[Senate Hearing 117-683]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-683
CONSTITUTIONAL AND COMMON SENSE
STEPS TO REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 23, 2021
__________
Serial No. J-117-7
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
www.judiciary.senate.gov
www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
50-628 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chair
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Ranking
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California Member
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota JOHN CORNYN, Texas
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut TED CRUZ, Texas
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii BEN SASSE, Nebraska
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
ALEX PADILLA, California TOM COTTON, Arkansas
JON OSSOFF, Georgia JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
Joseph Zogby, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Kolan L. Davis, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Durbin, Hon. Richard J........................................... 1
Grassley, Hon. Charles E......................................... 3
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne........................................... 8
Blumenthal, Hon. Richard......................................... 5
Cruz, Hon. Ted................................................... 7
Kennedy, Hon. John............................................... 9
WITNESSES
Brule, Robin..................................................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 63
Responses to written questions............................... 113
Cheng, Chris..................................................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 65
Responses to written questions............................... 115
Hupp, Suzanna Gratia............................................. 22
Prepared statement........................................... 68
Responses to written questions............................... 120
Rogers, Selwyn O., Jr............................................ 13
Prepared statement........................................... 90
Responses to written questions............................... 125
Solomon, Geneva.................................................. 15
Prepared statement........................................... 94
Questions submitted with no response......................... 112
Spagnolo, Fernando C............................................. 18
Prepared statement........................................... 96
Responses to written questions............................... 129
Swearer, Amy..................................................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 99
Responses to written questions............................... 132
Thomas, Robyn.................................................... 24
Prepared statement........................................... 72
Responses to written questions............................... 146
APPENDIX
Items submitted for the record................................... 61
CONSTITUTIONAL AND COMMON SENSE
STEPS TO REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2021
United States Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in
Room 216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
Chair of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Durbin [presiding], Leahy, Feinstein,
Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Coons, Blumenthal, Hirono, Booker,
Padilla, Ossoff, Grassley, Cornyn, Lee, Cruz, Hawley, Cotton,
Kennedy, Tillis, and Blackburn.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Chair Durbin. This hearing will come to order. It was a
week ago that I announced we were going to be holding a hearing
on gun violence. That same day there was a horrible string of
shootings in Atlanta, Georgia, that claimed the lives of eight
victims.
Last night I was putting the finishing touches on my
statement and questions, and there was another unspeakable mass
shooting, this time in a grocery store in Boulder, Colorado.
According to the preliminary news reports, at least 10 people
were killed in Boulder last night. They included a police
officer, Eric Talley. He was reportedly the first officer on
the scene. Officer Talley was the father of seven. It is
devastating. These victims and their loved ones are worthy of
our thoughts and our prayers, but there is more that is
required.
We face a pandemic of coronavirus. We have another epidemic
in America called ``guns.''
I could ask for a moment of silence for the mass shooting
in Boulder last night, and after that is completed, I could ask
for a moment of silence for the shooting in Atlanta, 6 days
ago. After a minute, I could ask for a moment of silence for
the 29 mass shootings that occurred this month in the United
States. But, in addition to a moment of silence, I would like
to ask for a moment of action, a moment of real caring, a
moment when we allow--when we do not allow others to do what we
need to do. Prayer leaders have their important place in this,
but we are Senate leaders. What are we doing? What are we doing
other than reflecting and praying? That is a good starting
point. That should not be our endpoint.
Last weekend, in the city of Chicago, which I am honored to
represent, 20 people were shot--20. Dr. Rogers, you know that
well. You know what happens in our hometown. Four of them died.
Across the Nation, every day we lose on average 109
American lives to gunfire--109. Suicides, domestic violence
shootings, accidental shootings, homicides, and another 200
Americans are injured by guns. The numbers are sobering, and
each number is an individual person, a loved one, a neighbor, a
friend, a husband, a father, a son or a daughter.
We have seen too many desperate trips to the emergency
room, too many funerals. Too many families and communities have
been scarred forever by gun violence. We have come to accept it
as part of American life. Disproportionately this violence
affects people of color, but nobody is immune.
Let me show you a video that highlights this crisis. I warn
those who are watching that it contains scenes of gunfire that
are disturbing.
[Video is shown.]
Chair Durbin. We cannot keep up with it. I cannot change
and amend my opening statement to keep up with it. It just
keeps coming at us. We are numb to the numbers. Unless we are
personally touched, it is just another statistic. That has got
to stop.
This Committee, this hearing, I hope will open a
conversation about constitutional, commonsense ways to reduce
gun violence in America. We see the problem we are up against
as a public health crisis. So, what should we do about it? We
will not solve this crisis with just prosecutions after
funerals. We need prevention before shooting. If there is one
thing which we should have learned from the COVID-19 pandemic,
it is that we face a public health crisis, when we face one, we
can reduce the total harm with commonsense, science-based
solutions. We should set goals to reduce the number of deaths
and shootings, collect and study the data, identify the cause
and risk factors, and apply prevention and intervention
strategies that makes the numbers come down.
We can do this. The fact that guns are lawful products with
legitimate uses must not stop us from taking action to reduce
gun deaths.
Look at opioids. They have a lawful, legitimate use. But
Congress recognized the public health catastrophe that resulted
from the misuse of opioids, and we did something. While more
has to be done, we have stepped up to change laws and pass
reforms to prevent abuse and to reduce death.
Today's hearing will discuss some commonsense steps we can
take. Dr. Selwyn Rogers is here. He is a trauma surgeon and a
public health expert from the University of Chicago Medicine.
He will discuss efforts underway in Chicago to apply public
health solutions to this challenge. I have been proud to work
with him to help expand trauma-informed care and health
education in other community settings, and on the HEAL
Initiative, which has brought 10 major Chicago hospitals
together on a collaborative effort to address root causes of
violence in their surrounding neighborhoods. Kids are not born
with a gun in their hands, and they are not born as members of
gangs. Something happens. Dr. Rogers will tell us what he has
seen.
There is also important legislation pending in this
Committee to reform gun laws. For example, there are well-known
gaps in the Federal gun background check system: the gun show
loophole, the internet loophole, and more. These gaps make it
too easy for felons, abusers, and mentally unstable people to
get their hands on guns and harm others. The House-passed
bipartisan background checks bill, H.R. 8, would close these
gaps. So would the Senate companion bill, which I am proud to
cosponsor.
Polls show that around 90 percent of Americans support
closing the gaps in the background check system--90 percent. We
are debating this. Ninety percent of Americans agree on it. So
do a majority of gun owners. It is a commonsense step that is
consistent with the Second Amendment that would save lives.
There are other important reform proposals that would
reduce the use of guns in domestic violence incidents, promote
better information sharing between law enforcement when a
background check is denied, support extreme risk protection
orders that are in place in 19 States and the District of
Columbia, and more.
Soon I will reintroduce the SECURE Firearm Storage Act, my
bill with Congressman Brad Schneider of Illinois. This bill
would help prevent smash-and-grab burglaries of gun dealers by
ensuring that dealers store their guns safely during off-
business hours.
Today's hearing is just a first step. When I was Chair of
the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Rights in 2013,
I chaired several hearings. This year, that Subcommittee is
under the leadership of Senator Blumenthal, who has promised to
hold further hearings on specific ideas and proposals to deal
with gun violence. Thanks, Senator Blumenthal, for your
leadership.
I want to acknowledge as well Senator Feinstein. Senator
Feinstein, over the years you have been a real leader on these
issues. We thank you for being here. Your personal life
experience which you recounted to us is something no one would
ever want to face, and I am sure it has changed you forever.
But you have come through with resolve to make this a better
world and a safer world as a result of it. Thank you for that.
I hope we can all agree that the numbers of shooting deaths
and injuries are too high, and let us agree that we should take
action to bring those numbers down. We are not going to agree
on every proposal, but if we share a commitment to reduce gun
deaths, some proposals will help.
One final word. I want to speak to those watching who have
lost loved ones to gun violence, whether it was last night or
last week or last year or even longer. Many of them are working
tirelessly to help spare other families what they have gone
through. I mourn your loss. But I praise and thank you for your
advocacy to help others. I hear you, I am with you, and we will
keep working to get this done.
Now, I would like to turn to Ranking Member Senator
Grassley.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA
Senator Grassley. Well, thank you, Senator Durbin. I
appreciate it.
The violence that this country has seen over the past years
has been appalling. We all saw an unprecedented spike of
murders along with periods of prolonged civil unrest. Americans
killed one another, destroyed their neighbors' businesses,
attacked law enforcement officers, and burned city blocks to
the ground.
Just yesterday, as we saw on the news last night, a police
officer made the ultimate sacrifice--his life--during an attack
on a supermarket in Boulder, Colorado, that killed 10.
Obviously, as Senator Durbin said, our condolences go to the
families of those lost in this terrible crime. The same goes to
the murder victims senselessly killed in Atlanta last week.
However, I have taken a few lessons from these terrible
events. The first is that we cannot reduce violence in our
communities without a professional, well-trained, and fully
funded police force. This includes gun violence. The rallying
cry during the riots last summer was, ``Defund the Police.''
Cities that followed that advice saw a rapid spike in violent
crime. Many were forced to refund the police. This happened in
Minneapolis and Portland, maybe other cities as well.
Statistics show that the murder rate in 2020 increased most
significantly in June when the rioters were on the march and
policymakers forced police into retreat. Evidence strongly
suggests that the June 2020 spike in homicides and other gun-
related crimes is related to less policing or de-policing. This
progressive goal may have translated to 1,268 additional deaths
in 2020.
On the other hand, efforts to combat violent crime, like
Bill Barr's Operation Legend, resulted in an additional 6,000
arrests nationwide, including nearly 500 for homicide and
hundreds of illegal firearms seized. Sadly, it does not appear
that the Department of Justice now intends to continue this
successful initiative. I hope that violent crime will be a top
priority for our Attorney General Garland and for President
Biden. But I have already heard about cuts in funding for the
U.S. Attorney's Office.
In the Senate we have previously acted in a bipartisan way
to add legal measures to curb gun violence. We passed the Fix
NICS Act and the STOP School Violence Act just a few short
years ago. Together these laws penalize Federal agencies who
fail to comply with the current law requiring them to properly
report dangerous individuals and violent criminals to NICS.
They also provide incentives to the States to improve their
overall criminal history reporting and also provide funding to
schools to strengthen their infrastructure, which will make it
harder for shooters to enter schools.
I believe that there is more that we can do. I have led the
reintroduction of the EAGLES Act, a bill which would
reauthorize the National Threat Assessment Center of the U.S.
Secret Service so that they can train law enforcement officers
and schools about recognizing the signs of a person in crisis.
Early intervention is the best way to stop tragic mass
shootings. For example, the shooter of the Marjory Stoneman
Douglas High School in Florida--and that is the home of the
Eagles--exhibited 42 different warning signs before killing his
former classmates. A comprehensive review by the Secret Service
found that all school shooters exhibit such signs before
attack. Recognizing the signs and addressing them with crisis
intervention could prevent future school attacks, so I ask my
fellow Members of this Committee to consider joining me in
cosponsoring this bill and seeing it to reality.
With my colleagues Senators Coons and Cornyn, I am also a
cosponsor of the NICS Denial Act. This bill would require that
State and local law enforcement be alerted when someone tries
to buy a gun who does not qualify under the law. Law
enforcement can then intervene.
With my colleague, Senator Cruz, I plan to reintroduce the
Protecting Communities and Preserving the Second Amendment Act,
which improves the NICS system of incentivizing and
encouraging--ensuring that relevant records are uploaded to the
data base in a timely and consistent manner. This legislation
also defines and clarifies what it means to be prohibited from
possession of a firearm due to mental incompetence or
commission to a mental health institution and commissions a
study on the causes of mass shootings. Finally, the bill
includes a provision that requires that law enforcement be
notified if an individual has been investigated as to a
possible terrorist threat or attempts to acquire firearms.
I think that we can make bipartisan, commonsense, and
constitutional progress on the issue of gun violence if we work
together, and I hope that we are serious about working
together. The two background check bills recently passed by the
House passed on votes that were virtually party line. There is
no good sign--that is not a good sign that all voices and all
perspectives are being considered.
Like many Americans, I cherish my right to bear arms. In
the dialog about gun control, we rarely consider how many
Americans are united in their advocacy and enjoyment of this
right. I am pleased to see women gun owners and gun owners of
color make their voices heard. In a time when law enforcement
response might be uncertain, the need for vulnerable
populations to feel safe and be able to protect themselves is
more important than ever. The witnesses appearing for the
minority bring those perspectives into this dialog and do it
this very day.
I hope those who do not know this will learn something new
about the diversity of gun owners. I hope that we can have a
constructive conversation today, one that focuses on the
preservation of the Second Amendment right that we all share
and the safety of all Americans.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Grassley.
I would like to give the Chair and Ranking Member of the
Constitution Subcommittee a chance to make brief remarks.
Senator Blumenthal.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this hearing, and thanks to all of the witnesses for
being here today, particularly to Ms. Brule and Chief Spagnolo
of Waterbury.
America awoke today to another nightmare, stunning,
shocking, savage, but unsurprising. Inaction has made this
horror completely predictable. Inaction by this Congress makes
us complicit.
Now is the time for action, to honor these victims with
action, real action, not the fig leaves or the shadows that
have been offered on the other side, along with hopes and
thoughts and prayers. Thoughts and prayers cannot save the 8
victims in Atlanta or the 10 last night, including a brave
police officer. Thoughts and prayers cannot save the 24,000
people killed every year or the 26 Blacks killed every day, the
8 children killed as a result of unsecured weapons every day.
Thoughts and prayers are not enough, and yet thoughts and
prayers is all we have heard from my colleagues on the other
side. Thoughts and prayers must lead to action.
There may be some question about what the motives were for
the killer in Boulder, but there is no mystery about what needs
to be done. Connecticut has shown by some of the strongest gun
laws in the country that they work. But Connecticut, with those
strong gun laws, is at the mercy of States with the weakest
laws, because guns do not respect State boundaries.
This time feels different. The dawn of a new era with a
President completely committed to gun violence prevention--and
I know from having heard him, privately and publicly, that he
shares this passion. So do majorities now in the House and the
Senate. We have a Majority Leader in the U.S. Senate who has
promised a vote on constitutional, commonsense gun violence
prevention measures. Our opponents are on their heels, the NRA
declaring financial and really moral bankruptcy, and we have
maybe most important a powerful grassroots movement that has
produced results at the polls, wins for Members of Congress.
That grassroots movement is led by a new generation of groups
and individuals.
In the midst of the most serious disease outbreak in our
lifetime, gun violence is an epidemic in its own right. Guns in
the wrong hands make the most serious problems potentially
fatal and irreversible. The hate-motivated shootings that tore
through Atlanta last week are just the latest example. They
will not be the last. Without access to a weapon, the Atlanta
shooter is just a racist and a misogynist. But armed with a
firearm, purchased that very day, he is a monster, a mass
murderer.
A disturbed man going into a grocery store yesterday, armed
with a weapon of war, can kill with the brutal efficiency and
speed meant for combat. A domestic abuser exploiting intimate
relationships in violent and horrific ways, when a gun is
involved, death becomes five times more likely. A person with
suicidal thoughts who does not have access to a firearm can
seek help, but with a gun, that life can be over in an instant.
We need to end this epidemic with a comprehensive,
nationwide approach: expanded background checks, extreme risk
laws to prevent suicides, mass shootings, and hate crimes,
protecting domestic violence victims, and safe storage
standards. These kinds of measures are within our reach.
When I asked a mom after Sandy Hook, literally at a
ceremony for her child, whether she would talk to me when she
was ready about action we could take together, she said,
through her tears, ``I am ready now.''
America is ready now. Congress must act. Congress must be
ready now.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Senator Cruz.
STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Senator Cruz. We have had far too many tragedies in our
country. Once again we wake up to a horrific act of mass
murder. All of us lift up in prayer the families in Boulder,
Colorado, the families in Atlanta that lost their lives,
including the police officer in Boulder, Colorado.
I can tell you in Texas we have seen far too many of these.
I was in Santa Fe the morning of that shooting. Santa Fe High
School is less than an hour from my house. I was in El Paso at
the Walmart for yet another senseless mass murder. I was in
Dallas where five police officers were murdered by a radical. I
was in Sutherland Springs in that beautiful sanctuary where a
monster murdered innocent people. I have been to too damn many
of these.
The Senator from Connecticut just said it is time for us to
do something. I agree. It is time for us to do something. Every
time there is a shooting, we play this ridiculous theater where
this Committee gets together and proposes a bunch of laws that
would do nothing to stop these murders.
The Senator from Connecticut just said the folks on the
other side of the aisle have no solutions. Well, the Senator
from Connecticut knows that is false. He knows that is false
because Senator Grassley and I together introduced legislation,
Grassley-Cruz, targeted at violent criminals, targeted at
felons, targeted at fugitives, targeted at those with serious
mental disease, to stop them from getting firearms, to put them
in prison when they try to illegally buy guns.
What happens in this Committee after every mass shooting is
Democrats propose taking away guns from law-abiding citizens
because that is their political objective. But what they
propose, not only does it not reduce crime, it makes it worse.
The jurisdictions in this country with the strictest gun
control have among the highest rates of crime and murder. When
you disarm law-abiding citizens, you make them more likely to
be victims. If you want to stop these murders, go after the
murderers.
Grassley-Cruz came to a vote on the floor of the Senate in
2013. It got a majority vote on the floor of the Senate; 52
Senators voted for Grassley-Cruz in the Harry Reid Democratic
Senate. Nine Democratic Senators voted for Grassley-Cruz, the
most bipartisan support of any of the comprehensive
legislation.
So, why didn't it pass into law? Because Democratic
Senators, including many of the Senators in this room,
including the Senator from Connecticut who just said
Republicans have no answers, filibustered the law and prevented
it from passing, demanded 60 votes.
If Grassley-Cruz had passed into law, Sutherland Springs
very likely would not have happened. Why is that? Because the
shooter there, the murderer there had a conviction in the Air
Force that the Obama Air Force failed to report to the
background check system. Grassley-Cruz mandated an audit of all
of the convictions to make sure the background check data base
has those felonies in it. Not only that, Grassley-Cruz mandated
that when a felon tries to illegally buy a firearm the
Department of Justice prosecute them.
