[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                  EXAMINING THE PRACTICES AND PROFITS
                          OF GUN MANUFACTURERS

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                          OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             JULY 27, 2022

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-96

                               __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
      

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     


                       Available on: govinfo.gov,
                         oversight.house.gov or
                             docs.house.gov
                             
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
48-386 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                
                             
                             
                   COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM

                CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of   James Comer, Kentucky, Ranking 
    Columbia                             Minority Member
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts      Jim Jordan, Ohio
Jim Cooper, Tennessee                Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia         Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois        Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Jamie Raskin, Maryland               Michael Cloud, Texas
Ro Khanna, California                Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Kweisi Mfume, Maryland               Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York   Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan              Pete Sessions, Texas
Katie Porter, California             Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Cori Bush, Missouri                  Andy Biggs, Arizona
Shontel M. Brown, Ohio               Andrew Clyde, Georgia
Danny K. Davis, Illinois             Nancy Mace, South Carolina
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida    Scott Franklin, Florida
Peter Welch, Vermont                 Jake LaTurner, Kansas
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.,      Pat Fallon, Texas
    Georgia                          Yvette Herrell, New Mexico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland           Byron Donalds, Florida
Jackie Speier, California            Mike Flood, Nebraska
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Mark DeSaulnier, California
Jimmy Gomez, California
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts

                      Russ Anello, Staff Director
                   Greta Gao, Chief Oversight Counsel
                       Elisa LaNier, Chief Clerk

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5051

                  Mark Marin, Minority Staff Director
                                 ------                                
                        
                          C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
                                                                   
Hearing held on July 27, 2022....................................     1

                               Witnesses

Marty Daniel, Chief Executive Officer, Daniel Defense, LLC
    Oral Statement...............................................     5

Christopher Killoy, President and Chief Executive Officer, Sturm, 
  Ruger & Company, Inc.
    Oral Statement...............................................     6

Ryan Busse, Senior Advisor, Giffords Law Center
    Oral Statement...............................................     8

Kelly Sampson, Senior Counsel and Director of Racial Justice, 
  Brady: United Against Gun Violence
    Oral Statement...............................................    10

Antonia Okafor, National Director of Women's Outreach, Gun Owners 
  of America
    Oral Statement...............................................    12

 Opening statements and the prepared statements for the witnesses 
  are available in the U.S. House of Representatives Repository 
  at: docs.house.gov.

                           INDEX OF DOCUMENTS

                              ----------                              

  * Letter from Rep. Khanna to the EPA regarding refusal to 
  appear at Environment subcommittee hearing; submitted by Rep. 
  Comer.
  * Letter from Committee Republicans to Chairwoman Maloney 
  regarding Support Issuing Subpoenas to administration 
  officials; submitted by Rep. Comer.
  * CNN article, ``In this American town, guns are required by 
  law;'' submitted by Rep. Hice.
  * AP article, ``Despite Biden's claim, gun makers can indeed be 
  sued;'' submitted by Rep. Hice.
  * Investopedia article, ``10 Biggest Renewable Energy Companies 
  in the World;'' submitted by Rep. Biggs.
  * Yahoo article, ``Apple was the most profitable company on the 
  Fortune 500 list this year;'' submitted by Rep. Biggs.
  * Testimony of Stephen Willeford from a May 25, 2022, Senate 
  Judiciary Committee hearing; submitted by Rep. Biggs.
  * Statista article, ``Leading renewable energy companies 
  worldwide 2021, by revenue;''submitted by Rep. Biggs.
  * Fierce Pharma article, ``The top 20 pharma companies by 2021 
  revenue;'' submitted by Rep. Biggs.
  * AP article, ``Despite Biden's claim, gun makers can indeed be 
  sued;'' submitted by Rep. Clyde.
  * Questions for the Record: to Ms. Okafor and Mr. Daniel; 
  submitted by Rep. LaTurner.

The documents listed are available at: docs.house.gov.

 
        EXAMINING THE PRACTICES AND PROFITS OF GUN MANUFACTURERS

                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, July 27, 2022

                  House of Representatives,
                 Committee on Oversight and Reform,
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building and via Zoom; Hon. 
Carolyn Maloney, [chairwoman of the committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Maloney, Norton, Lynch, Connolly, 
Krishnamoorthi, Raskin, Khanna, Mfume, Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, 
Porter, Brown, Davis, Wasserman Schultz, Welch, Johnson, 
Sarbanes, Speier, Kelly, Lawrence, DeSaulnier, Gomez, Pressley, 
Comer, Jordan, Hice, Grothman, Cloud, Higgins, Norman, Keller, 
Biggs, Donalds, Flood, Mace, Fallon, Clyde, and Franklin.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Welcome, everybody, to today's hybrid 
hearing.
    Pursuant to House rules, some members will appear in person 
and others will appear by Zoom. For members appearing remotely, 
I know you are familiar with Zoom by now but let me remind 
everyone of a few points.
    First, the House rules require that we see you. So please 
have your cameras turned on at all times.
    Second, members appearing remotely who are not recognized 
should remain muted to minimize background noise and feedback.
    Third, I will recognize members verbally, but members 
retain the right to seek recognition verbally in regular order. 
Members will be recognized in seniority order for questions.
    Last, if you want to be recognized outside of regular 
order, you may identify that in several ways. You may use the 
chat function, you may send an email to the majority staff, or 
you may unmute your mic to seek recognition.
    We will begin the hearing in just a moment when they tell 
me that they are ready to begin the live stream.
    [Pause.]
    Chairwoman Maloney. The committee will come to order.
    Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the committee at any time.
    I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
    Today, we are holding our second hearing on the crisis of 
gun violence in America. Seven weeks ago, this committee heard 
heartbreaking testimony from witnesses whose lives were forever 
changed by gun violence, including Miah Cerrillo, a fourth 
grader who survived the massacre in Uvalde by smearing herself 
with blood so that they did not recognize her.
    Gun violence is now the top killer of children in the 
United States, causing more deaths in children than car 
accidents.
    In 2020, more than 45,000 people were killed by gun 
violence, the highest number ever recorded in our country, and 
since our first hearing the evil of gun violence has continued 
to shatter our communities.
    On the Fourth of July a gunman rained down bullets on 
families at a parade in Highland Park, Illinois. He killed 
seven people and injured dozens more.
    That shooter, like the killers in Uvalde, Buffalo, Las 
Vegas, Parkland, and Newtown used an AR-15 style rifle. This is 
an ultra-deadly weapon engineered to kill enemy soldiers on the 
battlefield.
    Yet, the gun industry has flooded our neighborhoods, our 
schools, and even our churches and synagogues with these deadly 
weapons and has gotten rich doing it.
    That is why I launched an investigation into the gun 
industry. This morning, I released a memo with our initial 
findings and what we found is appalling. Our investigation 
shows that five major gun manufacturers collected a total of 
more than a billion dollars from the sale of assault rifles 
over the last decade.
    One company, Ruger, made over $100 million through the sale 
of AR-15 style rifles in 2021 and more than doubling what it 
made the year before.
    Another company, Daniel Defense, tripled its revenue from 
these rifles from 2019 to 2021, and Smith & Wesson brought in 
over $125 million from the sale of assault weapons in 2021.
    Our investigation also found that gun manufacturers use 
dangerous marketing tactics to sell assault weapons to the 
public. That includes marketing to children, preying on young 
men's insecurities, and even appealing to violent white 
supremacists.
    Finally, we found that even as guns kill more Americans 
than ever, none of those companies take even basic steps to 
monitor the deaths and injuries caused by their products. This 
is beyond irresponsible.
    At the end of our last hearing, I vowed that this committee 
would hold a second hearing so the committee and the American 
people can hear directly from the gun industry about why they 
continue to sell the weapons of choice to mass murderers.
    Today, we will hear from CEOs of two gun manufacturers who 
sold assault rifles used by mass shooters, Daniel Defense and 
Ruger. Daniel Defense sold the assault weapon that was used in 
Uvalde to murder 19 children and two teachers and to wound 18 
others; and Ruger is the largest rifle manufacturer in the U.S. 
Their assault weapon was used to murder more than two dozen 
people at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas.
    We also invited Mark Smith, the CEO of Smith & Wesson. His 
company is the second leading rifle manufacturer in the country 
and is responsible for the weapons used by mass murderers in 
Highland Park and Parkland and in other mass shootings.
    Mr. Smith promised he would testify but then he went back 
on his word, perhaps because he did not want to take 
responsibility for the death and destruction his company has 
caused.
    But the time for dodging accountability is over. Today, I 
am announcing my intent to issue a subpoena for documents from 
Smith & Wesson's CEO and other top executives so that we can 
finally get answers about why this company is selling assault 
weapons to mass murderers, answers we were hoping to get at 
today's hearing.
    After we announced this hearing, the committee heard from 
victims, family members, and survivors of gun violence from 
across our country who wanted to share their stories and their 
questions for the gun industry.
    I would like to play their video now. Let us please play 
the video.
    [Video is shown.]
    Chairwoman Maloney. These people are demanding answers and 
accountability from the gun industry, and I intend to get both 
today.
    Following today's hearing House Democrats will continue to 
take bold action to stop the bloodshed. Later this week, we 
hope to vote on the first assault weapon ban in nearly 30 
years.
    The House is also planning to take action to end the 
outrageous legal immunity that has protected the gun industry 
from lawsuits for far too long, and in the coming weeks I 
intend to introduce additional legislation to hold the gun 
industry accountable for the damage inflicted by their 
products, just like the car industry, the pharmaceutical 
industry, or any other American business.
    Let me close by addressing my Republican colleagues. I know 
that you value the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment, 
and so do I.
    But even Justice Scalia recognized that, quote, ``The right 
secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,'' end quote.
    Even as we protect this right, we cannot ignore our 
fundamental obligation to protect the public, especially our 
children. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in finally 
taking action to end this crisis.
    I now yield to the distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Comer, 
for his opening statement.
    Mr. Comer. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney.
    As elected representatives in Congress, it is our 
responsibility to work to ensure the law is enforced to reduce 
violent crime. The violence that began during the summer of 
2020 continues to increase. Murders are up, aggravated assaults 
are up, and we must reverse this trend.
    Ironically, cities with the worst crime rates are the 
hardest place to buy guns. Years of gun control laws in cities 
like New York and Chicago have failed.
    That is why I will continue to protect the rights of all 
law-abiding gun owners who safely use, store, and carry 
firearms, including the AR-15, which is the most popular rifle 
in the United States.
    It has become clear that the two parties in Washington have 
very different solutions of putting an end to the violent crime 
wave across the Nation.
    Republicans want to target criminals. Democrats want to 
target lawful gun owners and take away their guns.
    We all took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. 
The Second Amendment ensures the rights of individuals to keep 
and bear arms and defend themselves in times of danger.
    Just recently, the Supreme Court reaffirmed our right of 
self-defense enshrined in the Second Amendment. Meanwhile, 
Democrats and President Biden continue to blame American 
companies for various national crises that their policies have 
made worse.
    From the price of gasoline to the surge in violent crime, 
Democrats are quick to point the finger at American industry. 
Their targets today? The American firearms industry.
    What did the American firearm industry do wrong? Their 
customers are allowed to lawfully buy guns. Their customers are 
allowed to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and 
bear arms for their protection and other lawful purposes.
    Gun manufacturers do not cause violent crime. Criminals 
cause violent crime. As the Democrats continue their obsession 
with vilifying American companies, they refuse to conduct any 
oversight over the Biden administration and the Federal 
Government.
    It is not surprising that the Lugar Center, a nonpartisan 
congressional rating group, has given the Democrats in our 
committee an F for oversight.
    Democrats have no problem with subpoenaing oil companies 
and private citizens. Yet, we have not heard from a single 
Biden administration Cabinet secretary this entire Congress. 
When are they going to get a subpoena?
    We invited Attorney General Garland to today's hearing 
since he is responsible for agencies like the FBI and the ATF, 
and he is not here. In February, we invited the Department of 
Energy Secretary Granholm to talk about gas prices. But she 
could not make it.
    Just this week, we learned that Democrats get the same 
response from the administration as Republicans. They refuse to 
show up. After both EPA and FAA rejected an invitation to 
tomorrow's Environmental Subcommittee hearing, Democrats were 
so desperate to secure the participation of the administration 
that they offered to change the scope of the hearing so that 
both agencies would be comfortable testifying.
    It looks like they still aren't going to show up. Americans 
are suffering from the effects of an open border, including 
fentanyl streaming across into the hands of our youth, 
inflation at a 40-year high, and last month gas prices hit a 
record of over $5 a gallon nationwide.
    Madam Chairwoman, it is time that we hear directly from the 
people in the administration making policy decisions impacting 
the lives of all Americans.
    I would like to enter into the record a letter from 
Democrat Subcommittee Chair Ro Khanna expressing exasperation 
with the EPA for not appearing at a hearing tomorrow.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
    Mr. Comer. I would also like to enter into the record a 
letter that committee Republicans sent you earlier today saying 
that we support issuing subpoenas to administration officials 
if they are not appearing voluntarily.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
    Mr. Comer. Let us hold the Biden administration to the same 
standard that you hold private companies. Show up or get a 
subpoena. It is time that we do the job the American people 
sent us here to do--holding the government accountable instead 
of holding hearings like this to score political points against 
private companies.
    As I close, Madam Chair, will you commit to holding one 
hearing before the end of the year with a Cabinet secretary? 
Just one hearing with one Cabinet secretary.
    Chairwoman Maloney. I will take it under advisement; and 
now we will introduce our witnesses.
    First, we will hear from Marty Daniel, Chief Executive 
Officer of Daniel Defense, LLC. Then we will hear from 
Christopher Killoy, President and Chief Executive Officer of 
Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc.
    Then we will hear from Ryan Busse, Senior Advisor at 
Giffords Law Center. Then we will hear from Kelly Sampson, 
Senior Counsel and Director of Racial Justice at Brady: United 
Against Gun Violence.
    Finally, we will hear from Antonia Okafor, National 
Director of Women's Outreach at Gun Owners of America.
    In addition to our witnesses, we also have in the hearing 
room victims and survivors of the mass shooting in Uvalde and 
Highland Park, who will be observing our hearing. We are 
honored by their presence of these brave men and women today.
    In particular, I want to welcome Felix and Kimberly Rubio, 
who testified at our previous hearing about their heartbreaking 
loss of their daughter, Lexi Rubio.
    The witnesses will be unmuted so we can swear them in. 
Please raise your right hand.
    Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to 
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God?
    [Witnesses are sworn.]
    Chairwoman Maloney. Let the record show that the witnesses 
answered in the affirmative. Thank you.
    Without objection, your written statements will be made 
part of the record; and with that, Mr. Daniel, you are now 
recognized for your testimony.
    Mr. Daniel?

  STATEMENT OF MARTY DANIEL, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DANIEL 
                          DEFENSE, LLC

    Mr. Daniel. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney.
    Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member Comer, my name is Marty 
Daniel, founder and CEO of Daniel Defense. I am grateful for 
the opportunity to work with you and to join with Americans 
across the country in attempting to find effective solutions to 
combat the unacceptable increase in violent crime in our 
country, including the evil acts in Uvalde, Buffalo, and 
Highland Park that prompted this hearing.
    I am sharing my views today to help ensure that the voices 
of law-abiding citizens and gun owners are understood by this 
committee.
    I am concerned, however, that the stated and implied 
purpose of this hearing is to vilify, blame, and try to ban 
over 24 million sporting rifles already in circulation that are 
lawfully possessed and commonly used by millions of Americans 
to protect their homes and loved ones, to safely sport shoot 
with family and friends, and to put food on the table as 
licensed hunters.
    This proceeding is focused on a type of firearm that was 
involved in fewer than four percent of homicides involving 
firearms in 2019.
    I believe in God and my faith guides me and my family. 
Fundamentally, I also believe that there is good and evil in 
our lives, and what we saw in Uvalde, Buffalo, and Highland 
Park was pure evil. The cruelty of the murderers who committed 
these acts is unfathomable and deeply disturbs me, my family, 
my employees, and millions of Americans across this country.
    Lately, many Americans, myself included, have witnessed an 
erosion of personal responsibility in our country and in our 
culture. Mass shootings were all but unheard of just a few 
decades ago.
    So, what changed? Not the firearms. They are substantially 
the same as those manufactured over a hundred years ago. I 
believe our Nation's response needs to focus not on the type of 
gun but on the type of persons who are likely to commit mass 
shootings.
    In my judgment, the U.S. Secret Service and Department of 
Homeland Security have shown how we can best spend public 
resources in reducing these threats. Several recent studies by 
these agencies have concluded that mass shootings are 
preventable when appropriate community systems are in place.
    In my full statement, I identify other actions that can be 
taken without infringing on the constitutional rights of law-
abiding citizens.
    As the Supreme Court stated in Heller, the enshrinement of 
constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices 
off the table, including those that would diminish the Second 
Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans, such as banning 
common and popular guns.
    To close, I am appearing before you on a voluntary basis 
because I believe strongly in our constitutional form of 
government and the role of Congress in addressing the Nation's 
problems.
    I have respect for Congress, and I hope you will afford me 
the same respect as both a citizen and a manufacturer of a 
lawful product built for responsible citizens.
    Thank you.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
    Mr. Killoy, you are now recognized for your testimony.

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER KILLOY, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
             OFFICER, STURM, RUGER & COMPANY, INC.

    Mr. Killoy. Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member Comer, and 
distinguished members of the committee, good morning.
    My name is Chris Killoy and I am both fortunate and proud 
to be the President and Chief Executive Officer of Sturm, Ruger 
& Company, Incorporated, more simply known as Ruger.
    At its core, Ruger, like all companies, is simply a 
collection of people. We are fathers, mothers, grandparents, 
friends, and neighbors. From humble beginnings in Southport, 
Connecticut, very close to where our corporate headquarters is 
today, we have grown to a team of nearly 2,000 hardworking 
folks.
    We have factories in Prescott, Arizona, Mayodan, North 
Carolina, Newport, New Hampshire, and Earth City, Missouri, 
with smaller offices and personnel in various locations around 
our great country.
    We come to work every day with the goal of building rugged, 
reliable firearms that responsible citizens are proud to own 
and lawfully use. Our motto, ``Arms makers for responsible 
citizens,'' is a testament to our company culture and 
philosophy dating back nearly 75 years.
    Among the materials provided to the committee are a few 
examples of what we have done these many years to advance our 
philosophy and demonstrate our core values of respect, 
integrity, teamwork, and innovation.
    As many companies in America move jobs overseas to improve 
their bottom line, we build our products in American factories. 
With few exceptions, our supply chain is nearly all domestic, 
often supported by small local businesses near our factories.
    We strive to provide good pay and benefits to our work 
force with the hope that employees will become long-term 
members of our team, and we have the track record to prove it.
    Right now, we employ well over 100 dedicated employees with 
between 30 and 50 years at our company. I recently attended a 
retirement party for a husband and wife team who, collectively, 
dedicated 87 years to Ruger, more than a typical lifetime. Not 
many CEOs are as fortunate as I am to work with such great 
people.
    During the COVID-19 pandemic, we worked exceptionally hard 
to keep our work force safe. Our COVID task force met nearly 
every day for more than a year to manage our response, track 
constantly shifting guidance, and make protocol 
recommendations.
    While these protocols had an adverse impact on production 
and profitability, we opted for the harder right and are proud 
of that decision.
    With the recent acquisition of the Marlin firearms brand, 
we now offer over 40 product lines and nearly 800 product 
innovations. Our management team is small, hardworking, and 
effective.
    We work closely together every day and strive to do the 
right thing for our employees, shareholders, customers, and 
communities in which we are located.
    We operate in a rapidly changing and increasingly complex 
legal environment. We do our level best to meet our regulatory 
obligations, cooperate with law enforcement, and remain true to 
our corporate philosophy.
    As a company, we support many initiatives designed to 
promote the safe and responsible use of firearms. Examples 
include Project Childsafe, Fix NICS, and Walk the Talk America, 
just to name a few.
    These programs and others are detailed in the materials we 
have provided to the committee. Our employees are very active 
in their respective communities. We have an internal company 
newsletter, ``The Ruger Action,'' which highlights the 
achievements of our work force--weddings, graduations, 
promotions, retirements, a first buck, and so on. I am always 
proud and pleased by the community outreach and service of our 
employees that I read about so frequently.
    Ruger is a collection of nearly 2,000 hardworking, 
dedicated individuals sharing the common goal of supplying 
rugged, reliable American-made firearms to responsible citizens 
who use them lawfully every day. That is who we are.
    The tension between our constitutional right to own 
firearms and the harm inflicted by criminals who acquire them 
is a complex topic that evokes strong emotions, regardless of 
your position on the issue.
    At Ruger, we are proud Americans who embrace the 
Constitution and the blanket of protections it provides, 
including specifically those guaranteed by the Second 
Amendment.
    We firmly believe that it is wrong to deprive citizens of 
their constitutional right to purchase the lawful firearm they 
desire because of the criminal acts of wicked people.
    A firearm, any firearm, can be used for good or for evil. 
The difference is in the intent of the individual possessing 
it, which, we respectfully submit, should be the focus of any 
investigation into the root causes of criminal violence 
involving firearms.
    Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
    Mr. Busse, you are now recognized for your testimony.

  STATEMENT OF RYAN BUSSE, SENIOR ADVISOR, GIFFORDS LAW CENTER

    Mr. Busse. Good morning, Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you for 
inviting me today.
    My testimony is about decisions--the ones I have made, the 
ones the firearms industry has made, and, ultimately, the 
decisions you must make. Like so many gun owners in America, I 
grew up with guns and was taught that responsibility and safety 
are critical components of firearms ownership.
    In 1995, I made the decision to get into the gun industry. 
For the first several years of my career, the same 
responsibility I was raised with prevailed there. Tactical gear 
was not allowed in the largest trade shows. Companies like 
Ruger even included their founding motto on all advertising, 
``Arms maker for responsible citizens.''
    By 2007, change was happening as most companies began 
combining guns with the political fear and conspiracy machine 
of the NRA. It worked very well because the same things that 
drove NRA radicalization also drove gun sales.
    Prior to 2008, guns like the AR-15 were a pariah. But they 
represented a new and untapped market, and the NRA and the NSSF 
needed new political symbols and profit.
    So, companies like Smith & Wesson made the decision to get 
into the AR-15 business. A few years later, the M&P 15, as in 
military and police, became the best-selling rifle in America. 
Eventually, young male gun customers in places like Parkland, 
Florida, Highland Park, Illinois, and Kenosha, Wisconsin, all 
decided to use an M&P 15.
    By 2008, Ruger made the decision to remove the responsible 
citizen motto from most of its public advertising. Those 
industry leaders who spoke out against this new trajectory were 
attacked and marginalized.
    Everyone was told that any new gun, any new gun buyer, or 
any gun marketing was good so long as it furthered political 
aims and sold guns.
    The trend of dismissing responsibility has only worsened, 
and today the industry condones frightening marketing that 
openly partners with domestic terror orgs like the Boogaloo 
Boys, a group that hopes for race wars and wears Hawaiian 
shirts.
    There is no industry criticism of marketing like this. In 
fact, the maker of this Boogaloo rifle is also one of the 
Nation's largest gun retailers and they boast of the public 
support of most of the largest gun companies, including Smith & 
Wesson.
    It is not that the industry and the NSSF are shy about 
aggressively policing the actions of members. In 2018, after 
the Parkland shooting, Ed Stack, the CEO of Dick's Sporting 
Goods, removed AR-15s and tactical gear from his stores. Stack 
still sold plenty of other guns, but within days the NSSF Board 
of Governors officially expelled Stack and Dick's to let 
everyone know that anything short of complete devotion would 
not be tolerated.
    I was inside the industry as new companies Like Daniel 
Defense built businesses by advertising AR-15s with slogans 
encouraging young men to ``use what the Special Forces guys 
use.''
    Like many companies, they also sought and celebrated the 
inclusion of their AR-15s in first person shooter games and 
movies. When Daniel Defense tweeted a picture of a toddler 
blessed by a Proverbs verse while cradling an AR-15 on the same 
week as the Uvalde shooter was killing kids with one of their 
rifles, there was no criticism from industry leadership.
    But there has been a prestigious reward. The same NSSF 
Board of Governors that expelled Ed Stack elected Marty Daniel 
to a coveted seat on that board, a position he still holds 
today. Mr. Killoy is an important voting member of that NSSF 
board.
    Sadly, for me, there is no place in the industry for anyone 
who believes in moderation or responsible regulation. If they 
did exist, they were frightened into submission or forced out.
    In my last months as an industry executive, I snapped 
photos like this. It is a tactical advertisement over the 
entrance of the SHOT Show that weirdly combines Revolutionary 
War soldiers, a modern AR-15, and the promise of daily 
gunfights as a business proposition.
    On January 6, 2021, less than a year after I took this 
photo, these exact components coalesced into a violent mob just 
a few hundred yards from here.
    Despite guns being the center of radicalized domestic 
terrorists, there is no industry rebuke, not of the Come and 
Take It flags on January 6, not of armed men invading the 
Michigan capitol, certainly not of Kyle Rittenhouse ``owning 
the libs'' by shooting and killing people at a protest with his 
Smith & Wesson military and police rifle.
    Any rational person can see the direct lines from this 
marketing to the troubled young men who kill people in places 
like Buffalo and El Paso and Uvalde. Anyone can see the direct 
lines to our Nation's most dangerous domestic terror orgs.
    I am here on behalf of responsible gun owners like me, who 
harbor a deep fear about what this is doing to our country. I 
am also here to warn you that there is much more of this on the 
way. No one from the industry is going to stop it and it is 
going to get much worse.
    Now, as the elected leaders of our country, you have a 
decision to make. What is to be done about this?
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Busse.
    Ms. Sampson, you are now recognized for your testimony.
    Ms. Sampson?

