[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                              


 
  OVERSIGHT OF THE BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                       WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-15

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
         
         
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
         


               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
               
               
               
  
                            ______

              U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
   51-997                 WASHINGTON : 2023
 
              
               
               
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

DARRELL ISSA, California             JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking 
KEN BUCK, Colorado                       Member
MATT GAETZ, Florida                  ZOE LOFGREN, California
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana              SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                  STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
TOM McCLINTOCK, California           HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin                   Georgia
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              ADAM SCHIFF, California
CHIP ROY, Texas                      DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina           ERIC SWALWELL, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana             TED LIEU, California
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin          PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  J. LUIS CORREA, California
BEN CLINE, Virginia                  MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey            LUCY McBATH, Georgia
TROY NEHLS, Texas                    MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
KEVIN KILEY, California              DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             CORI BUSH, Missouri
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               GLENN IVEY, Maryland
LAUREL LEE, Florida
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina

               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
          AMY RUTKIN, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
                                 ------                                
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2023

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary 
  from the State of Ohio.........................................     1
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Committee on 
  the Judiciary from the State of New York.......................     2

                                WITNESS

The Honorable Steven Dettelbach, Director, The Bureau of Alcohol, 
  Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
  Oral Testimony.................................................     5
  Prepared Testimony.............................................     7

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

All materials submitted for the record by the Committee on the 
  Judiciary are listed below.....................................    79

An article entitled, ``ATF director lambasted for not defining 
  `assault weapon': `Why is he leading the agency?' '' Apr. 19, 
  2023, Fox News, submitted by the Honorable Darrell Issa, a 
  Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of 
  California, for the record
Diagrams of stabilizing braces from 2012, submitted by the 
  Honorable David N. Cicilline, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of Rhode Island, for the record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, a Member 
  of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of 
  Pennsylvania, for the record
    A report entitled, ``Uncovering the Truth About Pennsylvania 
        Crime Guns,'' Brady
    A video showing uses of stabilizing braces...................    49

                 QUESTIONS AND RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD

Questions to the Honorable Steven Dettelbach from the Honorable 
  Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary from the 
  State of Ohio, and the Honorable Darrell Issa, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of California, for 
  the record
    No response provided at time of publication.


  OVERSIGHT OF THE BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES

                              ----------                              


                       Wednesday, April 26, 2023

                        House of Representatives

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in 
room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim Jordan 
[Chair of the Committee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Jordan, Issa, Buck, Gaetz, 
Johnson of Louisiana, Biggs, McClintock, Tiffany, Massie, Roy, 
Bishop, Spartz, Fitzgerald, Cline, Van Drew, Moore, Nehls, Fry, 
Hageman, Hunt, Kiley, Nadler, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Cohen, 
Johnson of Georgia, Schiff, Cicilline, Swalwell, Jayapal, 
Scanlon, McBath, Dean, Escobar, Bush, and Ivey.
    Chair Jordan. The Committee will come to order. Without 
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any 
time. The Chair would now ask the gentleman from Texas, Sheriff 
Nehls, if he would lead us in the pledge.
    Mr. Nehls. I ask that everyone please join me, stand, 
honoring our Nation's flag.
    All. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States 
of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one 
Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for 
all.
    Chair Jordan. Thank you. I thank the gentleman. We welcome 
everyone to today's hearing on Oversight of the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.
    The Chair now recognizes himself for an opening statement.
    You know what Americans can't stand? Do you know what they 
can't stand about this town? The so-called experts, the 
unelected experts who try to run our lives. Never put their 
name on a ballot. Never have to go talk to the American people, 
get elected, never have to run for office. That is the example, 
of course, is Dr. Fauci, who ran our lives for two years and 
was wrong, wrong about just about everything he said. Told us 
it didn't start in a lab. It wasn't our tax dollars. It wasn't 
gain-of-function research. He said there was no natural 
immunity, even though it always had been for every other virus.
    Said the vaccinated couldn't transmit it and now it is the 
ATF. Except with the ATF, they don't even claim to be experts. 
The Director said so last week, last week in a hearing in front 
of Congress in the Appropriations Committee, he was asked about 
firearms, he said I am not an expert in firearms. Not an 
expert, but still trying to run Americans' lives. You would 
think the head of the agency tasked with regulated the entire 
firearms industry, a constitutionally protected industry, would 
know something about firearms.
    Earlier this year, the ATF issued a rule that unilaterally 
puts new restrictions on Second Amendment rights. This rule 
redefined firearms with stabilizing braces as short-barreled 
rifles so that they could be controlled under the Gun Control 
Act of 1968 and the National Firearms Act of 1934.
    There are approximately 40 million firearms with 
stabilizing braces currently in circulation. The pistol brace 
was created for use by disabled persons, including disabled 
veterans. These individuals could lose the ability to use these 
tools and as a result, may not be able to operate their 
firearm.
    Under the new rule, these firearm owners will be required 
to obtain special registration, surrender or destroy their 
brace by the compliance date, or they will face severe criminal 
penalties. This is not the result of a decision made by 
Congress. Congress didn't change the law. No bill was 
introduced in this Committee, passed by this Committee, passed 
by the House, passed by the Senate, and signed by the 
President. Nope. This rule turns law-abiding gun owners into 
felons is a result of unelected bureaucrats simply enacting a 
new regulation. That is not how it is supposed to work in our 
great country. Congress writes the laws, and the Executive 
Branch enforces them.
    Here, the Executive Branch has taken power from Congress in 
deciding what the law should be and that they charged 
themselves with enforcing. Director Dettelbach has, in essence, 
become a one-man Congress.
    Notably, this decision runs counter to the ATF decision 
under President Obama in 2012 that a firearm equipped with a 
stabilizing brace ``would not be subject to the National 
Firearms Act and those controls.''
    An independent analysis of financial harm to the firearms 
industry from the pistol brace ban has been estimated to exceed 
$1 billion. Law abiding firearm owners relied on this ruling 
for a decade before having the rug pulled out from under them 
this year by Director Dettelbach's ATF. It is not just with the 
stabilizing brace rule that the ATF is attacking the Second 
Amendment. They have also targeted firearms' businesses by 
creating pretenses to shut them down. New classifications are 
left purposely broad and allow the ATF to revoke the licenses 
of FFLs for simple technical and nonmaterial paperwork 
violations.
    In 2022, ATF revoked over 90 licenses, more than any year 
since 2006. This is an attack on the Second Amendment, pure and 
simple, plain and simple. I want to thank Director Dettelbach 
for appearing before us today and we look forward to hearing 
from him and his taking our questions.
    With that, I would yield to the Ranking Member for his 
opening statement.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me begin by first 
apologizing for the slander we heard this morning directed at 
one of the great public servants of our time, Dr. Anthony 
Fauci.
    Mr. Chair, violence continues to take the lives of more 
than 100 Americans every single day. It changes how safe we 
feel in our homes, our schools, and in our houses of worship. 
It reduces vibrant cities to somber headlines. It takes our 
loved ones, old and young and leaves us with another 
anniversary of lives cut short and a community forever 
traumatized.
    We have already lost more than 13,000 Americans to gun 
deaths so far this year, including 80 young children, 469 
teens, and 18 law enforcement officers. We are the only Nation 
in the industrialized world that tolerates such gruesome 
statistics.
    It is against this sobering background that Republicans 
have called this hearing to criticize the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, the law-enforcement agency 
tasked with keeping guns out of the wrong hands.
    At least Republicans are transparent about their goal, to 
pressure, intimidate, and hamstring the agency so they can no 
longer effectively do its job and protect Americans from 
violent crime. Some Republicans have even introduced a bill to 
abolish the ATF altogether. That is right. They seek to 
eliminate the law enforcement agency responsible for protecting 
communities from gun violence, stopping gun trafficking, and 
ensuring lawful and responsible gun ownership.
    Local law enforcement depends on the ATF to provide 
resources that help them solve crimes and prevent gun violence. 
In the recent president's message in Police Chief Magazine, 
International Association of Chiefs of Police President John 
Latetti, encourages fellow police chiefs to,

         . . . take advantage of the no-cost systems offered by the ATF 
        to help investigate and ultimately remove dangerous weapons 
        from our communities.

He noted that,

        ATF has the only gun-tracing platform in the United States that 
        can be used by local, State, Federal, and global law 
        enforcement agencies to investigate criminal gun activity.

    ATF also runs the National Integrated Ballistic Information 
Network which provides local, State, Tribal, and Federal law 
enforcement, at no cost, with ballistic imaging, a critical 
tool that can help solve crime and prevent further gun 
violence.
    ATF also carries out its mission by lending its expertise 
such as by classifying weapons, advising prosecutors, and 
promulgating regulations and by collaborating with various law 
enforcement agencies. As Chief Latetti explains, collaborations 
can improve overall violence-reduction strategies while 
allowing each piece of the system to focus on what they do 
best. Clearly, the President of the International Association 
of Chiefs of Police sees the great value that ATF provides.
    Some Republicans seek to abolish this agency and to end the 
work that it does to make Americans safer. Other Republicans 
merely seek to starve the agency of funding, to place 
additional restrictions on the use of its data to help solve 
crimes and keep communities safe or to dismantle its 
regulations. In fact, just last week, this Committee voted to 
prevent the ATF from regulating stabilizing braces, a device 
used in multiple mass shootings including most recently in 
Nashville to convert a pistol into a more dangerous short-
barreled rifle.
    We just heard the Chair excoriate the ATF by saying it 
adopted this rule on gun braces without Congressional action, 
without the Senate, the House, and the President signing it. 
Well, that is the function of any Executive agency entrusted by 
Congress with making rules.
    How can it be that the majority sets the standards of law 
enforcement, yet it seeks to abolish the only law enforcement 
agency with the capability of tracing gun crimes or tracing 
crime guns, I should say? How can the majority say that they 
support State and local police while attempting to hamstring 
and starve the agency that provides them with so many critical 
resources for solving crimes, including homicides, gun 
trafficking, and organized crime?
    The answer lies in another part of ATF's responsibilities, 
making sure that gun dealers follow the law by conducting 
background checks, refusing to sell to those who are not 
allowed to have firearms, and keeping records so that crime 
guns can be traced. The overwhelming majority of gun sellers 
have no problem following these laws, but when gun dealers 
willfully refuse to follow them, it is ATF's responsibility to 
revoke their license to sell.
    The ATF upheld that responsibility last year, revoking 92 
licenses for gun sellers with serious willful violations, a 
tiny fraction of the over 130,000 licensed firearm dealers. Gun 
groups cried foul, claiming that such revocations are crushing 
gun sellers, revoking 92 out of 130,000 licenses.
    Then Republicans introduced legislation to abolish the ATF. 
Republicans' priorities are clear, they would prefer to keep 
every gun store in the country open, even those that willfully 
violate the law, rather than to let ATF save lives simply by 
enforcing the law. It is essential that we conduct oversight of 
our agencies to ensure that they are fulfilling their missions, 
but today's hearing makes no attempt to fulfill that 
responsibility. Instead, it shows how radically out of step my 
Republican colleagues are with the American people, with law 
enforcement, and even with many responsible gun owners.
    Democrats have put forth a range of solutions to prevent 
gun violence, to support law enforcement, and to solve crimes. 
Our colleagues across the aisle continue to push for unfettered 
access to assault weapons, concealable rifles, and ghost guns. 
As Republicans continue to seek freedom from gun regulation, we 
will continue to seek communities free from gun violence.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. Without objection, 
all other opening statements will be included in the record.
    We will now introduce today's witness, Mr. Dettelbach. The 
Honorable Steven Dettelbach was sworn in as Director of the ATF 
on July 13, 2022. As director, he is responsible for leading an 
agency charged with enforcing laws and regulations related to 
firearms, explosives, arson, alcohol, and tobacco trafficking. 
He previously served as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District 
of Ohio and in various positions with the Department of Justice 
and U.S. Attorney's Offices. We welcome our witness today and 
thank him for appearing.
    We will begin by swearing you in. Would you please rise and 
raise your right hand?
    Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the 
testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best 
of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
    Let the record show the witness has answered in the 
affirmative. Thank you. Please be seated. Please note that your 
written testimony will be entered into the record in its 
entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you summarize your testimony 
and you have done this before, Mr. Dettelbach. You get five 
minutes. You know how it works. Then we will proceed with 
questioning.
    Mr. Dettelbach, you can start your testimony.

          STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE STEVEN DETTELBACH

    Mr. Dettelbach. Good morning, Chair Jordan, Ranking Member 
Nadler, and Members of the Committee. I am honored to appear 
before this Committee to discuss the public safety mission of 
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. I am 
also honored to represent the dedicated men and women of ATF 
who work tirelessly and often risk everything alongside our law 
enforcement partners to protect the American people from 
violent crime.
    At ATF, everything we do begins and ends with public 
safety. ATF is a small, law enforcement agency, just over 5,100 
employees, with a huge mission, to prevent, disrupt, and reduce 
violent crime. As Director of ATF, I am briefed on what feels 
like countless murders and shootings that takes place across 
the United States every day. This includes the mass murder 
incidents that often grab national headlines such as last 
month's horrific murders at the Tennessee school, but it also 
includes countless shootings that take place every day, 
devastate families and communities, but don't make the news.
    By some counts so far this year, there have already been 
174 mass shootings and 99 law enforcement officers have been 
shot in the line of duty. Every day, more than 100 people in 
America die from gun violence and many more are permanently 
injured.
    Victims and survivors of gun violence deserve better as do 
their families, their communities, and law enforcement 
officers, including those at ATF and our local partners who 
every day run toward the gun fire. The level of gun violence in 
America is quite simply unacceptable.
    Because of the way our constitutional system is designed, 
fighting violent crime falls first to local, State, and Tribal 
law enforcement and we at ATF are deeply committed to 
supporting them in those efforts. ATF embodies the Department 
of Justice's commitment to combat violent crime by being a 
force multiplier to our law enforcement partners. We stand 
shoulder to shoulder with them each day to help reduce and 
fight violent crime all over this Nation.
    That is what ATF agents did with the brave men and women of 
the Tulare County Sheriff's Department recently when they took 
gun fire standing side by side to arrest a mass killer in 
Goshen, California. That person had allegedly executed a 10-
month-old baby. We do that all the time with our partners. 
There is really no better partner for the courageous people in 
local law enforcement than the courageous partners at ATF.
    ATF's efforts are driven by two priorities, get shooters 
off the street and cutoff the unlawful supply of firearms that 
fuels their violence. One of our greatest assets in 
accomplishing these priorities is our expertise in crime gun 
intelligence. Crime gun intelligence is ATF's ability to 
squeeze every last bit of evidence out of a firearm used in a 
crime, so that together with our State and local partners we 
can find the trigger pullers who are terrorizing our 
communities and put them where they belong, in jail.
    The National Integrated Ballistic Information Network, 
NIBIN, allows us to connect disparate shootings through 
ballistic evidence. eTrace allows us to trace a crime gun back 
to its first known retail purchase. These tools are pillars of 
crime gun intelligence. Now, we have the ability to get DNA on 
guns and cartridge cases, an exciting and potentially game-
changing way to catch the shooters.
    All these tools are critical to interrupting the shooting 
cycle and preventing the movement of lawful firearms into 
unlawful commerce. We must cutoff the illegal flow of firearms 
to those who wish to harm our communities such as those who use 
firearms to further gang violence or commit heinous attacks on 
schools, churches, movie theaters, or grocery stores. We must 
do that while respecting the rights of law-abiding citizens, as 
well, and we can.
    Last June, Congress passed the bipartisan Safer Communities 
Act which gave ATF two new tools, a stand-alone Federal straw 
purchasing and stand-alone gun trafficking statute for the 
first time. ATF and the Department of Justice have already 
brought charges against more than 30 defendants for violations 
of these new provisions. For instance, ATF led an investigation 
in the Northern District of Texas that led to the conviction of 
a person who was trafficking over 230 firearms across the 
southern border to Mexico.
    We also work closely with licensed firearms dealers, who 
are often the first line of defense in our efforts to stop the 
diversion of firearms into illegal markets. Congress has given 
ATF the responsibility to regulate the firearms and explosives 
industry. ATF's regulatory efforts include inspections, 
rulemaking, and working with industry to promote education 
campaigns. Also, we respond day or night to every single 
burglary or robbery of a firearms dealer that we find out 
about.
    I want to end by just saying that everything we do at ATF 
begins and ends with public safety, whether its agents in a 
homicide unit or on a gang task force or some lab specialist 
running a DNA test late at night to help police with a mass 
shooting or inspectors, going at 2 a.m. to an FFL that has 
gotten a burglary. Our goal at ATF is to promote public safety 
and reduce violent crime to protect the American people.
    Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, thank you again for 
the opportunity to be here today. I am happy to answer 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Dettelbach follows:]
     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    Chair Jordan. Thank you, Director. The Chair will recognize 
the gentleman from Texas for his five minutes of questions.
    Mr. Nehls. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Dettelbach, I want to 
get a better sense of where the ATF's pistol brace rule derived 
from and I have asked that you please elaborate on ATF's 
decisionmaking process, specifically in using the pistol brace 
final rule.
    Did the ATF consider the several years of ATF opinion 
including from the Obama Administration, remember, the Obama 
Administration, contradicting the final stabilizing brace rule?
    Mr. Dettelbach. So, with respect to the origin of the 
authority, as has been stated, ATF derives its rulemaking 
authority in this matter from primarily the National Firearms 
Act which was a Congressional Act passed in 1934.
    Mr. Nehls. Fair enough, fair enough. I need to interrupt 
for a minute. In 2012, John Spencer, do you know who John 
Spencer is? Do you know John Spencer?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I don't know that name.
    Mr. Nehls. He was the Chief of ATF's Firearm Technology 
Branch in 2012 and he wrote a letter to Alex Bosco. Do you know 
who Alex Bosco is?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I do.
    Mr. Nehls. Who is he?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Alex Bosco appeared before this Committee a 
couple of weeks--
    Mr. Nehls. Who is he?
    Mr. Dettelbach. He is an individual who--
    Mr. Nehls. Now, he is the one that invented the stabilizing 
brace. He is the one that invented it. So, John Spencer, the 
Chief of ATF's Firearm Technology Branch, pretty smart guy, 
probably has got a ten-pound brain. He then sends a letter to 
Alex Bosco, the inventor of the stabilizing brace, and says, 
``based on our evaluation, FTB finds that the submitted firearm 
brace,'' the one that we are talking about ``when attached to a 
firearm does not convert that weapon to be fired from the 
shoulder and would not alter, would not alter the 
classification of a pistol or other firearm.'' He continues, 
``While a firearm so equipped would still be regulated by the 
Gun Control Act, such a firearm would not be subject to the NFA 
controls.''
    Was this letter, my friend, was this letter considered 
before issuing the final rule?
    Mr. Dettelbach. There is a very lengthy public record of 
all the things--
    Mr. Nehls. Just a simple yes or no, was this letter 
considered before issuing the final rule? It is just simple. 
Did you know about this letter? Were you aware of it? Did you 
consider it?
    Mr. Dettelbach. The public record is clear--
    Mr. Nehls. All right, is the goal, my friend, is the goal 
of the ATF, 7.4 percent budget increase, is the goal of the ATF 
to go after and criminalize law-abiding Americans? Is that what 
you are asking for, 7.4 more percent? There is 40 million of 
them out there, 40 million of them that have this.
    I am one of those proud veterans. I view this ATF's recent 
pistol brace rule as a directed assault on veterans and law-
abiding citizens, Americans' Second Amendment rights. 
Stabilizing braces are often used by and were originally 
created for--ask Mr. Bosco, were created for wounded and 
disabled Americans just like this man right here. That is how 
you use that. Just like that guy right there.
    What enforcement mechanisms--I am trying to figure out how 
this--what enforcement mechanisms will the ATF utilize to 
impose fines or maybe up to 10 years of jail time for those 
that do not comply or maybe even those that aren't even aware 
of the final pistol brace rule. How are you going to do that?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Congressman, with respect to the process 
and the letter that you referred to, that was a letter that was 
about a specific product, one product--
    Mr. Nehls. My time is limited. I asked for a simple yes or 
no. On that, you refuse. I want to ask you what enforcement 
mechanisms will the ATF utilize to enforce this?
    Mr. Dettelbach. ATF's mission remains focused on protecting 
the American people from violent crime. We target our--
    Mr. Nehls. OK, all right, all right. I have a minute left 
and I am still trying to get you to answer my question. 
Hypothetically speaking, if I fail to comply with the ATF's 
final rule by May 31st now, May 31st, what will the ATF do to 
me or 40 other million Americans?
    Mr. Dettelbach. With respect to all the authorities that 
ATF has, we target our investigation--
    Mr. Nehls. Next thing you will probably be saying that you 
are going to have to go door to door. My point is this, local 
law enforcement pulls over a car. The guy is drunk. All of a 
sudden, he is doing an inventory. He finds one of these braces 
in the back of his car, right? That brace hasn't been 
registered because the guy has no clue this was even out there.
    Are you going to put that guy in jail for that brace? What 
is local law enforcement going to do? Hurry up, I have 15 
seconds.
    Mr. Dettelbach. With respect to a brace in and of itself, 
the ATF doesn't deal with the brace. The ATF deals with the 
weapon as assembled as a whole, determining whether it is a 
short-barreled rifle which is a determination made--
    Mr. Nehls. I am not getting anything from him. I just want 
the American people, everybody to understand, you are going 
after veterans, individuals like myself, like this guy, with 
the resources they currently have.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Nehls. I yield back, sir. I know I am out of time.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Let me first make clear that the 
brace that Spencer approved never made it to the market. Mr. 
Bosco changed the design dramatically. By the time the rule was 
issued, the brace designs had changed dramatically, so they 
weren't dealing with the same thing.
    Mr. Dettelbach, despite the complaints of my colleagues 
across the aisle, Congress and the Attorney General have 
delegated to ATF the authority to issue rules and regulations 
to enforce the provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934 
and the Gun Control Act of 1968.
    Does ATF's rulemaking authority include the authority to 
clarify or interpret terms used in those statutes?
    Mr. Dettelbach. ATF was delegated rulemaking authority and 
we can do that, yes.
    Mr. Nadler. Is this any different from the authority given 
to other executive agencies?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Congress determines the amount of authority 
given, but it is not uncommon to have the kind of rulemaking 
authority that Congress has decided to give to ATF.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Is ATF often called upon to apply 
those statutes to new technologies developed by the gun 
industry?
    Mr. Dettelbach. When new technologies develop, sometimes 
ATF is called on to evaluate them and to apply Congress' rules 
to new technologies, yes.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. For how long has ATF been doing the 
work of interpreting and clarifying statutes passed by Congress 
regarding firearms?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Since before it was even called ATF, right, 
so back in the 1930s when Congress passed the National Firearms 
Act, it delegated to what was then the Treasury Department, I 
believe, rulemaking authority and that rulemaking authority has 
been delegated in other statutes by Congress.
    Mr. Nadler. So, for 70 years, basically.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Probably closer to 100.
    Mr. Nadler. In deciding how to apply those statutes to 
emerging technologies, does ATF rely on the expertise of 
technological experts as well as legal counsel?
    Mr. Dettelbach. ATF uses all its resources and employees 
and expertise to follow the law as Congress has passed it and 
to implement those laws to protect the American people.
    Mr. Nadler. The gun industry has a history of developing 
new technologies aimed at circumventing the Nation's firearms, 
technologies such as bump stocks, ghost guns, and stabilizing 
braces.
    Can you please explain how ATF determines when it is 
necessary to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to clarify 
how statutory terms apply to emerging technologies?
    Mr. Dettelbach. So, at ATF, we obviously are looking at 
violent crime. We are looking at public safety issues and we 
are also looking, as you said, at changes in behavior. We are 
trying to apply the laws as Congress passes them to a dynamic 
public safety and to new products that come out.
    It is not so much our concern what the motivation behind 
those products are, but we do have to apply the law as Congress 
wrote it to the current situation faced by the American public. 
That is what we try to do our best at ATF. We look at all the 
factors out there. We look at the public safety threat and we 
try to do our best to take the language Congress wrote and to 
apply it to individual situations to enforce the law.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. What would happen to ATF and the 
agency's ability to accomplish its mission if funding is cut, 
particularly considering the recent surge in gun violence and 
the years' long boon in firearm purchases?
    Mr. Dettelbach. ATF is a small agency with an immense 
mission, protecting people from violent crime. We work very 
closely with State and local law enforcement. We are not a 
large agency. There is not a lot of fat. You are cutting into 
bone. It would mean task force officers pulled from homicide 
units solving murder cases. It would mean carjacking cases and 
killings going unsolved. It would mean us not helping law 
enforcement on gang task forces, working on cartel matters, us 
not being able to respond to firearms dealers, mass shooters. 
There is a variety of important public safety things that ATF 
stretches very thin to do as it is now.
    Mr. Nadler. What could ATF accomplish through greater 
resources?
    Mr. Dettelbach. With greater resources, all those things I 
talked about, helping to catch shooters and trigger pullers 
with local law enforcement, helping to try and make sure we are 
getting to them the crime gun intelligence they need to see. 
Who are the trigger pullers? Who are the worst of the worst and 
how can we work together to catch them and put them in jail? We 
could do more to support them.
    Everywhere I go in this country I talk to chiefs, sheriffs, 
community members, and it doesn't matter if it is in the middle 
of the country or on a coast in a sheriff's department in a 
rural area or in a suburb or in a city. They all say the same 
thing to me, all of them. Send us more ATF resources so we can 
help fight violent crime. That is what we would do with those 
resources.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. My last question in what ways does 
ATF work with State, local, and international law enforcement 
agencies to protect the American public from gun violence?
    Mr. Dettelbach. We work every day, all the time, shoulder 
to shoulder with them as they run into the gunfire to protect 
our communities. These local law enforcement people who work 
with us at ATF together are courageous people. They are heroes 
and they deserve all our respect and support.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you very much and accept my 
congratulations on the job well done and I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Issa. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent that the ATF 
Director article dated April 25, 2023 be placed into the 
record.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection. The gentleman from 
California is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Director, are you an expert 
in firearms?
    Mr. Dettelbach. If you're referring to the statement I 
made, there was a Member who was a veteran--I respect very much 
people's service to our military--who said that he had been an 
expert. I told him I might not be an expert to the same extent 
he is, and I'm certainly not an expert to the same extent that 
people who work for decades at ATF as firearms experts, who 
examine the mechanics, velocity speeds, the--
    Mr. Issa. Oh, OK. I'll take that as ``I'm not an expert at 
some level.'' Are you an expert on tobacco?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I spent my career as a Federal prosecutor 
putting gang members, violent criminals, cartel cases--
    Mr. Issa. No, I appreciate that. Please--
    Mr. Dettelbach. That's my background.
    Mr. Issa. Yes. So, I want to get the yes or noes, try to 
make it quick. I'm not expecting a ``yes,'' to be honest. 
You're not an expert on tobacco. You're not an expert on guns. 
Are you an expert on explosives?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I have prosecuted cases involving the 
attempted terrorist bombing of a bridge in Ohio and near 
Cleveland, where you're from. I have dealt with firebombing of 
the Mansfield, Ohio courthouse.
    Mr. Issa. Do you know what ``PETN'' is?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I'm sorry?
    Mr. Issa. Do you know what ``PETN'' is?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I don't hold myself out as a technical 
expert in every aspect of firearms, but I'm an expert in 
dealing with violent crime.
    Mr. Issa. OK. So, you know what a prosecutor knows. You 
have no expertise, specifically, in what the men and women of 
the ATF in various stages are experts on, is that correct?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Respectfully, ATF is a law enforcement 
agency. I have worked with ATF and law enforcement agencies 
including police, my whole career.
    Mr. Issa. OK. I'm trying not to get frustrated over not 
getting an answer of a ``yes'' or ``no.'' So, let's move on.
    During your earlier testimony, you just said that you look 
at behavior to decide about rulemaking. Is that correct? That's 
what I heard.
    Mr. Dettelbach. What we look at is we look at the entire--
    Mr. Issa. OK. I have very limited time, and I only ask for 
the--you can expand afterwards--but yes or no. You said you 
looked at behavior.
    Mr. Dettelbach. I don't recall the exact words. What we 
look at is the laws that Congress passes and the public safety 
threats facing America.
    Mr. Issa. OK. So, as you look at behavior, which the record 
will show you were saying, does the Second Amendment, the 
Constitution--forgetting about statute because you can forget 
about statute. The Constitution trumps statutes. The 
Constitution has a right to keep and bear arms. Does behavior 
change the interpretation of the Second Amendment, in your 
opinion as an attorney?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I think the Supreme Court has ruled, and 
more than once--that the right to keep and bear arms is an 
individual right possessed by Americans.
    Mr. Issa. OK. So, we have a right to keep and bear arms. 
