[Senate Hearing 117-890]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-890
STOP GUN VIOLENCE:
THE JACKSON-ELIAS DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE SURVIVOR PROTECTION ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 18, 2022
__________
Serial No. J-117-61
__________
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
56-731 WASHINGTON : 2026
=======================================================================
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
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut, Chair
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California TED CRUZ, Texas, Ranking Member
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island JOHN CORNYN, Texas
JON OSSOFF, Georgia MIKE LEE, Utah
BEN SASSE, Nebraska
David Stoopler, Democratic Chief Counsel
Nicholas Ganjei, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Blumenthal, Hon. Richard......................................... 1
Cruz, Hon. Ted................................................... 3
WITNESSES
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from Oregon........................ 5
Mason, Kacey..................................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Sullivan, Holly.................................................. 10
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Valente, Roberta................................................. 9
Prepared statement........................................... 35
Responses to written questions............................... 180
APPENDIX
Items submitted for the record................................... 25
STOP GUN VIOLENCE:
THE JACKSON-ELIAS DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE SURVIVOR PROTECTION ACT
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2022,
United States Senate,
Subcommittee on The Constitution,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice at 2:36 p.m., in
Room 226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard
Blumenthal, Chair of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Blumenthal [presiding], Feinstein,
Whitehouse, Ossoff, and Cruz.
Also present: Senators Klobuchar and Wyden.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Chair Blumenthal. The United States Senate Committee on the
Judiciary, Subcommittee on The Constitution, will come to
order. Welcome, everyone, here today. I want to thank my
colleagues, particularly Senator Wyden, who has so much insight
and wisdom on the topic that we're addressing today, and my
colleagues who will be joining us, most especially Senator
Cruz, the Ranking Member today. I have some opening remarks
before we go to Senator Wyden.
In the wake of the tragic shooting, just within days, we're
gathered here today in the wake of the spate of mass shootings
across the country over the last week, most notably racist
violence in Buffalo. My heart breaks for Buffalo and the East
Side communities visited just yesterday by the President,
victimized by this white supremacist terrorism, and to all
communities that have been shattered by gun violence.
Make no mistake, it is domestic terrorism and extremist
violence that we witnessed. The country saw it firsthand. We
should honor the survivors, victims, and their families with
action. Honor with action to stop this relentless carnage. As
dark, ugly, and hate-filled as this time seems, we cannot back
down or give up.
Replacement theory has become the go-to hate mantra for
domestic terrorists, bolstered by a gloss of legitimacy that is
conferred by the right-wing media ecosystem and by supposedly
mainstream Republicans who not only refused to condemn it, but
actually engage in dog whistle endorsement of it. Unless and
until Republican leaders unequivocally denounce replacement
theory and take action to combat this threat, we will continue
to see this kind of violence in our country.
There are no, quote, ``very fine,'' unquote, people on one
side of this issue, and even my silent colleagues are complicit
in the resulting violence and in allowing this twisted hate
ideology to fester and spread in our democracy. Last year, this
Subcommittee held three hearings on stopping gun violence.
These hearings covered extreme risk protective orders, ghost
guns, and safe storage laws. This afternoon, we've come
together to discuss the need to protect domestic violence
survivors from gun violence and the Lori Jackson-Nicolette
Elias Domestic Violence Survivor Protection Act.
Obviously, this hearing was scheduled way ahead of the most
recent gun violence. But I'm hoping that all of the shootings
that we have seen, including Sandy Hook, will prompt some
action on areas where we can develop some consensus, bipartisan
consensus, as well as consensus among everybody along the
spectrum of different opinions that people may have on this
issue.
This legislation is named for Lori Jackson. We'll hear her
story from her sister this afternoon, Kacey. Eight years ago,
Lori was shot and killed by her estranged husband in Oxford,
Connecticut. She was 32 years old, mother of two.
A month before she was murdered, Lori obtained a temporary
restraining order against her husband and fled to her childhood
home. The order was set to expire on May 7th, the day before
Lori was scheduled to go to court and seek a permanent
restraining order. Early that morning, her estranged husband
found her, shot her four times, and then turned the gun on her
mother, Mary, who survived, and she is with us today. I first
met this family literally within days of that tragedy, when
Mary still had her arm in a sling with bandages from that
absolutely horrendous moment in their lives.
This legislation is named for Nicolette Elias, who was shot
and killed by her abusive ex-husband after he refused to
surrender firearms pursuant to a restraining order. Senator
Wyden will share Nicolette's story today.
Our bill would help protect survivors at the moment their
abusers are most dangerous--most dangerous, when survivors
leave abusive relationships and seek help from law enforcement
and the courts. That is the moment of highest rage and lowest
protection.
It would ensure that abusers subject to temporary
restraining orders cannot purchase or possess firearms. It
would also close the boyfriend and stalking loopholes, which
Senator Klobuchar has been a long-standing leader in seeking to
address. It would create a grant program to help States
implement policies and procedures to keep firearms out of the
hands of domestic abusers.
The facts on domestic violence are absolutely harrowing.
More than 600 women in the United States every year are shot to
death by intimate partners. Firearms are used to commit more
than half of all intimate partner homicides in the United
States. The mere presence of a firearm in the home increases
the likelihood that domestic violence will escalate into a
homicide by fivefold. Domestic violence victims are 5 times
more likely to die in a home with a firearm.
In March, Congress, on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis,
I'm proud to say, passed, and President Biden signed into law
the Violence Against Women Authorization Act. I've been a
staunch and steadfast advocate of VAWA. I am glad that it was
passed and signed into law, but there's a lot more that we can
and must do on domestic violence.
We can follow the leadership that we've seen at the State
level, including Connecticut. Twenty-three States and the
District of Columbia have already closed the ex parte loophole,
at least in part. In Texas, for example, it's unlawful for any
person other than a peace officer who is subject to a
protective order, including temporary ex parte orders, to
possess a firearm. Though the exact procedures and standards
may vary, these State laws incorporate strong due process
protections, protecting due process rights, and are no more
subject to abuse than any other legal process.
There's a reason these States have all acted. These laws
work. States that have closed the ex parte loophole, like
Texas, have experienced a 3--13 percent drop in intimate
partner homicides and a 16 percent drop in these homicides
perpetuated by firearms. These are not just abstract
statistics. These are real lives saved every single day in our
great country.
I hope we'll come together and build on this bipartisan
work that we did to reauthorize VAWA and pass this legislation
too. Domestic violence is a horrific scourge across the country
every day in real lives for hundreds, potentially thousands of
women. Domestic violence is made deadly, certainly more deadly,
when firearms are involved. We have an opportunity to do
something about it. We must act. I hope we can take steps
through this hearing to provide more protection.
I will turn to my colleague, the Ranking Member, Senator
Cruz.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
witnesses who are here today. The kind of stories that we're
discussing today are horrific. When it comes to crimes of
violence, we face far too many crimes of violence in all 50
States.
Like many Members of this Committee, I have spent a lot of
years working in law enforcement, working to punish, working to
incarcerate violent criminals, and working to deter violent
crime before it occurs. If the objective is to stop violent
crime, what is effective is targeting actual violent criminals.
Unfortunately, the pattern we've seen from our Democratic
colleagues is that inevitably, when a shooting occurs, such as
the horrific, bigoted, racist shooting in Buffalo, which all of
us are horrified by, Democrats can't help but follow then-White
House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's adage of never let a good
crisis go to waste. They immediately do what Chuck Schumer has
done, what the Chairman just did, saying the cause of this
horrific and racist mass murder is wonderfully and conveniently
the opposing political party. That's cynical, it's dishonest,
and it's wrong.