  STATEMENT OF KELLY SAMPSON, SENIOR COUNSEL AND DIRECTOR OF 
       RACIAL JUSTICE, BRADY: UNITED AGAINST GUN VIOLENCE

    Ms. Sampson. Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member Comer, and 
committee members, thank you for holding this hearing because 
Americans of all walks of life can and do agree that gun 
violence is a real problem.
    Gun violence is a leading cause of death for American 
children, which is a public health issue, not a private evil 
hearts problem. Indeed, no prevailing philosophy, theology or 
world history suggests that evil is unique to the United 
States.
    What is unique, however, especially in comparison to peer 
countries, is the rate at which gun violence kills our people, 
and that isn't because we are more evil, more prone to mental 
health diagnoses, or more violent.
    First, a mental health diagnoses makes someone more likely 
to be a victim of violence rather than a perpetrator, and in 
any case, research shows that Americans are no more prone to 
mental health issues than people around the world.
    Second, research suggests that America isn't necessarily 
more violent than our peers, but because guns are so readily 
available, we are decidedly deadlier.
    When it comes to gun violence, we are, quite literally, off 
the charts. That is why countries like Australia, Canada, and 
Germany warn their citizens to take extra precautions when 
traveling here and that is also why hundreds of families will 
get the dreaded news that their loved one has been shot today.
    In the face of such horrific violence, I can understand why 
people may earnestly believe that the answers lie in the 
individual private sphere of hearts and morals. But gun 
violence is a public health problem, and it requires public 
policy solutions.
    We have to be honest. We have a gun violence problem unlike 
any other industrialized country on Earth, and guns don't just 
come from the sky.
    Those opposed to regulation claim that people who want to 
get guns to commit crime could circumvent gun laws by going to 
the black market, as though the black market were given. But it 
is not.
    Loopholes, combined with the lack of accountability and 
unlawful, irresponsible, and negligent gun industry practices 
feed the black market. I am going to focus on those business 
practices.
    Almost all guns start in licensed manufacturers' factories. 
Generally, manufacturers sell to distributors, who sell to 
dealers, who sell to the public. Dealers are supposed to screen 
for gun trafficking and most do. The majority of gun dealers 
won't sell a single crime gun in a given year.
    But the most recently available data shows that five 
percent of licensed dealers sell about 90 percent of crime 
guns; and you might be asking what manufacturers have to do 
with that. A lot.
    Through trace data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
Firearms, and Explosives, or the ATF, manufacturers know which 
dealers and distributors are routinely selling crime guns.
    Since the majority of gun dealers don't sell crime guns in 
a given year, then if a dealer has multiple traces, that should 
at least trigger the manufacturer to investigate and, at most, 
compel the manufacturer to cut business ties.
    But they don't do that, and you don't have to take my word 
for it. Several industry insiders have said as much and I have 
detailed it in my written testimony.
    Despite manufacturers' role in supplying the black market, 
they face little accountability for a couple of key reasons.
    First, they have lobbied to undercut the ATF. Second, they 
bought themselves a shield in Protection of Lawful Commerce in 
Arms Act, also called PLCAA, a law that makes it much harder 
for those harmed by industry misconduct to get justice.
    So, we have got paltry enforcement and PLCCA, and the gun 
industry sows carnage by flooding communities with guns, then 
reaps profit by saying the only thing that will stop the bad 
guys with guns are good guys with guns. This more guns, less 
crime frame isn't just wrong, it is dangerous.
    First, we know that states with more--with looser gun laws 
have more crime.
    Second, framing guns around good and bad guys isn't 
neutral. Because of the racial inequities in our society, a 
good guy with a gun is usually code for white, resulting in 
disparate treatment for Black gun owners.
    For example, police shot and killed Philando Castile, a 
Black licensed concealed carry permit holder during a traffic 
stop, whereas police were peacefully able to take an armed 
white man into custody who had fled after shooting and killing 
seven people at a July 4th parade in Highland Park.
    Further, some manufacturers use militaristic marketing, 
suggesting that assault style rifles are the way to protect 
freedom. But as I have detailed in my written testimony, 
freedom in the firearms context is linked to a distorted view 
of the Second Amendment that falsely claims that people have 
the right to take up arms against the government.
    This insurrectionist interpretation is particularly 
seductive to extremists, and it threatened this very body on 
January 6. Neither history nor any Supreme Court precedent 
supports the notion that the Second Amendment is the right to 
insurrection.
    As Representative Raskin pointed out just last week, it is 
absolutely absurd. Yet, we see manufacturers using it to sell 
guns all the time.
    The gun industry's role in fueling our country's gun 
violence epidemic can't be understated. That cannot stand and I 
look forward to your questions.
    Thank you.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you so much.
    Ms. Okafor, you are now recognized for your testimony.

   STATEMENT OF ANTONIA OKAFOR, NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF WOMEN'S 
                OUTREACH, GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA

    Ms. Okafor. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member 
Comer, and members of the House Oversight Committee. Thank you 
for inviting me to testify today and for giving me the 
opportunity to defend the rights of millions of American gun 
owners to own and maintain AR-15s for self-defense.
    My name is Antonia Okafor Cover and I am the National 
Director of Women's Outreach for Gun Owners of America. I am 
also a National Spokesperson. I am a certified firearms 
instructor and range safety officer who specializes in working 
with women, particularly those with traumatic backgrounds.
    I am what you would call an accidental activist. My parents 
are immigrants from Nigeria and I grew up primarily with an 
anti-gun anti-Second Amendment mindset until I arrived in 
college in 2009 and was greatly grieved at the epidemic of 
sexual assaults occurring at universities across the U.S.
    As a sexual assault survivor myself, I have since become a 
passionate advocate of empowering women and in my years as a 
range safety officer and firearms instructor, I have found that 
my female students tend to give the AR-15 the best review 
overall.
    This year, Gun Owners of America put on free events for 
women that let new female shooters try out an array of 
firearms, from handguns to rifles to shotguns. Out of all the 
firearms it was always the AR-15 that they raved about, many of 
them surprised, given the anti-AR-15 rhetoric pushed by 
organizations spending millions of dollars trying to deter them 
from owning one.
    The AR-15 allows women to have a larger firearm without 
having to absorb the recoil as much as one does with a smaller 
handheld firearm. The AR-15 makes it easier for those who have 
a physical disadvantage to the attacker to have an upper hand.
    Having a rifle allows me the advantage of being able to 
shoot the attacker from much further away than the standard 
handgun. The number-one reason that women buy firearms is for 
self-defense.
    I am a proud owner of a Daniel Defense rifle and it is my 
go-to rifle. It is by far lighter than any other rifle I own. 
It makes it easier for me to hold and, yet, it still does an 
incredible job of absorbing the impact after each trigger pull.
    Women have been known to use rifles in defense in plenty of 
instances, but the people who have used Armalite rifles range 
from older men to young women.
    For instance, Stephen Willeford, a GOA spokesman and senior 
living in Sutherland Springs, Texas, used an AR-15 to 
effectively stop a mass shooter at the church in his town a few 
years ago.
    In November 2019, a woman in her ninth month of pregnancy 
used her family's AR-15 to stop two armed attackers in her 
home. After they severely wounded her husband and attempted to 
grab her 11-year-old daughter, the wife grabbed the AR-15 and 
drove the attackers away. One of them was found dead from the 
round she put in him before they fled from the scene.
    More recently, in Atlanta, a black Army veteran protected 
his home and family inside using an AR-15 to fend off two 
intruders from his home. His wife was hiding inside the home 
and the man used his rifle in defense of his family, home, and 
property.
    Banning these firearms will only make it difficult for 
women like me to protect our families. Gun bans never stop bad 
guys from getting firearms.
    As my written testimony shows, the original ban of 1994 did 
nothing to reduce the crime. Consider all the recent shootings 
in Buffalo and Uvalde were aided and abetted by gun 
restrictions.
    The Buffalo shooter indicated he was comforted that his 
victims would be limited in their ability to carry firearms by 
New York's tough gun laws and Uvalde's school was a gun-free 
zone. It is not surprising that 94 percent of mass shootings 
occur in gun-free zones.
    The Second Amendment guarantees a right that we already 
have. It preexists the Second Amendment. The right is to self-
preservation.
    The Second Amendment's primary focus is not about hunting. 
The Second Amendment was put into the Constitution as 
protection of the people against an oppressive government. 
History has shown countless times that any people group without 
the means of keeping and bearing arms has remained the 
oppressed people group.
    Our history in America has shown oppression correlated with 
gun control. Even after Black people fought alongside their 
white counterparts in the military, many came home to racist 
governments and institutions that systematically took away 
firearms from Black communities, communities that relied on 
firearms to deter attacks from the Ku Klux Klan and other anti-
gun organizations.
    Martin Luther King, Jr., applied two times for a concealed 
carry permit. Both times the racist police in charge of giving 
Dr. King a permit refused to give him one.
    In conclusion, because of the many benefits of the AR-15 
for women and those with physical disadvantages, including the 
fact that our Constitution is clear that no government body has 
the power to determine which firearm I choose to keep in my 
possession, the Armalite rifle is a platform that is an 
exceptional commonly owned firearm and should be protected as 
such.
    Thank you.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you so much. I thank all the 
panelists. I now recognize myself for questions.
    Today's hearing is historic. It is the first time in nearly 
two decades that the CEOs of leading gun manufacturers have 
testified before Congress about their business practices.
    Mr. Daniel, the gunman in Uvalde used an assault weapon 
from your company to murder 19 children and two teachers. Your 
company said that this shooting was, and I quote, ``a 
horrifying tragedy,'' end quote, and that the victims and 
families are, quote, ``in our thoughts and they are in our 
prayers,'' end quote.
    You even canceled your company's appearance at the NRA 
convention after the shooting and you testified today that 
there has been a decline in personal responsibility, using your 
words.
    Mr. Daniel, do you agree that the murder of these children 
and teachers in Uvalde was a tragedy and do you feel any 
personal responsibility for that tragedy?
    Mr. Daniel. Chairwoman Maloney, we are--I am deeply 
disturbed by these horrific acts committed by evil people. I 
can--I cannot even imagine what those innocent children had to 
go through and the teachers. I cannot imagine the horror that 
the families have to live with for the rest of their lives.
    These acts were horrible and these acts need to be stopped.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
    OK. Reclaiming my time.
    Mr. Killoy, weapons from your company, Ruger, have also 
been used in mass shootings, including the deadliest shooting 
in Texas history.
    I played a video earlier in which Americans impacted by gun 
violence had a simple question. What is the gun industry doing 
to stop the violence?
    We just heard from Mr. Daniel that we have to stop the 
violence. I think we all agree. What is the gun industry doing? 
One obvious step is to end the sale of assault weapons to 
civilians and children. Yet, neither company before us has been 
willing to take that step. Congress is moving to take that 
step.
    Mr. Daniel, how many more American children need to die 
before your company will stop selling assault weapons to 
civilians and young men?
    Mr. Killoy. Congresswoman, was that directed to myself or 
for Mr. Daniel?
    Chairwoman Maloney. OK. Mr. Daniel, yes. Can you respond, 
Mr. Daniel?
    Mr. Daniel. Yes. Can you--I thought that question for Mr. 
Killoy. Can you repeat the question, please?
    Chairwoman Maloney. How many more American children need to 
die before your company will stop selling assault weapons to 
civilians and children the weapon of choice in most mass 
murders in our country?
    Mr. Daniel. Congresswoman Maloney, I believe that these 
murders are local problems that have to be solved locally. I 
believe that the facts----
    Chairwoman Maloney. OK. My time is limited and I have to go 
to the next question.
    Mr. Killoy, how about you? Is there any number of shootings 
in schools and churches and synagogues that would convince you 
to stop selling weapons of war to civilians?
    Mr. Killoy. Respectfully, Congresswoman, I don't consider 
the modern sporting rifles today that that my company produces 
to be weapons of war; and like all Americans, I grieve, you 
know, when we read about these tragic incidences. You ask what 
the industry has done and what our company has done and can do. 
One of the things you reference was the Sutherland Springs 
situation.
    In that case, the evil person who perpetrated those crimes 
and committed those murders was allowed to buy a firearm that, 
frankly, he should not have been allowed to do. He somehow was 
able----
    Chairwoman Maloney. Reclaiming.
    It seems to me that if a company really cared that its 
products were being used to kill scores of Americans it would 
stop selling them. But, of course, the gun industry won't do 
that because they are making lots and lots of money from these 
weapons.
    As shown in the chart behind me, over the last 10 years 
Daniel Defense collected more than half a billion dollars in 
revenue selling AR-15 style assault weapons, the weapon of 
choice in too many mass shootings.
    Ruger also made over $500 million on these weapons and 
Smith & Wesson made more than $600 million. That is the very 
definition of putting profits over people.
    Today, in the committee room there are victims and 
surviving family members from the Highland Park and Uvalde 
shootings.
    Mr. Daniel, you have sent thoughts and prayers to the 
victims of Uvalde, but you have never accepted responsibility 
for selling the weapons that killed these innocent children, 
and you testified earlier that there has been a decline in 
personal responsibility.
    I want to give you the opportunity now to show personal 
responsibility. Will you accept personal responsibility for 
your company's role in this tragedy and apologize to the 
families of Uvalde?
    Mr. Daniel. Chairwoman Maloney, these acts are committed by 
murderers. The murderers are responsible for the----
    Chairwoman Maloney. Reclaiming my----
    Mr. Killoy, how about you? Will you apologize to the 
victims here today and victims around our country and their 
families in Sutherland Springs, Boulder, and other cities who 
were harmed by your products?
    Mr. Killoy. Congresswoman, with all due respect, while as I 
grieve like all Americans at these tragic incidences, again, to 
blame the firearm--the particular firearm in use here that we 
are talking about, modern sporting rifles, to blame the firearm 
is an inanimate object.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
    Reclaiming my time. So let me get this straight; and with 
all due respect, you market weapons of war to civilians and 
children. You make millions by selling them. But when someone 
pulls the trigger, you refuse to accept responsibility and I 
would call that a staggering lack of accountability.
    I hope the American people are paying attention today. It 
is clear that gun makers are not going to change unless 
Congress forces them to finally put people over profits.
    I yield back and recognize the gentleman from Georgia.
    Mr. Hice is now recognized.
    Mr. Hice. Thank you.
    I want to thank each of our witnesses for being here, for 
your testimoneys. I also want to thank Chairwoman Maloney for 
holding this hearing so that the American people can see the 
disturbing trend in this committee of going after both private 
citizens and the constitutional rights of American citizens.
    Just the other day this committee went after those in the 
energy sector, and now are going after firearm manufacturers, 
all for political purposes. And just to go with the 
chairwoman's comments, I want to know when are you, Chairwoman 
Maloney, going to apologize to the American citizens for not 
dealing with the real issue and showing responsibility and 
accountability?
    When are we going to have hearings in this committee 
holding people responsible in cities, municipalities, states, 
and right here in our own Congress for being soft on crime?
    When are we going to have hearings to do away with the 
ridiculous outrageous policies of defunding the police; and do 
we really think that that is a good idea when it comes to 
dealing with crime?
    Would anyone in their right mind think that crime would go 
down when we attack and defund the police, when we are soft on 
crime, and here we have a southern border that remains open, 
allowing gang members to come in.
    We have not had one hearing about that. We have not dealt 
with one thing of the issue. This is like the old saying that 
we are going to blame the manufacturers of forks and spoons for 
obesity.
    I guess you are going to subpoena some of them as well to 
deal with obesity in this country. It is absolutely absurd that 
we are not dealing with the issues, and I want to know when are 
you going to apologize for the lack of leadership in this 
committee of dealing with the issues that this country is 
facing.
    This committee should have jurisdiction over government 
oversight and Federal issues, not going after private citizens 
and private companies like we are doing here today.
    Yes, violent crime is on the increase. That is a concern 
for all of us. But to go after the manufacturers of guns while 
at the same time remaining soft on crime, defunding the police, 
supporting those policies, and keeping our southern border open 
for all sorts of criminals is absolutely disgusting to me and 
unthinkable, the height of irresponsibility and lack of 
accountability.
    My colleagues seem to forget that the American people have 
a right to own guns as a constitutional right to defend 
themselves and, yet, we have a perpetual barrage of politicized 
buzz words like have already been used here this morning, like 
assault weapons and weapons of war, to support arbitrary gun 
grabs not from criminals but from law-abiding American 
citizens, and it is time that we see some changes.
    Mr. Daniel, I would like to go to you.
    There were--approximately eight and a half million 
Americans purchased a firearm for the first time in 2020 and 
this is a trend that has continued to go up for the last 
several years.
    Does your company make or produce any illegal product?
    Mr. Hice. Mr. Daniel?
    Mr. Daniel. Sir, we make--we don't make any illegal 
products. We abide by all the laws. We have a very, very 
professional compliance department. We focus on always doing 
the right thing.
    We focus on--we tell our employees every month in our 
monthly meetings that we need to be 100 percent compliant 100 
percent of the time and we have--are known to have a great 
system of making sure that we are--everything is legal.
    Mr. Hice. I have been to your company. I have toured it. It 
is an amazing place.
    Why do you believe so many Americans are choosing to 
exercise their constitutional rights for firearms and purchase 
firearms, particularly things like the AR-15, which seems to be 
under attack this morning?
    Mr. Daniel. Congressman, I believe--our data agrees with 
what you have stated, that there were 8 million plus new gun 
owners in 2020. That number has continued. Those types of 
numbers have continued through today, equaling 16 million plus 
new gun owners.
    Our internal data shows us, sir, that less than 20 percent 
of those new gun owners who have never owned a gun before are 
Republicans and that people who have made a decision in the 
past to never own a gun have changed their minds and are buying 
guns in unprecedented quantities.
    Mr. Hice. I am sure that is primarily to defend themselves 
because we are soft on crime. We are not dealing with the real 
issues.
    Ms. Okafor, let me go to you here. Lawful gun ownership is 
an integral part of a citizen's right to defend themselves. In 
fact, it is interesting--had, Chairwoman, I have two articles 
here.
    But in 1982, the city of Kennesaw, Georgia, passed an 
ordinance requiring heads of households to maintain working 
firearms and ammunition, and interestingly, Kennesaw, which is 
a metro Atlanta city, certainly, not a depopulated rural area, 
they have incredibly low crime rates, particularly violent 
crime. In fact, between 2012 and 2020, only two homicides in 
that city.
    I have a couple of articles I would like to submit to the 
record, please.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
    Mr. Hice. Thank you.
    Ms. Okafor, in your opinion, is private gun ownership one 
of if not the most effective means of self-defense?
    Ms. Okafor. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, absolutely. That 
is one of the most impactful ways of deterring any criminal 
from wanting to go to the places that are most vulnerable and 
defenseless.
    Like I said in my testimony, 94 percent of mass shootings 
occur in gun-free zones. So, a criminal is going to go where 
they can do the most amount of harm in the least amount of 
time, and so those places that they know that they are not 
going to be able to do that are going to be a deterrent.
    Mr. Hice. Is that answer data based?
    Ms. Okafor. That is absolutely data based.
    Mr. Hice. OK. Thank you very much. I appreciate the 
chairwoman's allowing us to go a little bit over our time.
    But with that, I will yield back and I thank the witnesses 
for being here.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time is expired and he 
yields back.
    Our votes have been called, and after the questioning from 
the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton, who is now recognized, we 
will recess for the purpose of going to the floor to vote.
    Ms. Norton, you are now recognized.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, for this 
especially timely hearing.
    You are having this hearing at a time when gun violence is 
menacing the entire country. You do not open a paper these 
days, these mornings, without reading about gun violence, often 
involving many, many victims.
    I would like to preface my questions by noting that without 
statehood the District of Columbia could have its local gun 
violence prevention laws, including its ban on assault weapons 
and high-capacity magazines overturned by Congress.
    Republicans, including this Congress, have repeatedly tried 
to overturn D.C.'s common sense gun violence prevention laws. 
We have defeated each such effort and I will continue to try to 
do so.
    It is clear that there is a common denominator to mass 
shootings that occur over and over in America and that is the 
use of assault weapons.
    Mr. Busse, how is an AR-15 style firearm different from 
other guns sold by manufacturers and what makes an AR-15 more 
deadly and dangerous than regular handguns?
    Mr. Busse. Thank you, Congresswoman.
    An AR-15 is chambered in a very common cartridge, 
typically, a .223 or 5.56. In that way it is similar to many 
other commonly used guns.
    But the AR-15 is based on the military version of the 
rifle, and it is specifically designed to be an offensive 
weapon of war for troops in battle to charge into places like 
buildings and battlefields to take as many lives as possible as 
fast as they possibly can.
    That is what the design of the rifle is for. I think an 
analogy may be in order. An AR-15, if you think about it in 
terms of cars, most cars and trucks have four wheels and a 
steering wheel and engines and all those things, and most 
rifles have a trigger and a barrel and a stock and all those 
things.
    But in this case, the AR-15 would be much like a Formula 
One racecar. It is like other cars, but it is specifically 
designed to do things very fast, very easy at corners. It gets 
places very fast.
    So, I think that is the analogy that should be used.
    Ms. Norton. A very telling analogy, I must say.
    All of these differences mean the damage to the human body 
from one bullet fired from an assault rifle is particularly 
gruesome. I will just give one example.
    A trauma surgeon at the University of Texas said that a 
bullet from an AR-15 has so much energy that it can 
disintegrate three inches of leg bone and it would, quote, 
``just turn to dust.''
    Knowing this, it is incomprehensible that the AR-15 style 
rifles are so easy to purchase.
    Mr. Daniel, your company brags that it offers a buy now pay 
later financing and a consumer can buy this product in, quote, 
``seconds.''
    Mr. Daniel, did the Uvalde shooter use this financing 
program to purchase his weapon?
    Mr. Daniel. Congresswoman, this shooting is still under 
investigation and we shouldn't comment on this investigation.
    Ms. Norton. Ms. Sampson, I want to quickly turn to you.
    How could a new assault weapons ban reduce the number of 
horrific mass shootings in our country?
    Put on your microphone.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Mic, please.
    Ms. Sampson. Is it on now? Thank you.
    Thank you for the question. Renewing the assault weapons 
ban would prevent deadly mass shootings because we know that 
assault weapons are the weapon of choice for mass shooters 
because, as was mentioned earlier, not only are they able to 
shoot from a further distance but they also allow a lone 
shooter to inflict much more harm on a greater number of people 
in a shorter amount of time.
    So, if we renew the assault weapons ban that would take 
away a key piece of what allows mass shooters to kill more 
people in less time without having to stop to reload.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Votes have been called, and to accommodate members voting 
the committee will take a short recess and reconvene 
approximately five minutes at the close of the last vote in the 
series.
    The committee stands in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Chairwoman Maloney. The committee will come to order.
    The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cloud, is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Our United States Constitution was not written to be 
shredded in times of crisis or in tragedy, and, tragically, we 
see often and even in this body to use every crisis and every 
tragedy as a reason to shred the Constitution, so to speak.
    Even today in this hearing we see, once again, the attempt 
to punish society for the acts of an individual, this ideology, 
this blame shifting, that is really rooted in Marxism. It is 
the same ideology that gives terrorists and those who commit 
genocide their reasoning and demagogues throughout history to 
justify their actions.
    Truly, there is no single common denominator for the truly 
heinous acts we have all witnessed and that we have all been 
heartbroken over in our Nation.
    But if we were to look at the common denominators, one of 
the biggest things we see is the breakdown of the family and 
that is something I, certainly, think that we should consider 
as we go forward with this.
    But, Ms. Okafor, could you speak to what is the fastest 
growing gun owner demographic currently in our country?
    Ms. Okafor. Thank you, Congressman Cloud.
    The fastest growing demographic currently is actually Black 
women and, particular, women, of course. Forty percent of the 8 
million new gun owners that we had from 2019 to 2020 were women 
and of those 21 percent of them are Black women.
    Mr. Cloud. Any insight as to why this is happening and at 
this time?
    Ms. Okafor. Particularly with Black women, there is many 
reasons. One of the big reasons is because, unfortunately, 
Black women are one of the demographics that have been victims 
of violent crime and so that is a reaction to that, of women 
realizing--Black women realizing that they have to take care of 
themselves and protect themselves.
    Particularly during the pandemic, we saw an increased 
awareness of this, and so that is part of the trend--the 
growing trend of Black women getting firearms.
    Mr. Cloud. One of the trends we have seen kind of happening 
concurrently with this is the defund the police movement. Do 
you think there is any connection there or is that just----
    Ms. Okafor. Well, it is actually shown--study by study has 
shown that in primarily African American communities that many 
African Americans actually prefer and want to have, of course, 
a stable police force to protect and serve their communities.
    So, despite the rhetoric behind the defund the police, et 
cetera, and even if so, for those who have a distrust of police 
it has come down to their solution is to make sure that they 
have a way to defend themselves and their families and that is 
what Black people across America are going toward that 
solution.
    Mr. Cloud. It has been interesting to me--the chairwoman 
said at the beginning--she said the time for dodging 
accountability is over. Yet, what we have seen is violence and 
crime has just increased in major cities across our country, 
especially in the last couple of years.
    A lot of it seems to be because of the lack of 
accountability. We continue to have almost daily stories of 
criminals who committed heinous acts be released only to commit 
heinous acts once again, and in that context, we have seen a 
number of people realizing that they have a need to protect 
themselves and to protect their families and such.
    We have leftist DAs in almost all of these cities where 
this is happening. We have an attorney general here, Attorney 
General Garland, who has really laid the groundwork for an 
understanding that there aren't consequences for bad actions by 
the individual and it has really upended the rule of law in 
this country and we have seen the tragic results.
    I was wondering, too, if you could speak to one of the big 
concerns with red flag laws is that there is a discriminatory 
nature to them. Could you speak to that?
    Ms. Okafor. Yes. As we have seen, especially with red flag 
laws that uniquely tend to use no-knock warrants that we have 
seen in criminal justice reform, et cetera, that I think those 
in the Second Amendment community and those in the criminal 
justice reform community agree on is that these no-knock 
warrants have been used especially in discriminatory practices, 
especially in red flag laws instances.
    So that is just one of the many reasons why GOA--Gun Owners 
of America--does not want no-knock warrants to exist as well as 
red flag laws because of the discriminatory practices used 
behind them.
    Mr. Cloud. One of the things we have seen recently, too, is 
the ATF has a massive data base of gun records. It is almost a 
billion, if not that, already, and then recently we have seen 
that it is a searchable data base, basically.
    Now, Federal law says that they are not allowed to create a 
gun registry. But they have a searchable data base for all 
practical purposes and recently we have begun to see stories of 
them trying to enforce this through local law enforcement and 
showing up and surveying gun owners--do you have this serial 
number in your house and those kinds of things.
    Does that kind of thing concern you and how do you think 
that squares with the Second Amendment?
    Ms. Okafor. It absolutely concerns us at Gun Owners of 
America. When it comes down to it is that this is exactly why 
people are concerned about any type of registration is because 
once registration is allowed then it is very easy for any type 
of government agency to be able to use that to, essentially, 
again, discriminate against gun owners and those that they deem 
to be, quote/unquote, ``dangerous'' and what that actually 
means tends to be anything from what they believe is a First 
Amendment difference or something like that.
    So, when it comes down to it, that is part of the issue is 
that any type of registration leads to gun confiscation, in the 
end.
    Mr. Cloud. Yes, and----
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired. Thank 
you.
    The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch, is recognized.
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I really appreciate 
you holding this hearing, and I thank the ranking member as 
well and our witnesses.
    On one of the other committees, I actually serve as the 
chairman of the Task Force on Financial Technology, or FinTech, 
and our task force is continuing to investigate the emerging 
use of so-called buy now pay later financing for online 
purchases.
    So, I want to direct this question to Mr. Busse and Ms. 
Sampson.
    Buy now pay later allows consumers to purchase and 
immediately take possession of an item after agreeing to pay 
the purchase price over a fixed period of time.
    The use of buy now pay later has really dramatically 
increased in the last few years, especially with the pandemic. 
Not surprisingly, buy now pay later is also extremely popular 
with younger consumers because it entails a very, very light 
credit pull or credit check and really targets those with 
minimal disposable income and little or no credit history, and 
by far Millennials and Gen Z consumers make up the majority of 
buy now pay later users by age group.
    Regrettably, however, relevant to this hearing, buy now pay 
later has really become popular as a way to finance online gun 
and ammunition purchase purchases.
    While some of the major buy now pay later providers like 
Affirm and Klarna and Afterpay explicitly prohibit purchasing 
guns and ammunition, some do not, and as recently reported by 
The New York Times, Credova Financial, LLC, and some other 
niche firms are actively exploiting the gap in gun sales market 
by teaming up with gun merchants to offer a buy now pay later 
financing to facilitate online purchases.
    In fact, Credova boasts a multitude of retail partners on 
its website including several gun merchants. For example, the 
company is the financing arm for grabagun.com, which is an 
online gun seller offering handguns, shotguns, and what they 
say on the website, a huge number of AR-15s.
    Grabagun.com prominently highlights the convenience and 
benefits associated with Credova buy now pay later, including 
no hard credit inquiries for preapproval and zero money down.
    The website also dangerously markets Credova's services. As 
advertised on grabagun.com, a consumer can select Credova 
financing in order to what they call shoot now pay later. So 
that is running contrary to all the checks that we are asking 
to be implemented to prevent the wrong people from actually 
getting access to firearms.
    So, Mr. Busse and Ms. Sampson, can you offer us your 
thoughts on how this new mechanism of buy now pay later in the 
gun industry could affect and exacerbate the gun violence 
epidemic?
    Mr. Busse. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
    I believe that this sort of system points out the sort of 
danger that we are now facing and what, I think is a holdover 
in our firearms laws. We need to do things to make it more 
difficult for impulsive teenagers to get AR-15s and up to 60 
30-round magazines that the Uvalde shooter had.
    We don't need to make things--I mean, 18-year-old, 19-year-
old, 20-year-old kids, especially young men, are impulsive and 
buy now pay later or buy now--or shoot now pay later sort of 
financing options like this highlight this massive hole we have 
in our regulation that is a holdover from the time when 18-
year-old kids were thought--it was OK because they needed to go 
buy a hunting rifle to go hunting with their dad on some nice 
October day. That is why this 18-year-old law exists and why 
handguns are 21.
    Our country has changed where many of our long guns--in 
fact, in some places, the majority of our long guns--purchased 
are AR-15s and we need--in my opinion, as responsible gun 
owners, as lawmakers, as responsible citizens, we need to 
reduce the prevalence of, you know, increasing that sort of 
easy access.
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you.
    Ms. Sampson?
    Ms. Sampson. I would also just add that the reason why this 
is so compelling, especially for younger consumers, is because 
AR-15s and the like are rather expensive weapons, and so for 
individuals who may be younger this may be another way to allow 
them to get their hands on them, and it all goes around to the 
deliberate marketing to some of the most vulnerable and 
impulsive members of our society.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired. The 
gentleman from----
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I yield back. 
Thank you.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Thank you.
    The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, is now 
recognized.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Busse, does an American citizen have the right to 
defend their home from a armed violent home invasion?
    It is yes or no. It is not a trick question.
    Mr. Busse. Yes, sir. I believe that the Supreme Court has 
established that right.
    Mr. Higgins. That was well defined 240 years ago, 
reaffirmed by Article Three and every sovereign state since.
    Ms. Sampson, do you believe an American citizen, a free 
American, has a right to defend his home from armed violent 
invasion?
    Ms. Sampson. With respect, thank you for the question.
    The things that we are talking about won't prevent----
    Mr. Higgins. Well, we are moving past you.
    Ms. Okafor, does an American citizen have the right to 
defend their home from armed and violent invasion?
    Ms. Okafor. Absolutely. Not only is it a human right, it is 
also guaranteed by the Constitution.
    Mr. Higgins. Absolutely. What my colleagues are doing it is 
really--it is unbelievably beyond the pale of anything 
reasonable or constitutional.
    Everything we are leading toward here is the seizure of 
weapons from the homes of law-abiding American citizens that 
have purchased those weapons legally.
    You are setting up gunfights in the homes of Americans 
between Americans responding in the dead of night. When do you 
think ATF and FBI comes to a house? In the dead of the night?
    You are setting up gunfights between American citizens 
defending their homes from dark shadows clearly armed coming 
into our home, onto our porch, and through our door. You are 
setting up death, Americans killing Americans over some fantasy 
that you can define what is a dangerous weapon in the hands of 
those Americans just living beyond their true right to exercise 
our own decision about what type of firearm they legally 
purchase and own.
    It is insane what you are pushing. It is not going to end 
well. Once again, I clarify, yes, you have majority control and 
you are most certainly exercising it, and you can push this 
bill through by party line vote.
    But Americans are not going to sit and allow without 
responding. I mean, people make decisions like that in the 
worst possible circumstances, again, in the dead of night. You 
are setting up some extreme stuff what you are 100 percent 
responsible for.
    My colleagues in the Democratic Party, when those gun 
fights happen that blood will be on your hands over some--this 
political charade of pretending to be able identify weapons 
that you, from your ivory tower in D.C., you know better.
    I can define the weapons that Americans shouldn't have the 
right to own. It is already--we can't buy a tank or a howitzer 
or caliber above 50. We carry light arms and we own them. We 
own them legally. We intend to keep them.
    Ms. Okafor, thank you for being here today, ma'am. Very 
contentious this issue in America today but it doesn't have to 
be. For anyone that would actually read the Constitution that 
they teach they would know that this is a rabbit hole there is 
no escaping from and, ultimately, it ends with an American 
citizen standing to defend his freedom.
    The only question is can we have that debate reasonably 
