[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]