In this instance, the facts of this particular deranged
shooter don't even fit the story they're trying to tell. Yes,
he was a racist and a bigot and an anti-Semite, all of which
are repulsive, but he was also a leftist. He was also an
environmental extremist who talked about that if we don't stop
consumption in this world, that humanity's going to die off.
Yet, somehow, I don't see my Democratic colleagues saying their
intemperate advocacy of the Green New Deal caused this
psychopath to murder people.
He's also someone who has condemned conservatism and
capitalism. He hates capitalism. He's a leftist. Yet I don't
see my Democratic colleagues saying, ``Well, all the socialists
in the Democratic Party are the cause of this lunatic, racist
mass murderer.''
If the objective is to stop violent crime--and that should
be the objective--we should focus on policies that work.
Consistently, the policies that work are policies that target
violent criminals. Now, 10 years ago, I introduced legislation,
the Grassley-Cruz legislation, designed to go after felons and
fugitives and those with serious mental illness when they lie
and try to illegally buy a gun, to prosecute them and put them
in jail, to ensure that our databases are complete.
You know, in Texas, we've seen far too many of these mass
shootings, including the horrific crime in Sutherland Springs.
I was there at that beautiful church the day after that
shooting. In that instance, that mass murderer should have been
in jail. But the Obama administration failed to report his
felony conviction in the Air Force to the database, so when he
went to purchase his firearm, the background check came up
clean.
Had Grassley-Cruz passed into law, it mandated the
Department of Justice conduct an audit of Federal crimes to
make sure those convictions are in the database. Presumably,
that audit would've caught that felony conviction.
Not only that, Grassley-Cruz also created a gun crime task
force to prosecute felons who try to illegally buy firearms,
which means that deranged mass murderer would have been in
prison, incarcerated, instead of in that beautiful church
murdering those innocent people.
We had a vote on the Senate floor on Grassley-Cruz. It got
a majority of Senators voted for it. Fifty-two Senators voted
for it. That was in the Harry Reid Democrat Senate, a majority-
Democrat Senate.
Now, you might think, okay, a bipartisan majority, surely
this passed. Well, no. Turns out Senate Democrats filibustered
Grassley-Cruz. They demanded 60 votes. My Democratic colleagues
who are here today all voted for the filibuster to stop
Grassley-Cruz from going into effect.
Why was that deranged shooter not in jail? Because the
approach of today's Senate Democrats is to try to go after the
firearms of law-abiding citizens instead of targeting the
violent criminals that are the real threat.
Domestic violence is a horrific scourge. Far too many
women, children, and even some men are victims of domestic
violence. Yet, when it comes to firearms--firearms, yes, are
used by violent criminals, but they are also used over and over
and over again by victims of violent crimes to defend
themselves. If any of us could pass a law to end domestic
violence in America, we would happily and enthusiastically do
so.
I have, over the course of the past two decades, dealt with
far too many families who have lost loved ones to violent
crime, to homicide. It is horrific. It is evil. But disarming
people in situations where they themselves are potentially at
risk, risks increasing the chances of violence. If you have an
individual that may be a victim of domestic violence,
preventing that individual from defending herself or himself is
a uniquely bad idea.
Chairman referenced that the States adopt laws to address
these issues, and I think that is the right approach.
Unsurprisingly, the people of the State of Texas make different
decisions about how to handle these issues than perhaps the
people of Connecticut or California or New York. That's how our
constitutional system was meant to operate.
And so, I wish we had a hearing focused on how to stop
violent crime. I wish we had a hearing focused on the
skyrocketing murder rates in this country that we're seeing
right now. I wish we had a hearing focused on the skyrocketing
carjacking rates that we're seeing in this country right now. I
wish we had a hearing focused on the policies advocated by
congressional Democrats of abolishing the police and defunding
the police that caused the crime to skyrocket.
I wish we had a hearing on Soros DAs that were elected with
millions of dollars from Democratic donors who get into office
and refuse to prosecute violent criminals, release violent
criminals onto the street, and then allow those violent
criminals to commit, yes, yet more murders. That would be a
hearing with some urgency. That would be a hearing where we are
seeing people being killed over and over and over again, but
that hearing does not fit the political agenda of my Democratic
colleagues.
Thank you.
Chair Blumenthal. We're going to hear from Senator Wyden.
There are rebuttals to what you just heard, but in the interest
of time, I'm going to move to my colleague from Oregon, Senator
Wyden.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Senator Wyden. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. Mr. Chairman, let me just note that for years, you
have been working for justice as an attorney general, here in
the Senate. I very much appreciate your leadership. I think by
way of just summing up in a sentence--and I'd like my full
remarks to go into the record and----
Senator Blumenthal. Without objection.
Senator Wyden [continuing]. I'll just kind of summarize.
What our bill is talking about is not taking away gun rights
for law-abiding citizens. It's about closing a dangerous
loophole that has put at risk American families in tragedies in
Oregon and Connecticut and around the land.
I want to tell the Committee briefly about Nicolette Elias.
Nikki, she was called. Portlander. She worked for a number of
years at Portland State University. A tremendous mom, a
protective mom, two young daughters. On November 10th, 2014,
she was murdered by an abusive ex-husband. She was shot,
colleagues, in front of her children. In front of her children.
When she was killed, Nicolette's ex-husband was under a
temporary emergency restraining order.
Nikki did everything possible--everything possible to
protect herself and her daughters. She reported that he had
been physically and sexually abusive, that he handled guns out
in front of the children. He'd left her threatening messages in
the months before she was killed. She was fearful enough, Mr.
Chairman, of what he might do that she worked out emergency
safety plans with friends and neighbors.
Now, the key point. Despite the restraining order, there
was no legal requirement to separate Nicolette's ex-husband
from his guns. What happened, as we know, in Oregon,
Connecticut, and elsewhere, was a monumental tragedy. On that
Monday morning in November, he took a gun to Nicolette's house
in Southwest Portland, shot her seven times. Then he took his
daughters, 7 and 8 years old, to his home.
Just imagine that. Just imagine that. Shoots the mom. Takes
the daughters to his home. When police arrive later, he walked
into the backyard and took his life.
Mr. Chairman, colleagues, nobody should have to endure what
Nicolette's family has endured. I wish I could tell the
Committee that few people know what they've been through. But
the reality is, as the Chairman knows, there are a lot of
people around the United States who know exactly what this is
all about.
Each year in the country, more than 600 women are shot to
death by an intimate partner. Six hundred women. Senator
Blumenthal, the Chairman, and I believe the Congress has a
moral obligation to do something about it. Should have
eliminated the loopholes that leave women in the crosshairs of
violent spouses and partners with guns a long time ago.
So as the Chairman noted, we have a Lori Jackson-Nicolette
Elias Domestic Violence Survivor Protection Act. We get at the
dangerous loopholes--dangerous loopholes. What we're talking
about, I say to my colleague from Texas, is not going to take
away gun rights for law-abiding citizens. In fact, what we're
talking about is backed by the majority of gun owners.
When it came to trying to protect her kids and herself,
Nicolette did everything right. She used all the tools. She
went through the court system. She presented evidence, told her
story. She did her part. Mr. Chairman and colleagues, her
Government failed her.
So, what the Chairman and I are talking about is closing
those loopholes. If Congress had passed the bill the Chairman
and I are talking about prior to November 2014, Nicolette might
still be here today raising her teenage daughters.
Last point I'm going to make, Mr. Chairman, and I
appreciate your indulging me. It's been said that the gun
safety debate was over when the Congress basically did nothing
after these tragedies in response to Sandy Hook. As you know,
we've had tragedies in my home State. We live in Southeast
Portland, tragedies close to our house. The Chairman and I just
don't buy the idea that things were over when nobody did
anything in response to the Sandy Hook massacre. And we're
going to fight relentlessly against the hate that the Chairman
very appropriately described drove Buffalo, based on the facts
we have.