The Department of Justice has a long and, I think,
indefensible practice of not prosecuting felons and fugitives
who try to illegally buy guns. If Grassley-Cruz had passed, the
gun crimes task force that it had created would have charged
prosecutors with going after gun criminals, locking them up,
and putting them in prison. That is how we prevent these.
Now, we will learn in the coming days and weeks the exact
motivation of the murderers in Atlanta and Boulder, Colorado.
We will learn what happened there. But we already know this
pattern is predictable over and over and over again. There are
steps we can take to stop these crimes. And you know what the
steps aren't? The steps aren't disarming law-abiding citizens.
Every year firearms are used in a defensive capacity to defend
women, children, families, roughly a million times a year in
the United States. The Democrats who want to take away the guns
from those potential victims would create more victims of
crimes, not less.
I agree it is a time for action, and, by the way, I do not
apologize for thoughts or prayers. I will lift up in prayer
people who are hurting, and I believe in the power of prayer.
The contempt of Democrats for prayers is an odd sociological
thing. But I also agree thoughts and prayers alone are not
enough. We need action.
Today, Senator Grassley and I are introducing again
Grassley-Cruz, and I would ask Senate Democrats, including some
of our newer colleagues who just got here, not to participate
again in the shameful filibuster that this body engaged in in
2013. Let us target the bad guys, the felons, the fugitives,
those with mental disease. Let us put them in jail. Let us stop
them from getting guns. Let us not scapegoat innocent, law-
abiding citizens, and let us not target their constitutional
rights.
Chair Durbin. Senator Feinstein has asked to be recognized,
and I, of course, will honor a request from the other side of
the aisle if there is one. Senator Feinstein.
STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
I really feel compelled--and, I think, as I complete my
remarks, you will see why--to say something. Yesterday our
country was forced to endure yet another mass shooting--10
people dead, including a police officer. All our hearts go out
to all the families who lost a loved one yesterday and to law
enforcement who risk their lives in the line of duty. But that
does not cure the problem.
There are reports that the shooter used an AR-15-style
rifle. Sadly, I have watched as assault weapons have become the
weapon of choice in mass shootings. We have seen them used in
Las Vegas, in Dayton, in Orlando, in San Bernardino, in
Parkland, and in Sandy Hook. Boulder, Colorado, banned assault
weapons in 2018, but 10 days ago, a court blocked the ban.
In 1994, I introduced a Federal assault weapons ban, which
President Clinton signed into law. A 2016 study showed that,
compared with the 10-year period before the ban was enacted,
the number of gun massacres between 1994 and 2004 fell by 37
percent, and the number of people dying from gun massacres fell
by 43 percent.
Unfortunately, the ban expired in 2004, and in the 10 years
after, there was a 183-percent increase in massacres and a 239-
percent increase in massacre deaths.
During the campaign, President Biden pledged his support
for legislation to ban the manufacture and sale of assault
weapons and high-capacity magazines. Why do you believe we so
often see assault weapons used in mass shootings? What do you
think we should do about it?
There has been a spike in gun sales during the pandemic.
The New York Times reports that approximately 2 million guns--2
million--were purchased in March 2020, the second-highest month
ever. Ever.
Similarly, Politico has reported, and I quote, ``In March
2019 and February 2020, the NICS system blocked about 9,500 and
9,700, respectively. But in March 2020, it blocked more than
double that amount, a whopping 23,692 gun sales.''
I am so concerned about the rise in gun sales and the
increased pressure being put on the background check system. I
am also concerned about the number of people who have guns but
would not have passed a complete FBI investigation.
The question is: What are we going to do about it? These
things are not going to stop, Members. They are just not. I sat
here for a quarter of a century listening. They do not stop.
And if you give people the ability to easily purchase a weapon
that can be devastating to large numbers of people, some of
them will use that--under stress or for whatever reason, I do
not know. But this does not make sense.
Mr. Chairman, I really hope we can do something about it. I
have 35 cosponsors on a renewed assault weapons ban that is in
this Committee, and I would hope we could hold a hearing and
perhaps consider that legislation.
Thank you very much.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. The Senator
from Louisiana is recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN KENNEDY,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Senator Kennedy. I will be brief, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for the opportunity.
I have listened to my colleagues' comments with interest,
and I join with Senator Feinstein in hoping that we can do
something about this. But I do think we ought to keep this in
perspective.
What has happened in the last few days, what has happened
in the last years, is, of course, tragic. I am not trying to
perfectly equate these two, but we have a lot of drunk drivers
in America that kill a lot of people. We ought to try to combat
that, too. But I think what many folks on my side of the aisle
are saying is that the answer is not to get rid of all sober
drivers. The answer is to concentrate on the problem.
We have had a problem in this world for some time with both
domestic and international terrorism. Many terrorists happen to
be Muslims. When a Muslim jihadist blows up a school full of
school children, we are often told not to condemn all of the
actions of those of the Muslim faith because of the actions of
a few. I agree with that. So, why doesn't the same rule apply
to the 100 million plus gun owners in America who are
exercising their constitutional right?
I think we ought to keep that in mind, ladies and
gentlemen, as we talk about this issue.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator.
Let me introduce the witnesses. We have a very interesting
panel of witnesses.
Robin Brule of Albuquerque, New Mexico, is a community
sector leader who works to improve the lives of children and
families in New Mexico. She currently serves as a fellow at the
Center for Community Investment at the Lincoln Institute of
Land Policy and as an Annie Casey Foundation Children and
Family fellow. She was named New Mexico Mother of the Year in
2000 by American Mothers. She has also worked to honor the
legacy of her own mother, who was tragically murdered in 2016.
Dr. Selwyn Rogers, Jr., is a professor of surgery and chief
of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery at the University of Chicago
Medicine, founding director of the University of Chicago
Medicine Trauma Center, executive vice president of community
health engagement at the university.
Geneva Solomon, wife, mother of three, firearms educator,
and community mentor, co-owner of Redstone Firearms and
Redstone Creative Shop in Burbank, California. She also serves
as the director of Internal Communication at the National
African American Gun Association. She is the co-state director
for the association's chapters in California.
Chris Cheng is an American sports shooter and an NRA-
certified pistol, rifle, and shotgun instructor. In 2012, he
won the History Channel's ``Top Shot'' Season 4 competition and
is author of the book ``Shoot to Win.'' He works in corporate
security, volunteers his time as an advocate on LGBT, Asian-
American, Second Amendment issues.
Fernando Spagnolo is the chief of police of the Waterbury
Police Department in Waterbury, Connecticut. He has served in
the Waterbury Police Department since 1992, and he became chief
in 2018. Among his many credentials, he is a graduate of FBI's
Law Enforcement Executive Development School, member of the
Connecticut Police Chiefs Association, and serves as the
president of the Waterbury Police Activity League.
Amy Swearer is a legal fellow in the Heritage Foundation's
Edwin Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, where her
scholarship focuses on the Second Amendment. Prior to joining
Heritage, she served at the Lancaster County Public Defender's
Office in Lincoln, Nebraska.
Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp--I hope I pronounced that
correctly--is a former Member of the Texas House of
Representatives. She served for 12 years and retired in 2007.
She also served as the director of Veteran's Services at the
Texas Health and Human Services Commission until 2020 and
currently works for the attorney general of Texas. In 1991, she
witnessed the fatal shooting of 23 people at Luby's Cafeteria
in Killeen, Texas, the victims of which included her parents--
victims of which included her parents.
Robyn Thomas is executive director of the Giffords Law
Center to Prevent Gun Violence since 2006. She is an attorney,
serves as spokesperson for the organization. The law center, of
course, is named after former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, who
has inspired millions to fight for a safer America after she
was shot in 2011 while meeting with constituents.
Will our witnesses please stand to be sworn. Please raise
your right hand. Do you affirm that the testimony you are about
to give before the Committee will be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Ms. Brule. I do.
Dr. Rogers. I do.
Ms. Solomon. I do.
Mr. Cheng. I do.
Chief Spagnolo. I do.
Ms. Swearer. I do.
Dr. Hupp. I do.
Ms. Thomas. I do.
[Witnesses are sworn in.]
Chair Durbin. Thank you. Let the record reflect that the
witnesses answered in the affirmative.
We are giving the witnesses 5 minutes each, which is not
nearly enough time. We just proved that. But we will follow up
with questions, so we invite you to make your presentation.
Your official written remarks will be included in the record in
their entirety.
Ms. Brule, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF ROBIN BRULE,
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO
Ms. Brule. Good morning, Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member
Grassley, and distinguished Members of the Committee. My name
is Robin Brule----
Chair Durbin. Just hold for a second. We do not have your
audio. Are you sure you are off mute? Want to try again?
Ms. Brule. Can you hear me now?
Chair Durbin. Sorry. The volume is not adequate.
Ms. Brule. Can you hear me now?
Chair Durbin. Barely. Whoever is in charge of the audio,
wherever they may be, please help, if you can.
Do you want to try one more time?
Ms. Brule. Sure. Can you hear me?
Chair Durbin. Why don't you go ahead? We will listen
carefully.
Ms. Brule. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Durbin,
Ranking Member Grassley, and distinguished Members of the
Committee. My name is Robin Brule. It is an honor to appear
before you today, and I appreciate you holding this important
hearing.
Last week, my heart ached for those suffering from the
tragic shootings in Atlanta, in which eight people were shot
and killed. Last night, my heart ached for those suffering from
the heartbreaking shooting in Boulder. As a survivor of gun
violence, I know that the grief, shock, and horror of these
senseless killings will never go away. The moment you learn of
the painful loss is frozen in time.
I still remember that moment for me. I picked up the phone,
heard the police on the other end of the line, and knew right
away that something had gone horribly wrong. The police told me
that day that my mother, Ruth Schwed, and her friend, Barbara,
were shot and killed while eating breakfast in a sleepy Arizona
retirement community. Nothing can prepare a person for that.
Since I was a little girl, my mom was always the person I
turned to when I needed comfort. Yet in her final moments, I
could not be there for her. But before I tell you about her
death, let me tell you about her life.
My mother was married to my dad for over 50 years, raised 3
kids, and was adored by all of her 8 grandchildren. She spent
over 30 years as a teacher, and to this day, we get letters
from children who want to share the impact she had on them.
She had many close friends, calling everybody ``doll
babes'' or ``dear'', and finishing every call by telling me to
``have a goodie.'' Most of all, she always put others above
herself. That is what she was doing in Arizona on that February
morning.
She was at the house that day because her close friend,
Barb, had become a widow. My dad had died long before, so my
mom knew what Barb was going through and, as always, wanted to
help. But on the morning of February 8, 2016, two people broke
into the home where they were staying, then shot my mother and
Barb while they were having breakfast and reading the
newspaper. Two elderly women, shot point-blank. All because
some criminals wanted their credit cards and cash.
This is a photo of my mom, and as you can see, she is 75
years old, five-foot-nothing, and weighed less than 100 pounds.
We always hear the saying about being in the wrong place at
the wrong time. But if a retirement community at 8 a.m. is the
wrong place at the wrong time, where in America is the right
place at the right time?
I tell you this story not only to honor my mother, but
because tragedies like this can be prevented. My mother's death
began with an internet search for a gun. Because of loopholes
in our law, it was perfectly legal to sell them the gun that
they used to kill my mother--no background check and no
questions asked.
If a strong background check law was in place, I could be
having breakfast with my mother instead of appearing before
your Committee. But today anyone with an internet connection
can exploit the same loophole that killed her and browse more
than 1 million ads for guns in States that do not require
background checks. According to Everytown for Gun Safety,
nearly one in nine people who respond to those ads cannot pass
a background check. I am a gun owner, and I believe fully in
the Second Amendment. But I also know that it is time for
Congress to listen to the 90 percent of Americans who
understand that requiring a background check is commonsense,
because no family should have to get that call that I got from
police 5 years ago--the worst call in the world.
When my mom was brought back to Albuquerque after the
autopsy, she was covered in a sheet to spare me. But I have not
been spared.
I live with pain, stress, and fear. I often imagine my
mom's final moments. I look at photos of her and say her name
so that her memory is not lost in the aftermath of this
heartbreak.
Ruth Schwed. Please honor her memory with action. Please
pass legislation that will save lives and prevent other
families from experiencing the trauma of gun violence. Please,
do something. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Brule appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Ms. Brule. Next up is Dr. Rogers.
The floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF SELWYN O. ROGERS, JR.,
M.D., CHIEF, SECTION OF TRAUMA AND
ACUTE CARE SURGERY, FOUNDING DIRECTOR,
TRAUMA CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
MEDICINE, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
Dr. Rogers. Good morning. I want to thank the Senate
Judiciary Committee and Senator Durbin for the opportunity to
testify today.
I appreciate the time you are spending to understand the
devastating toll gun violence is taking on Americans and the
steps the Senate can take to help protect our children, our
communities, and our country.
My name is Dr. Selwyn Rogers, Jr., and I serve as the chief
of trauma at the University of Chicago Medicine. Our dedicated
staff care for people traumatically injured on the South Side
of Chicago, the epicenter of much of Chicago's gun violence.
Horrific mass shootings like the Chicago Park Manor
shooting that injured 15 and killed 2 people or in metro
Atlanta that killed 8 people last week or the tragic shootings
last--yesterday that killed 10 people in Boulder, Colorado,
dominate the National news cycle for a few days, but no
substantial actions follow. Every day in this country, there
are over 100 gun-related homicides or suicides that are no less
devastating.
At my hospital, we work to save people every day. Far too
often, the bullets lead to death. We have a moment of silence
to mourn the loss, knowing too well that we will soon hear
screams of anguish. The loved ones plead to tell them that
their son, their daughter, their loved one, their parent is not
dead. They ask, ``How could this happen?''
We do not have all the answers. I would like to propose
today that the Committee approach gun violence as a public
health crisis. Public health is the science of protecting the
safety and improving the health of communities through
education, policymaking, and research for disease and injury
prevention. As the former Surgeon General, Dr. David Satcher,
said, ``If it is not a public health issue, why are so many
people dying?''
Gun violence killed over 43,500 Americans in 2020,
according to the independent collection and research group Gun
Violence Archive. There were over 19,000 gun-related homicides
and 24,000 gun-related suicides. Disproportionately, the
victims of gun violence--intentional gun violence are Black and
brown people in communities of color. Fifty-seven percent of
gun homicide victims are Black. Gun suicide is a growing
national problem. A recent breakdown of suicide by
congressional district shows that the hardest-hit districts are
in the Southern and Western United States. Males comprise 86
percent of all gun suicides.
In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and America's
reckoning on racism and equity, cities like Dallas, Los
Angeles, and New York City saw significant increases in gun
violence. At our trauma center, we have seen a 50-percent
increase this past year. We must understand this violence as a
public health crisis and address it with the same urgency as
COVID-19.
When we look at gun violence through a public health lens,
we collect data, understand causes, and develop strategies for
prevention and targeted interventions. If we make meaningful
investments, we can address the issues that created this
epidemic.
On the South Side, for example, the unemployment rate is
more than 5 times the national average, and 43 percent of
children live in poverty. In this unhealthy environment, is it
any wonder that we see high rates of intentional gun violence?
We need to develop evidence-based solutions that address
the root causes. Solutions will include reframing gun violence
as a public health crisis; allocation of significant dollars to
fund research to prevent gun violence commensurate with the
burden on society; develop and fund primary prevention
strategies, such as investment in economically high-risk
communities of color that have a disproportionate burden of
intentional gun violence; and education and counseling people
on safe firearm storage.
We also know that victims of violence are known to be at
very high risk to be involved in repeated episodes of violence.
We should target this high-risk population and fund secondary
prevention programs that work.
There are number of promising programs that we can invest
in now. Violence intervention programs, such as Cure Violence
or the Institute for Nonviolence Chicago, used to be outreach
workers to help prevent retaliatory violence. Heartland
Alliance's READI Chicago or Chicago CRED are evidence-based
programs that use transitional employment and cognitive
behavioral therapy for at-risk individuals to decrease
recidivism.
As part of Senator Durbin's HEAL Initiative, our hospital
has worked with other partners and developed a program that
employs community residents who work with victims of gun
violence.
Just as the COVID-19 pandemic did not resolve spontaneously
but required interventions to control its spread, the epidemic
of gun violence requires active targeted interventions. I
strongly urge the Senate to allocate funds to help clarify the
interventions that work the best.
Gun violence seems like an intractable problem; however, we
can look at many examples such as childhood vaccinations,
infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, and motor vehicle
collisions, where applying a public health approach has led to
a significant number of saved lives.
At hospitals across the country, we have seen the pain of
gun violence. We have cleaned the blood from our gloved hands.
We can wash away the blood, but the pain stays with us. I
cannot grasp the tragic impact of the lives lost. Yet I am
still hopeful. If we take concrete actions now, then we will
create the big changes later. These changes will stem the tide
of gun violence that has become such a devastating problem in
our Nation.
Thank you, and I look forward to the opportunity to take
any questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Rogers appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Dr. Rogers.
We will now hear from Ms. Solomon. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF GENEVA SOLOMON, OWNER OF
REDSTONE FIREARMS, DIRECTOR OF INTERNAL
COMMUNICATIONS, NATIONAL AFRICAN AMERICAN
GUN ASSOCIATION, BURBANK, CALIFORNIA
Ms. Solomon. I want to thank everyone here today for
allowing me to speak and share my experiences and points of
view regarding upcoming gun control measures.
I would like to start by introducing myself and explain
more about my history as a responsible gun owner. As a survivor
of domestic violence, I found myself, 13 years ago, realizing
that I am my own first responder and took the necessary steps
to become what I would call ``a responsible gun owner'' because
I had to protect myself and my child.
While there are alternative methods of protecting oneself,
my decision was to purchase a handgun to make sure I felt
secure within my own home. However, I did not just purchase a
handgun. I also spent a great deal of time understanding how to
train with that firearm and learning the local laws.
Unfortunately, the 10 days I had to wait to pick up my
first firearm was a terrifying experience as that is the
required waiting period here in the State of California. Fast
forward to present day, I am now a firearms educator, firearms
store co-owner, as well as a member and advocate of the
National African American Gun Association. As a firearms store
owner in California, I have seen firsthand how difficult and
challenging navigating firearm laws here have scared and
prevented many residents from practicing their right
responsibly.
