committee.
        Mr. Chair, I conclude by welcoming Chief Acevedo and
    acknowledging one of his extended constituents. Ms. Rhonda Hart
    is here, and she is a mother of, sadly, a young lady, her very
    special daughter, who was shot and killed in the Santa Fe
    shooting in Houston, Texas. Chief Acevedo rushed to that scene
    even though it was outside the jurisdiction of Houston. He
    rushed to be of help. That is the kind of chief he is.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
        Chair Nadler. Thank you. I thank the gentle lady.
        I will continue with our last couple of introductions.
        Dr. Joyce Lee Malcolm is the Patrick Henry Professor of
    Constitutional Law and the Second amendment at George Mason
    University's Antonin Scalia Law School. Dr. Malcolm holds a
    Bachelor's degree from Barnard College in my district, and a
    Master's of Arts and Doctorate from Brandeis University.
        Robyn Thomas is the Executive Director of the Giffords Law
    Center. She holds a Bachelor's degree from Duke University and
    a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Miami School of
    Law.
        We welcome all our distinguished witnesses and thank them
    for participating in today's hearing.
        Now, if you would please rise, I will begin by swearing you
    in. Raise your right hand.
        Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the
    testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best
    of your knowledge, information, and belief?
        Thank you. Let the record show the witnesses answered in
    the affirmative.
        Please be seated.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, a point of
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Chair Nadler. Yes, sir?
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. We had a conversation on the
    Floor last week, and I just noted you left out ``so help me
    God.''
        Chair Nadler. Sorry. Do you want me to repeat the whole--I
    will repeat the whole thing.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I would love it. Thank you.
        Chair Nadler. Please stand up again. Let me repeat this
    oath.
        Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the
    testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best
    of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
        Thank you. Let the record show the witnesses answered in
    the affirmative.
        Thank you, and please be seated.
        Please note that each of your written statements will be
    entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, I ask
    that you summarize your testimony in 5 minutes. To help you
    stay within that time, there is a timing light on your table.
    When the light switches from green to yellow, you have 1 minute
    to conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it
    signals your 5 minutes have expired.
        Ms. Eastmond, you may begin.

                     TESTIMONY OF AALAYAH EASTMOND

        Chair Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, and other Members of
    the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here to
    share my experience and perspectives on gun violence in
    America.
        My name is Aalayah Eastmond, a senior at Marjory Stoneman
    Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. While it is an honor
    to be here before you today, I am only here because of horrific
    events that have compelled me to be here. Next Thursday marks
    one year from the day that 17 of my fellow classmates and
    educators were shot and killed, 17 more injured. Many like me
    were fortunate enough to walk away with our lives, but we will
    never be free from the terror. Some will carry visible scars,
    but all of us are scarred emotionally for the rest of our
    lives.
        I was in my 4th period Holocaust History class, and we were
    presenting our projects on hate groups. I can never have
    imagined that my group partner, Nicholas Dworet, would have
    saved my life in moments to come. After our presentations, we
    began to hear loud pops. When the gunman shot into our
    classroom, Nicholas Dworet was in front of me. The gunman's
    bullets killed him and Helena Ramsay. As Nicholas fell, I
    matched his every movement and hid underneath his lifeless body
    as bullets riddled my classmates. I thought I was going to die.
    As I lay there, I begged God to please make it fast.
        When the shooter moved on to another classroom, I rolled
    Nicholas off me and placed his head on his arm so it wouldn't
    be touching the cold ground. My classmates pulled me behind a
    filing cabinet where I called my mom and my dad to say what I
    thought would be my last goodbyes. I told them how much I loved
    them and my brothers. I will never forget that day, what I saw,
    what I did, what happened to my classmates. I will never forget
    Nicholas Dworet, who in death protected me. He saved my life.
        The effect of the shooting did not end on February 14th.
    Days later, the stress from the shooting took such a toll on my
    mother's body that she experienced a miscarriage.
        Gun violence ends thousands of lives every year. It is an
    epidemic that extends well beyond high-profile shootings. My
    family knew this long before Parkland. Fifteen years ago in
    Brooklyn, New York, my uncle Patrick Edwards was shot in the
    back and killed. He was just 18, with his whole life ahead of
    him. I ask that you give my generation the chance he never had.
        Minority communities bear the heaviest burden of gun
    violence. We know this as a fact. Weeks ago, a new report
    showed that the life expectancy for African Americans has been
    reduced by four years, on average, because of gun violence.
    This report did not show me anything I did not already know.
    Gun violence is an everyday occurrence, and the vast majority
    of affected communities are minority. We must stop the supply
    of crime guns, and we must also ensure that there is
    comprehensive criminal justice reform to address the structural
    inequalities in the system.
        I am here to tell you a simple truth: gun violence is such
    an epidemic that anyone, anywhere, at any time can be affected,
    rich or poor, White or black, young or old. All Americans are
    at risk, and this is a side of America that none of us can or
    should take pride in.
        Since that horrific day, my classmates and I have been
    working tirelessly in support of sensible gun laws. I got
    involved with Brady Campaign's Team Enough, young people
    dedicated to strengthening our gun laws and engaging in
    communities most impacted by gun violence. I am just one of the
    hundreds of thousands of students that came out at the March
    for Our Lives demanding change. Our stories and voices must be
    heard on the most important issue facing our generation. We are
    the generation that will end gun violence.
        I implore you to pass legislation that will make us all
    safer. Today in America, anyone can go on the Internet, answer
    an ad, or go to a gun show and buy a gun with no background
    check required. This makes absolutely no sense. I urge you to
    expand Brady background checks by voting for H.R. 8, requiring
    checks for virtually any gun transaction. The original Brady
    law passed with strong bipartisan support, and this should too.
        The Protection in Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, also known
    as PLCAA, was passed by Congress 15 years ago. No other
    industry has this kind of protection from lawsuits, and it is
    time that Congress repealed this outrageous law.
        Extreme-risk laws allow family Members and law enforcement
    to petition a court to temporarily remove guns from people in
    crisis who pose danger to themselves or others. Congress should
    encourage more states to pass these laws.
        Assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines
    belong on the battlefield, not in our communities. My
    classmates and I have seen firsthand how uniquely lethal these
    weapons are. Congress should immediately reinstitute the
    Assault Weapons Ban. Congress should also close the Charleston
    loophole. The shooter who killed nine people in the South
    Carolina church shooting was able to buy a gun because his
    background check wasn't completed in three days. Most Federal
    checks take just minutes. Some take longer. Law enforcement
    needs more time to complete those checks.
        I also urge you to address the concerns of our Black and
    brown communities who are disproportionately affected by gun
    violence. Rather than listen to special interests, I ask you to
    listen to the nation's young people and the overwhelming
    majority of Americans who have had enough. We have had enough
    of gun violence in our schools, in our movie theaters, our
    places of worship, in nightclubs and restaurants, on our
    streets, and in our communities.
        Enough. We have all had enough. I hope you have had enough
    too and use the power that the people have vested in you to do
    what is right. Our lives depend on you. Our lives are in your
    hands.
        Thank you.
        [Applause.]
        [The statement of Ms. Eastmond follows:]

                     STATEMENT OF AALAYAH EASTMOND

        Chair Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, and other Members of
    the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today
    to share my experience and perspectives on gun violence in
    America. My name is Aalayah Eastmond. I am a senior at Marjory
    Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.
        While it is an honor to be before you today, it is only
    because horrific events have compelled me. Next Thursday will
    mark exactly one year from the day that 17 of my fellow
    schoolmates and educators were shot and killed, 17 more
    injured. Thousands more--like me--were fortunate to walk away
    with our lives that day but we will never be free of the
    terror. Some will carry visible scars, but all of us were
    scarred emotionally, for the rest of our lives.
        I was in my 4th period Holocaust history class. We were
    presenting our projects on hate groups found on college
    campuses. I could never have imagined my group partner Nicholas
    Dworet would've saved my life in moments to come. As we sat at
    our desks working on our computers after presenting our
    projects, we began to hear loud pops. When the gunman shot into
    our classroom, Nicholas Dworet was in front of me. The gunman's
    bullets hit and killed him and Helena Ramsay. As Nicholas fell,
    I matched his every movement and hid beneath his lifeless body
    as bullets riddled my classmates. I thought I was going to die.
    As I layed there, I begged God to please make it fast.
        When the shooter moved to another classroom, I rolled
    Nicholas off me and placed his head on his arm so it wouldn't
    be touching the cold ground. My classmates pulled me behind a
    filing cabinet where I called my mom and my dad and said what I
    thought would be my last goodbyes. I told them how much I loved
    them, and asked that they please tell my brothers the same. I
    was so petrified that I began hyperventilating. My classmates
    had to cover my face so the shooter wouldn't hear my cries and
    come back. I will never forget that day. What I saw. What I
    did. What I experienced. What happened to my classmates? I will
    never forget Nicholas Dworet who, in his death, protected me.
    He saved my life.
        The effects of this shooting did not end on February 14th.
    Days later, our family experienced another tragedy: the stress
    from the shooting had taken such a toll on my mother's body
    that she experienced a miscarriage. It is another painful, and
    permanent, reminder of that day that my family will endure the
    rest of our lives.
        Gun violence ends thousands of American lives every year--
    it is a pervasive problem that extends well beyond high profile
    school shootings. My family knew this pain long before
    Parkland. Fifteen years ago, in Brooklyn, NY, my uncle Patrick
    Edwards was shot in the back and killed. He was just 18 and had
    his whole life ahead of him. I am asking you to give my
    generation the chance that he never had.
        Minority communities bear the heaviest burden of gun
    violence in this country. We know this as fact. Just a few
    weeks ago, a report was released showing that the life
    expectancy for African American men was reduced by four years,
    on average, because of gun violence. But this report didn't
    tell me anything I didn't already know. We have communities in
    this country where gun violence is an everyday occurrence, and
    the vast majority of those communities are majority minority.
    We have to do something to stop the gun violence that has
    become an every day threat in those communities, including
    stopping the supply of crime guns and we must ensure that there
    is comprehensive criminal justice reform to address structural
    inequalities in the system. I am here to tell you a simple
    truth.
        Our gun violence is now such an epidemic that anyone,
    anywhere, at any time can be affected. Rich or poor, White or
    black, young or old. All Americans are at risk, and that is an
    America in which none of us can or should take pride.
        Since that horrible day, my classmates and I have been
    working tirelessly in support of sensible gun laws. I chose to
    get involved with the Brady Campaign's Team ENOUGH, a group of
    young people dedicated to strengthening our nation's gun laws
    and engaging in communities most impacted by everyday gun
    violence. I am just one of hundreds of thousands of students
    that came out at the March for Our Lives demanding change. We
    stand on the shoulders of local organizations and people that
    have been working on change for decades. We are all working to
    make sure our stories are told, and our voices are heard on the
    most important issue facing our generation. Our demand for
    sensible reforms crosses party lines, geographies, social
    classes, and racial divides. We are the generation that will
    end gun violence.
        I implore you and your colleagues to pass legislation that
    will make us all safer by strengthening our nation's gun laws.
    We must do all we can to avoid the tragedies we see every day
    in our Nation due to gun violence.
        Today in America, anyone can go on the internet, answer an
    ad, or go to a gun show and buy a gun with no background check
    required. This makes absolutely no sense. I urge you to expand
    Brady background checks by voting for H.R. 8, legislation
    requiring background checks for virtually every gun
    transaction. I know from working with the Brady Campaign that
    the original background check law passed with bipartisan
    support. This commonsense measure should enjoy similar support
    from every one of you on this Committee, since well over 90
    percent of the public supports taking this action!
        The Protection in Lawful Commerce at Arms Act (PLCAA)
    contributes to gun violence by providing the gun industry with
    special protections at the expense of victims of gun violence.
    PLCAA removes incentives for the gun industry to adopt life-
    saving business practices and instead provides legal cover to
    irresponsible gun dealers who supply the criminal gun market.
    This small minority of gun dealers profits from irresponsible
    and often dangerous business practices with no accountability
    to their victims. Congress must take immediate action to repeal
    PLCAA.
        Extreme Risk Laws, already passed in several states, help
    protect people in crisis that pose a danger to themselves or
    others. These laws allow law enforcement to temporarily remove
    guns from people in crisis while also protecting their rights
    through due process in courts. Congress should pass legislation
    incentivizing more states to pass these life saving laws and
    providing funds for implementation and education.
        Assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines
    belong on the battlefield, not in our communities.
    Unfortunately, my classmates and I have seen first-hand the
    massive carnage that an assault weapon is uniquely capable of
    causing. Congress should immediately re-institute the assault
    weapons ban.
        Every year thousands of people deemed by law to be too
    dangerous to access guns get them because of what has become
    known as the Charleston loophole. Under federal law, if a
    background check isn't completed in three days, a dealer can
    legally sell the gun. Ninety percent of federal background
    checks take only a few minutes, but in thousands of cases three
    days is not enough time to complete a check, as was the case in
    the tragedy in Charleston, South Carolina. The shooter, who
    took nine innocent lives in the deadly church shooting, was
    sold a gun before law enforcement had time to fully research
    his disqualifying records. Many individuals who are sold guns
    before checks are completed are criminals or domestic abusers,
    and once we figure out guns were sold to these unlawful
    purchasers, we have to send law enforcement out to get the guns
    back, which puts them in harm's way. We need to give law
    enforcement enough time to finish the background check before
    someone can buy a gun.
        Gun violence affects all American communities, but not
    always equally or in the same way. I especially urge you to
    address the concerns of those living in our Black and brown
    communities who are disproportionately affected by gun
    violence.
        Rather than listen to special interests, I ask you to
    listen to the nation's young people and the overwhelming
    majority of Americans, who have had enough. We have had enough
    of the gun violence rampant in our schools, in our movie
    theaters, our places of worship, in nightclubs and restaurants,
    on our streets, and in our communities. Enough. We have all had
    enough. I hope you have had enough too and use the power the
    people have vested in you to do what is right. We are all
    depending on you. We the people, our lives depend on you. It is
    in your hands.
        Thank you.

        Chair Nadler. Let me just say this now. I appreciate the
    passion and the energy of the people here, but I must ask that
    you refrain from making noise or otherwise disrupting the
    proceedings on either side. Our witnesses and all the Members
    of the committee, on whichever side, deserve that. Thank you.
        Ms. Lindquist?

                    TESTIMONY OF SAVANNAH LINDQUIST

        Ms. Lindquist. My name is Savannah, and I am a 24-year-old
    college student. I am also a daughter, a niece, and a friend.
    There is part of my identity, however, that I never expected to
    have. I am a sexual assault survivor.
        In the fall of 2016, I was living my dream. I had just
    begun my senior year of college. I was at my dream school with
    my dream major. I loved my job and was just months away from
    graduating college. I was so excited, especially as a first-
    generation college student.
        What started out as any normal day ended up becoming a
    nightmare. That night I was sexually assaulted. I will spare
    you the details, but it was the worst thing that has ever
    happened to me. I pray that none of you ever go through what I
    did, but I do know that this sort of thing seems like it can
    never happen to you.
        Before I was raped, I saw sexual assault as something that
    only happened to other people. It is no secret that sexual
    violence is prevalent on college campuses, but I took as many
    precautions as I could, and I tucked my concerns away in the
    far corners of my mind.
        After that night, I could no longer be naive. I had to come
    face to face with the harsh reality that there are terrible
    people in this world that do terrible things.
        Detectives Benson and Stabler did not swoop in to save me
    that night like they do on Law & Order SVU. Instead, I was left
    completely shattered, replaying the events of that night over
    and over again. Due to the trauma, I dropped out of my dream
    school during my senior year and moved back home to Virginia.
    It was the hardest decision I have ever had to make, but I knew
    in my heart it was what I had to do.
        I shut myself away from everyone and I spent my time hiding
    in my childhood bedroom. I gained 100 pounds, and my hair even
    began to fall out due to the stress.
        I am a gun owner, and I was one at the time. I even began
    safety training and target practice when I was 10 years old.
    Because of so-called commonsense gun control laws, I was left
    defenseless that night. In theory, yes, I could have broken the
    law and brought my firearm to college with me anyway, but I
    knew that that was not the right thing to do.
        I obeyed the law as a responsible gun owner, and it ended
    in me being raped. I am just one of countless examples of gun
    control benefitting assailants and making victims like myself
    sitting ducks.
        I am not telling you about my sexual assault to make you
    feel bad. To be clear, I do not want your sympathy. What I do
    want, however, is for you to at least consider stories like
    mine when you decide to advocate for laws that create
    additional physical and financial barriers to the right to
    self-defense. I could come up here and recite the Second
    Amendment, as could I recite statistics all day long. I could
    get up here and scream about how since 1950, 97.8 percent of
    mass shootings have occurred in gun-free zones. In this debate,
    few cares about the statistics; it is about emotion.
        That emotion is understandable. There are things in this
    world worth being angry about. Acts of pure evil and gross
    injustices of all kinds seem to surround us, and there is no
    doubt that we hurt as a nation. In the midst of our emotions,
    no matter how valid they are, we have to remember and come back
    to the facts, and the facts say this: H.R. 8 has the potential
    to make responsible law-abiding gun owners suddenly criminals
    in emergency situations that would thankfully end up as false
    alarms; or when transferring a firearm to one of their beloved
    family Members, like their step-child; and with all of this,
    H.R. 8 would not have stopped a single mass shooting in modern
    history.
        Requiring universal background checks adds yet another
    financial barrier to the right to self-defense, even though it
    is already a pricey thing to exercise Second amendment rights;
    and low-income individuals are at a higher risk of being the
    victim of violent crime.
        An analysis released by the University of Pittsburgh showed
    lawful gun owners commit less than a fifth of all gun crimes.
        Finally, three separate 2018 studies found zero evidence
    that universal background checks prevent gun death.
        I want to show you that there are real people with real
    stories where being allowed to legally have their firearm could
    have saved them. Gun owners are a diverse group. No, we are not
    all Republicans; and no, we are not all in the NRA. I am
    neither. I am a college student willing to bear her soul to the
    world if it means people think twice before enacting laws that
    restrict the right to a reliable means of self-defense.
        I once heard that when you are raped, you are split in two,
    but this allows you to come back twice as strong, and I could
    not agree more. I refuse to live in fear. Yes, I am a rape
    survivor, but the 9-millimeter that I carry on my hip allows me
    to stand tall, stay strong, and confidently say ``never
    again.'' More than anything, I want my ``never again'' to be a
    catalyst for other women's ``never going to happen.''
        Thank you for your time.
        [The statement of Ms. Lindquist follows:]

                    STATEMENT OF SAVANNAH LINDQUIST

        My name is Savannah and I am a 24-year-old college student.
    I am also a daughter, a niece, and a friend. There is part of
    my identity, however, I never expected to have; I am a sexual
    assault survivor.
        In the fall of 2016, I was living my dream. I had just
    begun my senior year of college. I was at my dream school, with
    my dream major. I loved my job and was just months away from
    graduating college. I was so excited to finish college,
    especially as a first-generation college student. What started
    out as any normal day ended up becoming a nightmare.
        That night I was sexually assaulted.
        I will spare you the details, but it was the worst thing
    that's ever happened to me.
        I pray that none of you ever go through what I did, but I
    do know that this sort of thing seems like it can never happen
    to you. Before I was raped, I saw sexual assault as something
    that only happened to other people. It's no secret sexual
    violence is prevalent on college campuses, but I took as many
    precautions as I could and tucked my concerns away in the far
    corner of my mind.
        After that night I could no longer be naive. I had to come
    face to face with the harsh reality that there are terrible
    people in this world that do terrible things.
        Detectives Benson and Stabler didn't swoop in to save me
    that night like they do in Law and Order: SVU. Instead, I was
    left completely shattered, replaying the events of that night
    over and over again. Due to the trauma, I dropped out of my
    dream school during my senior year and moved back home to
    Virginia. It was the hardest decision I've ever had to make,
    but I knew in my heart it was what I had to do. I shut myself
    away from everyone and spent my time hiding in my childhood
    bedroom. I gained 100 pounds, and my hair even began to fall
    out due to the stress.
        I am a gun owner and was one at the time. I even began
    safety training and target practice when I was 10 years old,
    but because of so called ``common sense'' gun control laws, I
    was left defenseless that night. In theory, I could have broken
    the senseless law and brought my firearm to college with me
    anyways, but I knew that wasn't the right thing to do. I obeyed
    the law as a responsible gun owner, and it ended with me being
    raped. I am just one of countless examples of gun control
    benefiting assailants and making victims sitting ducks.
        I'm not telling you about my sexual assault to make you
    feel bad. To be clear, I don't want your sympathy. What I do
    want, however, is for you to at least consider stories like
    mine when you decide to advocate for laws that create
    additional physical and financial barriers to the right to
    self-defense. I could come up here and recite the Second
    Amendment, as could I recite statistics all day long. I could
    get up here and scream about how since 1950, 97.8% of mass
    shootings have occurred in gun free zones, but in this debate,
    few care about the statistics--it's about emotion.
        But that emotion is understandable. There ARE things in
    this world worth being angry about. Acts of pure evil and gross
    injustices of all kinds seem to surround us, and there is no
    doubt that we hurt as a nation. But in the midst of our
    emotions, no matter how valid, we have to remember and come
    back to the facts.
        The facts say this:

        --LH.R. 8 has the potential to make responsible, law-
    abiding gun owners suddenly criminals in emergency situations
    that thankfully end up as false alarms [proposed 18 U.S.C.
    922(t)(2)(D)] or when transferring a firearm to some of their
    beloved family Members, like their stepchild. And with all of
    this, H.R. 8 wouldn't have stopped a single mass shooting in
    modern history.
        --LRequiring universal background checks adds yet another
    financial barrier to the right to self-defense, even though
    it's already pricey to exercise Second amendment rights and low
    income individuals are at a higher risk of being the victim of
    violent crime.
        --LAn analysis released by the University of Pittsburgh
    showed lawful gun owners commit less than a fifth of all gun
    crimes.
        --LThree separate 2018 studies found zero evidence that
    universal background checks prevent gun deaths.

        I want to show you that there are real people with real
    stories where being allowed to legally have their firearm could
    have saved them.
        Gun owners are a diverse group. No, we're not all
    Republicans and no, we're not all NRA Members. I am a college
    student willing to bare her soul to the world if it means
    people think twice before enacting laws that restrict the right
    to a reliable means of self-defense.
        I once heard that when you're raped, you're split in two,
    but this allows you to come back twice as strong. I couldn't
    agree more. I refuse to live in fear. Yes, I am a rape
    survivor, but the 9 mm I carry on my hip allows me to stand
    tall, stay strong, and confidently say ``NEVER AGAIN.''
        But more than anything, I want my ``never again'' to be a
    catalyst for other women's ``never going to happen.''

        Chair Nadler. Thank you.
        Ms. Latiker?

                       TESTIMONY OF DIANE LATIKER

        Good morning, Chair Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, Members
    of the Judiciary Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to
    testify.
        My name is Diane Latiker. I am the Founding Executive
    Director of Kids Off the Block, a community-based anti-violence
    and social justice advocacy organization founded in 2003,
    located on the far south side of Chicago known as the Roseland
    Community in the 2nd District of Illinois, represented by the
    Honorable Congresswoman Robin Kelly. I want to thank
    Congresswoman Robin Kelly for arranging this opportunity.
        Kids Off the Block was started in my home to provide a safe
    haven from the prey of gang recruitment and gun violence that
    youth and young adults were facing and continue to face every
    day when doing ordinary things in life, such as going to
    school.
        Since founding KOB, we have engaged over 3,000 children,
    youth, and young adults in programs that have been largely
    funded out of our pockets or generous donors, and with
    continuous sadness across the street from my home, we have
    built a memorial tribute to youth killed by violence. There are
    almost 800 stones currently, and we are over 400 behind, and
    there is no outrage, the promises in lives lost in Chicago to
    gun violence and to families who will never recover. No matter
    how hard I work, more stones will be added until Congress acts.
        I am here today to urge Congress to pass immediately
    meaningful gun reform legislation that I believe will begin to
    minimize how legally purchased guns are used illegally.
        On behalf of the children, youth, and families of Kids Off
    the Block, we recommend the following.
        One, close loopholes that allow purchases of guns without a
    background check and reselling of legally purchased guns to
    underage individuals.
        Two, strengthen Federal penalties against gun trafficking
    and straw purchases. The current patchwork of State laws allows
    guns to flow from adjacent states with relaxed gun laws into
    cities and states with tight gun laws.
        Three, Federal background checks on all gun purchases,
    including ammunition and sharing of guns, and ammunition
    purchases through a national database.
        Quite simply, no matter how many people KOB or other
    organizations reach, we will not be able to put an end to gun
    violence in our country without Congress passing meaningful
    legislation that keeps guns out of the wrong hands.
        On a personal note, and to conclude my testimony, for the
    past 15 years I have dedicated my life to taking the power of
    the gun out of the hands of Chicago's most vulnerable youth. I
    strive to reduce the traumatic effects of gun violence with the
    most powerful feeling I know, which is hope. I have
    accomplished this by providing a safe space in my own home to
    young people, ages 10 to 24.
        Opening my door to prevent hundreds of children I serve
    each year from being victimized by violence in an environment
    where the odds are already against them is the least, I can do
    to show them that their community cares. That is all I ask of
    you, to just care.
        Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
        [The statement of Ms. Latiker follows:]

                       STATEMENT OF DIANE LATIKER

        Good Morning. Chair Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, Members
    of the Judiciary Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify. My Name is Diane Latiker, and I am the founding
    executive director of Kids off the Block, a community-based
    anti-violence and social justice advocacy organization founded
    in 2003, located on the far Southside of Chicago known as the
    Roseland community in the 2nd District of Illinois, represented
    by the Honorable Congresswoman Robin Kelly. I want to thank
    Congresswoman Kelly for arranging this testimony opportunity.
        Kids off The Block was started in my home to provide a
    ``safe haven'' from the prey of gang recruitment and gun-
    violence that youth and young adults were facing, and continue
    to face every day, when doing ordinary life things such as
    going home from school.
        Since founding KOB, we have engaged over 3,000 children,
    youth and young adults in programs that have been largely
    funded out of our pockets or generous donors. And, with
    continued sadness, across the street from our home, we have
    built a Memorial
        Tribute to youth killed by violence. There are almost 800
    stones currently and we are over 400 behind. The promises of
    lives lost in Chicago to gun violence, and families who will
    never recover.
        No matter how hard I work, more stones will be added until
    Congress acts.
        I am here today to urge Congress to pass, immediately,
    meaningful gun reform legislation that I believe will begin to
    minimize how legally purchased guns are used illegally.
        On behalf of the children, youth and families of Kids Off
    The Block we recommend the following:

        1. LClose ``Loop Holes'' that allow purchases of guns
    without a background check, and reselling of legally purchased
    guns to underage individuals;
        2. LStrengthen federal penalties against gun trafficking
    and straw purchases. The current patchwork of State laws allows
    guns to flow from adjacent states with relaxed gun laws into
    cities and states with tight gun laws; and
        3. LFederal Background checks on all gun purchases,
    including ammunition, and sharing of guns, and ammunition
    purchases through a national data-base.

        Quite simply: No matter how many people KOB or other
    organizations reach, we will not be able to put an end to gun
    violence in our country without Congress passing meaning
    legislation that keeps guns out of the wrong hands.
        On a personal note and to conclude my testimony: For the
    past 15 years I have dedicated my life to taking the power of
    the gun out of the hands of Chicago's most vulnerable youth. I
    strive to reduce the traumatic effects of gun violence, with
    the most powerful feeling I know, which is hope. I have
    accomplished this by providing a safe space in my home to young
    people from age 10 to 24. Opening my door to prevent hundreds
    of children I serve each year from being victimized by violence
    in an environment where the odds are already against them is
    the least I can do to show them that their community cares.
    That's all I ask of you, to just care.
        Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.

        Chair Nadler. Thank you.
        Dr. Sakran?

                     TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH V. SAKRAN

        Chair Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, and other Members of
    the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today
    to share my experience and perspectives on firearm-related
    injury and death in America. I am not testifying on behalf of
    Johns Hopkins but rather in my role as a trauma surgeon at
    Johns Hopkins Hospital, a survivor of gun violence, and a board
    member of the Brady Campaign.
        I was born and raised in Fairfax, Virginia, just a stone's
    throw away from here. As the son of immigrants, my family was
    living out the American Dream, and in a single instant, our
    lives changed. A fight broke out not far from my high school,
    and someone pulled out a gun and shot indiscriminately. One
    moment I was a carefree, 17-year-old senior, and the next
    collateral damage as a 38-caliber bullet was ripping through my
    throat and tearing into my shoulder.
        I spent the next month at a hospital fighting for my life.
    Make no mistake about it: I am here today because of the
    medical professionals who treated me. The second chance
    inspired me to become a trauma surgeon and give other people
    that same second chance.
        As a trauma surgeon, I and my colleagues are uniquely
    positioned to understand and address this issue. Every day, we
    are the ones on the front lines caring for patients who suffer
    injuries from bullets. We are the ones trying to stop bleeding
    from pulverized tissue and torn flesh. We are the ones telling
    families that their loved ones are never coming home. We are
    the ones trying to deliver data-driven solutions with
    inadequate research funding. We are the ones that understand
    all too often that the best medical treatment from this crisis
    is often prevention.
        For many years, a debate about how we prevent firearm-
    related injury and death was one that Members of my profession
    were reluctant to broach. That time has come to an end. Some of
    us have been told that we should stay in our lane. Well, this
    is our lane, and doing nothing is not an option. If we do
    nothing and maintain the status quo, 1 million Americans will
    be shot in the next decade.
        Let me be clear: Firearm-related injury and death in
    America is not only a disease, it is a true public health
    crisis of the United States. Every day, 109 people die from gun
    violence, and over 240 people suffer injuries from bullet
    wounds. The mass shootings that we have all heard about have
    become too common and unfortunately capture less than 2 percent
    of the entire epidemic we face as a nation. Every day in cities
    like Baltimore, Philadelphia, Chicago, we have young Black men
    that are killed, and their stories often go untold. We need to
    recognize this is a multifaceted health problem requiring a
    diverse group of stakeholders, including but not limited to
    health care professionals, public health leaders, survivors,
    manufacturers, academia, gun owners, and, yes, the young
    people.
        We must develop a broad multi-disciplinary, multi-strategy
    system approach that is supported by good science and research.
    We have the best practices we can learn from. Look at motor
    vehicle crashes in the 20th century. We initially focused on
    the drivers. We then broadened that approach from who caused
    the crash to factors that lead to death and injury, and we
    invested in research. We developed solutions like seat belts
    and air bags and safer roads. Since then, we have seen
    fatalities per-mile-driven fall by 85 percent.
        This is the essence of the public health approach, a multi-
    sector, research-informed, evidence-based program and policies.
    So, in response, we developed safer cars and roads, and we
    saved lives.
        The American College of Surgeons Firearm Strategy Team, a
    group of surgeon leaders who are firearm owners, recently
    published a statement describing firearm injury prevention
    solutions consistent with a public health approach, further
    underlining that as Americans we have much more in common than
    we have that divides us, and there are ways to come together to
    prevent firearm-related injuries.
        Congressmen Mike Thompson and Peter King introduced a
    bipartisan background check expansion Act to H.R. 8 on the
    anniversary of former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords' near-fatal
    injury. The bill expands Brady background checks to cover all
    private firearm sales, including those at gun shows or over the
    Internet. Since the Brady law was implemented in 1994, it has
    blocked more than 3 million unlawful purchases. Other
    commonsense solutions that decrease injury and death include
    firearm injury prevention research, implementation of extreme
    risk protection orders, education on safe storage to end family
    fire, investing in safe technologies, expanding access to
    behavioral health services, and improving victim services.
        We have both the opportunity and the responsibility to
    comprehensively address gun violence as the true public health
    crisis that it is. This is not a Democrat versus a Republican
    issue. It is a uniquely American issue, and it is uniquely in
    each of your hands to help fix it.
        The America I am fighting for is one where parents no
    longer have to fear the phone call that my parents received,
    that the Parkland parents received, and literally hundreds of
    others in communities across this country are receiving every
    single day. As a trauma surgeon, I have to look into the eyes
    of these parents, and it is nothing less than heartbreaking.
        So, the medical community implores you, the time for action
    is now. There is no one solution to this complex health
    problem, which is why we must come together as a country, to
    build consensus and support and develop our research-informed,
    data-driven approach so that we can help you as our
    policymakers ensure the public safety of Americans across this
    great nation.
        Thank you.
        [The statement of Dr. Sakran follows:]