Every man, woman, and child in America ought to be able to
feel safe at home, at work, at school. Passing our legislation,
in my view--I close with this--ought to be something that's
beyond red and blue, beyond partisanship. We ought to do it
because it's the right thing to do.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for having me. I've got full
remarks. If I could put them in the record, that would be
great.
Chair Blumenthal. Thanks, Senator Wyden. Your full remarks
will be in the record, but I just want to say while you're here
that I really appreciate your advocacy. Like you, I refuse to
accept that Congress is going to be complicit and again do
nothing. I think there are areas where we can agree. We may
agree to disagree on other areas with our colleagues. I'm very,
very hopeful that this time will be different, and really
appreciate the advocacy that you have provided on this bill.
Thank you very much for being here.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and colleagues.
Chair Blumenthal. I'm going to introduce our witnesses, and
we really appreciate all of you being here. I want to say how
grateful I am, particularly for the Connecticut witnesses, both
Kacey Mason and Holly Sullivan, making the trip to be here;
Kacey with your family.
Kacey is the sister of Lori Jackson. The legislation that
we've come together to consider this afternoon is named in part
for Lori, who was shot and killed by her estranged husband in
2014. After her sister's murder, Kacey became a very powerful
and eloquent advocate and has worked on closing that loophole
in Federal law and at the State level as well. She's here with
her parents and her daughter.
Holly Sullivan is the president of Connecticut Citizens
Defense League, CCDL, which is comprised of 43,000 members
dedicated to protecting the right to keep and bear arms. Ms.
Sullivan also serves on the advisory board of the DC Project, a
national organization for women--of women for gun rights. She's
also a selectperson in the town of Southbury in Connecticut,
and we really appreciate her making the trip as well.
Roberta ``Rob'' Valente is a policy consultant for the
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence with expertise in
firearms, Federal domestic violence laws and interventions, and
tribal domestic violence issues. Previously, she was the
assistant director of the family violence department in the
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. She
served as attorney advisor to the Department of Justice Office
on Violence Against Women and was the founding director of the
American Bar Association Commission on Domestic and Sexual
Violence. She holds a Ph.D. from Cornell and a J.D. from George
Washington School of Law.
We have a custom in our Committee that we swear in all
witnesses. I'd ask you all to stand, and I'll administer the
oath.
[Witnesses are sworn in.]
Chair Blumenthal. We'll have opening statements and begin
with you, Kacey. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF KACEY MASON, CONNECTICUT
Ms. Mason. Good afternoon. My name is Kacey Mason, and I'm
here on behalf of my family and my sister, Lori Jackson. Lori
had this deep--loud, deep voice and the most contagious laugh.
When she laughed, you just had to laugh along with her. She was
incredibly shy until you got to know her. Once she was
comfortable with you, she showed her true, silly self and never
stopped talking. She had a big heart and would do anything for
her family and friends. I'm already starting. She loved to
travel, and we were lucky enough to travel to some amazing
places together. I apologize. That was one of the things I
loved most about her. I could always convince her to go on an
adventure with me.
Life changed for us when she met her husband, and I began
to worry that my sister was being abused. The sister who I
could always laugh with and be silly with was no longer
present. She was physically there, but she was a shell of the
person she once was. He was constantly by her side, never
letting her talk to anyone alone. The more I got to know him,
the more I became aware of his controlling ways, and the more I
feared for my sister's safety.
On April 1st, 2014, after a heated argument where she was
pushed to the ground, Lori decided she had had enough, and she
decided it was time to leave the marriage. It was the happiest
day of my life because it was the day I got my sister back.
Sorry. But it quickly turned into a nightmare as her estranged
husband began to harass not only Lori, but my entire family.
We spent the next month living in fear--fear of where and
when her estranged husband would appear and fear of what he was
capable of. Every time we left the house, we were constantly
vigilant of our surroundings. We'd scan the parking lots for
his car before getting out of ours. We then scanned the parking
lot again before leaving the store to go back to our cars.
She had a buddy system in place at her work, and I had his
picture hanging at the security desk at my school so he wasn't
accidentally let into the building. We spent the whole entire
month hiding, looking over our shoulders, and with the
constant, lingering fear that he was going to come back.
Lori did everything in her power to keep herself and her
children safe. She was in contact immediately with the police
department. She was advised to file for a restraining order, so
she filed and was granted a temporary restraining order the day
after she left her husband. Her first restraining order expired
before her estranged husband could be found and served, so Lori
filed again and was granted a second temporary restraining
order.
On May 7th, 2014, the day before the hearing to make Lori's
temporary restraining order permanent, her estranged husband
broke into my parents' home, where Lori was staying. He shot
and killed her. Lori was 32 years old.
Lori knew her estranged husband owned a gun. At that time
in Connecticut, he was under his legal rights to keep it. I am
proud to say that loophole has been closed in Connecticut. But
Connecticut's law alone would not have been enough to save her.
The gun that he used was not the gun he already owned when
he killed her. Her estranged husband went to Virginia, where he
legally purchased a new gun. This is why it is so important to
have this law on a Federal level. This way, abusers cannot
evade the law by purchasing their guns in another State.
The bill named after my sister would have made a
difference. It would've saved her life. It's too late for Lori,
but this law can and will make a difference in another family's
story. Thank you for your time and the opportunity to share my
story with you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mason appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Blumenthal. Thank you so much. Ms. Valente.
STATEMENT OF ROBERTA VALENTE, POLICY
CONSULTANT, NATIONAL COALITION AGAINST
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Valente. Good afternoon, Chairman Blumenthal, Ranking
Member Cruz, and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is
Roberta Valente. I am a lawyer, and I have worked for more than
30 years on legal and policy issues relating to domestic
violence. I currently serve as policy advisor to the National
Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence is America's
oldest national grassroots domestic violence organization. We
are dedicated to supporting survivors and holding offenders
accountable and supporting advocates. We envision a national
culture in which we are all safe, free from domestic violence.
At NCADV, we define domestic violence, also known as intimate
partner violence, as intimidation, physical assault, battery,
sexual assault, and/or other abusive behavior as part of a
pattern of power and control perpetrated by one intimate
partner against another.
Domestic abusers regularly use firearms as a tool with
which to exert power and coercive control. A shocking 13.6
percent of women and 5.9 percent of men in the United States
experience nonfatal intimate partner firearms abuse in their
lifetimes, which includes nonfatal shooting, pistol whipping,
and other nonfatal violence. A survey of callers by the
National Domestic Violence Hotline found that 67 percent of
respondents whose owners--whose abusers owned firearms believed
their abuser partners were capable of killing them.
Sixty percent of intimate partner femicides are committed
using firearms. Domestic violence assaults involving a firearm
are 12 times more likely to result in death than assaults using
other weapons or bodily force. In fact, firearms violence is
typically the most extreme when survivors attempt to leave the
abuser or seek help from the justice system, such as
petitioning a court for protection or reporting abuse to law
enforcement.
Between 2010 and 2017, intimate partner homicides committed
with firearms increased 26 percent. The COVID-19 pandemic has
exacerbated this trend. In Indiana, intimate partner fatalities
increased an astounding 181 percent between July 1st, 2020, and
June 30th, 2021, compared to the previous year, with a
percentage committed using firearms increasing from 67 percent
to 98 percent. In Ohio, intimate partner violence fatalities
increased 62 percent between July 2019 and June 2021. Texas saw
a 22 percent increase in 2021 over 2019.
A survey of domestic violence programs early in the
pandemic found that 50 percent of respondents reported that
abusers threatening to shoot survivors had become more of a
problem and that 33 percent reported an increase in intimate
partner homicides in their communities.