You spent a lot of time talking about various things. Today, 
we're talking about the brace at some length, I suspect. Does 
the brace increase the accuracy of a pistol, in your opinion, 
to the extent that you know?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Congress said--
    Mr. Issa. No, no, don't answer the--
    Mr. Dettelbach. --short-barreled rifles were--
    Mr. Issa. No, excuse me. I have limited time and I insist 
on your answering the questions I ask, or don't waste any of 
our time.
    To the extent that you know enough to have proposed a rule 
that bans or registers braces, does a brace increase the 
accuracy of a pistol?
    Mr. Dettelbach. My understanding is that Congress 
determined that the ability to shoulder short-barreled rifles 
made them, quote, ``unusually dangerous.''
    Mr. Issa. OK. You're not--OK, unusually dangerous because 
it increases the accuracy?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Unusually dangerous because Congress said 
it was unusually dangerous.
    Mr. Issa. OK. So, let's understand something. I appreciate 
you telling me what our body does. You have two types of 
weapons, a pistol and a rifle. A rifle is more accurate than a 
pistol because it is better braced, correct?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Shouldered--I believe that Congress 
determined that, when weapons could be shouldered and, also, 
concealed, that they were unusually dangerous.
    Mr. Issa. OK. So, you're not answering any of the 
questions, but I'll put one more statement out there. Rifles 
are--I'm an EOD tech by training. I know more about explosives 
than I do about firearms. So, we're just going to go through 
this.
    Having been a sharpshooter in the military, having been 
qualified, I know that my 45 is not as accurate when fired as a 
rifle. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the 
accuracy of a weapon somehow changes the category for purposes 
of the Second Amendment. By you saying that a brace is, in 
fact, going to limit the ability of somebody to have it, what 
you are clearly doing is making decisions based on your 
interpretation of behavior and risk, and not based on the 
Constitution.
    So, we look forward to additional dialog with you. I would 
appreciate in the future that you really do consider whether or 
not a ``yes'' or ``no'' should be answered first, before you go 
on with what Congress has passed.
    With that, I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlelady from Texas is recognized.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much.
    Welcome and thank you very much for your leadership, and 
congratulations for your appointment.
    Let me, also, congratulate and thank the men and women of 
the ATF who every day are standing on the front lines trying to 
ensure that the American people are safe.
    Mr. Director, it is interesting, this query of what your 
expertise is--the expertises among the thousands of men and 
women who this group of friends on the other side of the aisle 
wish to abolish. So, the folk that they are citing of experts, 
they want to just throw them out. Let me be very clear: My 
friends on the other side of the aisle want to abolish the ATF. 
All the persons that they have cited sending letters, knowing 
the rules, being experts, all of them, they want to abolish.
    Let me just hold up, just to pay tribute and acknowledge 
that these are the deceased--their families are still 
mourning--of the incident in Buffalo at the grocery store. It 
was an assault weapon that killed them.
    My question to you is just simply a ``yes'' or ``no.'' Do 
you know what an assault weapon is? You've seen one?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, that would be a decision for 
Congress to make, respectfully, as to make that definition. It 
is there are numerous different legislative bodies that have 
taken up that question. They have all--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. If we laid a weapon on the table, you 
could pretty much say that falls in the category of an assault 
weapon?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Respectfully, that is a decision that 
different legislative bodies have come up with different 
definitions for. It would be for the legislators to make that 
determination as to how they would definite it, unless they 
were to delegate that authority to ATF.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me move on. I know that I had the 
privilege of being at the testing site in Houston and thank you 
for coming to Houston. This is a picture of the actual 
equipment that tests gun tracing. Could you just quickly say 
what that does and how that impacts reducing crime? Very 
quickly, my time is short.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Crime gun intelligence, including firearms 
tracing, happens when a local law enforcement agency has a 
crime that they're investigating, and they want to trace the 
firearm that was used to hurt or kill somebody to its first 
retail purchase. It helps them to identify the trigger pullers 
and it helps them to take them off the streets.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. In recent years, AR-style pistols equipped 
with stabilizing braces have been used in several mass 
shootings, is that correct?
    Mr. Dettelbach. That is public record. That is correct.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The shooter who killed nine people and 
injured 17 in Dayton used an AR-15 with a stabilizing brace, is 
that correct?
    Mr. Dettelbach. My understanding is that is correct.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The shooter who killed 10 people, 
including a police officer [audio malfunction] the pistol 
equipped with a tactical brace, is that correct?
    Mr. Dettelbach. My understanding is that is correct.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The shooter who killed five people and 
injured 19 others at Club Q in Colorado Springs in 2022 used a 
pistol equipped with an SB tactical stabilizing, is that 
correct?
    Mr. Dettelbach. From the public pictures in that case, my 
understanding is that is correct.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Just four weeks ago, the shooter who 
killed three children and three adults in Nashville used a 
pistol equipped with a stabilizing brace, correct?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, from the public pictures in that 
case, that is correct.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The first stabilizing brace that Alex 
Bosco submitted to ATF for classification in 2012, the one he 
claims he originally designed to help his disabled veteran 
friend shoot a large pistol from the forearm with more control, 
did that brace ever make it to market unmodified?
    Mr. Dettelbach. My understanding is that this particular 
product was not ever produced and marketed. I think I read in 
Mr. Bosco's testimony that he said some people were using the 
braces in ways--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Bosco said that he wanted to make sure 
that he did not have any equipment that would help kill a 
police officer or kill innocent persons. He did answer that 
question to me.
    Does the final ban, the final rule ban firearms that are 
equipped with a stabilizing brace?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Absolutely not. The rule doesn't ban 
anything. It imposes the Congressionally articulated controls 
on certain weapons.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me go on. Thank you.
    Much has been said about ATF's recent rule regarding 
stabilizing braces, but I would like to discuss auto sears or 
switches that turn off. Basically, that rule, can you make it 
quick, because I have seconds and I want to get to another 
question.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Right now, our police officers in 
communities are facing machine gun fire from automatic 
conversion devices that turn lawful semiautomatic weapons into 
unlawful machine guns. It's a very dangerous situation.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. My next question is, what are you hearing 
from State and local law enforcement officers about the ATF?
    Mr. Dettelbach. All the police chiefs and sheriffs I talk 
to want to have increased resources and partnerships with ATF 
to catch violent criminals.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Veterans have other options--
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The braces that the veterans have--
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady--the gentlelady yields back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. --you're not blocking veterans from being 
able--
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman from--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. --disabled persons from being able to have 
the right kind of braces.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chair, that information should be on 
the record, that these braces do not stop--
    Chair Jordan. It's on the record. It's on the record; you 
said it. You said it.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. --do not stop veterans from getting the 
right equipment that they need.
    Mr. Biggs. Point of order, Mr. Chair.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. That should not be a misrepresentation in 
this hearing.
    Chair Jordan. OK, but also--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your courtesy.
    Chair Jordan. Also, what happens in the hearing is you get 
five minutes and I've been generous and giving you a few--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. You have and thank you.
    Chair Jordan. Now, the time is--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I wanted to make sure we got the record 
straight. Thank you.
    Chair Jordan. The time now belongs to Mr. Buck from 
Colorado.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I yield back, Mr. Chair. Thank you for 
your courtesy.
    Mr. Biggs. My point of order--
    Chair Jordan. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you over the 
gentlelady from Texas.
    Mr. Biggs. I'm sorry. Yes, my point of order is that's a 
routine feature. That's not a glitch that she accidentally went 
over--routinely. So, the point of order is this: How can we 
make sure everybody adheres to the five-minute rule, Mr. Chair?
    Chair Jordan. Usually, the custom of the Committee, and I 
think the custom of the previous Chair, is, if you ask a 
question within your five minutes, we will give the witness 
time to respond. I've been doing that. Ms. Jackson Lee was very 
close on whether she got the question at the end of her five 
minutes.
    We now recognize the gentleman from Colorado for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Buck. I thank the Chair.
    I want to just mention one thing to the gentlelady from 
Texas. I am not in favor of abolishing the ATF. I want to thank 
the ATF for increasing the number of 922(g)(1), felon in 
possession, cases in the last few years. I think it is 
absolutely essential that ATF stay focused on its mission, and 
that is to help local police and make this country safer by 
actually taking guns away from dangerous, violent felons. That 
may be where we end our commonality, but it starts in a good 
place.
    I think ATF--I have worked with ATF for 25 years as a 
prosecutor. I have a great deal of respect for the men and 
women who work on the streets in our country, making this 
country safer.
    If we stayed focused on violent criminals, we could reduce 
the crime, especially in urban America, where it is so 
dangerous. So, thank you for that aspect of your job.
    I want to just ask the Director; do you know why the 
Capitol building is on the Hill? It is because we overlook the 
Executive Branch. Do you know why Article I of the Constitution 
talks about the legislative functions? It is because our 
Founders thought that the legislative branch was preeminent and 
was supposed to stop the tyranny of the Executive--the reason 
that our Founders fought the Revolution, to get away from a 
king.
    Do you know why June 15, 1215 is an important date?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I'm sorry, I didn't hear the--
    Mr. Buck. On June 15, 1215. That is when the Magna Carta 
was signed.
    Mr. Dettelbach. I was going to guess that, but I didn't 
want to get it wrong.
    Mr. Buck. OK. No, it is a good guess. Actually, it was 
signed in Windsor, and I'm from Windsor, Colorado. I don't see 
any area of Windsor, Colorado where it could have been signed, 
but--
    [Laughter.]
    It was signed and it was really the beginning of holding 
the Executive--in this case, the monarchy--responsible for its 
acts.
    What I see from ATF too often--and I have already told you, 
I think it has an important and valuable role, but what I see 
too often is ATF taking a Legislative function and running with 
it. That's what scares me about ATF and where this 
administration--and I don't think there is any doubt that this 
administration is more progun-control than the past 
administration, or that the Democrats are more progun-control 
than Republicans.
    When you take a legislative function and you, by rule, go 
forward and usurp our authority--now, we aren't going to get it 
right every time and we're not going to do things very quickly. 
Our Founders set this whole system up so that we wouldn't do 
things very quickly; that we would do things in a measured way.
    The fact that, when we pass a law, we have a consensus in 
this country, and when you pass a rule, you don't. That's the 
difference. If we don't get the American people onboard with 
where we want to go in terms of violence in this country, we 
suffer.
    I'll give you two examples that concern me. One is the 
suppressor, the ability to make sure that individuals can 
purchase suppressors and use the same e-filing system that has 
been set up, has been slow-walked by your agency--not you, but 
slow-walked by your agency--for more than a decade now. It's 
the bureaucrats in your agency that have a concern about 
suppressors.
    I can tell you story after story of constituents who have a 
son or daughter who has a hearing disability, and those 
suppressors are so valuable to those kids to be able to enjoy 
shooting sports. Over and over, I hear about the value of 
suppressors and how just frustrating it is that the same old 
paperwork has to be filled in and the time is wasted in getting 
a suppressor.
    Then, of course, the pistol brace rules that your agency 
has enacted concern me. I'm going to give you the remainder of 
my time to respond to that. I think that you have to 
acknowledge that the legislative branch has a function, and the 
Executive function--in fact, I guess I'm not going to give you 
much time. Montesquieu--I'll give you time to respond.
    Mr. Dettelbach. We are in agreement about the roles of 
those two branches. The Legislature, Congress, writes the laws, 
and we have to act within the language of the laws that 
Congress writes. There is, of course, a third branch that is 
responsible, when cases are brought, about saying whether we 
got it right or whether we did something that we weren't 
supposed to do, and what the laws of Congress, what they mean. 
That is, of course, the Judiciary.
    In our cases--
    Mr. Buck. I thank the Director for his response, and I 
yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Dettelbach. The first case on the stabilizing brace 
that has been opined on--
    Mr. Buck. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Dettelbach. --is a court that has said that we acted 
within the statute in enacting that rule.
    Chair Jordan. Yes, the Sixth Circuit just said the opposite 
about the bump stock yesterday. So, I think the court cases are 
mixed.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from--Mr. Cohen from 
Tennessee. Excuse me.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Massie and I have had discussions in the past about 
good guys with guns, good people with guns, but good guys are 
what they kind of say. He says, ``Good guys with guns often are 
there and they protect people.''
    Ms. Jackson Lee asked you about a bunch of stabilizing, 
stabilizers that were used in mass shootings. So, there is a 
history of stabilizing guns or rifles, whatever, being used in 
mass shootings. Is that true?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Short--I think the questions were, I took 
them to be about short-barreled rifles and equipped with 
stabilizing braces.
    Mr. Cohen. OK. Have you ever heard of a person with a 
short, stabilized rifle, whatever, coming and using it to 
defend somebody, a good guy with a gun?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I don't know, but these are lawful weapons, 
and I assume that people who follow the rules use them for all 
the lawful purposes that they can be used for.
    Mr. Cohen. Do you have to put your gun together to 
stabilize it or do you kind of take it around just like a--
    Mr. Dettelbach. When people--basically, the rule deals with 
this situation, which is there are short-barreled rifles that 
are sold in one piece. Then, what happened in the market was 
people designed stabilizing braces that could be attached to 
large-frame pistols, so that, basically, you were making the 
exact same weapon in two pieces.
    Mr. Cohen. Right.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Those weapons are not banned. They have 
never been banned. Congress just determined there was increased 
controls that had to be imposed on those.
    Mr. Cohen. To the best of your knowledge, nobody has ever 
used one of those to defend somebody?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I wouldn't know. We don't--
    Mr. Cohen. Mostly, they are used by people who go out with 
the intent to kill people?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Well, we don't seek to investigate and 
monitor the conduct of law-abiding citizens who are using 
firearms for lawful purposes. That's not what we do at ATF.
    Mr. Cohen. President Trump asked ATF to work with the bump 
stocks, right?
    Mr. Dettelbach. That happened in the last administration, 
that is correct, after the Las Vegas massacre.
    Mr. Cohen. Mr. Jordan made a point about some issues that 
he said was not passed by the House and the Senate and signed 
by the President. That wasn't passed by the House and the 
Senate and signed by the President, was it? It was just Mr. 
Trump asked that it be done?
    Mr. Dettelbach. My understanding is that those rules were 
issued, and our legal papers, there's hundreds of pages with 
our position on this that are public. It was passed under the 
same rulemaking authority that Congress gave under the National 
Firearms Act.
    Mr. Cohen. Do you have any knowledge of whether or not 
there were Members of Congress who wrote to the ATF after Mr. 
Trump did this and said, ``This is a usurpation of our power 
and we're up on this Hill and overlooking the executive.''?
    Mr. Dettelbach. There is litigation with a massive 
administrative record. There are letters from interested groups 
and Members of Congress. I don't know, but that would be the 
place to look to see about that.
    Mr. Cohen. Memphis has a crime problem and a gun problem, 
and I have met with your representatives in Nashville and 
Memphis both, the Nashville Field Division, and we appreciate 
what they're doing, and the police department appreciates what 
they're doing, too. They help them in quite a few cases.
    Most crimes in Memphis are committed with handguns. 
Recently, I've heard about Glock switches that have been 
confiscated in Memphis at the port and recovered by Memphis 
police. Can you tell us what a Glock switch is and why they are 
so dangerous, and what the ATF is doing about them.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Glock switches are small devices. They 
actually can look innocuous and sometimes blend with the 
firearm, but they convert a semiautomatic pistol into an 
unlawful, fully automatic machine gun. They override some of 
the functions to do that.
    I have met with chiefs around the country. I think one 
chief, I remember him saying to me very vividly, when I asked 
what the problems are, he says, ``It's raining Glock 
switches.''
    So, if you're executing a search warrant as a police 
officer, and you're knocking, ``Police--with a warrant,'' in 
that time it took me to do that, now the person on the other 
side of the door might be able to fire 40 rounds through the 