through Article One in the legislative branch? Will we have 
reasonable regulatory effort out of Article Two in our 
executive branch? Will it be argued in court or will it be 
settled on the front porch of Americans when the FBI and the 
ATF shows up to seize legally owned weapons from a law-abiding 
American citizen? That is what you are setting up.
    I am sorry, Ms. Okafor. My time has expired, but my passion 
has not in defense of the Second Amendment.
    Madam Chair, I yield.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, is recognized 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair; and let me just say to my 
friend from Louisiana I can match his passion with my own and 
we will not be threatened with violence and bloodshed because 
we want reasonable gun control.
    Mr. Higgins. Is the gentleman point--saying I am 
threatening him because I am not.
    Mr. Connolly. I will not yield. I will not yield up my 
time, Madam Chairman, and I would like the time restored. I 
would like the time restored from the interruption.
    Mr. Higgins. I would ask the gentleman to retract that 
statement.
    Mr. Connolly. You just heard it, another threat of 
violence.
    Mr. Higgins. Madam Chair, I would like the words stricken.
    Mr. Connolly. Madam Chairman, it is my time.
    Mr. Comer. Madam Chair, point of order.
    Point of order, Madam Chair. Point of order.
    Mr. Connolly. Can I put up--can I put up the----
    Chairwoman Maloney. Members will suspend.
    The gentleman has a point of order.
    Mr. Comer. Madam Chair, the gentleman from Louisiana 
requested a retraction and I do believe that Mr. Connolly said 
something that was not what Mr. Higgins said, and I don't feel 
that with our rules you are allowed to say things that are not 
true.
    Chairwoman Maloney. OK.
    Mr. Connolly, will you retract?
    Mr. Connolly. I don't know what it is I am expected to 
retract. I heard----
    Mr. Higgins. You pointed at me and said I was threatening 
you.
    Mr. Connolly. I heard the--if I can finish, Madam Chairman.
    Mr. Higgins. Take it back.
    Mr. Connolly. If I can finish and respond to your question, 
Madam Chairwoman.
    I heard the gentleman from Louisiana say that blood would 
be on our hands if we attempted to pass legislation that could 
yield to his imagination, apparently, of ATF agents and FBI 
agents going to someone's front porch and taking away their 
weapons. What I heard in that remark was an implied threat that 
people would resort to violence----
    Mr. Higgins. I accept--I accept the gentleman's tone.
    Respectfully, I accept the gentleman's tone. He is my 
friend and colleague. We disagree from time to time, sometimes 
passionately, but I accept the tone of your explanation, sir.
    Mr. Connolly. I thank my colleague.
    Mr. Higgins. I withdraw my request to have the words 
stricken, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The gentleman withdraws.
    The time is Mr. Connolly's.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you, and I thank my friend from 
Louisiana. He is a gentleman.
    I would ask my visual be put up. ``Use what they use.''
    [Photo.]
    Mr. Connolly. Mr. Daniel, this is one of your ads, ``Use 
what they use'', and it shows a military picture using a 
military weapon, and it would seem to imply that you are 
encouraging people to purchase military weapons and, quote, 
``Use what they use.''
    Is that your intent with this that, in fact, people should 
buy military style weapons and use them like the military uses 
them?
    Mr. Daniel?
    Mr. Daniel. Congressman, thank you for your question. This 
ad is an ad for a rail system that can be added to an AR-15.
    We sell products to the military, we market products to the 
military, and we market products to civilians based off of our 
military heritage, that we provide the best products that can 
be built--that can be bought, and we sell those products----
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
    Mr. Daniel [continuing]. And sell those products to the 
military. That shows our customers that we----
    Mr. Connolly. Excuse me. I have got limited time, Mr. 
Daniel, but thank you.
    Mr. Busse, is that how you see that ad?
    Mr. Busse. Thank you, Congressman.
    This ad is a common practice in the firearms industry to 
buildup the sort of military credentials of a firearm so that, 
frankly, oftentimes more young men want to purchase the gun as 
if they are in--are still in or wish to be in the military.
    Mr. Connolly. Would it be fair to say that just looking at 
the visual, this isn't what Ms. Okafor has talked about self-
protection and protecting my home? This is, in fact, invoking a 
military image explicitly and inviting you to purchase the same 
kind of military style weapon the military has. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Busse. Yes, sir. These kinds of ads are very prevalent 
in the industry now and it has changed much in the last 10 or 
15 years to this style of advertising.
    Mr. Connolly. If we can put up visual No. 2.
    [Photo.]
    Mr. Connolly. Yes. So, this is extraordinary to me. What 
weapon is that, Mr. Busse, that is being handed to a toddler?
    Mr. Busse. That is a Daniel Defense AR-15 version.
    Mr. Connolly. So, this is an ad by Daniel Defense handing 
an AR-15 and what it says is, train up a child in the way he 
should go and when he is old he will not depart from it.
    What are we to take from that message, Mr. Busse?
    Mr. Busse. I don't think that is the meaning of the 
original Proverbs verse, sir.
    Mr. Connolly. No. No, it is kind of a distortion of 
Scripture, maybe.
    Of course, I don't think they had AR-15s when Scripture was 
written.
    Mr. Daniel, if a child uses one of those guns to shoot 
himself, under the law is your company liable or are you liable 
by law?
    Mr. Daniel. Ad about--this is not a question about safety, 
sir. This is a question about this--the purpose of this ad. The 
purpose of this ad----
    Mr. Connolly. No. No. No. I am asking you a different 
question right now because I got limited time. I am asking you 
a legal question. Are you liable if a child shoots himself with 
one of those guns?
    Mr. Daniel. I don't know the answer to that, sir. I will be 
happy to talk to my lawyers and get back with you.
    Mr. Connolly. Oh, I would suggest to you, respectfully, the 
answer is no. But all right. If a child uses one of those guns 
to shoot a friend or a sibling, are you or your company liable?
    Mr. Daniel. Congressman, this child in this photo was not 
being taught to use a gun.
    Mr. Connolly. I am not talking about that just yet. I am 
asking a legal question about liability, and the answer, again, 
is no because of the law which protects people like you and 
your company.
    Ms. Sampson, I want to give you an opportunity to respond 
to the witness testimony from your companion at the table who 
talked about AR-15s--you know, they are safer, they are easier, 
the recoils, and they protect us.
    They protect us, including--she invoked sexual assault, and 
I want to give you an opportunity, given your role. What do you 
think about that? AR-15s are the best way to go in terms of 
self-protection?
    Ms. Sampson. Thank you for that question, Congressman. 
There has actually been research done into the number of shots 
fired by individuals when they are facing a home invasion, for 
example, and in any case, most of the time the answer is about 
two to three shots, if at all.
    So, an AR-15 is totally unnecessary for something like 
personal self-defense. It is, on the other hand, very effective 
for inflicting mass casualties, as we saw at Uvalde, as we saw 
at Parkland, as we saw at Highland Park, and as we see over and 
over again in our country.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you. My time has expired.
    Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for holding this very 
important hearing.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan, is recognized.
    OK. Mr. Clyde. Mr. Clyde is recognized.
    Mr. Clyde. Thank you. Thank you for yielding, Mr. Jordan.
    Might I remind my friend, Mr. Connolly, of Justice Scalia's 
words when he says, ``It may be objected that if weapons that 
are most useful in military service, M-16 rifles and the like, 
may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely 
detached from the prefatory clause, and the prefatory clause 
would be a well-regulated militia being necessary for the 
security of a free state.
    So, it may well--and this is, again, Justice Scalia--``it 
may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as 
militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms 
that are highly unusual in society, at large. Indeed, it may be 
true that no amount of small arms could be useful against 
modern day bombers and tanks.
    But the fact that modern developments have limited the 
degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected 
right cannot change our interpretation of the protected 
right.''
    Mr. Connolly. Would my friend yield for a second?
    Mr. Clyde. No, I would not. I mean, do you understand what 
that statement says?
    That statement says that the Second Amendment protects 
weapons that are of primary use to a militia; and what is a 
militia? A militia is all able-bodied personnel that can be 
called up in defense of a free state.
    That is exactly what Justice Scalia says in the Heller 
decision.
    Now, I would ask Mr. Busse--Busse, I think--you said that 
you have a lot of experience in the firearms industry. How is 
an AR-15 any different from any other semi-automatic rifle with 
a detachable magazine, let us say, like a Remington 7400, 
chambered in .223 or 5.56?
    Mr. Busse. The AR 15 and the military version rifle on 
which it is based is designed specifically for offensive use in 
war and the Remington rifle to which you refer is not designed 
for that.
    There are numerous--there are numerous design factors. I 
don't think we have enough time. I, certainly, don't have 
enough time on this clock to list all the features which denote 
that.
    Mr. Clyde. OK. Do they not both fire one round with a 
single pull of a trigger?
    Mr. Busse. Yes, sir. They do.
    Mr. Clyde. OK. Do they not fire the same caliber of around, 
.223 or 5.56 ammunition?
    Mr. Busse. They both can be chambered in that caliber. Yes, 
sir.
    Mr. Clyde. OK. Do they not both feed from a detachable box 
magazine?
    Mr. Busse. Yes, sir. They do.
    Mr. Clyde. OK. So, basically, what you see is looks, just 
it looks different----
    Mr. Busse. That is not true.
    Mr. Clyde [continuing]. Between a Remington 7400 and an AR-
15. It does exactly the same thing.
    Mr. Busse. If that was the case, sir, I would expect that 
we would be soon arming our Special Forces with a remnant 
Remington 7400. I am not aware of any such demands.
    Mr. Clyde. Well, you know, our Special Forces, they don't 
use AR-15s, do they?
    Mr. Busse. Some do. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Clyde. They use M-4s.
    Mr. Busse. No. Some use AR-15s.
    Mr. Clyde. And they have different things that attach to 
them like optics and like laser designators and like 
flashlights and all sorts of other things----
    Mr. Busse. Most of which are available to civilians as 
well, sir.
    Mr. Clyde. Absolutely, they are. OK. But the Remington 7400 
does exactly the same thing with every pull of the trigger that 
an AR-15 does. So, I disagree completely with your statement 
that the AR-15 is a weapon of war.
    Mr. Busse. Sir, you must disagree with the folks in the 
military----
    Mr. Clyde, well, it is not a discussion.
    Mr. Busse [continuing]. Who request the AR-15 and that in 
the military version.
    Mr. Clyde. Mr. Busse, this is not a discussion. OK. Thank 
you.
    Now, I would ask Ms. Sampson, you said in your statement 
that though trace data from the dealers or distributors--excuse 
me, trace data from manufacturers--through trace data from the 
manufacturers or from ATF, rather, manufacturers know which 
dealers or distributors routinely sell crime guns. Is that 
correct?
    Ms. Sampson. Yes.
    Mr. Clyde. OK. You used this term crime gun. Can you define 
that term?
    Ms. Sampson. A crime gun is a gun where either the 
possession of the gun itself was a crime or the gun was used in 
a commission of a crime.
    Mr. Clyde. Say that again.
    Ms. Sampson. A crime gun was a gun in which either the 
possession of the gun itself was a crime or was used in the 
commission of a crime.
    Mr. Clyde. OK. So, do you have evidence to show that every 
trace gun is a crime gun, as you call it?
    Ms. Sampson. By definition, yes, and we have seen instances 
where manufacturers have continued to do business with dealers 
who have an inordinate amount of traces per year; and the 
majority of dealers don't have a trace in a year. So, if a 
manufacturer sees the same store continuing to sell crime guns 
that should raise an alarm bell to that manufacturer that----
    Mr. Clyde. But the manufacturers primarily sell to 
distributors, right?
    Ms. Sampson. Manufacturers sell to distributors who sell to 
dealers, but they have----
    Mr. Clyde. OK. So, the manufacturers are never going to 
actually see the dealer sale, is he?
    Ms. Sampson. Yes, they will. They will understand which 
dealer the gun can----
    Mr. Clyde. No. If they sell to a distributor, how would 
they know that?
    Ms. Sampson. Through the ATF.
    Mr. Clyde. But the ATF not going to tell them what dealer.
    Ms. Sampson. The ATF has actually offered to do that and 
manufacturers have refused, and I detail that in my written 
testimony.
    Mr. Clyde. All right.
    Ms. Norton. [Presiding.] The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Clyde. I disagree with that statement.
    Ms. Norton. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 
Krishnamoorthi, is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Okafor, I have a social media post from your Facebook 
Instagram account. The image says you posted it on June 16, 
2020. Here we have the seal of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
Firearms and Explosions and next to it you said, quote, ``We 
said what we said. #GunOwnersofAmerica #AbolishtheATF.''
    That is what your post says, correct?
    Ms. Okafor. Correct.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Then underneath this ATF seal your post 
says in big letters, Defund, correct?
    Ms. Okafor. Correct.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Defund the ATF. So just to be clear, 
you say defund the ATF and then abolish the ATF. On July 4th, 
in Highland Park, Illinois, just very close to my district in 
the Chicago suburbs, the shooter shot and killed seven and 
injured 30 with an AR style rifle--AR-15 style rifle.
    The shooter fled the scene. But despite this, he was 
identified and caught because ATF agents were able to quickly 
trace a weapon he left at the scene back to him using the ATF 
national tracing center.
    Yet, ma'am, you want to abolish this agency. You want to 
abolish this national trade tracing center. That is an extreme 
and radical viewpoint. Unfortunately, some folks on the other 
side have introduced the extremist bill, quote, Eliminate the 
ATF Act.
    I, respectfully, submit we should help keep our law 
enforcement intact. We should help keep our communities safe 
and we should be investing in the ATF and law enforcement, not 
defunding and abolishing it as you would suggest, ma'am.
    Mr. Daniel, I want to turn your attention to a tweet on 
your account. This tweet says--it is actually from March 2d 
depicting the Delta 5 Pro Precision rifle. Your post reads, 
quote, ``Rooftop ready even at midnight.'' Then a smiley face 
emoji follows that statement.
    Mr. Daniel, this is what your tweet says, correct?
    Mr. Daniel. Yes, that is correct, sir.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. The tweet shows what appears to be a 
night vision gun scope trained on a parked car at street level.
    Mr. Daniel, this tweet is not depicting anyone hunting for 
wildlife, is it?
    Mr. Daniel. No, sir. This----
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And it is not depicting anyone acting 
in self-defense against someone attacking them, correct?
    Mr. Daniel. That remains in the eyes of the viewer, sir.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I don't see anyone attacking somebody 
here.
    Mr. Busse, can you verify that nobody appears to be 
attacking the person who is supposedly operating this AR-15 or 
this sniper rifle, correct?
    Mr. Busse. Yes, sir. That appears to be an ad which in some 
way glorifies the idea of becoming a sniper with that rifle.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Mr. Daniel, this advertisement appears 
to depict premeditated violence or murder from a rooftop. As 
you know the Highland Park shooter in Illinois rained down 
bullets from a rooftop. Eight-year-old Cooper Roberts was 
paralyzed from the waist down when he was shot from a rooftop, 
Mr. Daniel. Two-year-old Aidan McCarthy was orphaned when both 
of his parents were murdered when they were shot from a 
rooftop.
    Sir, this tweet appears to suggest a planned murder, and I 
would respectfully ask authorities and law enforcement to see 
whether this particular advertisement is even legal.
    Mr. Busse, according to various outlets, including the 
Daily Beast, the Sig Sauer Corporation is selling a new weapon 
called the MCX Spear rifle.
    In fact, Mr. Busse, you were recently quoted saying, quote, 
``It will shoot through almost all of the bulletproof vests 
that are worn by law enforcement in the country right now.''
    You stand by that statement, correct, sir?
    Mr. Busse. Sir, the stated purpose for sourcing that rifle 
was to defeat body armor on the field of war. So, I am not 
stating anything that the company advertisement and that the 
sourcing information did not state.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Mr. Daniel, I presume you don't want 
your weapons to be used to harm law enforcement. Will you 
commit that you will not sell a weapon that tears through 
bulletproof vests?
    Mr. Daniel. Congressman, we sell the very best products 
made for self-defense in the world and millions of----
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. So, you are not answering the 
questions. It is yes or no question.
    Mr. Killoy, same to you. I presume you won't sell a weapon 
that tears through bulletproof vests, will you?
    Mr. Killoy. Congressman, with all due respect, the ability 
to pierce body armor typically relates to the ammunition, not 
the firearm.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. So, you will not sell that ammunition 
either, will you?
    Mr. Killoy. Congressman, we do not sell ammunition. We sell 
firearms. We sell in a variety of calibers. But we do not 
currently sell ammunition.
    Ms. Norton. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Donalds, is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    First and foremost, obviously, in the committee room today, 
we have family members from Highland Park and from Uvalde.
    You know, for what you guys have had to go through, loss of 
your loved ones, is a tragedy, obviously, for you but for all 
of us because nobody wants to see these heinous acts occur. 
Like, everybody is truly grieved by it.
    I think that for the families who are here and for even the 
families who might be watching this hearing, you might be 
concerned about what happens here in Congress and not 
understanding why the tragedy that has been, you know, 
inflicted upon you is part of a debate or a part of a back and 
forth between Members of Congress.
    I think it is important for not just the families but for 
the American people to understand that when these tragedies 
occur, we grieve with you.
    But we also have the responsibility for governing the 
Nation. We do not have the ability--we do not have the ability, 
although sometimes in previous Congresses that ability has been 
taken, but in my view, we do not have the ability to just 
simply pass laws because of tragedy or because of heartache.
    When we pass laws, the appropriate way to conduct ourselves 
as a legislative body is to understand what has happened in our 
country but then still having to apply the Constitution, still 
having to understand and apply the various elements of natural 
law, and so having apply a consistent fabric that all Americans 
can live under and can honor and can respect.
    These tragedies are crippling to see. But in and of 
themselves, those tragedies do not change the Second Amendment 
to the United States.
    I had a conversation in the hallway with one of the 
survivors of the Highland Park shooting and, in our 
conversation, what was mentioned was well, what about amending 
the Constitution.
    I would add to any one of my colleagues that if they wanted 
to go through the political and legislative process of amending 
the Constitution, that is the way we set policy and law from a 
governing standpoint in the United States.
    So, I just wanted--I think was important to kind of make 
that out because we are going back and forth between ads and 
gun specifications. But for the people here in this hearing it 
is important to understand why these deliberations are 
happening in front of you and for the people who are watching 
on C-SPAN or wherever understand why these deliberations occur 
because we just can't, in my view, just pass something and just 
do something for the sake of doing something.
    Because the history of Congress is replete with Congress 
doing something and often doing it wrong, and then ignoring 
what they did wrong because you already got the ticker tape 
parade.
    Mr. Busse, a quick question for you. You have referred 
several times in your testimony today that the weapons that we 
are talking about under a proposed assault weapons ban are, 
quote/unquote, ``weapons of war,'' and I am paraphrasing your 
comments.
    Are these weapons--the ones that are sold, the ones that 
are manufactured by the companies here today and other 
companies that are not with us--are these the same weapons that 
are used by men and women of the United States military?
    Mr. Busse. With very, very minor differences, yes, they 
are, and in some cases, they are superior to the guns that we 
are supplying to our soldiers.
    Mr. Donalds. Can you stipulate the differences between the 
guns that are used by members of our military versus what are 
sold by retailers?
    Mr. Busse. That would be an awful long list. But I think 
what you are getting at is whether the--many of the guns 
supplied to the military have a selective fire switch, which 
means they can fire in three round bursts, are fully auto, 
versus semi-automatic.
    Mr. Donalds. Mr. Busse, so what our men and women in the 
military have are three-round bursts and fully automatic? Is 
that available for sale in retail in the United States of 
America to citizens?
    Mr. Busse. Not generally, no. But there are many--there are 
many firearms instructors who now advocate that single fire as 
in semi-auto fire is more effective and more deadly than three-
round bursts for fully auto.
    Mr. Donalds. Advocating versus what is actually allowed on 
a firearm. Those are two different things. Wouldn't you agree, 
Mr. Busse?
    Mr. Busse. Excuse me, sir. I don't understand your 
question.
    Mr. Donalds. You advocate--if your position is that semi-
automatic firing is somehow better than fully automatic three-
round bursts, those are different--those are different 
distinctions. Isn't that true?
    Mr. Busse. I didn't make that designation. But there are 
many firearms instructors, including military firearms 
instructors, who now advocate for single shot semi-auto.
    Mr. Donalds. Ms. Okafor, the weapons that are used by the 
United States military, are they superior in, frankly, stopping 
power and ability to repel forces in a military theater than 
what is sold on the open market today to Americans.
    Mr. Busse. No, sir. I don't believe so.
    Mr. Donalds. But I am talking to Ms. Okafor. Sorry.
    Mr. Busse. Sorry.
    Ms. Okafor. I am sorry. Can you repeat that?
    Mr. Donalds. All right. I am a little over but I thank the 
chair for her indulgence.
    The weapons that are sold by retailers today that are the 
subject of this day's hearing are they similar in stopping 
power and effectiveness than what is used by members of the 
United States military, even though they have the same look?
    Ms. Okafor. An M-16 or M-4 or an AR 15 are different, in 
fact--in the fact that you are able to have this--the bursts or 
three-round bursts or the fully automatic option that is 
readily available to military versus having to have a Class 3 
license that a civilian has to have and obtain in order to have 
a firearm with that capacity.
    Ms. Norton. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Raskin, is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Daniel, you said that the suffering of the children in 
Uvalde and other victims of the AR-15 was, quote, 
``unfathomable'' to you.
    Does this mean that you do not understand the impact of AR-
15s on human flesh and the human body?
    Mr. Daniel. Congressman, the--what I was referring to is 
the horrible, horrible situation that these people had to 
endure and----
    Mr. Raskin. Do we understand the impact on the human flesh 
of your product?
    Mr. Daniel. Yes, sir. Every firearm is capable of killing a 
human.
    Mr. Raskin. OK. Reclaiming my time. In his important 
testimony today, Mr. Busse referenced the bloody violence that 
we experienced on January 6, 2021, something not mentioned by 
our colleagues who continue to think it was a tourist visit and 
are, clearly, soft on criminal insurrection and soft on 
criminal violence against our police officers.
    Americans killing Americans--that is a good description of 
what is taking place with gun violence today. But on January 
6th, we experienced the worst domestic insurrection against our 
government since the Civil War. More than 150 officers were 
wounded and injured, and several people were left dead in the 
rampage.
    The rioters shut down the counting of electoral votes and 
drove the House and the Senate out of our chambers. And 
although there was a huge arsenal of pistols, rifles, AR-15s, 
and other firearms brought to the area by the insurrectionists 
on January 6th, the email and text traffic of the extremist 
groups reveals that many of them decided to temporarily leave 
their firearms in specific sites outside of D.C. because of the 
District's stringent gun laws until they thought that firearms 
would be necessary.
    Now, amazingly, in the wake of this savage insurrectionary 
attack against our government, the NRA and its followers in 
Congress continue to propound the idea that the Constitution, 
specifically the Second Amendment, gives people the right to 
violently attack and overthrow the government of the United 
States.
    This so-called insurrectionary theory of the Second 
Amendment maintains that its purpose is to allow citizens to 
wage armed resistance if they think the government is being 
unfair or unjust.
    The reading is absurd and flies in the face of the plain 
text of the Constitution, which in at least seven different 
places that I count clearly forbids and punishes armed 
resistance against the U.S. Government.
    A few examples. The republican guarantee clause--Article 
Four Section Four provides the U.S. shall guarantee that every 
state in this union a republican form of government and shall 
protect each of them against invasion and against domestic 
violence.
    This was written into the Constitution specifically in 
response to Shays' Rebellion, an armed resistance to the 
government which the Founders strongly condemned.
    The treason clause--Article Three Section Three Clause One 
states treason against the United States will consist only in 
levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies.
    What is violent insurrection against the government if not 
levying war against the United States?
    Section Three of the 14th Amendment says anyone who has 
sworn an oath under the Constitution to defend it and support 
it betrays it by engaging in insurrection and shall never be 
allowed to hold Federal or state office again.
    One more example. Article One Section Eight Clause Fifteen 
says Congress shall have the power to provide for calling forth 
the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress 
insurrections, and repel invasions.
    Now, do our colleagues really believe that the Constitution 
explicitly and repeatedly gives the government the power to 
suppress violent insurrections but the Second Amendment in 
invisible ink gives the people the right to engage in violent 
insurrections?
    This is absurd and outlandish, and when I pointed it out 
the only substantive response I have gotten from my colleagues 
is a quotation from Patrick Henry, an anti-Federalist, who 
strongly opposed the Constitution precisely because he thought 
it gave the government way too much power and the people not 
enough to rebel against the government.
    When I pointed this out, my friend, Mr. Roy of Texas, who 
is by far the most articulate and able defender of this 
doctrine, concedes that I am right about the Constitution but 
shifts over to talk about the Declaration of Independence, 
which I cheerfully concede is a revolutionary document and 
which explained why after a long train of abuses and 
usurpations by the Crown and Parliament we needed to dissolve 
the political bands of union with England.
    But that is the whole point. We are governed by the 
Constitution, which is positive law, and nowhere does it grant 
a right of insurrection. It opposes it at every term.
    As a matter not of constitutional law but natural law, 
people can decide to overthrow their government, but you do 
that on your own time at your own risk. The Constitution does 
not give you the right to destroy the Constitution and the 
government.
    Another way to understand this point is to think about 
nonviolent civil disobedience. Even nonviolent civil 
disobedience is not protected by our Constitution.
    Dr. King and SNCC, those people went to jail because they 
believed in civil rights and were willing to pay the cost. They 
never claimed that the Constitution gives people the right to 
break the law, much less take up arms against the government.
    So, the facts are very clear. The Second Amendment does not 
give you the right to engage in insurrection. They should stop 
saying that, and Justice Scalia was extremely clear in the 
Heller decision that that the Second Amendment does not give an 
unlimited right to carry whatever guns you want wherever you 
want.
    I yield back to you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Norton. The gentleman's time has--the gentleman is over 
time.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan. You 
are recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I will tell you what we believe. We believe the right to 
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, period, particularly 
arms--as the U.S. Supreme Court has said, particularly arms 
that are in common use.
    Ms. Okafor, are handguns in common use?
    Ms. Okafor. They are, Congressman.
    Mr. Jordan. How about AR-15s? Are they in common use in the 
country today?
    Ms. Okafor. Yes, 24.6 million.
    Mr. Jordan. Millions of people have them. Are firearms used 
in self-defense, Ms. Okafor?
    Ms. Okafor. Yes, 1.6 million every year.
    Mr. Jordan. Unfortunately, it is probably more and more 
common in light of the Democrats' ridiculous policies of 
defunding the police and no cash bail, not prosecuting 
criminals when they do crime, letting people who attack a 
United States Congressman running for Governor, letting him out 
on bail in the state of New York.
    That probably, unfortunately, leads to the idea that people 
need guns to protect themselves, their family, their property, 
right?
    Ms. Okafor. Right. It is the human right, again, guaranteed 
by the Constitution.
    Mr. Jordan. Are AR-15s used in self-defense?
    Ms. Okafor. Yes. I actually describe them in my testimony.
    Mr. Jordan. You train--you train women to protect 
themselves and you--it is something you know about firsthand. 
So, you actually are out there working with women across the 
country. You are helping train them, so they are ready if some 
person wants to attack them, why they need a firearm to protect 
themselves. Is that right?
    Ms. Okafor. Absolutely, yes.
    Mr. Jordan. And AR-15s are used to defend others from 
criminals, right? That is part of your training, what you are 
helping people understand?
    Ms. Okafor. Yes.
    Mr. Jordan. Mr. Daniel, is it fairly common that AR-15s, 
your product, are used to protect innocent people from criminal 
attackers?
    Mr. Daniel. Yes, sir. As Mr. Okafor stated, millions of 
times, hundreds of thousands or up to millions of times a year, 
firearms are used for self-defense.
    Mr. Jordan. Including the one you make, right?
    Mr. Daniel. Including AR-15s. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Jordan. And that is becoming more and more popular with 
people when they are thinking about defending themselves, their 
family, and their property to use your--the firearm you 
manufacture. Is that right?
    Mr. Daniel. That is correct, sir.
    Mr. Jordan. The Democrats--we should just cut to the chase 
here. The Democrats' beef is with the Second Amendment. They 
don't like the Second Amendment.
    They want to get rid of the Second Amendment, but they 
can't because in the Constitution the American people like the 
fact that we have the right to keep and bear arms to protect 
ourselves, our family, our property. They like that fact, and 
it is a cumbersome process to amend and change the 
Constitution.
    So, they can't do that. They are going to say, so we are 
going to ban certain type of weapons. We are going to call them 
assault weapons. We are going to try to ban them. Or they are 
going to come after gun manufacturers and try to sue them, a 
piece of legislation that passed out of--unfortunately, passed 
out the Judiciary Committee last week.
    That is their course of action because their beef is with 
the Second Amendment. They can't change that so they are going 
to go around it and they go after gun manufacturers with this 
bill sponsored by our colleague--Democrat colleague to allow 
gun manufacturers to be sued for the actions of heinous evil 
people who use firearms in the wrong way and in a disruptive 
way.
    Isn't that right, Ms. Okafor?
    Ms. Okafor. That is correct, and I would like to say and 
that is why I said vocally and GOA concurs that abolishing the 
ATF is precisely that because it is unconstitutional but 
especially the fact of the matter is that they use that as a 
bureaucratic way to go around an elected body to be able to put 
restrictions on firearms, and so that is why ATF should not 
exist.
    Mr. Jordan. Their beef with the Second Amendment, though, 
is not limited to going after gun manufacturers and allowing 
them to be sued. It is not limited to banning certain weapons 
that they want to define as assault weapons or whatever else 
they want to try to ban.
    It is not limited to their ridiculous red flag concept, 
bribing states. It is also what they did through the 
bureaucracy through Treasury with Operation Choke Point where 
they tried to choke off the financing of gun manufacturers as a 
way to get at the Second Amendment because they know they can't 
do it--they can't change it via the Constitution like you are 
supposed to if you are going to try to do that.
    Is that accurate, Ms. Okafor?
    Ms. Okafor. That is correct.