                     STATEMENT OF JOSEPH V. SAKRAN

        Chair Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, and other Members of
    the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today
    to share my experience, and perspectives on firearm-related
    injury and death in America. I am not testifying on behalf of
    Johns Hopkins University, but rather my role as a trauma
    surgeon at Johns Hopkins Hospital, a survivor of gun violence
    and a board member of the Brady Campaign.
        Laying semi-conscious on the gurney, I could sense the
    frantic commotion of healthcare workers bustling around me in
    the trauma bay. Donned in protective equipment from head-to-
    toe, like a man on the moon, all I could see were the eyes of
    the trauma surgeon as he hovered over me. Those eyes reflected
    both intense concentration and fierce determination to save my
    life. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but my
    memory of that face is worth a million.
        Only hours before, I had been a healthy 17-year-old student
    at a high school football game. One moment I was simply an
    innocent bystander, and the next I became collateral damage as
    a violent fight broke out after the game and a 38-caliber
    bullet ripped through my throat, lodging in my shoulder. Nearly
    unconscious at the time, I still can vividly see the
    expressions on the faces of the many people trying to help me
    that day. The chaos around me in the trauma bay filled me both
    with fear and awe--fear that I might die and awe at the
    fearless purpose of the medical personnel fighting to save my
    life. A prolonged hospital stay, and many operations, gave me a
    second chance. This inspired me to become a trauma surgeon and
    provide that same second chance for other people.
        As a trauma surgeon, I and my colleagues are uniquely
    positioned to understand and address this issue. Every day, we
    are the ones that are on the frontline of caring for patients
    who suffer injuries from bullets. We are the ones trying to
    stop bleeding from pulverized tissue and torn flesh. We are the
    ones telling families that their loved ones are never coming
    home. We are the ones trying to deliver data-driven solutions
    with inadequate research funding. And we are the ones that
    understand all too often that the best medical treatment for
    this crisis is prevention.
        For many years, the debate over how we prevent firearm-
    related injury and death was one that many Members of my
    profession were reluctant to broach. That time has come to an
    end.
        Some have told us to stay out of the debate and ``stay in
    our lane''--well, this is our lane, and doing nothing is not an
    option. And if we do nothing and maintain the status quo, 1
    million Americans WILL be shot in the next decade.
        Firearm injury and death in America is not only a
    disease,\1\ but a public health crisis in the United States.
    Every day, an average of 109 individuals are killed and more
    than 240 people suffer injuries secondary to firearm
    violence.\2\ \3\ While the United States is a world leader in
    many arenas, we are failing when it comes to firearm injury
    prevention. Firearm-related injury and death is a public health
    problem creating a vast burden of disease across the spectrum
    of ages and socioeconomic groups in this country. Additionally,
    firearm-related violence has a substantial economic burden of
    over 229 billion dollars per year to the United States health
    care system.\4\ \5\ Most concerning, despite advances in trauma
    systems and health care capabilities, the fatality rate
    secondary to firearms has not significantly changed or
    improved.\6\ \7\
        In 2017, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention
    (CDC) reported 39,773 deaths from firearm injury. This accounts
    for 58% of all intentional injuries in the United States. Of
    these firearm-related deaths, 23,854 (60%) were suicides and
    15,919 (40%) were homicides.\2\ \7\ These numbers are the
    highest that have been seen in the past 20 years. Since 1999,
    there has been a 17% increase in firearm-related intentional
    injury mortality rates, with 7,000 more suicide deaths
    secondary to firearms in 2017 compared to 1999.\2\ \8\
        The mass shootings that we have become all too familiar
    capture less than 2% of the entire epidemic we face as a
    nation. Every day in cities like Baltimore, Philadelphia, and
    Chicago we have young Black men that are killed, and their
    stories often go untold. Despite the small proportion of the
    overall epidemic mass shootings are responsible for, in the
    United States mass shootings have been increasing in frequency
    since at least 2011. While the term ``mass shooting'' has
    different definitions among organizations, we define it as any
    firearm-related incident resulting in injury or death of 4 or
    more people. Semiautomatic weapons are commonly used in active
    shooter incidents resulting in more people being injured or
    killed.\9\
        Recognizing we have a problem is essential, and this is a
    multi-faceted health problem requiring a diverse group of
    stakeholders including but not limited to healthcare
    professionals and organizations, public health leaders,
    survivors, manufacturers, academia, gun owners, and yes, young
    people. We must develop a broad multidisciplinary, multi
    strategy systems approach that is supported by good science and
    research.
        We have best practices that we can learn from. Look at
    motor vehicle crashes in the latter half of the 20th century,
    we initially focused on the drivers. We then broadened our
    approach from, ``who caused the crash'' to, ``factors that lead
    to death or injury.'' We determined that numerous fatalities
    were caused by crashing into trees, heads smashing into
    steering wheels, or being ejected from vehicles. We invested in
    research. We developed solutions like seat belts, air bags, and
    safer roads. Since then we have seen fatalities per mile driven
    fall by 85%. This is the essence of the public health approach:
    Multisector, research informed, evidence-based programs and
    policies. In response, we developed safer cars and roads, and
    we saved lives.
        The American College of Surgeons Firearm Strategy Team
    (FAST) work group, a group composed of surgeon leaders that are
    firearm owners, recently published a consensus statement\10\
    describing firearm injury prevention solutions that is
    consistent with the public health approach. This is yet another
    demonstration that as Americans, we have much more in common
    than we have than that which divides us. The false narrative
    that exists throughout social media and other outlets attempt
    to polarize a discussion at a time when now more than ever we
    must be united. It is thought that the vastly different
    viewpoints that may exist around firearms have brought our
    Nation to a standstill and prevented improvement in violence
    and injury prevention.
        In 2015, a public opinion survey from the Johns Hopkins
    Center for Gun Policy and Research was conducted among gun-
    owners and non-owners. Both 84% of gun-owners and 84% of non-
    owners favored background checks for all gun sales.
    Additionally, 78% of gun-owners and 80% of non-owners favored
    preventing sales to people with temporary domestic violence
    restraining orders. The majority of both owners and non-owners
    also supported the release of data on which gun dealers sell
    the most guns used in crimes, requiring a license before buying
    a gun to verify identify, and temporarily removing guns from
    individuals who pose immediate threat of harm to self or
    others.\11\
        A few weeks ago, Congressman Mike Thompson and Peter King
    introduced the Bipartisan Background Check Expansion Act (HR 8)
    on the anniversary of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords near fatal
    injury. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, or ``The
    Brady Bill,'' was signed into law in 1993 by President Clinton
    and instituted background checks at federally licensed gun
    dealerships designed to prevent high-risk individuals from
    purchasing firearms. This bill instituted the FBI to run each
    firearm purchaser through the National Instant Criminal
    Background Check System. Prohibited users include felons,
    fugitives, domestic abusers, and dangerously mentally ill
    individuals. Since the success of the Brady Bill and Brady
    Campaign, over 3 million attempts to purchase firearms have
    been prevented; about half of these blocked attempts were
    attempted purchases by felons.\12\
        Background checks are a strongly evidence-based method to
    reduce firearm violence.\2\ In addition, this process is
    critical to ensuring appropriate individuals have access to
    obtaining firearms and avoiding sales or transfer of firearms
    to criminals or others who should not have access to these
    weapons.
        While the Brady Bill has been successful in limiting gun
    sales in federally licensed gun dealerships, a significant
    proportion of firearms are sold through non-licensed dealers
    that are not mandated to perform background checks.\13\ \14\
    Currently, background checks are not required for guns sold at
    gun shows, online, or through private transfers. In total,
    these sales account for an estimated 6.6 million firearms.\14\
    \15\ Another way to think about it is 1 in 5 (20%) gun sales
    take place with ``no questions asked'' resulting in thousands
    of guns going into the hands of people that shouldn't have
    them.
        We must also ensure federal investment for firearm injury
    prevention research, implementation of Extreme Risk Protections
    Orders, education on safe storage, firearm safety technology
    investment, expanded access to behavioral health services, and
    improving victim services that begin in the hospital, and
    expanding victim rights to bring recourse in the courts against
    gun manufacturers for their negligent acts.
        In 1996, Congress passed the Dickey amendment in the
    omnibus spending bill mandating that none of the funds made
    available for injury prevention and control at the CDC could be
    used to ``advocate or promote gun control.''\16\ In addition,
    in that same spending bill Congress stripped the CDC of 2.6
    Million dollars, which happened to be the exact amount
    allocated in the prior year to firearm research. These actions
    severely limited research funding dedicated to firearm-related
    violence over the past two decades.\17\ In 2011, this was
    extended to include all federal agencies including the NIH.\18\
    More recently, in 2013, President Obama signed an Executive
    Order permitting the CDC to study or sponsor research dedicated
    to firearm injury prevention.\19\ While this Executive Order
    created opportunities for funding injury prevention secondary
    to firearm-related injury and death, Congress has failed to
    appropriate the necessary funds to allow for research in this
    arena.
        This funding limitation has substantially impacted firearm-
    related violence research. Violent injury secondary to firearms
    is the most poorly addressed public health problem in the US
    and is drastically underfunded given its substantial burden of
    disease.\8\ One study compared the mortality and research
    funding of different disease states. The number of deaths from
    firearm violence and sepsis were nearly the same in 2014.
    However, when comparing funding, the aid dedicated to gun
    violence research was 0.7% that of sepsis and the publication
    volume was only 4%.\20\ Of all diseases compared in this study,
    firearm violence was the least researched cause of death.\20\
        We have both the opportunity and responsibility to
    comprehensively address gun violence as the true public health
    crisis that it is. This is not a Democrat versus Republican
    issue. It's a uniquely American issue and it is uniquely in
    each of your hands to help fix it.
        The America I'm fighting for is one where parents no longer
    have to fear the phone call that my parents received, that the
    Parkland parents received, and literally hundreds of others in
    communities across this country are receiving every single day.
    As a trauma surgeon, I have to look into the eyes of these
    parents and it's nothing less than heartbreaking. The medical
    community implores you: The time for action is now. There is no
    one solution to this complex health problem, which is why we
    must come together as a country to build consensus and support
    and develop a research informed, data-driven, approach so that
    we can help you, as our policy-makers, to ensure the public
    safety of Americans all across this great nation.

                               References

         1. LHargarten S, Lerner EB, Gorelick, M, et al. Gun
    Violence: A Biopsychosocial Disease. West J Emerg Med.
    2018;19(6):1-4.
         2. LCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, National
    Center for Health Statistics. Underlying Cause of Death. 1999-
    2017 on CDC WONDER Online Database, released December, 2018.
    Data are from the Multiple Cause of Death Files, 1999-2017, as
    compiled from data provided by the 57 vital statistics
    jurisdictions through the Vital Statistics Cooperative Program.
    Available at: http://wonder.cdc.gov/ucd-icd10.html.
         3. LGani F, Sakran JV, Canner JK. Emergency Department
    visits for firearm-related injuries in the United States, 2006-
    14. Journal of Health Affairs. 2017; 36(10):1729-1738.
         4. LTasigiorgos S, Economopoulos KP, Winfield R, et al.
    Firearm injury in the United States: An overview of an evolving
    public health problem. J Amer Coll Surgeons. 2015; 221(6):1005-
    1014.
         5. LFollman M, Lurie J, Lee J, et al. The true cost of gun
    violence in America (2015). http://www.motherjones.com/
    politics/2015/04/true-cost-of-gun-
    violence-in-america.
         6. LGross BW, Cook AD, Rinehart CD, Lynch CA, Bradburn EH,
    Bupp KA, Morrison CA, Rogers FB. An epidemiologic overview of
    13 years of firearm hospitalizations in Pennsylvania. J Surg
    Res. 2017; 210:188-195.
         7. LTessler RA, Arbabi S, Bulger EM, et al. Trends in
    firearm injury and motor vehicle crash case fatality by age
    group, 2003-2013. JAMA Surgery. December 2018; doi:10.1001/
    jamasurg.2018.4685.
         8. LStewart RM, Kuhls DA, Rotondo MF, et al. Freedom with
    responsibility: A consensus strategy for preventing injury,
    death, and disability from firearm violence. J Am Coll Surg.
    2018; 227:281-283.
         9. LDe Jager E, McCarty JC, Hashmi ZG, et al. Lethality of
    civilian active shooter incidents with and without
    semiautomatic rifles in the United States. JAMA. 2018;
    320(10):1-2.
        10. LTalley CL, Campbell BT, Jenkins DH, et al.
    Recommendations from the American College of Surgeons Committee
    on Trauma's Firearm Strategy Team (FAST) Workgroup: Chicago
    Consensus I. J Am Coll Surg. 2018; 228(2):198-206.
        11. LBarry CL, McGinty EE, Vernick JS, et al. Two years
    after Newton--public opinion on gun policy revisited.
    Preventative Medicine. 2015; 79:55-58.
        12. LFrandsen RJ, Naglich D, Lauver GA, et al. Background
    checks for firearm transfers, 2010--Statistical Tables.
    Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2013.
        13. LMiller M, Hepburn L, Azrael D. Firearm acquisition
    without background checks: Results of a national survey. Annals
    of Internal Medicine. 2017; 166(4):233-239.
        14. LCook PJ, Ludwig J. Guns in America: National Survey on
    private ownership and use of firearms. Washington, DC: U.S.
    Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice Research
    in Brief; May 1997. www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf.
        15. LWintemute GJ, Braga AA, Kennedy DM. Private-party gun
    sales, regulation, and public safety. NEJM. 2010; 363(6):508-
    11.
        16. LKellerman AL, Rivara FP. Silencing the science on gun
    research. JAMA. 2013; 309(6):549-550.
        17. LHe K, Sakran JV. Elimination of the moratorium on gun
    research is not enough. The need for the CDC to set a budgetary
    agenda. JAMA Surg. 2018; doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2018.4211.
        18. LConsolidated Appropriations Act 2023; PubL No. 112-74.
    http://www.gpo .gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112pub174/pdf/PLAW-
    112pub174.pdf. December 2011.
        19. LPresidential Memorandum--Engaging in public health
    research on the causes and prevention of gun violence. January
    16th, 2013. https://www.whitehouse .gov/the-press-office/2013/
    01/16/presdiential-memorandum-engagin-public-
    health-research-causes-and-pre-0.
        20. LStark DE, Shah NH. Funding and publication of research
    on gun violence and other leading causes of death. JAMA. 2017;
    317(1):84-86.

        Chair Nadler. Thank you.
        Major Tapp-Harper?

                    TESTIMONY OF SABRINA TAPP-HARPER

        Thank you, Chair Nadler and Members of the House Judiciary
    Committee, for inviting me here to testify today. My name is
    Sabrina Tapp-Harper, and I am the Commander of the Domestic
    Violence Unit of the Baltimore City Sheriff's Office in
    Baltimore, Maryland. I am here today to talk about the dangers
    that gun laws impose on our communities, specifically for women
    and families who are victims of domestic violence.
        The data is clear: Victims of domestic violence are at
    increased risk of gun violence in this country. In the United
    States, women are 11 times more likely to be killed with a gun
    than women in comparable countries. Much of this fatal violence
    against women is committed by intimate partners. According to
    the FBI, almost half of the murders of women were committed by
    current or former husbands or boyfriends, 10 times as many as
    by a male stranger.
        According to the American Journal of Public Health, the
    presence of a firearm in the domestic violence situation
    increases the risk of a homicide for a woman by 500 percent.
    These numbers miss many of the murders committed by ex-
    boyfriends who are seldom accurately categorized and who may
    account for another 300 to 400 of the 1,000 intimate partners
    murdered each year.
        The Violence Policy Center found that a gun was the weapon
    used in over half of the murders in which the weapon was known.
    Dr. Jacqueline Campbell's research has shown that gun access by
    a bad actor is the single best predictor of whether a woman
    will be killed by him, increasing the risk of her murder by
    more than five-fold. Abusers also use guns to terrorize their
    victims.
        While commanding the Domestic Violence Unit of the
    Baltimore City Sheriff's Office, one petitioner directed
    deputies to an assault rifle that had been buried in the ground
    for over 10 years and was still fully operable when recovered.
    The respondent in this particular case was also Federally
    prohibited from owning firearms.
        Domestic abusers hide weapons in any place they can. I know
    of deputies directed by petitioners who have recovered hidden
    firearms in washing machines and air conditioning units as
    well.
        In a study of over 400 women in domestic violence shelters
    in California, two-thirds of the women who reported a firearm
    in their home said their intimate partner used a gun against
    them, with over 70 percent threatening to shoot or kill her, 5
    percent actually shooting at her. That same study found that
    only 1 in 20 abused women who had access to a gun reported ever
    having used it in self-defense against her abuser.
        Another study found that among California handgun
    purchasers, women who had purchased guns had a 50 percent
    increased risk of homicide, all of which could be attributed to
    homicide by an intimate partner. Having access to a gun did not
    make these women safer.
        It is worth noting that mass shootings, those shootings
    involving the death of four or more people, disproportionately
    affect women. In an analysis of such shootings conducted by the
    research arm of Every Town for Gun Safety, in at least 54
    percent of mass shootings, the shooter murdered or injured a
    current or former partner or family member, and most of these
    shootings took place in the home.
        Background checks and laws restricting domestic abusers
    from owning weapons appear to be effective. Another analysis of
    Every Town found that states with stronger gun laws, including
    states that require background checks on every gun sale,
    reported lower rates of intimate partner gun homicides of women
    than states with weaker gun laws. There is also evidence that
    State laws to strengthen firearm prohibitions against domestic
    abusers reduced intimate partner homicides.
        Law enforcement officers in this country are most often
    tragically killed in traffic-related incidents and domestic-
    related matters. Greater love hath no man than this that a man
    lay down his life for his friends. Those of us who do this
    important work each day need strong laws that restrict firearm
    access to the most dangerous based on the best available
    evidence and strong enforcement of existing laws. This would
    include policies like closing loopholes that exempt private gun
    sales and gun shows from background checks, ensuring that all
    states have laws restricting possession and gun sales to those
    subject to domestic violence restraining orders and domestic
    violence misdemeanors, ensuring that states with such laws are
    removing firearms when allowed, and strictly enforcing the law
    and amending Federal laws to include dating partners who
    research indicates perpetrate a substantial portion of intimate
    partner homicide of women.
        We all have a responsibility to Act on the facts supported
    by research data to establish legal parameters to keep us all
    safe.
        Thank you for inviting me here today to share my views on
    this critically important public safety issue. I am happy to
    answer any questions you may have.
        Thank you.
        [The statement of Ms. Tapp-Harper follows:]

                    STATEMENT OF SABRINA TAPP-HARPER

        Thank you, Chair Nadler and Members of the House Judiciary
    Committee for inviting me here to testify today. My name is
    Major Sabrina Tapp-Harper, and I am the Commander of the
    Domestic Violence Unit of the Baltimore City Sheriff's Office
    in Baltimore, Maryland. I am here to today to talk about the
    dangers that weak gun laws pose on our communities,
    specifically for women and families who are victims of domestic
    violence.
        The data is clear: Victims of domestic violence are at
    increased risk of gun violence in this country. In the United
    States, women are 11 times more likely to be killed with a gun
    than women in comparable countries.\1\ Much of this fatal
    violence against women is committed by intimate partners.
    According to the FBI, almost half of murders of women were
    committed by a current or former husband or a boyfriend--ten
    times as many as by a male stranger.\2\ According to the
    American Journal of Public Health, the presence of a firearm in
    a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide
    for a woman by 500%.\3\ These numbers miss many of the murders
    committed by ex-boyfriends, who are seldom accurately
    categorized, and who may account for another 300-400 of the
    1000 intimate partner murders each year. The Violence Policy
    Center found that a gun was the weapon used in over half of
    murders in which the weapon was known.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ D. Hemenway and E.G. Richardson, ``Homicide, Suicide, and
    Unintentional Firearm Fatality: Comparing the United States with Other
    High-Income Countries, 2003,'' 70 Journal of Trauma 238-42 (2011),
    available at doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181dbaddf.
        \2\ Bureau of Justice Statistics. Homicide Trends in the United
    States, 1980-2008. 2011. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
    2011 NCJ 236018.
        \3\ Campbell JC, Webster DW, Koziol-McLain J, et al. Risk factors
    for femicide in abusive relationships: results from a multisite case
    control study. American Journal of Public Health 2003;93:1069-97.
        \4\ Violence Policy Center. When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of
    2015 Homicide Data--Females Murdered by Males in Single Victim/Single
    Offender. www.vpc.org.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Dr. Jacqueline Campbell's research has shown that gun
    access by a batterer is the single best predictor of whether a
    woman would be killed by him, increasing the risk of her murder
    more than five-fold.\5\ Abusers also use guns to terrorize
    their victims. While commanding the Domestic Violence Unit in
    the Baltimore City Sheriff's Office, one petitioner directed
    deputies to an assault rifle that had been buried in the ground
    for 10 years, and was still fully operable when recovered. The
    respondent in this case was federally prohibited from owning
    firearms. Domestic abusers hide weapons in any place they can.
    I know of deputies, directed by the petitioner, who have
    recovered hidden firearms in washing machines and air
    conditioning units.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Campbell, Webster, Koziol-McLain, et al.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In a study of over 400 women in domestic violence shelters
    in California, two-thirds of the women who reported a firearm
    in their home said their intimate partner used a gun against
    them, with over 70% threatening to shoot or kill her and 5%
    actually shooting at her. That same study found that only 1 in
    20 abused women who has access to a gun reported ever having
    used it in self-defense against her abuser.\6\ Another study
    found that among California handgun purchasers, women who
    purchased guns had a 50% increase in risk of homicide--all of
    which could be attributed to homicide by an intimate
    partner.\7\ Having access to a gun did not make these women
    safer.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Sorenson, SB and Wiebe, DJ. Weapons in the lives of battered
    women. American Journal of Public Health, 2004 94: 1412-1417.
        \7\ Wintemute, G; Wright, M.A.; Drake, C.M. (2003). Increased risk
    of intimate partner homicide among California women who purchased
    handguns, Annals of Emergency Medicine. 41(2), p. 281-283, 6.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is worth noting that mass shootings--those shootings
    involving the death of 4 or more people--disproportionately
    affect women. In an analysis of such shootings conducted by the
    research arm of Everytown for Gun Safety, in at least 54% of
    mass shootings, the shooter murdered or injured a current or
    former partner or family member, and most of these shootings
    took place in homes.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Everytown for Gun Safety, Mass Shootings in the United States:
    2009-2017. https://every townresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-
    analysis/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Background checks and laws restricting domestic abusers
    from owning weapons appear to be effective. Another analysis by
    Everytown for Gun Safety found that states with stronger gun
    laws, including the states that require a background check on
    every gun sale, reported lower rates of intimate partner gun
    homicides of women than the states with weaker gun laws.\9\
    There is also evidence that State laws to strengthen firearm
    prohibitions against domestic abusers reduce intimate partner
    homicide. In multiple studies, researchers found that states
    with statutes restricting those under domestic violence
    restraining orders from accessing firearms experience fewer
    intimate partner homicides, driven by a reduction in homicides
    committed with firearms.\10\ \11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Every town for Gun Safety, Guns and Violence Against Women:
    America's Uniquely Lethal Domestic Violence Problem. https://
    everytownresearch.org/reports/guns-and-violence-against-women/.
        \10\ April M. Zeoli, et al., ``Analysis of the Strength of Legal
    Firearms Restrictions for Perpetrators of Domestic Violence and Their
    Association with Intimate Partner Homicide,'' American Journal of
    Epidemiology 187, No. 11 (2018).
        \11\ Vigdor ER, Mercy JA. Do laws restricting access to firearms
    bydomestic violence offenders prevent intimate partner homicide?
    Evaluation Review 2006; 30:313-46.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Law enforcement officers in this country are most often
    tragically killed in traffic-related incidents and domestic-
    related matters. Greater love hath no man this, that a man lay
    down his life for his friends . . . . Those of us who do this
    important work each day need strong laws that restrict firearm
    access to the most dangerous based on the best available
    evidence and strong enforcement of the existing laws. This
    would include policies like closing loopholes that exempt
    private gun sales and gun shows from background checks;
    ensuring that all states have laws restricting gun possession
    and gun sales to those subject to domestic violence restraining
    orders and domestic violence misdemeanors; ensuring that states
    with such laws are removing firearms when allowed and strictly
    enforcing the law; and amending federal laws to include dating
    partners, who research indicates perpetrate a substantial
    portion of intimate partner homicide of women.
        We all have a responsibility to Act on the facts, supported
    by research data to establish the legal parameters to keep us
    all safe. Thank you for inviting me here today to share my
    views on this critically important public safety issue. I am
    happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

        Chair Nadler. Thank you.
        Chief Acevedo?

                        TESTIMONY OF ART ACEVEDO

        Good morning, Chair Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, and
    distinguished Members of Congress, especially Sheila Jackson
    Lee, who has not only been a champion of this issue for a long
    time but is actually my Congresswoman. I live in her district.
        Mr. Collins. Chief, can I just say, she does such an
    elegant job, you ought to take her everywhere for your
    introduction.
        [Laughter.]
        Chief Acevedo. Thank you. I think I will try that.
        Obviously, Congresswoman Garcia, who we have worked with
    for so many years at the State level, and Mr. Correa and others
    that we have worked with over the years.
        I speak today to all of you both as the Police Chief of
    Houston and President of the Chiefs Association, representing
    the largest police departments in the nation, where gun
    violence truly takes its greatest toll.
        I am also honored to speak for the U.S. Conference of
    Mayors and attach their Membership resolution, which was
    submitted yesterday.
        Mayors and Chiefs have formed an unprecedented alliance
    with others to address gun violence in our nation. On June 8th,
    I had the privilege to join the U.S. Conference of Mayors in
    Boston, along with Mayor Sylvester Turner of Houston and the
    President of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, President Steven
    Benjamin of Columbia, South Carolina, where they unanimously
    adopted our position paper on gun violence and reducing gun
    violence.
        I would like to introduce Laura Waxman, who is here today
    representing the nation's mayors. Laura, if you can wave.
        It is important to realize that a firearms policy is not a
    zero-sum proposition. We all urge that you let common sense
    guide you as you pursue the development of public policies that
    balance the long-adopted Second amendment rights of our fellow
    Americans with the need to combat the scourge of daily gun
    violence throughout our nation.
        This gun violence is arguably one of the greatest public
    health epidemics facing the Nation everyone in this room loves
    and serves. Chiefs of Police and Sheriffs join the victims in
    asking you to Act now to prevent one more death and bloodshed.
    We implore you to consider multiple steps and measures to curb
    the ongoing threat of gun violence.
        The universal background check, expanded mental health
    provisions, red flag legislation are measures that we know will
    work. The time is now to make sure that we get rid of the gaps
    and loopholes that defeat the purpose for which they were
    intended.
        Next week we have invited Members of Congress, I think Mr.
    Thompson, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee and others will be
    joining the Chiefs and the Sheriffs here in Washington to have
    a roundtable on this issue, and if you have not been invited, I
    would like to extend that invitation to all Members here today.
    We hope again that as this debate continues, that we realize
    that doing nothing is not acceptable, and while we really focus
    and the media focuses on the multitudes of the almost regular
    mass shootings in our country that the media covers, for every
    one of those, sons and daughters, our children, our family
    Members, our police officers, are being shot, killed, and
    maimed, and I would urge Congress to do something this term. It
    is our time to make a difference because our streets, our
    neighborhoods, are truly drowning in the blood of our victims
    and in the tears of their loved ones.
        At this moment in time, I would like to tell the young
    people from Parkland, Santa Fe and beyond, and the March for
    Our Lives, that the Chiefs are proud to stand with you. The
    future belongs to you, and we are here to help you secure it.
        Thank you very much.
        [The testimony of Chief Acevedo follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMA

        Chair Nadler. Thank you very much, Chief.
        Professor Malcolm?

                     TESTIMONY OF JOYCE LEE MALCOLM

        Dr. Malcolm. Thank you very much for inviting me to testify
    here before the committee.
        All of us are here today with the same goal: We want to
    increase public safety, and we want to protect the lives of the
    citizens of our country. The thing that divides us is how we
    feel we can best achieve that aim. The Supreme Court has
    explained in two landmark cases that the Framers of the Second
    amendment were clear about the solution to public safety. They
    have bequeathed to us, as individuals, the right to keep and
    bear those guns in common use for self-defense and other lawful
    purposes. In other words, we are to have the means to protect
    ourselves.
        I should say about those two cases, the Heller case in
    Washington and the McDonald case in Chicago, that the
    petitioners were people who really needed to protect
    themselves. One of the ones in the Heller case was a woman
    named Shelly Parker who lived in Washington where there was a
    lot of drug dealing going on. She reported this several times
    to the police, and the drug dealers said they knew who she was,
    and they were going to get her. In Chicago, Otis McDonald was
    an African American in his 70s. His apartment had been invaded
    several times, and he needed something to protect himself.
        So, these cases were brought by people who really needed to
    protect themselves. Now, there are some people who argue that
    this right of the Second amendment is outdated, we have the
    police to protect us, and go on to claim that permitting law-
    abiding citizens to have firearms to protect themselves would
    make all of us less safe.
        Do we still need to protect ourselves? First, however
    responsible the police are, they cannot protect all of us all
    the time. In fact, in a landmark case here in Washington, we
    found out that they had no responsibility to protect any
    individual. There was a case brought by three women who were
    assaulted in their townhouse on Capitol Hill. They called 911
    repeatedly for half an hour. Nobody ever came. They sued the
    police in Washington, and the court dismissed their case saying
    that there was a duty to provide public service to the public
    at large, but absent a special relationship between the police
    and an individual, no specific legal duty exists. So, the
    police have no legal duty to protect any one of us.
        I should say about the horrible Parkland massacre that the
    school in Parkland has now decided after a study that they are
    going to allow the teachers to be armed.
        The FBI does not record self-defense. So there have been
    some national surveys to try to find out how many people have
    actually used a gun in self-defense, and the national surveys,
    which vary a lot, have found between 700,000 and 3.6 million
    defensive uses of a gun annually. Normally, all that the person
    defending himself must do is actually brandish the gun. They
    almost never need to use it. It is just a way of showing that
    they can protect themselves during an attack.
        Will the private transfer of weapons on the FBI instant
    background check prevent gun violence? No, they will not.
        On the other hand, tactics to make it difficult for law-
    abiding Americans to keep and carry weapons in common use for
    their self-defense is a serious infringement of their
    constitutional right. Rather than improving public safety, it
    will make the public more vulnerable to those who would seek to
    harm them, including the battered women who are in danger,
    including students who are in a school where no one is
    protecting them.
        To conclude, Justice Scalia, in writing for the majority in
    the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, reminded us of the
    enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain
    policy choices off the table.
        Thank you.
        [The statement of Dr. Malcolm follows:]

                     STATEMENT OF JOYCE LEE MALCOLM

        We are here today because of our common goal: Public safety
    and how best to protect the lives of the American people. What
    divides us is the means by which we would accomplish that goal.
    The Supreme Court has explained in two landmark cases that the
    Framers of the Second amendment were clear about the solution.
    They have bequeathed to us, as individuals, the right to keep
    and bear those weapons in common use for self-defense and other
    lawful purposes. In other words we are to have the means to
    protect ourselves.
        Some argue that this right is outdated and that in 2019 we
    no longer need to protect ourselves, the police will protect
    us. Indeed, they go on to claim that permitting individual law-
    abiding citizens to have firearms to protect themselves will
    make all of us less safe. I would like to address both
    assertions.
        First do we still need to be able to protect ourselves?
    Self defense has always been considered our most fundament
    right. Despite the many police officers we now have, even with
    the best of intentions, they can never protect all of us all
    the time or even any one of us all the time. That is something
    only the individual on the spot can do. A means of self-defense
    is especially important to women and the elderly, or all those
    who live in more dangerous areas. ``The future process of
    law,'' William Blackstone, the great English jurist, explained,
    ``is by no means an adequate remedy for injuries accompanied by
    force.'' Self-defense, he adds, ``is not, neither can it be in
    fact, taken away by the law of society.'' Depriving individuals
    of the means to protect themselves takes the possibility of
    effective self-defense away. Their safety is forfeit.
        Do the police have a duty to protect you? This may seem a
    surprising question but a 1981 case involving three young women
    living in Capitol Hill provides a startling answer. The women
    who were brutalized by two men sued the police for failing to
    respond to their desperate and repeated calls to 911. The D.C.
    law banned their ownership of a firearm. The District of
    Columbia Court of Appeals dismissed the women's complaints
    against the District and Members of the police department
    pointing out: ``the duty to provide public services is owed to
    the public at large, and absent a special relationship between
    the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists.''
    In short the police have no legal duty to protect any one of
    us.
        Sadly, in a more recent case those charged with protecting
    us fail dramatically as in the terrible shooting at the
    Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland a year ago this month.
    No only did the local sheriff's department receive some 45
    calls that the shooter Cruz posed a danger, they failed to
    block him from getting a gun or even to disarm him once he had
    weapons. After he had entered the school and began his killing
    spree the sheriff's deputy failed to confront him as did three
    other officers, instead waiting outside the building. The
    Parkland school now has decided the best way to protect
    students is to permit some teachers to be armed.
        Has the growing number of law-abiding Americans carrying
    arms increased the gun homicide rate? In the past few years
    State after State has passed ``shall issue'' legislation
    permitting their law-abiding citizens who fulfill certain basic
    regulations to carry a concealed weapon, so they may keep and
    bear arms for self-defense and other lawful purposes as the
    Constitution permits. There are now 39 ``shall issue'' states.
    You can drive across the country from Florida to Washington
    State and never cross a State that does not have ``shall
    issue'' concealed carry. In 2018 the FBI reported some
    26,181,936 requests for background checks to purchase a weapon.
    Has this increase in the number of firearms led to higher gun
    homicide rates? The answer is ``no.'' Since a high of gun
    homicide deaths in 1991 there has been a steep decline, with
    firearm homicides dropping by nearly half. A study of an uptick
    in the past two years found that more than \2/3\ of the gun
    deaths were suicides. While that is little comfort for those
    who have been grievously harmed by shootings, it does show that
    permitting people to protect themselves does not increase the
    homicide rate.
        On the other hand guns are invaluable to protect oneself or
    others. The FBI does not record defensive uses of guns, but
    national surveys have found between 700,000 and 3.6 million
    defensive uses of a gun annually. Normally all the defender has
    to do is brandish the firearm to halt the attack.
        Will including private transfers of weapons on the FBI
    instant background check prevent gun violence? A large
    proportion of gun violence is caused by street gangs and they
    and others bent on misusing weapons obtain their guns illegally
    and are unlikely to submit to background checks or other
    requirements. More mental health facilities able to treat those
    deemed dangerous to themselves and others would be an aid in
    preventing mass killings. In 2016 Congress passed the Helping
    Families with Mental Health Crisis Act. This is a positive step
    in that direction.
        On the other hand tactics to make it difficult for law-
    abiding Americans to keep and carry weapons in common use for
    their self-defense is a serious infringement of their
    constitutional right and rather than improving public safety
    will make the public more vulnerable to those who would seek to
    harm them. To conclude, Justice Scalia, in writing for the
    majority in District of Columbia v. Heller reminded us that
    ``the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes
    certain policy choices off the table.''