Additionally, California's--California constant new gun
control measures continue to increase the cost to protect
oneself, which I compare to the United States poll tax,
essentially pricing out those within the minority communities
from being able to practice their right responsibly. When laws
are hard to navigate and understand, this often leads to
incorrect and bad behaviors, thus increasing firearm accidents.
Furthermore, the laws consistently change, oftentimes
without the knowledge of California's citizens and/or gun
dealers. Those familiar with laws here in California know that
Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law, effective 7/1/2021, a
California resident can only purchase one firearm every 30
days. From an operational standpoint as a small business, this
will be detrimental. This newly introduced law would basically
be the first step to putting firearm dealers in California out
of business while those who do not practice safe and
responsible gun ownership can obtain an firearm within a matter
of a day.
It astonishes me that every time a piece of gun legislation
is proposed, its intent is to make it more difficult for law-
abiding citizens to obtain firearms responsibly. We know the
vast majority of gun violence is rooted in illegal obtainment,
yet bill after bill proposed demonizes the responsible gun
owner, further infringing on their Second Amendment right.
Law-abiding citizens should not have to continue to pay for
the horrible illegal actions of those who would continue such
behavior, no matter what piece of legislation is passed.
Respectfully, sometimes lawmakers have no idea what it means o
be a responsible gun owner and continue to pass laws that
either infringe on our rights or make the firearms we are
allowed to operate more unsafe.
For example, in the State of California, we have a handgun
roster in our current AR-15 laws. Currently AR-15 laws and the
modifications that are required actually make these style of
rifles that we are legally able to possess more prone to
firearm accidents. Additionally, with the California approved
handgun roster, you can only purchase older, outdated firearms
with older and outdated safety features. What sense does that
make? Firearm safety enhancements are made and improved by gun
manufacturers often, yet Californians are only prohibited from
purchasing the latest and safest firearms?
The firearms industry has unfairly been under assault. As a
result, my husband and I have dedicated our lives to ensuring
our communities have the resources and knowledge they need to
be successful in the firearm space. Part of being a responsible
gun owner is ensuring that there are resources available for
wanting to be consulted, educated, and trained in a welcoming
environment. Being a leader of the National African American
Gun Association has allowed me the ability to extend my
educational reach from my firearms store to the 40,000 members
that are a part of the organization.
The Second Amendment is by far one of the most
misunderstood and controversial amendments of our Constitution.
While many would like to see laws created that would further
impede on our right to bear arms, I look forward to using my
time today and beyond to continue to educate on what it means
to be a responsible firearm owner, how many of us successfully
use our responsibilities on a daily basis, and how commonsense
gun knowledge can aid in the retainment of our rights.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Solomon appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thank you very much, Ms. Solomon.
I apologize to the Committee Members and others that the
audio quality is so poor. We are going to look into this.
Somebody is being paid to communicate with us, and it is not
working very well. We owe the respect to the witnesses who made
a sacrifice to testify before the Committee to provide them
with a means of communication we can all hear.
Our next witness is Chris Cheng. Mr. Cheng.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS CHENG, HISTORY
CHANNEL'S ``TOP SHOT'' SEASON 4
CHAMPION, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Cheng. Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Grassley, and
distinguished Members of the Committee, my name is Chris Cheng,
and I am honored to join you today representing myself and only
myself.
As a gay, Asian-American professional sport shooter, this
hearing is very timely and essential to our national
conversation on civil rights and our future as a peaceful
Nation. I am here today to share my quintessential American
story.
In 2012, I earned the title of History Channel's ``Top
Shot'' Season 4 Champion. Now, only in America could a self-
taught amateur shooter train and win $100,000 and a
professional shooting contract. After this, I quit my job at
Google, switched careers, and focused on firearms, culture, and
their role in American history.
I earned a Master's degree in policy studies from
Middlebury College in 2006. Following my ``Top Shot'' win, I
naturally wanted to research gun policy and history. But I was
appalled to discover how gun control can be used as a tool of
discrimination. While our Black brothers and sisters have
arguably experienced the most negative impacts of gun control
through structural racism at the hands of the Government, Asian
Americans have also been negatively impacted. I will share two
examples.
First, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was the first
Federal law to explicitly prohibit the immigration of people of
a particular nationality and set an extremely dangerous
precedent for future xenophobic mandates.
Second, in response to mounting pressures during World War
II, Executive Order 9066 mandated that more than 110,000
innocent Japanese Americans were to be forcibly relocated to
internment camps. This order stripped my Japanese ancestors of
their rights and their civil liberties. The goal was to keep us
unarmed, invisible, and silent.
Neither the Chinese Exclusion Act nor the Executive order
was genuinely successful in increasing domestic safety. Neither
will the gun control legislation under consideration.
Why are these historic moments important for our
conversation today? I will explain.
With the 149-percent increase in anti-Asian-American
violence over the past year, Asian Americans are flocking in
droves to buy guns, many seeking to purchase their first
firearm. There is a real need and imminent threat. We need to
defend ourselves. Not 3 days or 20 days from now, but right
now. I encourage people to be their own first responder because
there is no guarantee that help will arrive in time.
Universal background checks will not help. I live in San
Francisco, and if I want to give or sell a personal firearm to
a friend or family member, they must wait 10 days. There should
not be a timer delaying when an American wants to exercise
their Second Amendment right or any other individual right.
Every year, millions of Americans legally purchase firearms. In
comparison, only a few thousand criminals or mentally ill
individuals acquire guns and commit homicide.
Will you let the criminal minority take away the rights of
the law-abiding majority, rights which are supposed to be
guaranteed to us by our Constitution?
I am against H.R. 8 and H.R. 1446 because they represent a
threat to the safety of Asian Americans and all Americans who
have an imminent need to defend themselves.
Earlier I spoke about the racist roots of gun control. But
what is worse than systemic, racist gun control policies?
Poorly thought-out gun control policies that will negatively
impact Americans of all walks of life--all races, genders, and
sexual orientations in America. I will expand.
I am a gay American and have been happily married to my
husband of 5-1/2 years. Today we see a rise in attacks against
Asian Americans, but tomorrow I might be back here talking
about the persistent, ongoing violence against LGBTQ Americans.
I have lived through how the phrase ``gay virus'' to describe
AIDS stokes the same fears and dehumanization elicited by the
words ``Chinese virus.'' This derogatory language contributes
to a less safe, less empathetic society. I will continue
speaking out against hate and violence in all forms, and I
encourage all Americans to participate in what should be a
simple, universal condemnation of hate and violence. We should
not be afraid of saying that we will not tolerate it, that it
is unacceptable, and that it must stop.
At the root of our country's violence is not firearms. The
root causes of human violence and hate are many: low self-
esteem, lack of mental health resources, community, education,
job opportunities, and a lack of humanity.
Congress must focus on these actual causes of violence that
will make America safer.
Thank you for allowing me to address this Committee on the
importance of gun safety and education and condemn the
brutality ravaging our communities today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cheng appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Cheng.
Our next witness is the Waterbury Connecticut Chief of
Police Fernando Spagnolo.
STATEMENT OF FERNANDO C. SPAGNOLO,
CHIEF OF POLICE, WATERBURY POLICE
DEPARTMENT, WATERBURY, CONNECTICUT
Chief Spagnolo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I start my
testimony, I would like to express my deepest sympathies to the
families of all that were lost in the Boulder, Colorado,
shooting yesterday, especially the family and co-workers of
fellow officer, Eric Talley, who died bravely trying to protect
his community.
Chair Durbin. Chief, if you would move a little closer
perhaps to--so we can hear you? Thank you, sir.
Chief Spagnolo. Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Grassley,
and distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee, thank you
for inviting me to testify today. My name is Fernando Spagnolo,
and I am the chief of police for the city of Waterbury,
Connecticut. I have dedicated most of my adult life to public
service--sworn to protect the people and uphold the
Constitution.
I am honored to testify before you today on commonsense
solutions to prevent gun violence. When the national press
talks about gun violence and Connecticut, it usually discusses
the brutal and unspeakable murders at Sandy Hook Elementary
School in Newtown nearly 10 years ago. The events of that day
and the loss of those young children and their teachers shook
the Nation to its very core.
As chief administrator of one of the largest police
departments in the State of Connecticut, the gun violence that
I am most familiar with rarely makes national headlines, but it
is just as consequential to the people that it affects. The
toll of daily gun violence that disproportionately affects
Black and brown communities in cities like mine across the
country is a serious problem, and it requires serious
solutions.
Following Sandy Hook, the people of Connecticut worked
together to improve the State's existing laws and develop
comprehensive strategies to reduce gun violence, including
instituting universal background checks--a commonsense policy
supported by almost every American. As someone who is
responsible for the safety of the men and women in uniform,
ensuring that all individuals get a background check before a
firearm can be transferred, and ensuring enough time is
provided for that background check, is a top priority of mine.
We also expanded the State's assault weapons ban and
outlawed the sale of new high-capacity ammunition magazines.
Likewise, we have heightened protections for victims of
domestic violence in Connecticut after Lori Jackson was
murdered by her estranged husband with a gun he was able to
purchase even though he was under a temporary protective order.
A woman is shot and killed every 16 hours in America by a
current or former romantic partner, and this is something that
needs to be addressed.
Most recently, we passed Ethan's Law, a commonsense measure
that requires guns to be safely stored if children might have
access to them. This is a law named in honor of Ethan Song, a
15-year-old boy from Guilford, Connecticut, who died
unintentionally when shot with an unsecured gun. Nationwide,
nearly 4.6 million children live in homes with access to
unsecured and loaded guns, and 8 children are unintentionally
shot with an unsecured firearm daily.
These policies have been built off Connecticut's existing
gun laws, including the Nation's first extreme risk law, known
in our State as a ``risk warrant.'' This allows law enforcement
officers to petition a court to temporarily separate an
individual from firearms if they pose a risk of imminent harm
to themselves or others. According to recent studies, for every
10 to 20 risk warrants that are issued in Connecticut, one
suicide is prevented.
In addition to these commonsense laws, in Waterbury we have
invested in community solutions to prevent gun violence. We
partner with local leaders, institutions, and nonprofits to
help remove the root causes of violence in our community. This
includes youth violence prevention programs, one-on-one
mentoring programs for high-risk youth, and providing mental
health and substance abuse recovery services to members of our
community. It also includes an annual gun buyback program which
gets about 100 firearms off the street each year.
Additionally, to break the cycle of violence and reduce
recidivism, we have post-incarceration violence prevention
programs that facilitate services such as housing, health care,
harm reduction, workforce training, education, and faith-based
outreach. This is especially important, as the majority of
weapons offenses in Waterbury are being committed by
individuals with prior weapons convictions.
As recently released individuals are being reintegrated
into society, often with their support networks in disarray, we
must find ways to give them a stake in their future and their
communities to reduce recidivism and prevent further violence.
The efforts to prevent gun violence in Connecticut have
worked. In 2019, Waterbury experienced some of its lowest
levels of gun violence in years. Statewide, since 2014, we saw
a 41-percent reduction in gun homicides and a 15-percent
reduction in gun suicides. In the midst of COVID-19 and the
huge surge in gun purchases nationwide, incidents of gun
violence have skyrocketed in cities all over the country, and
Waterbury is no exception to that.
Despite the recent setbacks, Connecticut still has one of
the lowest gun death rates in the Nation, but Connecticut is
not an island, and without Federal action we remain at the
mercy of States with weak gun laws. Over two-thirds of the
crime guns traced by law enforcement in Connecticut come from
other States, and gun traffickers will continue to exploit
weaknesses in the Federal law. Unless we can stop the unchecked
flow of guns into cities like mine, preventing cycles of
violence will be almost impossible. Gun violence is not
inevitable, and for the Members of this body, you are in a
position to enact sensible solutions that are in line with the
Second Amendment. Preventing gun violence requires a
comprehensive approach and a strong investment in our
communities.
I am grateful for this opportunity, and I look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Chief Spagnolo appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thanks very much, Chief.
Our next witness is Amy Swearer. Amy, thank you for being
with us. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF AMY SWEARER, LEGAL FELLOW,
EDWIN MEESE III CENTER FOR LEGAL AND
JUDICIAL STUDIES, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION,
WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Swearer. Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Grassley, and
distinguished Senators, my name is Amy Swearer, and I am a
legal fellow in the Heritage Foundation's Ed Meese Center for
Legal and Judicial Studies.
Imagine with me for a moment, a man who walks into his
primary care doctor with a whole host of complex, underlying,
overlapping health issues. He suffers from a heart defect. He
is overweight. He is prone to migraines. He probably needs a
hip replacement, and he also happens to have a very serious
high ankle sprain.
Now, is that man's injured ankle a true physical ailment
that negatively impacts his overall health? Of course. Should
the doctor treat it? Absolutely. Would any sane doctor look at
that patient and decide the most prudent course of action is
emergency surgery to amputate his leg? Absolutely not.
Far too many of the gun control bills pending before
Congress are nothing more than the public policy version of
this scenario. In short, they would cutoff a patient's leg to
fix a comparatively minor part of his overall health problems
and then claim that this complete overkill of a treatment
somehow left the patient better off in the long run. We cannot
do public policy this way.
H.R. 8 on universal background checks is just one example
of this, but it is a profound example. H.R. 8 identifies at its
core a legitimate concern: publicly advertised intrastate gun
sales by private parties.
Now, we know that these sales do not play a major role in
gun crime. Most would-be criminals do not bother to get their
guns through any legitimate or formal source. They primarily
use Black market gun sales, straw purchases, or informal
transfers from friends or family members who already know that
they are prohibited persons and that the guns are likely to be
used to perpetrate crimes. These are already illegal gun
transfers.
Still, it might make sense to address publicly advertised
private sales, but only with the understanding that this is at
best a low-reward endeavor, and it should be obvious that the
law ought to similarly avoid imposing heavy burdens on law-
abiding gun owners making other common, low-risk gun transfers.
H.R. 8 almost goes out of its way to do the opposite. As I
explain in my written submission, there are a number of
irrational components to H.R. 8. But without a doubt, what is
most concerning is the way in which H.R. 8 places significant
mental, emotional, and practical barriers between responsible
gun owners and low-risk informal gun transfers that save
countless lives every year.
The bill limits temporary emergency transfers to only when
they are necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily
harm, and the transfers can last only as long as immediately
necessary.
Now, Senators, I have no doubt that the language for this
carveout is well intentioned, but it is so limited as to serve
no real purpose. Nearly two-thirds of all gun deaths every year
are suicides; 24,000 Americans killed themselves with firearms
in 2019. There is every reason to believe that number is higher
for 2020.
Mental health awareness and suicide prevention are vital
but often difficult conversations for gun owners. There is a
very real and, frankly, a very legitimate fear that if we are
open and honest about our mental health difficulties,
politicians and gun control activists will use it to impose
crushing long-term consequences on our Second Amendment rights.
So, one very common solution is to seek informal help and
to leave firearms with trusted friends or family members the
moment we realize that we are not okay and for as long as we
realize we are not okay.
I cannot stress enough how important this mechanism is for
suicide prevention and how often it occurs precisely because it
is informal.
Many gun owners who might otherwise agree to temporarily
hand over their firearms will balk at that same suggestion if
it means they have to publicly traipse down to a gun store,
wait around for a background check, and legally relinquish
title and ownership of their guns to someone else.
This is a deeply personal issue for me. Like everyone else,
I have had ups and downs in this life, and as a responsible gun
owner, I have made that very prudent decision to ask friends to
temporarily take my guns when I have been down. The last
thing--the last thing--I would have needed was the Government
getting in the way of me doing the right thing. I speak on
behalf of countless other gun owners who have made this same
responsible decision under similar circumstances, but who would
be terrified of admitting that to anyone, much less to the
Federal Government.
Now, Ms. Brule testified about a very real problem with
existing law that to her is not small in scope because it shook
the foundations of her entire world. There are certainly
appropriate ways of addressing and narrowly tailoring
legislation to address that problem. But, this--this is not it.
H.R. 8 as written will get gun owners killed because it will
discourage them from taking reasonable and commonsense steps
the moment they realize they may not, in fact, be okay.
There are many other similar problems with so many other
gun control bills, and I genuinely look forward to talking
about how to fix those problems and find alternate solutions.
But with respect to H.R. 8 in particular, please do not
encourage gun owners to wait until they are in imminent danger
to take lifesaving actions. This is not a choice between
thoughts and prayers and doing something regardless of how
impractical that something is and how poorly it works in real-
world scenarios. This is the world's greatest deliberative
body. Surely we can do better than making criminals of people
who do the right things.
Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Swearer appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Ms. Swearer.
The next witness is Dr. Suzanna Hupp. Dr. Hupp.
STATEMENT OF SUZANNA GRATIA HUPP, D.C.,
FORMER STATE LEGISLATOR AND AUTHOR,
LAMPASAS, TEXAS
Dr. Hupp. There we go. Good morning. My name is Suzanna
Hupp, and this is my own testimony. I am representing only
myself this morning. I need to apologize to some of you in
advance that have heard my testimony before. It really does not
change.
Several years ago, I was with my parents at a local
cafeteria, and somebody drove his truck through a floor-to-
ceiling window, knocked over a number of tables on his way in,
and we, of course, thought it was an accident. My parents and I
actually got up to try to help the people that he had knocked
over, and then we heard gunshots. I will tell you it took a
good 45 seconds, which is an eternity, to realize that the guy
was simply going to walk around and shoot people.
Back then, these mass shootings were not happening, and it
just was not something that came to my mind immediately. When I
did realize what was happening, my father and I both got down
on the floor. We put the table up in front of us. My mother was
down behind us. I reached for my purse, because I used to carry
a gun in my purse. At that time in the State of Texas, that was
illegal.
A few months prior to this event, I had begun to leave my
gun out in my car because I was concerned about losing my
license to practice chiropractic. I watched completely
helplessly as this man walked around the room and shot people.
He executed people like they were fish in a barrel.
When my father thought he had an opportunity, he rose up,
and he ran at the man. But the guy had complete control over
the situation, and he just simply turned and shot my father in
the chest.