    Mr. Jordan. All right. Madam Chair, this is--look, I hope 
this effort goes nowhere. Looks like--at least if you believe 
the press today, looks like the Democrats aren't going to bring 
up the assault weapons ban on the floor this week.
    That is a win for liberty. That is a win for the Second 
Amendment. Not going to bring up the--looks like they are not 
going to bring up to bill that Mr. Schiff is sponsoring, which 
would allow gun manufacturers to be sued in a ridiculous way.
    So those are, hopefully, some wins for the American people 
and a win for the Constitution.
    With that, I yield back.
    Ms. Norton. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from California, Mr. Khanna, is recognized 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Khanna. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Daniel, I just have some factual questions.
    In 2005, what was Daniel Defense's total sales revenue that 
came from the sale of assault weapons?
    Mr. Daniel. I don't know, sir. We gave that information to 
the committee. I just don't know that off the top of my head.
    Mr. Khanna. Do you have a sense of about what percent it 
was, the revenue from assault weapons?
    Mr. Daniel. No, sir.
    Mr. Khanna. Do you know what percentage of Daniel Defense's 
sales revenues and profits came from assault weapons in 2020?
    Mr. Daniel. Sir, would you describe an assault weapon asked 
in your question?
    Mr. Khanna. Well, the assault weapon is the term--the 
industry actually created the term, which means semi-automatic 
weapons based on military designs and features. It is a term 
that actually the industry coined in 1980.
    Based on that, do you have a sense of what the sales 
revenue and profits were in 2020?
    Mr. Daniel. Sir, I disagree with your characterization of 
the type of firearm. Assault weapons are fully automatic 
weapons used in war and the weapons we sell to consumers----
    Mr. Khanna. OK. In the way I am defining it, do you have a 
sense of how much the sales revenue was?
    Mr. Daniel. Sir, we are a rifle company that sells semi-
automatic rifles. So, most of our business is in semi-automatic 
rifles. Is that----
    Mr. Khanna. And how much--the AR-15s, what percentage of 
your revenue that comes from that?
    Mr. Daniel. I don't know exactly, sir.
    Mr. Khanna. But approximately.
    Mr. Daniel. Most of our--we sell semi-automatic rifles and 
bolt action rifles. Most of our----
    Mr. Khanna. How do you not know that? I mean, is it 10 
percent? Is it 20 percent? Is it a 50 percent? I mean, 
certainly, you would know how much, basically, revenue you are 
making of something.
    Mr. Daniel. Are you asking about revenue or percentage of 
revenue?
    Mr. Khanna. The percentage of revenue of AR-15s. How much 
is it? It is a factual question. You could say about 10 
percent, about 50 percent, about 90 percent.
    Mr. Daniel. I would say probably 80 percent of our sales. 
My----
    Mr. Khanna. Eighty percent comes from that, and about--in 
2005 do you know about how much revenue was from AR-15s or 
similar type rifles?
    Mr. Daniel. No, sir. I don't have that information in front 
of me.
    Mr. Khanna. All right. Would you guess it was about 10 
percent? Twenty percent? Fifty percent?
    Mr. Daniel. 2005, sir, we were a--we didn't sell AR-15s in 
2005, sir.
    Mr. Khanna. All right. So the--or any similar weapons you 
didn't, right? That is because there was the assault weapons 
ban; and I just want to be clear, you are saying 80 percent of 
your revenue now comes from AR-15s.
    In 2005--I would like you to submit to this committee year 
by year a statistic of how much money you are making of AR-15s 
or assault weapons, or if you don't agree with my definition of 
semi-automatic weapons like AR-15s that have military designs 
and features, which was the industry definition.
    But I would like you to submit that to this committee from 
2005 onward. I am a bit perplexed that you do not know how much 
revenue you are making on the sales of these weapons. I mean, 
80 percent is a lot, and I am surprised you do not know how it 
is tracked. I mean, I think your shareholders may be surprised 
by that.
    Mr. Killoy----
    Mr. Clyde. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Khanna. No. Not right now. I mean, is it for a 
question?
    Mr. Clyde. Yes, for a question.
    Mr. Khanna. Let me just finish this on my time.
    Mr. Clyde. No. I have a question for you. You just asked 
a----
    Mr. Khanna. Is my time being counted?
    Ms. Norton. This the gentleman's time.
    Mr. Khanna. I am happy, after my time has expired, to 
entertain a question. I do not want my time to be interrupted.
    Mr. Killoy, in response to Sturm, Ruger, more than two-
thirds of your shareholders have called on your company to 
produce a human rights assessment of the products you 
manufacture. When, Mr. Killoy, will this report be complete?
    Mr. Killoy. Congressman, actually less than 50 percent of 
our shareholders actually voted for that proposal. However, it 
did pass our most recent annual meeting. We plan to consider 
that in due course at the next upcoming Ruger board meeting. 
However, I would remind the committee that that was an advisory 
vote.
    Mr. Khanna. Let me just say this. Do you currently track 
crimes committed by the products that you sell?
    Mr. Killoy. No, sir, we do not.
    Mr. Khanna. Would you commit to tracking that as part of 
this report, the human rights assessment, that you are now 
required to do?
    Mr. Killoy. Congressman, respectfully that is not our job. 
We are not law enforcement. We do not have the resources, 
training, or capabilities----
    Mr. Khanna. Well, respectfully, the board----
    Mr. Killoy [continuing]. To do anything other than 
monitor----
    Mr. Khanna [continuing]. The board wants you to do a human 
rights assessment of the products you manufacture. I would 
assume that the first thing you would want to know is how many 
people were injured or killed based on those products, to do 
that assessment, and you are saying you would not do that?
    Mr. Killoy. Sir, it was actually a shareholder vote, the 
board of which I am one of nine members. We will consider that 
and consider how we go forward on doing that. But frankly, we 
do not violate human rights, and to say we do is just not 
correct.
    Mr. Khanna. I am just saying what your shareholders----
    Ms. Norton. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Keller, is recognized 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Keller. Thank you, Chairwoman and Ranking Member Comer 
and our witnesses for being here today.
    The Second Amendment protects Americans' constitutional 
right to keep and bear arms, and as a gun owner myself I have 
immense respect for the responsibility that comes with owning 
and operating a firearm.
    Ms. Okafor, as an instructor, can you please explain to us, 
walk us through some of the best practices you teach regarding 
firearm storage and safety?
    Ms. Okafor. Of course, depending on what type of firearm 
and general overall when it comes to storage, it is usually 
based on what is best, of course, for that person and their 
home. Also, if they are going to be taking it on their person 
outside of the home or keeping it in their home. But usually it 
is, of course, to keep it in a safe place, a place that is 
readily accessible to them and those who are able to use it 
safely, and in storage to make sure that it is something that 
is not in plain sight to anybody who is not able to use a 
firearm in a safe manner.
    Mr. Keller. Basically, the responsibility that comes with 
the right of owning a firearm.
    Ms. Okafor. Absolutely. It comes down, at the end of the 
day, to the individual, the family members, to make sure that 
those who are in the home are able to properly use a firearm in 
a safe manner. I am a mother of two children, and when they are 
of age, as early as they can, I am going to make sure that they 
know how to properly use and store firearms. That is the 
responsibility of any firearm instructor and owner.
    Mr. Keller. Thank you. There were almost 40 million 
background checks performed last year, yet some criminals seem 
to still go under the radar. What rules and regulations are in 
place for those who lawfully possess and use firearms?
    Ms. Okafor. The rules and regulations go from safety, of 
course, of making sure that they know the four safety rules of 
making sure they know their target and what is behind it, they 
know that any firearm should be seen as loaded. There are 
several different safety measures that any instructor is going 
to impart upon their person that they are working with. When it 
comes down to it, though, it comes down to their home and their 
environment and what is best for their environment, to make 
sure, again, that they are able to defend themselves in their 
home in a quick manner.
    Mr. Keller. Yes. Do you think stricter laws on firearm 
manufacturers would actually curb violent crime?
    Ms. Okafor. No. I mean, right now we already have strict 
laws on guns manufacturers. The fact that, again, the ATF has 
already rules of the FFL, for example, the fact that that, 
again, the typical person, it is very, very expensive to even 
acquire any time of fully automatic firearm to begin with 
because of the Hughes Amendment, the 1986 amendment that kept 
it very, very hard for most people of any type of lower to 
middle-class socioeconomic status to be able to achieve to have 
a firearm in that sense. When it comes down to it, most people 
cannot afford most AR-15s because of the prices that are behind 
it.
    So, when it comes down to it, ATF and the FFL laws that go 
with the ATF have put many restrictions already on gun 
manufacturers as it is.
    Mr. Keller. It was already mentioned about, you know, the 
estimation of how many guns are used in self-defense. You know, 
the CDC ordered a study, and it estimated, you know, 500,000, 3 
million times a year in self-defense. So how would additional 
rules and regulations impact Americans' ability to protect 
themselves, especially women and people in communities of high 
crime?
    Ms. Okafor. The additional gun restrictions have already 
shown to restrict those, particularly those of a lower 
socioeconomic status. Right now, we are referring to this ``Buy 
Now, Pay Later.'' The thing is that really what it is going 
down to is that you are making it harder or you are putting a 
financial barrier on those whose only, quote unquote ``crime'' 
is that they unfortunately do not have the means of paying for 
something which is their fundamental right to exercise as the 
Second Amendment. So that is unfortunately what we are seeing 
when we see these gun restrictions. We are seeing it really 
keep people who should be able to protect themselves and their 
families from being able to do so because of financial 
barriers.
    Mr. Keller. Yes, thank you. It is time for Democrats to 
stop villainizing law-abiding citizens for exercising their 
constitutionally protected rights and instead focus on 
enforcing current law by supporting law enforcement and full 
prosecution of violent individuals and criminals.
    As President Reagan once said, ``We must reject the idea 
that every time a law is broken society is guilty rather than 
the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that 
each individual is accountable for his actions.''
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Ms. Norton. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Porter, is recognized 
for five minutes.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you. Other industries take seriously 
their responsibility to manufacture products that protect 
consumers. With firearms this responsibility is a matter of 
life and death. One study found that nearly 40 percent of 
accidental gun deaths could be prevented with technology that 
prevents non-authorized users from firing guns, and these ideas 
are not new. This study was published nearly 20 years ago. Yet 
technology like fingerprint scanners or bracelets with radio 
frequency identifiers are nowhere near the standard for 
firearms.
    Mr. Killoy, how many of your firearms come equipped with 
fingerprint scanning mechanisms?
    Mr. Killoy. Congresswoman, none of them currently come 
equipped with such a device.
    Ms. Porter. None. Mr. Daniel, how about Daniel Defense? How 
many of your weapons come equipped with fingerprint identity 
scanners?
    Mr. Daniel. Congresswoman, we do not sell any time of 
firearm this way. Our customers have not asked for such.
    Ms. Porter. OK. So that is a no.
    This is my cellphone. Mr. Killoy, it scans my fingerprint 
each time I go to unlock it. Is this a weapon?
    Mr. Killoy. No, ma'am.
    Ms. Porter. Can this fire bullets that shred people's vital 
organs? This phone?
    Mr. Killoy. No, Congresswoman, it can't.
    Ms. Porter. They why should this device require more steps 
to operate than your company's firearms, which have been used 
in accidental shootings, mass shootings, and homicides?
    Mr. Killoy. Congresswoman, respectfully, your cellphone 
does not generate internal pressures of upwards of 60,000 
pounds per square inch. The operating system of a firearm is 
extremely dynamic, extreme high pressures, lots of moving 
pieces, and first and foremost, a firearm, especially one used 
for self-defense, needs to function reliably as----
    Ms. Porter. Reclaiming my time. These fingerprint scanners 
are offered in some firearms. Some manufacturers sell this, and 
they work. Your company and Mr. Daniel's company chooses not 
to.
    Let me demonstrate again how long this takes. It is 
instant. It is instant when I pick up my phone.
    Certain safety features, other safety features like 
chamber-loaded indicators or magazine disconnects are required 
for any gun sold in my home state of California. A magazine 
disconnect prevents a gun from firing if the magazine is not 
attached. My kids' Nerf guns have this safety feature. This 
decades-old safety feature prevents guns from shooting bullets 
that remain in the chamber after a magazine has been removed.
    Mr. Killoy, do all Ruger rifles that have magazines come 
equipped with magazine disconnects?
    Mr. Killoy. Congresswoman, magazine disconnects typically 
are a feature offered on a handgun, a pistol, in particular. In 
fact----
    Ms. Porter. Do all your handguns or pistols have magazine 
disconnects, sir?
    Mr. Killoy. Some do and some do not.
    Ms. Porter. OK. So, some do and some do not.
    Mr. Ruger, do your guns have magazine disconnects? Sorry, 
Mr. Daniel. Do your handguns have magazine disconnects?
    Mr. Daniel. Ma'am, we do not sell handguns.
    Ms. Porter. And your large-capacity guns do not have that 
feature either?
    Mr. Daniel. Our rifles do not have that feature. No, ma'am.
    Ms. Porter. Magazine disconnects are also not new. These 
features come standard in every gun that is sold in my home 
state, and those features prevent accidental deaths. In 2020, 
149 children died in incidents when the person did not intend 
to fire the gun.
    Mr. Killoy and Mr. Daniel, kids are dying because you 
refuse to implement these safety technologies, like fingerprint 
scanners and magazine disconnects, and these technologies were 
studied and developed decades ago. Mr. Killoy, will you company 
commit to adding fingerprint scanners to every firearm Ruger 
manufactures?
    Mr. Killoy. No, Congresswoman, we will not.
    Ms. Porter. Mr. Daniel, same question. Will your company 
commit to adding fingerprint scanners to every Daniel defense 
firearm?
    Mr. Daniel. Congressman, our guns fire when there is a 
bullet in the chamber, and it doesn't fire when there is not a 
bullet in the chamber. If it does want to be fired, if the 
owner does not want to fire it, they should not keep a round in 
the chamber.
    Ms. Porter. But the question is, will you commit to adding 
fingerprint scanners as a safety technology to every Daniel 
Defense firearm? Yes or no.
    Mr. Daniel. No, ma'am. Our customers are not interested in 
that.
    Ms. Porter. Mr. Killoy, will your company commit to adding 
magazine disconnects to every magazine-loaded Ruger firearm?
    Mr. Killoy. Congresswoman, we have, in many of our pistols, 
our semiautomatic pistols, we offer that as a feature, and if 
our customers choose to buy one of our firearms that has a 
magazine safety disconnect, they can. Other times they choose 
not to have that particular feature.
    Ms. Norton. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Biggs, is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Madam Chair. This hearing is yet 
another transparent attempt to malign law-abiding Americans and 
American companies. My Democratic colleagues correctly note 
that there has been an increase in violent crime in this 
country over the past three years, but incorrectly claim that 
firearm manufacturers are contributing to or fueling violent 
crime. The laws of supply and demand apply to the firearms 
market in the same way that they apply to other markets.
    Firearm manufacturers are responding to demand from the 
American people who are experiencing dramatic increases in 
homicides and aggravated assaults in their communities, 
Americans who are seeking to protect themselves and their 
families, a right recognized in this country by our Second 
Amendment. Democrats in Congress continue to infringe on this 
right and to shame law-abiding companies who ensure that 
Americans have the means to protect themselves.
    I thank each of you for your testimony today. Ms. Okafor, 
thank you for the work that you do to promote safe and 
responsible firearm ownership. I appreciate your discussion of 
the relative merits of the AR platform.
    I discussed, in the Judiciary markup last week on this 
topic, which was interesting because these chairs of these two 
committees are running against each other so we have 
competing--we just do the same hearings back and forth. But I 
mentioned that my wife actually prefers the AR-15 because it is 
easier to handle. It is more stable for her, and in a case of 
defense and the need for stability to be able to respond under 
a stressful situation, she would be more comfortable with an 
AR-15.
    The features of the AR-15 make it an incredibly viable 
weapon for defense. In your written testimony, Ms. Okafor, you 
discussed some of the recent trends in new firearm ownership, 
and before I ask you to discuss those with us, I will tell you 
that I talked to multiple gun dealers, retailers, in my 
district who tell me that the No. 1 new owner trend in my 
district are women who are Democrats, which I find interesting.
    Ms. Okafor, can you discuss the trends with us, please.
    Ms. Okafor. Absolutely. What I discussed earlier is that 
the fastest-growing demographic of gun owners are African 
American women, and we have also seen, like as you said, the 
fact that a lot of African American women tend to be part of 
the Democratic Party. So, it is honestly nothing to do with 
politics when it comes down to transcending politics, because 
this is a human right. This has nothing to do with you being a 
Republican or a Democrat or a Libertarian. It has to do with 
the fact that you understand your right to defend yourself and 
you want to be able to do so. So many people in America are 
doing just that.
    Mr. Biggs. And you kind of discussed it, but what are you 
hearing is the rationale for these new demographics who are 
coming out and buying guns?
    Ms. Okafor. Particularly for women, in general, what I have 
found many times, particularly other mothers, saying that they 
know that at the end of the day it comes down to them to defend 
themselves, to defend their children, particularly during the 
pandemic when, unfortunately, there were many instances where 
people were not sure they were going to have a police officer 
or a police department get to them in time because of what was 
going on. So many people, including what was going on during 
that chaotic two years, found it necessary to then purchase a 
firearm, particularly for self-defense.
    Mr. Biggs. Mr. Daniel and Mr. Smith, what is your 
understanding about the motivations of Americans who are 
purchasing a firearm for the first time? Mr. Daniel, you are 
first.
    Mr. Daniel. Congressman, I believe that people are buying, 
new gun owners who have never owned a gun before, are buying 
firearms by the millions because they are afraid. They are 
afraid because of the violence they see in the riots, they are 
afraid because criminals are not being prosecuted, and they are 
afraid because of the rising crime that they see. And they are 
making a life decision to change from being a non-gun owner to 
a gun owner, and I suspect, sir, that they will also be making 
the decision, a life-changing decision, in the way they vote.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Killoy. Congressman, I agree with what we have heard 
from Ms. Okafor and Mr. Daniel. We are seeing a much greater 
increase of people purchasing firearms, particularly their 
first firearm, for the purpose of defending their homes and 
their person. Again, we saw that increase from the beginning of 
2020 on, as it related to things going on in our communities 
and our society--the COVID pandemic, defund the police 
movement, and civil unrest, as well as the fact that we are 
entering an election cycle where the Second Amendment was on 
the ballot and a lot of people felt that was also a critical 
factor in a decision to purchase a firearm.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you. Madam Chair, before you take my time 
away, I do have an article I would like to submit into the 
record.
    Ms. Norton. So ordered.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
    Ms. Norton. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentlewoman from Michigan, Ms. Tlaib, is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Busse, why are Americans afraid?
    Mr. Busse. I think that is a complex question. They are 
afraid for many reasons. We have had much societal turmoil in 
the last 5 1/2, 6 years, for sure.
    Ms. Tlaib. Yes. Well, let's get to this. You know, gun 
manufacturers have sought to boost their sales by promoting 
their ties to the military and law enforcement. Smith & Wesson 
referred to this as, quote, ``halo effect.'' In a 2016 earnings 
call with their investors, the CEO at the time said, and I 
quote, ``It certainly gives your product a lot of credibility 
if it is used, adapted, and well regarded by that professional 
community because the consumer does pay attention to that.''
    You know, Ms. Sampson, could you explain what the so-called 
halo effect, you know, how it is and how deceptive it is?
    Ms. Sampson. Yes. Thank you for the question. The halo 
effect is basically when the company, Smith & Wesson in this 
case, puts itself under the proverbial halo of the military, 
because they are so esteemed in society, and basically says if 
you want to have the firepower that they have you should get 
our weapon. In the case of Smith & Wesson it was especially 
absurd for them to do that because they do not actually supply 
the military at all.
    Ms. Tlaib. That is right. Yes. You know, Mr. Daniel, the 
committee obtained advertisements by your company, used to sell 
your weapons, which include images of individuals in fully 
geared military, tactical gear, body armor and your rifle. Are 
those advertisements intended to increase sales to armed forces 
or law enforcement? Yes or no?
    Mr. Daniel. Yes.
    Ms. Tlaib. Yes or no?
    Mr. Daniel. Yes is the answer.
    Ms. Tlaib. Yes. No, you know, the answer is no. These 
weapons are intended to be sold to civilians. So, the 
advertisement inherently would not target anyone other than 
civilians, just like the killer in Uvalde.
    Another one of the gun manufacturers this committee has 
also investigated, Sig Sauer, often employed these tactics as 
well, and I would like to put one of their ads on the screen if 
I may.
    Do you all see this? This is an ad for Sig Sauer MCX 
assault rifle. It depicts troops in combat zone with modified 
assault weapons, including one with a grenade launcher. The 
text of the ad emphasizes the rifle's, quote, ``modularity'' or 
makes it, quote, ``ready for every possible mission'' and a 
not-so-subtle reference to their military style and use.
    These are not pictures and themes that suggest that the 
assault rifle is to be used for hunting or sport shooting. Mr. 
Busse, how is this kind of imagery and rhetoric dangerous when 
the primary advertising target is civilians with little, if 
any, military firearms training?
    Mr. Busse. Well, these are very serious weapons, and it is 
a very common practice now in the firearms industry--it did not 
used to be--but it is a very common firearms industry marketing 
practice now to market to or using special operators or trained 
military officers or military weaponry, but focus the marketing 
at consumers, because that is where the larger and profitable 
marketing segment is.
    Ms. Tlaib. You know, Sig Sauer sold the AR-15 style rifle 
used by the mass shooter to kill 49 people in Pulse nightclub 
in Orlando, Florida, in 2016. Three of those weapons were used 
by a shooter in Las Vegas, Nevada, in 2017, to kill 60 people. 
The company recently, literally, are selling the version of its 
new rifle, that they have contracted out, their M-14 or 
whatever, for the U.S. Army, they are selling the same 
configuration, that is near match to what American soldiers 
will be using in battle.
    We should not be surprised when young men purchase these 
weapons to be more like soldiers in the picture, and we should 
not be surprised when they try to act like them either. These 
dangerous ads must stop, yet they are breeding domestic 
extremists and putting communities of color, communities that 
are incredibly vulnerable, especially our children in our 
schools, and minority groups at grave risk.
    So, it is incredibly important that we call this out what 
it is. They are targeting folks to basically target the most 
vulnerable by selling it that way. This imagery is not toward 
soldiers. They are to the lay people, civilians. They are 
advertising it in a way, again, that depicts it to endanger 
people's lives.
    So, it is incredibly, again, important that we understand 
this is intentional. The halo effect is real, and it is profit 
driven, and lives are lost because again, they do not care who 
dies. They care how many guns they are selling to people, and 
the more people they can show, that you can be like law 
enforcement and soldiers that have been trained in military 
battle, then they are going to be able to, again, expose us to 
more deaths and more violence.
    With that I yield, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Norton. The gentlelady has yielded.
    I recognize the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Norman. 
You are recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Norman. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, I think I 
have heard it all. I have heard my good friends, Democrat 
friends, asking why people feel unsafe. It is because of the 
dismantling of the police departments that they feel unsafe. I 
hear my good friends on the other aisle tell manufacturers how 
to build a gun when I do not think they have ever had any 
experience building a gun. I think I have heard my friends on 
the other aisle talking about concerns for civilians.
    What in the world--where is the concern on the 300-per-day 
youths that are dying from fentanyl, because it is coming 
across the border unfettered because of this Administration's 
lack of will to stop an invasion at the border. Where are the 
hearings about the supply shortage, that people cannot unload a 
plane? We put a man on the moon, but we cannot unload a ship. 
You know, what about the 154 cities that have been torn up with 
no repercussions from those who did it? I mean, the list goes 
on and on.
    You know, I keep hearing gun violence. Gun violence. I was 
talking to my good friend, Mr. Clyde, and we both agree that we 
have all had a lot of guns--I have, he has. He has far more 
than me. I have never had a gun get violent with me. Never in 
my life have I had a gun get violent with me, but I have seen 
where people use guns for the wrong reason, just like the Ford 
that went through the Christmas parade that ran over people. It 
is by deranged people. It is by mentally unstable people.
    It is insane some of the things that my Democratic 
colleagues want to do--make the gun manufacturers liable? You 
know, it is unbelievable that you would make the Ford makers of 
automobiles liable for every wreck, or those who get drunk on 
Jack Daniels, make them liable, make the Jack Daniels company 
liable. It does not make sense, but that is just usual with 
what is going on today in this country, and particularly with 
this Administration.
    Mr. Smith, President Biden has said that gun manufacturers 
are completely immune from liability of any kind. Is this a 
correct statement?
    Mr. Killoy. Congressman, I am curious. You directed that to 
me, Chris Killoy, from Ruger?
    Mr. Norman. Yes, sir. You can take it, take the question.
    Mr. Killoy. Yes, sir. You know, we are not immune from 
prosecution. If we make a defective product, you know, 
certainly we are subject to normal product liability, like 
everyone else. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, 
which is typically what we are talking about here, really 
codifies existing common law. You know, in the average time to 
crime that the ATF has recently reported is over seven years 
from when a firearm is first legally sold, on average, if that 
gun is recovered in a crime, and used in a crime, seven years 
time to crime. Again, to try to hold a firearms manufacturer 
liable for that crime or that criminal activity just does not 
make sense. It does not comport with our jurisprudence in this 
country, and I respectfully would suggest that that is not the 
right way to approach this problem.
    Mr. Norman. OK. I heard my Democrat friends asking about 
what kind of profit are you making, what is your company making 
as far as dollars earned every year. Has any municipality ever 
returned the tax dollars that support our public education? Has 
any of the money that your company pays to support our first 
responders ever been returned? Have any of the municipalities 
returned the money that goes for law enforcement?
    Mr. Killoy. No, Congressman, it has not.
    Mr. Norman. So, they take your tax money, yet we have got 
my Democrat colleagues who are basically trying to say that you 
are making obscene profits. You compete with other gun 
companies, don't you? You don't have a monopoly, do you?
    Mr. Killoy. No, sir. We are one of right now about 17,000 
federally licensed firearms manufacturers licenses that have 
been granted.
    Mr. Norman. So, you compete on the open market. It is 
called capitalism; and it is what is the meaning of my 
Democratic colleagues, they are professional politicians, but 
they have never been in the free market. They have never 
experienced making money or losing money; and for politicians 
to tell you how to build a gun, I think I have heard it all. 
But is the most ludicrous, insane question that I can even 
think of.
    But I want to thank you for appearing today. Thank you for 
answering the questions, and to each of you, we are going to 
try not to let them strip the Second Amendment. We are going to 
fight as much as we can to stop that. Thank you so much. I 
yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Brown, is now recognized for 
questions.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you. For years, gun manufacturers have 
operated with little to no oversight and have been shielded 
from accountability by NRA-backed Members of Congress and a 
conservative Supreme Court. Their irresponsible advertising and 
sales practices have flooded communities like mine with weapons 
of war, resulting in loss of life and generational trauma. This 
history mirrors the unchecked greed of pharmaceutical companies 
who are only now facing the consequences of the harm caused by 
their own irresponsible advertising and the role they played in 
the opioid crisis.
    Is far past time for gun manufacturers to face some 
accountability. So, in an effort to maximize the use of my 
time, Mr. Daniels, I will be asking you a series of yes-or-no 
questions. So, Mr. Daniels, are you familiar with the ongoing 
opioid crisis and the role that irresponsible advertising 
played in getting millions of Americans, including many 
Ohioans, addicted to drugs?
    Mr. Daniel. I am somewhat familiar with an opioid problem, 
but I am not real familiar with the advertising. What is the 
advertising?
    Ms. Brown. Well, I would encourage you to then look into 
the well-documented reports about the advertising practices and 
familiarize yourself with the guilty plea of Purdue Pharma, 
which has been filed and resulted in billions of dollars of 
fines that they have been directed to pay as a result of their 
dangerous advertising.
    You will see an ad--Mr. Daniel, I have a photo of some 
promotional items Purdue Pharma once distributed to promote the 
purchase and consumption of OxyContin, displayed. As an 
American, do you have any concerns with the marketing of 
OxyContin in a way that could have been viewed as trivializing 
the addiction and deaths that occur from it? Yes or no, please.
    Mr. Daniel. I am not familiar with this advertising, and I 
am not sure what they are trying to do here.
    Ms. Brown. Well, let me help you. These irresponsible 
advertisements are not exclusive to the pharmaceutical 
industry. Your companies have also continued to make 
irresponsible advertisements for these dangerous weapons. Mr. 
Daniel, do you understand that firearms your company produces, 
markets, and sells are deadly and dangerous weapons? Yes or no.
    Mr. Daniel. Congresswoman, we make the best firearms for 
self-defense----
    Ms. Brown. Yes or no?
    Mr. Daniel. They have to be dangerous to be good for self-
defense.
    Ms. Brown. Yes or no? Let me help you. To be clear, the 
U.S. law does consider a firearm to be a deadly weapon.
    So let me ask you another question. Do you believe it is 
appropriate to market guns in such a manner--and you should see 
an ad that your company produced--when gun deaths are now the 
leading cause of child deaths in the country, and a teenager 
used one of your weapons to kill 19 children just a month ago?
    Mr. Daniel. Ma'am, you have said a lot. What was the 
question there?
    Ms. Brown. Do you believe it is appropriate to market guns 
in such a manner, as your advertising has done, when gun deaths 
are now the leading cause of child deaths in the country, and a 
teenager used one of your weapons to kill 19 children just a 
month ago?
    Mr. Daniel. The advertisement----
    Ms. Brown. It is a yes-or-no question.
    Mr. Daniel. This advertisement you are showing is a safety 
advertisement.
    Ms. Brown. Is it appropriate--this is a yes-or-no question.
    Mr. Daniel. This is an appropriate ad for safety, teaching 
children----
    Ms. Brown. To advertise--it is a yes or no. Is that a yes?
    Mr. Daniel. This advertisement is about safety.
    Ms. Brown. Reclaiming my time. Mr. Busse, you are familiar 
with the marketing practices of gun manufacturers. Can you 
speak to why this kind of advertising is dangerous and which 
groups this advertising is often directed at?
    Mr. Busse. I can testify to the fact that advertising 
practices in the firearms industry have changed radically in 
the last 10 or 15 years, and I am very concerned about the 
degree to which there is now irresponsible advertising 