The bill under review today by the Subcommittee, S. 2169,
the Lori Jackson-Nicolette Elias Domestic Violence Survivor
Protection Act, would make significant progress in reducing
firearms fatalities in domestic violence cases.
Federal firearms law provides partial protection for
survivors of domestic violence whose abusers have or are
threatening them with escalating firearms violence, but we have
some significant gaps.
Survivors who have never married, cohabitated, or had a
child in common with their abusers--in other words, dating
partners--are not protected.
Abusers subject to qualifying final protection orders or
convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence or felony violence
may not purchase, possess, or transfer firearms under Federal
law, but abusers subject to emergency protective orders face no
similar prohibition.
Persons convicted of misdemeanor stalking are not subject
to the Federal firearms prohibition.
Nonintimate partner stalk--nonintimate partner stalkers are
not subject to the Federal firearms ban, even though research
shows that stalking behavior, whether targeting an intimate
partner, acquaintance, or stranger, is highly predictive of
future homicide attempts.
We know that local justice systems struggle to develop
effective responses that protect survivors from abusers'
firearms violence. They need Federal funding to ensure that
abusers found by courts to be extremely dangerous cannot
possess or purchase firearms. This act would close these lethal
loopholes in Federal law as well as provide funding to support
local efforts to reduce the impacts from the lethal
intersection between domestic violence and firearms. It
includes time-tested mechanisms to protect due process.
We urge you to support the passage of S. 2169, a
comprehensive and well-crafted bill that, if made into law,
will finally protect all survivors of the crimes of dating
violence, domestic violence, and stalking from threatened or
actual firearms violence. Thank you. I have some appendices to
submit to the record.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Valente appears as a
submission in the record.]
Chair Blumenthal. We'll put them in the record without
objection.
Ms. Valente. Thank you.
Chair Blumenthal. Thank you. Ms. Sullivan.
STATEMENT OF HOLLY SULLIVAN, PRESIDENT,
CONNECTICUT CITIZENS DEFENSE LEAGUE,
SOUTHBURY, CONNECTICUT
Ms. Sullivan. Chairman Blumenthal, Ranking Member Cruz, and
Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Holly Sullivan, and I
humbly thank you for this opportunity to speak here today. It
is truly an honor. I also want to thank the other witnesses for
their views and extend my most sincere sympathies to Ms. Mason.
I serve on the advisory board of the DC Project, a national
organization of women committed to protecting the Second
Amendment through education, not legislation. I am also
extremely proud to be the president of the Connecticut Citizens
Defense League, a 43,000-member nonpartisan organization
committed to upholding the rights of all citizens to keep and
bear arms. I also serve as a selectman in my hometown of
Southbury, Connecticut. However, above all, I am a single
mother to an incredible 8-year-old daughter.
Southbury is located directly between Newtown and Oxford,
the home of Lori Jackson. My community is no stranger to
tragedy. There are altering days in life when you realize that
nothing will ever be the same. December 14th, 2012, was one of
those days. I, like many of my neighbors, gathered that evening
in Sandy Hook to leave stuffed animals and candles for 26 lives
lost. I also vividly recall the day of the inexcusable killing
of Lori Jackson. I was a young mother of a 7-month-old baby
girl. I remember the sirens and the wave of concern among
locals that there was a 6-hour manhunt underway, and it took me
right back to 2012.
However, my path is a little different from some of the
women you might expect to hear from on a bill like this. I was
raised with an education in gun safety and firearm awareness
that I never fully appreciated the importance of until I had
something greater to defend--my own child.
It's not easy going against the grain of a more popular
narrative. I have been shunned from moms' groups and received
my share of angry anonymous letters in the mail. However, I
cannot sit quietly knowing there is critical information to be
shared. There is a balance to be achieved where victims of
violent crime can find peace and security, while law-abiding
gun owners are not unduly stripped of their means of defense
and due process rights. However, the bill before you today is
not the solution.
On behalf of more than 43,000 people, I'm here to testify
to you today one absolute truth. Nothing in S. 2169 would have
prevented the murder of Lori Jackson. Lori's estranged husband
purchased a handgun in Virginia, transported it back to
Connecticut, which is already prohibited by Federal law. He had
complete disregard for the law, and I believe he was determined
to commit the act regardless. I know with absolute confidence
that this bill will not result in the desired outcome. And I
testify before you today, as we have lived under this very law
in my home State for the past 5 years.
The bill does not in any way address the circumstances of
the horrific killing of Lori Jackson. It is critical that women
struggling in domestic situations understand where this bill
falls short on protecting them.
Like much well-meaning legislation, this law, compounded
with other onerous ones, has created unintended consequences in
Connecticut. We now have three vehicles by which an individual
can seek remedy in a violent situation: He or she can simply
call the police to report a concern, they can file a risk
warrant, or they can petition for an ex parte restraining
order. It is confusing, complicated, and incredibly expensive.
Gun owners are largely excluded from the discussion on how
to remedy an issue that we are actually the subject matter
experts on. Two thirds of all gun-related deaths are suicide.
Yet in Connecticut, the very people who have access to firearms
generally have no seat at the table to discuss policy that
impacts them directly.
Recent legislation leaves the very community of individuals
with access to firearms uncomfortable seeking help for fear of
erroneous red flag complaints with no meaningful penalty for
perjury. Our reality is that individuals who have not been
charged with any crime are subject to confiscation without
being afforded due process. Further, groups like Hold My Guns
doing outstanding, lifesaving work cannot be effective in our
State due to onerous transfer laws.
Connecticut laws may be some of the strictest in the
country, but they are far from a gold standard we should aspire
to as a Nation. Connecticut focuses so much on doing something
every year that the legislature finds a solution in need of a
problem as often as a problem in need of a solution.
Last year, Connecticut saw a surge of 40,000 new gun
owners. Women are undeniably the fastest-growing demographic of
gun owners, and Connecticut is no exception. In fact, African-
American women in Connecticut had the greatest increase in new
permit issuance compared to any other demographic.
I am not here to tell you that every woman needs to carry a
gun. I am here to tell you that no woman should be denied her
ability to defend her life. The means by which she is
comfortable doing so is her personal choice.
I am also here to speak on behalf of women who are alive
today because they exercised their right to defend themselves
with a firearm, but are missing in this discussion. As
survivors of their own tragic encounters, they live, breathe,
and walk among us because they were armed. There are no
community gatherings to celebrate their survival or even offers
of thoughts and prayers. In fact, they are often vilified for
being a gun owner in the first place. They are forgotten
because they survived.
In conclusion, I ask you to reconsider the bill before you.
I ask you to be honest with those praying for relief from abuse
in regards to what this bill can and cannot do. Above all, I
ask you not to create a national policy where we sacrifice the
very individual freedoms we hold dear to be compromised. I ask
for an effort to hold violent criminals accountable, to offer
meaningful remedies for victims, and to never forget that above
all else, we have a right to exist granted to us by our
Creator, not our Government.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sullivan appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Blumenthal. Thanks, Ms. Sullivan. I just want to
assure you we're going to make every effort to hold violent
criminals accountable. Most of my career was involved in law
enforcement. I am in favor of law-abiding citizens, including
or maybe most especially women, having those rights enforced.
The Second Amendment is the law of the land. We're not having a
hearing on defunding the police because I'm against defunding
the police. I am in favor of providing more resources that
would provide for both public safety and justice.
We're not going to have a hearing on lax prosecutors
because I am against lax prosecution, as is demonstrated by my
record as United States attorney, chief Federal prosecutor, as
well as attorney general. So, I appreciate a number of the
points that you have made. We are having this hearing to
consider many of the points that you have made, but also the
rights of victims and survivors to be protected. If we can do
better in protecting them through a law that eliminates
loopholes or gaps in that protection, we're going to do it.