When I saw what I thought was a chance, I was able to run
out a back window that somebody had broken out. I thought my
mother followed me, but I later found out from the police
officers--who, by the way, were one building away--that she had
crawled out into the open where my dad lay. She cradled him
until the gunman got back around to her. He put a gun to her
head. They said she looked up at him, put her head down, and
the man pulled the trigger. That is how the cops knew who the
gunman was. My parents had just had their 47th wedding
anniversary, and mom was not going anywhere without dad.
I was very angry, and, of course, when I talk about it even
now, I get very angry. Believe it or not, I am not mad at the
guy that did it because, in my opinion, that is somebody who is
sick. The cops said all they had to do was fire a shot into the
ceiling, and he rabbited to a back bathroom alcove area,
exchanged some gunfire with them, and then put a bullet in his
own head.
I was mad as hell at my legislators because they had
legislated me and others in that restaurant out of the right to
be able to defend ourselves. I had a perfect place to prop my
hand. I had a clear shot at the guy. But I was worried about
losing my license instead of worrying about my life.
Since then, of course, we have changed those laws in Texas
and all across the Nation. Now people can defend themselves in
most places. Most of the mass shootings that have occurred to
this date have been in places where people have been told they
cannot carry a gun. That is what these guys want. They want to
rack up a high body bag count. They do not want any place where
somebody could fire back at them.
A gun is not a guarantee, of course. It changes the odds.
That is all. I would say if guns are the problem, then why
don't we see these mass shootings at the dreaded gun show or
NRA conventions, places where there are thousands of guns in
the hands of at least as many law-abiding citizens?
You talk about universal background checks, and I am
frankly completely against them, and here is why: Eventually,
universal background checks become a de facto registration.
Even if no one on the dais today is interested in confiscating
guns, it certainly makes it fertile ground for some future
despot.
There are things that can be done. A number of them I put
in my written testimony, and I will not bore you with it now.
But they are there. There are things that can be done.
Let me just finish by saying 350 million guns in America
last year did not hurt anyone, and I think that is a staggering
statistic.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hupp appears as a submission
for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Dr. Hupp.
Our last witness is Robyn Thomas. Ms. Thomas
STATEMENT OF ROBYN THOMAS, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, GIFFORDS LAW CENTER TO PREVENT
GUN VIOLENCE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
Ms. Thomas. Thank you, Chairman Durbin, Members of the
Committee, for the opportunity to testify here today. My name
is Robyn Thomas, and I am the executive director of the
Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Giffords Law
Center was formed more than 25 years ago after a mass shooting
at a San Francisco law firm and renamed for former
Congresswoman Gabby Giffords after joining forces with the
organization that she leads. I have been the executive director
at the law center since 2006.
This past week we saw a horrible string of shootings: 10
people, including a law enforcement officer, in Boulder,
Colorado, yesterday. Last Tuesday, nine people were shot and
eight killed at three spas in the Atlanta area, a shocking
example of the disturbing increase in violence against the
Asian-American community. Over the last year, communities have
suffered not only from COVID-19 but also from gun violence, a
public health crisis that has surged in all its forms. Suicides
have increased dramatically in communities from Philadelphia to
Chicago. Domestic violence has also intensified, with many
localities reporting more calls to hotlines and police in
response to incidents of abuse. Many metropolitan areas have
experienced spikes in community violence, with over a dozen
cities reporting increases in homicides of 50 percent or more.
We cannot allow this evidence--this violence to continue
for the next generation. Proposed gun law reforms, many of
which have been introduced in this Congress and which enjoy
widespread public support, would make a difference. These
include policies such as universal background checks, extreme
risk protection laws, and prohibitions on firearm access to
those who commit domestic abuse or hate crimes. They also
include proposals to increase funding for critical community
violence intervention work, public health research, and for law
enforcement.
These proposals are a crucial part of an appropriate public
health approach focused on prevention proportional to the
seriousness of this issue and based on the data and research we
have for these solutions. Despite what the gun lobby may argue,
there is no constitutional impediment to passing lifesaving gun
laws. Courts across the country have ruled repeatedly that the
Second Amendment does not stand in the way of passing stronger
gun laws, and the U.S. Supreme Court itself made clear that
``the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited''
and has never protected ``a right to keep and carry any weapon
whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.''
I know some are eager to make the case that we are only
interested in taking away firearms from law-abiding Americans
or making it difficult for law enforcement to do their jobs. I
want to be clear that we are not advocating for either. But our
existing gun laws are irrationally limited, loophole-ridden,
and inadequate. These deficiencies hamper law enforcement's
ability to effectively prevent acts of gun violence in our
American communities.
Everyone should be troubled by the levels of gun violence
that we experience, and it is impossible to ignore the reality
that when we have more guns, we have more gun violence. We can
meaningfully address this by updating our gun laws to ensure
both law-abiding Americans have a right to gun ownership and we
can prevent these horrific acts of gun violence that are
occurring on a daily basis.
Since the founding of our country, gun rights have always
co-existed with gun regulations, and the need to protect public
safety has always gone hand in hand with Americans' right to
own guns. Heller's explicit recognition that a broad range of
gun laws are fully consistent with the Second Amendment is in
keeping with more than 200 years of American history, and,
thus, all the proposals that I mention in my written testimony
stand on firm constitutional ground.
Gun deaths in the United States reached their highest level
in almost 40 years, with 40,000 Americans dying from gun
violence in 2019. Unfortunately, it is a problem unique to our
country. Americans are 25 times more likely to be killed by a
gun than people in other developed nations. But it is a problem
that has solutions. While one single law will never stop all
gun violence, we know that strong gun laws will save lives. The
only thing standing in the way of laws that prevent needless
injuries and death and enjoy the support of an overwhelming
majority of Americans is the absence of political will to act.
Today I ask all Members of this Committee and Congress as a
whole to recommit themselves to making progress and taking
action to reduce gun violence in this country.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to taking
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Thomas appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Let me start with Dr. Rogers. We face two realities,
certainly from a Chicago perspective, that a lot of the gun
violence has been spawned by young people, gangs, and
communities that are awash in guns. You know what I am speaking
of, the South Side, West Side of Chicago, and many other
places.
We also know that many of the shooters have a history, at
least a history of adverse childhood experiences. Could you
explain to us that issue of trauma and the likelihood that it
will lead to shooters and victims?
Dr. Rogers. Thank you, Senator Durbin. Many people know the
phrase or have heard the phrase ``Hurt people hurt people,''
and work from John Rich and ex-congressman Ted Corbin in
Philadelphia has shown repeatedly that people who have been
experiencing trauma from adverse childhood experiences of
trauma, be it related to homelessness, food insecurity, and
other social challenges, are more likely to be at risk of
experiencing trauma in all its forms, be it child abuse,
domestic violence, or other forms of trauma.
Unfortunately, those who have been victims of gun violence
we also know have a higher risk of having repeated episodes of
gun violence, and in many ways those are the highest-risk
individuals. We need to find ways of addressing those high-risk
individuals in economically depressed communities that are the
highest risk for being victims of violence, but also
perpetrators of violence.
Chair Durbin. Doctor, I hate to interrupt you, but 18
months ago that would have been an answer that would have been
really spot-on. Now, I want you to add COVID-19 into the
equation.
Dr. Rogers. Without a doubt, the COVID-19 pandemic for a
whole host of reasons related to social isolation, high rates
of unemployment, and other challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic
has put incredible pressure on distressed communities. Higher
rates of unemployment, higher rates of mental unwellness, if
you will, have perpetuated more gun violence. We have seen in
the city of Chicago and many cities across the country,
including L.A. and Philadelphia, a 50-percent increase in the
rate of gun violence. We need more targeted interventions to
try to address this problem.
The problem, unfortunately, every day is not going away. We
know that over 100 people have died today of gun-related
homicides and suicides.
Chair Durbin. So, let me ask you this question: A child who
has gone through these adverse childhood experiences and a
childhood that none of us wishes on anyone, is that child a
lost soul? Is there any possible redemption in terms of medical
treatment or mental health treatment?
Dr. Rogers. You know, I think we often--you know, every
child is an opportunity, and we need to invest in our children,
because those children are the ones who become adults and
productive members of our society.
Unfortunately, oftentimes those traumas are not recognized,
and the impact of that trauma and intergenerational trauma,
such as poverty and racism, is not addressed. By finding ways
of actually providing trauma-informed care to individuals, be
it in schools and in communities, we can have an impact and
prevent needless intentional gun violence and other forms of
trauma.
Chair Durbin. Thank you.
Chief Spagnolo, so far this year 16 Chicago police officers
have been either shot or shot at in the line of duty. Last week
alone, three officers were shot and injured. We know what
happened last night in Boulder. The policeman who responded to
the scene, Eric Talley, father of seven, lost his life.
Can you talk about the risk that law enforcement officers
face while America is seeing record numbers of guns that are
being sold? Also, should a gun be sold to an unknown person
without that person passing a criminal background check?
Chief Spagnolo. Mr. Chairman, I believe strongly in the
background check process. It is something that works quite well
here in Connecticut. It gives us an opportunity to make sure
that the person that is actually purchasing the gun has gone
through a pretty strict background check and all the data bases
have been checked to make sure that they are not a prohibited
person.
One of my greatest concerns for the men and women that
service the community here in Waterbury is the amount of guns
that they face on the street on a daily basis. Our police
officers are taking an average of one to two guns a day,
illegal guns a day, off the streets of Waterbury. Now, we are a
community of about 115,000 people here in Connecticut, so I can
only imagine what my colleagues face in larger urban areas
across the country.
You know, this is a significant issue for us and a great
concern for our officers to be faced with these amount of
weapons that are on the street. We have seen a huge increase
and spike in the amount of concealed weapons--weapons permits
that have been applied for, over a 300-percent increase in
weapons permits applied for here in the city over the course of
2020. We have also seen a tremendous uptick in the amount of
guns that have been sold. The issue that we have is that many
guns are purchased here, and they are straw purchases. They end
up in the hands of prohibited persons, and then they are used
in crimes of violence in our community.
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Chief. Senator Grassley.
Senator Grassley. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going
to ask my questions in this order: Cheng, Solomon, Swearer, and
Hupp, if I get to all of you.
Mr. Cheng, thank you for your testimony about the need for
vulnerable communities to protect themselves. Can you think of
any instance where Asian Americans have needed to use firearms
to protect themselves?
Mr. Cheng. Absolutely. We do not have to look any farther
back than the 1992 L.A. riots, and in Koreatown, when L.A. was
burning and Koreatown was under attack, and it called the LAPD
for help, and the LAPD was underresourced and unavailable to
come to the aid of Korean Americans in Koreatown. So what did
they do? Korean Americans utilized their Second Amendment
rights and took their own personal firearms and protected their
businesses, their lives, and their community.
Senator Grassley. When police departments are defunded, it
is often communities of color that are most impacted. So, Mr.
Cheng, how does this impact the need for self-defense with
firearms?
Mr. Cheng. If we look back at the past year and a half or
so with COVID-19, it has been a pressure cooker for all of us
to see the civil unrest, the violence that has enraptured our
country. When you couple that with calls for defunding the
police and taking law enforcement officers off the street,
demoralizing them, dehumanizing them, it makes citizens, like
me, feel less safe. If I cannot have law enforcement there to
keep the peace in my community, then it is a rational
conclusion that individual citizens like myself would opt to
utilize my Second Amendment right to purchase a firearm and use
that firearm in lawful and legal self-defense.
Senator Grassley. Okay. Ms. Solomon, you are leader in the
National African American Gun Association, so from your
position, California is known to be a restrictive State in
terms of gun control. Can you tell us about California's
approach to gun control which many are trying to reproduce on
the Federal level and whether you think that approach is
effective?
Ms. Solomon. Here in California there are a lot of measures
that we do see being parroted from the Federal perspective,
some that can work, that worked here, the private party
transfer process where all gun sales do have to go through a
dealer. That works well. But there are other things that
essentially price people in my community out of being able to
protect themselves. We do not have a blanket--a concealed carry
weapons permit system here. Those who live in affluent areas
like Orange County or Ventura County can protect themselves
better than someone who lives in Los Angeles County where Black
and brown people mostly live.
So, unfortunately, the gun control measures that have
happened here in California essentially affects people of my
community more so than people of other communities where there
are strained relationships with people in my community and law
enforcement.
Senator Grassley. I am going to have a second question for
you if I have time; otherwise, I will submit it in writing,
because I want to go to Ms. Swearer. We have heard a little
about the universal background checks, H.R. 8, and the extended
background investigation bill, H.R. 1446. Would these bills be
effective in reducing gun violence?
Ms. Swearer. Senator, thank you for your question. So, when
we are talking about gun violence generally, as I mentioned in
my oral testimony, there is a real balance between how H.R. 8
in particular addresses a very small part of the problem in
publicly advertised private sales and how it would
detrimentally impact a larger part of the problem, which is gun
suicides. Normally when people bring up background checks and
private gun sales in particular, they are referencing impacts
on mass public shootings, and I think it is important to
recognize that, with perhaps only one--one exception, these
would not have played any meaningful role in preventing any
mass public shooting in recent history, perhaps, though I think
it is questionable, the exception being the Odessa-Midland
shooting a couple years ago. The real problem is that most of
these mass shooters actually pass background checks to begin
with, that there is not this sort of intermediate option for
when they are exhibiting very serious signs of being unstable
and violent toward themselves or others. That is actually more
so than background checks for prohibited persons. When we are
talking about mass public shootings, the real issue is that
many of these people, far too many, pass those background
checks in the first place.
Senator Grassley. Okay. I have just got 5 seconds left, so
let me ask Dr. Hupp, thank you for sharing your personal story
with us. What measures do you believe would best help others to
avoid becoming victims of gun violence?
Dr. Hupp. Well, quite honestly, I think, you know, the old
Boy Scout motto, always be prepared. I teach my sons, when we
walk into a restaurant, I used to have them close their eyes
and would ask them where are the exits. You need to be able to
act fast.
I think people should be able to protect themselves to the
best of their ability. I think communities of color and
communities that are of minority religious entities should be
very wary of universal background checks for the same reason
that I mentioned earlier. It does create a de facto gun
registration. Then at any point in the future--and Lord knows
history has shown us that bad things happen. We talked earlier
about the folks of Japanese descent during World War II. We
have certainly seen it with the Jewish communities and with
African-American communities.
I think those folks in particular should be very wary of
universal background checks. Anytime we have a term like
``commonsense gun laws,'' I think that is--I think most of us
find it kind of humorous because it is tagged ``commonsense''
so that you do not want to vote against it, right? But it is
anything but commonsense, quite frankly. There are certainly
things we can do, again, in my written testimony. My husband
talked about--my husband is a criminal psychologist, and he
talks about threat assessments and how task forces can be
formed that would have prevented a number of these things, like
in Aurora and in Sutherland Springs, where people knew--people
knew that these people were messed up before they ever got hold
of a gun. They could have been prevented.
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Grassley.
I would like to explain to the witnesses and others that we
have a roll call beginning in just a minute or two. I am going
to leave to go to the floor to vote. Senator Blumenthal is
going to preside. In the meantime, I am going to recognize
Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to go back to Chief Spagnolo, if I might. You know,
I should note that I am a gun owner. I go through background
checks, whether I am buying a pistol or a rifle in Vermont. It
is usually somebody who has known me my whole life. But I have
no problem with the background check. I worry about the straw
purchases. I knew when I was a prosecutor and I have seen it
since. So many guns are bought in straw purchases and end up in
criminal hands. There is no Federal law that adequately
addresses this type of firearms trafficking. There is more we
can do to stop these purchases.
Yesterday I introduced a bill to do just that with Senator
Collins of Maine and Chairman Durbin. The last time we had that
bill up before the Senate, it got 58 votes, bipartisan votes.
It was supported by a broad range of law enforcement
organizations.
So, Chief Spagnolo, do you agree that legislation
explicitly targeting straw purchases will help law enforcement
keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous criminals?
Chief Spagnolo. Yes, I do. I think that would be one step,
Senator, in the process. You know, we work closely with the
United States Attorney's Office here in the District of
Connecticut, you know, looking at straw purchases and having
local and State investigations adopted by the U.S. Attorney for
Federal prosecution under the Project Safe Neighborhood
doctrine, and it works quite well.
You know, the thing is that in Connecticut here we have a
background process and, you know, there are plenty of guns that
are sold, and then as I said, you know, forensically we are
able to link these guns to shootings that are happening in our
community. It is really devastating.
Senator Leahy. When I was Chief Law Enforcement Officer of
my county, I heard from so many of the police who say they feel
safer when fewer guns end up in the hands of criminals. This is
kind of an easy question. I assume you felt the same way the
police officers who were under my jurisdiction felt.
Chief Spagnolo. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce into the record
letters supporting our legislation from four law enforcement
agencies: the National Fraternal Order of Police, the Major
Cities Chiefs Association, the National Sheriffs Association,
and the National District Attorneys Association.
Senator Blumenthal [presiding]. Without objection.
[The information appears as a submission for the record.]
Senator Leahy. I am going to ask Robyn Thomas, since 1996,
Congress explicitly prohibited Federal agencies from
researching the gun violence epidemic. The ban was driven by
the bogus conspiracy theory that Federal research into gun
violence would lead to a Federal assault on Second Amendment
rights.
As Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I
helped end the funding drought in 2019. We appropriated $25
million to the CDC and NIH to study gun violence from a public
health perspective. We would treat any other epidemic killing
tens of thousands of Americans each year as a public health
epidemic.
Ms. Thomas, why is it so important for the Federal
Government to treat and research gun violence as a public
health epidemic? Why is it vital for Congress to fund that?
Ms. Thomas. Thank you for your question, Senator, and thank
you for your leadership on this issue. We are so appreciative
of the new funding, $25 million, which is going to look at this
issue more carefully. We know from early studies in the early
1990's initially on this issue that when we study and look at
rates of gun violence and the types of measures that can be put
in place to reduce it, that we get really interesting and
important information about gun storage, about gun sales, about
limitations on guns that are appropriate to reducing violence.
That is why the Dickey Amendment was put in place, to ensure
that we do not have the research in order to be able to speak
knowledgeably about the ways we can reduce it.
We really look forward to seeing the outcome of this
research, which we know, because we do have private research
that has been coming out of really high-end universities across
the country showing the positive impact that gun laws make in
reducing gun violence, whether it is limitations including
background checks or permitted purchase laws, safe storage
laws, and so many more.