door. It's an extremely dangerous situation for the American 
public and for law enforcement.
    Mr. Cohen. How are Glock switches regulated?
    Mr. Dettelbach. They're unlawful. So, machine gun 
conversion devices, under the National Firearms Act, are 
unlawful. They are hard to detect. They're flooding into our 
community. People are printing them on 3D printers. It is a 
significant public safety threat, and we are working as hard as 
we can with what we have with our local partners to try and get 
ahead of that, but it's hard.
    Mr. Cohen. So, that's part of what you get, is an increase? 
What you do is you have to look after Glock switches, too?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Of course. When people--
    Mr. Cohen. Let me ask you this. We only have a few seconds 
left. Red flag laws have been discussed. In the last bill, the, 
quote, ``bipartisan gun bill,'' unquote, we had some incentives 
for red flag laws. Does the administration--would the 
administration support a Federal red flag law?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, the President has been clear on the 
various things that he has called on Congress to do. As ATF 
Director, my job is to take what comes out of that debate and 
squeeze every last bit of public safety out of it.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you for your service and to the gentleman 
and the ladies that work with you, and God bless them.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Johnson, is recognized.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is a law that 
provides important immunity to manufacturers and sellers of 
firearms from being liable when people misuse their products. 
There have been numerous instances, whether intentional or 
unintentional, of Biden Administration officials and antigun 
advocates, and even the President himself, mischaracterizing 
that immunity provision that is contained in the statute. I 
think the public would benefit from our setting the record 
straight on the issue.
    So, Mr. Dettelbach, as the Director of ATF, do you agree 
with President Biden that this law's broad immunity means 
blanket immunity, and that gun manufacturers are the only 
industry in America exempted from being sued by the public?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, I think the President has given 
numerous different times he's talked about this provision. 
Again, as ATF Director, what comes--what Congress passes is 
what we deal with, and we don't do civil litigation in that 
sense--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. OK. So, you--
    Mr. Dettelbach. That's not under our--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Then, if that's true, and you're 
going to do what Congress says, then, obviously, you don't 
agree with the President. I'm not going to put words in your 
mouth, but that's what that means.
    Mr. Dettelbach. I think the President has called on 
Congress to act, and what I'm saying is, as ATF Director--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Just answer this question.
    Mr. Dettelbach. --I take what comes out--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. As you interpret the statute--I 
assume you're familiar with the statute?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I'm familiar with the statute, but ATF 
doesn't do civil litigation liability in that sense.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I know. I know that.
    Mr. Dettelbach. It's not--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Yes, sir, I know, but you're the 
Director of ATF. You're familiar, for example, that vaccine 
manufacturers have some liability exemption for their COVID 
vaccines, right?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I actually am not familiar with vaccine 
law.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Well, OK, most Americans are. Big 
tech companies are exempt from liability due to Section 230. Do 
you have any familiarity with that?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I've, obviously, as somebody who reads the 
news, I know about that, but I am not--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The point the President has 
grossly overstated what this statute does. Since you're not 
familiar with this statute, apparently, let me tell you that 
some of the exemptions, the limited exemptions, are negligence; 
knowingly selling to somebody who's not allowed to have a 
firearm; knowingly making false records, that kind of thing. It 
is not a blanket immunity, and we need you to be clear about 
that because the President, intentionally or unintentionally, 
is misleading the public on it.
    Let me move to something else. The stabilizing brace rule, 
as finalized this year, is about set to go into effect on the 
1st of June. There's been some discussion about it this 
morning, but I think most of the American people are not yet 
aware, because mainstream media is not covering this issue.
    Here's the facts: Due to ATF's unilateral and 
unconstitutional action--OK? If you own a stabilizing brace, 
you're required to register it with ATF, turn it in, or destroy 
it, by May 31st, or you're going to face criminal penalties.
    Mr. Dettelbach, as an attorney, I'm assuming you know what 
a reliance interest is, right? Are you familiar with the term?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I'm not sure I'm in agreement with your 
characterization of the rule and--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Do you know the term ``reliance 
interest''? I'm not playing games here.
    Mr. Dettelbach. I'm not trying to, either. I'm trying to be 
respectful. I'm in disagreement with your summary of what the 
rule--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I haven't summarized it yet. I'm 
asking you if you know the term.
    Mr. Dettelbach. About what you said--I'm sorry--about--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. What is a reliance interest? You 
were a Federal prosecutor. What's a reliance interest?
    Mr. Dettelbach. So, well, we don't use it in Federal 
prosecution, but from being a lawyer, reliance, generally, I 
think from my days in contracts, and as a civil litigator, 
refers to the idea that, in contract law, when somebody relies 
to their detriment on certain kinds of matters, that they have 
some legal claims that they might not otherwise have.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Excellent. It's not just confined 
to contract law, but as a lawyer, and knowing that definition, 
knowing the concept, does it concern you that for years law-
abiding Americans were relied on the ATF's guidance in 
purchasing stabilizing braces? Now, due to a regulation--not a 
law passed by Congress, but a regulation--millions of them are 
going, suddenly, become felons?
    Mr. Dettelbach. First, the law doesn't either ban anything, 
nor does the rule apply to all stabilizing braces. The rule, 
under the National Firearms Act, helps define and clarify what 
the characteristics of a firearm that may be used for a short-
barreled rifle.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. OK. With your clarification--
    Mr. Dettelbach. That's a consistency--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. --is it true or not that millions 
of Americans will be defined as felons after May 31st if they 
don't follow this new regulation? True or not?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I assume that people are going to either 
detach the weapons, follow the things that the government--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. If they don't follow the 
regulation, they'll be a felon, right? You're a former Federal 
prosecutor.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Yes, and I will tell you that Federal 
prosecutions do not happen with respect to law-abiding people 
who can't have a criminal intent established--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. OK. OK.
    Mr. Dettelbach. --that is not a priority--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. OK. Here's the problem we have. 
Here's the problem we have. OK? You ran for Ohio Attorney 
General in 2018. Your platform included gun control. We know 
where you stand, right?
    As recently as 10 minutes ago with Ms. Jackson Lee, you 
couldn't answer or define what a so-called assault weapon is. 
You continue to not being able to do that or refused to do it. 
It's clear that you came to ATF with an agenda, I believe, to 
infringe upon good, law-abiding Americans' rights, and you're 
going to turn them into criminals with this regulation. You 
seem to have no remorse about it.
    I'm out of time, and I yield back.
    Mr. Dettelbach. With respect to the hearing--
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I didn't ask you a question.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman 
yields back.
    The other Mr. Johnson, from Georgia, is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I want to thank the folks from Moms Demand Action for 
showing up today in their red t-shirts with Moms Demand Action 
on them. They are not just sprinkled, but they are dominating 
the audience out here. So, your presence is notable. Thank you 
all for coming.
    Director Dettelbach, you are the first permanent director 
of the ATF since 2015, almost eight years ago. Isn't that 
correct?
    Mr. Dettelbach. The first Presidentially appointed, Senate 
confirmed director, yes.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. You didn't get a single Republican 
vote during your confirmation process, did you?
    Mr. Dettelbach. That is actually not correct.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, you might have gotten one.
    Mr. Dettelbach. I think I received two votes for my 
confirmation from Senators.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Two votes. Just a mere two votes.
    Yes. Tell me this, sir. You have heard of the MAGA 
Republican calls to defund the ATF, have you not?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I have obviously heard of calls to defund 
law enforcement and defund ATF. I have not--
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Let me ask you this, sir. Let you 
ask you this. The major functions of the ATF are to reduce the 
risk to public safety caused by illegal firearms trafficking, 
correct?
    Mr. Dettelbach. It is to get shooters off the street and 
cutoff the unlawful firearms that enable them to kill people.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Also, a function of the ATF, a 
major function, is to reduce the risk to public safety caused 
by criminal possession and use of firearms, correct?
    Mr. Dettelbach. That is also one of the things we work on, 
yes.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. You improve public safety by 
increasing compliance with Federal laws and regulations by 
firearms industry members, correct?
    Mr. Dettelbach. That is what Congress has tasked us with 
doing.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Sir, you are aware of the fact that 
gun violence is on the increase in this country, correct?
    Mr. Dettelbach. The gun violence problem is very 
significant all over this country.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. What would be the impact of the 
MAGA Republican plan to defund the ATF?
    Mr. Dettelbach. It would have a negative impact on public 
safety.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. It would make us less safe, 
wouldn't it?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I believe that is correct. It would make it 
harder for State and local law enforcement to work together 
with us on violent crime. We wouldn't be there to help them.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Because it is a holistic system 
with the Federal, State, and local governments acting in 
concert to keep us all safe. Isn't that correct?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Since I started this business in 1991, that 
is the single most positive development in law enforcement, is 
those collaborations that exist now, regardless of 
administration, between Federal, State, and local law 
enforcement every day.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Would it be fair to say, sir, that 
the MAGA Republican plan to defund and abolish the ATF would 
lead to increased gun violence?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Defunding the ATF would make it easier for 
people to get away with killing people, hurting people with 
guns. It would make it easier for them to unlawfully obtain 
firearms to do that.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Tell me this, sir. Republicans have 
blocked the confirmation of the ATF Director since 2015. What 
impact has that had on gun violence in this country?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Respectfully, I am director of a law 
enforcement agency. It is very hard for me to estimate sort of 
the idea of what political differences have.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. It has had a negative impact, 
hasn't it, the fact that the ATF has gone without a director 
since 2015?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I believe that in the name of good 
government that regardless of which party is in the White House 
that we should have confirmed directors of ATF. That is my 
belief.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. So, sir, the ATF plays a critical 
role in protecting communities from gun violence and ensuring 
the safe dealing of and access to firearms by law-abiding 
Americans. Isn't that correct?
    Mr. Dettelbach. We protect public safety. We must respect 
the Constitution, of course.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Now, why would it be that 
Republicans would seek to abolish the ATF? Could it be because 
they want guns to continue to be unregulated in American 
society, they want to see the Wild Wild West continue, but this 
time not with six shooters, but with weapons of mass 
destruction in the hands of unfit individuals in our country?
    Mr. Dettelbach. At ATF, what we work on, of course, is 
public safety. I don't know the motivation of others. That is 
why I came to this job, is to work with people to try to 
address problems. I start from the point of view that everybody 
can agree, no matter what their views are, that we can do more 
to protect people from violent crime. People may have 
passionate differences on how to do that. That is for Congress 
to decide. I do start from the notion that people want to make 
our country safer.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, I thank you for your service, 
sir.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Florida is recognized.
    Mr. Gaetz. How many guns has the ATF lost?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I am not sure I understand the question.
    Mr. Gaetz. Is it a difficult question to understand?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Well, I don't know if you are referring to 
any particular incident or--
    Mr. Gaetz. How many instances should we be looking at where 
you have lost guns?
    Mr. Dettelbach. So, if what you are referring to is what 
happened at the National Destruction Branch, no guns were lost. 
They were stolen by an individual who is now in prison who was 
not an ATF employee.
    Mr. Gaetz. Right, but there were recommendations made on 
what you should do so that you don't become the victim of the 
theft and the Inspector General saying you are not following 
them. I am quoting directly from the Inspector General's 
report, ``Thousands of firearms, firearms, parts, and 
ammunition, have been stolen from the ATF.''
    So, you gave testimony that the brave ATF agents are the 
ones showing up at 2:00 in the morning after a burglary. It 
seems as though in this case you were the one burglarized. Why 
have you not followed the recommendations of the Office of 
Inspector General so that you aren't the mark?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, it is, I want to say that it is 
brave women of, men and women of ATF who do this. That is not 
the reality every day.
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, I know what they are doing. I know what 
they are doing. You are getting robbed on one hand. So, you 
can't keep a hold of the guns you are supposed to have. Then 
you do keep a hold of a bunch of stuff you are not supposed to 
have a hold of. The GAO report, firearms data, ATF did not 
always comply with the Appropriations Act restriction and 
should better adhere to its policies.
    As a result of breaking the law, didn't you guys have to go 
and delete like a quarter of a million records that you 
illegally kept?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, with respect to both the Inspector 
General reports that you are talking about--
    Mr. Gaetz. Nope, one is the Inspector General. One is GAO, 
a very--
    Mr. Dettelbach. Well, the--
    Mr. Gaetz. Yep.
    Mr. Dettelbach. The Inspector General report, ATF, that 
happened several years ago, more than that.
    Mr. Gaetz. The year 2022 is the date of the report.
    Mr. Dettelbach. ATF has the report came out, but the theft.
    Mr. Gaetz. Yes.
    Mr. Dettelbach. ATF has implemented numerous different 
safety measures with respect to the National Destruction 
Branch--
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, I am reading to you from the report from 
last year, Mr. Director. We found that the NDB staff does not 
currently, in 2022, adhere to established operating procedures 
in place to mitigate risk of firearms being lost and stolen.
    So, I guess that shows an ATF that is not functioning 
correctly and is not responding to the problems you create. You 
keep records you are not supposed to. It was a quarter million 
of them you had to delete, right?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I don't believe that is correct.
    Mr. Gaetz. Was it over 200,000 that you had to delete?
    Mr. Dettelbach. So, what was happening was--
    Mr. Gaetz. I just want to know the number of records you 
had to delete that were not being lawfully maintained.
    Mr. Dettelbach. There were records that were, had not 
actually been searched. My understanding is they were 
searchable.
    Mr. Gaetz. Hundreds of thousands of them. So, that is what 
you guys do. You keep what you shouldn't keep. You lose what 
you are not supposed to lose. How do you treat regular 
Americans? I got this letter from someone in my district, a 
firearms dealer.
    I have been a firearms dealer for 46 years. For 46 years I 
have had a good relationship with law enforcement, then came 
the ATF's zero tolerance policy. Two years ago, while in the 
process of selling a firearm to a customer, I completed their 
background check using Florida's FDLE firearm purchasing 
program. The background check was uneventful. FDLE rendered an 
approval number. Some months later during an ATF audit, I was 
told the background check was now a nonapproval. Even though 
FDLE made the error, it was on my paperwork, so ATF deemed it a 
willful error. After completing close to 50,000 background 
checks over 46 years, why would I willfully ignore this 
background check? The answer is simple. I did not. The ATF has 
revoked my license, ended my career and my livelihood.
    So, I guess the question is, why should you be able to 
destroy the life of one of my constituents over a technicality 
where they weren't even at fault when you all lose thousands of 
guns and illegally keep hundreds of thousands of records?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Respectfully, Congress has given us the 
authority to inspect and make sure that firearms dealers, the 
vast majority by the which are compliant, they are our first 
line of defense in dealing with straw purchases--
    Mr. Gaetz. This guy isn't your first line of defense 
anymore. He is fired.
    Mr. Dettelbach. A very small minority of those dealers, 
after due process, have--
    Mr. Gaetz. A small minority? A small minority? ATF, 
enforcer of gun laws, lost thousands of firearm parts to 
thieves. New data shows ATF gun store restrictions at the 
highest rate in 16 years.
    Mr. Director, the definition of hypocrisy is when you can't 
live up to your own standard. So, you have imposed a zero-
tolerance policy that is resulting in the highest rate of 
revocations in 16 years. You wouldn't be able to meet your own 
zero-tolerance policy because you lose stuff you are supposed 