Thank you for being here today. Let me turn to Kacey Mason.
You've just heard the argument that nothing would have
prevented your sister's death. I feel that this law might well
have done so. There's no knowing with certainty all of what
might have happened and what might have been done, but tell me
what you feel and how you react to that statement.
Ms. Mason. I obviously disagree. I think that it would have
made a difference. But yes, I don't really know what else to
say. I'm just, like, a little emotional right now.
Chair Blumenthal. Thank you. Ms. Valente, perhaps you could
respond.
Ms. Valente. Yes, I'd be happy to. I think that this bill
would have made an enormous difference. The most dangerous
time, as you mentioned earlier, Senator, is when someone leaves
a domestic violence situation. During that time, they often
reach out for a temporary protection order, an emergency
protection order, whatever it's called. This is injunctive
relief that's offered for a temporary period of time until a
full hearing can be scheduled. If that time period also
includes relinquishing firearms on the part of an abuser who
has shown themselves to be violent, this is absolutely the
right thing to do.
Most temporary protection orders last for 14 days at most.
During that time period, the court is balancing findings of
fact that show extreme violence against whether or not someone
losing possession--not ownership, but possession of their
firearms for 14 days would be a hardship. That is--would have
made an incredible difference. That would have stopped him in
his tracks. I feel heartbroken to think that this law has not
yet become Federal law.
Chair Blumenthal. I am heartbroken, too. I appreciate the
courage and strength of this family in coming forward and
providing a face and a voice for a tragic loss that might well
have been avoided. Let me ask you, Ms. Valente, in reviewing
this legislation, and also in your experience, do these laws,
including the one before us now proposed, provide due process
rights? That is, an opportunity to be heard before anybody
separates that person from a firearm.
Ms. Valente. It does protect due process. This law was
actually written with very important language in there that has
already been time-tested and has already been litigated. It's
language from the Full Faith and Credit Act, which is also
something that came from VAWA in 1994, and that requires the
enforcement of temporary protection orders. What it says is
when a temporary order is issued, upon service of that order on
the respondent and notice and opportunity to be heard being
scheduled within a reasonable time period, due process is
afforded.
Caselaw stands absolutely clear on this. Injunctive relief
is temporary. It is done to avoid irreparable harm. There is no
more irreparable harm than the loss of a life.
Chair Blumenthal. Thank you. We're going to have 5-minute
rounds of questioning. Just so the witnesses know, we have a
vote that's ongoing right now, so we may be taking a recess. I
hope not, because a number of my colleagues are here, and they
can take the gavel while I go vote. So, we'll do a--do our
questions in tandem. I'm going to turn to the Ranking Member.
We'll probably have another round of questioning. I have
additional questions, but in the interests of my colleagues,
I'll turn to the Ranking Member.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I would
note on the question of violent crimes, and in particular
violent homicides, that we are seeing increasing all across the
country at a horrifying level. Just a moment ago, the Chairman
said that he opposes defunding the police and abolishing the
police. And that is the stated view of most, if not all, of the
Senate Democrats, particularly right now as we have an election
coming up in November. But the interesting thing about serving
in the Senate is that talk can be cheap, and you actually have
votes on the record.
So, last year, when President Joe Biden nominated one of
the leading advocates of abolishing the police in the country,
a woman named Vanita Gupta, to the number three position at the
U.S. Department of Justice, the Chairman of this Committee and
every Democrat on the Committee had an opportunity to state
their views and to cast a vote. Every single Democrat in the
U.S. Senate voted to confirm one of the leading advocates in
the country of abolishing the police.
President Biden then gave Democrats a second opportunity to
take a view on this topic when he nominated Kristen Clarke to a
senior position in the U.S. Department of Justice. Once again,
every single Democrat in the U.S. Senate voted to confirm
Kristen Clarke. So now, Democrats have voted to confirm two of
the leading advocates of abolishing the police and defunding
the police in the country.
The Chairman says he doesn't support Soros DAs that refuse
to prosecute violent crime, that let violent criminals go. Well
again, facts are stubborn things. One of those Soros DAs was a
prosecutor named, Rachael Rollins, who, in Suffolk,
Massachusetts, put out a list of 15 crimes, many of which were
violent, that she would not allow her prosecutors to prosecute.
President Biden nominated Ms. Rollins to be the United
States attorney for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And at
this point, you know where this ends. Every single Democrat in
the entire Senate voted to confirm Ms. Rollins, a Soros
prosecutor who would not prosecute a significant number of
violent criminals, to be the U.S. attorney.
Actions have consequences. When it comes to firearms, our
Democratic colleagues are eager to target law-abiding citizens,
and yet they consistently diminish or refuse to acknowledge
defensive use of firearms that preserve people's lives.
I read from you a 2013 Executive order, and, in fact, the
report that was published pursuant to that Executive order,
from the White House of President Barack Obama, hardly a right-
wing source. According to the Obama White House, and I'm
quoting here, quote, ``Defensive use of guns by crime victims
is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains
disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that
defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as
offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses
ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million.''
In other words, what the Obama White House told America is
that up to 3 million times a year, an American uses a firearm
in a defensive capacity, in a capacity to prevent a violent
crime, in a capacity to protect themselves, in a capacity to
protect their children.
And yet in all of these discussions, those defensive uses
of firearms to keep people safe, to keep people alive, are
consistently disregarded. I would note also that we have
testimony that was submitted by Amy Swearer from the Heritage
Foundation, which I'd ask unanimous consent to enter into the
record.
[The information appears as a submission for the record.]
Senator Feinstein [presiding]. So ordered.
Senator Cruz. This document details 272 innocent people who
were facing, potentially, domestic violence, whose lives were
saved by the use of a firearm, including 48 minor children. It
goes through example after example after example.
Ms. Sullivan, you said in your written testimony, and just
a moment ago in your oral testimony, that women are one of the
fastest-growing demographics of new gun owners in America and
in your home State of Connecticut. Can you tell this Committee
why you believe that's the case, and--and the potential
benefits of that development?
Ms. Sullivan. Yes, absolutely. In Connecticut, it is truly
incredible to see the number of women who have a new mindset to
say that they will not be a victim. The reality is our State
feels more unsafe than I've ever known it to be. I've had
individuals come up my driveway that don't belong there.
We are truly seeing a new state of things in Connecticut
where it is very unsafe, and women are flocking to the range--
classes are filling up--where they are understanding as
empowered, feminist women that they have the ability to defend
themselves.
One of the things that's often overlooked is if there is a
larger offender, there are very few things that a woman can use
to truly defend herself the way she can with a firearm. A
knife, a bat--none of those things really give her the ability
to have equal force. It's very important that we're clear that
this is about defensive use. This is not offensive use. Women
are understanding and realizing that they have the ability to
protect their own lives with this tool.
Senator Cruz. Thank you. That was very powerful.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator. I believe it's my
turn. Ms. Mason, I understand you became involved in gun
violence prevention efforts following the tragic death of your
sister, Lori. I want to thank you for your work and for your
bravery in speaking out about this issue with us today.
Actually, your story is all too familiar. The fact of the
disturbing loopholes that exist in our country's gun laws is
one of the reasons. An individual can obtain a firearm even if
they are under a temporary restraining order or have been
convicted of domestic violence against a dating partner,
believe it or not.
This is a failure on the part of the Congress to do our job
and protect survivors of domestic violence. I hope your
testimony here today will be seen for all three of you, heard
widely, and enable us to change things to a better state.
Why is it important, since new Members have come in, to
extend gun prohibitions to people under temporary protection
orders and not just permanent protection orders? In addition to
closing these dangerous loopholes, how else can we help support
survivors of domestic violence? I will begin with you, and then
quickly go right down the line.