This is essential because without this research to show the
impact, it makes it a difficult argument. We know when research
is done, it shows the impact of these laws and helps us to have
an educated, informed conversation as a country about what
actually works.
Senator Leahy. And, Ms. Thomas, I am going to submit
another question to you for the record, if I can.
[The information appears as a submission for the record.]
Senator Leahy. I also wanted to ask you, Chief Spagnolo,
the Congress prohibits the ATF from making gun records in its
possession digitally searchable. That means they are going
through millions of paper records that are stored in cardboard
boxes by hand. It is absolutely ridiculous. Do you believe that
empowering the ATF to utilize 21st century tools like digital
searches would assist law enforcement agencies trying to trace
guns used in crimes?
Chief Spagnolo. Yes, Senator, gun tracing is an important
part of investigations that we participate in with gun crime,
and anything to progress that and bring it up to today's
technology would be beneficial to law enforcement.
Senator Leahy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Senator Leahy. Senator Lee.
Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cheng, I would like to start with you. In your
testimony you talk a little bit about the racist roots of gun
control. I want to know if you could elaborate a little bit
further on this and talk to us a little bit about the
disproportionate harms that you think can be inflicted on
minority groups of various stripes, including LGBTQ
communities, by gun control, aggressive gun control policies of
the sort that are often pushed these days, including things
like universal background checks and increased waiting periods.
Mr. Cheng. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I think a
lot of gun control laws under consideration that are passed are
always well intentioned, well meaning, and I think we are all
united in the fact that we want to reduce the violence that we
see in our country.
Like I mentioned with Executive Order 9066, as one of many
examples, it was--that Executive order was ordered under the
guise of public safety and national security. Yet it took a
marginalized community, our Japanese-American citizens, and
unconstitutionally put them in internment camps. I think the
main point is we have this tendency to create the other--
right?--and when we ``other-ize'' people, we stop treating them
like human beings, and then we stop saying that they have the
rights bestowed upon them by the U.S. Constitution.
So, whether it is with Japanese-Americans or any other
Asian-Americans or LGBTQ Americans, it is us today, but it is
going to be someone else tomorrow. This is not just a problem
for the Asian-American community or the LGBTQ community. But
when there are gun control bills under consideration, it is--it
threatens every single American's right to defend themselves
from real imminent threats, and that is what frightens me about
the gun control legislation in front of this body today.
Senator Lee. Very often, not only in American history but
even prior to American history, we have seen that it is rarely
the empowered, very rarely the wealthy or those with political
connections to the government who have their rights interfered
with. This goes back many centuries. Charles II in England, in
something called the ``Game Act,'' enacted in 1671, took away
gun rights of commoners. Seventeen years later, in 1688,
William and Mary brought into the English Bill of Rights
Legislation that protected gun ownership rights for commoners,
but made clear that it applied only to Protestants. In other
words, those who are disenfranchised, those who are not among
the wealthy elite or the most well-connected, are usually those
in any society, certainly going back hundreds of years in our
legal traditions, those are very often not the people whose
rights are most seriously restricted. The wealthy and the well-
connected end up doing okay.
Now, Dr. Hupp, I appreciate you joining us today, and it is
good to hear your voice again and to hear your insights on
this. Your story is nothing short of tragic and heartbreaking.
The right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms was
appropriately considered by our Founding Fathers so fundamental
and so associated with the English legal tradition that
informed their decision-making that they chose to put it into
the Constitution in the Second Amendment.
Recently, my home State of Utah became the 17th State to
enact constitutional concealed-carry legislation allowing
anyone 21 years of age or older who is legally allowed to
possess a firearm to concealed-carry subject to certain
exceptions.
Dr. Hupp, could you explain why you think it is in the
public interest, setting aside for a moment the constitutional
questions, but why is it in the public interest to allow all
law-abiding Americans to carry firearms?
Dr. Hupp. Oh, heavens, that becomes so deep. I think you
and Mr. Cheng put it very clearly when you are looking at the
broader picture. I know that historically bad things can
happen, and I think it is a preventive for a--honestly for a
future--or future despotic actions. It makes it very difficult
for someone to come in and do bad things to groups of people
when they can fight back.
As individuals, I think we see so many people who are in
persecuted classes. I think the LB--what is it now? The LBGQ--I
forget all the letters now, but I think those persecuted
classes are particularly in need of protection, personal
protection. I think it is important that the bad guys do not
know where the guns are. I think the more that we see these
mass shootings, we are seeing them in places where people,
again, are not allowed to protect themselves.
I think when we see them in schools, that is a perfect
example. It has always bothered me that--my sister is a
teacher. She can protect herself at the Walmart, you know,
across the street from the school where there are mothers
pushing strollers, and yet for some reason society has said we
do not trust you the minute you cross the street and go into
your classroom. Yet that is where the bad guys go to kill
people.
I think the more good people that are armed, the better.
Senator Lee. In other words, a lot of this has to do with
the fact that if we did not have these rights, the Government
would have a certain monopoly on the use of force. Now, if you
live in a neighborhood that is well secured, that is behind a
gate, if you can afford your own private security, or if you
are in a neighborhood that for one reason or another the police
monitor regularly, this might have a very different set of
implications than it would if you do not live in one of those
communities. Would you agree with that?
Dr. Hupp. I absolutely would agree with that, and I have
noticed that many of the people that are supportive of gun
control have their own security details. I unfortunately, I do
not have that.
Senator Lee. Charles II and William and Mary certainly had
their own as well. Thank you.
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Senator Lee. Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
One proposal to address gun violence is by passing extreme
risk laws. My State, California, did just that. These laws
allow family members and law enforcement to go to court to get
temporary lawful orders to prevent people from purchasing or
possessing firearms if they are a danger to themselves or
others.
Before each of the tragedies in Tucson, Aurora, Navy Yard,
and Santa Barbara, family members and law enforcement saw
warning signs, but they were powerless to stop the shooter from
getting a firearm. Sadly, this is really all too common. A
recent analysis of mass shootings in the United States between
2009 and 2019 found that in 54 percent of those shootings, the
shooter had shown warning signs.
Here is the question, and I would like to have each of you
briefly address it: Do you believe that extreme risk laws would
help reduce gun violence on a national level? Please.
Ms. Thomas. Okay. I will start on this side. Absolutely,
yes, extreme risk protective orders fully comply with due
process. They are an incredibly effective tool for family
members and law enforcement, both in preventing suicide, which
is the thing that takes the most American lives from gun
violence, and also preventing mass shootings. A recent study in
California identified at least 21 instances in which mass
shootings had been prevented by the use of extreme risk
protective orders, and the Chief pointed to data coming out of
Connecticut about the reduction in suicide directly
attributable to extreme risk protective orders.
When these measures are approached in a way that utilizes
full due process, judicial officers' testimony under oath, and
a full and fair hearing within a short amount of time, there is
absolutely no reason we should not have this applying across
the entire country to help prevent suicides, mass shootings,
and other violence.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Anybody else on that
question? Please, go ahead.
Ms. Solomon. Geneva Solomon here. I do agree with what she
said with the Giffords law offices. However, we have to be
careful with how we, you know, implement those laws. Oftentimes
extreme risk and red flag laws affect people more within
minority communities because there is still a stigma attached
to those who are within minority communities practicing
responsible gun ownership as being irresponsible. Although the
family member may call and bring in law enforcement, that law
enforcement officer may not stress or implement equally when it
is someone from a minority group and then someone from, you
know, a more affluent area. Oftentimes, you know, those within
the Black and brown community are affected more by those red
flag laws, and sometimes guns are taken away from them, and
they will not be able to protect themselves.
Senator Feinstein. Anybody else? Yes, please.
Ms. Swearer. Senator, I would like to address that as well.
This is, I think, one of those areas where there is at least
room for significant bipartisan support on this, precisely
because when you look at the general idea of targeted
interventions of people who are showing these risk factors, we
are dealing with things that, again, are targeted and not
broadly impacting people who are not likely to be a danger to
themselves or others. And when you look specifically at mass
public shootings, as I mentioned to Senator Grassley earlier,
the biggest problem is that most of these individuals, despite
these warning signs, were able to pass background checks and
obtain their firearms legally.
Senator Feinstein. I am sorry. Were able to?
Ms. Swearer. Were able to pass background checks. They were
not prohibited persons because they had not yet reached what I
would consider either a mental health crisis or yet committed a
felony under Federal law. This idea of targeted interventions
directed at people who have not yet reached that crisis point I
think is a very important aspect of addressing very important
parts of the problem.
Now, again, with that, there needs to be adequate due
process. I think one of the biggest problems with so many of
the red flag laws on the books is that they do not adequately
address due process concerns, that there are very low
standards, very low bars for essentially taking away people's
guns on the basis of perhaps, you know, aggrieved former lovers
or people who are just upset, and it can be a very expensive,
time-consuming process for innocent persons to go through. That
needs to be balanced with that same targeted intervention
approach.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Dr. Hupp. This is Suzanna Hupp. Senator Feinstein, I am
thrilled to say this is an area that you and I can actually
agree upon, and I could certainly work with you on this. I am
not familiar with the piece of legislation that you are
actually talking about. I agree with the last speaker that
obviously we always are concerned that laws like that can be
misused.
Again, in my recent written testimony, I talked about the
difference between threat assessment versus risk assessment,
and task forces at a statewide level could be put in place that
could implement some very good rules on this and I think would
prevent a number of future events.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Ms. Brule. Senator Feinstein, this is Robin Brule. Thank
you for the question. Yes, we think they will. Extreme risk
protection order laws allow family members and law enforcement
to have tools to take action with due process before warning
signs escalate to tragedies.
Dr. Rogers. I would say that extreme risk protection orders
will indeed decrease the amount of both suicides and homicides.
We disproportionately talk about mass shootings, but every day
100 people die from gun-related suicide or homicide, and
oftentimes, unfortunately, that involves a domestic violence
situation where an estranged boyfriend or husband will try to
take the life of their partner. Intimate partner violence is an
unfortunate reality every day in America. The last time I was
on call, a boyfriend at 5 o'clock in the morning came to his
girlfriend's house and shot through the door, trying to take
her life. Extreme risk protection orders will help prevent
those events.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Ms. Swearer. Senator, I know we are running out of time
here, but if I may just very quickly add one more point.
Senator Feinstein. Please.
Ms. Swearer. I think it is important to also recognize an
aspect of these targeted interventions that has to do with, I
think, the lack of trust right now between the Second Amendment
and gun-owning community and a lot of politicians and gun
control advocates. There is this feeling that people are simply
just out to take our guns through whatever means necessary. I
think one of the ways of addressing that, especially in
building that trust back, especially within the concept of red
flag laws, is to ensure that these laws focus on not just
taking away people's guns when they are showing these warning
signs, but that they are hooked up with existing mental health
treatment, addiction, you know, family court system
infrastructure so that we are not just taking away guns, but
then directing people toward help and toward treatment, because
ultimately the goal of these should be getting people back to a
point where they are not dangerous, where they can have their
rights fully restored to them, because in the long run that is
going to benefit society much more. It is going to benefit that
individual, and that helps restore that broken trust between
the gun-owning community and a lot of politicians and gun
control activists.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I will
be introducing a bill.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
I would just note, to the last point that was made, that
the Risk Warrant Law in Connecticut provides for that kind of
access to help in the course of the due process that is
afforded whoever is separated from a firearm. Senator Lindsey
Graham and myself have actually offered a bipartisan version of
this risk warrant law in past Congresses. I hope that I will
have a Republican partner in this effort again during this
session, because risk warrant laws have been shown, as Chief
Spagnolo testified very powerfully, to save lives, not only
suicides but in mass shootings and other kinds of problems. I
am very hopeful that Connecticut's model law which was passed,
the first in the Nation, before Sandy Hook could actually be an
example for others to follow. There are 19 States that have it
now, including Florida in the wake of Parkland, and I think it
is one of the most promising areas of progress on a bipartisan
basis.
Senator Cruz.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Hupp, thank you very much for telling your story. Your
story is powerful. You and I have known each other a long time.
Your story is one that I believe anyone assessing the horror of
gun violence needs to hear and needs to confront.
Dr. Hupp, what I would ask you is: Many Members of this
Committee believe that the right policy decision is to enact
strict Federal laws to make it harder for law-abiding citizens
to own firearms. Do you believe in your experience, in your
judgment, that disarming law-abiding citizens makes our
communities any safer?
Dr. Hupp. I absolutely believe that disarming the average
citizen makes for a much more unsafe society. Now, your
wheelchair-bound grandmother cannot protect herself from the
thugs who want to take her Social Security check. If she has a
weapon, now she is on equal footing.
Senator Cruz. Mr. Cheng, gun sales in the United States
skyrocketed in 2020, including among minority groups. According
to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, firearms sales
during the first half of 2020 increased year over year by 51.9
percent for whites, 58.2 percent for African Americans, 49.4
percent for Hispanics, and 42.9 percent for Asian Americans.
Why do you think that is?
Mr. Cheng. Thank you, Senator, for the question. The fear
in the Asian-American community is palpable, and it is real,
and Asian Americans are waking up to the fact that we are
Americans and we have the right to exercise our right to self-
defense, and if we want to use a firearm, that should be our
choice. It should not be up to the Government to decide or to
determine how and when we decide to defend ourselves.
So I want to send a very clear message to Asian-Americans
that we are Americans, too, and we should be exercising every
single one of our rights as American citizens, and I want
everyone to speak up and contribute to this critical debate and
discussion that we are having today about keeping our country
safe and happy and let everybody live the American dream that
we all want and we aspire to attain.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Cheng. I think that was a
powerful and important message.
Do you believe that the right to keep and bear arms is a
civil right? To what extent do you think the additional
firearms purchases last year were motivated in part by the
riots we saw across the country, as city after city in our
country burned, as stores were looted, as police officers were
murdered, to what extent do you think individual citizens
wanted to be able to protect their own homes and their own
businesses and their own families in the wake of the violence
they were seeing unfold across our country?
Mr. Cheng. Putting the pieces together, a constant stream
of civil unrest, of buildings and homes being burned, of people
of all races being attacked, the stress of being quarantined
during COVID, talk about defunding the police, demoralizing law
enforcement, encouraging them to retire early or just quit
altogether, because why would a law enforcement officer want to
put their life on the line for a public that does not want
them? I can empathize with that.
So, put on top of that the 149-percent increase in anti-
Asian-American violence, you betcha. Asian-Americans are
putting all these pieces together, just like all Americans are
saying this is a more dangerous society that we have
experienced over the past year and that we are experiencing
now, and, unfortunately, it is only getting worse. I do not
want that, and nobody else wants that, but there is a logical
conclusion that if you are going to defund the police and if
there is going to be increased violence and if I need to be my
own first responder, then I need to have a firearm to defend
myself and my family.
Senator Cruz. Okay. Thank you.
A final question, Ms. Hupp. A couple of weeks ago I
introduced an amendment, along with Bill Cassidy, that would
have provided that the $1,400 stimulus checks going out from
the Government not go to criminals, not go to criminals who are
currently incarcerated, not go to mass murderers and rapists
and child molesters who are currently in prison. We voted on it
on the Senate floor. Every Senate Democrat voted no, and it
failed by a single vote, which means if even a single Democrat
had supported that amendment, we would not be currently sending
U.S. taxpayer checks to violent criminals, including mass
murderers, including, presumably, the shooter in Atlanta, the
shooter in Boulder, including the shooter in the Mother Emanuel
Church in South Carolina, including potentially the shooter in
Santa Fe and other mass shooters who are currently
incarcerated.
Dr. Hupp, what do you think of the Federal Government
sending $1,400 checks to mass murderers who carried out acts of
gun violence?
Dr. Hupp. Let me get this straight. I do not get a stimulus
check; one of my sons does not get a stimulus check. But the
murderer does. I am shocked. I am horrified. I do not--I cannot
understand what possible reason anyone would have to vote
against that, Senator Cruz. I do not get it.
Senator Cruz. Thank you.
Chair Durbin [presiding]. Because we are on a roll call,
several Members are in transit, and so we are going to give
Senator Tillis an opportunity now, and we will catch up on the
Democratic side as Senators appear.
Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to all the
witnesses who are with us today.
Senator Cruz, I want to thank you for--I want to fully
associate myself with your opening comments, and with Cruz-
Grassley being reintroduced, it is something that I would like
to get on, if you are working to get cosponsors. So, I would
like to do that as part of its introduction.
Mr. Chairman, since I have been here for 6 years now, 6-1/2
years, the events of Boulder, Colorado, are not the first one
that we have had in those 6 years. It is a very sad situation.
The thing that I worry about is that this is a time when you
think that we would all come together on something that is
commonsense and makes progress, but it tends to be the time to
where we go into our corners and we make no progress. I think
that Grassley-Cruz is a step in the right direction, and I hope
that it is something that we can try and work on.
We do not know much about the shooter in Boulder. My guess
is it is going to follow many of the same patterns that we have
seen with other mass shootings. There were probably signs that,
if we only had better--better resources for law enforcement, we
may have been able to identify. If the parents or friends or
associates of the shooter had spoken up, there could have been
interventions to prevent it. I, for one, do not think that a
discussion around increasing gun control--gun control alone is
too simplistic for us to think we are going to make any real
progress on a matter that we hopefully in this Congress will
make progress on.
I guess the challenge that I have with those who think we
should just have indiscriminate red flag laws without any due
process to be initiated by persons outside of law enforcement,
they do not make sense to me. Do they make sense to you, Mr.
Cheng?
Mr. Cheng. My concern about extreme risk protective orders
is that right now it is a patchwork of different approaches by
States, and it is inconsistent, depending on what State you
live in.
The other concern I have, to touch upon your point,
Senator, is that who should be trusted to make a final
adjudication and determination whether someone is truly a risk.
Is that a judge? Is that a law enforcement officer? Should that
be a family member or a friend? But who actually knows this
person well? Who has--who might have a negative ulterior motive
to say I am a disgruntled lover or, you know, I am upset at you
for whatever reason and, therefore, I am going to leverage an
extreme risk protective order to take away your Second
Amendment rights?
So, at a high level, I agree that there is an opportunity
here and----
Senator Tillis. What would that look like?