encouraging or marketing to irresponsible activities.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you. Madam Chair, I represent a community 
that is facing a gun violence epidemic. Just like during the 
opioid crisis, irresponsible companies are pumping vast amounts 
of dangerous products into our community without a care for the 
lives that have been lost or the inherent lethality of their 
products.
    History is repeating itself and gun manufacturers are 
playing fast and loose with their advertising. If they do not 
take responsibility for the weapons of war they are selling to 
the public, Congress will gladly step in and do so for them.
    With that, Madam Chair, I yield back the remainder of my 
time.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back, and the 
gentlelady from South Carolina, Ms. Mace, is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank 
everyone who is here today, particularly for the families who 
have experienced enormous grief in their lives. Thank you for 
having the courage to show up on the Hill today for what is, I 
am sure, a very difficult day for each and every one of you.
    I hail from South Carolina, from South Carolina's First 
congressional District, and unfortunately, we are no stranger 
to gun violence or mass shootings. Seven years ago this summer, 
we had Mother Emanuel, where a white supremacist bought a gun, 
he should not have been legally able to buy, went down to 
Charleston, South Carolina in the First congressional District, 
and murdered nine Black church members at Mother Emanuel.
    Just a few months ago, on April 26, there was another 
shooting in a parking lot next door to a little league baseball 
game, where over 30 shots were fired, and the video showing the 
terrified children crawling off the baseball field and their 
parents in fear, in Pepperhill, in North Charleston.
    We have seen these spikes in crime, spikes in shootings, 
but it is not just crime with firearms. It is women who have 
been raped. Rapes are up. Assaults are up. Aggravated assaults 
are up. Mental health issue are up in this country over the 
last two years. Political crime is up. We saw someone who 
showed up on the steps of a Supreme Court Justice, basically, 
armed and dangerous and ready to kill.
    I have seen political crime in my own neighborhood. I had 
someone come up to my house and spray-paint it. I have had my 
car keyed. I have had my life threatened. Someone threatened to 
hang me two weeks ago. So, we are seeing an increase in 
violence all across the country, regardless of political 
spectrum.
    But right now, this hearing today, there is shouting into 
the microphones. There is vilifying of gun manufacturers. There 
is debate on a particular bill we might vote on this week, that 
we are not going to be able to vote on right now because it is 
not progressive enough. But what we are talking about today is 
not getting at the heart or the root of the problem; and we are 
going to have this hearing. It is going to be theater. It is 
going to be a performance today for the cameras that are here, 
and we are not going to solve the problem of violent crime, or 
violent crimes with firearms.
    We have got folks on this committee that want to defund the 
police. Well, the reason Democrats cannot have a vote on 
banning certain types of firearms this week is because there is 
other legislation out there does not go far enough, that funds 
police--it does not defund them--and we cannot have a real 
conversation about what is getting at the root of the problem.
    We had Highland Park, devastatingly, a few weeks ago, where 
seven people were killed. Well, just last weekend, just a few 
days ago in the city of Chicago, 65 people were shot, five 
people were killed, and this is every single weekend in the 
city of Chicago, where they have gun control measures, and they 
are not working. This is a very emotional subject. It is 
personal to me. It means a lot in my district; and we have got 
to get to the root of the problem.
    Many things that we could be talking about today--the 
active shooter alert we passed out of the house a few weeks 
ago, one step in the right direction. But what I learned in my 
research, trying to figure out gun crimes in this country, is 
most of the legislation that we are tackling at the Federal and 
state level will not address the issue whatsoever.
    Ms. Sampson, I have a few questions, and Ms. Okafor, I have 
a few questions with the little bit of time that I have left. 
Ms. Sampson, my first question for you today is, does a gun 
commit a crime?
    Ms. Sampson. Individuals with guns commit crimes.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you. Is there any other industry in the 
country where we punish the manufacturer of a product that is 
made legally, purchased legally, that might then be later used 
to break the law? Do we punish manufacturers of alcohol or cars 
or knives, for crimes that may be committed with those products 
later?
    Ms. Sampson. So, the distinction there--thank you for that 
question because there has been a conflation. We are not trying 
to hold manufacturers accountable for other people's 
activities. We are trying to hold manufacturers accountable for 
their activities in fueling the market, and when it comes to 
that we do that. So, the example would be----
    Ms. Mace. OK. I am going to reclaim my time just real quick 
because I have a couple more questions, but thank you, and I 
would argue that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
are making it more about that than the other.
    So recently we passed legislation up here that would ban 
certain firearms under the age of 21. Did you know that Dylan 
Roof, who killed the Mother Emanuel nine, he was 21 at the age 
when he bought his gun? He was also 21 when he committed that 
crime.
    Ms. Sampson, do you know the percentage of folks across the 
country who are picked up with firearms illegally? Do you know 
what percentage are maybe charged with a crime and/or 
convicted?
    Ms. Sampson. I do not.
    Ms. Mace. OK. It is hard to get that data. In fact, in the 
state of South Carolina, when we had this vote on this bill a 
couple of weeks ago, I learned that the vast majority of crimes 
committed with guns in the state of South Carolina--and I am 
sure states are different, but the vast majority are going to 
be the same--over 3,000 last year alone. But the vast majority 
of crimes with guns are committed by people over the age of 21.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, is 
recognized.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like 
to talk about how gun manufacturers market weapons of war to 
young people today. In 2012, the editor of Junior Shooters 
magazine wrote, and I quote, ``Each person who is introduced to 
shooting sports and has a positive experience is another vote 
in favor of keeping our American heritage and freedom alive,'' 
unquote. He continued, quote, ``They may not be old enough to 
vote now but they will be in the future.''
    My first question is to Mr. Daniel. Mr. Daniel, do you 
agree that getting young people interested in firearm ownership 
is positive for the industry's long-term profits and viability? 
Yes or no.
    Mr. Daniel. Congresswoman, we actually started a foundation 
to help train young children to learn how to use firearms 
safely.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK. Reclaiming my time. My question 
is, do you agree that getting young people interested in 
firearm ownership is positive for the industry's long-term 
profits and viability? Yes or no.
    Mr. Daniel. Congresswoman, gun safety is important is 
important to our country, and----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I was not asking--reclaiming my 
time--I am not asking about gun safety. I am asking about 
whether or not you agree that getting young people interested 
in firearm ownership is positive for the industry's long-term 
profits or viability? Can you please answer my exact question? 
Yes or no.
    Mr. Daniel. Yes. Parents buy guys for their children all 
the time.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yep. I asked because gun 
manufacturers employ various strategies to zero in on young 
people, and this marketing and mainstreaming of weapons of war 
in children's hands shows up in shocking and disturbing places. 
In the world's tourist mecca of Orlando, Florida, and even in 
my own community of Miami, firing weapons of war is marked as a 
fun tourist attraction, even to visitors as young as 10 to 13 
years old, as we can see from this promotional package from the 
Lock & Load Miami Machine Gun Experience, as you can see right 
here.
    Mr. Daniel, you have included children in your 
advertisements and social media marketing. Correct?
    Mr. Daniel. Congresswoman, if you are referring to the ad 
that was just shown----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I am asking you if you included 
children in your advertisements and social medial marketing. 
Yes or no.
    Mr. Daniel. Yes, but we are not marketing to the children.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK. It is a simple question. You 
have included children in your social media market. I am 
reclaiming my time. In fact, you post images of pop stars, like 
Post Malone, posing with a machine gun, and hashtags like 
#gunporn and #pewpew. Yes or no?
    Mr. Daniel. Ma'am, the gun that Post Malone was posted----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Did you or did you not--reclaiming 
my time--reclaiming my time. Excuse me, sir. I am reclaiming my 
time.
    Mr. Daniel [continuing]. Automatic----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Did you post--Mr. Daniel, I am 
trying to ask you a question. Did you post a social media post 
with Post Malone posing with a machine gun and the hashtag 
#gunporn and #pewpew? Yes or no.
    Mr. Daniel. No, ma'am, we did not.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I can produce the social media post 
if you would like.
    Mr. Daniel. That is fine if you would like to, but the gun 
was not a machine gun. It was a semiautomatic firearm.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK. We are splitting hairs. We are 
splitting hairs. Clearly the gentleman is acknowledging that 
they posted something, and we are splitting hairs over whether 
you called the weapon a machine gun.
    This strategy basically turns killing machines into social 
media thirst traps for young people who will see these weapons 
as sexy, hip, and alluring. The gentleman acknowledged that 
they have children in their social media, they had a social 
media star that is appealing to children, post with a machine 
gun, and hashtags #gunporn and #pewpew. I mean, it really 
boggles the mind.
    Mr. Daniel, are you even remotely worried that these youth-
focused marketing tactics appeal to impulsive teens who we 
recognize cannot even be trusted to buy cigarettes or beer when 
they are under 21? Are you worried about that at all?
    Mr. Daniel. Congresswoman, we are focused on teaching young 
people to use guns responsibly and safely.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK. Reclaiming my time. The social 
media and marketing that you do to children is not remotely 
focused on safety nor is it trying to do anything other than 
having guns be more appealing to children.
    And just as I lose my time, Ms. Sampson, have there been 
any studies that correlate how the marketing tactics used by 
Mr. Daniel and other companies are related to incidents of gun 
violence among kids and adolescents?
    Ms. Sampson. Yes, and they are in my written testimony.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I am sorry?
    Ms. Sampson. Yes, and they are in my written testimony. But 
basically it has to do with the fact that young people are 
susceptible, especially susceptible to messages from 
advertisers. So, when you tell children that these guns will 
give them more adrenaline, or you use first-person shooter 
games to promote firearms, things of that nature, it draws in 
young people who are more vulnerable and maybe not able to sort 
out reality from fiction.
    Mr. Comer. Time is expired.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady's time is expired.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate 
the opportunity. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. OK. I just want to remind members that 
the chair has been evenhanded while allowing members on both 
sides of the aisle latitude with respect to their five minutes 
today, and I would ask that recognized members not be 
interrupted except by the chair.
    So now, Mr. Fallon, you are now recognized, from Texas.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Madam Chair. Witnesses and 
colleagues, I appreciate the opportunity to examine a critical 
industry that helps protect the freedom of American citizens 
every day. Ms. Okafor, I just want to say it is great to see 
you again. Denton County Strong. Good to see you.
    Ms. Okafor. Good to see you too.
    Mr. Fallon. It seems strange to me that this committee has 
decided to bring in some of the largest firearm manufacturers 
in the country but not the Attorney General, who is actually in 
charge of enforcing our gun laws, and who conducts oversight on 
the ATF, the FBI, and other pertinent agencies, or why this 
committee has not brought in city and state attorneys who are 
refusing to uphold the law in a lot of these Democratic areas. 
And why on earth are we not discussing the scourge of violent 
crime in those same democratically controlled areas?
    The fact of the matter is that more gun laws and 
restrictive gun laws do not lessen crime. I have to restate the 
last thing I said in our previous Second Amendment infringement 
hearing, that if you look at countries, for instance, like El 
Salvador, Jamaica, Venezuela, Honduras, that have some of the 
most restrictive gun laws in the world, they are also the most 
dangerous countries in the world with the highest homicide and 
violent crime rate.
    But it should not escape our notice that Democratically 
controlled cities in our country, with the most restrictive gun 
laws, and our Nation, have actually higher murder rates than 
those aforementioned countries. St. Louis has a higher murder 
rate than El Salvador, and so does Baltimore, and it is 
actually safer to visit and live in Venezuela than it is to 
live and visit Detroit, Michigan.
    Fifty years ago, there were 180 million guns in this 
country and the murder rate was 9.6 per 100,000. And just 
before COVID there were almost 400 million guns in this country 
and the murder rate was 6 per 100,000. Again, more gun laws 
does not equal less crime.
    Mr. Busse, I have got a quick question for you. You are a 
gun owner and you were a firearms executive for decades. Is 
that correct?
    Mr. Busse. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Fallon. Do you own, let's say, five guns, personally?
    Mr. Busse. Yes, I own five.
    Mr. Fallon. Do you own more than 10?
    Mr. Busse. Yes, I do.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. So fair to say that you know a lot about 
different types of guns.
    Mr. Busse. I know some about some types of guns.
    Mr. Fallon. All right. Civilian AR-15, is that a fully 
automatic weapon?
    Mr. Busse. No, sir.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. Then there are several states that have so-
called assault weapons bans. Is that correct?
    Mr. Busse. There are some, yes, sir.
    Mr. Fallon. And are they uniform? Are they exactly the same 
or are they different, each state?
    Mr. Busse. I am not an expert on each state law. I do not 
know.
    Mr. Fallon. So, you do not know if they are exactly the 
same, cookie cutter?
    Mr. Busse. I do not.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. They are not, and I think it is because 
maybe, just maybe, we cannot even seem to define what an 
assault weapon is, and that is a vague term and left up for 
interpretation.
    Ms. Busse, you also are on record, if I am not mistaken--
please correct me--that you are calling guns weapons of war. I 
just heard one of my colleagues say it as well.
    Mr. Busse. Calling which--I am not sure of your question 
there, sir.
    Mr. Fallon. All right. Have you called firearms weapons of 
war?
    Mr. Busse. I have not called all firearms weapons of war, 
no.
    Mr. Fallon. You have called some weapons of war?
    Mr. Busse. Yes. Some firearms are weapons of war. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Fallon. When you were a firearms executive, did you 
market the Browning 1911?
    Mr. Busse. I marketed and sold 1911-style pistols. Yes, 
sir.
    Mr. Fallon. Those 1911s were the firearm of the United 
States military from World War I to Vietnam, over 50 years?
    Mr. Busse. They were the defensive handgun of choice for 
most military operations. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Fallon. They were a weapon of war.
    See, what I find offensive by that term is--and my 
colleague just said it as well--is I own an AR-15, and it is 
not a weapon of war, and I do not want to hurt anybody. It is a 
defensive weapon. It is a tool to allow me to protect my 
property, but far more importantly, my family, my children and 
my wife. And I am glad I am not giving it up, no matter what, 
and some of these laws that we are talking about, whether they 
are grandfathered or not, are going to make good, law-abiding 
citizens criminals, and by definition criminals do not follow 
the laws anyway. That is why I own one.
    So, we have a bill, from our colleague from Rhode Island, 
Mr. Cicilline, it is H.R. 1808, an assault weapons ban, which 
makes it a crime to import, sell, manufacture, or possess 
semiautomatic weapons. To put it plainly, this is an outright 
ban on all semiautomatic weapons, and this bill is political 
theater, and it is a complete farce. The American people do not 
support it. I am sure there are many Democrats across the 
country in rank and file that do not support it. It is an 
actual joke, and it is a disservice to our Constitution.
    Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Welch, is now recognized 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Welch. Thank you. Madam Chair, Vermont is a rural state 
and we have had a tradition of responsible gun use. But things 
have changed. Things have changed deeply in Vermont. The day 
after the Parkland shootings, we came within an eyelash of 
having a mass shooting at a school in Fairhaven, Vermont, where 
a young man, who had purchased weapons, bragged that he was 
going to have a higher body count than anyone else before him. 
It was only because of the extraordinary work of our local and 
state police and our school officials that that was stopped.
    In the night after that incident, where the near-death of 
those kids almost came about, there was a school meeting, and 
as a good a job as our police had done and our school folks had 
done, parents were expressing some anger and concern. What it 
was, it is the apprehension that every parent has in this 
country now that the security that they had when they put their 
child on the bus or left their child off at the schoolhouse, 
that they would come home safe.
    That has been shattered, and it is not just a one-off 
incident in Parkland, but we are seeing it time after time, and 
it is the AR-15 that is the weapon of choice. And, by the way, 
that weapon of choice, it is not accidental. Eighteen-year-olds 
can buy that, and they cannot buy a beer? It is a weapon of 
choice because of the marketing. ``Be a man. Get this. On the 
road to manhood. This is the way you can show how you big a 
person you are.'' It is marketing this to vulnerable people who 
have wild expectations of what it means to be a man.
    So, Mr. Busse, how much marketing do you do? Is this worth 
it?
    Mr. Busse. Maybe could you restate the question, sir? Are 
you asking how much marketing----
    Mr. Welch. How much marketing are you doing?
    Mr. Busse. I am no longer in the firearms industry, sir, so 
I am not doing any marketing.
    Mr. Welch. Mr. Daniel?
    Mr. Daniel. Yes, sir. Repeat the question, please.
    Mr. Welch. How much marketing are you doing?
    Mr. Daniel. We are marketing very much like we have been 
for the past 15----
    Mr. Welch. I am interrupting. I apologize. But the 
marketing that is being done is much like Joe Camel, where the 
cigarette companies were marketing cancer and disguising it as 
how to be a man, how to be a big shot. I mean, is it worth it? 
Do you have any thoughts about what your weapons are being used 
to do, that has killed children? Do you have any expectation 
that people should look to you to address this?
    Mr. Daniel. Thank you for your question, sir. I believe we 
should address this. I think the way to address it is just as 
you said, local law enforcement working with the schools and 
working at a local level to figure out how to stop murder 
from----
    Mr. Welch. But you are saying there are no gun 
manufacturers--I mean, I listen to Mr. Fallon, you know, gun 
manufacturers do not have anything to do with it, just like 
cigarette manufacturers had nothing to do with people dying of 
cancer, because it was a voluntary choice.
    But let me ask you about Mr. Fallon's line of questions. He 
needs the AR-15s to protect his family, and obviously he means 
that. But don't we need a society where we can expect our law 
enforcement folks to be reliable enforcers, or is it every man, 
woman, and child for himself and herself, and each one of us 
needs an AR-15 to settle our disputes and defend ourselves 
against insults?
    Mr. Daniel. Congressman, as I understand it, many of your 
constituents are over an hour away from the police. Yes, the 
police are very important, and they are our first responders, 
but until they get there, sir, the American citizen is the 
first responder.
    Mr. Welch. Right. So, what you have is a culture that you 
support to arm everybody so they can defend themselves while 
they are waiting for the police. So, our civic society, our 
civil society depends on everybody being armed and having a 
more powerful, longer-range weapon than their neighbor.
    Mr. Daniel. I believe that American citizens have the right 
and the responsibility to take their firearms that they have 
bought for self-defense and defense themselves and their 
families until the police arrive. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Welch. And you are glad to manufacture those and sell 
them. I yield back.
    Mr. Daniel. Yes, sir.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired. The 
gentleman from Kentucky, the distinguished ranking member, Mr. 
Comer, is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Comer. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Okafor, you are a 
certified firearms instructor who specializes in training 
women. You have stated that already. What would you say to 
people who want to restrict the purchase and use of guns, like 
AR-15s?
    Ms. Okafor. I would say for all this talk about manhood, et 
cetera, again that the stats show that of the 8 million new gun 
owners that we had just in the last couple of years, almost 
half of them are women. So, we are talking about women here. We 
are talking about women who are also AR-15 gun owners as well; 
and because, I have seen in my experience as an instructor and 
as a woman as well, that it is far easier to hold and use an 
AR-15 without having to worry about the recoil that comes with 
having a smaller, hand-held firearm. So, it has been able to 
absorb a lot of that impact and it has been, therefore, 
something that a lot of my female students are happy to have.
    Mr. Comer. In your opinion, would gun control policies to 
prevent the sale or possession of AR-15 rifles impact everyone 
equally, or are there some groups who would be more impacted 
than others?
    Ms. Okafor. As we found in history, over and over again, 
whether it is legitimately because they are trying to put forth 
laws that are explicitly against, for example, African 
Americans. You can look at history from slave codes, to Black 
codes that restricted African Americans from even having a 
firearm to, in just the last couple of decades even, or the 
last century, rather, from the civil rights era, Jim Crow laws, 
that we have found that whether it is explicitly African 
Americans, or explicitly minority groups, or explicitly those 
who are unable to afford a firearm and the restrictions that 
come with it, that it primarily impacts those communities that 
are the most vulnerable and defenseless, for a number of 
reasons, and need some type of firearm but are unable to 
because of the financial restrictions and training barriers 
that come with gun restrictions.
    Mr. Comer. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I yield the 
balance of my time to Representative Clyde.
    Mr. Clyde. Thank you, Ranking Member. We are here today 
because Democrats on this committee are bound and determined to 
politicize the horrible, tragic events that occurred in Uvalde, 
Texas. Immediately following the shooting, Democrats demanded 
information on the, quote, ``manufacture, marketing, and sale 
of deadly weapons used in mass shootings,'' end quote. Since 
this request on May 26 by Democrats, all of the companies to 
which these letters were sent have been very responsive to the 
chair's requests, and as I understand, producing over 3,500 
pages of documents.
    So, we are here today because Democrats want to somehow 
blame gun manufacturers for violent crime. While Democrats did 
not see fit to drag auto manufacturers before this committee to 
blame the Waukesha Christmas parade massacre, citing car 
violence or SUV violence for the murder of six people and the 
injury of 62 others in a violent criminal act. Democrats have 
coined the term ``gun violence,'' and determined that guns, 
which are inanimate objects and unable to commit any crime or 
act of violence, should be banned.
    I take issue with that term as I have never known a gun to 
be violent. I have known people to be violent but never an 
inanimate object like a firearm. I have owned thousands of 
firearms in my lifetime and have never met, owned, or handled a 
violent gun. People are the origin of violence, and they use 
all sorts of tools to perpetuate their violence. We should be 
holding the criminals accountable. Firearms are simply tools 
and can be used for good or evil by the person behind the tool.
    The Democrats want to blame the existence of the Second 
Amendment, which the Founding Fathers enshrined in the 
Constitution because they understood the first step toward 
tyranny is disarming the citizenry. They want to blame the 
Second Amendment for all the violence that occurs in this 
country.
    Let me be clear. Gun manufacturers do not cause violence, 
and the Second Amendment is not to blame for violence in this 
country. Criminals are the ones who engage in violence and who 
commit crime.
    I have been a Federal firearms licensee for 30 years, and I 
realized early on that every firearms business, whether a 
manufacturer, an importer, or a dealer is a true, 
constitutional business, because without them most citizens 
would not be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights, 
which have been so vital in achieving and maintaining our 
freedoms for now 246 years.
    I believe a good model for our Nation's firearms industry 
would be we enable individual participation in the preservation 
of liberty and that, as we know, is what the Second Amendment 
does. It helps preserve our liberty because it allows 
individuals to defend themselves against unlawful aggression, 
whether it is defending against someone committing a crime or 
against a government bent on tyranny and eliminating our 
liberty.
    Since Federal firearms licensees are constitutional 
businesses, it makes it even more imperative that the 
government use every tool at our disposal to protect these 
types of businesses so they can continue to serve law-abiding 
and free citizens. Governments are instituted among men, as our 
Declaration of Independence says, that to secure these rights--
--
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time is expired.
    Mr. Clyde [continuing]. Deriving their just powers from the 
consent of the governed.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time is expired.
    The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis, is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I also want to 
thank all of our witnesses, and especially the families who 
have come who have been impacted negatively by gun violence. 
Gun manufacturers would have us to believe that they are 
helpless to stop mass shootings. They want us to forget the 
assault rifles that are designed to kill people quickly and 
efficiently; and with the right parts, including high-capacity 
magazines, these weapons can shoot hundreds of rounds in a 
matter of seconds.
    One of the gun makers here with us today famously came up 
with the very idea of banning high-capacity magazines more than 
20 years ago, in the lead-up to the 1994 assault weapons ban, 
William Ruger, a founder of Sturm. Ruger reportedly told Tom 
Brokaw in an interview that, and I quote, ``no honest man needs 
more than 10 rounds in any gun.'' Mr. Ruger then lobbied every 
Member of Congress to put in place, and I quote again, ``a 
simple, complete, and unequivocal ban on large-capacity 
magazines.'' But after he retired the company took a turn. Mr. 
Ruger began to lobby against restrictions on large-capacity 
magazines and now sells them for profit.
    Mr. Killoy, does your company current make guns that accept 
magazines with more than 10 rounds?
    Mr. Killoy. Yes, Congressman, we do.
    Mr. Davis. Mr. Daniel, same question to you.
    Mr. Daniel. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Davis. Mr. Daniel?
    Mr. Daniel. Yes.
    Mr. Davis. Thank you. Mass shooters have used legally 
purchased, high-capacity magazines in some of the worst 
killings this country or any country has seen. A shooter in the 
Las Vegas massacre was able to fire 100 rounds in 10 seconds 
because he used a high-capacity magazine. The Uvalde shooter 
carried more ammunition into Robb Elementary School than a 
United States soldier carries into combat. Ten states and the 
District of Columbia have banned high-capacity magazines, but 
they are not illegal everywhere, and these dangerous 
accessories have spread to all areas of the country.
    Ms. Sampson, why is banning high-capacity magazines at the 
Federal level necessary?
    Ms. Sampson. Thank you for the question. It is important to 
ban high-capacity magazines at the Federal level because we are 
a country that is connected. States do not exist on an island, 
and we also hear people, for example, raise the city of Chicago 
as an example as to why laws do not work. But Chicago exists 
within Illinois, which exists in the United States, and it is 
an example of where guns have come from -the state of Indiana, 
for example. So, even if we have a high-capacity magazine in 
one state that does not mean that individuals in that state who 
want to do harm cannot go to another state and get around it. 
So, we need Federal solutions because we are a nation of states 
that are united.
    Mr. Davis. So, there is no way to really get at the issue 
and deal with the problem effectively unless we have a national 
ban, unless there is unity across the country that these 
weapons of mass destruction really are not to be available to 
regular, everyday, ordinary people to do what with? Nothing but 
kill. I mean, it is amazing that an individual can walk around 
with a weapon that you can fire off 30 rounds in 30 seconds, 
100 rounds before you even know what is happening.
    So let me thank all of our witnesses for their answers. The 
solution is really simple. We must ban these weapons of war and 
get them off our streets.
    I thank you, Madam Chair, and yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back, and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman, is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Grothman. Well, I would like to thank you for having 
the hearing, but the topic always irritates me. First of all, I 
am old enough to remember when I was a child all they did was 
talk about pistols. It was all about handguns. We do not worry 
about long guns. You know, whatever, 98 percent of murders in 
the country or whatever are committed by handguns, and we do 
not care about long guns. Now if long guns are in the news, it 
is we do not care about handguns, we only care about long guns, 
which shows what I think we are really trying to get at. People 
do not want American citizens to have guns, or law abiding. 
They want to restrict it to the type of citizens who do not 
obey the law, and the government, which I find a little bit 
offensive.
    What I also find offensive is that one more time we are 
talking about a pathology in this country, and we do not 
address the structure of the family. I think like so many other 
things there are areas in society where you have almost no 
murders and there are areas where you have a lot of murders, 
and I think they largely correspond with areas in which we have 
weak families and strong families. One more time I am attending 
a hearing here, and I get the same thing in the Education 
Committee, we just ignore this big elephant in the room, the 
structure of the family.
    But I would like to yield the remainder of my time to Mr. 
Clyde.
    Mr. Clyde. Thank you to my colleague from Wisconsin.
    Mr. Daniel, I want to ask you a couple of questions here 
and reiterate something that has been mentioned already. 
President Biden made the claim that gun manufacturers are, 
quote, ``the only industry in America that is exempt from being 
sued by the public, the only one.''
    Madam Chair, I would like to ask unanimous consent to 
submit this article, published by AP News on February 9, 2022, 
that says despite Biden's claim, gun makers can, indeed, be 
sued.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
    Mr. Clyde. Thank you.
    Mr. Clyde. Is it not true that your company still remains 
liable under the law for any potential design or manufacturing 
defect that leads to injury or property damage or a breach of 
contract or warranty of a product or facilitating a known 
transfer to a prohibited person? Is this not all laid out in 
the Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act, enacted in 
2005? Can you still be sued by the public for any of these 
kinds of breaches?
    Mr. Daniel. Yes, sir, we can.
    Mr. Clyde. Thank you. I just want everyone to know that the 
firearms industry is not exempt from being sued by the public 
for a myriad of things.
    Now Mr. Daniel, does Daniel Defense sell AR-15 rifles to 
police departments, to sheriff's offices, and to other law 
enforcement agencies?
    Mr. Daniel. Yes, sir. Average about 30 agencies a month.
    Mr. Clyde. Thirty agencies a month. That is pretty 
impressive. Do you have any idea of how many of your company's 
firearms are in the hands of law enforcement, protecting and 
defending the peace so that our citizens can live in freedom?
    Mr. Daniel. No, sir. I do not have that off the top of my 
head.
    Mr. Clyde. I would imagine that at 30 agencies a month that 
is probably a lot, though, would you not think?
    Mr. Daniel. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Clyde. So why do law enforcement agencies choose to use 
Daniel Defense firearms?
    Mr. Daniel. Sir, we are very dedicated to building the very 
best firearms in the world, and the products that we build are 
dependable, and we take good care of our customers and treat 
them the way we want to be treated, and we think these are the 
reasons why people choose our products.
    Mr. Clyde. Thank you. As someone who has obviously had 