        Mr. Deutch. Mr. Chair, a point of information.
        Mr. Chair, it is important, before we go on, on important
    pieces of information, on declarations that are factually
    wrong, it is important to point them out.
        The Broward County School Board, the Stoneman Douglas
    teachers did not conclude that the response to what happened in
    their school is arming teachers. It is important that we get
    those facts straight.
        Dr. Malcolm. There was a commission--if I could be allowed
    to respond?
        Chair Nadler. Briefly, yes.
        Dr. Malcolm. There was a commission that was set up by the
    school, and it decided that was the best--
        Mr. Deutch. That is also incorrect.
        Chair Nadler. We will deal with this in the question
    period.
        Thank you, Professor.
        Ms. Thomas?

                       TESTIMONY OF ROBYN THOMAS

        Ms. Thomas. Thank you, Chair Nadler, Ranking Member
    Collins, and Members of the committee, for the opportunity to
    testify here today.
        My name is Robyn Thomas, and I am the Executive Director of
    the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Giffords Law
    Center was formed more than 25 years ago after a mass shooting
    at a San Francisco law firm and renamed for Congresswoman Gabby
    Giffords after joining forces in 2016 with the organization she
    co-founded with her husband, Captain Mark Kelly. I have been
    the Executive Director of the Law Center since 2006.
        Twelve years ago, I told a Committee of Congress that
    numerous loopholes undermine our gun laws, putting American
    lives at risk. Since I last testified before Congress, no
    significant progress has been made to close these loopholes,
    and more than 390,000 people have died from gun violence in our
    country.
        Some of these shootings made national headlines and shocked
    the nation. The massacres at a Safeway in Tucson, at Sandy Hook
    Elementary School, a church in Charleston, in Orlando, Las
    Vegas, Parkland, and Pittsburgh, just to name a few. Most
    American gun violence never makes the news despite nearly 100
    people dying every single day.
        The nominal effort made to address the reporting of records
    to the background check system has not done enough to stem the
    tide of gun violence in our country. It is still far too easy
    for people who want to do harm to get their hands on guns.
        Because Federal law does not require a background check on
    every gun sale, people who should not have guns and are legally
    prohibited from accessing them, like domestic abusers, people
    with violent criminal records, and people prohibited for mental
    health reasons, can easily buy guns from unlicensed sellers
    with no background check and no questions asked.
        Even if prohibiting records are in the NIC system, people
    can simply bypass that system altogether. A 2013 study found
    that approximately 80 percent of all firearms acquired for
    criminal purposes were obtained from sources who were not
    required to run a background check, and 96 percent of inmates
    who were prohibited from possessing a firearm at the time they
    committed their crime obtained a gun this way.
        Congress must close this dangerous loophole. That is why I
    am grateful to Congressman Mike Thompson and this Committee for
    prioritizing H.R. 8, the bipartisan Background Checks Act of
    2019. H.R. 8 will make it harder for dangerous people to get
    their hands on guns and hurt themselves or others.
        Since 1994, background checks have stopped over 3 million
    gun sales or transfers to convicted felons and other prohibited
    individuals. This bill would expand the appropriate use of this
    system, ensuring that laws prohibiting these people from
    possessing guns are properly enforced.
        While closing the loopholes in our Federal background check
    system is a critical first step, we must also do more to cover
    people at a high risk from committing violence who are not
    currently prohibited from purchasing guns. This includes
    abusive dating partners, stalkers, and people convicted of hate
    crimes.
        We should also ensure families and law enforcement have the
    tools they need to intervene when someone demonstrates signs of
    a serious crisis, called extreme risk protection order laws.
    These laws create a legal process to temporarily remove
    firearms if a court finds someone poses a real risk. These laws
    now exist in some form in 13 states and save lives while
    ensuring due process.
        We must invest in our collective future. Congress should
    better regulate the gun industry and enact a gun trafficking
    law. It should also address gun violence in communities where
    its costs are felt most acutely, in urban areas where young
    African American and Latino men are most impacted. Well-funded
    violence intervention and prevention programs can successfully
    break cycles of violence and level the playing field for safety
    in our communities.
        Congress should also invest financially into research in
    this public health and safety crisis. Federal research into gun
    violence has been virtually non-existent for 20 years. This
    must be addressed so we can learn more about this problem and
    how to effectively solve it.
        There is no constitutional impediment to passing life-
    saving gun laws. Since the founding of our country, gun rights
    have always co-existed with gun regulations, and the need to
    protect public safety has always gone hand in hand with
    Americans' right to own guns. The only thing standing in the
    way of saving lives is a lack of political will. All we need to
    strengthen our Federal gun laws is a Congress with the courage
    to do so.
        I urge this Congress to find that courage, to show
    leadership on this life and death issue, and to Act now.
        Mr. Chair, Members of the committee, thank you for inviting
    us here to testify today, and I look forward to answering your
    questions.
        [The testimony of Ms. Thomas follows:]

                       STATEMENT OF ROBYN THOMAS

        Thank you, Chair Nadler, and Members of the Committee for
    the opportunity to testify here today. My name is Robyn Thomas
    and I am the Executive Director of Giffords Law Center to
    Prevent Gun Violence. Giffords Law Center was formed more than
    25 years ago after a mass shooting at a San Francisco law firm
    and renamed for former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords after
    joining forces with the organization founded by her and her
    husband, Captain Mark Kelly. I have been the Executive Director
    of the Law Center since 2006.
        Twelve years ago, I told a Committee of Congress that
    numerous loopholes undermine our gun laws, putting American
    lives at risk. Since that time, Congress has begun to address
    only one of those shortcomings: A loophole that undermines
    comprehensive reporting of records into the background check
    system for gun purchasers. And since I last testified before
    Congress, more than 390,000 people have died from gun violence
    in our country.
        Some of these shootings made national headlines and shocked
    the nation--the massacres at a Safeway in Tucson; in an Aurora,
    Colorado movie theatre; at Sandy Hook Elementary School in
    Connecticut; in a church in Charleston; at the Pulse nightclub
    in Orlando; at a country music festival in Las Vegas; at
    Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida; and
    at a synagogue in Pittsburgh--to name only a few.
        After the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007 and again after
    the Sutherland Springs shooting a little over a year ago, we
    saw Members of both parties come together to address the
    records that were missing from the National Instant Criminal
    Background Check System (NICS).\1\ Yet, this effort has proven
    to be far too little to stem the tide of gun violence in this
    country. It is still far too easy for people who want to do
    harm to get their hands on guns.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-180,
    121 Stat. 2559 (2008); Fix NICS Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-141,
    Division S, title VI, 132 Stat. 1132, (2018).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Our federal elected officials need to do more than just
    ensure that records are in the background check system. We need
    to make sure that the background check system is used every
    time a person buys a gun. Under current law, unlicensed sellers
    can sell guns without running a background check. These sales
    occur online, at gun shows, and on the street--any place where
    the seller is not a licensed dealer.
        Because federal law doesn't require a background check for
    every gun sale, people who shouldn't have guns and are legally
    prohibited from accessing them--domestic abusers, people with
    violent criminal records, and people prohibited for mental
    health reasons--can easily buy guns from unlicensed sellers
    with no background check and no questions asked, even if their
    records are in the system. They simply bypass that system.
        This is not an abstract or theoretical matter; it's a
    dangerous loophole in our laws that threatens the public safety
    of communities across the country.
        Gun deaths in the United States have reached their highest
    level in almost 40 years, with nearly 40,000 Americans dying
    from gun violence in 2017--more than 100 people every day.
    Americans are 25 times more likely to be killed by a gun than
    people in other developed nations. In fact, no other developed
    country comes close. Sales and transfers of guns without
    background checks are a major contributor to this problem. A
    2017 study estimated that 22 percent of American gun owners
    acquired their most recent firearm without a background check--
    which translates to millions of guns each year.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Matthew Miller, Lisa Hepburn, and Deborah Azrael, ``Firearm
    Acquisition Without Background Checks,'' Annals of Internal Medicine
    166, No. 4 (2017): 233-239.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        A 2013 study found that approximately 80 percent of all
    firearms acquired for criminal purposes were obtained from
    sources who were not required to run a background check, and
    that 96 percent of inmates who were prohibited from possessing
    a firearm at the time they committed their crime obtained their
    gun this way.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Katherine A. Vittes, Jon S. Vernick, and Daniel W. Webster,
    ``Legal Status and Source of Offenders' Firearms in States with the
    Least Stringent Criteria for Gun Ownership,'' Injury Prevention 19, No.
    1 (2013): 26-31.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Congress must close this dangerous loophole. I am grateful
    to Congressman Mike Thompson and this Committee for
    prioritizing H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of
    2019, in the 116th Congress.
        This bill does not infringe on the right of Americans to
    own guns to protect themselves and their families, or to
    possess them for other lawful purposes. Nothing in the
    Constitution requires America's leaders to stand by and do
    nothing while more people die from gun violence each year than
    die from military combat overseas. Neither are background
    checks a violation of the Second Amendment. In fact, the
    Supreme Court itself has endorsed lifesaving gun safety laws to
    reduce access to guns by dangerous people, and throughout
    American history, courts have repeatedly upheld strong firearms
    regulations.
        H.R. 8 will make it harder for dangerous people to get
    their hands on guns and hurt themselves or others. Since 1994,
    background checks have stopped over three million gun sales or
    transfers to convicted felons, abusive partners, and people
    prohibited for mental health and other reasons. This bill would
    expand the use of this system, ensuring that the laws
    prohibiting these people from possessing guns are enforced.
        Law-abiding citizens can pass background checks. The
    background checks system is designed to identify and deny gun
    sales to only individuals prohibited from possessing firearms.
    The FBI's quality control evaluations indicate that background
    checks are accurate approximately 99.3 percent to 99.8 percent
    of the time.\4\ And in about 90 percent of cases, firearm
    background checks processed through NICS are processed within
    90 seconds.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Office of the Inspector General, ``Audit of the Handling of
    Firearms Purchase Denials Through the National Instant Criminal
    Background Check System,'' U.S. Department of Justice, September 2016,
    https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/a1632.pdf.
        \5\ Federal Bureau of Investigation, ``National Instant Criminal
    Background Check System Celebrates 20 Years of Service,'' Criminal
    Justice Information Services, November 30, 2018, https://www.fbi.gov/
    services/cjis/cjis-link/national-instant-criminal-background-check-
    system-
    celebrates-20-years-of-service.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Sometimes, however, the FBI cannot immediately obtain a
    clear yes or no answer on a NICS check. As I mentioned 12 years
    ago, federal law allows gun dealers to transfer guns after
    three business days, even if the FBI is still processing the
    background check.\6\ This loophole allowed the shooter who
    horrifically, hatefully killed nine people in a church in
    Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015 to obtain his gun, even
    though he wasn't legally entitled to buy it, because his
    background check was still in progress. Approximately 3,000 to
    4,000 guns per year are transferred this way and then later
    have to be reacquired when the FBI determines after the three-
    day window has closed that the person should not have passed
    the background check.\7\ The Charleston loophole threatens
    local communities by enabling guns to fall into the hands of
    dangerous people. In the last Congress, Congressman James
    Clyburn introduced legislation to fix this problem. Congress
    should pass this legislation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(1)(B)(ii).
        \7\ Criminal Justice Information Services Division of the Federal
    Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, ``National Instant
    Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Operations Reports,'' available
    at https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While closing the loopholes in our federal background
    system is a critical first step, we must also do more to
    strengthen the laws that cover people at a high risk of
    committing violence who are not currently prohibited from
    possessing firearms, including domestic abusers.
        Nearly 600 women are shot and killed by intimate partners
    every year--an average of one woman every 16 hours.\8\ More
    than one in three women in the United States have experienced
    sexual violence, physical violence, and/or stalking by an
    intimate partner in their lifetimes, making it critical that
    policymakers take steps to remove firearms from domestic
    violence situations. The gun homicide rate for women in the
    United States is 16 times higher than in other high-income
    countries,\9\ fueled in large part by elevated rates of
    intimate partner gun violence. Guns and domestic violence are a
    deadly mix: The presence of a gun in a domestic violence
    situation makes it five times more likely the victim will
    die,\10\ while domestic violence assaults involving a gun are
    12 times more likely to end in death than assaults with other
    weapons or physical harm\11\ And even when they aren't used to
    commit murder, guns are often used by abusers to threaten and
    coerce their victims--approximately 4.5 million women in the
    United States have been threatened with a gun by an intimate
    partner.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Jennifer Mascia, ``Once Every 16 Hours, an American Woman Is
    Fatally Shot by a Current or Former Romantic Partner,'' The Trace, Feb.
    9, 2016, https://www.thetrace.org/2016/02/women-domestic-violence-
    death-statistics/.
        \9\ Erin Grinshteyn and David Hemenway, ``Violent Death Rates: The
    US Compared with Other High-income OECD Countries, 2010,'' American
    Journal of Medicine 129, No. 3 (2016): 266-273.
        \10\ Jacquelyn C. Campbell, et al., ``Risk Factors for Femicide in
    Abusive Relationships: Results from a Multisite Case Control Study,``
    93 Am. J. Pub. Health (July 2003): 1089, 1092.
        \11\ Linda E. Saltzman, et al., ``Weapon Involvement and Injury
    Outcomes in Family and Intimate Assaults,'' 267 JAMA (1992): 3043-3047.
        \12\ Susan B. Sorenson, Rebecca A. Schut, ``Nonfatal Gun Use in
    Intimate Partner Violence: A Systematic Review of the Literature,''
    Trauma Violence Abuse 19, No. 4 (2018): 431-442.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As was the case when I last testified here, current federal
    law does not prohibit gun possession by people who have
    assaulted dating partners they haven't lived with. This deadly
    gap leaves a significant number of abusers able to legally
    purchase and possess guns--and use them against their
    partners--despite a documented history of violence. As more
    couples wait until later in life to marry, this exception
    becomes deadlier: Today, dating partners, not spouses, commit
    nearly half of all intimate partner homicides.\13\ A study in
    one city showed that over 80 percent of intimate partner
    violence calls to law enforcement involve unmarried dating
    partners who aren't covered by our gun laws.\14\ Congress must
    address this deadly threat to women by making clear that people
    convicted of misdemeanors for abusing or stalking dating
    partners aren't entitled to have guns just because they weren't
    married to their victims. That's why I am grateful to
    Congresswoman Debbie Dingell for introducing H.R. 569, the Zero
    Tolerance for Domestic Abusers Act of 2019, in the 116th
    Congress. This bipartisan bill would follow the lead of states
    that have closed this loophole and subsequently experienced a
    16 percent drop in intimate partner homicides committed with
    guns.\15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Homicide
    Trends in the United States, 1980-2008 (Nov. 2011): 20, http://bjs.gov/
    content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf.
        \14\ Susan B. Sorenson, Devan Spear, ``New Data on Intimate Partner
    Violence and Intimate Relationships: Implications for Gun Laws and
    Federal Data Collection,'' Preventive Medicine 107 (2018): 103-108.
        \15\ April Zeoli, et al., ``Analysis of the Strength of Legal
    Firearms Restrictions for Perpetrators of Domestic Violence and Their
    Association with Intimate Partner Homicides,'' American Journal of
    Epidemiology 187, No. 7 (2018): 1449-1455.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        H.R. 569 would also close the stalking loophole. Current
    federal law prohibits stalkers convicted of felonies from
    purchasing or possessing guns, but lets those convicted of
    misdemeanor crimes to legally access them. But because felony
    stalking charges are often pled down to misdemeanors, this
    leaves victims at significant risk. Nearly one in six women in
    the United States is the victim of stalking in their
    lifetimes,\16\ and stalking is a strong indicator of future
    violence. One study of female murder victims in 10 cities found
    that 76 percent of women who were murdered and 85 percent who
    survived a murder attempt by a current or former intimate
    partner had previously been stalked.\17\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for
    Disease Control and Prevention, ``National Intimate Partner and Sexual
    Violence Survey: 2015 Data Brief - Updated Release,'' (2018): 5,
    https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/2015data-brief508.pdf.
        \17\ Judith M. McFarlane, et al., ``Stalking and Intimate Partner
    Femicide,'' Homicide Studies 3, No. 4 (1999): 300-316.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        People convicted of abusing dating partners and stalking
    clearly should not have access to guns. Neither should those
    convicted of hate crimes.
        Violent extremists and hate groups often use firearms as
    tools of violence and intimidation. Between 2010 and 2014,
    roughly 43,000 hate crimes involving the use or threatened use
    of a gun were committed in the United States.\18\ Recent mass
    shootings at a gay nightclub in Orlando, an historic African-
    American church in Charleston, and a Sikh temple in Oak Creek,
    Wisconsin, were among the deadliest hate crimes ever committed
    in the United States, and among the deadliest mass shootings in
    our nation's history. But federal law does not prohibit
    perpetrators of hate crimes from possessing firearms if they
    plead down their crimes to misdemeanors. In the last Congress,
    Congressman David Cicilline introduced legislation to close
    this loophole. I urge this Congress to take up and pass such a
    bill.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ Center for American Progress, Hate and Guns: A Terrifying
    Combination, Feb. 2016, https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/
    uploads/2016/02/23104301/HateCrimes-report .pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        One more thing Congress should do is to pass extreme risk
    legislation of the kind that has been enacted in red states and
    blue states across the country, especially since the tragic
    shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland,
    Florida. Law enforcement officers often learn that certain
    individuals in their communities pose a real risk of harming
    themselves or others--and shouldn't be permitted to possess
    guns while they're at risk. Family Members, too, often are
    alarmed that a loved one is engaging in dangerous behavior, and
    a common thread in many mass shootings is that a family member
    of the shooter saw these warning signs even before any violence
    occurred.\19\ Extreme risk laws give families and law
    enforcement a way to intervene when someone demonstrates signs
    of a serious crisis, but in too many states, families and law
    enforcement lack this tool.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ See Federal Bureau of Investigation, ``A Study of the Pre-
    Attack Behaviors of Active Shooters in the United States,'' June 2018,
    https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/pre-attack-behaviors-of-active-
    shooters-in-us-2000-2013.pdf/view.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Extreme risk protection order laws empower families and law
    enforcement by creating a mechanism to temporarily remove guns
    and prevent the purchase of new guns if a court finds that
    someone poses a real risk to themselves or others. These laws
    now exist in some form in 13 states and save lives while
    ensuring due process for those who pose serious dangers:
    researchers have determined that in Connecticut, for every 10
    to 20 orders issued, one life was saved.\20\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \20\ Jeffrey W. Swanson et al., ``Implementation and Effectiveness
    of Connecticut's Risk-Based Gun Removal Law: Does it Prevent
    Suicides?,'' Law and Contemporary Problems 80 (2017): 179-208.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Laws authorizing extreme risk protection orders are a
    critical tool in helping to prevent gun suicides, which
    represent 60 percent of gun deaths. Guns are used in only five
    percent of suicide attempts, but are responsible for over 50
    percent of all suicide deaths. This is because suicides
    attempted with guns are fatal 85 percent of the time--far more
    often than suicides attempted by other means.\21\ Put simply,
    people are more likely to die by suicide if they have easy
    access to firearms, and far less likely to die by suicide if
    they do not. For many individuals, this may mean the difference
    between life and death: nine out of 10 people who survive a
    suicide attempt do not die by suicide at a later date.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Confronting the
    Inevitability Myth: How Data-Driven Gun Policies Save Lives from
    Suicide, (2018) 8, 25, https://lawcenter.giffords.org/wp-content/
    uploads/2018/09/Giffords-Law-Center-Confronting-The-Inevitability-
    Myth_9.3.18 .pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Congress can and must do more to support State extreme risk
    laws. These laws have been enacted in states with broad
    bipartisan support, and in the last two Congresses, there has
    been bipartisan support for legislation that would provide
    grants to states that have enacted such legislation or would
    provide a procedure to seek an extreme risk order from a
    federal court. I urge this Congress to prioritize similar
    legislation.
        Congress should also Act to address gun violence in the
    communities where its costs are felt most acutely. Gun
    homicides disproportionally and unjustly impact young African
    American and Latino men in urban areas. In 2017, over 65
    percent of gun homicide victims were men of color. Those who
    survive gun violence are likely to experience it again: In
    studies of urban hospitals, researchers found that up to 45
    percent of patients treated for injuries like gunshots were
    violently reinjured within five years.\22\ Yet, if implemented
    properly, violence intervention programs, like focused
    deterrence, street outreach, and hospital-based interventions,
    have a proven record of success at reducing this violence.\23\
    These programs are capable of saving both lives and money, but
    require reliable, consistent funding to be successful.
    Currently, programs like these have been implemented in just a
    handful of cities and funded through a patchwork of
    discretionary grant programs. The Departments of Justice and
    Health and Human Services should dramatically increase funding
    for these programs. Over the long term, this would pay off in a
    literal sense: Every year, gun violence costs the American
    economy $229 billion. Congress needs to invest in reducing gun
    violence.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ J. Purtle et. al., ``Hospital-based Violence Intervention
    Programs Save Lives and Money,'' J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 75, No. 2
    (2013): 331-333.
        \23\ See Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Healing
    Communities in Crisis: Lifesaving Solutions to the Urban Gun Violence
    Epidemic (2016), https://lawcenter.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/
    2019/01/Healing-Communities-in-Crisis.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This investment must include a commitment to fully
    understand the American gun violence epidemic. This requires
    research. But in 1996, Congress took away dedicated federal
    funding for gun violence research from the Centers for Disease
    Control and Prevention (CDC). For more than 20 years, federal
    investment in gun violence research has remained virtually
    nonexistent at the nation's primary health protection agency,
    despite gun deaths increasing for the past three years in a row
    to levels not seen in decades. Researchers estimate that gun
    violence receives less than two percent of the funding it would
    be expected to receive based on the scope and toll of the
    problem: the Federal Government spends only $57 in research
    monies per gun death, while lung disease, cancer, and heart
    disease receive $6,556, $2,996, and $1,740 per death,
    respectively.\24\ Congress must correct this inequity and
    immediately dedicate the appropriate funding to tackle this
    public health crisis.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \24\ David E. Stark and Nigam H. Shah, ``Funding and Publication of
    Research on Gun Violence and Other Leading Causes of Death,'' JAMA 317,
    No. 1 (2017): 84-86.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Congress must also do more to address gun trafficking.
    Notably, no clear and effective federal law prohibits gun
    trafficking. This blatant omission means that law enforcement
    agencies rarely focus their efforts on those individuals who
    put guns into the wrong hands. Closing the background check
    loophole would begin to address this problem, but the law must
    directly address gun trafficking. Current law does require
    federally licensed firearms dealers to provide a report to the
    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) any
    time a person buys more than one pistol within five consecutive
    business days, which can indicate a trafficker at work.\25\
    This provision should be expanded to all firearms to provide
    law enforcement with the opportunity to investigate individuals
    with potentially dangerous intent.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \25\ 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(3)(A).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is of paramount importance that we give law enforcement
    all the information they need to keep communities safe. When
    felons and other prohibited people lie on Form 4473 when buying
    a gun, not only are they violating federal gun laws, bu they
    may also be planning violent crimes. But current law does not
    require reporting these so-called ``lie and try'' attempts to
    State or local law enforcement. Bipartisan legislation was
    introduced in both chambers in the 115th Congress to ensure
    that when prohibited individuals lie on a background check form
    and try to buy a gun, law enforcement gets a heads up. This
    prompt notification of law enforcement allows agents to
    investigate and make sure that a prohibited purchaser doesn't
    obtain a gun some other way and use it to commit a crime.
        Congress should also ensure that ATF is empowered and
    adequately funded to enforce our nation's gun laws. While most
    gun dealers operate responsibly, a small number of
    irresponsible gun dealers supply an overwhelming number of guns
    used in crimes. Gun dealers need a license from ATF to operate,
    but ATF lacks the resources and authority to effectively
    oversee dealers and shut them down when they behave
    irresponsibly.
        ATF is prohibited from conducting more than one unannounced
    inspection of each dealer per year \26\--but even without this
    restriction, ATF would still lack the resources to conduct
    sufficient inspections. In fact, a 2013 report by the Office of
    the Inspector General found that 58 percent of dealers had not
    been inspected within the past five years due, in part, to a
    lack of resources.\27\ This problem has not been solved in the
    years since: In 2017, ATF inspected only about eight percent of
    federal firearm licensees. Fewer than half of the businesses
    inspected were found to be in full compliance with federal
    firearms laws.\28\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \26\ 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(1)(B).
        \27\ Office of the Inspector General, Evaluation and Inspections
    Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Review of ATF's Federal Firearms
    Licensee Inspection Program (Apr. 2013): ii, http://www.justice.gov/
    oig/reports/2013/e1305.pdf.
        \28\ Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, Fact
    Sheet--Facts and Figures for Fiscal Year 2017 (May 2018), https://
    www.atf.gov/resource-center/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-facts-and-figures-
    fiscal-year-2017.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ATF is only authorized to revoke the license of a dealer
    who has ``willfully'' violated the law,\29\ and ATF's authority
    to temporarily suspend a gun dealer's license is strictly
    limited. In 2017, ATF took administrative action against 3,548
    firearms licensees, but only revoked or denied the renewal of
    40 licenses.\30\ This means that dealers are often allowed to
    stay in business despite careless or reckless business
    practices that have allowed criminals access to guns--even
    after law enforcement learns about those dangerous business
    practices.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \29\ 18 U.S.C. 923(e).
        \30\ Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, Fact Sheet
    - Facts and Figures for Fiscal Year 2017 (May 2018), https://
    www.atf.gov/resource-center/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-facts-and-figures-
    fiscal-year-2017.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ATF is also specifically prohibited from requiring firearm
    dealers to conduct inventories of their businesses.\31\ The
    bureau's lack of authority to ensure that firearms dealers
    utilize this common business practice means that, absent State
    or local regulation, dealers are not required to confirm
    whether firearms have gone missing. Gun stores are also under
    no legal obligation to use basic security measures to safeguard
    their inventories. Over 12,000 guns were either lost or stolen
    from federal firearms licensees in 2017 alone.\32\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \31\ Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act 2013,
    113 P.L. 6, 127 Stat. 198 (2013).
        \32\ Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, Federal
    Firearms Licensee (FFL) Theft/Loss Report (2018), https://www.atf.gov/
    resource-center/docs/report/theftdatausa2017pdf/download.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To keep American communities safe, gun stores whose
    irresponsible business practices put guns in the hands of
    criminals should not be allowed to stay in business, and ATF
    should have the resources and authority necessary to provide
    proper oversight and revoke licenses from bad actors. In past
    Congresses, bills have been introduced in both the House and
    the Senate that would strengthen ATF's authority and reduce
    these problems.
        Just as ATF desperately needs modernization, so too does
    the gun industry. Gun safety technology includes personalized
    guns and accessories such as gun safes, trigger locks, and
    retrofit kits that prevent firearms from being fired by
    unauthorized users.\33\ These innovations have the potential to
    reduce gun suicides and unintentional shootings, especially
    among children, as well as gun thefts. Nearly 7,000 children in
    the United States receive medical treatment for gun-related
    injuries each year. Personalized guns and accessories let
    owners' control who can access their gun. The technology that
    gives owners this control includes biometric security methods,
    like fingerprint sensors, and radio-frequency identification
    (RFID) technology, which uses radio waves to identify objects.
    Personalized accessories, like a fingerprint trigger lock, add
    an extra layer of security to gun safes or locks. When used
    with traditional guns, they offer a similar level of security
    to personalized guns. Congress can encourage the development of
    these potentially lifesaving technologies by providing research
    and development tax credits and grants for gun safety
    technology through supporting the SAFETY Act introduced by
    Congressman Jim Himes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \33\ Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Securing a Safer
    Future: How Incentives for Gun Safety Technology Can Stop Shootings
    (2018), https://lawcenter.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/
    Securing-a-Safer-Future-Giffords-Law-Center-6.13.18.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition to encouraging the gun industry to pursue more
    responsible and safer business practices, Congress should
    ensure that irresponsible and dangerous industry actors can be
    held accountable. But gun dealers, importers, and manufacturers
    also enjoy an immunity from civil liability that doesn't apply
    to any other industry. After a series of lawsuits in the 1990s
    began to hold particularly reckless gun businesses liable, the
    gun lobby convinced Congress to pass and President Bush to sign
    the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005.\34\ This
    law gives gun manufacturers and sellers unprecedented
    nationwide immunity from lawsuits and as a result, the industry
    can ignore the incentive that civil litigation normally
    provides for private businesses to avoid causing harm to the
    public. PLCAA has slammed the courthouse doors shut for the
    thousands of gun violence victims whose deaths and injuries
    could have been prevented if the gun industry behaved in a more
    responsible manner. This Congress has the chance to right this
    wrong by passing legislation to repeal PLCAA.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \34\ Pub. L. No. 109-92, 119 Stat. 2095 (2004).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While the gun industry should be treated equally in court
    to all other industries, it is clear that all guns are not
    created equal. Semi-automatic assault rifles offer a lethal
    combination: rifle ammunition capable of penetrating bullet-
    proof vests, coupled with the capability to accept detachable
    magazines that can hold as many as 100 rounds. This lethality
    has made semi-automatic assault weapons with large-capacity
    magazines the weapons of choice for shooters who carry out
    horrific public attacks. Because shooters with large-capacity
    magazines can fire at large numbers of people without taking
    the time to reload, those in the line of fire do not have a
    chance to escape, law enforcement does not have the chance to
    intervene, and the number of lives shattered by senseless acts
    of gun violence increases dramatically. In Tucson, when Gabby
    was shot, the moment when the shooter stopped firing to reload
    was the moment when a courageous bystander intervened and stop
    his rampage.
        Congress must do more to restrict access to these deadly
    devices, which includes ensuring that a teenager cannot easily
    purchase these exceptionally lethal firearms. Congress set the
    minimum age to buy a handgun at 21, but allows an 18-year-old
    to buy an AR-15. That is how the teenage shooter in Parkland,
    Florida, was able legally buy a semi-automatic assault rifle
    and use it to kill 17 people. Since that tragic day, four
    states have closed this gap and ensured that residents cannot
    buy an AR-15 or AK-47 before they are old enough to buy a
    handgun--or even a beer. Elected officials on both sides of the
    aisle in State legislatures, Congress, and the White House
    agree we must raise the minimum age to purchase these weapons
    of war. Bipartisan legislation has already been introduced this
    Congress to do just that, and I call on Congress to take this
    commonsense step forward.
        Finally, Congress should Act to ban bump stocks. In the
    terrifying attack in Las Vegas, a shooter used semi-automatic
    assault rifles modified with bump stocks to shoot more people
    more quickly. As we are all too aware, attaching a bump stock
    allows a gun to fire like a machine gun. It was this
    modification that allowed the shooter to kill 58 people and
    injure hundreds in a matter of minutes. While a new federal
    regulation was finalized to ban bump stocks, it was immediately
    challenged in court, and there is a real risk that it will be
    tied up in the courts for months or years, leaving these
    dangerous accessories available to the public. Congress can
    ensure this threat is dealt with once and for all by
    acknowledging bipartisan support for banning bump stocks and
    passing legislation that does so.
        As this testimony makes clear, there are countless ways
    that Congress can, and should, strengthen our gun laws to make
    our country safer and save lives from gun violence. The final
    point I want to make is that all of the legislation I have
    endorsed stands on firm constitutional ground. None of the
    proposals I've urged Congress to pass violate the Second
    Amendment.
        In District of Columbia v. Heller, the landmark case from
    2008, the Supreme Court held that the Second amendment protects
    an individual right of law-abiding citizens, unconnected to
    militia service, to own guns for self-defense. But in writing
    for the Court's majority, the late Justice Antonin Scalia also
    made crystal clear that the right is not absolute or unlimited,
    and that it does not override basic public safety concerns.\35\
    Heller explicitly said that the Second amendment was not a
    ``right to keep and carry any weapons whatsoever in any manner
    whatsoever and for whatever purpose,'' and stated directly that
    a range of laws are fully consistent with the Second Amendment,
    including those prohibiting gun possession by felons and the
    mentally ill, prohibiting guns in sensitive places like schools
    and government buildings, and placing conditions on gun sales--
    conditions like background checks. The Court noted that nothing
    in the Second amendment prohibits government from regulating
    firearm storage to prevent accidents and made clear that
    Congress and the states can prohibit civilian possession of
    dangerous weapons of war like the M16 and other weapons most
    adapted to military use.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \35\ 554 U.S. 570 (2008).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Heller's explicit recognition that a broad range of gun
    laws are fully consistent with the Second amendment is in
    keeping with more than 200 years of American history. Since the
    founding of our country, gun rights have always coexisted with
    gun regulations, and the need to protect public safety has
    always gone hand-in-hand with Americans' right to own guns.
    Indeed, early American gun laws were, in many cases, much more
    restrictive than 21st century laws, and went much further than
    any of the actions I have urged Congress to take today. That is
    why, for more than 200 years before Heller and in the decade
    that followed that decision, federal and State courts across
    the country have, again and again, upheld strong gun laws that
    keep our communities safe.
        Let me be clear: there is no constitutional impediment to
    passing lifesaving gun laws. The Second amendment does not
    stand in the way of passing stronger gun laws. The only thing
    standing in the way is the lack of political will. All we need
    to strengthen our federal gun laws is a Congress with the
    courage to do so. I urge Congress to find that courage, to show
    leadership on this life-and-death issue, and to act, now.
        Our gun violence crisis is a uniquely American problem.
    It's a problem that plagues our country in countless different
    ways and exacts a devastating toll on our communities. But it's
    a problem with solutions. While one single law will never stop
    all gun violence, we know strong gun laws save lives. We know
    that allowing children to grow up safe from violence is not a
    partisan issue, or at least it shouldn't be.
        We have seen progress in recent years. That progress must
    be the expectation, not the exception. So today, I ask all
    Members of this Committee and Congress as a whole to recommit
    themselves to making progress and taking action to reduce gun
    violence in this country. Thank you again, Mr. Chair, and I
    look forward to taking your questions.