Mr. Cheng. I think it is probably up to this body to help
resolve these differences in the patchwork that we are seeing
across different States, and that is a tall order. But if we
take best practices that we are seeing from different States,
that is, I think, where we should first look, but it is a
balance of the individual right versus the right of the
Government to take away someone's rights on behalf of public
safety, and that is always the difficult challenge.
Senator Tillis. Ms. Swearer.
Ms. Swearer. Thank you, Senator. I agree that there are
indeed, especially as they are written in a lot of States,
significant due process concerns. I think one thing we can do
is look at similar types of frameworks that we already have in
place that protect due process in a more civil, not criminal,
context. One of those is, in fact, the mental health civil
commitment procedures. In most States, these require robust
forms of due process. There is a right to an attorney. There is
a right to cross-examination. You know, there is a right to
testify on your own behalf. They use standards of clear and
convincing evidence which are fairly robust. And I think using
that framework rather than a lower--less robust framework is at
least a starting point, because there is a longstanding--both
judicial review of these procedures against the Constitution,
but it is also something that we are familiar with that we know
how to run, at least in terms of the framework of due process.
Senator Tillis. Ms. Solomon.
Ms. Solomon. Thank you for including me. One of the things
that I have not heard mentioned, when we talk about red flag
laws, is the amount of money that it would cost to defend
yourself when that happens. As a Federal licensed dealer here
in California, we have seen people who have relinquished their
firearms over to us, and we have heard their stories about how
costly it has been due to a disgruntled relationship, due to an
encounter that they had with law enforcement. They spend
countless amounts of money, you know, and a lot of time in
court just to get their firearms back 2 or 3 years later.
We have to address that, yes, there should be due process,
but when we start to put a cost to that, then we get more into
what I have been continually saying, is we begin to price
people out of being able to protect themselves.
Senator Tillis. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Tillis.
Again, we have no Democratic Members currently in the room,
and I would like to turn to Senator Cotton and recognize him.
Senator Cotton. First, I want to begin by saying that we
are all saddened by the terrible shooting in Boulder, Colorado,
yesterday. Like so many Americans, I am praying for the victims
of this crime, especially for the family of Officer Eric
Talley. I gather Mr. Talley left his work as an information
technology professor at the age of 40 after a friend died in a
DUI crash because he wanted to serve the public. He leaves
behind a wife and seven children. We offer the deepest
condolences to them and their entire family and community. He
adds his name to the list of too many officers who have given
their life in the line of duty, especially over the last few
years.
This is a hearing on gun violence, and it is true that gun
violence has increased, especially over this past year. In
fact, all types of violence have gone up. Murders are up more
than 20 percent in the last year alone, a single-year increase
not seen in modern history. Murders have reached totals
nationwide not seen since the 1990s.
Now, our friends on the left always want to go straight to
gun control as the solution for reducing this problem of
violence. Before we start looking at controlling the rights of
law-abiding citizens and regulating their guns and even setting
the grounds to confiscate their guns, why don't we look at why
this violence has increased to begin with?
Notably, there has been extended, systematic attacks on our
police and law enforcement professionals for years, calling
them ``racist'' and ``bigoted'' and ``prejudiced,'' demanding
that they be defunded and replaced with social workers. When
you condemn the police, when you make it harder to do their
job, you should not be surprised that criminals take advantage
of the opportunities that follow and that crime rises and that,
in particular, violent crime rises.
Likewise, some on the left like to complain about mass
incarceration as if there are too many people locked up in our
prisons when more than half of all violent crimes do not even
result in an arrest, much less a prosecution or a conviction.
Let me tell you a story about Hassan Elliott in
Philadelphia, who is a member of the 1700 Gang that is
responsible for many mass murders. In June 2017, he was
arrested on a firearms charge after threatening a neighbor with
a gun. Despite the criminal record, he only received seven
months in jail. He then violated his parole. He failed drug
tests. He was arrested with cocaine. Yet he was not sent back
to jail, and a few months later, he allegedly murdered someone
with a gun when he should have been in jail. Later he also
murdered a police officer. All of this was preventable if
prosecutors had simply followed the law and supported their
local police and locked up Mr. Elliott, as they should lock up
so many other violent felons across the country.
What should we do to reduce gun violence? The solution is
simple. We should support our police, we should enforce our
laws, and we should, yes, lock up criminals. What we should
never do is create new vague laws to restrict the
constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners. All of these
new restrictions fail to stop criminals from breaking the law,
but they do result in liability for Arkansans and Americans who
responsibly own guns to protect themselves from the same
criminals that are getting away without real jail time to
commit crimes against innocent civilians when they should be
locked away.
Mr. Cheng, it is well known that minority communities are
disproportionately the victims of these violent crimes,
including gun homicides. If bills like these two House-passed
gun control measures were to pass, which group would suffer
more--criminals who are trying to get guns, often through
illegal means, with which to commit crimes or law-abiding
citizens, especially minorities who would like to purchase guns
for self-defense?
Mr. Cheng. Thank you, Senator, for the question. The group
that would surely suffer the most at the hands of gun control
bills would be minorities who need to defend themselves and the
ones that want to purchase a firearm for self-defense. I would
like to share a story about what has been happen in my hometown
of San Francisco. We have had multiple attacks on not just
Asian Americans but some of the most vile, disgusting attacks
that have been happening have been happening to the elderly
Asian Americans. And they have been kicked and pushed and hit
from behind, and some have succumbed to their injuries.
To your point, we have a district attorney who is somehow
trying to rationalize a murder by saying things like, ``The
criminal had a temper tantrum.'' I do not understand how our
district attorney and the Oakland police chief right across the
bay who says that we should not defend ourselves, that we
should just be good witnesses--well, you cannot be a good
witness when you are dead. If the public does not have the
confidence in the law enforcement machine that has the power to
arrest, convict, and jail criminals for their actions, then
that causes even more distress and more of a problem in our
society.
Senator Cotton. Thank you, Mr. Cheng, and thank you for
raising the problem of your George Soros-funded prosecuting
attorney, one of many across the country who refuses to enforce
the law and lock away violent criminals. It is a problem about
which I will be speaking more at length in the future.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Cotton. Senator Padilla.
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to raise a topic in a frame that I do not believe
has been raised thus far in this hearing. For most States, the
age required to legally purchase a rifle and the age required
to cast a ballot are both 18. However, there are some shocking
disparities in legal State requirements for obtaining a weapon
versus casting a ballot. In 25 States, voters must be
registered and have specific forms of ID in order to cast a
ballot. But those same States allow people to buy rifles
without permits and require no background checks for some
sales.
Additionally, in a majority of States, new voters are able
to obtain a rifle quicker than they are able to cast their
first ballot. It seems to me that we have our priorities
entirely backward when it comes to this, when we make it easier
to buy a gun than we do to cast a ballot.
Two questions for Dr. Rogers. Broadly, what does it say to
you that we make it so much easier in so many States in this
country to buy a gun than we do to let people vote, eligible
citizens? Second, maybe more specific to your experience, given
your efforts to address the trauma and racial disparities at
the community level, could you discuss your approach to gun
violence as a systemic trauma, physical, mental, and otherwise?
Dr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Padilla, for that question.
Undoubtedly, the challenge of gun violence is related to the
fact that we have guns. Without guns there would not be gun
violence.
I want to start off by saying, you know, Black Lives
Matter. Fifty-seven percent of all gun-related homicides are
among Black men. My three sons, three African-American sons,
are 25, 22, and 18. They are at the highest risk in this
country of being killed by a gun.
The fact that when my 18-year-old voted for the first time
this year he had to go through a number of steps in order to do
that and exercise his right as a citizen to vote is
representative of the fact that we have certain steps in order
to be legally eligible to vote. It seems backward that those
steps would be so much less for doing something that could be
harmful to another citizen or to themselves, the purchase of a
firearm.
Broadly speaking, it is not an either/or with respect to
gun control versus addressing violence as a public health
problem. I think we need to do both.
With respect to the fact that chronic disinvestment in
minority communities, especially communities of color, Hispanic
and African-American communities place young Black men at a
high risk of being injured. The adverse experiences of trauma
over the course of their life cycle and intergenerational
poverty disproportionately affects and places Black men at a
higher risk of dying from gun violence than graduating from
college in this country. In many ways, we need to find ways of
addressing the upstream factors that lead to those risk factors
for Black men and change this approach to our national crisis.
Senator Padilla. Thank you. I think it is a subject that
deserves a deeper dive. But I want to take my final minute here
to raise one more, I think, critical and urgent issue. You
know, on March 17th, the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence, the Department of Justice, and the Department of
Homeland Security released an Unclassified Summary of
Assessment on Domestic Violent Extremism. That assessment found
that domestic violent extremists motivated by biases against
minority communities would pose an elevated threat to our
Nation throughout the rest of the year. We are talking right
now. However, violent attacks against minorities, specifically
Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, have been on the rise
since early last year. In fact, the day before the summary was
released, a domestic terrorist entered a firearms dealership in
Georgia, purchased a 9 millimeter handgun, and receive it
almost immediately due to Georgia's no-wait gun laws. This
terrorist would go on to murder eight innocent people later
that day, including six Asian women.
Now, a 2017 study published by the proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences found that the waiting period laws
reduce gun homicides by roughly 17 percent. Stats, folks. Hard
data. However, only 17 States, including the District of
Columbia, currently require waiting periods, and there is no
Federal law requiring waiting periods. If waiting periods were
expanded to all States, the country could see roughly 1,700
less homicides per year while imposing no new restrictions on
who can own a gun.
Ms. Thomas, could you speak briefly to the
constitutionality of longer waiting periods and the possible
benefits that they represent?
Ms. Thomas. Well, I appreciated your citing two peer-
reviewed, research-driven statistics that show how waiting
periods effectively reduce rates of homicide and suicide.
Particularly when it comes to suicide, we know that waiting
periods are an effective tool for ensuring that those that are
in a time of crisis have some space to get the help they need.
As far as the constitutionality goes, there is absolutely
nothing in the Second Amendment--Second Amendment itself and
Second Amendment jurisprudence or in any court's decision that
would inhibit us from passing things like waiting periods. It
is simply a good public policy decision. There is no
constitutional impediment, and there is no reason we should not
be taking that kind of step to ensure that we save lives and
protect people in our country.
Senator Padilla. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Padilla.
I might just say for those who came in late, we recognized
Senator Cruz, Senator Tillis, and Senator Cotton, and there
were no Democrats present. I am trying to catch up now. We have
had Senator Padilla, and I believe we have Senator Coons and
Senator Booker and then Senator Hawley. I do not want you to
feel you are being discriminated against. That is how the
sequence followed.
Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Durbin. I just want to
start by offering my deepest condolences to the families and
loved ones of the victims of two horrible tragedies we have
just seen this week in Atlanta and in Boulder and to thank
first responders and, in particular, to mourn the loss of
Officer Eric Talley, who by all accounts acted with the courage
we expect of law enforcement, a father of seven, killed in the
line of duty. We have to do everything we can to prevent
further senseless tragedies and not simply accept the frequency
of mass shootings in our Nation.
So, if I could, Ms. Thomas, one of the things that Senator
Cornyn and I have done to try and make progress in keeping guns
out of the hands of those who should not be able to get them is
we just reintroduced the NICS Denial Notification Act. It is a
commonsense bill that would require Federal authorities to
notify State and local law enforcement when a person prohibited
lies on a background check to allow them to intervene. It is a
bill that is cosponsored by Senators Grassley and Graham, Leahy
and Klobuchar, endorsed by Giffords and the FOP. I appreciate
that you highlighted that bill as well as Senators Durbin and
Grassley earlier.
Can you help explain why it is a critical warning sign when
a person prohibited tries to buy a gun, fails the background
check, and why timely notification of law enforcement might
help save lives?
Ms. Thomas. Absolutely. Thank you for that question, and
thank you so much, Senator, for your leadership on this issue.
It is so important that we understand that when someone fails a
background check, that is because they either have a felony
conviction or an appropriate domestic violence misdemeanor
conviction or a mental health prohibition. These are situations
where an individual presents a risk to themselves or others,
and we want to make sure we are doing everything we can to keep
guns away from those individuals.
When someone goes to buy a gun and they fail that
background check, often it means that they might be intending
to do violence. Particularly in the case of domestic violence,
guns present an incredibly high risk to individuals involved in
those relationships.
By notifying law enforcement, giving law enforcement an
opportunity to follow up and ensure that that individual is not
acquiring guns through other means, we can prevent harm. I just
must say that closing the background check loophole, ensuring
that we have background checks on all gun sales so that it
would not be easy then for those individuals to simply go to an
unlicensed seller to acquire a gun that they are not able to
get from a licensed gun dealer would be an excellent addition
to this kind of law, because it ensures that we are closing
those opportunities for individuals who should not have guns.
Senator Coons. Chief Spagnolo, in Connecticut, as in 13
States, you perform the reference in and out of the national
NICS check system, so you know immediately. There are 37 States
that do not. One of the other States, like Connecticut, that
follows your practice, in 2016 there were 700 investigations,
350 convictions.
Roughly 100,000 people every year fail a background check
for the reasons Ms. Thomas just cited. How does making sure
that State and local law enforcement have prompt access to
information about those who fail background checks help keep
your community safe and would help keep our Nation safe if that
became the law of the land, as this bipartisan bill proposes?
Chief Spagnolo. Well, thank you, Senator. I think that
having that information for law enforcement would be beneficial
to investigations. You know, we work closely with our Federal
law enforcement partners and the FBI and the ATF, and it would
be great for us to have a data base where we know that
criminals that we are looking at for other activity and violent
behavior had attempted to secure a weapons permit to buy a gun.
I just think that that is information that we could expound
upon and utilize in our investigations to keep our community
safer.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Chief.
Dr. Rogers, if I might, my hometown of Wilmington,
Delaware, has been working hard to address a grave and serious
and ongoing gun violence epidemic. You have argued for taking a
public health approach to tackling the problem in addition to
some of the other measures proposed. Beyond gun violence
prevention legislation, what kind of further investments should
we be making in our communities to address the root causes of
gun violence? What Federal grants or other resources, in your
view, have been most effective?
Dr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Coons, for that question. You
know, we have had decades, if not centuries, in this country of
structural racism against people of color, and
disproportionately intentional gun violence is a manifestation
of that structural racism. Chronic disinvestment in communities
places vulnerable communities at risk, and Federal investment
in distressed communities would help upstream factors that have
unfortunately led to the downstream impact of gun violence
disproportionately in communities of color.
I think it is also important to note that we do know that
there are some things that work. We have heard today that
people who are injured by guns are more likely to be injured
again in terms of intentional violence recidivism. Targeting
high-risk populations that are likely to injure others is an
important strategy. Above and beyond just locking them up as
Mr. Cotton described. There are impacts on mental wellness that
can be addressed through cognitive behavioral therapy and other
proactive interventions to prevent a person who has shot
someone from shooting someone else again.
Furthermore, I think there are opportunities on the table
to look at secondary violence prevention programs such as
mentioned, Chicago CRED or Heartland Alliance program that
looks at giving ready available jobs to citizens who have been
victims of gun violence, providing them with transitional jobs
and opportunities and cognitive behavioral therapy to help
prevent them from becoming victims of violence once again.
So, taking a targeted approach to individuals who are at
the highest risk of gun violence and finding ways to address
their needs in a way that prevents them from injuring others
would be a positive way forward above and beyond issues around
gun control.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Dr. Rogers. Thank you to our
panel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Coons.
Proving once again that the Good Samaritan never goes
unpunished, I asked Senator Blumenthal to preside when I went
to vote, and then I skipped him when it was his turn to ask
questions. So begging your pardon, Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you so much, Senator Durbin, and,
again, my thanks to you for giving us this opportunity to have
this extraordinarily important hearing, which is one of a
series that we are going to have. The Subcommittee on the
Constitution will explore more of these specific proposals like
risk warrants or emergency protection orders and background
checks, safe storage--who can be against safe storage
standards?--and other measures that are based on commonsense
and fully constitutional.
I want to just clarify the record on the Grassley-Cruz
bill. We had a little lecture from Senator Cruz on the virtues
of this bill. Actually, it has a number of poison pills. For
example, it would only prohibit straw purchases if prosecutors
could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the purchaser knew
that the recipient was prohibited from buying a gun or knew the
person intended to use it for a crime. That is an impossible
standard as opposed to the Leahy-Collins-Durbin bill which
adopts the standard of proof in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922, namely,
``reasonable cause to believe'' standard. That is just one
example of a bill that has some good provisions, like grants of
resources to States to submit records to NICS and requiring
reporting on RICS--NICS records submissions and providing
additional resources to investigate. We are in favor of
additional resources.
But the poison pills in that bill make it unacceptable,
and, unfortunately, it is an example of exactly that phenomenon
that I raised--using deceptive and fig leaf measures as a ruse
to prevent commonsense, effective gun violence prevention
measures. We know what works from the States that have used
these measures--Connecticut and California and other States
that have used risk warrants to prevent suicides as well as
other gun violence.
I would like to ask Chief Spagnolo, because he has really
seen it firsthand, he has been in the Waterbury Police
Department since 1992. He has been in the patrol division, the
motorcycle division, the tactical drug division. He has really
seen it all. If you could tell me, Chief, what these
commonsense measures mean to your men and women who face these
dangers every day, as did Officer Talley who tragically lost
his life? Our sympathies go out to his family and the other
loved ones who have lost members of their families and friends.
Chief, if you could tell us what these measures mean.
Chief Spagnolo. Thank you, Senator. So, in Connecticut, we
have been pretty progressive regarding gun laws and background
checks and the ability to take guns away from folks or having
folks surrender their guns that are under a protective order
because of domestic violence, and then the ability for a law
enforcement officer to apply for a risk warrant if a person
poses harm to themselves or others.
However, I get an end-of-shift report three times, every 8
hours, and within that report there is not a day that goes by
that there is not a report of shots fired or someone, a
prohibited person, being arrested with a handgun that they
should not be in possession of right here in Waterbury.