to keep and then you keep stuff that it is illegal to keep.
    By the way, I am one of those MAGA Republicans that would 
defund your salary, your agency. I think all these good things 
that you say exist could happen with those folks at the local 
and State level. This is a terrible abuse of power.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from California is recognized.
    Mr. Schiff. Thank you. Well, we can see now what the GOP 
has become. It has become the anti-ATF, anti-FBI, anti-law 
enforcement, pro-insurrection party.
    Mr. Director, I appreciate your being here. You have one of 
the toughest jobs in America. My colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle treat you like you are some kind of a mass shooter 
instead of someone trying to protect us from the epidemic of 
gun violence.
    I want to recognize all the volunteers from Moms Demand 
Action and thank you for being here. Thank you for your 
advocacy around the Nation. I appreciate how much you are 
devoted to trying to end this scourge of gun violence.
    I thought, I think like many Americans, that after the 
tragedy of Sandy Hook it would finally be enough, watching 
those beautiful children massacred would be finally enough to 
prompt this Congress to do something, to stop this insanity. It 
didn't.
    Tragically so many members in Congress learned a very 
different lesson, that they could just wait it out. They could 
wait out tragedy after tragedy after tragedy. They would have 
to do nothing. Indeed, on the other side of the aisle it has 
just gotten worse. It has just gotten worse.
    Whenever you see a disparity between what the American 
people want and what they get there is usually a powerful 
special interest at work. Here the American people desperately 
want an end to this epidemic. They want common sense gun safety 
legislation. They want a ban on assault weapons. They want 
truly universal background checks. It is insane that you can be 
denied the purchase of a weapon because you are a felon and 
then go out in the parking lot and buy the same gun. That is 
insane. Of course, we see the result when we see our children 
mowed down week after week after week.
    It is not like there aren't answers to this. It is not like 
there aren't things that work. There are things that work, like 
a ban on assault weapons and a ban on high-capacity clips. Yes, 
it won't stop every shooting. It won't stop every mass 
shooting. It will stop a lot of them. It makes the ones that 
happen far less lethal.
    The GOP has become the party of wanting guns with more 
lethality, people killing more people, people killing more kids 
and more cops. I am sure they don't actually want cops and kids 
to die. It's the effect of their actions. It is the effect of 
their inaction that people are dying.
    Not even the NRA members want this. So, why do they? Who 
benefits from this? Who benefits from this absurd, grotesque 
spectacle of mass shootings week after week and the daily 
trauma of people getting gunned down? Who benefits? Certainly 
not the American people. Well, the gun makers benefit. It is 
all about the money. Apparently, it is all about the money. 
Nothing else matters.
    I have been carrying a bill now for six or eight years to 
repeal the immunity that the gun industry has, because if it is 
all about the money, then the only thing that will stop the 
violence is to take away the money, take away the profit in 
murder.
    So, I am grateful to Moms Demand Action. I am grateful for 
what you are doing out there. You are making a difference. If 
not in this building, you are making a difference in State 
capitols. I think you are going to make a difference in this 
building. We will get to a tipping point where we will show 
that we can beat the NRA. We can pass common sense reforms. We 
can protect the public.
    There has been a lot of progress I think on the Democratic 
side of the aisle of Members running toward this issue, not 
away from it. On the other side of the aisle, after that 
terrible shooting in Buffalo, for example, a year or two ago 
when one of the Republican Members said they could no longer in 
good conscience oppose an assault weapons ban, it was a few 
days later they were forced to announce that they would not run 
again because they were told basically that they would be 
drummed out of the party. That has got to change.
    We are just going to see more Americans die from the lack 
of courage in this building. I am just so fed up with getting 
up every day and seeing another city devastated, another town, 
another school known not for the beauty of its people but for 
the deadliness of another tragedy. We have got to do better 
than this.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes himself for five minutes.
    Mr. Dettelbach, are you troubled by the rule? You told them 
one thing 10 years ago, and now you are directly contradicting 
that.
    Mr. Dettelbach. The stabilizing brace short-barreled rifle 
rule I assume is the rule you are referring to--
    Chair Jordan. Well, I am referring to the letter that was 
sent back on November 26, 2012, that Mr. Nehls referenced in 
his first line of questioning where you told--
    Mr. Dettelbach. Sure.
    Chair Jordan. --the FTB finds that the submitted brace when 
attached to a firearm does not convert the weapon and would not 
alter its classification. Now, you are doing just the opposite.
    Mr. Dettelbach. We have been public and, in the rulemaking, 
itself have detailed that history. There were inconsistencies. 
However, there was also a situation, Mr. Chair, where people 
were marketing products that had never been presented to ATF 
saying that they were ATF--
    Chair Jordan. Was that the only time you told them, the 
only time you told the American people that it was OK?
    Mr. Dettelbach. No. We look at specific products that are--
    Chair Jordan. Well, let me read this letter. March 5, 2014, 
because this doesn't so much focus on the brace, it focuses on 
how the weapon is used, that we have determined that firing a 
pistol from the shoulder would not cause the pistol to be 
reclassified as a short-barreled rifle. We do not classify 
weapons based on how individuals use the weapon.
    So, you told them not once but twice that it was OK. I am 
just asking, does it bother you now that you are doing, you are 
making the change that is going to impact millions of 
Americans?
    Mr. Dettelbach. The rule was necessary in part because it 
needed to address inconsistency so that people could understand 
the definition of a short-barreled--
    Chair Jordan. I just read two letters that were consistent. 
Both said it was fine.
    Mr. Dettelbach. There were other letters that were not--
    Chair Jordan. Have you ever found, has ATF ever found 
itself in this position, where a rule change directly 
contradicts what you have told American citizens was OK and 
that is going to impact millions, millions of law-abiding 
citizens? Have you ever found yourself in that situation?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Respectfully, I don't believe that is the, 
I agree with that summary--
    Chair Jordan. That millions of Americans--
    Mr. Dettelbach. --of where we--
    Chair Jordan. Millions of Americans aren't going to be 
impacted?
    Mr. Dettelbach. There were, no, there were specific 
products that get presented for classification. Those products 
then sometimes change. They are not the same ones that are 
marketed. There was inconsistency. The market is dynamic. It 
was necessary to do. With notice and comment rulemaking, I 
think is the better--
    Chair Jordan. I think that millions of Americans think the 
inconsistency is with the ATF, because you told them one thing 
and now you are changing it. What happens on May 31st?
    Mr. Dettelbach. According to the rule--
    Chair Jordan. No. What happens on May 31st?
    Mr. Dettelbach. According to the rule, people have from the 
date the rule was published until that date to do one of 
several things. They can either detach the brace from the 
firearm and keep both. They can attach that brace to another--
    Chair Jordan. How about this? They got to remove or destroy 
the brace, get a longer barrel, turn in or destroy the firearm, 
or register the firearm. Is that right? They got to do one of 
those four things.
    Mr. Dettelbach. They have to apply to register. Whether or 
not the application is ruled on, they are allowed to keep the 
item during that entire time so that they are not held 
accountable for any waiting period.
    Chair Jordan. If they don't do that and the timeline runs 
out, what happens to those individual? If they don't do those 
four things and the timeline has expired, what happens then?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I assume that people who are aware--
    Chair Jordan. No, I'm not asking. What happens if they 
don't do those--
    Mr. Dettelbach. Well, I think that, Mr. Chair, as a 
prosecutor, I just want to be accurate. What happens--a former 
prosecutor. What happens is depending on the circumstance, if a 
person is unaware, right, they are not going to be prosecuted 
for things that they are unaware of.
    Chair Jordan. Let's cut to the chase. They could be a 
felon, right?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Well--
    Chair Jordan. They could be a felon.
    Mr. Dettelbach. It depends on the facts and circumstances 
of each case. Of course, we would prioritize enforcement on 
gang members who are having these--
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Chair Jordan. Enforcement. How are you going to enforce 
this? Are you going to go to gun ranges?
    Mr. Dettelbach. What we will do is--
    Chair Jordan. Are you going to go to manufacturers and look 
at the list of people they sold braces to?
    Mr. Dettelbach. What we will do is we will, when we do a 
search warrant in a drug case and we discover an unlawful item, 
whether it is a machine gun or a Glock switch or a short-
barreled rifle that doesn't comply, we will consider that as 
one of the charges. There is no plan--
    Chair Jordan. Does the Gun Control Act or the National 
Firearms Act clearly and unambiguously prohibit pistol braces?
    Mr. Dettelbach. It doesn't prohibit anything. It calls for 
increased controls on short-barreled rifles.
    Chair Jordan. Not the Gun Control. I am just reading from 
the court decision yesterday in the Sixth Circuit where the 
judge says--
    Mr. Dettelbach. Oh, I am sorry.
    Chair Jordan. --the statute does not clearly and 
unambiguously prohibit bump stocks. The court went on to say 
for a decade the ATF has maintained that a bump stock is not a 
machine gun part. The court said the ATF's own flip-flop on 
this position is one of the reasons why they ruled in favor of 
those opposing the rule you guys made.
    It seems to me we are in the same situation here. Yesterday 
the Sixth Circuit gave us a strong ruling on the bump stock 
issue. I would anticipate that we are going to get other strong 
rulings on this issue as well.
    With that, the Chair recognizes the gentlelady from 
Washington.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    It is interesting that my Republican colleagues are 
concerned about how we enforce things when most of the bills we 
have been voting on in this session are completely unworkable. 
Just last week Republicans held a 12-hour markup on a cruel 
immigration bill aimed at what they are calling the ``crisis at 
the border.''
    We haven't done anything in this Committee to actually 
meaningfully address the issues at hand. One major push factor 
is violence in this region, which is fueled by American 
firearms. The United States is the No. 1 source of semi-
automatic weapons in El Salvador. About half a million guns are 
trafficked to Mexico from the U.S. every year. Seventy--ninety 
percent of guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico are traced 
back to the United States. So, the crisis of gun violence in 
the United States and our lack of gun regulations is spreading 
to other countries. That is the real crisis at our borders.
    Director Dettelbach, thank you for being here. These gun 
trafficking numbers are alarming. The ATF plays a vital role in 
tracing and recovering guns that are used in crimes to fight 
the proliferation of gun violence and gun trafficking. From 
2017-2021, the ATF traced close to two million guns in crimes. 
Yet, some of my Republican colleagues actually want to 
eliminate the ATF. So, how does the ATF currently fight gun 
trafficking, especially trafficking to Mexico and other 
countries to the south of us?
    Mr. Dettelbach. In trying to effectualize our public safety 
mission, as a small agency with a big job, we try to bring 
tools to that. The two tools that we bring to the problems you 
are talking about are partnership with our State and local law 
enforcement and crime gun intelligence.
    What crime gun intelligence, whether that is our tracing 
ability for crime guns or whether it is the NIBIN system to 
connect crimes together where a common firearm is used, can do 
is it can enable us to try to identify where the crime guns are 
coming from, how they are moving from lawful commerce into the 
black market under unlawful commerce, and target our resources 
to do that.
    That is not limited to, but it certainly includes gun 
traffic that flows south over the border. We have at ATF a 
group of firearms trafficking strike forces, task forces, I am 
sorry, that are focused on the southwest border. Every day we 
are working to try to interdict the flow of firearms unlawfully 
from commerce to South, including to places like the cartels.
    Ms. Jayapal. So, eliminating the ATF would have enormous 
consequences for that work.
    The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act contained the Stop 
Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act, which made it an explicit 
Federal crime to act as a straw purchaser for firearms and 
establishes penalties for those transferring a firearm, they 
have reason to believe will be used in a crime. The ATF's work 
recently led to the first gun trafficking conviction under the 
new law this February. How would repeal of that law or 
defunding of the ATF, including the Anti-Firearms Trafficking 
Campaign, as proposed by Republicans, impact gun trafficking?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Congress passed the Bipartisan Safer 
Communities Act. As you say, they gave us not one but two new 
criminal statutes, a straw purchasing statute for the first 
time ever, a standalone, and a firearms-trafficking felony. We 
are working with State and local law enforcement every day to 
bring those cases. We have brought I think over 30, including 
the one that you referred to in Texas, 231 firearms being 
trafficked South of the border.
    Ms. Jayapal. Yep. These cases take time and effort and 
expertise to investigate. So, to implement those laws, to 
enforce them, ATF needs to have the resources to be able to do 
those investigations, to follow through, and to take people who 
are criminals supplying crime guns, not the law-abiding 
citizens, but supplying crime guns to criminals and take them 
out of that business.
    Thank you for that work.
    The second volume of National Firearms Commerce and 
Trafficking Assessment found that over one million guns were 
stolen from private residences from 2017-2021, and that these 
stolen guns make up a substantial portion of guns that are 
eventually trafficked and used in crimes.
    I have proposed the Safe Gun Storage Act, which requires 
strong standards for firearm storage devices to prevent 
unintended use and theft. Sadly, my colleagues across the aisle 
oppose even this sensible gun safety measure. Could safe gun 
storage or other common sense gun legislation stop the large 
flow of firearms across the United States' borders into other 
countries or at least substantially help with that issue?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I talk about the issue of safe storage 
often. The way I try to communicate, because I think this is 
something we can have consensus on, is that there is a right to 
bear arms in this country, but people should understand there 
is a responsibility to safely secure your firearm. It means a 
lot to you. It is an important right. So, why wouldn't you try 
to secure it?
    Firearms that are stolen from cars in parking lots at malls 
are not used to hunt or for self-protection. They end up at 
crime scenes in the next community or in your community to hurt 
people. I would just encourage everybody to do what your local 
Police Chief, Sheriff, ATF SAIC says, which is please think 
ahead and just act responsibly and secure your firearms. It is 
what everybody wants. Real people in our communities are 
getting hurt by just carelessness.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentlelady has expired. The 
gentlelady yields back.
    The gentleman from Arizona is recognized.
    Mr. Biggs. Director Dettelbach, I am so glad you finished 
up talking when you were talking about stolen weapons, when 
weapons get in the bad guy's hands, they are stolen from some 
group. We already had Mr. Gaetz talk about the weapons that 
were stolen from you. Let's just talk about it.
    I know you thought Fast and Furious was over with. It is 
not over. It is not over. There is a licensed FFL that I am 
aware of that sold a weapon during that Fast and Furious time. 
Who did he sell it to? To ATF. Guess what? It was recently 
traced to a crime. Guess who has got to respond to that? The 
FFL. It was ATF that ran Fast and Furious, 2,000 guns, 2,000 
guns. This one recently turned up in a crime. Now you are 
coming back to the FFL saying, well, hey, hey, who did you sell 
it to? Well, I sold it to an ATF agent. Where did it go? Well, 
you guys had guns stolen from you.
    So, I want to know this. How many other guns from Operation 
Fast and Furious remain unaccounted for?
    Mr. Dettelbach. So, Operation Fast and Furious has been the 
subject of numerous public reports.
    Mr. Biggs. Actually, that is, it is--
    Mr. Dettelbach. I do not have--
    Mr. Biggs. So, you don't know. Just say--
    Mr. Dettelbach. I don't have the specific answer. I can get 
back to you if there is--
    Mr. Biggs. You don't know, because there were over 2,000 
guns. Last report that was published was that you had recovered 
700 of them. Mexico reported 150 people killed or maimed with 
guns that ATF had for the Fast and Furious. That is what the 
radical left Democrats thought was a great program.
    So, don't elaborate and try to say, oh, hey, guess what, 
you know what, I can get you numbers. I would like those 
numbers, because I also want to know this. How many guns walked 
away altogether from ATF?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Since Fast and Furious--
    Mr. Biggs. During Fast and Furious.
    Mr. Dettelbach. --Fast and Furious, which was I think 15 
years ago, there were reports. I can check and get back to you 
with the public record. We have implemented numerous controls 
to try and make sure that we are respecting public safety.
    Mr. Biggs. What happened earlier today, it was just 
reported this year the IG said that you still haven't 
implemented enough reforms, guidelines to watch over to make 
sure. You were the victim of--how many guns were stolen from 
you guys?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Most of the items that were stolen from the 
National Destruction Branch, which is what I think you are 
referring to, were parts, were firearm components.
    Mr. Biggs. Yes.
    Mr. Dettelbach. There were a number of firearms that were 
also--
    Mr. Biggs. So, you are not going to tell us the number.
    Mr. Dettelbach. I don't know sitting here the exact number 
of--
    Mr. Biggs. How many guns from Fast and Furious were 
recovered at crime scenes?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, I don't--
    Mr. Biggs. How many FFLs are you inspecting today, because 
they sold to ATF during Fast and Furious? Do you know that?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I don't believe we are inspecting any FFLs 
today because of--
    Mr. Biggs. Well, sure you are. Sure, you are because I--
    Mr. Dettelbach. Please allow me to finish. Because of any 
conduct that relates in any way, shape, or form to Fast and 
Furious.
    Mr. Biggs. Well, sure you are, because I know, because an 
FFL contacted me and showed me the docs. You guys are 
inspecting and going after an FFL who sold to ATF.