        Chair Nadler. I thank all the witnesses for their
    testimony. We will now proceed under the 5-minute Rule with
    questions. I will begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
        My first question is for Dr. Sakran. Dr. Sakran, we have
    heard today, and we hear repeatedly during this extended
    debate, that the real problem or one real problem is mental
    health, and we have got to deal better with mental health. Now
    I am sure no one objects to dealing better with mental health
    problems. My question is the following.
        As I noted in my opening statement, gun deaths in most
    other countries are in the double or single digits--at double
    or triple digits, 300, 200, 100. In our country, it is 35,000
    to 40,000 a year. Is there any evidence, number one, that
    mental health differences--that our people are 10,000 times
    more mentally ill on average than people in other
    industrialized countries, that this provides an explanation and
    that dealing with mental health alone will go any distance
    toward solving this problem?
        Dr. Sakran. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, for that question.
        The disparity that exists between our country and other
    comparable countries is dramatic, as you suggest. Even when
    folks factor in for the rates of mental health disease and
    other issues, we still exceed all those other countries by a
    significant proportion. So, it is not that we are completely
    dissimilar.
        Chair Nadler. Thank you. I will ask you one other question.
        Firearms emergency protective orders empower family and law
    enforcement who recognize signs of danger to petition for a
    court order to temporarily remove a person's access to guns if
    they are likely to use them to harm themselves or others.
    Briefly, please, what can Congress do to ensure that every
    American has access to an extreme risk protection order in
    appropriate circumstances when someone they love is
    experiencing such a crisis?
        Dr. Sakran. Yes, I mean, this is such an important issue
    because when you look at the majority of deaths from firearms,
    those come from suicide, two-thirds. The reality is when you
    look at the time that it takes from when the person decides to
    commit suicide until they actually make that first attempt, 50
    percent happen within the first 10 minutes.
        So being able to have--
        Chair Nadler. So, what can Congress do to ensure--
        Dr. Sakran. Yes. So being able to have extreme risk
    protection orders where you can empower family Members and you
    can empower law enforcement to temporarily actually seize
    weapons so that they are not a harm to themselves, or others is
    critical.
        Chair Nadler. Thank you.
        Ms. Thomas, the NRA and others have argued that enacting
    universal background checks would penalize law-abiding gun
    owners and prevent such transfers as a father giving a gun to
    his son. Yet the plain language of H.R. 8, the Bipartisan
    Background Checks Act, is narrowly written and clearly allows
    for this kind of transfer. Can you walk us briefly through H.R.
    8 and how it explicitly protects these kinds of common
    transfers?
        Ms. Thomas. So, basically, what H.R. 8 does is it takes our
    existing law, which prohibits this variety of individuals that
    we deem to be at highest risk from purchasing firearms, now
    these individuals can buy firearms easily without a background
    check through an unlicensed sale. This law would mean that all
    transfers of firearms have to take place through a gun dealer,
    including a background check, so that that background check
    would apply to all individuals.
        There are exceptions in the law for a number of instances,
    including self-defense, including loans for hunting and other
    lawful purposes, and also for transfers within immediate family
    Members--grandparents, parents, aunts, and uncles.
        Chair Nadler. So, within immediate family wouldn't be
    subject to this?
        Ms. Thomas. Excuse me?
        Chair Nadler. Would not be subject to this requirement,
    immediate family transfer, right?
        Ms. Thomas. Exactly. There is an exception for immediate
    family Members being--
        Chair Nadler. Thank you.
        Ms. Thomas, the only Federal agency with jurisdiction to
    regulate the gun industry has had its hands tied for decades
    through a combination of restrictive policy writers and a
    shrinking budget. Can you talk about the challenges facing the
    ATF and its efforts to effectively regulate the gun industry
    and what Congress needs to do to ensure better regulatory
    oversight of this agency?
        Ms. Thomas. Well, I think there is two main issues that you
    are referring to. One is the funding question and the size of
    ATF. ATF, the entirety of ATF is the size of the Las Vegas
    Police Department. So, it is a rather small group of people
    looking to look after 55,000 gun dealers across the United
    States. Approximately 8 percent of those gun dealers were able
    to be even inspected last year, based on the number of agents
    that ATF had. So better funding is an absolute necessity for
    Federal law enforcement to be able to properly do their job.
        Secondarily, I think you are referring to the Tiahrt
    restrictions, which--
        Chair Nadler. What restrictions?
        Ms. Thomas. The Tiahrt restrictions, which are an
    appropriations rider, which prevents ATF from aggregating trace
    data and using that information to properly do their job to
    find the source of gun trafficking. They are also prevented
    from modernizing their records, which is helpful to also doing
    their job properly as law enforcement, as well as encouraging
    or forcing gun dealers to keep better track of their inventory
    so they can better understand the source of guns.
        Chair Nadler. So, we should repeal those restrictions?
        Ms. Thomas. Absolutely.
        Chair Nadler. Thank you very much.
        My time has expired, and I recognize the Ranking Member,
    Mr. Collins, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That was an interesting
    line of questions, but it hit on some things that I want to
    discuss.
        Ms. Thomas, since you are up, we will just continue here.
    On your website, it says that your organization supports
    national firearms registration that includes name, address,
    other identifying information about the owner of a firearm,
    names of the manufacturer, importer, model, type of action, and
    caliber gauge. You get the picture.
        You would also like renewals of registrations annually,
    including submitting to a background check. Is this correct?
    This is off your website.
        Ms. Thomas. One of the many policy solutions that we think
    would go a long way to helping reduce gun violence would be
    registration.
        Mr. Collins. Okay. So that is a yes? I am just asking for a
    yes or no here.
        Ms. Thomas. It is one of the many comprehensive laws that
    we think needs to be in place if we are going to make progress
    in reducing gun violence in America.
        Mr. Collins. Okay. Your organization, as you have already
    stated, is a very active supporter of H.R. 8. Do you realize
    that H.R. 8 explicitly states that nothing in this Act or any
    amendment made by this Act shall be construed to authorize the
    establishment, directly or indirectly, of a national firearms
    registry?
        In fact, it goes out of its way to say it doesn't create a
    firearms registry. How do you square this position calling for
    a registry with a bill explicitly saying it doesn't?
        Ms. Thomas. That is absolutely what H.R. 8 says, and we
    firmly support everything included in H.R. 8. When you go to
    our website, our website includes the most comprehensive source
    of analysis of every gun law in every State and at the Federal
    level, both in existence and what is possible in a world where
    we might want to regulate guns very comprehensively, as they do
    in many other countries.
        So, what is on our website refers to all the possible
    policy options that this body and State governments can
    consider when they are looking at opportunities to regulate
    guns and reduce gun violence.
        Mr. Collins. It is really interesting because it has been
    reported, even under the previous Department of Justice, the
    Obama Administration, that there is no way to actually regulate
    private sales. Let us talk about what we are actually talking
    about here. This is private sales, okay? Not when you go to a
    federally licensed firearm dealer. This private sale is going
    to be regulated.
        It needs a registry because you can't keep up with it
    without a registry. This goes back to my opening statement when
    I said I am not sure which is crueler--to actually tell people
    who come to this hearing to say we are fixing your problem and
    then offer something that it doesn't fix the question here,
    because it guts itself in the inside of the bill.
        You also mention red flag off, which I share a concern
    here. The interesting thing is on the red flag, H.R. 8 itself,
    actually prohibits. If I was this morning to get up and I have
    had a bad night, let us say, and I just said I don't want to
    live anymore. H.R. 8 actually would criminalize if I went
    across the street to my neighbor and said I am having a bad
    day. I want to make sure I don't have anything to hurt myself
    or my family and give those guns to my neighbor, that would
    actually be criminalize.
        It is not in the listed exceptions, and I know there is a
    lot in there. If you read the bill, it is not there. So, again,
    what we have to do is look at what is honestly being discussed
    here.
        I want to switch to Chief Acevedo. Chief, it is good to see
    you again. We had a great time in Houston.
        You are doing something now, and you brought that up. I
    think it is interesting. You know my father is in law
    enforcement, and I think doing something now is a commendable
    thing if it actually works, if it actually fits. How can you
    explain, going off this last conversation, how H.R. 8 can
    operate effectively without a firearms registry, and do you see
    implementation problems in this?
        Chief Acevedo. Well, I think that the recommendations that
    H.R. 8 has in there, the legislation will not solve, will not
    eliminate gun violence, but it will certainly--I don't think
    anyone on this panel would say that it wouldn't prevent at
    least one death. The question I would have, if that one death
    was your child, mother, or father, is a little inconvenience
    too much to save that life?
        If the answer is no, then there is nothing I can say that
    is going to change your mind on H.R. 8. I believe that the
    legislation will save at least one life, and if it is my child
    who dies, I want him to know and I want God to know that I was
    here today speaking on that life.
        Mr. Collins. The interesting thing is, how many, in a law
    that you passed, that you give people comfort in saying it
    would actually pass, can they simply say the transfer was made
    before this without a registry? I think this is an interesting
    thing to actually explore here. We are going to explore this
    more when I am sure it is marked up.
        I am not questioning by any means the decision or the
    desire to find a solution to this. This is it. I am still in
    the military, and I was in Iraq. I had the trauma surgeons in
    Iraq, and we talked about this experience. This is not an
    issue.
        Let us also look at this holistically because every time we
    are going to go to fix this, we go to the population that is
    the legal gun owners buying or selling in the legal format. We
    go to BOP, the Bureau of Prisons, when they put out their
    statistics, most criminals do not get their guns from legal
    sources. They don't.
        The question is interesting, curious, because this has come
    up a little bit. My time is running out. An interesting
    discussion here is what would be the penalty for robbing a
    federally licensed dealer? What should it be, and how should it
    be enforced? Because that is becoming more and more of an
    issue.
        Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman is expired. The
    witness may answer the question.
        Chief Acevedo. I believe that this has to be a two-prong
    approach. We need to take folks that would commit gun violence,
    steal firearms, we need to have a zero tolerance and a real
    tough approach on that.
        The other thing that we need to look at is if these gun
    dealers actually have to secure, lock their firearms every
    night. The number-one targets of gang Members and other
    criminals is pawn shops and gun shops where they come in and
    burglarize those places. So, I think there is a way to do it,
    and I think the other thing we need to do is we have Congress
    actually authorize and fund studying, a comprehensive study on
    this matter, once and for all, and let the experts come up with
    the policy decisions on an evidence-based, which is really
    interesting because you are from George Mason University.
        Pardon me? Actually, in the evidence-based hall of fame
    there. So, I really believe that we need to study it. We need
    to fund it.
        Lastly, we need to get ATF some help. They are a great
    partner, but they truly are because of lack of funding and
    support of the Congress, operate with one hand behind their
    backs, one arm behind their backs, and we need to give them
    both arms.
        Chair Nadler. Thank you. The time of the gentleman has
    expired.
        Ms. Lofgren?
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I am so pleased that we are having this hearing today. You
    know, we have experienced an epidemic of gun violence in this
    country, deaths from mass shootings, suicides, and for years,
    we have failed to have any attention, any hearings, any
    legislation to deal with this epidemic and this tragedy. So, I
    am pleased that we now have the opportunity to begin work on
    this public health crisis.
        It is our turn to set the agenda and to listen to the
    American people. So, I appreciate all the witnesses who are
    here and especially the young people who are in the audience
    who have spoken up across the country with passion and
    eloquence, and it is your energy that has helped us be here
    today.
        I do have a question, Ms. Thomas, about a study that was
    done by Everytown for Gun Safety. They reviewed an online
    firearms marketplace, and according to their report, they found
    that almost one in nine prospective gun buyers from this
    website would not have passed a background check.
        They gave one example of a customer in Georgia who was
    looking to buy a handgun immediately. He said within 24 hours.
    A public records request showed he had multiple felony
    convictions, including one for child molestation. He was
    currently under indictment.
        This was someone who shouldn't have a gun. He wouldn't have
    passed a background check, and yet he was able to obtain it
    through this unlicensed seller on the Internet. That apparently
    is happening at a rate of seven to one of the users of this
    website. People know they can avoid the background check.
        What can be done to make sure the people online and looking
    for guns are not able to avoid a background check?
        Ms. Thomas. That is exactly why we need to pass H.R. 8.
    Because the reference to private sales doesn't acknowledge that
    private sales now, unlicensed sellers include online sales,
    include many sellers at gun shows, and include sales that are
    happening on the street. H.R. 8 would address this gaping
    loophole in our background check laws and ensure that all gun
    sales, including sales online are run through a licensed gun
    dealer with a background check.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
        Dr. Sakran, in the early 1970s, Congress passed legislation
    spurred by a call to action surrounding a public health crisis,
    and shortly after Congress acted, President Richard Nixon
    signed the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act, which banned
    cigarette ads from airing on television and radio in response
    to evidence highlighting the causal link between cigarette
    smoking and lung cancer.
        Now gun violence in this country is a public health crisis
    that claims the lives of 100 Americans every day and injures
    hundreds more every day, resulting in a Nation of gun violence
    survivors, with the trauma that that leaves them with. Gun
    violence in any form can have a lasting impact on individuals
    not only emotionally, but also physically and financially.
        Now do you agree that gun violence is a public health
    crisis in America, and how could we address the public health
    implications of gun violence similar as was done with smoking?
        Dr. Sakran. Yes, thank you for that question. That is such
    an important question because one of the things that we haven't
    done when it comes to gun violence is treated it like a
    disease, treated it like the public health crisis that it is.
    The tobacco analogy is great, but also you can talk about
    obesity and so many other things.
        As clinicians, we have a responsibility to be talking to
    our patients about things like safe storage and other aspects.
    What can we do? One of the biggest gaps, and we heard about
    this, is the lack of funding. There has been essentially a
    moratorium on Federal funding when it comes to firearms to do
    prevention research.
        When you talk to folks like Dr. Redfield, who is the CDC
    Director, he will say I am happy to study it as long as
    Congress appropriates those dollars. So, I think that is one
    thing that is so critical.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, and my time is just about up. I
    would be remiss if I did not thank my colleague from California
    Mike Thompson for the years that he has spent leading our gun
    violence task force. He is here in the audience today, and
    thank you, Mike, for your hard work.
        Chair Nadler. Thank you.
        Mr. Gohmert?
        Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        We do appreciate all the witnesses being here today, and I
    am thrilled there is so much interest in this issue. As has
    been said, we know everybody here wants to stop the gun
    violence. As a former prosecutor and defense attorney and a
    judge, felony judge for over a decade, I have tried to remember
    any case--I can't remember any significant case I had out of
    the thousands where somebody went through the process of
    getting a gun legally to inflict the violence.
        We all want to stop the gun violence. I haven't heard
    anybody talk about the breakdown of the home, the breakdown in
    moral teachings. Those certainly have had an effect. I know one
    of the most quoted numbers that we often hear, and we have
    heard again today, is that background checks have stopped over
    3 million people from getting guns that shouldn't have them.
    That is the initial stop.
        It is difficult to get through all the data, but it appears
    the best estimate is somewhere over 96 percent of those 3
    million end up being able to get guns. That is just the initial
    stop. In fact, a good indication is 2010 numbers, and these are
    sometimes difficult to get the exact figures. From 2010, we
    know there were 76,000 denials, and the Obama Administration
    only found 44 that actually were committing a crime by trying
    to get a gun illegally.
        So, we want to all get to the same place. Here in DC, where
    they have incredibly strict gun laws, it costs $125 to
    privately transfer a gun. People that are law abiding, they
    will pay the $125. Criminals will not. It will not stop the
    transfers among criminals, and that is really where we get.
        In Baltimore, we have heard about it is $250. Heck, in
    Illinois, apparently it is $450 to get qualified to have a
    concealed carry. If H.R. 8 became law and somebody called me or
    anybody and said I am scared to death, my former spouse or
    live-in or whomever, has threatened me, and I think he is going
    to be coming sometime this week, well, the law under H.R. 8
    requires before you can do a private transfer, before you could
    take a gun to try to help them protect themselves, there has to
    be an imminent threat.
        So, for someone to take a gun to somebody they love so they
    can protect themselves that week, they have committed a crime
    because you can't have an imminent threat for a week.
        So, there are issues here. We all want to get to an end of
    gun violence, but I would like to ask Doctor--and by the way,
    for victims, my heart goes out to whether it is a shooting, it
    is sexual assault. There were so many times that as a judge I
    had to stoically do my job, but I would go back to my office
    with a broken heart for the victims.
        We know who does the real suffering, and we want to stop
    it. I am thrilled that we have so many people that care so
    deeply. Dr. Malcolm, in your information, you indicated 2018,
    the FBI reported some 26,181,000 requests for background checks
    to purchase a gun. Has that increase in the number of requests
    led to an increase in violence?
        Dr. Malcolm. No, it hasn't. In fact, for more than 20
    years, the rate of gun homicides has gone down. It has gone up
    slightly the last couple of years mostly because of the
    suicides. While the number has gone up, the rate hasn't.
        So far, more people are now allowed to conceal carry across
    the country, get a certificate to have a gun, but that hasn't
    resulted in what it was supposed to do for those people who are
    against it. They thought there would be shootouts on OK corral
    on every corner. People are very responsible. Law-abiding
    citizens are extremely responsible with that right and are
    using it to protect themselves.
        Mr. Gohmert. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
        Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        Ms. Jackson Lee?
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank Chair. Let me likewise add my
    appreciation for all the witnesses, and victims are in all our
    hearts. We are reminded that you are seeking action. Let me
    thank March for Our Lives and the Members who have encountered
    these horrific tragedies.
        I also want to acknowledge Chair Thompson for the years of
    work. I have had the privilege of working with him, and that we
    have come to this point is very much attributable to his
    persistence. I thank him.
        I thank Ms. Kelly as well. Having visited her district, Ms.
    Latiker, as you well know, I have been at the memorial, and I
    will never forget. We owe you a great deal of gratitude. I
    thank you so very much.
        Ms. Thomas, I might not get to ask you a question, but I do
    want to indicate that the Giffords Center has been the mainstay
    of data collection. So, I want to remind everyone the numbers
    that we have cited have come from this great work. A hundred
    Americans dying every day. So that means as we sit here today,
    there are Americans being killed by guns.
        I believe your statistics of 3 million people effectively
    being stopped through gun checks, and the universal background
    check bill is a bill of common sense. That is all we have asked
    for.
        I want to ask, Professor Thomas, let me do this. In the
    Second amendment the language, in particular, allow me just to
    read from the Constitution. It indicates ``a well-regulated
    militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the
    right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
    infringed.''
        A simple process of background check--and I don't have a
    lot of time. Professor Malcolm, I am going to direct the
    question to you. What in the Second amendment is impacted
    through a simple, straightforward background check? How are you
    stopped from getting a gun? Would you be stopped from getting a
    gun through a background check?
        Dr. Malcolm. I would not be stopped, but the people who are
    likely to misuse a gun would not go through a background check.
    The background check is really affecting those people who are
    law-abiding citizens, for the most part, and not those people
    on the street.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. The law-abiding citizens would not be
    blocked from getting a gun through a background check. Is that
    correct?
        Dr. Malcolm. If you make the background check cumbersome
    enough, like this new bill will, then I think it will.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. You have not answered the question. The
    question is what in the Second amendment is infringed upon by a
    background check? We are not asking about the process and
    cumbersome. That has to be tested. This is a bill that
    indicates universal background check.
        Dr. Malcolm. The process does interfere with people being
    able to get it. We have heard that there are--
        Ms. Jackson Lee. We have no data to prove that. So, I think
    you are not connecting it. I would like to hear you say just
    the existence of a universal background check, not process,
    would violate the Second Amendment. Is that a yes, or no?
        Dr. Malcolm. A background check is a process, really. You
    can make it cumbersome.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Does it violate the Second Amendment?
        Dr. Malcolm. You can make--
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Does it stop people from getting guns? It
    is not the point of who will not go through the process. Will
    it stop people from getting guns that you say are law-abiding
    citizens?
        Dr. Malcolm. One of the Republican Members of your
    Committee has pointed out that there are expenses in the States
    that have universal background checks--
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I don't think you are actually answering
    the question.
        Dr. Malcolm. --that poor people cannot afford. So, it does.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me go to Chief Acevedo. Thank you very
    much, Professor. I don't think you are answering the question.
    It does not infringe upon the Second Amendment.
        Chief Acevedo and Dr. Sakran, two questions, and I really
    want to question all the witnesses, but let me be very clear.
    Chief Acevedo, you are on the streets with your law
    enforcement. You believe in relational policing. How much guns
    impacting your officers, but also, as you walk the beat,
    impacting neighborhoods, mothers, fathers, and children? That
    is my question to you.
        I just want to get the question for Dr. Sakran. Dr. Sakran,
    years ago I introduced a bill where the chief trauma surgeon
    from Texas Children's Hospital said at that time it cost them
    $67,000 to treat a gun victim, a child. That was 20 years plus
    ago.
        Would you be able to answer monetarily, just maybe not
    specifically, but the depth of cost in human tragedy and
    dollars that we lose by not responding to gun violence in
    America?
        Chief, would you answer the question, please? I ask the
    indulgence of the chair. Yes, Chief?
        Chief Acevedo. Thank you for the question.
        The gun violence impacts all big cities across the country
    and suburban America as well. If you think about domestic
    violence. In the City of Houston last year, we had, tragically,
    279 homicides. It went up by 10. The driver, the greatest
    driver, 38 percent increase in domestic violence homicides,
    domestic violence murders where we don't have enough tools
    across our country for police officers in those situations to
    temporarily remove firearms to keep women safe and families
    safe and children safe.
        So, it is a significant problem. I think all you must turn
    on your television, listen to the radio and scanners, and go to
    emergency rooms, and you will see that it is a significant
    problem.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Dr. Sakran?
        Dr. Sakran. Yes, thank you so much for that question
    because--
        Chair Nadler. The time of the Member has expired. The
    witness is permitted to answer after the time of the Member has
    expired.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chair Nadler. You are welcome. Chief Acevedo spoke after
    the time had expired.
        Our next witness, questioner is Mr. Gaetz. Oh, before Mr.
    Gaetz, I want to announce that the Committee will recess at
    12:30 p.m. for one half hour for lunch. We will resume at 1:00
    p.m., and we will continue until there will be votes, which we
    expect on the floor sometime after 2:00 p.m. If necessary, we
    will reconvene right after those votes.
        Mr. Gaetz?
        Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Ronald da Silva was standing with a friend in his driveway
    when he was shot and killed by an illegal alien who had been
    previously deported. Agnes Gibboney, who was da Silva's mother,
    said the guy who killed my son has a determinate sentence in
    prison, but I have a lifetime sentence of grief and pain.
        Apolinar Altamirano is an illegal alien from Mexico. He
    murdered Grant Ronnebeck with a gun on January 22, 2015, in
    Mesa, Arizona. ICE was working to determine whether he should
    be deported when he had the opportunity to commit this crime.
        Gustavo Garcia, a 36-year-old illegal alien, shot and
    killed a 51-year-old Rocky Paul Jones on December 17th at a gas
    station. Garcia had previously been deported by ICE. Before his
    deportation, he had a criminal record going back all the way
    back to 2002, where he had illegally possessed a firearm. In
    addition to murdering Jones, Garcia also shot a farm worker in
    the chest who was picking fruit, committed armed robbery, and
    shot and attempted to kill a woman after he followed her to a
    Motel 6.
        On January 2, 2019, an illegal alien shot and murdered
    California officer Ronil Singh, a story that captivated the
    attention of the country. On November 13, 2018, an illegal
    alien shot and killed three people in Missouri after he was
    released on domestic violence charges. This was Luis Perez, age
    23, was the recipient of the DACA program in 2012 and 2014.
        So, time and again, Mr. Chair, we see circumstances where
    people illegally come into the possession of firearms. Each of
    these illegal aliens did not acquire these guns lawfully.
    Matter of fact, title 18 of the Federal Code says that it is
    always unlawful for an illegal alien to have a firearm.
        So, while I appreciate folks from my State of Florida
    coming and sharing their advice and their counsel to the
    Judiciary Committee, I think that the stories of other people
    who have been impacted by gun violence are relevant to our
    discourse because they speak to the fact that there are
    dangerous people who do illegal things who will have access to
    firearms. The question is what will ensure that that does not
    cause the massive amount of violence that we have seen in the
    country?
        So, I am encouraged by elements of legislation passed in my
    home State of Florida that focus on red flag circumstances,
    mental health, that look at people who go through our jails and
    do everything we can to ensure that when their time in
    incarceration is concluded, they don't go back to arsenals
    where they can do harm to themselves or others.
        As I review H.R. 8, it seems to me that there is nothing in
    the bill that would have stopped many of the instances that we
    have been discussed. Moreover, if we are really looking for
    solutions, maybe we ought to allow States to do what Florida
    did and analyze the impacts on our mental health system,
    recognizing that those systems are different across the 50
    States.
        So, I hope that we will not adopt this federalization of
    deprivation of constitutional rights. I hope that we will allow
    our States to continue to innovate and find ways to keep
    communities safer. As we hear the stories and circumstances for
    those here, I hope we do not forget the pain and anguish and
    sense of loss felt by those all over the country who have been
    the victims of violence at the hands of illegal aliens.
        H.R. 8 would not have stopped many of the circumstances I
    raised, but a wall, a barrier on the southern border may have,
    and that is what we are fighting for.
        [Disturbance in the hearing room.]
        Chair Nadler. The gentleman will suspend.
        Everyone here is here as a guest of the committee, and no
    matter what you think of what any member of the Committee may
    say, or any witness, for that matter, you must not comment or
    otherwise demonstrate.
        Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Chair, may I have my time restored?
        Chair Nadler. Your time will be restored.
        Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate that.
        So, again, I think that was a rather instructive moment for
    the committee, Mr. Chair, because as we gather here in
    Washington, there are a divergent series of views and inputs
    and thoughts. My concern is that by adopting H.R. 8, we
    actually stifle the innovation that could lead to better public
    safety outcomes if we allowed States and local communities to
    deal with the challenges my great State of Florida has.
        So, again, I hope that we will deal with all the drivers of
    violence. The greatest driver of violence in the circumstances
    that I indicated was not the firearm. It was the fact that we
    have an immigration system that allows people to come here
    violently. We engage--
        [Disturbance in the hearing room.]
        Chair Nadler. There will be no comments or demonstrations,
    please.
        Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Chair, point of order.
        Chair Nadler. Who is that? The gentleman from Rhode Island?
        Mr. Cicilline. Is there any Committee Rule or point of
    parliamentary inquiry? Is there any Committee Rule that
    prevents a Member of Congress from reciting false statements in
    a Committee hearing that are unsupported by the evidence?
        [Applause.]
        Mr. Cicilline. That are unsupported by the evidence or are
    Members of Congress entitled to just make things up in support
    of specious arguments. It is a parliamentary inquiry.
        Chair Nadler. I am not aware--off the top of my head, since
    I haven't researched this question, I am not aware of any such
    rule. I would also observe that the factuality of any statement
    is always subject to contest by someone who disagrees with it.
    At a hearing such as this, if a Member makes a statement that
    is not borne out by the facts, it is the prerogative of another
    Member, when his turn comes, to comment on that or to point out
    his opinion or her opinion as to its truth or falsity.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Chair, I believe I still control the time.
    Mr. Chair?
        Mr. Collins. Mr. Chair?
        Chair Nadler. One moment. It is never permissible for
    Members of the audience to comment or vociferously to object.
    This is a hearing for Members of Congress and for the
    witnesses. Everyone else is here as an observer and must not
    participate in any way, other than by observing.
        Mr. Collins. Mr. Chair?
        Chair Nadler. The gentleman from--
        Mr. Collins. Mr. Chair, I make a point of order against the
    gentleman from Rhode--
        Chair Nadler. You make what?
        Mr. Collins. I make a point of order that the gentleman's
    words were unparliamentary because they implied the lying or
    the falsehood of a Member. Now, if he wants to go there, we
    will take the words down.
        Chair Nadler. I would Rule the gentleman's point of order
    not well taken because it was not an accusation.
        Mr. Collins. Didn't he say--
        Chair Nadler. Excuse me. Let me finish. It was not an
    accusation of falsity by another Member. There was simply an
    inquiry as to rules regarding that subject.
        Mr. Collins. Did he not make the statement that he was
    asking if the Member was making--or how to stop a Member from
    false statements? Did he, or did he not?
        Chair Nadler. My recollection--we could have it read back,
    but I don't think that is necessary--is that he simply asked
    about the rules that we use when a Member, if a Member makes a
    false statement, which is an inquiry. It is not a direct
    accusation that a Member made a false statement.
        Mr. Collins. Well, Mr. Chair, I would just recommend that
    that line got so buckled up that there was no way to see if it
    were crossed.
        Chair Nadler. I am sorry. I didn't understand--
        Mr. Collins. That he got so close to that line that he
    couldn't tell if he was over it or not. So, I think we need to
    continue to watch. We will let the gentleman continue, but this
    needs to happen in an orderly way.
        We have differences of opinion. Those differences of
    opinion need to be expressed. When those differences are messed
    up, we need to stay in a parliamentary procedure. This is not
    going to result in just complete yelling and accusing of each
    other. That is what your time is for.
        Chair Nadler. Well, the yelling is out of--
        Mr. Collins. He has got 5 minutes coming up. He can say
    whatever he wants to say.
        Chair Nadler. The yelling is out of order, obviously,
    yelling by Members of the audience. The inquiry by a Member did
    not violate the rules because it was not a direct accusation
    against another Member.
        How much time does the Member have left?
        Mr. Collins. I do have one secondary parliamentary
    question.
        Chair Nadler. The gentleman will State his parliamentary
    inquiry.
        Mr. Collins. As has been stated in the past, Mr. Chair,
    when Members of the audience disrupt this, they are typically
    escorted out. Is that going to be the position of this chair,
    or are we going to continue to allow it?
        Chair Nadler. Clause (2)(k)(4) of Rule XI provides that
    ``The chair may punish breaches of order and decorum by censure
    and exclusion from the hearings. This Rule has been construed
    to afford the chair the discretion to enforce decorum in the
    Committee room, including to remove disruptive Members of the
    public.''
        My preference is not to invoke this response at this time,
    but please consider this a warning.
        Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Chair, I have a point of parliamentary
    inquiry.
        Chair Nadler. The gentleman will State his point of
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Chair, is there a process in the Committee whereby if
    the very same people are repeatedly interrupting the time of
    the Members, that those people will be asked to depart the
    committee, or is there--
        [Disturbance in the hearing room.]
        Chair Nadler. I will--excuse me. If the gentleman repeats
    that or any other comment, I will direct to be removed. I will
    direct to be removed if he repeats it.
        Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I would observe that is three interruptions of my time by
    the same individual and that the chair is not utilizing his
    discretion to remove that individual. I believe I have about a
    minute of time remaining, and I wanted to take the time--
        Mr. Deutch. Will the gentleman yield for a--will my friend
    yield for a question?
        Mr. Gaetz. I typically do, my friend from Florida. Since my
    time has been so interrupted by Members of the other side,
    perhaps you could have one of your colleagues yield time to
    you.
        Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time I have remaining
    because I believe it was about a minute and 12 seconds.
        Chair Nadler. The gentleman has 1 minute, and 37 seconds
    left.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. You need to clear the clock.
        Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.
        Chair Nadler. The gentleman will proceed.
        Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        We all are entitled to our own opinions and views on how to
    address gun violence, but I don't believe that we are entitled
    to our own facts. While I have great personal affection for the
    gentleman from Rhode Island, it is deeply troubling to me and
    hurtful that as I share the experiences of people who have lost
    sons and daughters, who have lost friends and neighbors at the
    hands of violent illegal aliens who have illegally acquired
    firearms, then my colleague would indicate that is somehow
    lying or making misrepresentations to the committee.
        So, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have
    solutions for gun violence or to secure our border and to make
    sure that illegal aliens don't come into possession of
    firearms, I am eager to hear those. In your debate with me,
    please don't demean or diminish the pain and suffering, the
    humanitarian consequences, the violence, the bloodshed that has
    occurred because we allow illegal aliens to come into our
    country, receive the veils of protection, benefit from policies
    of catch and release that my friends on the other side of the
    aisle haves supported, and then come here and Act like that is
    the great challenge of our day to deal with gun violence.
        If we really cared about safer streets, we would build a
    wall and secure the border, and we would do it post haste.
        I thank Chair for his indulgence, and I yield back the
    balance of my time.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chair?
        Chair Nadler. The gentlelady will State her parliamentary
    inquiry.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I will direct it not at any particular
    Member. I do think in this Committee that we should--the
    parliamentary inquiry is the caution of making sure that we do
    not have broad labels of immigrants, African Americans, women,
    as we debate. We have a right to a disagreement but is there
    any rules that confine us to not labeling individuals, such as
    the term ``illegal immigrants,'' which is a vast term of
    individuals, including women and children.
        Chair Nadler. I don't think that is a proper parliamentary
    inquiry.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank Chair. I will pursue it in another
    manner.
        Thank you.
        Chair Nadler. Thank you.
        The next witness is--no, no. Mr. Cohen?
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir. Quite a while to get to me.
    Exciting moments here.
        Ms. Thomas, let me ask you a few questions. You are
    familiar with most of the mass killings in this country of
    recent history?
        Ms. Thomas. A fair number, yes.
        Mr. Cohen. Of the ones that are some noted here. I might be
    missing some. At Thousand Oaks, there were 12 people killed.
    There were 17 at Parkland; 25 in Sutherland Springs, Texas;
    Mandalay Bay, 58; Orlando, 49; San Bernardino, Charleston,
    Aurora, Sandy Hook, and Virginia Tech.
        How many of those people came across our southern border
    and they committed those crimes?
        Ms. Thomas. To my knowledge, none of those.
        Mr. Cohen. None of those people were illegal aliens?
        Ms. Thomas. Not to my knowledge, no.
        Mr. Cohen. I got the impression. I got confused. I thought
    illegal aliens, when they got in, they went straight to a taco
    shop, got a gun, and started killing people. That doesn't
    happen?
        Ms. Thomas. Not that I am aware of.
        Mr. Cohen. What do you think is the best way to help reduce
    gun violence in this country?
        Ms. Thomas. I think that H.R. 8 is absolutely the right
    first step to closing this gaping loophole in background
    checks. I think once H.R. 8 is passed, there is a number of
    steps that this Congress can take to adequately address and
    reduce gun violence in America. We know for sure that States
    that have comprehensive regulation of guns have far lower rates
    of gun violence than States that have very lax gun regulations.
        We can look at a wide range. Today, we have been talking
    about regulation through extreme risk protective orders. We
    have been talking about age limits on guns. We are talking
    about very dangerous lethal weapons. We are talking about
    proper funding of research and CDC. I can go on. My testimony
    includes a wide range of possible angles that this Congress can
    consider to reduce gun violence in this country, almost all of
    which have research showing that positive impact.
        Mr. Cohen. You are familiar with Everytown for Gun Safety
    that grew out of the shootings and up East?
        Ms. Thomas. Yes.
        Mr. Cohen. They made this their top priority, that we
    should be passing H.R. 8. This legislation will require
    background checks on all gun sales. Do background checks on gun
    sales also relate to less domestic shootings and domestic
    disturbances?
        Ms. Thomas. Yes, absolutely. H.R. 8 would not only keep
    guns out of the hands of individuals who shouldn't have them
    that are already prohibited, including domestic abusers, it
    also creates the appropriate floor so that if we expand
    categories of domestic violence, as was suggested by other
    witnesses, that we can continue to reduce domestic violence
    incidents and force all gun sales to include a background check
    to keep those guns out of those dangerous hands of domestic
    abusers.
        Mr. Cohen. In Memphis, Tennessee, there were 176 deaths
    because of homicide in 2018. Two hundred and--90 percent of
    those were result of gunfire. Do you think the people of
    Memphis could expect a reduction in that rate if we pass H.R.
    8?
        Ms. Thomas. It is hard to say that one law alone is going
    to have a specific impact in one place. We know that starting
    with closing this loophole and passing universal background
    checks and then looking to the specific opportunities to expand
    upon that absolutely will reduce gun violence.
        I think urban centers have particular issues that we can
    look at. We have been looking very closely at intervention and
    prevention strategies that particularly address the problems of
    urban centers and are shown to be incredibly effective,
    reducing gun violence of up to 70 percent. So, I think looking
    at the specific issues that face a city is a very important way
    to proceed, but this is the right way to start.
        Mr. Cohen. Charleston, South Carolina, had the horrific
    church shooting. Did the perpetrator of that mayhem and
    murders, did that person pass a proper background check, do you
    know?
        Ms. Thomas. No, he did not. There was something that
    happened in that case called the default proceed, where
    individuals who don't have the background check completed
    within 3 days, the dealer has the opportunity to transfer that
    weapon even without completion of the background check. In this
    instance, that individual would not and should not have passed
    a background check.
        Mr. Cohen. So, indeed, if H.R. 8 were the law, there is a
    goodly chance or a chance that an individual would not have
    gotten a gun, and those church people would still be alive?
        Ms. Thomas. That is the hope. We also need to look at
    closing that default proceeds loophole and expanding the time
    available to complete background checks in instances where it
    is unclear whether that person should be entitled to have a
    gun.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you for your work. Thank you for all the
    people that have testified.
        Mr. Thompson, it is just astonishing to me that background
    checks is something I think over 90-some odd percent of the
    public is supportive, that almost every organization concerned
    about this thinks it will help. We need to reduce this and not
    have more moments of silence and deep thoughts and prayers. We
    have had enough of that. We need action.
        Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chair Nadler. I thank the gentleman.
        I now yield 5 minutes to Mr. Johnson.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I just want to say on this side, thank you to all the
    witnesses, all of you. It takes real courage and courage of
    conviction to do what you are doing here today. There is a lot
    of passion in the room, and it is understandable. We get that.
        I think it is important for us to say here that every
    single person in this room wants to end the tragedy of gun
    violence in our country. We just have policy differences on
    what is the best means to achieve that end, and that is what
    this is. So, it is a healthy debate, and that is what our
    constitutional republic is founded upon is healthy debate. So,
    I am glad you respect that.
        Look, we just think that this particular bill is not an
    effective step to achieving that desired end. That is what it
    boils down to. In fact, we think it is going to be
    counterproductive. We are trying to explain that in some of our
    questions, and we will do it during the markup as well.
        My questions are for Professor Malcolm. Thanks for being
    here.
        At first, I have just a couple of questions regarding the
    foundational principles of the Second amendment because I am
    afraid we are losing some of that. Then, second, I want to ask
    you about effective application of the Second Amendment. Let me
    get to the foundational principles.
        It is important for us to note what the Second amendment is
    based upon, and you have written extensively about the Second
    amendment and about how it is based upon and protects our
    preexisting right. The Second amendment doesn't say, for
    example, that people shall be permitted to be armed for their
    defense. It doesn't confer rights. The Second amendment
    presupposes the right and clarifies that it shall not be
    infringed.
        The question is why is that? Well, you have written that
    Sir William Blackstone, for example, noted that gun rights are
    rooted in the natural right, the natural right of resistance
    and self-preservation. Indeed, your scholarship notes the right
    of self-defense was generally understood in the 18th century by
    everyone as the first law of nature. Of course, our Founders
    listed it first in the Declaration of Independence's
    triumvirate of our inalienable rights.
        So, the question is Professor, when you discuss this with
    your constitutional law students or when you talk to lay people
    about it, how do you convey and emphasize the importance of the
    underlying principle of the Second Amendment?
        Dr. Malcolm. Yes, the underlying principle was that this
    was your most fundamental right, your right to protect
    yourself. It is something that the law could not take away.
    Blackstone, who was the great jurist that our Founders were so
    influenced by, said that no country could take away, no
    government could take away the right to self-defense.
        It is not much comfort for the law to come later and pick
    up the pieces, and that is what has happened in a lot of the
    cases that we have heard about. I mean, there are people that
    deserve to have some means of protecting themselves, and that
    really is the core of the Second Amendment. That it is the
    right to your individual self-defense.
        As I mentioned before that the police, however much they
    might want to protect us, can't possibly protect everybody. So,
    the best way for anyone who is in danger to be able to protect
    themselves is through some means of protecting themselves,
    having a weapon. I think that is what the Second amendment was
    all about and what the Founders understood it to be and what
    still needs to have happen.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. It is fundamental, and it is
    foundational. Indeed, when we apply that right, it can be very
    effective. In your written testimony, you noted that there has
    been an overall decline in firearm homicide since 1991, which
    correlates with the the current number of 39 States that have
    granted concealed carry permits, for example, on a shall issue
    basis. My home State of Louisiana is one, and I have one of
    those.
        Do you believe that when States allow trusted, law-abiding
    citizens to exercise their constitutional rights through
    ``shall issue'' provisions and others like it that gun violence
    can, indeed, be prevented?
        Dr. Malcolm. Well, it certainly has worked in those States.
    There has been more gun violence because more people have guns.
    They have been able to protect themselves, and people who want
    to harm someone else don't know who is armed and who isn't. So,
    it really is a help that they are in the dark about it. It is a
    help that some people are prepared to protect themselves. It
    has not resulted in more gun violence.
        In fact, we have heard today that some of the increase in
    homicides from guns has been from suicide. So, it not law-
    abiding citizens who need to protect themselves that are
    causing any problem. It is people who are getting illegal guns,
    and that seems to be what the real issue is.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Last question because I am
    running out of time. The Heller court made clear that this is
    an individual right and that this right is fundamental and
    sacrosanct. Do you believe Heller provides us with enough
    protection against ill-conceived legislation that may be well
    intended, but that may run afoul in that Second amendment
    right.
        Dr. Malcolm. Well, Heller really does. But there are some
    of the lower courts have really not been respecting Heller and
    have been really ignoring what the Supreme Court was very
    explicit about. So, I am really glad now that the Supreme Court
    seems to be willing to take a case on cert and get back into it
    because, otherwise, the Second amendment just becomes what
    Justice Thomas called a ``constitutional orphan.''
        We have this Second amendment right. It is important for
    all. You can't just obliterate and ignore the Supreme Court
    without doing damage generally to all of our rights.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I am out of time. I yield back.
    Thank you.
        Thank you all.
        Ms. Scanlon. [Presiding] We will recognize the gentleman
    from Georgia next.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I would like to begin by thanking all the panelists who are
    here today. To Aalayah and the men and women in the room who
    have been personally touched by gun violence, I thank you for
    your bravery. Bearing witness to senseless acts of violence,
    you are helping to make our world a safer place. Thank you.
        The failure of Congress to pass universal background check
    legislation has eroded our sense of safety on our streets, in
    our schools, and even in our places of worship. Because
    background checks are not requested for sales by unlicensed gun
    dealers, guns end up in the hands of dangerous people who are
    barred by law from owning a gun.
        In 2018, on the online site armslist.com, there were 97
    online posts by unlicensed firearms dealers from Gwinnett
    County, Georgia, which is part of my district. They were
    advertising guns for sale. That represents potentially at least
    97 guns being sold to 97 violent criminals or certified
    mentally ill individuals, those guns ending up in other
    locations throughout the country.
        Mr. Chair, we can do better than this--or Madam Chair, we
    can do better than this. I want to thank you for making--I want
    to thank Chair Nadler for making gun violence a subject of his
    very first Committee meeting as chair, thus sending the message
    to the people of America that we are serious about common-sense
    gun reform.
        Now, I am going to yield the balance of my time to a woman
    who has been personally aggrieved by the destructive effects of
    the gun violence epidemic that plagues America. I yield the
    balance of my time to my friend and colleague and original
    cosponsor of H.R. 8, Congresswoman Lucy McBath.
        I do want to recognize the efforts of the sponsor of H.R.
    8, Mike Thompson, who sat through this hearing. Thank you for
    being here. Also, Congresswoman Robin Kelly, who is a
    cosponsor, original cosponsor on H.R. 8. Thank you both for
    being here.
        Congresswoman McBath, I yield my time to you.
        Mrs. McBath. Thank you so much, Congressman Johnson and
    Chair Nadler and to all the witnesses that are here today.
        Many of you know, gun violence is an issue that is deeply
    personal for me. In 2010--excuse me, 2012, my son Jordan Davis
    was shot and killed by a man who opened fire on a car of
    unarmed teenagers at a gas station in Jacksonville, Florida,
    and Jordan was only 17 years old. Jordan would be turning 24
    this week, February 16th.
        After my son's death, I dedicated my life to advocating for
    common-sense gun safety solutions, but it was the shooting at
    Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, that
    year that finally motivated me to run for Congress. Yesterday,
    I brought Jeff and Margaret Binkley to the State of the Union
    as my guests. Just 3 months ago, the Binkleys experienced a
    tragedy that no parent should ever have to endure.
        Their daughter, Maura Binkley, was killed when a man
    entered a yoga studio in Tallahassee, Florida, and shot six
    people, killing two, before taking his own life. Maura had a
    bright future ahead of her and was eager to do good work in the
    world. Her dreams were cut short by a hateful man with a
    firearm, and she was only 21.
        Far too many families experience tragedies like ours every
    single day. The pain of losing a child to gun violence never
    ends, and it is in that pain that drives me to do this work to
    prevent gun violence. These stories are vitally important as we
    work to pass common-sense safety legislation to keep families
    like ours from experiencing the horror and heartbreak brought
    on by gun violence.
        The Binkleys believe that a policy solution could prevent
    killings like the death of their daughter. They have become
    advocates for extreme risk laws called--often called red flag
    laws. That these laws can prevent both murders and suicides by
    temporarily removing weapons from those who are a danger to
    themselves and to others.
        Our community and our Nation cannot wait any longer for
    common-sense gun safety solutions like extreme risk laws and
    universal background checks. I look forward to discussing this
    issue further during my time for questions.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Scanlon. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Arizona.
        Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Thank all the panelists for being here today and the
    Members of the audience for being here.
        My question is for Savannah. Savannah, I am sorry for the
    violence that you experienced in your life, and I want to just
    ask a couple of questions regarding your experience with the
    guns. You indicated in your testimony that you were an owner of
    guns. When did you first get a gun, and what did you do to
    learn how to use it, et cetera?
        Ms. Lindquist. Yes. So, my grandfather, I called him Pop
    Pop, he was always really into like firearms, target training,
    all that kind of stuff. So, it is something I grew up around,
    and I always thought it was really interesting. When I was
    probably like 8 or 9, I went to him and was like, ``I want to
    do this.'' He said, okay, well, you are a child. So, you have
    to prove that you are responsible enough for this.
        He gave me--you have probably purchased a handgun. It comes
    with an instruction manual, basically. He made me read that
    cover to cover, and he quizzed me on it. It was only after
    that, he let me even pick up a BB gun.
        Then, after safety training, I had to be able to take it
    apart, put it back together, all that kind of stuff. That is
    when he said okay, now I will teach you how to shoot a handgun
    at our local range. So, hit is something, that was probably
    when I was 10, and I am 24 now. So, it has been about 14 years.
        Mr. Biggs. So, before you went away to college, you had
    been using and been trained in using a gun for many years?
        Ms. Lindquist. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Biggs. When you went to college, you left home?
        Ms. Lindquist. I did. I moved to Philadelphia from Norfolk,
    Virginia.
        Mr. Biggs. Okay. Did you take any guns with you?
        Ms. Lindquist. I did not. It would have been illegal for me
    to have it on my college campus. Even transporting it could
    have been an issue because I couldn't obviously drive it
    through Maryland, given their firearm laws. But no, I didn't
    want to break the law. So, I left it at home.
        Mr. Biggs. So, you made a statement in your written
    testimony that you said, ``I obeyed the law as a responsible
    gun owner, and it ended with me being raped. I am just one of
    countless examples of gun control benefitting assailants and
    making victims sitting ducks.''
        I wonder if you would expand on that and tell us what you
    mean by that?
        Ms. Lindquist. Sure. So, in my situation personally, I was
    left defenseless. There was nothing I could have done. He snuck
    up behind me, and he attacked me, I am just a young woman, and
    at the time I weighed 100 pounds less than I do now. So, there
    was no fighting him off.
        So, that is what I mean in terms of my situation, but there
    are a lot of examples. Like one of the top ones that comes to
    my mind is Nikki Goeser, who there was a law at the time where
    you couldn't bring a firearm into a restaurant, and so she, as
    a law-abiding citizen, left it in the car, and her husband was
    shot and murdered in the restaurant, and she couldn't defend
    him.
        Mr. Biggs. Well, thank you for being here today, and I
    appreciate your willingness to come out and testify on a very
    emotional issue, and I am grateful for that.
        Ms. Lindquist. I appreciate that. Thank you.
        Mr. Biggs. I am going to Dr. Malcolm.
        Dr. Malcolm. Yes?
        Mr. Biggs. In conjunction with the testimony we just heard,
    in your written testimony, you said the FBI does not record
    defensive uses of guns?
        Dr. Malcolm. That is right.
        Mr. Biggs. Tell me why that is so.
        Dr. Malcolm. I am not sure why they don't do it. I think
    that even if they did record it, there are probably defensive
    uses of guns that are not reported to them because people are
    uncertain whether they would be somehow charged or not. But
    they don't record it. So, the only way we have a sense of the
    defensive uses of guns is through some surveys and sort of
    anecdotal evidence.
        Mr. Biggs. So, the national surveys that you cited--well,
    you don't cite them, you refer to, I should say.
        Dr. Malcolm. Yes.
        Mr. Biggs. You indicate what I would call a large range
    between 700,000 to 3.6 million defensive uses annually. Can you
    elaborate on that, please?
        Dr. Malcolm. As I say, it is very difficult to get these
    kinds of statistics. When the government tries to do that,
    people are even more cautious about not saying anything for
    fear that that they will in some way, run afoul of the law.
    Those defensive uses of guns are much, much greater than the
    number of people who are actually shot. Most of the people who
    defend themselves with guns, as I said, don't have to use it in
    any way. They just have to show they have it.
        There was an instance. You are going to run out of time.
        Mr. Biggs. Yes. So let me just--before you get there, let
    me ask this last question. You said since the high gun homicide
    deaths in 1991, there has been a steep decline.
        Dr. Malcolm. Yes.
        Mr. Biggs. Firearm homicides dropped by nearly half, but
    there is a slight uptick in the last couple of years. Expand,
    explain on that. My time is done. If she may answer the
    question?
        Dr. Malcolm. Yes. It has really been extraordinary as there
    was a peak in gun homicides in 1991 and over the last 20 years,
    it had gone down by nearly half, despite the fact that there
    were more people who were able to have and carry guns in their
    States, as more and more States began to have these special
    ``shall issue'' concealed carry weapons.
        So, I think it shows that, first of all, the guns are not
    causing the violence and, in fact, are probably helping to stop
    it and also allowing people to exercise their right to protect
    themselves. People are very--ordinary people are very
    responsible. It is not the people who are likely to commit a
    crime who are going to go through all these background checks
    or go through whatever process their State has.
        Ms. Scanlon. The gentleman's time has expired. Thank you.
        The chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
        Mr. Deutch. I thank the chairwoman. I thank our witnesses
    for being here. I thank Robin Kelly for your leadership.
        I want to start this morning by recognizing my constituents
    from Parkland who are in the hearing room today. Tony and
    Jennifer Montalto, Gina's parents; April Schentrup and Robert
    Schentrup, Carmen's mother and brother; Debbie Hixon, Chris
    Hixon's wife; Tom and Gina Hoyer, Luke Hoyer's parents; Mitch
    Dworet, Nicholas Dworet's father; Manual Oliver, father of
    Joaquin; and Fred Guttenberg, Jaime's father.
        I also want to recognize the families of Alyssa Alhadeff,
    Scott Beigel, Martin Duque, Aaron Feis, Cara Loughran, Alaina
    Petty, Meadow Pollack, Helena Ramsay, Alex Schachter, and Peter
    Wang. They are the surviving families of the 14 students and 3
    adults who were killed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas nearly 1
    year ago on February 14, 2018. Their pain and their loss are
    real, and it is immeasurable because their loved ones were
    gunned down, and it does not matter where that shooter was
    born.
        I want to recognize them today because in the year since
    that awful day, they have done everything that they can to make
    American communities safer from gun violence. Each family in
    its own way. To improve law enforcement response to warning
    signs, to get weapons of war off our streets, to expand access
    to mental health, to develop safer schools, demand background
    checks on all gun purchases.
        Stand up to gun corporations that control State
    legislatures and Washington to protect their profits and not
    protect American lives. The Parkland families have done all of
    this in response to their grief. They never signed up for this.
    They would do anything to change this.
        They don't owe us their service and advocacy. They don't
    owe us anything. Congress failed them. We didn't do our job.
    Today, the House Judiciary Committee is finally holding a
    hearing on gun violence, a crisis that kills 40,000 Americans
    every year. What I want to ask my Republican colleagues, is it
    still too soon? Is it too soon to talk about taking action to
    stop gun violence? Because that is what I heard after Marjory
    Stoneman Douglas, but it was already too late.
        As we start this important work, Madam Chair, I ask
    unanimous consent to enter statements into the record from Fred
    Guttenberg; Tony Montalto, and Stand with Parkland; Patricia
    Oliver and Change the Ref and March for Our Lives.
        Ms. Scanlon. Without objection, so entered.
        [The information follows:]