We have taken some measures, and I shudder to think if we
did not have background checks and some of these other
opportunities in place here in Connecticut how many guns would
be out there and how many shootings we would be experiencing in
our community. I think that, you know, the measures in place
have protected our law enforcement officers and, as
importantly, they have protected members of our community. It
is often that we use the risk warrant process to take
temporarily guns away from people who have displayed that they
are in a situation where they pose an imminent threat to
themselves or others. There is due process here in Connecticut
behind that. I mean, it is not just that the law enforcement
officer goes and seizes these weapons. This paperwork is
reviewed by the local district attorney and then in turn
brought to a judge for approval on whether these guns can be
taken in order to be heard about in a hearing and then
potentially returned to this person.
But, I am very satisfied that we have these measures in
place here in Connecticut. I think that they are commonsense. I
think that States surrounding us, some of them do have
progressive background check laws and other gun laws. Some do
not. We see guns that flow through our borders and into our
community from States where folks can just go to a gun store
and with a driver's license or some form of ID purchase a gun
with little to no wait time.
I am proud of the work that has been done here in
Connecticut, and I think that it keeps our community and our
law enforcement officers much safer.
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks for your testimony today, Chief,
and thanks for your great work for Waterbury and the State of
Connecticut.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Blumenthal.
We are going to call on Senator Hawley, Senator Booker,
Senator Blackburn online, and Senator Ossoff. Senator Hawley.
Senator Hawley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks
to the witnesses for being here and for those that are online.
I want to start by recognizing and thanking the brave
officer who gave his life defending innocent civilians in
Colorado and also his family, and just note that this last year
has been a terrible year--a terrible year--for assaults on
police officers, law enforcement of all kinds across our
country. We are seeing--in my home State of Missouri, assaults
on police officers have been at record highs in 2020. We are
seeing it across the country. We are seeing surges in the crime
rate, in the murder rate. It has been an unbelievable trend
line that we are on, and the assaults on law enforcement have
got to stop.
Ms. Swearer, let me begin with you, if I could. We are
hearing a lot about universal background checks and how
important they are to make sure that private parties do not
exchange weapons, sell weapons among themselves without getting
a check. I am just wondering: How does this work in practice?
How do you--if it is private parties and not registered
licensed sellers but two private individuals, how does law
enforcement, when they go to enforce a universal background
check requirement between private persons, how do they know
that there is actually--that the relevant transactions have
been recorded? How do you actually make this work in practice?
Ms. Swearer. Senator, thank you for your question, and I
think you hit--one of the biggest problems with enforcement of
these laws is that the way that they work is primarily
retrospective in nature, that a crime is committed and then we
have--law enforcement has access to the gun. They look at it
and they say, okay, where did this come from? They sort of
backtrack and figure out it was done illegally through a
private sale, or even if you were to pass H.R. 8, for example,
that individual did not go through a background check, and then
you retrospectively punish that individual. It does not do a
whole lot prospectively to stop those transactions.
Even if you look at, again, things like private sales
through--what I would call ``publicly advertised private
sales,'' things like Armslist or Craigslist sales, those types
of things, the way that the law is written and the way that
most of these laws are written is that it does not stop the
public advertisement of these sales, and there is no way of
actually tracking, you know, did this person who advertised
this meet up and go through a background check. Frankly, the
people who are already willing to break current laws are going
to continue to break those laws. They are not going to say, oh,
well, the Government said I have to go through a background
check to do this, when they are already willing to sell to
criminals or to skirt those laws. Just because it is doubly
illegal is not going to matter to them.
Senator Hawley. I just wonder where this is headed. Where
are we actually going with these proposals? It seems to me that
the way, if you really want a universal background check law to
be truly effective and enforceable, you have got to have some
kind of firearm registry. You have got to actually know what
firearms are out there, how they are registered, where they are
changing hands. Otherwise, between private parties for the
reasons you have just articulated, it does not seem like it is
going to be terribly effective. Is that where we are headed
towards here in order to make this effective at the end of the
day?
Ms. Swearer. Senator, that would seem to be the case, and
this is not me advocating for a registry, but it would seem to
be the case that, you know, if the concern is private
transfers, the best way of even retrospectively enforcing that
is through a sort of gun registry. But, again, this starts
hitting at other problems where trust has broken down between
gun owners and, frankly, the Government, where there is this
fear when you have politicians going around saying, ``Hell,
yes, we are going to take your AR-15,'' that these--any sort of
gun registration system is going to be used in the future as
sort of the launching pad for the next step and then the next
step and then the next step.
Senator Hawley. Yes, and we know that that comment about
taking away your AR-15, we know that that is not hypothetical
in the sense that we have had pretty much the entire party that
sits on the other side of this dais advocating in their
Presidential primaries last year, right through the
Presidential election, talking about the need to take away guns
of law-abiding citizens, I mean many of them advocating a
national gun registry. So, this is not something that is a
hypothetical. This is something that I think is a very real and
distinct possibility.
Dr. Hupp, let me just ask you to comment on this. Do you
want to weigh in, as someone who has seen this personally? What
is your view here of where this is headed, where these
proposals are headed?
Dr. Hupp. Well, I think it is interesting that, you know,
in this country we recognize that thousands of people die in
car accidents every year, but at the same time, we are
cognizant of the fact that people use their vehicles on a daily
basis for good purposes millions and millions of times.
I think it is interesting that when we talk about gun
usage, nobody ever mentions the fact that guns are used
defensively it is estimated about 2.5 million times per year.
It is very difficult for us to count how many lives have been
saved. It is kind of hard to count a negative.
I think it is just very important that we look at history
and we know that there is a tendency for governments to become
overwhelming at times. So, yes, I think there is a fear amongst
many of us that we would create that fertile ground for future
confiscation.
I think the one witness made it very clear. He said, you
know, you cannot have--I believe he said you cannot have gun
violence if there are not any guns. I think essentially that is
what many on the other side would prefer.
Senator Hawley. Thank you for your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Senator Booker.
Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Chairman, if I might just interrupt
to put in the record two statements by Mark Bardin and Kristin
Song, if there is no objection.
Chair Durbin. Without objection.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information appears as a submission for the record.]
Senator Booker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, of course, want
to express my condolences, as people have on both sides of the
aisle, for the grievous loss of life that we have seen in the
last 2 weeks. But as you said, Mr. Chairman, we see it every
day. I am listening to the testimony and to the conversations
on both sides of the aisle, and I just feel like we live in a
bizarro world where we forget the very mandate of our
Government, of our Federal Government. And so the best mandate
is perhaps the Constitution of the United States of America
that begins with the purpose of why we are all here. I just
read the first four reasons why we are here: ``We the People of
the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and provide for
the common defense . . .'' If you look at that in the context
of the slaughter of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of
Americans--I am roughly 50 years old. In my lifetime, there
were more people that have died of gun violence than in every
single war in our Nation's history from the Revolution to the
current wars going on right now.
Why are we here? Why did we establish this Government if
not to better defend ourselves? And yet we see slaughter every
day and do not understand that it is not just the horrors of
that, but we are way out of step with every other nation on the
planet Earth in the number of Americans that are being killed.
Somehow we do not think we have the power to stop this.
And it hurts. I tell you, these are not data--this is not
statistics. I have stood on too many sidewalks that were
stained with blood. I have seen too many bodies covered, more
than one occasion, Mr. Chairman, me or one of the people I was
with tried desperately to stop someone from bleeding out from
gunshot wounds. It trashes our strength and our economy because
every gunshot wound in America costs us hundreds of thousands
of dollars. That is nothing compared to what it is doing to our
Nation's soul.
We must create a more beloved community, and the lies or
the fearmongering about how somehow law-abiding citizens will
not have access to guns is just belied by the evidence and the
data. I am so grateful that we have actually a law enforcement
officer, because as a person who was a mayor of a city, God
bless us, we have driven down crime under my leadership as
mayor. The current mayor is doing an extraordinary job. But we
know, who are trying to protect citizens, how tragic it is that
we cannot even do the things that we know--our arms are tied.
I want to begin with, Chief, if you could answer these
questions, and then I will stop. Connecticut is a State that
has had registry. Nobody in Connecticut--this is not a pretext
to take away arms. It dropped, objectively dropped homicides,
murders, death by guns, by 40 percent in the State.
Objectively. But I was a mayor and worked with Connecticut
mayors and New York mayors about the Iron Pipeline, where we
could stop guns with our gun laws, but the guns coming, as Ms.
Swearer said, from straw purchases up the Iron Pipeline from
gun shows is absolutely outrageous. What was painful for me is
my officers were in danger from these illegal weapons pouring
into our community.
And so, Chief Spagnolo, just two questions, and then I
yield my time. First of all, I have got a bill that is about
evidence-based practices, break the cycle of violence, that
would find evidence-based street outreach programs as well as
hospital-based violence intervention programs that we know that
if local communities like yours had more of those resources,
these are evidence-based programs that we could stop. I would
like for you to talk about that, and then also, could you just
give folks an understanding of how dramatically we lost an
officer yesterday? As a leader of men and women who go out
every single day into communities in danger, could you just
please answer for me what it is like knowing that these weapons
proliferate in America that we could prevent and what it means
to officers and their families every day in America?
Chief Spagnolo. Thank you, Senator. So, in response to your
first question, community solutions is paramount to this
problem, and any evidence-based program that would provide
assistance and support for folks in our community, whether they
are just living in our community and suffering from living in
an area where violence is occurring or they are reentering in
our community is extremely important to us. We work with many,
many partners, you know, not only in Government but many
nonprofit organizations and behavioral health organizations in
our city to make sure that we provide services to members that
need it in our community.
To your statements and your question regarding the
devastation of losing a law enforcement officer, it is
terrible. I mean, we have had officers here in Waterbury that
have been shot and killed in the line of duty during my career,
and these are times and moments that I will never forget. I
mean, these are human beings that have lost their life, just
like the folks that were involved in the mass shooting in
Boulder just yesterday. You know, they have families. I have
heard time and time again, as people have taken the microphone
today, you know, about the officer and his seven children that
he left behind.
You know, these are real concerns and real situations that
our police officers have to deal with each and every day. And
any law or any solution that could take guns out of the hands
of prohibited persons is so beneficial and so important for us
to really consider.
Senator Booker. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, we are not fulfilling our mandate. We do not
have domestic tranquility. We do not have a common defense with
death levels that no other country has seen. And, dear God,
clearly we do not have justice.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Booker.
I understand Senator Blackburn is online. She may join us
now if she is ready.
Senator Blackburn. I am indeed, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
very much. Thank you all for the good discussion today. I think
that it has been so interesting to hear your perspectives.
In Tennessee, I will tell you that gun sales are really at
record levels. It is so interesting to talk to gun store
owners, and many times they are out of stock or they are out of
ammo. Americans are turning to their Second Amendment rights as
a way to protect themselves and their families. Many people
were so disconcerted with the violence that they saw last year
on our streets, the rioting that took place during the summer,
and they are fearful, and they want to make certain that they
are prepared to protect their families' safety, and they worry
the police will not respond faster enough if their communities
are victims of an attack.
When talking about gun rights, I am reminded of the wisdom
of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and how she
recalled growing up in Birmingham during the civil rights
movement. She said back then, and I am quoting from her book,
``There was no way the Birmingham police were going to protect
you. That is why when White Knight Riders came through their
neighborhood,'' her father and his friends ``would take their
guns, and they would go to the head of the neighborhood, and
they would fire in the air, if anybody came through,'' ending
the quote.
It was a matter of necessary self-defense. I am sure many
communities facing senseless attacks can empathize with that
story. Sometimes the police cannot get there in time, and it
can be devastating. For those moments we have the Constitution.
We have the right to have guns in our homes, and we have the
right to protect our loved ones.
Last summer we saw those images of destruction of
businesses that swept through the Nation. In Kenosha,
Wisconsin, the Scott family looked on as the furniture store
that they owned for 40 years was set on fire by looters, and Du
Nord Distillery was an African-American-owned business that
handed out water to protesters in Minneapolis, but the business
was set ablaze. People from all walks of life saw their sole
sources of income destroyed as unrest ravaged our cities and
businesses were looted and burned to the ground.
Mr. Cheng, I would like to come to you for an answer, if I
may, sir. Our country faces rising violence against Asian
Americans, and we mourn the violence that we have seen this
week--the shooting in Atlanta, the shooting in Boulder
yesterday. I would hope that the shooters are prosecuted to the
full extent of the law.
I want to turn back and look at history for a moment, Mr.
Cheng. During the L.A. riots in 1992, Korean-American
businesses were looted, attacked, and burned to the ground.
When the police did not come, who was there to protect those
businesses?
Mr. Cheng. Yes, thank you, Senator, for the question. Yes,
who was there? I think to underscore your point, who was not
there? Law enforcement, as much as they wanted to be there,
they were overwhelmed with violence overtaking Los Angeles.
I remember being 12 years old watching the L.A. riots on
TV. I lived about 15 minutes from where everything was taking
place. As a 12-year-old, I understood at sort of a very high
level that bad things were happening. I saw a lot of people
getting hurt. I saw a lot of violence, a lot of burning
buildings, and a lot of fear. It was not until I became an
adult when I realized one of these stories that was, I think,
really not told in the mainstream media about Korean Americans
exercising their Second Amendment rights because they were
under threat. This is not a hypothetical threat when the
Government is not available or willing to come to the defense
of a marginalized community.
It is this ultimate individual right that we have in the
Second Amendment that is one of those final backstops, one of
those final pieces of individual peace of mind that I have
control over my own personal safety and security. Thank you,
Senator.
Senator Blackburn. Thank you.
Ms. Scott, I have a--Ms. Solomon, I have a question for you
that will come to you in writing, and, Dr. Hupp, likewise one
for you. Ms. Swearer, I do have a question for you on school
safety and guns that will come to you in writing.
Senator Blackburn. Mr. Chairman, I will send my time back.
Thank you.
Chair Durbin. Thank you very much, Senator.
I believe Senator Klobuchar is online, and then she will be
followed by Senator Ossoff. Senator Klobuchar, can you reach
us?
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for this hearing, this moving testimony. I was here
for your initial comments in the room, and I want to thank all
of you for the work that you are doing, and especially those
that have been personally affected by gun violence.
For years, I have been working to pass the Domestic
Violence and Stalking Victims Act, which would close a
dangerous loophole. Actually, when Senator Grassley chaired
this Committee, we had a hearing, and the Republican witnesses
agreed with the piece about closing the boyfriend loophole,
which, of course, abusive dating partners now can buy a gun,
whereas people who are married cannot. We are just simply
trying to close that loophole, which has been closed in many
States but not all States.
What is really interesting is that this provision actually
has passed the House now with 29 Republican votes because it is
part of the Violence Against Women Act, and we are working so
hard on background checks and some of the other things that we
need to do, but this provision is actually in that, along with
an important provision that is contained in the bill on
stalking.
I remember when we had that hearing and the Republican
witnesses agreed with this idea. A very conservative sheriff
from Wisconsin actually said this, he said, ``Dangerous
boyfriends can be just as scary as dangerous husbands. They hit
just as hard, and they fire their guns with the same deadly
force.''
I ask you, Ms. Thomas, about this. I know you know this
bill well. Many States have taken actions to close this
loophole in State law, including mine. How have the rates of
gun violence changed in those States? How would changing
Federal law to include dating partners help?
Ms. Thomas. So, I first just want to acknowledge that more
than half of intimate partner homicides occur by a former or
current dating partner, so this is a really important group
that we include within the definition of those prohibited from
having firearms. We have seen a marked reduction in gun
violence in States that have this law, and certainly we would
expect the same if we expanded the characterization within the
current law to include not just the domestic violence
misdemeanors that are currently in there, but also to include
dating partners and also to include those that are convicted of
stalking. In addition to dating partners, more than 70 percent
of homicide victims in intimate partner homicides are
previously the victims of stalking.
These are two ways that we could very easily expand those
definitions, cover more individuals, protect individuals in
domestic violence situations, and reduce harm. Both of those
are in the violence--reauthorized Violence Against Women Act.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. One other question, and I
know this has been discussed a little bit, the extreme risk
protection orders, which I remember being at a meeting with
former President Trump after the Parkland shooting, and
actually Vice President Pence supported this, doing something
with these extreme risk protection orders in Federal law. And,
sadly, we have had now a horrible crime in Minnesota, in
February a terrible shooting at the Allina Health Clinic in
Buffalo, Minnesota, where a young medical assistant was killed
and four others were injured. It had been reported that the
police were aware that the shooter had actually previously made
threats against this clinic. It was a general health clinic.
And so, doing something now in our State is supported by our
Governor, the chiefs of police, the Minnesota County Attorneys
Association.
Can you talk, Ms. Thomas, about how an extreme risk
protection order can help to prevent shootings like the one
that we just had tragically in Minnesota?
Ms. Thomas. Absolutely. I want to address some comments
made earlier about extreme risk protection orders. There is a
lot of discussion around due process when we talk about extreme
risk protective orders, and that is because it is a situation
where you can have ex parte temporary removal. These laws are
modeled on domestic violence hearings, domestic violence ex
parte hearings, which have withstood decades of challenge and
ensure that they now comply with due process, and that is how
these laws are modeled. They ensure that we cover due process,
that we protect those individuals' rights, and have a system in
place where there is a full and fair hearing very quickly after
the initial removal.
Extreme risk protective orders are now in place in 19
States and the District of Columbia. They are working in a
really impactful way to reduce the incidence of mass shootings.
As I mentioned earlier, 21 incidents that we have just recently
been reviewed by peer-reviewed research where mass shootings
have been prevented by risk protective orders, and we know for
sure that it has reduced suicide in States like Connecticut
from research that has come out.
So, as has been mentioned by other witnesses, this is a
really smart, effective way to remove guns when people are in a
time of crisis, to ensure that due process rights are
protected, and to ensure the safety of communities. There was a
question earlier about who gets to decide about these rights,
and it is always a judicial officer. Testimony is always under
oath. There were comments made about who gets to testify. These
are comments under oath utilizing our fair justice system, and
we believe that these systems are put in place in a way that
protects all the parties involved and enhances public safety.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you so much, and we should note,
as I brought up those previous meetings, these provisions are
in place in a number of what would be considered Red States as
well and have been supported by many Republicans in the past.
Thank you very much, and I appreciate again all the witnesses.
Thank you.
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Klobuchar. Senator Ossoff.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our
panel for joining us. I appreciate that you are here with a
diversity of views on this issue.