    Mr. Dettelbach. I thought--I am sorry if I misunderstood. I 
thought your question was, are we inspecting people because of 
conduct in Fast and Furious. It would be 15 years since. It 
would be in the normal course of business to inspect a 
Federally licensed firearms dealers once a decade.
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Biggs. Sure. The problem that we have here, and this is 
just one of many FFLs that are undergoing rigorous problems 
from you guys. This is an FFL that sold to an ATF agent. The 
ATF lost track of that weapon. It gets used in a crime. Now, he 
is having to respond. Why isn't ATF having to respond, because 
it gets back to the hypocrisy of your zero-tolerance policy? 
You guys can't live up to your own requirements and guidelines. 
You are going to go after FFLs.
    How about this one? We had a case where a customer of an 
FFL, who is an American citizen of Armenian descent, visited by 
ATF agents seeking information about his legal firearm 
purchases. When asked why they wanted to know about his firearm 
purchases, agents told him that it was because he was born in 
Iran and had purchased multiple firearms from that FFL. Think 
about that.
    How about this one? A different FFL, they have video 
cameras everywhere. They have one room. The ATF inspector goes 
in, takes the documents with him, and on their personal phone 
starts taking pictures of all the documents, personal phone. Is 
that normal? Is that normal to use your personal phone?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, I am not familiar with the facts and 
circumstances of that--
    Mr. Biggs. Is that normal? Is that part of you guys--
    Mr. Dettelbach. --but we conduct our inspections pursuant 
to a procedure. It is a public procedure. We follow that 
procedure in conducting those--
    Mr. Biggs. Including personal phones of your inspectors.
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Swalwell. Director, our kids are dying. They are dying 
in their schools. They are dying in their communities. If they 
are not dying, they are drilling. Every day in America kids are 
going through traumatizing mass shooter drills. So, it is just 
maddening to me that this Committee, as our kids are dying, 
with the responsibility of protecting our kids, the greatest 
resource in our community, that they would bring you here and 
attack you, whose job is to protect our kids.
    I look at this as very binary. You can protect your home. 
You can take your kids hunting. You can shoot for sport. If you 
are not on the side of protecting our kids, you are on the side 
of helping their killers. That is it. You either can help the 
kids or help the killers.
    I also fear that this rhetoric from my colleagues is 
putting targets on the backs of law enforcement. Director 
Dettelbach, have you seen increased threats over the years to 
your agents and just Federal law enforcement in general?
    Mr. Dettelbach. It is my deepest honor to be here 
representing the brave men and women, the career people, who 
work at ATF every day. What I will say is that attacks on a 
political appointee, I understand unfortunately it has just 
become part of our country. I would say those men and women who 
are out there doing their job, risking their lives to try to 
protect people in law enforcement, in all these functions at 
ATF, they deserve our respect and support.
    It is the greatest honor of my professional life to be able 
to sit here and say, call them colleagues because they are 
incredibly brave, dedicated people. They are not people who 
have been all personally involved, right. They are there 
because they care. That is the same with our State and local 
law enforcement partners.
    Mr. Swalwell. When they are attacked by political leaders, 
does it make it easier or harder for you to recruit people to 
go into law enforcement to protect our communities?
    Mr. Dettelbach. It is no surprise that it is difficult, it 
is a very difficult and dangerous job to start with. It is more 
difficult to recruit people and retain people now than ever. 
So, I just think as a country we can try to support the brave 
work that these career people are doing, while having our 
disagreements about things we feel passionately about.
    Mr. Swalwell. I was raised by a cop, two Republican 
parents. They were a pro-police party. I fear that that is no 
longer the case. Marjorie Taylor Greene, one of our colleagues, 
campaigns and raises money on a defund the FBI platform. Chip 
Roy on this Committee has often said we need to defund the 
border and the police who are at the border. Mr. Massie on this 
Committee has called for defunding the ATF.
    The Chair of this Committee, Jim Jordan, recently said in a 
TV interview that he wants to defund the FBI and the Department 
of Justice. This Committee's Chair had before this Committee in 
just the last 45 days a witness who said ``F Cops.'' When you 
are the Chair, you can call anyone who walks this earth as a 
witness. They called somebody who had recently tweeted this 
year ``F Cops.''
    So, Mr. Dettelbach, I fear that they continue to put a 
target on the backs of good, honest working cops who walk the 
beats in our community. I share your concern with that.
    I also want to ask you if it would surprise you to learn 
that JAMA Network, which is a medical journal, recently 
estimated that the economic consequences of gun violence in our 
community is $557 billion a year. That takes into account 
police investigations, medical treatment, long-term physical 
and mental healthcare, earnings lost to disability or death, 
criminal justice costs, pain, and suffering. That is equal to 
2.6 percent of America's gross domestic budget, five times the 
budget of the Department of Education.
    I hope that eye-popping number, if kids dying in our 
classroom doesn't get the attention of my colleagues, I hope 
money will talk to them. Does it surprise you to learn that 
this is the estimate, $557 billion a year?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I don't know about the particular numbers. 
I know obviously violent crime costs our society in many ways. 
It costs a physical, a psychological, community, medical, and 
financial toll.
    Mr. Swalwell. Thank you.
    I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Massie, is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Director, in 2012, John Spencer, Chief of Firearms 
Technology Branch, wrote a letter to Alex Bosco, inventor of 
the stabilizing brace. We have talked about this letter 
already. He said based on our evaluation FTB finds that the 
submitted firearm brace when attached to a firearm does not 
convert that weapon to be fired from the shoulder and would not 
alter the classification of a pistol or other firearm.
    Are you aware of this letter?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I am aware of the letter, yes.
    Mr. Massie. Did Congress pass, between this letter being 
issued to Mr. Bosco and the production and distribution of 10-
40 million of these braces and the implementation of your rule, 
did Congress pass a law? What changed?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Congress did not pass a law. Something did 
change. What changed is that this item was submitted was not 
produced, and was not the item that was marketed. Mr. Bosco I 
think before this Committee said that people were using 
stabilizing braces in ways that he hadn't anticipated. So, 
the--
    Mr. Massie. OK. Let me challenge that assertion. So, you 
say that the brace changed, and so you had to implement this 
rule. Well, I have got here the actual original brace that this 
letter was responsive to. Are you telling me that this brace is 
exempt from your rule?
    Mr. Dettelbach. What I am saying is, that if people have 
products that are not designed--
    Mr. Massie. Is this brace exempt from your rule?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I can't sit here and classify--
    Mr. Massie. This is the brace you wrote the letter to.
    Mr. Dettelbach. --the classification. If it is not a rule 
to be attached as a short-barreled rifle, it will not be 
subject to the rule.
    Mr. Massie. Can I get--would you please quit telling this 
Committee that the brace has changed and that is why you did 
the rule, when in fact you are not exempting the--it is the 
same brace that you gave this letter to?
    Mr. Dettelbach. If the brace is submitted, we will classify 
it--
    Mr. Massie. Would you submit--do you still have the same 
agreement that this brace that the ATF agreed to in 2012 should 
not be under the jurisdiction of your rule?
    Mr. Dettelbach. If that brace is submitted with a firearm, 
we will examine and classify it. If it doesn't qualify--
    Mr. Massie. OK. Reclaiming my time, because it is pretty 
obvious you are misleading people here when you say that the 
brace has changed, because your rule affects the braces that 
didn't change.
    How many days have passed, how many days do people have to 
comply with this rule?
    Mr. Dettelbach. So, they can always comply. The initial 
period--
    Mr. Massie. Before they are felons.
    Mr. Dettelbach. The initial period I believe ends at the 
end of May.
    Mr. Massie. OK.
    Mr. Dettelbach. People are--
    Mr. Massie. End of May. So, and it was 120 days. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Dettelbach. People are only felons if they 
intentionally violate the law.
    Mr. Massie. Is it 120 days?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I believe it is 120 days from--
    Mr. Massie. So, we have got 36 days left of the 120-day 
grace period. Can you tell us here today how many people have 
complied by registering this product?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I am not sure of the exact number. I can 
check, though, and get back to you. There are people who are 
making applications. There also can be detachment. So, in other 
words--we don't count--that is not for us to regulate. If 
somebody simply--we wrote the rule to make it easy to comply 
with. If somebody just at their home detaches the weapon from 
the brace and keeps them apart, they do not have to register 
anything. They can keep the brace. They can keep the business 
end of the gun.
    Mr. Massie. OK. That is a great clarification. So, you are 
not going to do some kind of constructive prosecution where you 
say, oh, you had this and you had that, and you intended to 
connect them.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Keeping, I mean attaching them as we--
    Mr. Massie. They can just keep them, separately? Keep them 
separately.
    Mr. Dettelbach. But--
    Mr. Massie. OK. Because that is not clear in your rules. 
What is the punishment if somebody is convicted as a felon 
under having this piece of plastic?
    Mr. Dettelbach. If people are convicted of not following 
the Gun Control Act, it is a serious felony conviction.
    Mr. Massie. Is it 10 years?
    Mr. Dettelbach. That requires intent.
    Mr. Massie. Can you just give me the number? Is it 10 
years?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I believe it is a statutory maximum of 10 
years.
    Mr. Massie. Ten years for owning a piece of plastic that 
you were told was legal and that you owned for a decade and 
that millions of people did. This is what offends the 
sensibilities of Americans, whether they own these or not. Do 
these make the gun fire more rapidly?
    Mr. Dettelbach. The stabilizing braces--
    Mr. Massie. Do these increase the muzzle velocity?
    Mr. Dettelbach. The stabilizing--
    Mr. Massie. Do these allow the--you are not answering any 
of the questions. Do these allow the firearm to carry more 
bullets, rounds?
    Mr. Dettelbach. The stabilizing braces allow, if they are 
the kind that count, allow the firearm to be shouldered--
    Mr. Massie. Let me ask you this.
    Mr. Dettelbach. --in a way that Congress determined makes 
it--
    Mr. Massie. I am glad you brought that up. So, this is a 
stabilizing brace here. Here is a pistol without a stabilizing 
brace. Does the buffer tube, could that be shouldered?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, that would have to be submitted to 
the firearms experts at ATF. We could classify it--
    Mr. Massie. Do you think you have the authority to 
reclassify this pistol as a short-barreled rifle simply because 
it has a buffer tube?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, the rule is aimed at clarifying, and 
there are specific factors--
    Mr. Massie. This--
    Mr. Dettelbach. --that are set forth in the rule--
    Mr. Massie. Do you think you have the authority to 
reclassify the firearm above because it can be shouldered?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, for me to sit here and try to do a 
classification that firearms experts who have worked for 
decades do would not be appropriate. We will give 
classifications. If things don't qualify under the rule, then 
they don't qualify. Nobody, the piece of plastic in and of 
itself is absolutely not covered by the rule.
    Mr. Massie. I submit you don't have that authority, and you 
don't have the authority to do what you did.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields.
    Next, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Rhode 
Island, Mr. Cicilline.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    To use the Chair's words, you know what Americans can't 
stand? You know what they hate about this town? They can't 
stand gun violence and they can't stand the fact that the 
Judiciary Committee has done nothing about it. That is what 
they really can't stand.
    We are not here to talk about guns in the way most of us 
hoped we would, that 40,000 Americans' lives each year are lost 
to gun violence or how gun violence has become the leading 
cause of death of children in America, even passing car 
accidents, or how we have had more than 170 mass shooting this 
year already, or how our kids are being gunned down by assault 
weapons in schools again and again and again. No, instead 
Republicans have convened today's hearing to attack the agency 
devoted to preventing gun violence and to try to decimate its 
ability to keep Americans safe.
    During last week's vote to dismantle the ATF rule in this 
Committee my colleague Mr. Ivey posed a simple question: What 
are you willing to do to address gun violence? Anything? Is 
there any measure to work on to help curb this epidemic in this 
country? Anything at all?
    I think we have our answer. We should be talking about how 
we support the ATF and enable it to do its job, but today again 
we are here to attack the ATF and to try to even abolish it.
    So, Director Dettelbach, I want to first say thank you for 
your service and to the brave men and women who serve at ATF. I 
apologize for the manner, in which, you have been treated in 
this hearing, but I hope you understand they are not actually 
interested in having an answer from you. This is about making a 
speech and having a video clip and sending it to Fox or maybe 
raising money off it. So, please don't feel badly that you are 
actually not being allowed to answer a question.
    So, I am actually going to ask questions and I would love 
your answers.
    I want to talk a little bit about how the ATF enforces laws 
that Congress passes and adapts to new technologies and 
innovations. Nearly 90 years ago, Congress passed the National 
Firearms Act of 1934, the first Federal law regulating firearms 
in the United States. As part of this law Congress expressly 
regulated certain firearms and accessories because they were 
particularly dangerous. Americans were free to purchase them, 
but they had to undergo a background check, submit their 
photograph and fingerprints, and pay a $200 transfer fee.
    Today we live in the age of 3D printers, automatic milling 
machines, plastics, and carbon fiber. Part of the National 
Firearms Act covers machine guns, guns that fire repeatedly 
with one pull of a trigger. We actually banned the civilian 
manufacture and sell of new machine guns in the 1980s, so there 
is only a finite amount of legal ones in the U.S.
    So, Director, my first question is can you tell me what a 
Glock switch is?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Yes, a Glock switch is, Congressman, a 
device that can be attached. It's usually a small piece of 
plastic or metal that can be attached to a pistol that changes 
it from a lawful semiautomatic weapon into a new and unlawful 
machine gun.
    Mr. Cicilline. Into a fully automatic. So, this is a device 
that can be attached to a legally purchased pistol transforming 
the character of the gun turning it into an illegal machine 
gun, is that correct?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Yes, that is--
    Mr. Cicilline. You can get these for other types of guns, 
too. For example, the AR-15?
    Mr. Dettelbach. There are machine gun conversion devices 
that go with a variety of different automatic weapons.
    Mr. Cicilline. Yes, I am trying to get through these 
quickly, so that is a yes.
    The ATF regulates Glock switches in the same way as it 
regulates machine guns themselves. Isn't that correct?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Those devices are unlawful under the 
National Firearms Act.
    Mr. Cicilline. So, the answer is yes?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Yes. So, there--
    Mr. Cicilline. OK. That is because within a few minutes 
time these devices just a few ounces of metal or plastic when 
added to a legally purchased gun turn it into an illegal 
machine gun, correct?
    Mr. Dettelbach. That's correct.
    Mr. Cicilline. Director, the NFA also covers short-barrel 
rifles, does it not?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Yes.
    Mr. Cicilline. The reason is pretty clear: Short-barrel 
rifles can have the conceal-ability and maneuverability of a 
pistol but with the fire power and accuracy of a rifle. With 
shoulder stock devices out there that now fold all the way down 
or telescope out you can easily fit one inside a backpack or 
briefcase and no one would be the wiser.
    So, Director, the ATF issued a rule on so-called 
stabilizing braces recently because it was clear that many of 
the items being manufactured and sold as stabilizing braces 
were really just being used to try to get around the National 
Firearms Act. Isn't that correct?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Whether a short-barreled rifle is sold in 
one piece or two pieces, and you put them together the rule was 
intended to cover what Congress defined as a short-barreled 
rifle.
    Mr. Cicilline. So, people are taking legally purchased 
pistols, adding these devices marketed as stabilizing braces 
but which are actually shoulder stocks and changing the 
character of the gun, transforming it into an unregistered 
short-barreled rifle. Is that correct?
    Mr. Dettelbach. If it meets a definition under the rule, 
then that would be correct.
    Mr. Cicilline. So, the ATF in recognizing new technologies 
that are attempting and succeeding in the working around the 
National Firearms Act, just like Glock switches, is 
appropriately regulating these things for what they are.
    My colleagues argued the other day that just a few ounces 
of plastic or metal can't transform a legal gun into an illegal 
one, but it sounds very much like you would disagree. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Dettelbach. They're not illegal. Congress has 
determined that there are additional safeties and regulations 
that apply to certain kinds of particularly dangerous weapons.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
    Mr. Dettelbach. You can keep them. You just have to follow 
the rules that Congress has set up to follow those controls.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
    Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous consent request. I ask 
unanimous consent that the drawing of the actual stabilizing 
braces, which was not what Mr. Massie held up, that was not, in 
fact, a regulated stabilizer. I would ask this document, which 
is the actual diagram of an actual stabilizing brace that was 
prohibited by ATF, so the record is not only complete, but 
accurate, be submitted into the record.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, ordered.
    Mr. Dettelbach. I'm just glad the guy is not holding up a 
picture of a bump stock.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields back.
    Next, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Texas, 
Mr. Roy.