    ?

                           MR. DEUTCH FOR THE RECORD

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

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6360.015

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6360.016

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6360.017

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6360.018

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6360.019

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6360.021

        Mr. Deutch. Aalayah, thank you for being here. Your
    classroom was attacked at MSD, but at March for Our Lives on
    March 24th, you spoke to hundreds of thousands, over a million
    people in DC, and at other events around the world, and you
    said, ``I am not only here to speak about school shootings, I
    am here to speak for the urban communities who have been
    speaking out about this way before February 14th.''
        Student survivors like yourself and like the March for Our
    Lives advocates have been some of the strongest voices for
    change. Over the past year, you have met with young people from
    around the country. Tell us what you have learned in the
    meetings and the discussions and the friendships you have
    developed in places like Miami, Chicago, Baltimore, Los
    Angeles, and cities that face daily gun violence.
        Ms. Eastmond. I noticed that, it is hard to have these
    conversations. But, we have to get comfortable with being
    uncomfortable. I noticed having these conversations, there is
    always an elephant in the room, and that is the urban
    communities. Nobody wants to talk about how to combat the issue
    of gun violence in urban communities when Black and brown youth
    are the number-one impacted youth by gun violence.
        So, that is one thing that I noticed, and I have just been
    working tirelessly to share my platform that I didn't ask to
    have with those marginalized communities because their voices
    are just as important as mine and my colleagues from Parkland.
        Mr. Deutch. They are, Aalayah, and thank you for using your
    voice to help lift up the voices of so many.
        Madam Chair, after February 14th, the Florida legislature
    passed bills to increase the minimum age for rifle purchases to
    21 and passed extreme risk protection orders. States and local
    governments all around the country have taken action. Finally,
    the House of Representatives is about to act.
        Aalayah, you said during your testimony, ``I ask that you
    give my generation a chance.'' The important message today, as
    I see it from this seat looking out at this crowd, is that you
    don't need to ask for us to give you a chance. Your leadership
    and the young people who are here today and who have been
    energized around the country are providing the leadership that
    is making this happen.
        We are going to pass background checks because it is
    supported by over 90 percent of the American people, and it can
    help save a life.
        It is true, Chief. If only one life is saved, that is
    enough for me. It darned well ought to be enough for every
    single Member of this Congress.
        When we finish our work today, what the young people should
    know--and I will wrap up, Madam Chair, what the people here
    today in this crowd should know is that just as they are not
    going anywhere and will remain on this issue, in this fight
    because it is the fight for their lives, we will not stop
    either.
        Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back the balance of my
    time.
        [Applause.]
        Ms. Scanlon. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Louisiana. I am sorry. Oh, I am sorry. Reading wrong.
        The gentleman from California?
        Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        This is not a new subject. We now have some 50 years of
    experience with gun control laws, and as Ms. Lindquist's
    testimony attests, we have found them extremely effective at
    disarming law-abiding citizens. We have found them extremely
    ineffective at disarming criminals, madmen, and terrorists.
    They end up creating a society where the law-abiding are
    unarmed and criminals are as well-armed as ever. I think our
    schools are a microcosm of such a society where the gunman is
    king.
        Fortunately, we have also a lot of experience with laws
    that do work. Executing murderers works. Locking up other gun
    predators until they are old and feeble works. Confining the
    dangerously mentally ill so that they can be treated works.
    Responsible armed citizens who can return fire works.
        These laws protected us well for many, many decades. I
    think depending on criminals and madmen to obey gun laws is
    delusional. In case after case, authorities have turned a blind
    eye to repeated complaints about violent and obviously mentally
    ill persons. MS-13 is not widely recognized for its
    meticulousness in obeying our gun laws, only their defenseless
    victims seem to be.
        Several States now forbid local law enforcement from
    turning dangerous criminal illegal aliens over to ICE for
    deportation. Instead, they are releasing them back into our
    communities, and these are the same States that make it tougher
    for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. It seems to me
    no one gives a second thought to an armed guard at a bank. Now
    that guard is there to protect our money. Whenever anyone
    suggests armed guards to protect our children at our schools,
    it is met with hoots of derision. Seems to me that hardening
    security at schools has got to be backed up by armed force.
        Professor Malcolm, why shouldn't school employees who are
    trained and entrusted by their local sheriffs with concealed
    weapons permits be allowed to use those permits in our schools
    to defend our children and stop the next massacre?
        Dr. Malcolm. I think they should be. Not every teacher has
    to be. Clearly, those people who are willing to be trained or
    were Members of the military or police force should be there.
    They will be on the spot.
        It wasn't the gun laws or the Congress that let those
    children down at Parkland. It was the first responders who let
    them down and who knew that Cruz was dangerous and had gone to
    his house and been warned about him more than 45 times. They
    never put him on a background list.
        If he had been put on a background list, he could not have
    gotten a weapon. Even when they knew he had weapons, they did
    not disarm him. So, I think that background checks are fine so
    far as they go, but it is really important to have someone on
    the spot who will protect those children.
        Mr. McClintock. I think we also learned that depending upon
    law enforcement alone is not sufficient.
        Ms. Lindquist, I want to thank you for coming today. I once
    worked for Ed Davis. He was the legendary chief of the Los
    Angeles Police Department in the late '60s and '70s. Now that
    was during the time of the Manson murders, the SLA shootout,
    campus riots. He introduced such innovations as Neighborhood
    Watch and community-based policing that engaged private
    citizens, and it worked.
        During his tenure as chief, violent crime actually declined
    in Los Angeles while it was skyrocketing nationally. At the
    core, his philosophy was looking at law-abiding citizens and
    the police as being partners in upholding the laws that protect
    us. He fiercely opposed gun control laws because he viewed law-
    abiding citizens as an integral part of policing, and he saw
    them as the first line of defense against crime.
        How does your experience relate to that view?
        Ms. Lindquist. I think that I am not sure Neighborhood
    Watch, to be honest, would have helped me in the situation
    because it was him--
        Mr. McClintock. My point is that that underlies a more
    fundamental philosophy that looks at law-abiding citizens as
    the first line of defense against crime.
        Ms. Lindquist. Sure. I certainly agree with that. Like I
    said in my testimony, I don't really want to get into the
    details of what happened. But it was him versus I, and it was a
    battle of strength, and obviously, I lost. So, yes, police are
    great, and I very much respect what they do. But sometimes
    seconds count.
        Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
        Ms. Scanlon. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
    California.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I just want to follow up a word on my colleague over there,
    Mr. McClintock. Neighborhood Watch, I do think, provides a real
    opportunity for community Members to get involved. Ed Davis
    never believed in arming the Neighborhood Watch.
        I have a couple of questions for Ms. Latiker, and I want to
    address what I believe is a common stereotype of inner-city
    communities, in particular African-American communities,
    because it has often been said that the only time the community
    responds is when a police officer kills an African American and
    that when there is crime that takes place in our communities
    that we don't do anything.
        I know that you are one of those soldiers on the front
    line. I want to thank you for being here today. I know that you
    are also supposed to be in Canada. My good colleague
    Representative Robin Kelly told me about your work. I really
    wanted to ask you if you could talk about the work that you
    have done, what role can community-based organizations play in
    preventing crime and comforting those who have suffered from
    the impact?
        Then also what resources do you need from us? One, I have
    worked in communities for many years, and I often know that it
    is never considered newsworthy when we are doing marches,
    talking about crime, and trying to address the situation.
    Anyway, I would like for you to respond to what you are doing
    in the community and what we can do, as Members of Congress, to
    help you?
        Ms. Latiker. Well, first, thank you so much for that
    acknowledgment. As I sit here, I listen to the back-and-forth
    about gun violence, and to me, it leaves out the most important
    part. That is those who have to deal with it on a daily basis
    or a mom in my community who has lost two sons in 1 week
    because of gun violence. It seems it is always talked around
    about the people who are living there. Now you can imagine a
    block with 10 houses on it, and 6 of those houses have lost
    kids to violence so that there is no block anymore, there isn't
    any community anymore because all those families are hurting.
        Then one on the block steps up and says, ``I need to do
    something, and I want to help.'' Nobody wants to help because
    of the color of their skin or where they come from or where
    they live at or the conditions. So, you are fighting a losing
    battle, and I am speaking of myself personally here right now.
    You are fighting a losing battle not only to give hope to the
    people you are trying to help, but to the community that you
    live in because they believe that the violence is more
    prevalent than the hope is.
        Ms. Bass. Does your organization have funding?
        Ms. Latiker. No, ma'am. We all--
        Ms. Bass. It is all volunteer?
        Ms. Latiker. --for 15 years. Yes, ma'am. We have seven
    dedicated volunteers. Not that we wouldn't want salaries, and
    we need it, but--
        Ms. Bass. Well, how are you able to do that work with just
    volunteers?
        Ms. Latiker. Because some very generous people, donors,
    people who believe in what we do have supported us all these
    years, and foundations have helped us. We have never had a
    grant writer or anything like that. It doesn't come from that.
    I just want people to know before my time is up. It doesn't
    come from that. It comes from a sense of I am more afraid not
    to do anything, than I am to do something.
        Ms. Bass. Right. But I do think if communities had the
    resources--
        Ms. Latiker. Oh, without question. Without question.
        Ms. Bass. It is not as though the communities are
    irresponsible and don't want to do anything.
        Thank you very much.
        Ms. Latiker. Thank you.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you very much for being here today.
        Ms. Thomas, I wanted to ask if you could very briefly,
    because I need to yield some of my time to my colleague here,
    Mr. Deutch. In a community like Chicago that has strong gun
    laws, it is the problem in the surrounding area. State of
    California, strong gun laws. We have out States that guns come
    in from.
        Could you very briefly respond to what the Federal
    Government could do to help? Then I am going to yield my time
    to Mr. Deutch.
        Ms. Thomas. One of the things that the Federal Government
    could do would be to properly fund ATF so they could do their
    job to better trace that trafficking of guns that happens
    across State lines and to pass a trafficking bill. We don't
    currently have a Federal bill which addresses the problem of
    gun trafficking.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you.
        Ms. Thomas. I think we need one.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you very much.
        I yield to Representative Deutch.
        Mr. Deutch. I thank my friend from California.
        I just wanted to set the record straight on one discussion.
    We have gone back and forth. There has been a lot of talk about
    Justice Scalia and the Heller case and Blackstone, and it is
    just important, actually, as we have these discussions, to be
    honest about what we are trying to do.
        The fact is that every single proposal that has been made
    in the gun safety area is entirely constitutional. Don't take
    it from me. Take it from Justice Scalia, who said, and I quote,
    ``Like most rights, the right secured by the Second amendment
    is not unlimited.''
        From Blackstone through the 19th century cases,
    commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
    not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever, in any
    manner whatsoever, and for whatever purpose. That is the
    language we need to bear in mind as we have this debate. We
    cannot be fooled by those who suggest that what we are trying
    to do is unconstitutional. What we are trying to do is
    constitutional. It is just, and it will save lives.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Scanlon. Okay. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I ask for the committee's unanimous consent that the
    following items be added to the hearing record. We have a
    letter from Prosecutors Against Gun Violence, co-chaired by
    Michael Feuer, the Los City Attorney, and Cyrus Vance, Jr.,
    Manhattan District Attorney, in support of Bipartisan
    Background Checks Act of 2019. We have letters from
    Massachusetts Seventh Congressional District elected officials,
    including Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh, local advocates, and
    constituents, presented by Representative Ayanna Pressley. We
    have a 2019 report from Everytown for Gun Safety concerning
    Internet sales of firearms and the background check loopholes
    that allow Internet to occur without any background checks.
        Without objection, these letters will be added to the
    hearing record.
        [The information follows:]

    ?