Ms. Mason. I would say in my case, my sister was under two
temporary restraining orders, and her estranged husband was
legally able to purchase the gun that he used to kill her. So,
you know, if this law was in effect, that wouldn't have been
able to happen, because he did legally purchase the gun. It
would have made a difference.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Please.
Ms. Valente. Thank you. I think there is a comprehensive
package of things that need to happen, and most--and many of
them--many of them are in this bill. One of the important ones
is a grant program to help communities develop better responses
so that when police are contacted about dangerous situations,
they know exactly how to respond. When an abuser is ordered to
relinquish firearms, according to the law, because they've been
adjudicated as being found to be violent and an abuser, that
those firearms are taken, that they are stored, because in the
case of a temporary order, they may be returned following a
full hearing.
So, I think that this grant program is a very, very
important piece of this, in addition to closing the loopholes
that it's attempting to close.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Ms. Sullivan.
Ms. Sullivan. For me, when I think about this, I think one
of the things that stands out the most----
Senator Feinstein. Could you speak directly to the mic?
It's----
Ms. Sullivan. My apologies.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Ms. Sullivan. I think it's important to acknowledge that
the only individuals who follow the law are people who are
fearful of the repercussions and those who actually care about
if they are violating the law. When we talk about these things,
and we talk about that they cannot possess firearms--well, they
may not possess firearms, but they sure could, because they
don't honor or respect the law or the legislation.
I think that is a distinguishing factor that needs to be
made between somebody who may not have a firearm, but if
they're a criminal and they're intent on doing harm, they sure
can. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Cruz. Oh,
excuse me. I made a mistake that was just pointed out to me by
ever-alert staff. Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thanks very much. Let me particularly
welcome Ms. Valente here, who has been working to reduce
domestic violence for a long time. Indeed, we owe you a hearty
thank you for the work you did with then-Senator Joe Biden to
get the original Violence Against Women Act signed into law in
1994. I'm pleased that we were able to renew that
accomplishment with a reauthorization 28 years later. Just
foundationally, could you give us a quick overview about that
process and what the passage of VAWA meant for women in
America?
Ms. Valente. It was a huge change. Domestic violence had
been considered a private family matter. We began to see cases
appear in the media that really started to illustrate that this
is a problem for the whole community, and it's a danger, and
it's a drain on the resources of a whole community. The
Violence Against Women Act, as it was formulated back in 1994,
was a comprehensive effort to work with law enforcement,
courts, prosecutors, victim advocates, and survivors to come
together with excellent local solutions.
It started a whole wave of coordinated efforts to respond
to domestic violence. I have to tell you that the view of
domestic violence by prosecutors, courts, and law enforcement
is so different from when I first began doing my work as a
victim advocate. It has had a huge impact.
Senator Whitehouse. How well established in the science and
research is the character of domestic abuse and violence as
escalatory?
Ms. Valente. It's very well researched. As a matter of
fact, I had asked earlier for permission to include some
additional information, which I've submitted, which are a
number of research articles that will help explain that. But we
do know that it's escalatory. We do know----
Senator Whitehouse. It would be prudent to base public
policy based on that established----
Ms. Valente. Published, peer-reviewed research that has
been going on for decades.
Senator Whitehouse. You've pointed out that access to a
firearm by a male abuser increases the risk of intimate partner
murder by 1,000 percent.
Ms. Valente. That is drawn on actual information that we
have. This is data that we know. These are police reports.
These are convictions. This is information that has been pulled
together and statistically analyzed. We know this.
Senator Whitehouse. There's a factual predicate to take
action once the escalatory incidence of domestic abuse begins
in a relationship----
Ms. Valente. Yes.
Senator Whitehouse [continuing]. And try to eliminate that
or reduce that 1,000 percent greater likelihood of a murder----
Ms. Valente. Yes.
Senator Whitehouse [continuing]. By restricting the known
abuser's access to a firearm, correct?
Ms. Valente. That's correct. We do know in the States where
these laws have passed, there is--and again, you'll see that in
the testimony that I--the written testimony that has been
submitted by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
and the appendices--that in States where this has been adopted,
the homicide rate has dropped because it is preventive. I think
that is an excellent way to describe it.
Senator Whitehouse [presiding]. Indeed. In the 23 States,
including my home State of Rhode Island, that have ex parte
orders that prohibit gun ownership, there's been a 13 percent
decrease across 23 States in intimate partner homicides, which,
because there are so many of them, 13 percent times that ends
up being of a lot of actual lives that have been saved.
Let me, as my time runs out, just respond to something that
the Ranking Member said about Ms. Vanita Gupta and Ms. Kristen
Clarke, that they were both leading advocates of, quote,
``abolishing the police.'' I just want the record to reflect
that the organization FactCheck looked at that precise
allegation and did a very lengthy review. Here is their final
word at the end of their review, that Vanita Gupta and Kristen
Clarke, quote, ``did not call for abolishing the police, and
neither did every single Democratic Member of the Senate.''
With that, let me turn the hearing over to Senator Ossoff.
Senator Ossoff [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse,
and thank you to the panel for joining us today. Grateful for
your testimony, and my heart goes out to you for what your
family's been through.
A case in Georgia, a woman named, Janet Paulsen, shot six
times by her husband after a temporary restraining order had
been issued. She survived. She said afterwards that seeking
protection, she'd gone to local law enforcement after the TRO
had been issued, asking them for counsel on how to defend
herself. The officer held up the TRO, put a pen through it to
demonstrate a bullet hole, and advised her to purchase a
firearm to protect herself.
The question before us is whether women should be protected
from spouses and intimate partners who pose a direct threat to
their safety, whom a judge has found poses a direct threat to
their safety and issued a restraining order.
Ms. Valente, based upon your personal experience and
expertise, can you comment on how such a policy would or would
not save the lives of Americans whose partners pose a direct
threat to their lives, where a TRO has been issued?
Ms. Valente. I think it would make a great difference. I
have to tell you that when we see and when I--the National
Coalition Against Domestic Violence collects information about
all the domestic violence homicides that occur each year. We
have a project called Remember My Name where we remember those
who were killed. And I have to tell you, when we look at the
facts of the case, so many of them are related to a temporary
protection order because everyone says there's nothing you can
do about firearms at that time.
There are better mechanisms in place because the law
actually addresses final protective orders. So in that case, it
looks different. They may have developed a system for having
the police go back or the sheriff go back with the respondent
and pick up the firearms and also inform them that they cannot
purchase any others. Having compliance reviews, having them
check in with parole or probation officers--all of these are
wonderful pieces that work, and the grant program in here can
help make that work. But until we pass this law, until this law
happens, we don't have that opportunity.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Ms. Valente. I want to clarify,
the officer in Cobb County, Georgia, was doing a service to Ms.
Paulsen, warning her that the TRO did not protect her.
Ms. Valente. It does not protect her unless the law stands
behind enforcement, and that's what this is about.
Senator Ossoff. Ms. Mason, based upon your personal
experience, your advocacy, your analysis, can you weigh in on
the same question, please?
Ms. Mason. I can just speak from my own experience. My
sister was under a temporary restraining order, and he did
legally purchase a gun, which is what he used to kill her. So,
in our case, it would've made a difference if he wasn't allowed
to legally purchase that gun.
Senator Ossoff. Ms. Mason, so sorry for your loss. Thank
you for your courage and commitment in joining us today. Ms.
Sullivan, I ask you to respond to the same question, please. I
know you may have a different view.
Ms. Sullivan. Yes, I do have a different view. I would
agree with that officer that the restraining order is only
worth the piece of paper that it's written on. There are a lot
of women that feel that way. I think that that--and we know
this--is that when women get their permits and lawfully carry
for the first time, they are citing defensive and home
defense--or home defense and personal defense as their reason
for doing so.
