[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]