                           MS. SCANLON FOR THE RECORD

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

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6360.023

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6360.024

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6360.025

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6360.026

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6360.027

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6360.028

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6360.040

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6360.041

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6360.042

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6360.043

        Ms. Scanlon. Now as was announced previously, the Committee
    will now recess until 1:00 p.m.
        I want to thank our guests in the audience for joining us,
    for joining us today, and I want to let them know that if they
    leave during the break, they will not be guaranteed their seats
    when they return. We have many people outside who would like to
    come in, and we want to give everyone a chance, an opportunity
    to watch today's hearing.
        So, with that, the Committee will stand in recess until
    1:00 p.m.
        [Recess.]
        Chair Nadler. The Committee will come to order. Next I will
    recognize the gentlelady from Arizona, Ms. Lesko.
        Ms. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to tell the
    testifiers and the people that came today, I sincerely
    appreciate all of you coming here. Especially those of you that
    are victims of domestic or sexual violence or gun violence and
    those that have lost people. I mean, I believe, that all of us
    whether we are Republican or Democrat, I hope you realize that
    we all care. We want to reduce gun violence. Sometimes there is
    just a difference in opinion of how we get there.
        Mr. Chair, I also want to join with Ranking Member
    Representative Collins in saying how disappointed I am that you
    did not allow Congressman Scalise to come testify today and,
    quite frankly, he was wounded and is still recovering and that
    is different than the other Members that you said wanted to
    come testify, and you did not have time for. So, I am still
    wondering why and what happened. Also, Mr. Chair, I just want
    to explain to you something that earlier when the gentleman,
    who I feel very sorry for, he lost someone from gun violence.
    He repeatedly got up and disrupted. It intimidated me, and it
    intimated, I was told, one of the witnesses here. So, that is
    why I think it is important that we do not let that continue to
    happen.
        I grew up in a family. I did not have guns. My father was
    in World War II and after he was in World War II, he quit
    hunting, and we did not have any guns. So, I did not know much
    about them. I had an irrational fear of guns. So, I have been
    there. I have been there with some of you that have never shot
    a gun. Have never experienced it. But, then I started educating
    myself and realized that when you make all these laws, a lot of
    them are unenforceable. But also, it is the criminals that do
    not follow the laws, right. Law-abiding citizens follow the
    laws. So, if you are trying to stop gun violence, and most of
    the gun violence is caused by people that do not follow the
    laws, you are not really getting a solution that you want.
        I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. I am also
    a survivor of domestic violence. So, I appreciated the
    testimony on that and want to share with you that there are
    people like me out there that have been victims, but we also
    want to be able to defend ourselves. So, I hope that you go
    away with realizing that we all want to solve this problem.
        I have to share with you that the Department of Justice, in
    a recent January 2019 report of prison inmates, they were
    interviewed, and the ones that used guns in their crime, 56
    percent of them stated they obtained their gun by stealing it
    or by underground. Another 25 percent, so almost all of them,
    legally obtained it from a family member. So, I guess what I am
    trying to say to you is that when you have well intentioned
    laws, and I believe you really believe that the background
    checks are really going to save peoples' lives, but you will
    see that most of the people that committed the crimes actually
    stole the guns. Stole the guns. Got them from family Members.
    So universal background checks will not help in most of those
    situations.
        I also studied all the major mass shootings quite intensely
    and realized that not one single one of them would have been
    prevented from a universal background check. I mean I went
    through all the details. I asked all the questions. I do think
    there are many ways that we can reduce gun violence, and we
    have done it here in a bipartisan fashion. Last year, or in
    Fiscal Year 2018, we passed legislation that helps prevent
    violence in our schools, very important. We also wanted to
    protect in fifths, the National Instant Criminal Background
    Check, which is the system where these backgrounds are
    actually, you find out, and we found out through studies that a
    lot of the states and agencies do not even report the
    information.
        Chair Nadler. The time of the gentlelady has expired. Do
    you have a quick question?
        Ms. Lesko. Oh, yes. I do. Thank you very much.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Lesko. Mr. Nadler, I just want to say to Ms. Lindquist,
    thank you for being here. Can you please explain again, how
    these well-intentioned laws actually hurt you from allowing you
    to defend yourself?
        Chair Nadler. Witness will answer the question.
        Ms. Lindquist. So, I do want to say, thank you for speaking
    publicly about being a survivor of domestic violence. It is
    terrible that anyone goes through that, but it can feel very
    alone. So, it is great to see people in positions of power
    talking about it.
        So, the law that specifically disarmed me in the State of
    Pennsylvania where I was going to school, college was a gun-
    free zone. So, you could not have firearms of any kind unless,
    of course, you were the police. Also, like I said, I live in
    Virginia and originally went to undergrad in Pennsylvania which
    would require driving through Maryland which would make me
    immediately a felon. So, it is a combination of those two
    things.
        Chair Nadler. The time of the gentlelady is expired. The
    gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Cicilline.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank our
    witnesses for being here and for many people who are in the
    audience. Your testimony is incredibly inspiring and
    invaluable, and I cannot overstate the importance and urgency
    of this hearing, and I want to thank Chair for his leadership.
    This is the first hearing in the U.S. House of Representatives
    on gun violence prevention in nearly a decade. We have a gun
    violence epidemic in this country. In some disproportionately
    impacted communities, persistent instance of gun violence has
    become a fact of life and are endangering the public health of
    these communities.
        Over the last eight years while Congress was ignoring this
    problem, the gun death rate has risen by 17 percent, the gun
    suicide rate by 19 percent, and the gun homicide rate by 14
    percent. The gun rate hit a nearly 20-year high in 2017 and
    roughly 40,000 deaths, according to the CDC. U.S. is now the
    world leader in child gun deaths, with death by gunshot being
    the second highest cause of death among children ages 1 to 19.
    On average, the number of Americans murdered by a firearm has
    risen to approximately 100 every day or another nearly 300 are
    shot.
        Mr. Chair, I just noticed that the time was not reset. So,
    Mr. Chair? I do not think the time was ever corrected from the
    last person speaking over.
        Chair Nadler. It appears to be a mechanical problem there.
        Mr. Cicilline. I will keep going and trust you to be fair.
    Each of these statistics is another example of this body's
    shameful failure to protect Americans from gun violence. Behind
    each number is a real family devastated by this epidemic.
    Despite our many efforts over the last years imploring
    Republicans to enact common sense gun safety legislation, all
    we could ever muster, was 30 seconds of doing nothing and
    saying nothing in a moment of silence. It was hearing your
    response to many of the deadliest mass shootings our country
    has ever seen. Think about what that means. Congress did
    nothing when children were massacred at Sandy Hook Elementary
    School. At Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and Santa Fe
    High School. When worshippers were gunned down in Charleston,
    Oak Creek, Southern Springs, and Pittsburgh. When people were
    hunted down and killed in a nightclub in Orlando, in a movie
    theatre in Aurora and a country music concert in Las Vegas. In
    some of these cases, the gunman would have failed a background
    check but got a gun anyway. In others, the gunman lawfully
    possessed deadly, military-style assault weapons or high-
    capacity magazines endangering our communities and belong in
    the battlefields not in our neighborhoods.
        In all of them, Congress could have taken action to try and
    prevent these tragedies from happening again. It is imperative
    that we do all that we can to keep guns out of the hands of
    people who should not have them and give law enforcement the
    tools they need to protect the public. That is why I have
    introduced several bills to prevent children, violent persons,
    and criminals from accessing guns. A bill to ban assault
    weapons and dangerous bump stop devices. Legislation requiring
    states to establish reporting systems for mental health
    professionals when individuals that have committed or
    communicate a serious threat of violence. Government funding to
    the CDC to research firearm violence as a public health issue.
        The American people are completely fed up with this
    institution's willful neglect in leaving them to suffer in the
    face of a clear epidemic. You are demanding that we finally do
    something before another horrible tragedy happens and before
    another dangerous weapon ends up in the wrong hands. It is long
    overdue for Congress to prevent further senseless violence from
    occurring. We know what the solutions are. It is time to act.
    The notion that there is not a single bill that, if passed,
    will eliminate all gun violence that we should do nothing, is
    an absurd justification for inaction. The truth is there are a
    whole set of bills that if we pass, will substantially reduce
    gun violence in this country. This bill, H.R. 8 is the first
    step, and I want to thank Mr. Thomson, the chair of the task
    force, Robyn Kelly, Katherine Clark, many of my colleagues who
    have been great champions of these issues.
        We have a responsibility to make sure that we keep guns out
    of the hands of people who should not have them. We know
    background checks work. Three-and-a-half million people have
    been blocked as prohibited purchases from buying a gun because
    of background checks. Yet, 22 percent of gun sales happen
    without a background check. So, imagine how many gun sales
    happen that prohibited purchases get because of this loophole
    because there is no background check.
        So, H.R. 8 is the beginning, but I want to begin my
    question to Aalayah Eastmond, and first say, we owe you an
    apology. We owe your whole generation an apology. The adults
    have failed you, and I am here to tell you, I was a founding
    member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns when I was mayor of the
    City of Providence. I have continued to fight on this issue. We
    are going to deliver results, and it is because of the voices
    of young people who have demanded that we do our job and pass
    common sense laws that will protect you. So, I want to say
    thank to you and to all the young people who are here. I want
    to say thank you to the chief. I would like to ask the chief
    and the doctor to talk a little bit about what your
    observations are about high-capacity magazines, assault weapons
    and the injuries that are sustained.
        Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman is expired. We will
    permit one witness to answer the question. Mr. Cicilline, which
    witness?
        Mr. Cicilline. Oh my, the doctor or the police chief?
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Cicilline. I guess the doctor. My mother always wanted
    me to be a doctor.
        [Laughter.]
        Dr. Sakran. All right, great. Well thank you for that
    question, congressman.
        It is a really important one, because, we as healthcare
    professionals are on the frontline of seeing this day in and
    day out. When you see these patients come in, we are seeing the
    full spectrum of where there is tissue that is pulverized,
    where there are flesh wounds, where people are bleeding to
    death in front of our eyes. Medical technology is great, but
    the solution is really prevention. So, we owe it to Americans
    to really think beyond the operating room, to think beyond the
    hospitals, to implement some common sense change.
        Chair Nadler. Thank you. The time of the gentleman is
    expired. Mr. Reschenthaler?
        Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Chair, I just have a unanimous consent
    request.
        Chair Nadler. The gentleman will State his unanimous
    consent request.
        Mr. Cicilline. I ask unanimous consent to introduce into
    the record, a Washington Post article, entitled ``It's Time to
    Bring Back the Assault Weapons Ban, Gun Violence Experts Say.''
    Another article entitled, ``Why Can't the U.S. Treat Gun
    Violence as a Public Health Problem?'' Another article in the--
    from the New York Times, ``Wounds from Military Style Rifles: A
    Ghastly Thing to See.'' A Vox article ``America's Unique Gun
    Problem Violence Explained in 17 Maps and Charts,'' and
    finally, ``Orders to Seize Guns from Prohibited Buyers at a 10-
    year High.''
        Chair Nadler. Without objection, these documents will be
    admitted into the record.
        [The information follows:]

                          MR. CICILLINE FOR THE RECORD

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

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chair Nadler. Mr. Reschenthaler?
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        As a lifelong resident of southwestern Pennsylvania and a
    gun owner myself, I know that despite what some of the people
    in this room may want you to believe, the overwhelming majority
    of American gun owners are hardworking, law-abiding citizens.
    These law-abiding citizens are simply looking to protect their
    families, hunt with their kids, or just put food on the table.
    That is why I am strongly opposed to H.R. 8 and other
    legislation that does nothing to address the root causes of gun
    violence like mental health. Instead, focus on limiting law-
    abiding citizens' ability to exercise their Second amendment
    rights.
        More gun bans are not going to solve this problem. The
    tragic shootings, in both San Bernardino and New Town, occurred
    in states that already had an assault weapons ban in place. I
    was in high school when Columbine occurred. The Columbine High
    School shooting took place during the Federal Assault Weapons
    Ban. More gun bans are not going to solve this problem.
    Instead, I would urge my colleagues across the aisle to focus
    on enforcing the laws we already have on the books to keep guns
    out of the hands of criminals, gang Members, and others who
    wish to do us harm.
        The Trump Administration has already made this a top
    priority. In the first nine months of 2017, Federal
    prosecutions for possession of an illegal firearm increased by
    15 percent. The number of people charged with using a firearm
    in a crime also improved. Now compare that with the Obama
    Administration, which in 2010 prosecuted only 44 of nearly
    50,000 fugitives and felons who attempted to illegally purchase
    firearms. Think about that. Only 44 out of 50,000. At the end
    of the day, the Constitution declares that gun ownership is not
    a privilege that is just for a select, reserve few. A protected
    and fundamental freedom guaranteed for all law-abiding
    citizens.
        With that in mind, I am very concerned about H.R. 8 which
    Democrats taut as Universal Background Checks Bill, but it is
    actually the first step toward creating a national gun
    registry. I know my friends from across the aisle will point to
    the fact that lines in the bill explicitly prohibit the
    creation of a national gun registry. However, the U.S.
    Department of Justice has said that universal background checks
    would only be enforceable, only be enforceable, if there is a
    mandatory national registration of firearms. So, with said,
    Professor Malcom, do you think the American people should be
    concerned that H.R. 8 would ultimately lead to a national gun
    registry?
        Dr. Malcolm. I think they do and should be concerned. Great
    Britain had a national registry for firearms, and at one point
    in 1999 they banned personal possession of a handgun. Because
    there was a registry, they were able to get all of the handguns
    that people owned, the law-abiding people who had actually
    registered them. Within 10 years, the crimes with handguns had
    actually doubled. So, it really did not take the guns away from
    the people who were going to misuse it. All it did was disarmed
    the law-abiding people.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. So, Professor Malcom, in your opinion,
    is H.R. 8 an effective way to address gun violence?
        Dr. Malcolm. I do not think so. This Committee obviously
    wants to do something that is going to make a difference and
    that law is not going to make a difference. It is just going to
    make it harder for people, criminalized people, who had
    innocently let someone else use their gun or must pay an extra
    fee to be able to get a gun legally transferred.
        Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Professor Malcolm. Thank you,
    Mr. Chair. I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time is expired. The
    gentleman from California, Mr. Swalwell.
        Mr. Swalwell. Thank you to Chair, and I want to thank the
    students and parents who are here today. My congressional
    orientation was going on when Sandy Hook happened. As awful as
    that was, I thought it was an opportunity for us to finally do
    something about gun violence in America. After six years, from
    Sandy Hook to Pulse to Charleston and all the cities we have
    come to learn, we saw moments of silence followed by moments of
    inaction. Then Parkland happened.
        I do not know why Parkland changed the way that our country
    started to look at this. Maybe it is because the students at
    Marjory Stoneman Douglas could articulate what the beautiful
    babies at Sandy Hook could not, just the sense of loss, but
    their belief that you should have the right to learn, the right
    to go home, and the right to live in your classrooms. You have
    given us a renewed sense of hope. Even though last night at the
    State of the Union, you did not hear one single word from the
    President about gun violence. Despite all the people on the
    Gallery who had lost loved ones. Even the people he had brought
    were the common tool of their loss was a firearm. Not one word.
    That did not bother me, though, because I knew we would be here
    today. The first historic hearing in eight years on reducing
    gun violence.
        So, thank you for giving us hope. Thank you to Mike
    Thompson, my colleague, who has continued to believe that we
    can do better and that we can start with background checks, and
    I just want to first address an argument that my colleagues
    keep making, which is, this will not reduce every gun violence
    death in America. That is absolutely true. If that is your
    standard, then we should just all go home and never strive to
    do anything to make us safer in our communities. If we work
    together on background checks and mental health illness, which
    I believe is correctly identified as another issue. If we work
    together to study gun violence through research. If we make
    sure that in our cities, we are investing in gang prevention.
    If we reduce to take the most dangerous weapons, like assault
    rifles out of the hands of the most dangerous people, we can
    seriously reduce, in our lifetime, the number of families who
    would have to sit in the Gallery and experience that loss.
        So, thank you for being here. Thank you for giving us this
    renewed sense of hope. I want to also thank our law enforcement
    officers for what you do every day. My brother is a cop. My dad
    was a cop. I fear every day as they are out on the beat, that
    they are out gunned, and I know why you are here is to protect
    the men and women sworn in your departments.
        Dr. Sakran, you were at the State of the Union last night,
    and I was hoping you could talk about an issue that I am very
    passionate about, which is, having a ban on assault weapons. I
    learned as a prosecutor that when a round flies out of an
    assault weapon, oftentimes, because of the pistol grip you can
    indiscriminately spray a crowd and you do not have to be an
    expert shot. You are firing a much more powerful round than
    many of the other weapons that are out there. You have seen on
    your trauma room table, the difference from what damage this
    does to the body. Could you just describe why an assault
    weapon, if someone is hit with it, is different? Just why we
    should treat those differently than perhaps other weapons?
        Dr. Sakran. Sure, thank you for the question, Congressman.
    Thanks for your leadership.
        When someone is hit with a bullet from an assault weapon,
    in addition to causing damage to the structures that are
    actually being hit, there is also a blast effect that occurs.
    So, there is damage to the surrounding tissue. That damage is a
    lot more significant than you would see with a handgun, for
    example. We do everything we can to try to control hemorrhage
    and fix the damage to save lives, but that is not always
    possible.
        Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, doctor. I will never forget a
    trauma surgeon and a pathologist telling me when a victim that
    I had worked on his case, he was shot in the back of the thigh.
    40 rounds fired at him just hit once in the back of the thigh
    and he passed away, and the pathologist and ballistics expert
    said it was just because of the sheer energy from the round.
    Also, I want to ask Ms. Thomas, thank you as well, Ms. Thomas
    for testifying. Australia enacted a comprehensive buyback on
    assault weapons. It was about 650,000 assault weapons. Are you
    familiar with the effects after that buy back in their country?
    When there were 35 people killed and 28 we wounded in 1996?
        Ms. Thomas. Yeah, in the Port Arthur Massacre. Following
    that legislation being passed, there has not been a single mass
    shooting that has occurred in Australia since that time.
        Mr. Swalwell. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chair Nadler. Thank you. Dr. Sakran, just yes or no, is the
    extra energy and the difference between being hit by an assault
    weapon, the assault rifle, and something else, is that because
    of the much greater velocity of the round from the assault
    weapon, from the assault rifle, than from a normal gun?
        Dr. Sakran. The kinetic energy that is being transmitted to
    the body--
        Chair Nadler. That extra kinetic energy is because of
    greater velocity?
        Dr. Sakran. --velocity does have to do with kinetic energy,
    correct.
        Chair Nadler. Thank you very much. Mr. Cline is recognized.
        Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I have been up here a month and during the campaign, I have
    been in the legislature at the State level for 16 years, so I
    had pretty good idea of what the role of the State legislature
    was. At the Federal level during the campaign, I carried around
    what I call the instruction manual, the Constitution. I know
    that a lot of people like to talk about how, well, it is not
    that it would not have affected any of these mass shootings,
    but it is that if we can take steps to prevent one more
    shooting or one more criminal from illegally purchasing a
    firearm, then it is worth, essentially, doing what this
    document tells us we should not do, which is infringe on the
    rights of the people to keep and bear arms. So, it is important
    to remember that this is the instruction manual, and we need to
    keep it in mind as we talk about whether we are going to,
    essentially, violate it.
        So, what I would ask Professor, in your remarks, you
    mentioned that the Second Amendment, the framers bequeath to us
    as individuals, the right to keep and bear weapons and common
    use for self-defense and other lawful purposes. I would
    disagree with that the framers did not bequeath to us that
    right. God has given us that right, and ``We hold these Truths
    to be self-evident that all Men are created equal. They are
    endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.''
    These rights are to be secured by Government. That is what this
    Constitution is for. So, to my question, do you think that
    criminals who have committed crimes and ignored the law are
    going to suddenly, miraculously follow new laws put in place
    that are going to prevent them from purchasing firearms without
    a background check?
        Dr. Malcolm. No, clearly they are not going to be bothered
    by it. If they are not going to obey the laws against harming
    people and shooting people, they are not going to be worried
    about trying to get a gun through a legitimate source or filing
    a background check. I mean, it is a shame, because I think this
    Committee could do really good work, but this particular law is
    not going to really help solve this problem.
        Mr. Cline. Thank you and to Ms. Thomas, I am reading your
    testimony and would ask you a similar question, do you believe
    that criminals who have ignored the laws--I mean you talk about
    96 percent of inmates who were prohibited from possessing a
    firearm at the time they committed the crime--obtained a gun in
    violation of that prohibition. Do you believe that they are
    suddenly, miraculously going to follow a law to violate another
    law?
        Ms. Thomas. I believe that we need to pass H.R. 8 because
    it will actually enable the existing Federal law that is on the
    books to be properly enforced. We currently prohibit those
    individuals from acquiring firearms and they can very easily go
    online, go to a gun show, go to a parking lot, and buy a gun
    from an unlicensed seller. That seller is not breaking any law
    when they transfer the gun without a background check. So, we
    are not just talking about the buyer of the gun breaking the
    law. We are also creating a system where the sellers of
    firearms understand that part of that transfer must entail a
    background check as well. So, we are basically taking a law
    that exists, and we are making it actually applicable to all
    sales as it should be.
        Mr. Cline. Do you believe that a registry is necessary as
    part of that system?
        Ms. Thomas. This law, H.R. 8 prohibits a registry.
        Mr. Cline. Do you believe that a registry is necessary as
    part of that system?
        Ms. Thomas. I do not. I believe that H.R. 8 being passed is
    very important first step to reducing gun violence in America,
    and it prohibits a registry from being created.
        Mr. Cline. Do you believe that Heller was correctly
    decided?
        Ms. Thomas. I support the decisions of our Supreme Court.
        Mr. Cline. So, you think it was correctly decided?
        Ms. Thomas. I think that it overturned previous precedent,
    and we agree that there are some issues with the decision based
    upon its interpretation of the Second Amendment, but we support
    the decisions of our Supreme Court.
        Mr. Cline. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Chair Nadler. Mr. Jeffries?
        Mr. Jeffries. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank all the
    witnesses for your presence here today. Let me begin with
    Professor Malcolm. The National Rifle Association opposes
    expanding background checks to cover firearm purchases at gun
    shows, true?
        Dr. Malcolm. The right to life--I did not get the first
    part of the, your--
        Mr. Jeffries. The NRA.
        Dr. Malcolm. Oh, the NRA.
        Mr. Jeffries. You are familiar with that organization,
    correct?
        Dr. Malcolm. Yes. I did not--yes.
        Mr. Jeffries. They oppose a background check to cover the
    gun show loophole, true?
        Dr. Malcolm. There is almost no gun show loophole.
        Mr. Jeffries. Okay.
        Dr. Malcolm. Virtually, but they do not want a registry and
    they do not want--this would make it more cumbersome for people
    who would like to be able to get a--
        Mr. Jeffries. You're claiming my time. I did not say
    anything about a registry. You oppose expanding the background
    check requirement for the gun show purchases, true?
        Dr. Malcolm. We are not just talking about gun shows. We
    are talking about making people in private sales to go through
    background checks and making the whole system much more
    cumbersome.
        Mr. Jeffries. I am asking you specifically about gun shows.
    Do you support expanding background checks to cover gun shows
    or not?
        Dr. Malcolm. There is almost no need for that.
        Mr. Jeffries. Okay, I take that as a no, thank you. In
    terms of expanding background checks for gun sales on the
    internet, the NRA opposes expanding background checks to cover
    such sales, true?
        Dr. Malcolm. I am really not privy to all of their
    decisions on these things.
        Mr. Jeffries. Okay, you oppose background checks as it
    relates to internet gun show sales, true?
        Dr. Malcolm. I would like to see the background check that
    we now have used properly. Now that is not because too many
    people are not put on that background check who ought to be.
        Mr. Jeffries. Okay, now you are the Patrick Henry Professor
    of Constitutional Law and the Second amendment at George Mason
    University. Is that right?
        Dr. Malcolm. Yes.
        Mr. Jeffries. Is it fair to say that this position is
    bought and paid for by the NRA?
        Dr. Malcolm. I do not know.
        Mr. Jeffries. Okay, this position was created in 2003,
    true?
        Dr. Malcolm. I do not know what the background is, but I
    will say that George Mason University has been very conscious
    of being sure that any contributions to the law school for any
    particular positions do not have any strings attached, and you
    can check with what the procedures are for that.
        Mr. Jeffries. Okay, now when the position was created, it
    was a direct result of a $1 million endowment from the National
    Rifle Association Foundation, correct?
        Dr. Malcolm. I was not at George Mason University in 2002.
    So, I really do not know the answer to that.
        Mr. Jeffries. Okay.
        Dr. Malcolm. You seem to have more information about it
    than I do.
        Mr. Jeffries. Okay, the NRA Foundation has continued to
    give money to the law school. Is that right?
        Dr. Malcolm. I assume so if that what's--if that was an
    endowment.
        Mr. Jeffries. Okay, I ask unanimous consent to enter--
        Dr. Malcolm. You think that is funny. I really do not now.
        Mr. Jeffries. No, I did not laugh. I ask you--this is not a
    laughing matter. This is a gun violence epidemic that we have
    in America.
        Now, let me ask unanimous consent to enter into the record,
    the 990 forms from the NRA Foundation for the years 2012, '13,
    '14, `15, and '16.
        Chair Nadler. Without objection, the documents will be
    entered into the record.
        [The information follows:]

                          MR. JEFFRIES FOR THE RECORD

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

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Jeffries. So, in 2012, the NRA Foundation gave $100,000
    to the law school in connection with the position that you hold
    and for ``Second amendment study,'' correct?
        Dr. Malcolm. Well, I presume that they did, but they did
    not have anything to do with my particular job.
        Mr. Jeffries. Okay you--
        Dr. Malcolm. I do not get a penny more for having that.
        Mr. Jeffries. Okay, you arrived in 2013. Is that right?
        Dr. Malcolm. Excuse me?
        Mr. Jeffries. You arrived in 2013?
        Dr. Malcolm. In 2006.
        Mr. Jeffries. You arrived--
        Dr. Malcolm. I did not, but I did not have a chair until
    later.
        Mr. Jeffries. That is correct. In 2013, is that right?
        Dr. Malcolm. Yes.
        Mr. Jeffries. Okay now, in 2013, the NRA Foundation gave
    $100,000 to the George Mason University Law School for ``Second
    amendment study,'' true?
        Dr. Malcolm. Presumably, they did.
        Mr. Jeffries. In 2014, the NRA Foundation gave $100,000 to
    the George Mason University Law School for ``special grants
    other studies related to the Second Amendment,'' true?
        Dr. Malcolm. They have not subsidized anything that I have
    done. I was hired. I was given this chair, because I had
    already done serious work on the legal and constitutional
    background of the Second Amendment.
        Mr. Jeffries. Okay, what we found is that the NRA has given
    a million dollars to endow the position that you now hold,
    hundreds of thousands of dollars over the last several years,
    and the problem is, we can have a legitimate debate about how
    to deal with the gun violence epidemic, but it is hard to have
    that legitimate debate when the NRA functions as holding others
    who are supposedly participating in this debate like they are
    holy on subsidiaries. Not saying you are not, but we do know
    that in connection with the position you hold, it is funded by
    the National Rifle Association.
        I yield back.
        Chair Nadler. Thank you. The time of the gentleman has
    expired. There is a vote on the floor now. There are two votes
    on the floor. There are six minutes and 46 seconds remaining in
    the first vote, 363 people not having voted yet.
        The Committee will stand in recess until immediately after
    the second vote in this series, which will probably be in about
    15 minutes. Members of the audience with advisors, there is no
    crowd outside, so you probably will not give up your seat if
    you walk out.
        [Recess.]
        Chair Nadler. The Committee will come to order. Continuing
    with questioning the witnesses.
        Mr. Collins. Mr. Chair, before we--
        Chair Nadler. For what reason does the gentleman seeking
    recognition?
        Mr. Collins. I would just like to make some clarification.
    I know at the end there was some discussion concerning the
    effectiveness or lack of effectiveness therein by who or who
    may not maybe receive funds in a certain time, and I think one
    of the things we got to be very careful of here is every
    witness that comes here will come representing who they
    represent and from the areas that they do. Some of the
    witnesses here would not have probably been called if they had
    been participants in the political process for your side of the
    aisle or possibly my side of the aisle. These are things that
    happen, and they are disclosed. I think, throwing that out
    there, especially to witnesses or even other Members, implying
    that something changes for them, I think we need to be careful
    of. Otherwise, we can just start admitting the records of
    donations from groups that are justifying here today on
    contributions and everything else.
        We just need to keep this on level with people from their
    background, knowing their background, let us all have an honest
    argument without questioning the motives of or the trajectory
    of motives from folks that we have. With saying that, I yield
    back.
        Chair Nadler. I will now recognize the gentleman from North
    Dakota, Mr. Armstrong.
        Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In my never-ending
    quest to educate people about the way we live in North Dakota,
    earlier this morning in H.R. 1, I was explain that we are the
    only State in the Nation without voter registration. So, in
    quest to solve problems in other areas, we actually make it
    more difficult to do things in my state. I will continue that a
    little bit here. I am going to talk particularly about the
    exceptions. It is obvious to someone who has spent his entire
    life hunting and whether it is bow hunting, up line game
    hunting a rifle, or big game hunting, that when people write
    exceptions to laws like this, we do it in a way that actually
    does not take into account the rural nature of places where I
    live. North Dakota is a beautiful place. I invite anybody to
    come there whenever they can. Probably not today.
        It is 35 below wind chill, but when we are talking about
    how we designate exceptions to this H.R. 8 we are talking about
    exclusively at shooting ranges, shooting galleries, or other
    designated areas, and in the noble goal of trying to end gun
    violence in other areas, I just want everybody to be aware that
    we are creating felons out every ranch--federal felons out of
    every ranching farm kid in North Dakota. We do not have
    designated shooting ranges. We do not have shooting galleries.
    We borrow our buddy a rifle to shoot in a stubble field, be it
    prior to them going hunting or whether it is pheasant hunting,
    whether it is deer hunting, whether it is any of those areas.
    So, when we are dealing with these issues, I want to make it
    perfectly clear that we are also creating significant burdens
    on a way of life to the entire Midwest population, not just in
    North Dakota.
        I actually want to thank Congress for a couple of things,
    and I can do this because I was not here when these passed, so
    it is not self-gratifying. H.R. 4477, which was the Fix NICS
    Act of 2017 was passed, and this is how we approach gun law in
    North Dakota has incredibly pro-Second amendment law, but what
    we do with our law enforcement and our State policy is
    absolutely go after prohibited people. We do everything we can
    to make sure law-abiding citizens can use their Second
    amendment rights, but we continually work with domestic
    violence groups, law enforcement to ensure that prohibited
    people do not have access to the firearms they are supposed to.
        The Fix NICS Act was something that we, even as a pro-
    Second amendment State as North Dakota, we have been utilized.
    Also, H.R. 4909, which is the Stop School Violence Act is
    provided programs that are utilized in North Dakota right now.
    Our rural schools, some of them have been in the 1950s. When we
    deal with school safety, we oftentimes it is not a matter of
    whether we have a school resource officer in one school in the
    community, we often do not have law enforcement that can
    respond within 45 minutes of some of our rural towns. So, these
    grants help us provide school safety in divided into these
    scenarios in which they exist at that point and time. So, I
    would like to thank Congress for those. I would argue,
    personally, that the Concealed Reciprocity Act, which has
    passed the House and has not gotten through the Senate is also
    way to help deter more gun crime.
        Finally, I just say as somebody who has practiced criminal
    defense in Federal court, I think just as matter of statutory
    construction, we should be a little careful about the number of
    adjectives that we use in the criminal code. Adjectives are a
    petri dish for trial lawyers and purely outside of any
    partisanship or anything else when we use a lot of ugly words,
    they tend to be litigated in front of 12 people very
    extensively.
        I do have one question for Ms. Thomas. When you were
    talking to Congressman Cline earlier, you were talking about
    this being an important Act and that without a registry, it
    does not matter. Under President Obama Administration, they
    received a White paper from Greg Ridgway and essentially the
    White paper says that these gun laws do not work without a
    national registry. So, my question is, was the Obama
    Administration wrong?
        Ms. Thomas. I am not sure exactly what you are asking, but
    if your question is whether or not it is appropriate to pass
    H.R. 8 without a registry, my answer would be yes, it is
    absolutely incumbent on us to pass H.R. 8 even though it
    prohibits a registry from being formed, because it will
    encompass a larger majority of background checks on all gun
    sales than what we have in place now.
        Mr. Armstrong. Okay and forgive me because my old criminal
    defense attorney mind is coming in place. Without the registry,
    how is it enforceable?
        Ms. Thomas. Because every sale and transfer of a gun
    requires a background check. So, when guns are recovered in
    crimes, it will be much easier for law enforcement to A,
    discover if guns had a background check on them and to trace
    them back to their original source. In that instance, it would
    be very easy to know if there was no background check
    conducted.
        Mr. Armstrong. I would ask for unanimous consent to offer
    this Summary of ``Select Firearm Violence Prevention
    Strategies'' by Greg Ridgway into the record.
        Chair Nadler. Without objection the document will be
    entered into the record.
        [The information follows:]