So, I think that it's important to recognize that there are
only so many officers present, right? They can't stand at our
doors, and they can't be everywhere that we are. So for many
American women and women in my State, they feel that it is
their own responsibility.
Senator Ossoff. Ms. Sullivan, just for clarity, the officer
was warning Ms. Paulsen in this case that the TRO did not
protect her because the law did not forbid her husband, who
posed a direct threat to her life and health, from purchasing a
firearm. Is it your position that a spouse or domestic partner
or intimate partner who's had a TRO issued against them by a
judge because of the violent threat that they pose to their
partner's life or health should nevertheless be permitted by
law, legally, to purchase a firearm? Is that your position?
Ms. Sullivan. I think that when we're talking about the
restraining order itself, I think it's important to clarify
that that is just a document. When it comes to this law and my
position on this law, I think it is important to recognize that
temporary restraining orders can and have been used to disarm
women as well.
Senator Ossoff. I'm so sorry, Ms. Sullivan, but I'm already
over time, and I want to make sure that we have you on the
record clearly on this issue, and it's a yes or no question. Is
it your position that a spouse or a domestic partner or an
intimate partner against whom a temporary restraining order has
been issued by a judge because of the threat they pose to the
life or health or safety of their partner should nevertheless
be permitted by law legally to purchase a firearm? It's a yes
or no question.
Ms. Sullivan. Until they've had a hearing and it's been
determined, they should be able to lawfully purchase a firearm.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Miss Sullivan.
Chair Blumenthal [presiding]. Thank you. I think my
colleagues have asked all their questions on our side, so we're
going to do a second round of questions. Forgive me if I am
repeating ground that they have covered. Let me ask you, Ms.
Valente, is there anything in this bill that takes guns away
from women?
Ms. Valente. There is not. Not unless the woman has been
adjudicated by a court as either a misdemeanant, a felon, or
someone subject to a protection order.
Chair Blumenthal. A woman who buys a gun for self-defense,
who is law abiding and not threatening domestic abuse in a way
that a court would adjudicate a real and present threat, would
have no fear of losing the firearm, correct?
Ms. Valente. That is correct. We do hear from women who
would like to arm themselves. Our recommendation at the
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence is that studies do
show that, as you quoted earlier, the mere presence of a
firearm in the house poses a danger. It doesn't matter who owns
the firearm. During a domestic abuse incident, research shows
that the abuser is quite likely to take control of the firearm,
and so then put the survivor at risk.
Those who want to do that, though, because they are
familiar with firearms and do wish to use firearms, we
recommend highly that they get training constantly.
We know that law enforcement trains every month with their
firearms, yet we know that different national organizations
that study police activity have told us that only 40 percent of
gunfire that law enforcement officers fire actually reaches the
intended place. We know that even if you're practicing every
month, something bad could happen otherwise. We believe that
the best thing is for all firearms to be out of the house until
the courts and the law have dealt with the domestic violence.
Chair Blumenthal. That's your recommendation based on
prudent and wise practices, but a woman who disagrees with you,
or a man, for that matter, threatened with domestic violence,
could buy a firearm under this law. Nothing would preclude it.
Ms. Valente. Nothing would preclude it.
Chair Blumenthal. There was a mention of the Grassley-Cruz
proposal. Just to tell you a little bit about it, and then I'll
ask you a couple of questions.
The Grassley-Cruz proposal creates a number of new Federal
offenses for trafficking and straw purchases, but it would only
prohibit straw purchases if prosecutors can prove the purchaser
knew that the recipient was prohibited from buying a gun or
knew that the person intended the crime--gun for a crime--
intended the gun for a crime. Pretty difficult to know. It
would only prohibit trafficking if the prosecutors could prove
that the trafficker knew that the recipient of the firearm was
prohibited.
This proposal actually weakens the law, as you can tell
from your knowledge of the current law, because it imposes
heightened knowledge requirements that are more difficult for
prosecutors to meet and eliminates the ability of prosecutors
to go after those who lie on Federal firearms about their
intent to purchase firearms for another person. There are
actually stronger bipartisan proposals, like the Leahy-Collins-
Durbin Stop the Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act, that would
help address these problems.
The Grassley-Cruz proposal also makes it harder for ATF to
do its job and easier for dealers to sell handguns across State
line. It imposes constraints on ATF enforcement. It actually
erases from the NICS background check system the names of
individuals determined to be mentally incompetent following an
administrative proceeding when the VA submits that information
to the Government authorities.
These measures undermining enforcement seem to really
weaken the law because enforcement is so important. All the
great laws on the books are dead letter if they're not
consistently, conscientiously, and competently enforced. Would
you agree?
Ms. Valente. Absolutely. I think that that's one of the
wonderful things about this bill, the grant program within it,
which would absolutely address that need for improving
enforcement. We're very, very happy to see that in there.
Chair Blumenthal. In fact, far from, as my colleague from
Texas suggests, defunding law enforcement, this bill actually
bolsters law enforcement with more resources, correct?
Ms. Valente. It would, based on the community-based
response, which would involve law enforcement, courts, victim
advocates, probation, parole. All of those are important pieces
in putting together a strong enforcement response. But law
enforcement, of course, is key to that.
Chair Blumenthal. I'm going to ask one more question, then
turn to my colleague, Senator Klobuchar, for her statement and
questions. She's going to join us remotely. Let me ask you, Ms.
Mason, in your opinion, would this kind of law bolster your
trust in the system if you were in your sister's place years
ago? Has the Connecticut law, in your view, added public safety
to survivors and victims of domestic violence?
Ms. Mason. I think it would have, yes, definitely made my
sister feel more comfortable. I mean, she went to the police.
She told them how much she feared for her safety. You know, we
just weren't sure what he was capable of. But I think that
having this would have been another layer of protection for her
and, you know, maybe more of peace of mind that there was
something more behind this than just that temporary restraining
order, that, you know, he couldn't go and purchase another
weapon, that he couldn't keep the ones he did have. So, it
definitely, I think, adds another layer that we need.
Chair Blumenthal. Thank you. I don't know whether Senator
Klobuchar----
Senator Klobuchar. I'm here.
Chair Blumenthal. Great. Go ahead.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Thank you so much, Senator
Blumenthal. Thanks for your leadership and for putting together
this really important hearing.
As you know, both Senator Blumenthal and I have been
supporting each other and leading bills in this area for years.
I have the bill to prevent abusive dating partners and
convicted stalkers from buying a gun. Provisions of that bill
were actually included in the House bill to reauthorize the
Violence Against Women Act, for which 29 Republicans voted for
it.
But when the bill came to the Senate, we were unable to get
the Republican votes, honestly, to include it in the final
bill. That was more than disappointing. But the rest of the
provisions in the bill were very, very important, and we have
not by one iota given up on these bills.
I guess I'd start with you, Ms. Mason. I want to thank you
for your courage in coming forward, telling your story, your
sister's story. As someone from a family that has experienced
domestic violence, could you talk about how important it is
that addressing gun violence should be part of the Federal
Government's efforts to help victims? I know how hard it is to
tell your own stories, but I would believe that a lot of the
motivation for you in telling the story is to make sure it
doesn't happen to other people again. Go ahead, Ms. Mason.
Ms. Mason. Yes. I always say that I tell my story because I
never want another sister in my shoes, because it's life
changing. I just think having this bill and having another
layer of protection for someone when we know under a temporary
restraining order, those 2 weeks, you know, everything is very
heated still. It's a very--an unstable time, you know, when a
marriage is ending or when there's violence, and there's a need
to get the restraining order. It's such a crazy time for those
2 weeks. I just think having another layer of protection would
just be so beneficial and can save lives.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Thank you so much. Ms.