    Mr. Roy. I thank the Chair.
    Thank you for appearing before the Committee, Director. I 
served in the U.S. Attorney's Office, prosecuted 922(g)(1), 
924(c), felons in possession and so forth.
    I would say that--well, let me ask you this question: There 
are different definitions of mass shootings. We have said that 
160 or something mass shootings this year, or something in that 
ZIP Code, however you define that.
    Mr. Dettelbach. I believe--
    Mr. Roy. No, no. Just let me get to the question. In your 
reporting of that how many of those shooters can you report 
were on medication?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I don't know the facts to be able to answer 
that. I'm sorry, sir.
    Mr. Roy. OK. I think that is an important thing and I would 
like ATF to get us an answer on the 165 mass shootings, how 
many were on medication.
    How many were from single-parent homes without fathers?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, those may not be all ATF 
investigations and I don't know the answer to that.
    Mr. Roy. Well, it is important you guys collect data on 
virtually everything. I think it is really important for us to 
know that. Can you tell us how many of the perpetrators were 
for example involved in social media and certain websites or 
how many of them had dropped out of school?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, I don't have a number on that. I 
would agree with you that those are all significant problems 
that we have to address as a society.
    Mr. Roy. Well, I think that is something that is really 
important, and I want ATF to get us that information because 
that has been missing from a lot of the conversation.
    As we focus in on the weapons being used, I want us to make 
sure that we are very clear about the nature of the individuals 
that are carrying out these heinous acts. What is happening in 
our society? What is happening to our young men? What is 
happening to the young men in fatherless homes. What is 
happening to people on medication? What is happening with 
respect to mental health?
    Because if we look at the data and we see what has 
occurred, particularly under COVID, and we look at both suicide 
rates up like 10 percent, murder rates spiked like 40 percent, 
and I think--with the use of firearms--we see that we had a 
serious mental health issue and the use of medication. I think 
that is something the ATF ought to focus on.
    Here is something I want to ask about: You all had an ATF 
agent named Brandon Garcia who submitted a resignation letter, 
I think you are probably familiar with, in which he wrote ATF 
has been spending a significant amount of time talking about 
and changing the course of this agency to focus on, quote, 
``the guns,'' end quote.
    Agent Garcia also noted the following: Last year 
headquarters spent pretty much the entire year talking about 
the vaccine and threatening termination for those who wouldn't 
get it. The Deputy Director threatened to prosecute agents for 
lying to a Federal agent if we did not appropriately update our 
vaccination status in the system.
    He also noted that they were saying nothing about holding 
people accountable for the crimes they commit unless it 
supports their agenda.
    I think that is a question that I think we all want to know 
the answer to, which is are we focusing on going after 
criminals carrying out bad acts, harming the American people 
for use of guns--
    Mr. Dettelbach. Every day.
    Mr. Roy. --as opposed targeting law-abiding citizens for 
the use--for having a weapon that they are entitled to be able 
to have under the Second Amendment?
    Mr. Dettelbach. We are indeed focusing on taking violent 
criminals and trigger pullers out of our community, of course, 
working with State and local law enforcement, right, every day. 
You know that from being a PSN prosecutor. I was a PSN 
prosecutor also. Those are very important.
    With respect to the causes of these acts, I think it is 
correct there are numerous causes. ATF is not responsible for 
addressing them. Of course, Congress, you look at the whole 
field of play as to what drives violent crime.
    Mr. Roy. Does the Director agree that it would be a very 
important thing for us as Congress and for ATF to focus on the 
mental State and the medicines being used by the perpetrators 
of these crimes?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I think certainly that public policymakers 
ought to focus on that.
    Mr. Roy. Well--
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Dettelbach. At ATF an individual--
    Mr. Roy. I am going to run out of time. Limited time.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Sure.
    Mr. Roy. One other question with respect to the issue we 
are dealing here with the pistol braces: We know for sure that 
the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit has 
overwhelmingly ruled that ATF overstepped its authority when it 
published the final rule that classified bump stocks as machine 
guns. Now, to make sure that it is very clear that I am an 
equal opportunity basher of tyranny, the Trump Administration 
issued that bump stock rule, and they were wrong to do it. They 
shouldn't have done it. They did it. The Fifth Circuit struck 
it down.
    The fact is what we know about this rule, the pistol brace 
rule, is that it is the exact same overstepping of power. I 
think the director ought to respond to that question in just 
one minute, but I want to ask one question pretty--right here 
as I wrap up: Do you believe that Americans have an individual 
right to bear arms?
    Mr. Dettelbach. The Supreme Court has said that, so yes. 
The Supreme Court has said in the Heller decision and then in 
the Bruen decision that the Second Amendment--
    Mr. Roy. That it is an individual right to bear arms.
    Mr. Dettelbach. --that the Second Amendment gives an 
individual a right to keep and bear arms.
    Mr. Roy. So, what I would just suggest to the director is 
that when we know the Fifth Circuit has slapped down a 
regulatory overreach with respect to bump stocks under a 
Republican President, and now we have an effort here under 
pistol braces, which is, looking backward, to take a piece of 
plastic, as my friend from Kentucky said, and add it to a 
weapon, and to say to someone who had a lawful product for the 
entire time they have had it to now say that it is unlawful, 
would the Director agree that this is something that the Fifth 
Circuit is very will going to look at and say that is an 
overstep of the Executive Branch over Legislative authority? I 
yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. You may answer the question.
    Mr. Dettelbach. As with the bump stock case it is in 
litigation. Different circuits have come out different ways on 
that and is--I think there's a petition for certiorari before 
the Supreme Court. ATF's position on that--I mean the 
department's position is laid out in hundreds of pages of 
briefs.
    The first ruling, which actually came out of a District 
Court in the Fifth Circuit, on the stabilizing brace rule found 
that it lived within the statute and was lawful under the APA, 
at least as a preliminary injunction matter.
    Mr. Roy. The Fifth Circuit has held that it--has said that 
it--
    Mr. Dettelbach. The courts again--
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields.
    Ms. Scanlon, you have five minutes for questioning.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
    Thank you, Director Dettelbach, for your testimony today.
    My constituents and our country are reeling from the daily 
toll of gun violence. A rational person should expect Congress 
to ask the head of ATF to come to Congress and testify about 
what we can do to end this daily recurring national tragedy, 
but that is not why this hearing was called. This hearing was 
called to attack ATF and its leadership, to undermine ATF's 
ability to do its job. It has been called to complain about 
technicalities and paperwork that actually saved lives.
    Second Amendment extremists often claim we don't need new 
laws; we just need to enforce the laws that are on the books, 
but that is what a well-funded and fully staffed ATF does. It 
is critical to enforcing the laws that are already on the books 
and stemming the carnage caused by unlawful and irresponsible 
gun sales that are used to kill more than 130 Americans every 
day.
    I want to focus today on important ATF tools that can check 
rogue gun dealers who profit from sales as they willfully 
enable violent crime with straw purchases and unlawful sales. I 
know it is going to--we have to move quickly because of timing, 
so if you want to submit additional information, we would love 
to see that.
    More than 20 years ago an ATF study showed that just one 
percent of Federal firearms licensees, or FFLs, were the source 
of more than 60 percent of all guns traced to crime nationwide. 
Since then, Congressional gag laws have prevented ATF from 
publicly sharing data that can be used to examine patterns of 
gun trafficking or to identify gun dealers who profit from 
selling guns to criminals, whether directly or indirectly. 
However, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence recently 
analyzed two decades of data about crime guns released by 
Pennsylvania, and that report confirmed the trend still holds. 
In Pennsylvania, just 1 percent of gun dealers were the source 
of 50 percent of crime guns.
    Can you briefly tell us how ATF uses crime--or trace data 
to prioritize dealers for compliance inspections and prevent 
firearms from being diverted into the illegal market?
    Mr. Dettelbach. ATF is committed to transparency to the 
extent allowed under the laws passed by Congress. I would point 
out that recently, just several months ago, under the direction 
of the Attorney General and the President ATF published the 
single largest compendium of information on crime guns ever put 
in one place in the United States in one of our Firearms 
Trafficking Commerce Reports, Volume 2.
    It goes State by State. There are 40 cities. We will do 
analyses for any cities that weren't included in the first 40. 
It tells the story in a way that hasn't been told before with 
data as to how firearms get from lawful commerce to crime 
scenes.
    We take that kind of data and use it as part of Crime Gun 
Intelligence Program to try and target as best we can--and we 
can do better at this; we need to keep striving to push 
ourselves to be better--as best we can our very limited 
resources to try and stop that flow of unlawful firearms so 
that we're not focusing on the vast majority of firearms 
dealers, which are law-abiding businesses. We're focusing as 
much as possible either on those that willfully violate the 
law, but also it's important to understand to harden the 
targets for--because even if you're a law-abiding firearms 
dealer, but you're being targeted by a criminal firearms 
trafficking organization--to help them to follow the rules 
which are designed to protect them from being victimized even 
unknowingly.
    Ms. Scanlon. OK.
    Mr. Dettelbach. So, we work collaboratively with firearms 
dealers all over the country on this.
    Ms. Scanlon. Well, I appreciate that.
    One of the gun dealers that perhaps is not an unwilling 
victim is a Philadelphia gun shop called the Firing Line. In 
this report published concerning Pennsylvania crime guns it was 
determined that 1,800 crime guns were traced to this one gun 
dealer between--2020.
    A 2017 ATF inspection report of the dealer, which I have 
here, found multiple repeat violations including willfully 
transferring firearms to prohibited purchasers, facilitating 
the straw purchase of firearms, missing firearms, and a failure 
to respond to ATF trace requests. Now, obviously this is before 
your tenure.
    Despite that record the Trump Administration's ATF issued a 
warning to the dealer instead of revoking its license. They got 
a stern talking to, but they continued to profit from their 
sale of guns that are used in crimes in Pennsylvania and 
beyond.
    So, Congress has given ATF authority to revoke licenses. 
Can serious violations such as willful transfer trigger the 
zero-tolerance policy that ATF is working on now?
    Mr. Dettelbach. The key word that you use is what Congress 
said, which is willful. When we find that firearms licensees 
are willfully violating the laws that Congress has passed--and 
we have articulated several; I think five specific violations, 
although willful conduct is--can be broader than that in 
certain circumstances. That's what we try to do with respect to 
targeting our resources with respect to filing a notice of 
revocation. After the notice is filed the licensee has the 
right to a hearing and to go to Federal District Court as well.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
    Chair, I see my time is expired but I have two unanimous 
consent requests. The first is I ask unanimous consent to 
insert into the record a report from the Brady Center to 
Prevent Gun Violence entitled, ``Uncovering the Truth About 
Pennsylvania Crime Guns.''
    Mr. Tiffany. So, ordered.
    Ms. Scanlon. OK. I also seek unanimous consent to enter 
into the record the video played by Mr. Cicilline at last 
week's Judiciary Committee markup that demonstrates how the gun 
industry markets and many gun buyers actually use the 
stabilizing braces not as assistive technology for disabled 
veterans, but as a way to convert large format pistols into 
short-barreled rifles and evade the National Firearms Act.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, ordered.
    [The information referred to follows:]
    A video showing uses of stabilizing braces, submitted by 
the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, a Member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary from the State of Pennsylvania, for the record is 
available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/
15qlqyS7kLFYnOmKQ1V58Eraqa OCVGHj4/view.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentlelady yields?
    Ms. Scanlon. Yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Next, I would like to take five minutes to ask 
a few questions, Director Dettelbach.
    Are you familiar with Operation Fearless from a decade ago?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I'm sorry?
    Mr. Tiffany. Operation Fearless from a decade ago. Are you 
familiar with that?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I don't know that I'm familiar with the 
details of that particular operation. If you start talking 
about it maybe I'll be reminded of the name, but not as I sit 
here.
    Mr. Tiffany. The largest State newspaper in Wisconsin wrote 
about it and suggested a lack of planning and oversight in 
regards to trying to get people who were running drugs, running 
guns, and stuff like that. I take it you are not familiar with 
that?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, by name, if you could, was this 
related to a certain type of investigative technique? I might 
know it not by the name, but by the facts, as you say them.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, so it happened in Milwaukee, and they 
found out later after the investigative story was put out by 
the Journal Sentinel in Milwaukee that this was actually being 
done in five other cities also. Are these type of operations 
still going on around the country?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, not knowing the type--what type of 
operation--if you tell me the--just, in general, I can--
    Mr. Tiffany. So, failed operation, Operation Fearless, is 
an ATF violent crime impact team opened a storefront in a 
Milwaukee neighborhood.
    Mr. Dettelbach. A storefront?
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes.
    Mr. Dettelbach. OK. So, with respect to--and I do remember 
some of the public reporting on the storefront issue. So, I'm 
not going to comment on any ongoing operation that ATF may be 
or may not be undertaking, but I am glad to talk about that, 
which is, look, when we do--in law enforcement we do--
    Mr. Tiffany. Are there operations like that going on now?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I'm not going tell--I'm not going to reveal 
whether any law enforcement ongoing pending operation is 
occurring now or not.
    Mr. Tiffany. OK. Thank you.
    Mr. Dettelbach. That would endanger people in the field, 
and we can't do that.
    Mr. Tiffany. Because it was a failed operation, and it was 
shown that it was being done around the country by the ATF 
and--which was really a serious problem. We would like to know 
if things like that are going on yet.
    Mr. Dettelbach. So, no, but I understand. With respect to 
storefronts generally I think there was public reporting, and 
there were some issues with the way that storefront operation 
was conducted. ATF did I believe--I wasn't there, but my 
understanding is from the U.S. Attorneys community--my 
knowledge there was ATF did impose additional restrictions and 
changed the way those operations were going to try and better 
run them.
    Mr. Tiffany. If you would provide that data that would be 
terrific.
    Mr. Dettelbach. I think in that, if I remember correctly--
    Mr. Tiffany. If you would. I take it is a priority at ATF 
to review FFL violations. Is that correct?
    Mr. Dettelbach. It's a priority at ATF to focus on violent 
crime and to try to get shooters and to stop the supply of 
unlawful firearms to those most violent people. That is a 
priority at ATF.
    Mr. Tiffany. Do you agree with the Biden Administration's 
zero tolerance policy that they have enacted, in regards, to 
FFLs?
    Mr. Dettelbach. We implement the Enforced and Regulatory 
Enhancement Initiative, which people call different things; and 
I think we're referring to the same thing, which focuses on a 
limited number of willful violations. So, Congress has said 
that's what we should be focusing on.
    Mr. Tiffany. Well, that is what the Biden Administration 
said. It was an Executive Order.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Congress said that willful violations are 
the only kind that can result in revocation.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, the number of revoked FFLs is up 
significantly, correct, in 2022?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I believe that there were 90-some that were 
as a result of this particular enforcement.
    Mr. Tiffany. Has it reduced crime?
    Mr. Dettelbach. The Congressman was talking about this 
before. There are lots of causes of gun crime and it's 
impossible to say that any one of them is going to be the 
silver bullet. That to me doesn't mean you don't work on all of 
them to try and address the issue.
    Mr. Tiffany. Sure. So, as we talk about these FFLs do you 
have regular training for your employees in regard to how to 
review these FFLs?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Regular training? I'm sorry. I just had--
yes, we have regular training for our employees at ATF. Yes, we 
do, Congressman.
    Mr. Tiffany. Are there violations for violating these 
firearms transaction records?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Are there--
    Mr. Tiffany. Are there penalties for violations?
    Mr. Dettelbach. If an FFL is in violation, there's a series 
of different actions at different levels that the statute 
allows ATF to take.
    Mr. Tiffany. Also, firearm transaction records, right? Like 
if--
    Mr. Dettelbach. Like a 4473 or--
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, if they inaccurately fill that out or if 
they lie on it there are penalties, right?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Well, the person who's buying the weapon 
fills out many parts of the 4473. If that person who's buying 
the weapon doesn't tell the truth on those forms, there are 
serious penalties for lying on that form.
    Mr. Tiffany. If they violate, should they be prosecuted? 
Yes or no?
    Mr. Dettelbach. That's up to U.S. Attorneys' Offices to 
determine. We investigate cases, refer them to U.S. Attorneys' 
Offices and they make those determinations.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, if someone violates, regardless of who 
they are in society, they are turned over to a district 
attorney and to be charged?
    Mr. Dettelbach. If ATF investigates a matter and believes 
that there's been a violation, it would be referred to the 
appropriate prosecutor.
    Mr. Tiffany. Should the President's son be turned over 