I want to begin, Dr. Rogers, if I might. Two weeks, two
massacres. My heart goes out to those who died and those who
lost loved ones last night in Boulder. We are still reeling in
Georgia after the attacks on three Asian-owned small businesses
took eight lives last week. There is also a broader increase in
violence across our society over the last year in particular.
Two weekends within the last month, Atlanta, Georgia, saw more
than 12 shot each weekend.
With your experience, Dr. Rogers, could you reflect,
please, for the benefit of the Committee on what is driving
this broader increase in violence? What do you assess to be the
causes of our nearly uniquely American problem of repeated
massacres and spree shootings?
Dr. Rogers. Thank you, Senator Ossoff. In my opinion, the
almost-50-percent increase that we have seen in Chicago and so
many cities across this country of shootings is related to the
challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact it has had
economically--socially and economically on so many distressed
communities. In many ways, gun violence, intentional gun
violence, is a symptom of a larger problem in our society. The
ready availability of guns puts people at risk, but,
unfortunately, disproportionately those communities that are at
risk are communities of color. We are not really addressing the
upstream factors that lead to this unfortunate, as Cory said--
Senator Booker said, slaughter. The slaughter of Americans, of
mostly Black and brown Americans in this country, has gone on
for decades.
Tackling that problem is really what we should be focusing
on. I think, unfortunately, we do not address the root causes
of gun violence, and we see this time and time again. We will
have another hearing in another year or another decade if we do
not do some action now to address the problem fundamentally.
What I see every day is the incredible painful impact on
families, on health care staff who share the burden with their
families of gun violence. That does not even include the
economic impact of lost productivity, the lost human capital,
or even the fact that we are not realizing the best of all
Americans.
And so, I really implore the Senate Judiciary Committee to
look at constructive ways to address the upstream factors that
lead to gun violence in the first place and also address
targeted programs and fund targeted programs that can actually
impact secondary gun violence related to recidivism.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Dr. Rogers.
Chief Spagnolo, if you are still available via Zoom, a
question for you in a similar vein. Has your community, has the
State of Connecticut seen a similar increase in violence over
the last year? To what do you attribute it? What law
enforcement practices have you found effective at reducing the
incidence of violence? Would you, as Dr. Rogers did, please
also reflect more broadly on the factors driving, again, this
uniquely American phenomenon of widespread gun violence as well
as repeated spree shootings, two massacres now in 2 weeks?
Thank you.
Chief Spagnolo. Thank you, Senator. So, 2020 certainly was
a very violent year for us here in the State of Connecticut and
the city of Waterbury, as it has been throughout the Nation.
You know, we saw a lot of difference, a lot of changes in law
enforcement, and a lot of changes in the judicial system once
the COVID-19 pandemic struck us. There were Executive orders
that were handed down, rightfully so, from our Governor and
certainly Governors throughout the States that restricted the
amount of face-to-face meetings that could be held. There were
administrative decisions that were made by leaders in different
portions of the judicial system here in Connecticut that
changed the operating pattern. And there were also releases.
There were releases from the custody of the Department of
Corrections and the Bureau of Prisons.
I think one of the biggest issues that we faced were these
folks that were coming back to our communities were left
without services that would have normally been there outside of
the pandemic. Something that we do here locally in Waterbury is
we partner with our U.S. Attorney's Office to provide Project
Longevity and Project Safe Neighborhoods. These are two
significant programs that really target folks that are
reentering our community from the care of the Department of
Corrections and provide services for them and connect them with
services and care and work and educational opportunities that
they may not know exist or they may have been getting in the
Department of Corrections or just do not know where to look for
that once they get back into our community.
A culmination of that along with--along with people being
quarantined and a lot of other behavioral health issues that
were going on I think were the major factors that drove
violence in our city.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Chief. I am slightly over my
time. I will just beg your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, briefly.
Ms. Swearer, if I might, just a yes-or-no question. Do you
believe it should be permissible to provide a firearm to a
violent felon?
Ms. Swearer. If I have to go with a yes-or-no question, no,
clearly.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you.
Ms. Swearer. It is more complicated than that.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Ossoff. Senator Hirono
Senator Hirono. [inaudible] shot and wounded. This is 25
percent higher than other high-income nations. Gun violence has
increased during the pandemic. Early FBI data shows a 25-
percent increase in homicides in 2020, and, of course, we have
had the tragedies in Georgia and more recently Colorado.
We often hear the argument that gun laws do not work,
criminals do not follow the law, and gun laws just punish law-
abiding citizens. That is a dangerous and inaccurate
oversimplification of the issue. The fact is the States with
the strongest gun laws have less gun violence. The Law Center
to Prevent Gun Violence rates Hawaii as having the fourth
strongest gun laws in the country. At the same time, we have
the fourth lowest gun death rate, according to 2019 numbers
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2017,
we had the lowest gun death rate in the Nation.
This is for Ms. Thomas. Could you talk again about the
relationship between a jurisdiction's strong gun laws and the
rate of violence for that area? Then how do you respond to the
argument that criminals do not follow the law--the gun safety
laws, and, therefore, I guess the argument is we do not need
any of these kinds of proposals that law-abiding citizens are
impacted by?
Ms. Thomas. Thank you for that question. I will just start
by saying that States with the strongest gun laws have the
lowest gun death rates, and States with the weakest gun laws
have some of the highest gun death rates in the country. That
is in the numbers. There is nothing that you can say to
contradict that if you look at exactly the information you are
talking about, CDC statistics and the laws that are in place.
In States where there are more guns and weaker gun laws, more
gun deaths. I think we start with that.
To your question of responding to this statement that the
criminals are not going to follow the laws, so why have any
laws, it is sort of a specious argument because it speaks to
the fact that we must have laws to address these problems, and
that does have an impact. As I just mentioned, strong gun laws
in States like New York, California, and Hawaii have led to far
lower gun death rates.
I would also point to the fact that 80 percent of guns used
in crime are acquired without a background check; 96 percent of
individuals currently incarcerated for gun crimes acquired
those guns without a background check.
So, we know that those intent on doing harm are going
through the system which enables them to buy guns without a
background check and makes it so important that we begin by
passing a universal background check law that requires
background checks on all gun sales. It levels the playing
field, so regardless of where you are buying your gun--online,
at a gun store, from a private seller--that all of those sales
go through a background check and enable us to much better
monitor the system of gun transfers and keep guns out of the
hands of those that would do harm with them.
We fully support many of the measures that are before this
Chamber and before this body. We believe that there are a lot
of steps that can be taken to reduce gun violence in America,
and we know that those measures work because, as you mentioned,
the States where we are passing these measures have far lower
gun death rates. We can do this as a country, and we can do
better, and our country deserves better.
Senator Hirono. Thank you. Again for Ms. Thomas, almost 20
years ago, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of
2005 was enacted, granting the gun industry broad, almost total
immunity from civil liability. Can you talk about the effect of
making gun manufacturers and sellers immune from civil
litigation or civil liability? Do you believe that if the gun
industry did not enjoy this immunity, there would be less gun
violence victims in our country?
Ms. Thomas. No other industry in this country enjoys the
kind of protection that the gun industry enjoys--immunity from
civil liability, not being subject to the same consumer
protection service laws that the rest of our industries are
subject to--and this has led to a situation where victims have
no justice. They never get their day in court. There is no
motivation for the industry to voluntarily look at safer
measures for their products. It has created a situation where
the normal systems that we use to create better products, to
create more accountability, are simply not in place when it
comes to guns.
If you look at cars as an analogy, car deaths have reduced
by almost 80 percent in the last 50 years, and part of that has
been because there have been voluntary measures and measures
pushed through litigation to ensure that cars are as safe as
possible and we are doing everything we can to prevent car
injury and car death. We need to be doing the same thing with
gun violence, and that applies to the measures before this
Senate and in the country as well as through consumer
protection laws.
I do believe that removing that liability, ensuring justice
in the court system, would ensure that we make progress on gun
violence reduction.
Senator Hirono. It is true that, for example, in product
liability litigation, that it is because of civil liability
that these manufacturers of these products face that leads to
improved and safer products. I think it attests to the strength
of the gun lobby that we have not been able to impose this kind
of responsibility and liability on the gun industry. So thank
you for that.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Hirono.
Senator Hirono. Thank you.
Chair Durbin. Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thanks, Chairman.
Mine is a question for Ms. Thomas and Chief Spagnolo. The
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms runs the National
Tracing Center. Correct?
Chief Spagnolo. Yes.
Senator Whitehouse. The National Tracing Center is only
allowed to trace crime guns and crime cartridges. It is not any
kind of national firearms registry. Correct?
Chief Spagnolo. To the best of my knowledge, that is
correct, yes.
Ms. Thomas. Yes, that is correct.
Senator Whitehouse. When it started back in, I guess, 1988,
it was getting--the first year it got 48 requests for tests,
and now it is up to 490,000. It is a busy place. It has 800
million records in its data base, and if you leave a
fingerprint at a crime scene, Chief, as you know, your officers
can take that fingerprint, and they can take it to NCIS, and
they can run a computerized search, and they can get a hit to
find out what other crime scene might have had a similar
fingerprint. How quickly?
Chief Spagnolo. Fairly quickly. We can do it with today's
technology rather quickly, yes.
Senator Whitehouse. Yes, like minutes, hours, and days is
basically the measure. Correct?
Chief Spagnolo. Correct.
Senator Whitehouse. So, your officer shows up at the same
crime scene, and right next to the fingerprint they find a
spent cartridge, which carries the mark of the crime gun that
fired the cartridge. Compare for me how quickly your officers
can get access to the ballistics information related to that
crime gun's cartridge and how quickly they can get access to
the fingerprint information.
Chief Spagnolo. Senator, we here in Waterbury rely heavily
on firearms forensics. We collect those cartridges in a manner
that provides us to have them forensically examined. When we
retrieve weapons and guns from off the street, they are test
fired here at our police headquarters, and that cartridge is
actually brought up to the State lab to be entered into NIBIN
system.
I am fortunate enough to have a forensic firearms expert
that works for me, and so in my situation, I can have that gun
test fired and have that cartridge available to be entered into
the NIBIN system rather quickly. However, once it gets to the
State lab----
Senator Whitehouse. Exactly. Here is the problem. Once you
get there and you have to try to match that against the data
base, ATF is not allowed to use modern digital technology. They
still have to do a hand search in theory through 800 million--a
data base of 800 million that is kept on paper. Is that helpful
to you in trying to solve crimes quickly? When you have got a
cartridge and presumably a shooter who still has not been
apprehended yet, how much is time of the essence in trying to
figure out what other crimes that cartridge might link the
shooter to?
Chief Spagnolo. Time is very critical, and as we know,
criminals do not have boundaries. So, you know, we do work
locally, but that does not help us with other urban areas in
our State and outside of our State, and NIBIN reports can take
anywhere from 3 weeks to several months, is what we normally
experience here in Waterbury.
Senator Whitehouse. Ms. Thomas, does that make any sense at
all?
Ms. Thomas. It certainly is not a system designed to reduce
the use of guns in crimes and to empower law enforcement as
best we can to reduce acts of violence. So, it is not a system
that is designed to support law enforcement. It is a system
that is put in place to make it far more difficult for them to
do their jobs effectively.
Senator Whitehouse. Why would a cartridge fired by a
criminal at a crime scene be entitled to more protection than
that individual's fingerprint left at a crime scene?
Chief Spagnolo. Well, it certainly should not. This is
evidence that we could use to, you know, investigate this crime
and bring the person responsible to account for.
Senator Whitehouse. Yes, and if you could actually get this
information timely, you might even be able to head off another
violent crime because you would know more quickly who was on
the loose with a weapon that had just been used in a crime if
you could tie it to the evidence from another crime where you
had some good information.
Chief Spagnolo. Senator, in an urban area, there may be a
24-hour period where we may experience several shootings that
we believe are connected, and, you know, through witnesses and
through other forensics and surveillance, we can kind of
determine that they are connected. But to have that ballistic
information available to us in a timely fashion would be
extremely beneficial, yes.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, my time is up, but just for the record, this
problem exists because our Republican friends pushed through a
requirement that the ATF not use modern computer technology to
search for firearms. It makes no sense, and I hope we can fix
it. Thank you.
Chair Durbin. Thank you for that point, Senator Whitehouse.
I could not agree with you more, and I am happy to join you in
an effort to change that if we want to take that on.
Let me say a couple things in closing here. First, thanks
to the witnesses for your patience. It has been a long hearing
that shows the level of interest by the Members in
participating in this.
I would just say that the hearing was kicked off by one
Senator on the other side who called this hearing, quote,
``ridiculous theater.'' ``Ridiculous theater,'' those were his
words. I do not think there is anything ridiculous at all about
this hearing. This hearing was about some serious, deadly
issues that are within the province and jurisdiction of this
Committee.
Theater is the depiction of reality. This Committee is
reality. We are empowered by the Constitution and the American
people to make laws. That is not theater. That is reality, and
that is why we held this hearing.
I think what we heard today in testimony are some
suggestions that we still have serious political differences.
The question is whether there is any middle ground in a 50-50
Committee--that is how we are composed, 50-50. Any middle
ground that we could reach, I want to try, and I want to invite
those on the other side of the dais as well to join me in that
effort. We will not agree on everything, I know that, but I
certainly hope that we can do something. For us to be hamstrung
in this Committee by our 50-50 breakdown and stopped on the
floor by a filibuster is the ultimate frustration. It is not
why we ran for these offices, and it is not why we are serving.
In terms of the issue of prayer, which seems to have come
up in this conversation as well, when we speak of our thoughts
and prayers being with those who paid a heavy price for gun
violence, including those victims in the last few days, that
same Senator suggested that we on this side of the dais have a
contempt for prayer. I have no contempt for prayer. I follow it
regularly. Second, I have no contempt for good works nor
reason. I think they all work together in a good, wholesome way
if we are open to that.
Finally, let me say the notion that since guns are
everywhere and the police cannot be, then everybody should
carry a gun, well, then we would sell even more guns, not just
to the good people, but because we do not want to inconvenience
them, sell more occasionally to the bad people. Well, what bad
person intent on crime is stupid enough to try to buy a gun in
a system that checks his background? Clearly, from what Senator
Feinstein told us last March, 23,000 people who were
disqualified from purchasing a gun through this system tried
anyway. It is an indication that if the system were not there,
the NICS system, they probably would have purchased a firearm.
To what end I am not sure.
I hope that we can come to an agreement on one other basic
thing, and that is, there is a constitutional right to bear
arms, to own and bear arms, and to use them legally, safely,
and responsibly. There is no constitutional right to go off and
kill innocent people. We have got to do everything within our
power to keep those two separate and make them consistent with
one another, and I think we can.
I am going to have a hearing, I hope--we are going to see
if this new Chairman can actually keep his word--have a hearing
with some amendments. Let us have the 22 Members of this
Committee vote on some of these ideas or try to refine them
into a better place. I think that is why we are here.
Let me say in closing, I ask consent--since there is no one
here to object, I think I am going to get it--to enter into the
record letters of support for proposals to reduce gun violence.
Members may submit questions for the record for witnesses.
The questions are due by 5 p.m. 1 week from today, on March
30th.
Witnesses, thank you. You did not all agree on everything.
We did not expect you to. That was the nature of this hearing.
For many of you, I know that this matter is a deeply personal
issue, and, again, I extend my deepest sympathies to those who
have suffered losses because of gun violence.
Let me close by saying too many people get shot in America.
We saw it last night in Boulder, last week in Atlanta, and who
knows where this is coming next. That needs to change. This
Committee is going to do its part to make it happen.
With that, I thank my colleagues, and today's hearing
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
A P P E N D I X
Miscellaneous:
American Academy of Pediatrics, March 22, 2021................... 182
American Bar Association (ABA), March 29, 2021................... 241
American College of Emergency Physicians, March 23, 2021......... 184
American College of Physicians, March 22, 2021................... 187
American Federation of Teachers (AFT), March 22, 2021............ 191
American Nurses Association (ANA), March 23, 2021................ 308
American Psychological Association, March 23, 2021............... 193
American Public Health Association (APHA), March 22, 2021........ 195
Amnesty International, March 18, 2021............................ 197
Arnold Ventures, March 23, 2021.................................. 208
Asian Americans Advancing Justice, March 23, 2021................ 210
Big Cities Health Coalition (BCHC), March 22, 2021............... 213
Brady, United Against Gun Violence, March 22, 2021............... 215
Brain Injury Association of America, March 19, 2021.............. 217
Chapman, Heather................................................. 244
Children's Hospital of Chicago, March 22, 2021................... 252
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), March 23, 2021........ 218
Community Justice Action Fund.................................... 227
Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, March 23, 2021...... 294
Cure Violence Global (CVG), October 8, 2019...................... 232
Cure Violence Global (CVG), March 23, 2021....................... 234
Doctors for America, March 22, 2021.............................. 236
Effectiveness of Police Crisis Intervention Training Programs.... 296
Everytown for Gun Safety, March 23, 2021......................... 238
Howard University College of Medicine............................ 225
Human Rights Campaign, March 22, 2021............................ 245
League of Women Voters (LWV), March 23, 2021..................... 249
Major Cities Chiefs Association, March 23, 2021.................. 255
March for Our Lives, March 23, 2021.............................. 261
Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence, March 23, 2021.............. 263
Miller Song, Kristian, Ethan's Mother............................ 247
National Association of School Psychologists, March 22, 2021..... 265
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV), March 23,
2021.......................................................... 268
National Council of Asian Pacific Americans (NCAPA), March 23,
2021.......................................................... 273
National Police Foundation, March 22, 2021....................... 275
National Parent Teacher Association (National PFA), March 30,
2021.......................................................... 279
National Urban League, March 23, 2021............................ 283
Pediatric Policy Council, March 30, 2021......................... 285
Prevention Institute, March 22, 2021............................. 288
Professors of Constitutional Law, March 22, 2021................. 289
Sandy Hook Promise, Mark Barden Testimony, March 23, 2021........ 304
Scrubs Addressing the Firearms Epidemic (SAFE), March 20, 2021... 306
ShotSpotter, March 23, 2021...................................... 309
The United States Conference of Mayors, March 22, 2021........... 231
The Violence Policy Center Statement, March 23, 2021............. 313
Wilson, Bianca, UCLA School of Law, Williams Institute, March 17,
2021.......................................................... 321
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]