tremendous experience in the firearms industry and seen the 
highs and lows of sales, would you agree that the firearms 
industry is very sensitive to government overregulation or the 
fear of increased government restriction on a constitutional 
right?
    Mr. Daniel. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Clyde. So, tell me what happens to sales when 
additional restrictions are a potential on the horizon. Do they 
go up or down or do they stay about the same?
    Mr. Daniel. Our sales fluctuate wildly based off of the 
politics and the conversations about firearms bans.
    Mr. Clyde. OK. Does that also happen when crime and 
uncertainty is on the rise? Do sales increase?
    Mr. Daniel. Yes, that is correct.
    Mr. Clyde. OK. So, when the Democrats who have carried the 
mantle and promoted the idea of defunding the police and 
Democrat cities around the country started to cut the budgets 
of their police departments to fall in line with the defunding 
of the police narrative, people have feared for their safety, 
and so firearms dealers saw an increase in sales. Would you 
agree?
    Mr. Daniel. Yes, sir. Unprecedented in the last two years 
of new firearms owners buying firearms that have never owned 
them before.
    Mr. Clyde. Thank you. I would submit that people are 
voicing their opinions with their pocketbooks, and I think that 
is a very, very strong opinion across the Nation.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlewoman from Massachusetts, Ms. Pressley, is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, for convening 
today's hearing.
    While the gun industry rakes in hundreds of millions of 
dollars, choosing profit over people, selling weapons of war to 
anyone who wants them, impacting communities across the country 
who are forced to deal with the consequences of their greed. 
Bloodshed, pain, the trauma of a loved one being seriously 
injured or killed due to gun violence. So, in communities 
disproportionately impacted--Black, brown, AAPI, the LGBTQ 
community--from Buffalo to Orlando to El Paso and Atlanta.
    This, of course, is both a devastating and expected result 
when companies employ marketing tactics that spread white 
supremacy and embolden far-right extremist groups. For example, 
shortly after the 2017 white supremacist march and attack in 
Charlottesville, Virginia, the National Shooting Sports 
Foundation promoted an advertisement encouraging people to buy 
assault weapons to use against unnamed protesters, unarmed 
protesters.
    Mr. Busse, you referenced this advertisement in your 
remarks. Can you please explain why advertisements like these 
are dangerous?
    Mr. Busse. Thank you for the question, and to clarify, that 
is not a National Shooting Sports Foundation ad. That is an 
advertisement from an AR-15 company that was displayed at the 
National Shooting Sports Foundation shot show in 2018. That is 
an ad, in my opinion, that is encouraging and celebrating the 
idea that civil unrest and attacking protesters is a potential 
business model of profit for firearms companies, and I believe 
that to be a very distressing and irresponsible path of 
advertising.
    Ms. Pressley. Thank you, and although the slide has moved--
if we could bring it back for a moment--it is hard to see but 
they also named Boston, a city that I represent, right in the 
upper left-hand corner there. Recently my community has 
experienced first-hand the far-right, white supremacist 
organization Patriot Front in action. They have held multiple 
demonstrations of intimidation and fear in Boston to spread 
their racist bigotry and attack folks on the street.
    Let me be clear. As Congresswoman for the Massachusetts 
Seventh I am going to do everything in my power to keep my 
constituents safe and stand up against white supremacy whenever 
and wherever it shows up. It should also be a baseline 
commitment of the NSSF, but instead the organization promoted 
this malicious advertisement.
    Mr. Daniel, as a board member of NSSF, will you use your 
position to stop them from allowing ads like this one, naming 
Boston, and promoting assault weapons? Yes or no.
    Mr. Daniel. Ma'am, this was not an NSSF ad.
    Ms. Pressley. Will you use your position as a board member 
in any way to stop these sorts of advertisements promoting 
assault weapons? Yes or no?
    Mr. Daniel. I do not understand the question. This is----
    Ms. Pressley. OK. That is OK. Mr. Killoy, same question to 
you since you are also on the board. Will you commit to ending 
the practice of allowing harmful ads like this at events? Yes 
or no.
    Mr. Killoy. Congresswoman, respectfully, the NSSF does not 
advertise firearms for any of its member companies. They host a 
trade show annually, in January, and that is where I believe 
that ad was seen by a company who may have been displaying 
there.
    Ms. Pressley. I will reclaim my time because I think the 
point still remains. As long as gun manufacturers have immunity 
to sell their weapons of war using harmful marketing tactics, 
Black and brown communities will continue to be targeted, and 
that has got to change. In the face of white supremacy, my 
neighbors and I are undeterred in the pursuit of healing and 
the true justice, and we will not let gun makers incite 
violence against us with impunity. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Flood, a new member of our committee from Nebraska, 
welcome. You are now recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Flood. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all for 
your testimony today.
    I want to turn the attention to exactly why we have seen a 
rise in guns sales in America. According to FBI statistics, 
specifically those related to lawful purchases of handguns and 
other types of guns through background checks, nationally 75 
percent has been the increase that we have seen from 2019 to 
2020. In Nebraska, we have seen a 78 percent increase in 
background checks related to gun purchases just in my home 
state. National research has also shown roughly 70 percent of 
gun owners are citing personal protection as their major reason 
for purchasing a firearm.
    Unfortunately, over the last two years, violent crime 
across America has dramatically increased. A crime wave has 
affected my district. In Lincoln, Nebraska, for example, 
violent crime is increasing and citizens are concerned.
    Ms. Okafor, I appreciate your prior testimony today where 
you called yourself an accidental activist. I know you train 
gun owners on proper etiquette. I am really interested in 
knowing, from those who you work with, particularly women, what 
reasons do they cite for purchasing a gun, and what does having 
ownership of a gun do for them personally, and is it related to 
what we have seen as an increase in violent crime?
    Ms. Okafor. Studies have shown nationally that for women 
the No. 1 reason they buy a firearm is for self-defense, and in 
my time, my personal time with my female students most of them 
are like me, survivors of crime. They are survivors of domestic 
violence, survivors of sexual assault, et cetera. So, they 
essentially come to me because they want to make sure they are 
never a victim again, and that is why they want to be able to 
learn how to use a firearm and use it safely.
    Mr. Flood. Some would have you believe that banning AR-15s 
is going to make America a safer place. Talk about what your 
students are saying about using the AR-15 and what is their 
opinion as to whether or not, if you can testify to this, a ban 
would do?
    Ms. Okafor. Well, it really comes down practically of what 
an AR-15 does, particularly a rifle, for a woman especially, or 
those who have any type of physical disability. They give you 
the upper hand in that situation. And the fact that most 
people, probably a criminal, might have a handgun, but if you 
are working with an assailant that has multiple assailants in 
that situation, then an AR-15 is necessary, obviously, as a way 
to have the upper hand in that situation, particularly for a 
female.
    Like I said before in my testimony about AR-15s, they are 
able to mitigate the recoil much better than you would with a 
handgun. And so that is why a lot of people prefer to have that 
upper hand by having an AR-15.
    Mr. Flood. Was it your prior testimony today that of all 
the weapons that your female students have sampled that the AR-
15 was routinely one of their most, you know, favorite?
    Ms. Okafor. Yes. That is what I routinely get is that other 
women tend to already have this preconceived idea of what an 
AR-15 is, what an AR is, and because of a lot of advertising 
and rhetoric saying that, you know, they should not have a 
firearm of that capacity, that they think it would be something 
that they would not enjoy until they actually shoot one. They 
realize it is actually a benefit to them, and it is easier for 
them to hold and to actually enjoy shooting. So, they can train 
and defend themselves if they ever have to use that in an 
unfortunate circumstance.
    Mr. Flood. We do not have much time left but could you just 
briefly speak to the peace of mind that owning a weapon like 
this would give to one of those female students that you have 
instructed with firearms?
    Ms. Okafor. Yes, the peace of mind is, I believe, similar 
to anybody, but again, particularly in America I know there is 
a lot of talk, there has been a lot of talk about weapons of 
war, et cetera, and the difference, as if the Constitution is 
not explicit and that we have a right to keep and bear arms, 
and that includes all arms. Yes, even, quote/unquote ``weapons 
of war.'' At the end of the day, it is to make sure that we 
have the ability to defend against an oppressive, tyrannical 
government, and there is no restriction particularly with the 
Second Amendment that says that there is a distinction between 
a civilian and someone in the military.
    So, it comes down to an individual's right to defend 
themselves and to figure out what is best for them to defend 
themselves in that situation, and that is it.
    Mr. Flood. Thank you for your testimony. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, is recognized 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I proceed to 
my line of questioning, I just wanted to clarify. Ms. Sampson, 
can you again, just for the record, clarify whether gun 
manufacturers enjoy legal immunity?
    Ms. Sampson. Thank you. Gun manufacturers do not 
necessarily enjoy complete immunity, but what they do have is 
an unnecessary level of protection from PLACA that makes it 
much more difficult for victims of their misconduct to hold 
them accountable in court. What that means is that for most 
other industries if an individual is harmed by their 
misconduct, they can file a claim and then, in a court of law, 
they can decide whether or not that claim has merit.
    With PLACA, what gun manufacturers are able to do is get in 
front of the courthouse door and say you have to get over a 
hurdle before you can get to the merit. That is not asking for 
anything that would be especially punishing to gun 
manufacturers. All we are asking is that gun manufacturers be 
held to the same standards as everyone else, and that is 
especially important because they do not even face consumer 
oversight.
    Mr. Sarbanes. So, they receive special treatment when it 
comes to the way manufacturers generally have to face legal 
liability for their products. Thank you for that.
    Let me get to why I think they might have some special 
treatment here. We know that it has been very hard to get 
legislation passed in Congress that would address gun violence. 
We finally, last month, were able to achieve some bipartisan 
legislation to help stem the tide of gun violence in our 
country. The reason it has been so difficult is because for 
decades there has been this powerful grasp with special 
interest which has stymied progress on even the most common-
sense gun reforms.
    I am going to put some numbers out here. According to 
lobbying data, gun rights groups spent a staggering $190 
million, nearly $200 million on lobbying between 1998 and 2022. 
According to public records, the NRA itself spent $5.3 million 
on lobbying from 2021 to 2022, while the National Shooting 
Sports Foundation, a lobbying organization representing gun 
makers, distributors, and retailers--and, by the way, upon 
whose board of Governors Mr. Daniel sits--spent over $1 million 
on Federal lobbying just in the first three months of 2022. We 
also know that in 2015 and 2016, Ruger gave the NRA over $12 
million in cash payments, which is a staggering sum.
    These sums of money have their effect. They have a very 
pernicious effect on our democracy. Mr. Busse, you are a gun 
owner and a former firearms executive. Do you agree that the 
views of the NRA, as an organization, where they put their 
lobbying dollars--not necessarily every rank-and-file member of 
the NRA because they are very responsible gun owners among that 
group--but the NRA, as an organization, their views do not 
represent the views of the majority of Americans, including the 
majority of responsible gun owners like yourself. Would you 
agree with that?
    Mr. Busse. Yes, sir. I certainly agree with that.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you. Sixty percent of gun owners 
actually support raising the age for Americans to purchase AR-
15s from 18 to 21. The NRA clearly does not speak for the 
majority of Americans. They do not even speak for the majority 
of ordinary gun owners. Ever since the Supreme Court's 
devastating decision in Citizens United, groups like the NRA 
have been ever more empowered to drown out the voices and the 
votes of everyday Americans by funneling dark money into our 
political process.
    In 2016 alone, the NRA spent upwards of $54 million on 
independent expenditures to candidates and parties, nearly 
double the amount it spent during the 2014 midterm elections 
and more than double the expenditures during the 2012 election 
cycle. Much of this amount, $34 million, was routed through the 
NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, the organization's 
lobbying arm, which is not subject to donor disclosure laws. 
These funds were used to support the election of pro-gun 
politicians and systematically blocked legislative actions that 
crack down on gun trafficking and straw purchasing or 
strengthening background checks and enacting red flag laws.
    Now fortunately, these reforms were enacted as part of the 
bipartisan Safer Communities Act last month, but even now the 
grip of the gun lobby and the dark money that funds its efforts 
continues to threaten the progress of further efforts to 
address America's gun violence epidemic. If we are able to 
comprehensively address this crisis, it will depend on getting 
dark money out of our political system and make democracy 
responsive to everyday Americans. Those are the steps we must 
take to address these insidious factors of big money, special 
interest, and these particular industries like the gun lobby.
    With that I yield back my time.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. The 
gentleman from Ohio----
    Mr. Comer. Madam Chair, I request unanimous consent to wave 
on Representative Buddy Carter from Georgia for today's 
hearing.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
    Now the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Gibbs, is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, I am really 
amazed how the other side of the aisle keeps going after the 
gun manufacturers and the guns, like the guns have brains. It 
just amazes me. I look at what happens in Chicago every weekend 
and around our cities where we have murders and shootings.
    Ms. Okafor, would you concur that the people that are 
committing these crimes, in Chicago and elsewhere, are 
criminals, they are illegal gun ownership? Is that why some of 
the people you train want to get arms to defend themselves 
because they are fearful of that, other type of people, the 
shootings in Chicago and elsewhere?
    Ms. Okafor. The women that I train tend to be fearful of 
anybody, regardless of where they live, where they are going to 
do a criminal act toward them.
    Mr. Gibbs. But the people that they are fearful of are the 
people that are committing crimes. They have ownership 
illegally of firearms, and that is kind of typical. As a broad-
brush it, that is kind of typical, right?
    Ms. Okafor. Yes. So, whether it is illegal or legally, the 
fact of the matter is that they are doing something illegal----
    Mr. Gibbs. Well, the real answer here is, let's prosecute 
these people and lock them up. You know, I know unfortunately 
for our colleague from New York, Lee Zeldin, it was not a 
firearm--he was assaulted last Friday--but he was assaulted 
with a deadly weapon. And what did the state of New York do? 
They released that person. Fortunately, the Federal Government 
arrested that person, but they released that person. What kind 
of message does that send? You know, there are ways to do 
violence, not just with guns. But I do not know why we take so 
much time talking about guns when we have got an element out 
here we are not addressing, the critical activity and 
prosecuting those people.
    That just sends the wrong message, and to go after law-
abiding citizens that want to defend themselves under the 
Second Amendment, it is just really incredible to me that we 
are not focused on that, Madam Chair, what is really going on 
in this country, that you send a message to criminals out there 
that, hey, don't worry. We are going to let you go and you are 
not going to get prosecuted. That just sends the wrong message. 
So, we really need to deal with that and not attack our Second 
Amendment rights.
    I yield the rest of my time to Representative Clyde.
    Mr. Clyde. Thank you. Thank you very much to my colleague.
    Mr. Busse, in your statement you said that guns pretty much 
are at the center of radicalized domestic terrorist. Is that 
right?
    Mr. Busse. I made a statement similar to that. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Clyde. OK; and then you also said, ``In my last month 
as an industry executive I snapped photos like this,'' with a 
photo. ``It is a tactical advertisement over the entrance of 
the Shot Show that weirdly combines Revolutionary War soldiers, 
a modern AR-15, and the promise of daily gunfights as a 
business proposition. Then on January 6, 2021, less than a year 
after I took this photo, these exact components coalesced into 
a violent mob just a few hundred yards from here.''
    Were there any AR-15s taken into the Capitol by rioters on 
January 6th?
    Mr. Busse. Yes. I believe there was documentation of AR-15s 
in the mob. I am not sure where they were, location-wise.
    Mr. Clyde. In the Capitol?
    Mr. Busse. Not to my knowledge, but I have not----
    Mr. Clyde. Not in the Capitol. That is correct.
    Mr. Busse. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Clyde. Were any guns taken into the Capitol, to your 
knowledge?
    Mr. Busse. I do not know the answer to that.
    Mr. Clyde. I think the answer to that would be no, there 
were not. So, I do not really understand how you say these 
exact components, when you talk about firearms, coalesced into 
a violent mob just a few hundred yards from here. I cannot 
quite understand how you get there in talking about firearms 
and January 6th, where there were no firearms whatsoever in the 
Capitol, taken into the Capitol by rioters.
    Now for Ruger, I would like to ask a question to our good 
friend, Mr. Killoy, the CEO of Ruger. Thank you for being here 
today. I understand that you are a West Point graduate and a 
veteran of the U.S. Army.
    Mr. Killoy. Yes, sir, that is correct. I graduated in 1981, 
then spent five years on active duty and 15 in the Army 
Reserve.
    Mr. Clyde. Well, thank you for your service to our Nation, 
sir. That is quite an impressive record.
    Can you tell me, does Ruger sell firearms to law 
enforcement agencies?
    Mr. Killoy. Yes, Congressman, we sell to quite a few law 
enforcement agencies directly as well through our network of 
law enforcement distributors, and Ruger firearms are 
particularly popular as off-duty or backup guns for many law 
enforcement sworn officers.
    Mr. Clyde. Thank you; and I want to thank you and your 
company for being a leader in the gun manufacturing industry. I 
also want to thank you for being a constitutional business and 
for the work that Ruger does to make quality firearms 
affordable to all economies of citizens so they can protect 
themselves, especially during this time of increasing crime 
across our Nation. So, thank you to Ruger and its employees.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Kelly, is recognized.
    Ms. Kelly of Illinois. Thank you, Madam Chair, and the 
witnesses.
    Since 1976, the gun industry has been exempt from oversight 
by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, despite over 45,000 
Americans dying from gun-related injuries in 2020, and over 
25,000 so far this year. A teddy bear has more safety oversight 
than guns do.
    Mr. Busse, why would including guns on the Consumer Product 
Safety Act make them safer?
    Mr. Busse. I am not an expert on the Consumer Product 
Safety Act. I am sorry, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Kelly of Illinois. But do you think they should be 
included, like teddy bears and cribs and almost everything else 
you can name, and guns are exempt?
    Mr. Busse. I believe that all freedoms, especially the 
freedom to own guns and the freedom to manufacture and sell 
guns must be balanced with the commensurate amount of 
regulation and responsibility, and I think it is up to 
legislators like you and the other folks on this committee to 
decide that.
    Ms. Kelly of Illinois. Well, I have a bill that would do 
just that, just this. The Firearms Safety Act would remove the 
gun industry's exemption under the Consumer Product Safety Act. 
Having strong safety standards on firearms is critical, and 
there is no good reason for firearms to be the only consumer 
product not under the supervision of the CPSC.
    I want to shift our focus to gun trafficking. The city of 
Chicago is often highlighted as an example of why strict gun 
laws do not work. But what people fail to realize, time and 
time again, is that over 60 percent of crime guns come from out 
of state. This happens in other cities as well.
    New York City's mayor Eric Adams testified before this 
committee that the NYPD has taken over 3,000 illegal guns off 
the street in 2022 alone, many of which were trafficked through 
the so-called ``iron pipeline.'' Gun manufacturers are often 
contacted by the ATF to aid in their tracing investigations, 
following the path of a gun from the manufacturer to the crime 
scene.
    Mr. Killoy, does Ruger take any steps to identify 
problematic pattern of dealers, or stop shipments of firearms 
to dealers who sell a disproportionate amount of crime guns?
    Mr. Killoy. Congresswoman, in the case of Ruger we 
distribute our firearms in what we call a two-step distribution 
process. We sell to a network of 15 fairly large wholesalers 
who, in turn--they are all federally licensed firearms 
licensees. They then sell to the individual retailers, who are 
also licensees.
    So, we do not have visibility into those individual 
dealers. We sell to that much smaller network of our 15 
wholesalers.
    Ms. Kelly of Illinois. Thank you.
    Mr. Daniel, does Daniel Defense take any steps to identify 
problematic patterns of dealers or stop shipments of firearms 
to dealers who sell a disproportionate number of crime guns?
    Mr. Daniel. Congresswoman, we are federally licensed by the 
ATF to manufacture firearms and we sell our products through 
federally licensed dealers. We are very good at our ability to 
make sure that our firearms are transferred legally through 
legal dealers. If there is a pipeline of guns coming into your 
district the people who bring those in illegally, that is a 
crime and those people should be prosecuted.
    Ms. Kelly of Illinois. I do not disagree.
    Ms. Sampson, in your view do these companies do more to 
stop illegal gun trafficking, and if so, what could they do?
    Ms. Sampson. Yes, they could. For starters, manufacturers 
could be much more vigilant around the distributors and dealers 
that they sell to. So even if they do not necessarily go 
directly to a dealer, if they go to a distributor and they 
realize that that distributor is working with dealers who are 
selling crime guns over and over again, that should trigger an 
investigation and perhaps change their business practices.
    Another thing that manufacturers could do is change the way 
that they design their guns. You mentioned consumer product 
safety. That is a large part of what manufacturers have control 
over, that dealers and distributors do not have control over. 
They could do things like chamber load indicators or some of 
the procedures that would make it harder for someone to use a 
weapon that does not belong to them, and that would also go a 
long way to stopping gun crime.
    Ms. Kelly of Illinois. Thank you; and last, one last 
question for Mr. Killoy and Mr. Daniel. We have heard today 
support for abolishing the ATF. Do you support abolishing the 
ATF?
    Mr. Killoy. Speaking on behalf of Ruger, no, we do not. We 
work closely with our regulators and we do not support that.
    Ms. Kelly of Illinois. Thank you. Mr. Daniel?
    Mr. Daniel. Yes, I agree with Mr. Killoy. We are licensed 
manufacturers and we are regulated by the ATF, and we are not 
in support, at this time, of eliminating the ATF. The ATF is--
--
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Kelly of Illinois. Thank you so much. Thank you to the 
witnesses.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sessions, 
is now recognized.
    Mr. Sessions. Madam Chairman, thank you very much, and I 
appreciate you holding this hearing today. I want to thank all 
five or six of our witnesses that are here today to offer 
testimony to allow us to get closer to these questions, 
questions about not just the profits of gun manufacturers but 
the practices. And the way I see it is, I am delighted that 
each one of our manufacturers have taken part in today's 
hearing because, in my opinion, they provide proper elements, 
things that I grew up with as a young man, hunting, fishing, 
things that I have chosen to have as a sport, and I am 
delighted that they are in the United States of America, not 
just Smith & Wesson, which I carry, but also Ruger is a great 
product.
    Mr. Busse, you have presented yourself as a tried-to-be, 
and I believe that there is truth to this, you are looking for 
reasonable opportunities for people to use a gun, as you had 
stated, but to be consistent with values of not just the law 
but also of common sense. And I want to thank you for pointing 
that out. What I want to ask you is if in your analysis of this 
as an expert before us today, why are so many people buying 
guns?
    Mr. Busse. I think there is a myriad of reasons, sir. I 
think the spike in firearms ownership, if that is what you are 
referring to, in the last couple of years, has been driven by 
an uptick in fear, worry in society about conspiracy theory 
that is driving much of the firearms sales. My particular place 
of expertise or concern is the degree to which firearms 
companies and the political entities that firearms companies 
are very entwined with are constructing that conspiracy theory 
and driving it through political messaging.
    Mr. Sessions. OK. So, there is no reality basis for people 
seeing or hearing, or seeing in their neighborhood children who 
are killed by others, people who are robbed, raped, murdered by 
criminals?
    Mr. Busse. No, sir. I do not believe that. I think that 
there are certainly justifiable reasons to purchase a handgun, 
or, you know, a gun, and to defend yourself. I believe----
    Mr. Sessions. We are talking about the spike.
    Mr. Busse. I was talking about much of the spike, yes, and 
I believe, as with all rights, we are talking about 
policymaking in the gray area. There is a balance between 
responsible gun ownership and what becomes irresponsible, and I 
believe that some of the actions encouraging the things that 
have driven gun sales have crossed over that line in the last 
few years.
    Mr. Sessions. OK. All right. That is a great place to 
start, and what I would say to you is I believe that the vast 
number of people who carry, including myself, do so because we 
believe that we have a God-given right to protect ourselves, 
which is one of the reasons why I became a life member of the 
National Rifle Association. I try and conduct myself with 
training. I try and conduct myself with proper licensing, as I 
have held that concealed permit license for a number of years 
and had to be responsible about that.
    So, do you think we are talking about criminals or well-
balanced people that are improperly, perhaps, as you suggest, 
maybe not using these weapons that properly?
    Mr. Busse. I think it is a combination, and I think you 
bring up a very good point about your concealed carry license. 
I salute you for adhering to the regulation for that concealed 
carry license, and I regret the fact that that is no longer 
necessary for you to obtain.
    Mr. Sessions. Well, perhaps. I think it is in everybody's 
best interest to make sure that they are responsible, as you 
and I both agree here. But I will tell you that I have been 
driven, and hundreds of my friends, including mostly women, who 
have been driven to, and perhaps even here as the National 
Director of Women's Outreach, they would recognize that they do 
not want to be victims in their own home, and their ability to 
protect themselves is important.
    So, Ms. Okafor, can you please discuss with me why your 
members purchase firearms?
    Ms. Okafor. Speaking directly to women, women buy firearms 
because of self-defense. That is an overwhelming study that 
that is the reason why most women, particularly women in the 
last couple of years, buy firearms. It is for self-defense.
    And talking more so in regards to the constitutional carry, 
which is what you were talking about, permit-less carry in 
Texas, women have found that actually even a better of a policy 
because now they know that if they decide to get a permit and 
they want to go through the training involved in that, that 
they can, but that actually keeps them from having to do so 
when time permits, when you cannot wait the 60 to 90 days to 
get a permit from the state to tell you you are able to have--
--
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Okafor [continuing]. Concealed carry.
    Mr. Sessions. I appreciate the gentlewoman helping, but I 
would say this to the chairwoman.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Sessions. I want to thank you for having this, what 
seemingly is a balanced opportunity, and I yield back my time.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. I now ask unanimous consent 
that Representative Schneider be allowed to participate in 
today's hearing. So ordered.
    The gentleman from California, Vice Chair Gomez, is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Gomez. Thank you, Madam Chair. My Republican colleagues 
say that they are pro-life, yet for nearly three decades they 
have obstructed any kind of meaningful action to save lives. 
Where were these so-called pro-life politicians when children 
were being shot and killed at school? Where were they after 
Sandy Hook? Where were they after Stoneman Douglas High School? 
Where were they after Uvalde? They were oftentimes not siding 
with the children and the victims. They were siding with the 
killers, and they were siding the gun manufacturers, often 
voting to try to give blanket immunity to these manufacturers 
and block renewal of any assault weapons ban. As a result, 
deaths by gun violence nearly tripled--nearly tripled. Let that 
sink in.
    My Republican colleagues claim to be the party of 
individual freedom and the protectors of individual freedom 
when it comes to gun rights, yet not when it comes to abortion, 
same-sex marriage, contraception, or other individual rights. 
All of a sudden, it becomes a states' rights issue. And even 
when they claim to be about states' rights, they do not live up 
to that when it comes to guns. You know, they oppose any kind 
of regulation at the state level or at the local level. When 
they say we cannot impose any kind of restrictions on 
background checks, on requiring individuals to lock up their 
guns, to have trigger locks, then they say we cannot do 
anything to hold gun manufacturers accountable, pretty much 
giving us no way to reduce gun deaths in this country except by 
their idea of everybody should have a gun and that is how you 
reduce gun violence in this country.
    We have done it before, when it came to automobiles, when 
it came to cars. When all of a sudden you see car accidents 
soar, Congress and states enacted lifesaving safety measures, 
requiring seat belts, airbags, antilock brakes in new vehicles. 
And what did you see? Car accident deaths decreased 
dramatically while gun deaths soared. These gun makers before 
us today, and Republicans, have done worse than nothing in 
response. They actually help add fuel to the fire by 
advertising guns, AR-15s and other weapons, to white 
supremacists and children. This is what we are dealing with.
    Mr. Daniel, you have told my colleagues earlier today that 
you oppose Federal regulation on gun safety and see gun 
violence as an issue to be solved locally. So, does that mean 
you support state laws like those passed in California that ban 
marketing guns to children and allow residents to sue those who 
violate state safety standards, produce and sell weapons of 
war?
    Mr. Daniel. Sir, children cannot buy guns, and I was 
speaking to the local community taking responsibility of all 
the people who are involved----
    Mr. Gomez. So that is a no. So, you basically believe that 
guns should be marketed toward children.
    Mr. Daniel. We market our guns to adults, law-abiding 
adults for lawful purposes.
    Mr. Gomez. Mr. Daniel, I will take back my time.
    Mr. Busse, from your experience, if the gun industry thinks 
their products are not the cause of gun violence, why have they 
consistently lobbied to exempt themselves from liability and 
common-sense gun safety regulations, and why have they 
succeeded, and at what cost when it comes to death and 
violence?
    Mr. Busse. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I am 
greatly distressed at the degree to which the firearms industry 
has funded a powerful political machine that has fought common-
sense, Federal gun regulation at every turn, that is broadly 
supported by the American public. These things include 
universal background checks, they include raising the minimum 
age on the purchase of long guns to 21, and many other things.
    The reason that it has been fought is because cranking up 
the political pressure in this country is a profitable business 
model for the NRA and other groups that use this topic as a way 
to divide our society.
    Mr. Gomez. Thank you. Gun violence is being normalized in 
our country at the expense of children and families. I have had 
constituents killed. One was killed in Las Vegas, in the mass 
shooting. You know, this is something that we have to fight 
against, because this is not normal. It is not OK, where we 
have to be in fear of our lives, for our friends and families 
that go to church, school, a parade. This is something that is 
not reasonable, and we must----
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired----
    Mr. Gomez [continuing]. Take steps to lesson gun violence.