Valente, in 2014--this is how long we've been trying to pass
these bills--the Judiciary Committee, under Senator Grassley's
and Leahy's leadership, held a hearing on my bill. One of the
Republican witnesses was a sheriff from Racine, Wisconsin, who
was a self-described conservative Republican, but he testified
actually in favor of closing these loopholes. He said this:
``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.''
In fact, we know that approximately half of intimate
partner homicides in the U.S. are committed by dating partners.
Can you say more about the connection that we've seen more--
that we've seen between gun violence and domestic violence? We
know 33 States have taken action; and how have those changes
helped in this regard?
Ms. Valente. Yes, thank you. Research has shown, in the
States where they have taken these steps and changed the law in
this manner, that there has been a reduction in homicides.
Again, I've submitted some of those studies in the materials
that we handed in yesterday, and we encourage you to look at
them.
They really back this up, knowing that over time, since the
passage of the first Violence Against Women Act, when more
domestic violence cases involved married or formerly married
couples, and now, where more people who seek protection orders
are in dating relationships that are not covered by this, it's
really important that the Violence Against Women Act provisions
are updated and the firearms provisions are updated.
As a matter of fact, for the rest of the Violence Against
Women Act, dating violence has been added. It's been added
since 2006.
Senator Klobuchar. Exactly.
Ms. Valente. Yes. And so----
Senator Klobuchar. Yet this critical piece of it, it hasn't
been. I still remember back in 2014, at that hearing, all the
Republican witnesses actually agreed. Not on the whole bill,
but they agreed, quote, ``on the dating partner piece of it.''
That's why this has been so frustrating.
One last question. In your testimony, you point out that 20
percent of intimate partner homicide victims are someone other
than the intimate partner: children, other family members, law
enforcement responders, bystanders. I still remember a horrible
case in Lake City, Minnesota, where a police officer who had
just been with his family for the Christmas Nativity show with
the three children--he responds to a domestic violence scene,
shot in the head, killed, and next time he's in church after
the Nativity play, a victim of homicide at his own funeral,
with his family walking down that aisle. I was there. I won't
forget that.
The other thing that people don't always think about, in
addition to the statistic you put forward, is also that kids
that witness domestic violence often end up in the system
themselves because they grow up with this kind of violence. I
had outside of my office when I was DA a picture that showed a
woman holding a baby with a Band-Aid over the baby's nose. It
said with--the woman had a Band-Aid over her nose, but she's
holding the baby. It said, ``Beat your wife and it's your kid
that will go to jail,'' to make that point.
Do you want to comment on those two things? The problem
with children in a home witnessing violence, and then also the
fact that other people are often killed by domestic violence
perpetrators.
Ms. Valente. Yes. There's a lot of information that can
back this up. A lot of law enforcement organizations have
tracked this, and we can get that information to you if you
like. It is a very high percentage of law enforcement who are
subjected to, you know, accompanying damage when an abuser is
behaving in the way that--in a violent way with a firearm.
There are people who--neighbors have been caught up in
this, friends. Somebody will leave, and--a survivor will leave
and stay in someone's house, and that person is at risk.
Parents, as you've heard, are at risk when they offer shelter
to their children. As for children, witnessing this, watching
that terrorism, has a terrible generational effect.
I also want to point out that one of the things that we
look for when we worry about lethality is we ask, ``Has he
threatened to kill the children too?'' Because these threats--
``I'll kill you with this firearm''--are often extended to the
children in the household as well.
Senator Klobuchar. Right. Thank you very much. Thank you,
Senator Blumenthal.
Chair Blumenthal. Thanks very much, Senator Klobuchar. I
just want to point out that Senator Klobuchar's bill--and I
really want to thank her for her leadership on it--is known as
the Protecting Domestic Violence and Stalking Victims Act,
which would close the boyfriend and stalking loopholes.
These loopholes continue to exist in many States. Thirty-
two States and the District of Columbia have taken steps to
close the boyfriend loophole, but the stalking loophole refers
to a gap also in the existing definition of misdemeanor crime
of domestic violence, and it has been closed in only 10 States.
So this is a measure----
Senator Klobuchar. Exactly.
Chair Blumenthal [continuing]. That is really important. I
want to thank Senator Klobuchar for her leadership.
On the point that has been made about firearms affecting
children, just a few statistics. Data drawn from 16 States
indicates that two-thirds of child fatalities relating to
domestic violence were caused by guns. Two-thirds of the
fatalities to children, who are often the victims of domestic
violence, were caused by guns. Nearly 31 percent of gun
homicides of children under the age of 13 are related to
domestic violence. This is a scourge that is deadly for
children, made all the more so by the presence of a gun in the
home.
Just to put all of what has been said today in some
context, the pandemic has raised levels of domestic violence
markedly, perhaps as a result of stress and anxiety that has
been caused by COVID, perhaps because people are confined in a
space, perhaps because seeking escape from abuse is more
difficult. Whatever the reason, the pandemic has made abuse and
violence more likely. Would you agree, Ms. Valente?
Ms. Valente. Yes, we are seeing that. We know that there
are researchers out there who are working on that to absolutely
quantify those figures that our victim advocates see and are
reporting anecdotally.
Senator Blumenthal. There are numbers that support this
contention that the pandemic has increased both the frequency
and the depth of domestic violence. Just to finish, domestic
violence, I think we can all agree, regardless of what we think
about gun violence prevention, is a scourge that must be
stopped.
And it is a cycle, as has been mentioned. It's a cycle that
is, in effect, learned from experience. The children who
witness it in their homes are more likely to repeat it. The
perpetrators of domestic violence--I think it's 70-plus
percent, somewhere between 70 and 80 percent, have seen or
experienced it in their own homes. This is a cycle that is born
of experience. And breaking that cycle means somehow
intervening to stop it.
As attorney general of the State of Connecticut, I started
an organization called Men Make a Difference, Men Against
Domestic Violence, which enlisted men to provide role models,
to educate and do outreach to boys and show them that there's
no condoning domestic violence. These role models, prominent
figures in entertainment and sports and broadcasting, have done
great work. The cosponsor of this effort, Interval House, our
largest domestic violence shelter in the State of Connecticut,
has been absolutely instrumental and inspiring in the work that
it has done to educate and outreach to men and boys.
I thank you all for being here today. It means a lot that
you have come, particularly our witnesses from Connecticut. I
know that not easy to do, but we really appreciate your coming
today, both Ms. Sullivan and Ms. Mason. Ms. Valente, thank you
for sharing your expertise. I don't know whether my colleague
has any closing remarks or questions, but if not, this record
will be open for 2 weeks. Any of my colleagues who have
questions can submit them in writing.
The hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:07 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
A P P E N D I X
to
STOP GUN VIOLENCE:
THE JACKSON-ELIAS DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE SURVIVOR PROTECTION ACT
American Journal of Epidemology.................................. 98
Assessing Challenges, Needs, and Innovations of Gender-Based
Violence Services............................................. 143
Gender Differences in Patterns and Trends in U.S. Homicide....... 80
Guns in the Hands of Domestic Abusers............................ 184
The Heritage Foundation.......................................... 228
Injury Epidomiology.............................................. 90
Journal of Women's Health........................................ 122
Kivisto and Porter Article....................................... 71
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), July 21, 2017...... 134
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV)............. 140
Preventive Medicine.............................................. 50
Senator Wyden Remarks............................................ 242
Spencier and Stitch Article...................................... 57
Violence and Victims, 2018....................................... 104
Weapons in the Lives of Battered Women........................... 128
When Abusers Keep Their Guns..................................... 163
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]