                          MR. ARMSTRONG FOR THE RECORD

    =======================================================================
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Armstrong. I yield back my time, Mr. Chair.
        Chair Nadler. Thank you. Now I recognize the gentleman from
    Maryland, Mr. Raskin.
        Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, thank you very much. I want to first
    recognize my wonderful constituent, Andrea Chamblee who is here
    today. She lost her husband, John McNamara, in the terrible
    massacre that took place in Annapolis. He was a reporter and a
    celebrated editor of The Capitol Gazette. Thanks for joining
    us, Andrea, and that you stand for hundreds of people here
    today who have lost family Members and friends and hundreds of
    thousand across the country who are begging us to do something.
        Mr. Nadler, thank you for this hearing, which is
    extraordinary, because it is the first hearing on gun violence
    in more than 8 years in the House of Representatives. In that
    time, we have seen, not only the daily mounting, gruesome death
    toll in every community across America where 96 people die from
    gun violence every day, and 246 every day are shot and wounded,
    where eight children or teens die from gun violence every day,
    and where 39 young people are shot and wounded.
        Over the last eight years, we have seen six of the ten
    worst gun massacres in the history of the United States of
    America: The Las Vegas massacre with 58 dead; the Pulse
    Nightclub massacre with 49 dead; Sandy Hook, 20 kids and six
    grown-ups; Stoneman Douglas, 17 adults, and on and on. To the
    wonderful people who have assembled here today taking time off
    from school, off from work to come to bear witness to the
    people you have lost in your lives, I want to say that you are
    the repositories of the memories of your loved ones, but we are
    the repositories of the legislative memories of what have
    happened, what has happened here. We must never forget.
        I have only been here for two years, but I want to tell
    you, in that time, I saw several of those massacres, including
    the Vegas massacre and the Stoneman Douglas massacre, and we
    had not a single hearing on a universal, criminal background
    check. We had three hearings in this Committee with Diamond and
    Silk to talk about imaginary offenses online, and they brought
    us two bills, one the aforementioned bill, the Concealed Carry
    Reciprocity Act, a complete misnomer. It has nothing to do with
    reciprocity, it would demolish every state's concealed carry
    law so that if you can get a gun in the most permissive State
    in the Union, which I think is still Florida, where a million
    and a half people have the right to carry a loaded, concealed
    weapon, then you can go anywhere in the country. That is what
    they brought us. Oh, and they brought us one other bill which
    was to legalize silencers in America. That sounds not like a
    common-sense public safety agenda. That sounds like a mafia
    agenda to legalize silencers across the country. That is what
    we have dealt with from this Committee which is why today is
    such a remarkable breath of fresh air and why Americans across
    the country are looking at the House of Representatives with
    hope today.
        Now, the universal criminal background check is backed by
    more than 95 percent of the American people. The vast majority
    of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and Gun owners.
    Everybody thinks that you should not be able to purchase a
    firearm in America if you cannot pass a simple criminal and
    mental background check, so we are screening out felons and
    fugitives. People who are violently unstable, undocumented
    aliens--these are the people that we are trying to catch. What
    do we hear from the other side? We hear, ``Well this punishes
    law-abiding people. You should go after the criminals.'' That
    is precisely what we are trying to do. We are trying to keep
    them from getting guns in the first place. We are trying to
    close the loopholes here today.
        Now, we are hearing that there is a lot of Second amendment
    verbiage floating around the room and yet, I have yet to hear a
    single argument that this legislation in H.R. 8 is
    unconstitutional. Not one. Now the Distinguished Ranking Member
    of the Committee was offended by the gentleman from New York's
    line of questioning about Professor Malcolm's background and
    the character of her professorship at George Mason. Fine, if
    you are not interested in trying to determine the sources of
    income for her chairmanship, let us leave that to the side. Let
    us go to the content of Professor Malcolm's testimony.
        Professor Malcolm, I am fellow professor of constitutional
    law. So I was all excited for your testimony, because before I
    was a member of Congress, I loved nothing more than to be able
    to do a legal analysis and bring it to Congress and say, ``Here
    is my understanding of what the law is,'' but I searched in
    vain, your entire testimony for any legal analysis of the
    Second amendment constitutionality of H.R. 8, and I am
    wondering, have you written a separate law review article or
    separate legal analysis, because I understand this is more of a
    policy statement?
        Dr. Malcolm. I have not written an analysis of this
    particular bill, but I would like to say that I deeply resent
    the assertion that I am holy on subsidiary.
        Mr. Raskin. I did not say anything about that.
        Dr. Malcolm. I know you did not.
        Mr. Raskin. I am sorry. I am going to reclaim my time
    because we have very little time here. Let me go to this
    question. Do you have an opinion as the Second amendment Chair
    holder at the George Mason Antonin Scalia School of Law, do you
    have a legal opinion that you have formed, even without an
    analysis that is written, as to the constitutionality of H.R.
    8?
        Dr. Malcolm. I have a legal opinion that the constitutional
    right that is associated with the instant background check as
    it now stands is constitutional. It just does not work very
    well.
        Mr. Raskin. Okay so--
        Dr. Malcolm. It does not work.
        Mr. Raskin. Okay well, we'll go to the ATF for their
    thoughts on that. You are saying as constitutional matter, the
    legislation before us is perfectly constitutional today? Dr.
    Sakran, do you agree with that? That H.R. 8 is perfectly
    constitutional?
        Dr. Sakran. Well, I am not a lawyer, and I am here in my
    capacity as a trauma surgeon. But, we currently have licensing
    that is actually evaluating people for background checks. So,
    this is just talking about ensuring we close those loopholes
    and expand that to the rest of the public, so.
        Mr. Raskin. Okay and it does not deny anybody the right to
    access a gun who has a Second amendment right to get one? It is
    only the people that Justice Scalia enumerated in how their
    decision as being not eligible because they might be mentally
    defective or felons or fugitives and so on, right?
        Dr. Sakran. Correct.
        Mr. Raskin. That is your understanding of it, okay. I yield
    back, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.
        Chair Nadler. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize the
    gentlelady from Washington, Ms. Jayapal who is not here. Oh
    great. The gentleman from California, Mr. Correa.
        Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chair, first, I want to thank
    you for holding this most important hearing and of course, I
    want to also thank all of the young people in the audience
    today. This is your day. I am glad you are here in force to
    show that you care about this issue. A lot of you here have
    also been painfully touched, personally touched by a loss due
    to gun violence and thank you also for being here. I thank the
    panelists also for your expert testimony today. Ms. Lindquist,
    I want to personally thank you as well for bravery for being
    here to tell us about that horrible experience of yours.
        Half dozen years ago, my wife was attacked, mugged. Like in
    your situation, somebody came up behind her and grabbed her and
    threw her down and beat her up, and I can tell you for many,
    many months, I was there helping her nurse back her wounds. Not
    only the physical but the emotional that she still carries. We
    do not wish that on anybody. Very, very tough issue here.
        Professor Malcolm, you are absolutely right. This is going
    to make it more expensive for somebody to purchase a weapon.
    The bureaucratic issues involved are going to slow down the
    process. As I think about this bill, I think back to my
    district where I have had to attend many funerals, way too many
    funerals of young people. Very young teenagers being the
    victims of gang violence. As I think about your testimony here,
    is this bill going to stop somebody from buying a gun
    illegally?
        Dr. Malcolm. I cannot see how it will.
        Mr. Correa. I do not think it does. I do not think it does.
    Yet, as I think about society today, what goes on in our
    streets, I am going to come back to something that Mr.--that
    Chief Acevedo said, which is, a question in my mind is, will
    this legislation save a life? Will it save one life? Because
    when I have constituents that have been touched, that have been
    hurt by gun violence, my question is, Chief Acevedo, is this
    bill going to save one life or many lives? Or none at all?
        Chief Acevedo. No, thank you for the question. This bill
    will definitely save lives. There is no doubt about it. What
    this bill does is not keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding
    Americans of sound mind, which I do not know if--
        Mr. Correa. What was that? What did you just--
        Chief Acevedo. It will not keep firearms out of the hands
    of law-abiding Americans of sound mind.
        What it will do is make it more difficult for those that
    use these loopholes at gun shows, on the internet, straw
    purchasers, that are driven by greed that then go out and
    purchase these firearms and then sell them to those crooks.
    That is going to make it more difficult for the bad guys. If we
    are going to support the good guys with guns, if we are going
    to talk about other good guys with guns, we also need to talk
    about what do we do to keep guns out of the bad guys with guns?
    This is exactly what this bill will do. That is why the Major
    City Chiefs has been very vocal. The mayors have been very
    vocal. Our prosecutor has been very vocal, and I would like to
    tell you to the folks that are in our emergency rooms, that
    thanks to the medicine, the quality of the medicine we have
    today, the discourage of gun violence and the deaths from it
    would be quite more horrifying than we experience. I want to
    say to the trauma docs, you are in your lane. Stay in the lane,
    which is saving lives, not selling guns.
        Mr. Correa. Thank you very much. Same question to Major
    Tapp-Harper. Both of you have been on the beat. You are where
    the rubber meets the road. You have seen that violence. Will
    this bill, will this legislation, H.R. 8, save lives?
        Major Tapp-Harper. Thank you for your question, sir, and
    our primary responsibility as preservation of life, and I stand
    arm in arm with the Chief. Yes, I believe that we will save
    lives.
        Mr. Correa. So this legislation is really a major step
    forward in keeping guns away from those that are really not
    qualified to own a gun. Mr. Chair, I yield.
        Chair Nadler. Thank you, gentleman. Mr. Richmond is
    recognized.
        Mr. Richmond. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Dr. Malcolm, I believe
    two people earlier said that none of these bills would do
    anything to save a life. If we look at the Charleston loophole,
    would that not have prevented the perpetrator from purchasing
    that gun?
        Dr. Malcolm. Excuse me, what--
        Mr. Richmond. The Charleston loophole. The loophole that
    says if your background does not come back in 72 hours, then
    you automatically can purchase the firearm. In his case, his
    background check came back after four days and what came back
    would have prevented him from being able to buy the gun, which
    in my mind, therefore would have prevented the Emanuel Nine
    Massacre in Mother Emanuel Church in the loss of nine lives.
    So, my question is, closing that loophole would have saved nine
    lives?
        Dr. Malcolm. In that one case, it probably would, but there
    are very few people like that man who actually go through the
    whole process knowing that they are planning to misuse a
    firearm.
        Mr. Richmond. Well maybe and may not be, because I think he
    had a bad address. So, logic would tell me that if you go in
    and you give a little bit of bad information like an incorrect
    address that may delay the background check from coming back,
    the goal is for the background check to come back after 72
    hours, and you can purchase your gun.
        Also, people like to point out the Assault Weapons Ban and
    what effect that had. Let me tell you what effect it had
    because I was young in those days. I lived in the hot streets
    during the 90s. That Assault Weapons Ban made the price of an
    Uzi go up from $400 in the store to $1,500. Therefore, that mad
    person may have had $400 in his pocket but not $1,500. It
    delayed the time in which he could get his hands on a gun
    legally or illegally, which allowed for a cooling period to
    happen. I hear many people say that this may put a burden on
    lawful gun owners, which I am one. When I went to purchase my
    gun, I did not need it immediately. If I had to wait two days,
    that was okay. The person who needs a gun right then and there
    is probably the person we do not want with a gun, right then
    and there.
        Let me just remind this Committee of what I believe was a
    missed opportunity back in 1990. The same time when the streets
    were hot because of crack cocaine. This body, this committee,
    this Congress decided that it would treat the crack cocaine
    epidemic in a different way. That it would find the cure to it
    in mass incarceration. What we did not do is treat it as the
    substance abuse problem that it was. Had we declared it a
    health epidemic back in 1990, guess what would have happened?
    We would have substance abuse clinics and infrastructure across
    this country. The opioid victims that we see today would have a
    place to go, because we would have responded correctly back in
    1990.
        Now the question is, why am I saying that? Because we have
    an opioid epidemic, and the President just declared it a public
    health crisis. Last year, opioids, we lost 14,000 individuals.
    Synthetic opioids, 28,000. Heroin, 15,000. It is a health
    epidemic. Last year, we lost 39,773 people to gun violence
    which is a health epidemic, and the question becomes, let us
    assume I am wrong, Dr. Malcolm. Let us assume it is not. What
    harm is there in trying to figure out the link between guns and
    the violence and letting CDC and NIH, smart people who are
    doctors, who are smarter than me, what is wrong with letting
    them study it to come back to us with recommendations, because
    that is what we are doing with the opioid epidemic.
        I do not want us to come here in 20 years like I am doing
    now, and somebody is saying, they had a chance to remove the
    Dickey Amendment, allow NIH, CDC and experts to study it, but
    they did not do it during that time, because the pressure was
    too hot. Now 20 years later, we have done a road and we are
    losing so many kids. So please tell me what is the harm in
    studying it?
        Dr. Malcolm. Guns are not a disease. They should be studied
    by people who are law enforcement who know more about crime on
    the streets, all other kinds of possibilities. Also, there is a
    right, a constitutional right for ordinary people to protect
    themselves with firearms. There is no right to have an opioid,
    and that is a good idea that there is not, because you are
    right. It is a terrible epidemic. Doctors are not the best ones
    to be studying the best solutions for gun control. What I would
    like to see, and this committee--or at least the Congress has
    taken it up in the past--is something more done to help people
    who are dangerously mentally ill. I think that would be a
    tremendous help, because most of the people who have committed
    these mass murders are people who really need some kind of
    help, and we have dismantled our health establishment and not
    really put anything very good in its place. While it is not a
    very sexy subject, I think it would be a tremendous help to try
    to help.
        Mr. Richmond. Mr. Chair, can I ask unanimous consent to
    enter into the record, it is an annotation from Dr. Sakran's
    testimony where it says, ``Firearm injury and death in America
    is not only a disease,'' and it references what I would like to
    enter into the record is, by Lerner, Hargarden, ``Gun Violence,
    A Biopsychosocial Disease.''
        Chair Nadler. Without objection, the material will be
    entered into the record. Ms. Jayapal is recognized.
        [The information follows:]

                          MR. RICHMOND FOR THE RECORD

    =======================================================================
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to start by
    saying thank you to all of you. I know this has been a long
    day, but I especially want to thank those of you in the
    audience who are survivors of gun violence, who are family
    Members. I want to thank you, Aalayah for your excellent
    testimony. The reality is you all are putting this issue on the
    map, and I am so deeply grateful for that. I just have to--
    before I get into my question--say to Professor Malcom with all
    due respect, seatbelts were not considered a public health
    crisis initially. Cigarettes were not either, but we took on
    smoking. We took on seatbelts, as Dr. Sakran said, and that is
    what we need to do with gun violence. Every day we know 109
    people are killed by gun violence. Hundreds more are injured,
    and I wanted to call attention to the fact that every 16 hours
    a woman is killed by an abuser with a firearm.
        In the United States today, 4.5 million women have been
    threatened by an abuser with a firearm. I am proud to be from
    Washington State where we have consistently passed some of the
    most sweeping gun reform pieces of legislation and initiatives,
    including comprehensive background checks in 2014. In 2016,
    allowing courts to issue extreme risk protection orders as many
    of you have spoken about and then most recently, in 2018,
    raising the legal age to purchase a semi-automatic rifle to 21
    and requiring safe storage.
        In 2014, we passed a law allowing courts to ask domestic
    violence perpetrators to surrender their firearms when judges
    determine that they are a credible threat. Seattle and King
    County established a regional domestic violence firearms
    enforcement unit that in 2018 collected over 466 firearms
    potentially saving the lives of countless survivors of domestic
    violence and others. I read, Professor Malcolm, that you have
    said some things that imply or perhaps outright say, that
    repossession of firearms could lead to the Government
    repossessing other things such as fire extinguishers. That so-
    called slippery slope argument is really a tremendous
    disservice. So, I just wanted to give you a chance to tell me
    if you believe that repossessing firearms from people under
    court order, to surrender their firearms, is going to result in
    the police repossessing fire extinguishers?
        Dr. Malcolm. I never wrote that.
        Ms. Jayapal. So, you do not believe in that slippery-slope
    argument?
        Dr. Malcolm. No.
        Ms. Jayapal. So, you have also asserted that women should
    carry guns for their own protection because, and I believe this
    is your quote, ``Government can't protect everybody. People
    have to be able to protect themselves.'' Is that correct?
    Again, a yes or no, answer.
        Dr. Malcolm. Yes.
        Ms. Jayapal. Yes, okay. So let me turn to you, Major Tapp-
    Harper as the Commander of the Domestic Violence Unit for the
    Baltimore City Sherriff's Office. Do you agree with Professor
    Malcolm's position, that victims of domestic violence will be
    safer if they have guns?
        Major Tapp-Harper. I would like to point to what the
    national statistics say on this, and specifically what Dr.
    Jacquelyn Campbell says, and what she says, ``And what about
    the notion that if women were armed, they'd be safer? In a
    survey of women in a shelter, fewer than 1 in 20 abused women
    who had access to a gun reported having ever used it in self-
    defense against their abuser.''
        In another national study, owning a handgun neither
    increased nor decreased abused women's risk of being killed by
    a partner. A third study showed that among California
    purchasers of handguns, women who purchased handguns had a 50
    percent increase in risk of homicide, all of which could be
    attributed to homicide by an intimate partner. While this study
    cannot--
        Ms. Jayapal. Let me just stop you right there. I am sorry.
    I am running out of time, but that was just what I was looking
    for. So let me just ask a question of Dr. Sakron or Sakran?
        Dr. Sakran. Sakran.
        Ms. Jayapal. Sakran. Okay. Great. Last year when we became
    the first State in the country to pass a bill allowing people
    at high risk of suicide to voluntarily register themselves to
    temporarily suspend their ability to purchase a firearm, I want
    to go to that. In your experience as director of emergency
    general surgery at Johns Hopkins, do you think there is more
    that we should be doing to prevent suicide by firearm?
        Dr. Sakran. Yeah, thank you for that question. So, this is
    such an important piece because I think it has been glossed
    over during the discussion this afternoon. Actually, most
    firearm deaths are from suicide, and people keep dismissing
    that. Suicide is actually a violent death that we or people
    commit to themselves. When you look at the healthcare
    community, we actually often don't see a lot of these victims
    because they are going straight to the morgue. Why is that?
    Because there is such a high case fatality rate that exists
    when you try to commit suicide using a firearm versus if you
    are taking, pills and trying to overdose. It is completely
    disparate.
        So absolutely we should be doing more. Our families,
    community needs to be involved in that process, which is why,
    different pieces of legislation like you have done in
    Washington is useful.
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you so much. Mr. Chair, I yield back,
    and I am looking forward to much more work on this topic.
        Chair Nadler. Thank you. Ms. Scanlon?
        Ms. Scanlon. It has been 8 years and hundreds of thousands
    of lives lost to gun violence since the last time Congress held
    a hearing on this issue. While Congress has shirked its
    responsibility to address the epidemic of gun violence, the
    grassroots demand for action has taken root and been so well
    represented here today.
        We are at a critical moment where we can save the lives of
    thousands of Americans, and if we can I think we must. This
    isn't a Second amendment issue. This is a public health crisis.
    As the gentleman from Maryland and Florida pointed out, the
    commonsense measures that Congress is considering all pass
    constitutional muster even under the restrictive reading of the
    Constitution espoused by the late Justice Scalia.
        I grew up in a family where responsible gun ownership was
    common, a family of veterans and hunters who understood the
    value of safe gun policies. Those aren't the individuals we are
    talking about here today. We are talking about the background
    checks. We need to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals
    and gun traffickers, keeping weapons of war off the street, and
    keeping illegal guns out of our community. As several people
    have suggested, how we can help keep guns out of the hands of
    those who represent a danger to themselves or others.
        We need a multifaceted approach to address a multipronged
    public health program, one that in the terms of the breadth and
    depth of its impact on Americans could legitimately be declared
    a national emergency. It is a problem that demands a research-
    based and data-driven response, as suggested by the law
    enforcement and medical professionals who have testified here
    today.
        I want to take a moment to address two of my constituents
    attending today's hearing who have turned their personal
    tragedies into advocacy. Beverly Wright lost her son to random
    gun violence when he was just 23 years old. She has since
    started support groups for families in my district who have
    been impacted by gun violence. I was struck last night and
    again this morning when Beverly and other families of gun
    violence victims greeted each other with hugs as though they
    were close associates, but then I realized that is exactly what
    they are. They are Members of an ever-growing club that no one
    wants to be a member of. I want to thank them for their
    tireless advocacy to make sure that their club does not keep
    growing.
        My other guest is Malcolm Yates, who was just 7 years old
    when he survived a shooting at a Philadelphia candy store that
    claimed the life of his 5-year-old brother. He has since
    started a foundation and a community center in his brother's
    name and has become a community activist. I was proud to have
    Malcolm and Beverly as my guests at the State of the Union last
    night, and I am even prouder that they are here today at this
    historic hearing. They know what some still refuse to
    acknowledge, that thoughts and prayers after shootings are not
    enough, that gun violence has become a constant in too many of
    our communities, invading our streets, our offices, our places
    of worship, and our schools. It is time for our collective
    outrage to drive commonsense gun legislation and for that
    legislation to become law.
        Before I get to my questions, I want to echo my colleagues
    in thanking Chair for having this important hearing and
    thanking our witnesses for being here and sharing their stories
    and expertise. To that end, Major Tapp-Harper, my district is
    in southeastern Pennsylvania, and as such, we are impacted by
    what some call the iron pipeline: Seeing guns from southern
    States with weak gun safety laws travel to our city streets in
    Pennsylvania. Can you speak to how better tracking of lost or
    stolen guns can help prevent this phenomenon and decrease gun
    violence?
        Major Tapp-Harper. I think universal laws that I talked
    about earlier and strengthening those Federal laws is the way.
    I think that is the way to keep everybody safe as I mentioned
    earlier.
        Ms. Scanlon. Okay. Chief Acevedo, how can the Federal
    government, including the ATF, be more involved and active in
    stemming the problem of gun trafficking? How can we help local
    law enforcement?
        Chair Nadler. Can you move that other mike over there
    perhaps? No, or that one.
        Chief Acevedo. Sorry about that. I will fix it here in a
    second. Oh, you fixed it? Thank you. You get an assist.
        [Laughter.]
        Chief Acevedo. First, we need to get ATF up and running. It
    is an open secret amongst law enforcement circles that Congress
    has handcuffed the ATF. So, if Congress is interested in
    fighting gun violence, we need to properly fund the ATF,
    increase the number of agents on the ground in ATF, and
    actually go after all the illegal guns. They are a phenomenal
    partner. I think they are underappreciated, but sadly I don't
    think the American people know what a great asset that
    organization is and how much it is being underutilized as a
    result of the lack of funding and support from Congress.
        Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chair Nadler. Thank you. Ms. Garcia of Texas?
        Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I too, want to thank the
    audience. I know we started out at 10:00 a.m., and here we
    are--we did the math real quickly--4 or 5 hours later. So,
    thanks for hanging with us. To Ms. Eastwood and Ms. Lindquist,
    thank you so much for sharing. I know it takes a lot of courage
    to come before us and share your stories. Please know that that
    we all were genuinely touched, and we certainly stand with you
    in trying to make changes in both of the areas that you both
    talked about.
        Chief, I wanted to start with you. I know this is not an
    immigration hearing, although it began to sound like one
    earlier. There was a comment made about criminal aliens, which,
    of course, is a word, as my colleague from Houston, that I find
    very offensive. There was a question that there be may be
    implied that every unauthorized immigrant that comes to this
    country quickly goes to get a gun and starts committing some
    heinous crime. I know you track a lot of this because I have
    heard your statistics in Houston. Could you tell us,
    comparatively speaking, in terms of the crimes committed by an
    authorized immigrants versus non-immigrants?
        Chief Acevedo. Well, thank you. First, I really started to
    think it was an immigration hearing when Mr. Gaetz started
    speaking earlier. Then I thought I was being forgotten like the
    children that have been taken from their mothers for seeking
    asylum in the United States we cannot seem to find or account
    for.
        Let me just be real clear. Every study that we have seen
    will show that undocumented immigrants are underrepresented in
    terms of their commission of crimes. Most of those individuals
    are here to seek a better way of live like everyone of our of
    ancestors. Mr. Gaetz gave us of handful and attributed them to
    undocumented immigrants. Yet my testimony included mass
    shooting events in the United States occurring between June
    2015 to January 2019.
        Ms. Garcia. You had the whole list.
        Chief Acevedo. Yes, and that included 41 mass shootings
    with 251 Americans killed, 1,095 injured. To my knowledge, I
    don't believe a single one of those shooters were undocumented
    immigrants. I think we need to keep that in mind.
        Having said that, undocumented immigrants should not be
    able to possess or actually purchase guns. By not supporting
    this legislation, we are not only making it easier for those
    undocumented immigrants that are actually criminal immigrants,
    who actually prey on other immigrants and others, and
    terrorists from getting firearms. So, if we really want to keep
    firearms out of the hands of undocumented immigrants, we know
    that whether we build a wall or not, they are going to go under
    the wall, through the wall, over the wall. We know that you are
    not going to keep them all out.
        So, we need to do everything we can to keep firearms in the
    hands of law-abiding Americans of sound mind, and that is what
    this legislation helps to do.
        Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Chief. Now to the doctor. I read in
    your written testimony that you suggest that there's about 221
    billion, and that is ``billion'' with a ``B,'' in economic
    costs to the medical healthcare system in dealing with the
    violence and the trauma care that you must provide. I must tell
    you that I signed up for a Doctor for a Day Program with Ben
    Taub Hospital in Houston. I am sure, you know it. It is a
    world-known trauma center. I got to be in the surgery room when
    a gunshot victim came in, and I watched the whole surgery. I
    think they were surprised because a lot of people see a lot of
    blood for the first time, and they faint. I did not faint. I
    got through it.
        What is the economic impact? Is that the latest figure for
    when? About how much is it per victim that comes in?
        Dr. Sakran. Well, thank you for that question, and I am
    glad that you had the opportunity to experience what we are
    seeing every day when it comes to these gunshot wound victims.
    If the human impact is not enough, there is an economic impact
    as you allude to.
        Ms. Garcia. Right.
        Dr. Sakran. The economic impact actually is very difficult
    to narrow down. So, we did a study just published last year in
    Health Affairs that essentially found that the cost is about
    $2.8 billion, and this is just the cost of patients that are
    coming to the hospital after having been shot.
        When you look at the societal cost, that is even more
    tremendous, and there are figures over $220 billion that is out
    there in the literature that is stated. So it is hard to really
    narrow that down because there are lot of things that you have
    to take into factor, can they go back to work and other
    societal aspects. It is a significant economic impact to our
    healthcare system and our country.
        Ms. Garcia. So, not only is it a public health issue, it is
    an economic issue.
        Dr. Sakran. Absolutely. Some of those figures, they are
    more than some our departments and Administrations are actually
    spending when you look at the Department of Education and so
    forth. So, just think about that for a second and think about
    all the essentially economic funds that are going to waste, not
    to mention people not being able to get back and integrate into
    society.
        Ms. Garcia. Well, thank you, and thank you so much for
    staying in your lane.
        Chair Nadler. Thank you. The time of the gentlelady has
    expired.
        Ms. Garcia. Thank you.
        Chair Nadler. Mr. Negues is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Negues. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for hosting this
    important hearing, and thank you to the witnesses, the
    survivors, the many folks who are gathered here today, and
    particularly the young folks, the activists with Moms Demand
    Action, so many people that have been highlighting this issue.
    We appreciate your activism and your service.
        I also want to make sure I recognize a constituent of mine
    back home, the founder Moms Demand Action, Shannon Watts, who
    happens to live in Boulder, Colorado where I represent and hail
    from, and who has led on this issue for so many years. I am
    proud to represent her and so many others in Colorado that have
    been touched by this issue.
        As I mentioned, have the great honor of representing the
    State of Colorado, and we have had multiple countless tragedies
    of gun violence in our State. Some folks earlier mentioned
    Columbine High School in 1999, which killed 15, to the shooting
    in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado in 2012 in which 12
    people perished, along with countless others every day,
    incidents of gun violence.
        At the time of the shooting at Columbine, I was 14 years
    old. I lived 10 minutes away and 10 miles away from that high
    school. It is not my story that I want to share today. There
    are many survivors who have waited quite some time to have
    their experiences heard and acknowledged and true recognition
    given to this issue. So, I want to share one of their stories
    before I jump into my questions.
        A young man, Daniel Mauser, was killed in the Columbine
    shooting. He was roughly my age, 15 years old, at the time.
    This April 20th, in just 2 months, will mark the 20th
    anniversary of the tragedy at Columbine High School in
    Littleton, Colorado. I spoke to Daniel's father yesterday, Tom
    Mauser, and he recounted the story to me, that just 2 weeks
    before the tragedy, 15-year-old Daniel asked his father a
    question at the dinner table. Reflecting on a conversation in
    his debate class, he said, ``Dad, did you know there are
    loopholes in the Brady Bill?'' Two weeks later, Daniel was
    killed at Columbine High School with a gun purchased through
    one of those loopholes.
        Daniel's father, Tom, remains haunted by that question
    today and by the hole in our gun laws that allowed his son to
    be killed. He has committed his life to championing this issue
    ever since his son's death. When Tom first began sharing his
    story, he wore his son's shoes to speak with people, telling
    people that he had taken his son's place in the great debate
    about gun violence. Months after the Columbine tragedy,
    Colorado voters overwhelmingly voted to close the background
    check loophole, and many other States have since followed suit.
        The American people understand that we need to keep
    firearms out of the wrong hands, and yet it is 20 years later
    and we at the Federal level have shamefully done nothing about
    this issue. That is why I am so excited to support H.R. 8, and
    so grateful to the sponsors, to Representative Thompson and the
    folks on the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, for leading on
    this issue.
        With that, I want to ask a question around extreme risk
    protection orders and red flag orders. I know it has been
    discussed at some length by the committee. As some folks may
    know, my home State of Colorado will soon take up similar
    legislation, and I support that legislation. I am hoping we can
    work on that issue in this committee. My question is for Major
    Tapp-Harper. You know, as a State that has enacted similar
    legislation, if you could just speak to some of the impacts
    that the legislation has had in your State.
        Major Tapp-Harper. Right. So, this past year, Maryland just
    got the extreme risk protective order, and the importance of
    getting that, it now gives law enforcement officers and other
    individuals the option of getting protective orders where in
    the past it was limited to certain family Members and
    individuals who were married to a person. Otherwise, it would
    have to be a piece order. So that was very important.
        The other thing is if law enforcement officers see certain
    behaviors distributed, they can then go and get a protective
    order for that individual, and they can get the weapons from
    the home. So that is really important for us.
        Mr. Negues. Thank you, Major Tapp-Harper. With that, Mr.
    Chair, I would like to yield the rest of my time, with your
    approval to my colleague, Ms. McBath, as I believe her story is
    certainly one that we need to hear and want to make sure she
    has ample time to do so.
        Mr. Raskin. [Presiding.] The gentlelady is recognized.
        Mrs. McBath. Thank you very much to my colleague. During
    testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee just a couple
    of weeks ago, attorney general nominee, William Barr, said
    these words. He said, ``We need to push along extreme risk
    protection orders,'' ERPOs, ``so that we have these red flag
    laws to supplement the use of background checks to find out if
    someone has a mental disturbance. This is the single most
    important thing that we can do in the gun control area to stop
    these mass shootings from happening in the first place.'' I
    would also to say that Senator Graham and Senator Blumenthal
    introduced a bipartisan Federal extreme risk law in the Senate
    last year that I also plan to develop for introduction in the
    House with my colleagues hopefully very soon.
        Mr. Raskin. Ms. McBath, the gentleman's time has expired,
    but I will go ahead and recognize you for your time. The
    gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. McBath. Thank you very much. Major Tapp-Harper, do you
    agree with the attorney general nominee that extreme risk law
    should be the top priority for gun violence prevention?
        Major Tapp-Harper. I do agree that extreme risk protective
    order laws are very important. There are several States that
    already have them, and the ones that, just as I mentioned
    earlier, with those Federal laws, we need to become consistent
    as a country, and we need to get those laws in effect across
    the Nation. So, yes, I do think it is very important.
        Mrs. McBath. Thank you. Mr. Chair? Do you want me to go
    ahead? Okay. All right. Thank you. The Binkleys know that
    Florida already has an extreme risk law in place when their
    daughter was murdered. These were the couple that I spent time
    with last night with the State of the Union Address. They were
    my guests. They still believe in the potential of the extreme
    risk orders. They still believe in the potential alongside
    better officer training and more research into authentic makers
    of the dangerousness of these laws.
        Dr. Sakran, how could Congress support the implementation
    of extreme risk laws?
        Dr. Sakran. Well, I think that one thing is important to
    recognize is passing the legislation is one piece but, also,
    raising education and awareness that actually is present is
    another. Thousand Oaks is another example where that could have
    potentially been enforced. California has the ERPO laws, and
    these laws have been used in the past to prevent suicide and
    other forms of gun violence. We have other States where we have
    seen this, like Vermont where 2 months after the Parkland
    massacre, when it was implemented they actually stopped an 18-
    year-old kid from proceeding with a mass shooting that was
    going to happen at a high school, and that was all documented.
        So, I think passing the legislation is important, but also
    ensuring that we are raising awareness about it and people
    understand it, and they know how to proceed and then Act is
    very critical.
        Mrs. McBath. Thank you. Ms. Eastmond, I am so sorry. I was
    out of the room earlier when you gave your testimony, and I do
    apologize for not having been here. Would just like to thank
    you so much for your bravery. I cannot tell you how important
    your being here and all these students and gun violence
    survivors, and I applaud you for being here.
        I just wanted to give you another chance to speak if you
    had anything else that you wanted to say because your voice is
    extremely critical, and we need to hear more from you.
        Ms. Eastmond. Thank you. I do believe that it is important
    that we continue to have hearings like this, and I strongly
    urge you guys to have a hearing again, but particularly to
    address gun violence in urban communities because that hasn't
    been touched upon nearly enough during this hearing today.
    Again, Black and brown are disproportionately impacted by gun
    violence, and they are the number one people impacted by gun
    violence, and we cannot continue to have hearings and not
    address those issues. So, I do urge you guys to have another
    one particularly for gun violence in marginalized communities.
    Thank you.
        Mrs. McBath. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I yield back my time.
        Mr. Raskin. The gentlelady yields back. Thank you very
    much. I recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Stanton, for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you for
    holding this hearing today. It has been a great hearing with
    outstanding testimony. It is my honor to serve on this
    Committee and do sit next to Congresswoman McBath. When this
    Congress finally does pass H.R. 8, and I think we will, it will
    honor you. It will honor Congresswoman Giffords. It will honor
    survivors of gun violence. It will honor the family and friends
    of victims of gun violence. It will be the right thing to do.
        Before I joined this distinguished body, I spent 6 years as
    a big city mayor, mayor of Phoenix, Arizona. There are a lot of
    big challenges in that job and a few fears, but there is
    nothing that I feared more than if I get a call of a mass
    shooting in my city. We were lucky in Phoenix. Many other
    communities were not: Aurora, Newtown, Charleston, San
    Bernardino, Orlando, Las Vegas, Sutherland Springs, Parkland,
    Pittsburgh, and Thousand Oaks. The list goes on and on. It
    pains me, Mr. Chair, that between the time when the first shot
    rang out at Newtown to today, this body has not held a single
    hearing, not a single hearing on what we can do to reduce gun
    violence until today. The American people deserve better.
        My community, like every American community, is not immune
    from gun violence. I can tell you that my darkest and hardest
    days as mayor were delivered at the hand of gun violence.
    Police officers were murdered by those who shouldn't have had a
    gun. Women and children were gunned down in acts of domestic
    violence by someone who should not have had a gun. I have
    mourned with family Members who have lost loved ones to gun
    violence. I have worked alongside survivors and advocates whose
    lives have been torn apart and stitched back together again
    after encountering their worst fears.
        Our Nation stops when there is a mass shooting, but here is
    the cold reality: Gun violence happens every single day in
    America. It takes lives every single day, but has become so
    commonplace that it doesn't make headlines. We are here today
    to examine a public health crisis in our Nation. Throughout my
    public service, I have met with people from all walks of life,
    people from both sides of the aisle, and they all agree that we
    must do something to stop this violence, to stop innocent
    people from dying.
        Democrats and Republicans alike respect gun rights and are
    in favor of commonsense gun laws. These are not competing
    values. Ninty percent of Americans support background checks
    for every gun sale. Ninty-seven percent. That means gun owners,
    Republicans, they all support background checks, and that
    support is overwhelming. Background checks on all gun sales are
    the backbone of any comprehensive gun violence prevention plan,
    and for me, this is where we come together to make a
    difference.
        As difficult as it has been to hear the powerful testimony
    from our witnesses here today, we have a responsibility to
    listen and to not look away. There is a thread that we use
    these experiences together. Too many guns are being used
    against innocent people, and too many ill-gotten guns are being
    used against innocent people, and we must put an end to it.
    That is why this hearing is important and the action that this
    Committee is going to take in the next few days and weeks is
    very important.
        I do have time for maybe one or two questions. Ms. Thomas,
    I am going to ask you about the NICS Act and the attempt to
    sort of fix the NICS Act. There are some loopholes remaining in
    that that H.R. 8 would fill in. I wanted to inform this
    Committee and maybe the public as to how H.R. 8 will help fix
    some of those loopholes.
        Ms. Thomas. Well, part of the problem that we are dealing
    with background checks is that while you go to a licensed gun
    dealer and the dealer conducts a background check, there are so
    many places where unlicensed dealers, and it is often called
    private sales, but the truth is it is not really just private
    sales. It is any sale by someone who is not choosing to be a
    licensed dealer, and those sales have really spread to the
    point where you don't even really know exactly where they are
    happening.
        We certainly know that they are happening through online
    sales, like Arms List, which was referenced earlier. We
    certainly know they are happening at gun shows. Anyone who has
    been to a gun show knows that there are tables that say ``no
    background check required'' where unlicensed dealers sell their
    guns, and you don't need to take a background check. They can
    be sold legally out of the trunk of a car on a corner without
    background checks in most States.
        So, what this law does is it requires that whether you are
    a private seller, selling online, at a gun show, or a licensed
    dealer, all those transfers happen through a licensed dealer
    and include a background check. They will help us keep guns out
    of the hands of dangerous people, and then enable us to look at
    next steps.
        Enforcing something like an extreme risk protective order
    also requires universal background checks because without that
    in place, it is very difficult to keep individuals from
    acquiring new guns. So, it is basically the floor that allows
    us to then look at all the other ways that we need to regulate
    guns in order to keep our communities safer.
        Mr. Stanton. Thank you so much.
        Chair Nadler. [Presiding.] Thank you. The time of the
    gentleman has expired. Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania.
        Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to join my
    colleagues in saying that today is a day of action, and it is a
    day of extraordinary hope. I want to thank all of you for being
    here. For those who don't know, there is an overflow room of
    other Members who came--activists, family Members, and victims
    who came. They wanted to be a part of this, so I thank you,
    those in the anteroom, for being here and for remaining all
    these hours.
        I think about it, and I think about the time of our work in
    this day. From the time we got up this morning until the time
    we will go to bed tonight, another 300 people in this country
    will be shot, wounded, or killed. One hundred people today will
    die of gun violence as we do our work or as we fail to do our
    work. Two hundred more will be wounded, literally caught in the
    crossfire. That is not just today. That is yesterday. That is
    tomorrow.
        Yet, last night, we listened to a State of the Union
    address by the leader of the free world, the leader of this
    great democracy, that mentioned nothing about gun violence,
    about the scourge of gun violence that wounds or kills a total
    of 120,000 people a year. It is stunning. For somebody to have
    testified that there has just been a small uptick in violence
    and in gun deaths when 2 years ago there were 33,000 people who
    died of gun violence. Last year it was 40,000 people died, more
    than half to suicide. I don't call that a small uptick. If it
    is one more, it is not a small uptick if it is my family
    member.
        I want to thank, in particular, my guest who came with me
    last night, Ms. Jami Amo. Jami is a survivor of Columbine. She
    was a freshman that fateful day, and she described to me the
    fear, the sounds, the haunting hiding and trying to figure out
    where was a safe haven. She is now a young mother of three and
    an advocate, and I am so proud of you, Jami. Here is why I am
    proud of you: Because as Abraham Lincoln said, ``Public
    sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can
    fail. Without it nothing can succeed.''
        Public sentiment is on our side, Mr. Chair, and I thank you
    for holding this hearing. I thank the champion, Chair Thompson,
    and I want to thank Ms. Eastman for saying this is probably--
    no, you did say--not probably. You said this is the most
    important issue facing our generation. May this body hear you,
    pass this legislation, get it to the Senate, send it to the
    President, and begin to save lives.
        Ms. Latiker, we must show that we care. We must Act as
    though we care. I am mystified that my colleagues on the other
    side of the aisle, instead of approaching this hearing today by
    saying, you are right, we have a problem, what can we do about
    it, instead their step immediately out of the box was, this
    isn't a good move. You are not going to save any lives this
    way. Let me tell you how background checks save lives, and as I
    end my statement, I want to pivot to Ms. Thomas, to the chief,
    and to the major to talk about the efficacy of background
    checks.
        Let me tell you about the numbers in my State,
    Pennsylvania. As we know, nearly 40,000 people were killed by
    gun violence in 2017. Over 1,600 took place in my State of
    Pennsylvania. 90-one of those lives were lost in my single
    district. We in Pennsylvania have not only the NICS system, but
    we have a robust overlay, the Pennsylvania Instant Check
    System. I will ask at the end of my time, Mr. Chair, for
    unanimous consent to put in a report of the 2017 PICS annual
    showing the efficacy of the PICS and NICS systems.
        Here are some of the numbers. Between its inception in
    1998, and this is run by the Pennsylvania State Police,
    heroically, frankly, with such duty and care. Since its
    inception until 2017, PICS referred more than 26,000
    investigations, were responsible for more than 7,000 arrests,
    almost 4,000 convictions as a result of prohibited purchasers
    attempting to purchase and failing background checks. Of those,
    PICS has been responsible for the apprehension of more than
    2,200 individuals with active arrest warrants.
        So, for those who would have you believe, oh, that the bad
    guys are never going to try to go buy a gun, nonsense. Utter
    nonsense. The good news about the PICS system also is it does
    not suffer the Charleston loophole. Instead of a default when
    we can't get an answer of yes or no, a default to, okay, yeah,
    we will sell you the gun, as in Charleston, there is no
    default. The default is to no, and the purchaser must appeal
    and find clarity in that background check.
        Having said those things and just being so proud that this
    Committee is going to do something about this, that this
    Congress is going to do something about this, and it is because
    of all of you. I wanted to ask you, please, can you comment
    also on the efficacy of robust and complete background check
    systems?
        Chair Nadler. The time of the gentlelady has expired. The
    witness may answer the question.
        Ms. Thomas. I would simply say that in States where we have
    robust regulation States, like Pennsylvania, that have moved to
    fill some of the loopholes in Federal law, States like
    California, Connecticut, New York, we are seeing a far greater
    reduction in gun violence and gun injuries. When you look at
    States with strong laws, you see much lower gun death rates.
    States with weak laws have much higher gun death rates.
        So, we know that when States, like Pennsylvania and others,
    take action to fill those loopholes, gun violence and gun death
    in that State is reduced. It is not enough. We need a Federal
    system that does not create a patchwork of laws. Something like
    H.R. 8 actually fills the gap that led to trafficking--the iron
    pipeline was mentioned before--up to States with stronger gun
    laws. So, we need that Federal law. In the meantime, without
    it, States are taking action and they are seeing positive
    results from it.
        Ms. Dean. Thank you. Mr. Chair?
        Chair Nadler. Yes?
        Ms. Dean. I seek unanimous consent to enter into the record
    the Pennsylvania Instant Check System report.
        Chair Nadler. Without objection, the report will be entered
    into the record.
        Ms. Dean. Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