    Thank you so much. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. OK. The gentlelady from New York, Ms. 
Ocasio-Cortez, is recognized.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like us 
to just dive right into it. I have a photo that I would like to 
pull up for the committee and our witnesses to be able to see. 
Can we get that pulled up? It is on. OK, perfect.
    Mr. Daniel, you are CEO of firearm manufacturer, Daniel 
Defense. This photograph is from an advertisement featured for 
your company. I would like to draw your attention to that red 
tattoo featured in your company's advertisement. Do you know 
what that tattoo is, Mr. Daniel?
    Mr. Daniel. Madam Congressman, Congresswoman, I am not sure 
this is our ad. Can you show the whole ad? Is this our ad or 
someone else's?
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Yes, this is your ad, Mr. Daniel. This 
is an advertisement for your company, Daniel Defense.
    Mr. Daniel. Why is the branding not in the photo, ma'am.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. No worries. No worries. So, this is 
featured prominently in your advertisement, that tattoo. You 
have indicated that you do not know what it is. Ms. Sampson, as 
an expert in this area, can you briefly tell us what that 
tattoo is?
    Ms. Sampson. That is a Valknot and it's a symbol that has 
been increasingly embraced by white supremacists.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, Mr. Daniel, you may or may not know 
but your company's advertisements prominently displays 
iconography associated with white supremacist movements. You 
can also find it in this other photo that I will be pulling up 
right now. Right there, from January 6th, you can see the 
Valknot right there on this gentleman's chest.
    Mr. Daniel, yes or no. Are you aware that your advertising 
department uses imagery affiliated with white supremacist 
movements in its marketing materials?
    Mr. Daniel. No, ma'am. I do not think we do. I do not----
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Reclaiming my time. Thank you. I 
apologize. I just have to move quickly to fit these questions 
in.
    Mr. Daniel [continuing]. Show me the whole ad----
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Mr. Busse you are a former--reclaiming 
my time. Mr. Busse, you are a former firearms executive. Do you 
think that the use of this kind of imagery is welcomed and 
encouraged in marketing for the firearms industry, as a former 
executive yourself?
    Mr. Busse. I do not think it is welcomed and encouraged but 
I think it is looked away from, and I think that there is an 
aura and an approach in the industry where any single gun 
customer is good, no matter how detestable their views or their 
actions may be. I saw dozens of examples through my career of 
the acceptance or looking away from racist things. I think that 
is different than seeking it out, but I do not think it is 
properly controlled or addressed.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, in your experience you believe that 
a lot of gun manufacturers may turn a blind eye to these kinds 
of instances.
    Mr. Busse. Yes, Congresswoman, that is correct. I think 
they turn a blind eye because the industry has, within its DNA 
now, the belief that any single new gun owner is good, no 
matter what they do or how they market. That is why you heard 
earlier the representatives from Ruger and Daniel Defense, both 
of them have sat on the NSSF board, would refuse to condemn the 
ads.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, Mr. Busse. The toxic 
marketing does do enormous harm. We have seen the results with 
white supremacists using these weapons to target and kill Black 
Americans shopping for groceries in Buffalo, attending church 
in Charleston, targeting Jewish communities in Tree of Life.
    And Mr. Daniel, once again, as the CEO of Daniel Defense, 
yes or no, do you believe that members of identified extremist 
hate groups such as the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers should be 
able to purchase the AR-15 style rifles that your company 
sells?
    Mr. Daniel. Congresswoman, we are regulated by the ATF, 
through laws which you passed. We are very good at only----
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. I apologize. I just have a 
limited amount of time. Thank you.
    Turning it to you, Mr. Killoy, you are a board member, a 
CEO of Sturm, Ruger & Company. You are a board member of the 
National Shooting Sports Foundation. Mr. Daniel, you are also a 
board member of the NSSF. Mr. Killoy, Palmetto State Armory is 
a firearms company that is a member of the NSSF. Now I would 
like to pull up another photo. As member of the foundation that 
you are in, right here, Palmetto State Armory has used imagery 
clearly designed to appeal to the FBI-identified far-right 
domestic terrorist threat, Boogaloo Bois, with products such as 
this AK-47 style pistol designed in the same floral pattern 
that is often used by these group members to identify one 
another.
    Mr. Killoy, as a board member of the NSSF, do you condemn 
marketing firearms to identified extremist groups such as the 
Proud Boys or Oath Keepers or Boogaloo Bois? Yes or no, do you 
condemn your industry explicitly marketing materials to 
domestic terror threats?
    Mr. Killoy. Congresswoman, the National Shooting Sports 
Foundation does not control individual member companies or 
their ads, and I take exception----
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. This is a member of your foundation, Mr. 
Killoy.
    Mr. Killoy [continuing]. But I take exception to the fact 
that, you know, I can assure you we do not tolerate racism or 
white supremacy, in anything we do----
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Do you condemn marketing these 
materials--do you condemn marketing these materials to the 
Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, or Boogaloo Bois? That is all, Madam 
Chair. Simply a yes or no.
    Mr. Killoy. Congresswoman, I did not know that that was--I 
had never seen that ad before and I did not realize that is 
what it was tied to. I am not an expert in that field, and it 
is not our ad.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, you do not have an answer.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
DeSaulnier, is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for 
your leadership on this.
    Starting with Sampson and then Mr. Busse, if you could 
comment on the extraordinary cost to Americans for gun violence 
in this country. First I want to refer to a GAO report from 
last year that the chair asked for, that has been covered, 
including an article in The New York Times. It estimated that 
cost of gun violence is over $1 billion, at the very least, 
just in terms of medical costs to Federal taxpayers. Sixty 
percent of these medical costs are paid for through Medicare, 
Medicaid.
    Then on another just recent, by Everytown Research, the 
numbers are really sort of staggering to a broader study, 
titled ``The Economic Cost of Gun Violence''--$557 billion 
annually, comparable to 2.6 percent of U.S. gross domestic 
product.
    So, compare those numbers for me, based on $3 billion worth 
of profits, and I take it that is after-tax profit, as reported 
by Trace, for gun manufacturers. To me, this is a huge subsidy 
in addition to the horrible pain and suffering, but just from a 
financial standpoint.
    So first, Ms. Sampson, particularly for the Everytown 
report but also the GAO and other reports, could you add your 
comments to the cost of gun violence to American taxpayers?
    Ms. Sampson. Thank you, Congressman. I think, as you called 
it, it is a sort of subsidy because at the same time that 
American taxpayers are bearing not just, obviously, the 
emotional costs in terms of trauma and death, but also 
financial costs of gun violence, the gun violence epidemic. The 
gun industry is continuing to make profit, and then they use 
the violence that they, in part, facilitate to market to people 
to tell them that they need to have even more weapons.
    So, as we hear a lot of talk about self-defense, for 
example, well, a lot of people want to defend themselves 
because they are afraid of being shot by people who should not 
have weapons. And rather than making sure that make the 
industry accountable for allowing people to have weapons that 
they should not have, they just continue to fuel that market. 
So, they are able to evade responsibility, they are able to 
evade transparency, and they are able to evade oversight, all 
while putting the costs of that on American taxpayers and on 
Americans themselves who die as a result of that misconduct and 
irresponsibility.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thanks, Ms. Sampson. Mr. Busse?
    Mr. Busse. I think that most responsible gun owners want to 
be a part of the solution and do not want to be a part of the 
problem, and we need to rebalance those scales. So, to the 
degree to which irresponsible activities or insufficient 
regulation is leading toward costs of gun violence. I believe 
through my own experience that responsible gun owners want to 
play a part in being a solution to that.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Mr. Busse, I want to talk to you a little 
bit about having been in elected office in California for a 
long time and very active in violence prevention programs from 
a public health standpoint. There is a survey in The New York 
Times recently about just comparing states with evidence-based 
research, gun violence prevention, and the collective effect 
they have. So, in California, our laws, some of which I have 
authored at the local and state level, you are 25 percent less 
likely to be a victim of gun violence. If you are a young 
person, you are 35 percent less likely to be involved in a 
school shooting.
    So, the gist of that to me in the evidence-based research 
that, particularly, we have funded in California, at the 
University of California at Davis and their Violence Prevention 
Program, not just guns, but also, in this instance, these 
policies work, and you are less likely to be harmed by guns if 
we have these initiatives. Giffords has done a wonderful job, I 
think, of comparing that internationally. Could you speak to 
that and anything you would like to add in the time I have got 
left, Mr. Sampson?
    Mr. Sampson. Thank you, Congressman. I think that you are 
correct, and I would like to take issue with some of the 
statements I have heard here from other representatives today 
telling us that gun laws don't work or that they won't be 
applied to anybody but criminals. I would like to take your 
example and apply it to two recent shootings: the Uvalde 
shooting and the Buffalo shooting. In both of those cases, the 
shooters waited until they were 18 to purchase the guns. They 
didn't purchase them when they were 16-and-a-half. They didn't 
purchase them when they were 17 and three-quarters. They waited 
until they were 18. Why is that? Because the law said they 
couldn't purchase them until they were 18. So, to your point in 
California and to those cases, the fact is that the laws impact 
the way people purchase and use guns, and we need to, as a 
responsible society, and you, as a governing body, need to take 
that into account.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The gentlelady from 
California, Ms. Jackie Speier, is recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Speier. Thank you, Madam Chair. I find this hearing to 
be both edifying and very painful. Mr. Killoy, in your 
testimony, you made the assertion that modern sporting rifles 
are not inherently more dangerous than other popular firearms. 
Is that true? Is that what you said?
    Mr. Killoy. I think that is paraphrasing, but, yes, 
Congresswoman.
    Ms. Speier. So, I don't know if you took the time to listen 
to the hearing we had on Uvalde and the families that appeared, 
and the pediatrician who went to school at Robb Elementary and 
is very committed to the community. He went into that morgue. 
Not the morgue. He went into that emergency room, and one of 
the children was decapitated. The other child's body was in 
shreds and could hardly be identified. How can you say that 
that is a sporting rifle?
    Mr. Killoy. Congresswoman, respectfully, obviously the 
events in Uvalde are tragic on so many levels, but to blame the 
firearm, it is a semiautomatic firearm. Semiautomatic firearms 
have been around since 1885 when they were first invented, many 
of them in larger calibers than the .223 caliber that is used 
in modern sporting rifles typically. Again, it is an inanimate 
object used by a wicked----
    Ms. Speier. All right. But it is a weapon of war, Mr. 
Killoy, and no matter how you want to sugar coat it, it 
decapitates people. It shreds their bodies. It is not a gun you 
use as, you know, a sporting rifle to shoot a deer.
    Let me move on. The Protection of Law Commerce in Arms Act, 
PLCAA has really had the effect of robbing the American people 
of a mechanism to ensure the gun industry is protecting 
American consumers. We pass laws all the time to protect 
consumers that manufacturers find distasteful or costly, 
whether it is airbags or seatbelts. If a product is unsafe or 
could easily be made safer, we take action. Now, Ms. Sampson, 
how many Americans die in accidental firearm accidents every 
year?
    Ms. Sampson. There are about nine per day. I am not sure 
what that adds up to in a year.
    Ms. Speier. Nine per day of deaths that could be avoided 
with any kind of safety mechanism applied. How many of those 
deaths are children?
    Ms. Sampson. I am not sure. I think it is nine children per 
day. I am sorry about that.
    Ms. Speier. Nine children per day that are tragically 
killed because they were playing with a firearm that was 
loaded. Correct?
    Ms. Sampson. Yes.
    Ms. Speier. The SEC filing for Ruger says that firearm 
preference can be ``driven by deeply personal views'' and 
``many pistol shooters do not like magazines that have a 
disconnect feature.'' In fact, even when you make handguns with 
magazine disconnects, they are easy to circumvent. There are 
multiple guides on how to remove the magazine disconnect. Mr. 
Busse, what do you make of the argument that a consumer's 
personal views about how a handgun feels should trump the risk 
that a child might accidentally shoot herself?
    Mr. Busse. Well, these are the questions that legislative 
bodies, such as this, need to wrestle with for the good of 
society. There is a use for a handgun obviously, and there is a 
need for things to be safe. As you noted, we have wrestled with 
these things in cars, and cigarettes, and everything else 
through the history of our country.
    Ms. Speier. I am going to show you this pink AR rifle, 
obviously being promoted for girls, I guess, to use. There 
appears to be a systematic effort under way by many of you as 
manufacturers to promote having children get engaged in wanting 
to have guns. Is that your newest market? Any of you can answer 
that. Do you see that as a market that is untapped?
    Mr. Killoy. Congresswoman, I think what is appropriate in 
the topic of firearms and children is properly training and 
educating children at age-appropriate levels to handle firearms 
safely, to understand that used improperly, they are danger to 
themselves and others, and to leave it alone and not let their 
curiosity get the best of them. That is one of the reasons 
Ruger has supplied over 25 million locks in the last few 
decades----
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    Mr. Killoy [continuing]. To keep our firearms out of 
unauthorized hands, like children.
    Ms. Speier. Thank you. My time has expired.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady from Michigan, Mrs. 
Lawrence, is recognized for five minutes.
    Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you, Madam Chair. My colleague on the 
other side used a term that I hear frequently when we start 
talking about gun violence in America, and he said, ``my God-
given right.'' I was raised in the church, I attend church, and 
I read my Bible personally. I would welcome any person to find 
the scripture where God said you shall own a gun. I would 
welcome anyone to show me where God declared that owning a gun 
is your right. I do pray for my colleagues.
    To own a gun in America is a constitutional right, but just 
like any other situation that arises in America, when we get to 
the point of it being a pandemic, an epidemic, where the death 
of children in America, the No. 1 cause is a gun, my goodness, 
aren't we intelligent enough in America to embrace this 
challenge? If I hear another hypocrite stand up and say ``my 
thoughts and prayers'' while parents are grieving, and 
standing, and bearing children. And we have this debate about 
abortion, ``oh, I care about the children,'' but you embrace, 
promote, and make money off of guns that are killing our 
children. Can you at least have a conversation about your right 
to own a gun and gun violence in America?
    Mr. Busse, gun manufacturers, can they buy advertisement on 
social media platforms like Twitter or Facebook? ``Yes'' or 
``no.''
    Mr. Busse. I believe there are varying rules from those 
social media platforms, but gun companies do advertise 
aggressively through social media platforms through their 
normal posting accounts.
    Mrs. Lawrence. The answer is, no, they are not supposed to, 
but you are correct, the gun manufacturers use social media to 
sell their product. So, even though these companies are not 
allowed to advertise directly on the platform, they have social 
media accounts that they can use to promote their products. The 
now infamous Daniel Defense ad depicting a child holding a 
semiautomatic weapon was posted on Twitter. The company has 
since deleted the picture after an uproar, after the Uvalde 
massacre; and the picture I post here, they use this, a gun 
manufacturer. I want to ask Mr. Daniel, why did your company 
remove this post from Twitter?
    Mr. Daniel. Congresswoman, this ad is about parents 
teaching children gun safety, teaching them----
    Mrs. Lawrence. Why did you take it down, sir?
    Mr. Daniel [continuing]. Teaching what a gun is, and when 
they----
    Mrs. Lawrence. Why did you take it down, sir? Answer the 
question, please.
    Mr. Daniel. Yes, ma'am. We took this ad down, although it 
had a good message. We took it down because children had just 
been killed and we didn't think it was appropriate to----
    Mrs. Lawrence. It wasn't appropriate. Isn't that ironic 
that you, who used this picture on social media personally as a 
company, decided it was inappropriate? The next thing I want to 
ask you, Mr. Daniel, there is never a right time to post a 
photo like this, and the fact that the photo should have never 
been taken. This is not a traditional advertisement, but in 
2022, social media posts are indeed advertisements. Mr. 
Sampson, why is gunmakers' use of social media concerning to 
you? ``Ms.,'' I am sorry.
    Ms. Sampson. Those posts are important because firearms are 
a consumer product, and so consumers are going to be 
susceptible to advertising, and the messages impact them. One 
of the biggest messages that we haven't talked about yet is gun 
manufacturers' claims that guns will make people safer. We have 
heard a lot about self-defense, for example, when, in reality, 
bringing a gun into your home makes it more likely that you or 
someone in your home will be harmed by that gun rather than 
using it to defend yourselves.
    So, Americans are looking for answers as to how to keep 
themselves safe, and these social media posts that suggest, for 
example, that if you want safety, you should bring a firearm 
into your home, or if you want safety, you should walk around 
the streets armed with an AR-15 can mislead the public. That is 
why it is important.
    Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you. We at a time, we had the Wild, 
Wild West where every American walked around with a gun. And 
supposedly through education, through compassion, and 
experience, we learned that this was not. In our Constitution, 
it is clear that we did not have a police department. We did 
not have an organized, funded body that is in place to protect 
us. So again----
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    Mrs. Lawrence [continuing]. I want to give a Bible to every 
one of my colleagues and have a prayer session with all of 
them. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back. The 
gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Carter, is now recognized.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to 
waive on to this committee, and thank all the witnesses here. 
You know, it is real easy to profile and just say, oh, you are 
a gun manufacturer, you are an awful person, terrible person, 
but that is not always the case. In fact, that is never the 
case. I just want to make sure you understand, Daniel Defense 
is one of the major employers in my district that I have the 
honor and privilege of representing in the 1st congressional 
District of Georgia. They provide many jobs, many well-paying 
jobs in our community, and they are great jobs, great jobs that 
provide people with the opportunity to produce a great product, 
and to be reimbursed for that product and for the fine work 
that they do. Mr. Daniel, before I get into a couple of 
questions, I noticed that you have been asked time and time 
again during this hearing about some ads involving children, 
and you haven't really had the opportunity to respond to them 
about the intent. I want to just give you that opportunity if 
you wanted to comment on some of those ads, and what exactly 
you had in mind when you were doing that.
    Mr. Daniel. Thank you, Congressman. This photo was taken by 
a parent who was teaching their child what a gun was. As you 
notice in the photo, the parent's hand was right in the photo. 
The gun was unloaded. This child was being taught that you 
can't touch a gun without an adult. This is personal 
responsibility that I have been trying to talk about. Parents 
must teach your children how to handle firearms properly. Just 
as you would teach child not to get behind the driver's seat of 
a car, and crank it, and drive away, we must teach children to 
be safe with firearms.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Daniel, as I know all too well, your 
company has been very involved in the community and in our 
district. In fact, I believe you sponsor a number of high 
school teams, shooting teams, and you are involved in youth 
groups like that. Is that true?
    Mr. Daniel. Yes, sir. We actually started a foundation 
called Double D Foundation. The purpose of the foundation is to 
help train young people how to use firearms safely and how to 
compete with firearms.
    Mr. Carter. It would be easy to just profile, as I said 
earlier, and label you as an awful person who is just trying to 
get guns into the hands of kids, but quite the opposite. You 
are trying to teach safety and actually helping young people. 
Wouldn't you agree?
    Mr. Daniel. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Carter. Well, let me ask you this. You bought this 
company. Is that right?
    Mr. Daniel. What was the question, sir?
    Mr. Carter. How did this company get started? Daniel 
Defense.
    Mr. Daniel. Sir, I started shooting with an AR-15 and a 
handgun in the late 90's as I had grown up hunting, but never 
done any self-defense training. I had an AR-15 and a handgun, 
and I started training for self-defense, and I realized how 
effective the AR-15 was for self-defense. I wanted some parts 
for the guns that I had that nobody made, and I talked to the 
company, and they would not make the four parts that I needed. 
I talked them into making a hundred, and I would have to sell 
96 to get the four parts I wanted. Those were the first parts 
we sold in 2001, and then we sold the very first gun that we 
made in 2009.
    Mr. Carter. And how many people do you employ now in your 
business?
    Mr. Daniel. About 400 people, sir.
    Mr. Carter. So it went from a company that you started in 
your garage, from what I understand, to where you are providing 
for 400 families.
    Mr. Daniel. Yes, sir. That is correct.
    Mr. Carter. Not only that, but also teaching safety to 
children, to young people, and giving them the opportunity to 
compete, and to learn, and to really grow. Is that true?
    Mr. Daniel. Yes, sir, and to become responsible adults and 
know how to handle firearms.
    Mr. Carter. Well, tell me very quickly, what does a job at 
Daniel Defense look like? I mean, tell me about the typical job 
at Daniel Defense.
    Mr. Daniel. We are vertically integrated, so we manufacture 
almost every part in the gun. So, there are all types of 
manufacturing jobs, all types of engineering jobs, all types of 
manufacturing engineering jobs. You know, we do everything 
here, assembly jobs. We are very diverse in the jobs that we 
offer, and we are one of the highest-paying employers. We are 
the highest in our county and one of the highest in our region.
    Mr. Carter. Well, thank you, Mr. Daniel, for your 
commitment in our community, and thank you for being a witness 
here today, and I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. The 
gentleman from Illinois, Representative Schneider, is now 
recognized.
    Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, and thanks to 
the committee for allowing me to waive on to this committee 
today. We are having this very important hearing. Before I 
start, let me just ask a couple of questions. Maybe I will 
start with Mr. Daniel real quickly. What does ``M&P'' stand 
for?
    Mr. Daniel. Excuse me, sir?
    Mr. Schneider. What does ``M&P'' stand for?
    Mr. Daniel. Are you talking about for Smith & Wesson or----
    Mr. Schneider. Yes. In marketing, when we are talking about 
a gun, what does ``M&P'' represent?
    Mr. Daniel. I think Smith & Wesson uses ``M&P'' for 
``military and police.''
    Mr. Schneider. Thank you. Mr. Busse, maybe I will ask you 
this question. I am not a hunter, but a followup shot in 
hunting, what is that typically when someone is deer hunting?
    Mr. Busse. A followup shot in hunting, well, a followup 
anywhere is a second shot on something.
    Mr. Schneider. Yes, and if you are deer hunting, if you are 
lucky, how many shots might you get at a deer? If you hit it or 
miss the first time, how many followup shots are you going to 
get?
    Mr. Busse. Well, you shouldn't miss, but, I mean, a typical 
deer hunter may get one more maybe.
    Mr. Schneider. All right. So, the idea of a gun that can 
fire 83 shots in just a couple of seconds for deer hunting, 
that doesn't make a lot of sense.
    Mr. Busse. Not only doesn't it make a lot of sense, in many 
states that is prohibited by law.
    Mr. Schneider. All right. As I understand it, in fact, in 
some places, you can only have 3 or 5 bullets in your gun when 
you are deer hunting.
    Mr. Busse. That is correct, yes.
    Mr. Schneider. So, I am not only here as a representative, 
but I am a resident of Highland Park, which as you know and we 
talked about it today, had a horrible mass shooting at the 4th 
of July parade. Like many residents, I joined thousands of 
families as we waited for the Independence Day parade, when a 
single deranged man climbed a ladder to a rooftop and 
monstrously opened fire on the crowd from above. In less than a 
minute, he fired 83 shots from an AR-style Smith & Wesson M&P 
15 semiautomatic rifle military and police--not hunting--
military and police rifle, murdering seven and wounding dozens 
more. What should have been a joyful celebration ended in 
tragedy and trauma for an entire community, and his intent was 
to kill many more.
    Mr. Daniel, in your testimony, you mentioned that these 
shooters go after soft targets. Our parade ground was not a 
soft target, per se. It wasn't a gun-free zone. The police were 
there. First responders were there. In fact, they were heroes. 
But the shooter was able to fire off his bullets so fast, that 
they couldn't even identify from where they were coming from. 
We heard from some of those victims today about how their 
families were shaking, their friends were injured, and their 
sense of safety, our safety, was forever broken. I want to 
thank the many victims who shared their story, and I commend 
their bravery for speaking out. Without an assault weapon, the 
shooter in Highland Park would likely not have inflicted the 
extreme carnage we experienced.
    The ``M&P'' stands for, as you said, ``military and 
police,'' and yet Smith & Wesson markets and sells these 
weapons of war to civilians, like the monster who murdered 
seven people. His intent was to kill many more. These weapons 
were designed to massacre. For that reason, I have been talking 
to my colleagues about the importance of voting for H.R. 1808, 
a bill that would reinstate the Federal ban on selling these 
assault weapons. While I would like to address Smith & Wesson 
brands on their role in the Highland Park shooting today, 
unfortunately they are not here.
    Mr. Daniel, let me turn to you. Your company, Daniel 
Defense, as you mentioned, has grown. It is one of the leading 
voices in marketing assault weapons to civilians. In one of 
your ads, you use the slogan, ``Use What They Use,'' showing 
that you know these weapons are designed--``they,'' I assume, 
being the military--that they are designed for war, but using 
them in a civilian role, all the same. You posted that photo we 
have talked about of the toddler holding a gun. I understand 
why you took it down.
    But, you know, I have a degree in business from Kellogg 
School at Northwestern, a marketing school. We know the power 
of marketing, especially the power of marketing to young 
people, whether it is cereal, or cigarettes, or, in this case, 
guns. Given that you apparently are knowingly marketing to 
young people and you know that these young people, in 
particular, their weapon of choice is the assault weapon, the 
AR-15, why do you think companies should be shielded from 
liability if a weapon marketed to a young person and is used by 
young person to massacre a community, whether it is Uvalde, 
Buffalo, Highland Park, or any of the other countless names 
that have already experienced these tragedies?
    Mr. Daniel. Congressman, we market and sell our products to 
law-abiding citizens who are adults. We cannot sell firearms to 
children.
    Mr. Schneider. So-- but the marketing to young people 
creates the market. We know marketing works. That is why 
companies spend millions and billions of dollars selling 
everything from makeup to cereal, as I talked about, to cars, 
and imagery matters; and the connection to the military for 
these young people, it is not for hunting. You don't take these 
weapons to go and hunt deer or do fowl hunting.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired. The 
gentleman may answer the question.
    Mr. Daniel. What was the question?
    Mr. Schneider. It was more of a comment, so I yield back 
the balance of my time.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. Before we 
close, I want to offer the ranking member an opportunity to 
offer any closing remarks he may have. Ranking Member Comer, 
you are now recognized.
    Mr. Comer. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank our 
witnesses who are here today. I especially want to thank Ruger 
and Daniel Defense who are here today for manufacturing, and 
employing, and making an investment in the United States. That 
is an issue that we are trying to focus on in Congress, trying 
to keep manufacturing in the United States.
    You know, the Democrats talk a lot about the hundreds of 
mass shootings in America committed by criminals who are either 
immediately arrested or killed on the spot, but they say 
nothing about the 100,000 people who have died of fentanyl 
overdoses, overdoses that came at the hands of illegals who 
crossed our unsecured border. Liberals have passed the most 
strict gun laws in America in cities like Chicago, New York, 
and Washington, DC, yet these cities continue to have the 
highest rates of gun violence.
    Banning guns from law-abiding citizens is simply not the 
answer. Republicans will never turn our back on the Second 
Amendment. So, let's focus where there is consensus among both 
parties because you can't legislate against evil. If you could, 
I think this would be 535 votes in favor of legislating against 
evil. But we can focus and fund better security at our schools, 
we can fund and focus on better mental health awareness and 
detection, and for goodness sakes, we can fund our police.
    Hopefully, the American people are seeing what happens when 
we have lax prosecutors. I think we have seen what happens in 
places like San Francisco, which is probably the most liberal 
city in the United States. They had a recall of their local 
prosecutor because the American people will not tolerate 
letting criminals out in the name of criminal justice. So, I 
think there are many areas where both parties can come together 
to focus on achievable solutions, and I am willing to do that, 
Madam Chair. With that, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back, and I 
recognize myself for a closing statement.
    Today, for the first time in recent history, gun industry 
executives testified to Congress about their business 
practices. I was sincerely hoping that they would use this 
opportunity to acknowledge their role in the violence plaguing 
our Nation, to apologize to the families who are here with us 
today who have been devastated by their products, and to agree 
to stop selling the most dangerous weapons. Sadly, they 
refused.
    Mr. Daniel, the CEO of Daniel Defense, blamed gun violence 
on the decline of what he called personal responsibility, but 
when I asked about his own responsibility for selling guns to 
mass murderers, he claimed that these shootings are just a 
local problem. The CEO of Ruger, Mr. Killoy, was asked if his 
company would take the basic step of tracking the crimes that 
are committed with the guns he sells like other manufacturers. 
His answer was, ``That is not my job.'' The third one that we 
invited didn't even bother to show up. That is why I intend to 
seek additional documents from that company by subpoena.
    It is no secret why gun CEOs are so desperate to avoid 
taking responsibility for the deaths caused by their products. 
Our investigation found that these companies made over a 
billion dollars selling assault weapons in the last decade. 
They are choosing their bottom line over the lives of their 
fellow Americans. Since it is clear that the gun industry won't 
protect Americans, Congress must act. We must ban weapons of 
war from our communities. We must repeal the immunity from 
lawsuits that gunmakers enjoy, unlike every other industry in 
America, and we must finally hold the gun manufacturers to 
account.
    This hearing is not the end. Our committee will continue 
our investigation, and I will keep fighting for commonsense gun 
safety laws. This is a fight we must and will win, and I yield 
back.
    I now recognize myself for a closing adjournment.
    I want to thank our panelists for their remarks. I want to 
thank the families that are here with us today, too. I want to 
commend my colleagues for participating in this important 
conversation.
    With that, without objection, all members have five 
legislative days within which to submit extraneous materials 
and to submit additional written questions for the witnesses to 
the chair, which will be forwarded to the witnesses for their 
response. I ask our witnesses to please respond as promptly as 
you are able.
    Chairwoman Maloney. This meeting is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]