                            MS. DEAN FOR THE RECORD

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

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chair Nadler. The time of the gentlelady has expired. Ms.
    Mucarsel-Powell of Florida.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you
    especially for holding such a critical hearing. I think it has
    been long overdue, the first hearing discussing the effects of
    gun violence in over a decade. Thank you to all the witnesses
    for being here with us this afternoon.
        As some of you may already know, the issue of gun violence
    is deeply personal to me, and unfortunately it is very personal
    for too many Americans now. Gun violence is the leading cause
    of death in American children, and I want all of us to think
    about that just for one moment. Far more children die in this
    country because of a bullet than because of cancer.
        My father was a victim of gun violence. When I was 24 years
    old, I received a phone call--I was getting my master's
    degree--to be told that my father had been shot and killed by a
    criminal with a gun. The pain that I feel when we discuss this
    issue here today, when I hear the news of the mass shootings in
    Parkland, Orlando, Vegas, is there. My father never had the
    chance to walk me down the aisle. He never met my children. I
    want all of you to know that when I took the oath of office, I
    made a promise that I would not stop until we finally passed
    commonsense gun reform because I owe it to my father, sisters,
    and to so many parents that have lost their children in my
    community. I owe it to all of you here today.
        Sometimes people say that this tragedy happened in Ecuador
    and that this is America, so why should that matter in the
    context of gun violence here in the United States, and I can
    tell you why. The trauma inflicted upon families is always the
    same, no matter where you are in the world. We are united not
    by the place where we were born, but by our own personal
    experiences. My family was devastated in Ecuador, and so, too,
    are many family Members in my community.
        I want to remind all of you and tell you a little bit about
    someone that lost his life in my community. Carnell Williams-
    Thomas was only 2 years old when he was playing outside of his
    apartment complex building. He was shot and killed by a stray
    bullet. I met his parents, who every day mourn the loss of
    their toddler, the mother knowing that every year that passes,
    she will never be able to see him going through elementary
    school, graduating from middle school, high school.
        There are so many steps that we can take to address the
    source of gun violence across this country. Universal
    background checks will not prevent all deaths, but they are a
    very important step. I know that somehow it is changing because
    when I see all of you here today, I know that finally we are
    going to be able to pass commonsense gun reforms.
        I wanted to also just briefly answer just some of the
    comments that I have heard today. They are extremely offensive
    and insulting. I know that some people believe that the
    criminals that are killing and committing all these murders are
    immigrants. I am an immigrant, and the research is clear that
    immigrants are significantly less likely to commit crimes than
    U.S.-born citizens, whether documented or undocumented. I also
    want to remind that we need to be respectful of those who have
    lost their lives to gun violence. We have two people in
    Parkland who are immigrants, Martin Duque Anguiano and Joaquin
    Oliver.
        With that, I would like to ask Ms. Thomas if you could just
    elaborate on--I know that you have done research on this
    topic--on the increase of mass shootings with assault weapons
    after the ban was lifted. If you can just talk to me a little
    bit about that research.
        Ms. Thomas. I will just very briefly say that if you look
    at high-fatality mass shootings, which are mass shooting of 6
    people or more, in the years after the expiration of the
    assault weapon ban in 2004, high-fatality mass shooting
    injuries went up by more than 200 percent. If you look at high-
    fatality mass shootings during the time of the ban, those were
    down by almost 40 percent.
        So, while it is difficult to measure the impact on a one-
    by-one basis, if you look at those mass shootings that really
    are the most impactful, there is a significant difference
    during the ban and since the ban took effect. Those numbers
    have continued to rise year after year after year. So, we are
    seeing more and more of these types of shootings as these types
    of very lethal weapons proliferate more.
        Chair Nadler. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
        Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chair Nadler. Does the gentleman have a unanimous consent
    request?
        Mr. Biggs. Yes, Mr. Chair. I ask that this UC--Davis health
    study entitled, ``The Study Does Not Find Population-Level
    Changes in Firearm Homicide or Suicide Rates in California 10
    Years After Comprehensive Background Check and Violent
    Misdemeanor Policies Enacted,'' be admitted into record.
        Chair Nadler. Without objection, the document will be
    admitted into the record.
        [The information follows:]

                            MR. BIGGS FOR THE RECORD

    =======================================================================
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chair Nadler. Mr. Lieu of California is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Mr. Chair. According to the Center for
    Disease Control's latest figures, 109 people die from gun
    violence every day. That comes out to 9 people every 2 hours.
    So, since this hearing has started, over 23 people in America
    have been shot and killed by guns. No community is immune from
    gun violence. In my hometown of Torrance 1 month ago, 3 people
    were killed at a bowling alley. In 2017 in Las Vegas, that mass
    shooting, a number of my constituents were killed.
        It does not have to be this way, and all of us are entitled
    to our opinions. I thank many of you here in this room for your
    advocacy and for the witnesses for being here. When we
    legislate, we should do it on facts. So, I am just going to
    talk about some studies, and then put them into the record.
        First Study. In 2018, researchers at Johns Hopkins
    University and UC--Davis published a study called ``Association
    Between Firearm Laws and Homicide in Urban Counties,'' where
    they found that right to carry and stand your ground laws are
    associated with increases in firearm homicide, while permit-to-
    purchase laws and those prohibiting individuals convicted of
    violent misdemeanors have been associated with decreases in
    firearm homicide.
        Second Study. In 2014, researchers at Johns Hopkins
    University published ``Effects of the Repeal of Missouri's
    Purchaser Licensing Law on Homicides.'' They found that a
    repeal of Missouri's permit-to-purchase law was associated with
    a 25 percent increase in firearm homicides.
        Third Study. In 2018, researchers at New York Presbyterian
    Weill Cornell Medical Center published a study where they found
    that strong State firearm policies were associated with lower
    homicide rates, and strong interstate policies were also
    associated with lower homicide rates. They also found that
    strong firearm policies were associated with lower suicide
    rates as well.
        Forth Study. Then in 2017, researchers at Duke University
    did a study where they analyzed Connecticut's extreme risk law
    and found that for every 10 or 20 risk warrants issued, one
    suicide was prevented. I would like to enter these into the
    record with unanimous consent.
        Chair Nadler. Without objection, the documents will be
    entered into the record.
        [The information follows:]

                            MR. LIEU FOR THE RECORD

    =======================================================================
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Lieu. I do note that some of these studies do mention
    suicide. If you look at the overwhelming number of gun deaths,
    they occur because of suicide. Three in 5 gun deaths are a
    result of suicide. My first question is to Dr. Sakran. I want
    to see if you had any ideas or solutions how we can better
    address the number of people killed by suicide by gun.
        Dr. Sakran. Yeah, so thank you for that question. When you
    look at suicides, and it is important when we are looking at
    deaths in general to really break up these different
    populations because actually suicide deaths are primarily an
    older White male. In this population specifically, there is an
    association from a mental health perspective.
        So, some of the stuff that we are hearing about access to
    mental health is absolutely correct and it is true. The way we
    must approach this and think about this is from a systems
    perspective, and we can't just have one necessary solution. So,
    another aspect is the extreme risk protection order policies
    that we have been talking about, enabling families and law
    enforcement to actually be proactive in preventing these from
    happening.
        Mr. Lieu. Thank you. Ms. Thomas, do you think extreme risk
    laws would help prevent suicides?
        Ms. Thomas. Absolutely. Extreme risk protective orders are
    intended to be used by law enforcement and family Members. Very
    often family Members have warning signs and indicators that a
    loved one is showing signs of distress or crisis, and they know
    often when their loved ones have guns. So being able to utilize
    that process to protect their loved ones from causing harm to
    themselves is an incredibly valuable tool for preventing
    suicides along with things like safe storage laws.
        Mr. Lieu. Thank you. Let me conclude by noting that earlier
    in testimony, one of the Republican witnesses, Professor
    Malcolm, had stated that had shooter Cruz in Parkland been put
    on a background list, he would not have passed the background
    check and would not have gotten a gun. So, please, you
    acknowledge that the background system could have prevented him
    from getting a gun. I know that it wasn't quite accurate
    because Cruz could have walked into a gun show and gotten a
    gun.
        That is what H.R. 8 will do. It will prevent people from
    doing that, so I look forward to your support of H.R. 8. With
    that, I yield back.
        Chair Nadler. I thank the gentleman. Ms. Demmings of
    Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Demmings. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. To all of our
    witnesses, thank you so much for being here with us. I know it
    has been a long, long day. To the advocates and survivors and
    supporters in the audience, too, we appreciate you being here
    to hold us accountable.
        This is a tough subject for, well, most people in the room.
    I spent 27 years as a law enforcement officer, and I served as
    the chief of police in Orlando. I have got to tell you, I am
    sick and tired of watching sons and daughters, and husbands and
    wives, and mothers and fathers die through gun violence by
    someone with a gun who should have never had a gun in their
    possession in the first place.
        My colleagues on the other side of the aisle can't tell me
    a doggone thing about rights because, you know what? I can't
    help but think about the rights of the victims who died at the
    hands of someone with a gun who should have never had a gun in
    the first place. My goodness, in a country that we say is the
    greatest country in the world, we are 25 times more likely to
    be killed through gun violence. In a country that we say is the
    greatest country in the world, my God, you ought to be able to
    go to a school, church, synagogue, concert, movie theater, and
    nightclub, not just in Orlando, but in any city in this
    country, and not have to worry about somebody walking in with a
    gun.
        Ronald Reagan, Republican President, said, ``Legislation
    would be worth passing if it meant even small reductions in gun
    violence.'' Which life, tell me which life, if it saves one
    life. Which life is not worth saving? Which life? So, I am sick
    and tired of sitting here. I thank God that we are at least
    having a hearing because we haven't had one in 8 years, and
    there has been a lot of talk about national emergencies,
    crises, and national health emergencies. Well, doggone it, when
    mass numbers of people die in this country, I would consider
    that, doggonit, a national emergency.
        It is time. In Congress, we sit here with the ability and
    the power to do something, and history will not be kind to us
    if we continue to allow the gun lobby to buy us and sell us.
    Now is the time for change. If you don't have the guts or the
    courage to do something about this issue and send a message to
    the American people, who desperately turn to us, then it is
    time for you to leave.
        [Disturbance in the hearing room.]
        Ms. Demmings. It is really time for you to leave. I want to
    talk to my law enforcement colleagues--I still consider you
    colleagues--and to the emergency room doctor. You deal with
    this every day. You have not only had to break bad news to
    families whose loved ones weren't out doing the wrong thing.
    They were in the right place, a place they had the right to be,
    doing the right thing. Not only have you had to break that bad
    news, but you have also had to bury your own because they died
    as a result of someone who shouldn't have had a gun in the
    first place.
        I talked to an emergency room doctor after Pulse who shared
    to me the difference in the persons, the victims who were shot
    with an assault rifle versus those with a handgun. Chances of
    survival are almost zero when you are shot with an assault
    rifle. So, please, in the little time we have left, Major and
    Chief, if you would please just talk about gun violence in your
    community and why this issue is so important to you, and then
    we will end with the doctor.
        Chief Acevedo. Thank you for those comments. They are just
    really well taken. I just wanted to say really quickly, it is a
    scourge. It is ongoing. It is daily. In our city, one of the
    problems we are having now is the Department of Justice legal
    team decided that fugitives can't be in the system. So, we have
    500,000 people that we know are wanted for a serious crime that
    would make them prohibited purchasers, and let me give you the
    example of how that can get women killed.
        My people go to a house. They find a woman that has been
    abused. The perpetrator of the crime is not there. We go out.
    We get a warrant, and if we can't enter that person into the
    system, that individual can go out, buy a firearm, come back,
    and finish the job. So, there are a lot of loopholes that you
    are addressing. I just want to tell you all, thank you for
    courage and thank you for speaking out. Again, I love prayers.
    I welcome prayers. Like I have said before, my mayor has me in
    my job to fight crime, and I think the American people have
    elected you not to just pray, but to actually lead and pass
    legislation that will save lives.
        Ms. Demmings. Thank you.
        Major Tapp-Harper. Yes, ma'am, thank you. I just wanted to
    mention really quick, I have 13 deputies in my unit. In 2015,
    they recovered 65 guns; 2016, 67 guns; 2017, 51 guns; and 2018,
    81 guns. So, I find that these numbers continue to increase,
    and I just try to keep them encouraged, 13 people serving
    protective orders.
        Ms. Demmings. Thank you.
        Chair Nadler. Thank you. This concludes today's hearing. I
    want to thank our distinguished witnesses for attending. I want
    to thank the Members of the audience for, for the most part,
    observing the decorum of the Committee on a very emotional
    issue.
        Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days
    to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or
    additional materials for the record.
        Chair Nadler. With that, the hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:38 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                    APPENDIX

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

                                 FOR THE RECORD

                    STATEMENT OF WHIP STEVE SCALISE

        My name is Steve Scalise. I am the Congressman for
    Louisiana's 1st District. I am the Republican Whip. I am also a
    target of gun violence.
        Many of you may be fan1iliar with the events of June 14,
    2017. Around 7:00 a.m., at the last morning practice before the
    annual Congressional Baseball Game for Charity, an Illinois man
    named James Hodgkinson opened fire on myself and a group of
    Republican legislators and volunteers on an Alexandria, VA
    baseball field. Fortunately, as a member of House leadership, I
    was accompanied by my Capitol Police security detail who were
    able to return fire and engage the shooter until additional law
    enforcement officers arrived and ultimately took down the
    shooter. I was shot and nearly fatally wounded, and both of my
    detail agents were shot as well. I am alive today thanks to the
    bravery of U.S. Capitol Police and the Alexandria Police,
    heroes like Congressman Brad Wenstrup and the first responders
    who rushed to the scene, the incredible medical team at
    Washington MedStar Hospital Center, and most importantly the
    grace of God.
        I applaud the intentions behind this hearing and believe we
    are all pursuing the same goal of reducing gun violence. As
    someone who experienced gun violence, I do not want anyone else
    to go through that trauma. However, it is also important to me
    that we be honest with ourselves and the American people about
    what will--or won't--actually prevent these tragedies. The
    shooter who targeted me that morning was aimed with an SKS
    rifle and a 9 mm Smith & Wesson handgun, both of which were
    purchased in compliance with Illinois gun laws.
        The new gun control restrictions currently being considered
    by the Democratic majority in H.R. 8 would not have prevented
    my shooting.
        In fact, these new gun control measures being proposed in
    H.R. 8 would not have prevented any number of recent mass
    violence events. Several perpetrators of recent multi-victim
    shootings also purchased their guns legally. In some instances,
    the background check system failed, and lack of intervention
    from law enforcement failed to intercept potential threats.
        I want to stress that the man who shot me was issued a
    permit to purchase firearms by the State of Illinois, and had
    acquired them legally. At Virginia Tech, Charleston, and
    Sutherland Springs failures in the background check system
    allowed individuals to illegally obtain the firearms they used
    to commit their crimes. The alleged loopholes that H.R. 8
    claims to fix would not have prevented these tragedies either.
        Instead, whether intentionally or not, the gun control
    proposals in H.R. 8 could turn law abiding citizens into
    criminals while also failing to achieve the stated purpose of
    reducing gun violence.
        A recent study by the Violence Prevention Research Program
    at UC-Davis and Johns Hopkins University into California's
    effort to implement ``comprehensive background checks'' found
    that, ``The simultaneous implementation of [the Comprehensive
    Background Check policy] and [prohibitions on firearm purchase
    and possession for persons convicted within the past 10 years
    of certain violent crimes classified as misdemeanors] was not
    associated with a net change in the firearm homicide rate over
    the ensuing 10 years in California.'' Even though California
    implemented more stringent background checks, this study shows
    that these measures did not reduce gun violence.
        In fact, most criminals obtain firearms through unlawful
    means--whether through theft, straw purchases, or lying on the
    required paperwork. A DOJ study of federal inmates found that
    only 7% who possessed a firearm while committing the crime they
    were serving time for purchased it legally from a firearms
    dealer under their own name. Based on similar gun control
    measures in states like California, H.R. 8 would not deter a
    criminal from engaging in criminal activity, and it won't
    decrease gun crime. Instead, it only succeeds in limiting the
    ways that law-abiding citizens could exercise their Second
    amendment rights.
        Every single month in America, law-abiding citizens with
    concealed carry permits defend themselves and others against
    criminals who have guns. For example, on January 8th, a man
    approached a 25-year old woman in Chicago, displayed a weapon,
    and attempted to rob her at a bus stop. The woman had a
    concealed carry permit. She drew her own weapon and fired a
    shot, killing the armed robber. The owner of a nearby pharmacy
    said such violence happens ``all over'' Chicago. However, in
    this case, the intended victim was able to defend herself with
    her own gun.
        On January 2nd a Good Samaritan in California with a
    concealed carry permit used his firearm to stop an attempted
    stabbing of a security guard and held the perpetrator until law
    enforcement could arrive at the scene.
        On January 17th, a man at an IHOP in Alabama opened fire on
    employees, killing one before another employee pulled his
    handgun and killed the shooter in self-defense.
        On January 29th, an armed robber held up a Family Dollar
    Store in Georgia. A customer was able to use a personal firearm
    to shoot and kill the robber before the criminal could hurt any
    of the many employees or customers in the store.
        These are just some examples from the last month alone.
    There are hundreds of stories like these every single year from
    law-abiding Americans all over the country.
        I am alive due to the effective and immediate response of
    my Capitol Police detail, and the Alexandria Police Department.
    Most victims of gun violence do not have law enforcement
    already on the scene to respond to a violent gunman. Instead of
    making it harder for citizens to defend themselves until law
    enforcement arrives, Congress should consider legislation like
    H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, a bill that would
    help law-abiding citizens have the same tools to defend
    themselves as a criminal has of trying to inflict harm,
    regardless of where they travel.
        I firmly believe we must never forget, nor minimize, the
    importance of the Second amendment to our Constitution.
        H.R. 8, as well as other new gun control legislation
    currently being considered by the House Democrat majority do
    not accomplish the goal of reducing gun violence.
        If our goal is to reduce gun violence, then we should focus
    on penalizing criminals, not law-abiding citizens.
        Thank you.
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                      ANSWERS OF QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORDR

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

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                      Response to Ms. Jackson Lee:

        Yes, thank you so much for that question because if the
    human toll of gun violence in America is not enough there is
    also an economic cost. We recently published a study in Health
    Affairs that looked at Emergency Department (ED) visits for
    Firearm-Related Injuries. In that study we found that the mean
    per person ED and inpatient charges were $5,254 and $95,887,
    respectively, resulting in an annual financial burden of
    approximately $2.8 billion in ED and inpatient charges. These
    estimates do not include the societal costs and in fact there
    are conservative estimates that gun violence costs the American
    economy at least $229 Billion every year.

                                     [all]