since he violated Form 4473?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I think that's been publicly reported that 
this is an ongoing investigation. Again, I am not going to 
comment on any ongoing investigation.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, you don't take a position on we should 
have equal justice? We should not have a two-tiered system of 
justice?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I'm not able to comment on any ongoing 
investigation whether it's the undercover operations that you 
referred to or any particular case. I just can't comment under 
long-standing Department of Justice policy, under both parties' 
administrations, on pending investigative matters.
    Mr. Tiffany. I have exceeded my time and yield that time. 
Would recognize the gentlewoman from Georgia, Ms. McBath.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you so much, Chair.
    Thank you, Director Dettelbach. It is good to see you. 
Thank you for coming before the Judiciary Committee today.
    I thank you so very much for the important work that you 
are doing in your role as Director of the ATF, the first 
permanent one that we have actually had in this country in over 
eight years. Can you imagine that? So, eight years.
    The ATF conducts--you conduct some of the most critical 
work of preventing crime from happening, such as by ensuring 
background checks are completed so that those who are not 
legally able to possess a firearm cannot actually purchase 
them.
    ATF we know also works with local and State law 
enforcement, as he has expressed over and over again this 
morning, to trace firearms that have been used in violent 
crimes to assist in making convictions in prior crimes and 
stopping future crimes from happening. They also work to 
prevent illegal firearms trafficking, reducing the risk of 
public safety in our towns and our cities.
    If this Congress is committed to keeping our communities 
safe, keeping Americans whole, we must do everything in our 
power to support the ATF and its initiatives.
    Director Dettelbach, one of the great achievements of the 
117th Congress was the passage of the bipartisan Safer 
Communities Law. That was my law. The most significant gun 
safety package in almost 30 years.
    The initiatives set forth in that law include things such 
as funding for the implementation of extremist protection order 
programs and laws that ensure that firearms are not in the 
hands of those a court has found through due process is a 
danger to themselves or to their community, funding for 
community violence intervention, and working to close the gun 
show loophole.
    Please share with us--because I do believe that you have 
been just unjustifiably kind of attacked today. So, please 
share with us how the ATF is implementing all the provisions of 
the bipartisan Safer Communities Act, that law.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Thank you.
    Congress passed the bipartisan Safer Communities Act 
shortly before I came on as Director of ATF. Since that time, 
the parts that actually fall within ATF's jurisdiction, we've 
been working very hard to implement. There are other parts--
because this is an ``all-of-the-above'' approach that has to be 
taken to violent crime. Others are working on more.
    Two of the things that Congress did was gave us our first 
standalone straw purchase felony and our first standalone 
firearms trafficking felony under Federal law. We have been 
investigating with our State and local partners those kinds of 
cases. We've brought over 30 different defendants, more than 
that have been prosecuted.
    The other thing I want to say is we also work with 
industry. So, a couple of weeks ago, I was in St. Louis with 
the National Shooting Sports Foundation rolling out the Don't 
Lie for the Other Guy Campaign there. That's a campaign where 
we work together to try and educate firearms dealers, 
licensees--I was in a gun store--to catch straw purchasers; how 
to recognize it; what to do. Because they are, often, our first 
line of defense.
    So, we are doing enforcement. We're doing education. We're 
doing training. We've trained everybody at ATF. So, thousands, 
and then, thousands of prosecutors across the country. I have 
personally gone to speak to large groups of law enforcement 
agencies about this.
    So, it's, again, an ``all-of-the-above'' approach to do 
what we can. Congress didn't give us any money for that, but we 
are not stopping. We are going to do everything we can to 
implement that important law.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you.
    So, in what ways does ATF--well, you've really kind of 
already answered the question. I wanted to know, how did you 
work with State and local law enforcement agencies? You've 
really kind of stated that in that last answer.
    Why are these partnerships so important to ATF?
    Mr. Dettelbach. We are a very small agency. Compared to all 
the other Federal law enforcement agencies, we're a small law 
enforcement agency--5,000-plus people--with a huge mission. 
It's all ``gallows humor,'' right? Well, we have five--but at 
least we don't have a big mission, violent crime. Right? It's 
hard and it's a very difficult, large mission.
    So, how do you do it? You do it by force multiplication and 
partnership. You do it by sitting on task forces. You do it by 
sending an agent to work in the homicide unit of a major city 
police department. You do it by working on the carjacking 
initiatives that we're working on in Philadelphia. You do it by 
going after the gangs, along with State and local law 
enforcement, that we do in California, in New York, in the 
middle of the country, all over the country.
    Every single day, ATF--and I work with the other law 
enforcement agencies, and I have for years--but ATF, we do that 
partnership with State and local law enforcement better than 
anybody. When I go and talk to chiefs, the No. 1 things that 
chiefs and sheriffs say over and over again is, ``Please send 
more ATF resources.'' I tell them that everybody is asking for 
it and you're all correct.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you, and I'm out of time.
    Mr. Massie. [Presiding.] The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentlelady from Indiana, Ms. Spartz, is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Ms. Spartz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Director Dettelbach, what is the core mission of your 
agency?
    Mr. Dettelbach. The core mission is to prevent and protect 
the American people from violent crime.
    Ms. Spartz. So, do you believe that trying to pretty much 
turn millions of Americans, law-abiding citizens, into 
criminals just for owning a piece of plastic is really where 
you should put so much emphasis? Is it something--you have 
nothing else to do?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I don't want to repeat the answers I've 
given because I know you have limited time. No, I don't believe 
that--
    Ms. Spartz. Is this a priority for your agency?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I don't believe that's what we are doing. 
We are effectuating--Congress passed us a law. Congress--
    Ms. Spartz. Well, that's what you are doing in the fact. 
That's what you are trying to do.
    I yield my time to Mr. Massie of Kentucky.
    Mr. Massie. I thank the gentlelady from Indiana.
    Mr. Dettelbach, you were asked a question by a Democrat 
earlier about the statistics on the defensive use of firearms. 
Are you aware that CDC used to track that and that they've 
removed it from their website?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I'm not aware of all the CDC things that 
they tracked. I know at one point there were prohibitions on 
them publishing data. I do not know what, what that situation 
is, sir.
    Mr. Massie. At one time, the CDC tracked the defensive use 
of firearms. After officials were lobbied by activists, gun 
control organizations, they removed that data. I think it would 
be helpful to have that data.
    Let me ask another question very quickly. The regulatory 
impact assessment, on page 18, your agency says you considered 
the numbers, the impact, and to look at the number of people 
impacted, the amount of dollars, you considered from 2013-2020. 
Why did you not consider 2020-2022 in the regulatory impact 
assessment?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I'm--of what? Are you talking--
    Mr. Massie. I'm sorry, on the pistol braces, the number of 
pistol braces.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Oh. So, I don't have it in front of me. I 
know that the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking came out before I 
came on, and I think it was sometime in 2021. I don't know when 
data was referred. I do know that there is significant 
information in that APA record and in the public document that 
is not consistent with some of the numbers that people have 
said here today about how many individuals are impacted.
    Mr. Massie. It's because, yes, the RIA understates greatly 
the number the impact of this because you didn't consider the 
most recent numbers of production--in the millions. You left 
off millions of them.
    A quick question about a couple other topics here. The bump 
stock regulation was in response to a shooting in Las Vegas. Do 
you have any information at all that might lead you to believe 
there were actually NFA weapons in Las Vegas; in other words, 
guns that had been converted to machine gun fire and 
unregistered machine guns, in addition or instead, of the bump 
stocks?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I am not privy to the details of the 
investigation. So, I do not have any information about the 
details of that.
    Mr. Massie. Who's in possession of those firearms?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I don't know who's in possession of those 
firearms.
    Mr. Massie. We would like to know that.
    Also, I see that you're cooperating with the FBI, the ATF 
is, on the January 6th pipe bomb investigation. What can you 
tell us about how that's going?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Obviously, that's a significant matter. It 
is an ongoing criminal investigation. So, I'm not going to 
comment on an ongoing criminal investigation.
    Mr. Massie. Were those pipe bombs operable?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, again--
    Mr. Massie. I mean, ATF is the expert.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, it's an ongoing criminal 
investigation, and under longstanding policy, I cannot comment.
    Mr. Massie. We just had a whole Ccommittee for two years 
that investigated an ongoing investigation. So, I'm not 
accepting that answer from you. We need to know these things.
    Do you know how the pipe bomb was discovered at the DNC? 
We've been told how it was discovered at the RNC. According to 
a press release from the FBI, you're working with them on this 
investigation.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Respectfully, I understand your 
disagreement, but I cannot comment because it is an ongoing 
criminal investigation.
    Mr. Massie. Well, I think you can comment. Can you tell me, 
in the time that we have remaining, why a national firearms 
registry is not only against the law, but also extremely 
problematic for law-abiding Americans?
    Mr. Dettelbach. The reason that a national firearms 
registry is against the law, is because Congress has passed a 
provision prohibiting ATF from having a National Firearms 
Registry. It's against the law, in short, because Congress has 
determined it's against the law, and we will, do, and need to 
continue to follow that law, because Congress makes those 
decisions.
    Mr. Massie. If you require millions of gun owners to 
register firearms simply because they have a piece of plastic, 
are your circumventing this Congressional law against a 
registry of firearms?
    Mr. Dettelbach. The National Firearms Act provides for a 
different registry. It has since 1934. Something like 50 
Congresses have sat between now and then and have not changed 
that.
    Mr. Massie. Well, let me just clarify. You swept millions 
of firearms into that registry without an act of Congress.
    My time has expired. I recognize Ms. Dean from 
Pennsylvania.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I, too, want to acknowledge all the advocates who are here 
today. I know see Moms Demand in great numbers. Thank you for 
your extraordinary patience and tenacity and work. We will get 
this done. It's just a question of when and how many lives will 
it take in the meantime.
    I think we also have Students Demand. I think we even have 
a survivor of gun violence. We have Brady. We have Everytown. 
We might have 97 percent. To all the advocates, even if you're 
not a part of one of these groups, I thank you.
    I think every American citizen is a Moms Demand, is a Dads 
Demand, is a Students Demand. That's who we are. My 
constituents are talking to me and demanding that we do better, 
that we do more; that the price of the Second Amendment is not 
lives. We have to prize life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness as much as some prize guns.
    So, to the survivor today, thank you for being with us. 
Thank you for your strength.
    I met with students this week. I have an advisory committee 
of high school students. I meet with them quarterly. I have 
been thinking about them, as I've sat through this absurd 
hearing--a hearing where the Director of ATF, and the 
incredible men and women who are involved in the work of ATF, 
law enforcement work to keep us safer, are being attacked.
    When I met with the students this week, it was one of my 
worst meetings with them. They were notably down. They were 
worried for their future. Their No. 1 worry, gun violence--No. 
1 worry.
    They said they didn't have real hope. They're tired of 
training for active shooter drills. I'm a grandmother of four. 
I'm very upset to think any day of the week my granddaughter, 
11 years old, is doing active shooter drills.
    So, I sit here thinking this is a nightmarish hearing. It 
is Orwellian. Do the folks on the other side of the aisle see 
the worries of our students, the nightmarish, upside-down 
version of a hearing that we are having today--attacking the 
very people who are trying to keep us safe?
    The folks on the other side, who spent the last election 
cycle saying, ``Democrats want to defund the police,'' while 
they actively say they would like to eliminate ATF--actively 
said, ``We would like to defund ATF.''
    What my students talked to me about was their worry over 
their own safety, their own lives, their own mental health. 
What they talked to me about was attacks on rights, whether 
it's trans rights or women's rights.
    You know what they didn't mention to me? Regulation of 
stabilizer braces. That was not on their agenda. It wouldn't 
have made their top 100. In fact, it would not have made their 
list at all.
    We could learn a lot from those kids, and I will continue 
to listen to them and promise them that, along with your help 
and your extraordinary leadership, we will get this done.
    So, let's go to the actual work that you do. Could we talk 
about, could you tell me about the work that ATF does? I know 
you spoke a little bit about the tracing of guns, which is--
crime guns--which is so critically important. What does ATF 
crime gun tracing work look like? Could you describe it to us 
in a little way?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Sure. So, when a crime happens, and a local 
police department--usually, it's local because they have most 
of the cases--opens a case, and they associate a particular 
firearm with a crime. It's found at the scene, or what have 
you. They, then, submit a request to ATF to trace that firearm.
    Now, ATF doesn't have a national gun registry by law. So, 
what we can do is we can trace the firearm to its first retail 
sale that we know of. That's usually what happens.
    We don't have that record. So, we get the request in, and 
if it's a firearms dealer that is still in business, we reach 
out to them and we say--we don't have the record--we say, ``Can 
you tell us who purchased this firearm? Pull the 4473 and tell 
us.''
    Then, we can relay that information back to the local 
police departments. They are often conducting very time-
sensitive investigations, and they can follow that lead.
    If it's a firearms dealer that's out of business, they send 
their out-of-business records to ATF. They have to be stored in 
a certain format under the law that Congress has passed. We 
are, I think, the only customer of Adobe Acrobat. We pay extra 
money to remove the search function from that, so that we can, 
then, try our best to trace it as quickly as we can, and get 
that same information back to that homicide detective, that 
gang detective, that narcotics detective, who's working the 
case.
    Ms. Dean. I thank you--
    Mr. Kiley. [Presiding.] The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    Ms. Dean. I want to--I just want to ask one question.
    Mr. Kiley. Mr. Fitzgerald is recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Dean. If you would, send to us information on--
    Mr. Kiley. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    Ms. Dean. --the implications of the Safer Communities Act? 
Anything you're learning, please send it along to us.
    Thank you. I yield.
    Mr. Kiley. Mr. Fitzgerald is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you, Director, for being here today.
    Oftentimes, at these hearings, I just want to bring some 
balance, because a lot of figures are tossed around. I just 
want to remind people, in the State of Wisconsin, my home 
State, 422,000 permits were sold for deer hunting over a nine-
day season, for the most part, a very safe nine days. It's a 
huge part of our history in Wisconsin.
    Mr. Dettelbach. It doesn't sound safe for the deer.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. I'm very proud to say that those people 
also have to be represented today in this room.
    I want to just change the topic very quickly. In February 
2023, I sent you a letter, alongside of some of my other 
colleagues, requesting that you and the Attorney General, 
Attorney General Garland, just give us some input on proposed 
legislation that would remove certain less-than-lethal weapons 
from the Gun Control Act. What I'm talking about are stun guns.
    As you may be aware, any less-than-lethal weapon, such as a 
taser, that uses any type of explosive charge to, obviously, 
shoot the projectile, which has wires attached to it--although, 
it's not lethal, it's categorized under the GCA. There's a very 
low probability, and I have an actual manufacturer that's in my 
district who has contacted me about this.
    So, what I'm asking is, what is your position on, not only 
nonlethal devices, but just how did they end up in that 
category of the Gun Control Act of 1968?
    Mr. Dettelbach. So, thank you for the question.
    Obviously, it goes without saying, but it needs to--it's 
important to say that law-abiding citizens who are hunting or 
doing things that are protected by the Constitution, ATF 
respects that activity, and we need to continue to do that.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. That's good to hear.
    Mr. Dettelbach. With respect the Gun Control Act, so the 
definition that Congress wrote talks about--I think the words 
are ``by means of explosive,'' ``by explosion,'' right? So, and 
I don't want to get out ahead of myself, but I can check and 
get back to you on the letter. I think that language that 
Congress wrote is covering some things, and then, not others. 
Like, for instance, if there's a different way of expelling the 
item, it wouldn't be covered under what Congress wrote.
    So, I think why some things are covered and some things are 
not going back to the statutory definition. Again, as I pointed 
out, the marketplace, right, can change and products are 
developed. So, sometimes the law is applied in ways that people 
may or may not anticipate.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. So, let me just ask you, so your experience 
as a Civil Rights Division attorney, do you think that the non-
lethal devices have an effect on reducing the use of force on 
the street, when a law enforcement officer would, obviously, 
garner a taser versus their firearm?
    Mr. Dettelbach. So, I want to be careful I don't overstep 
my expertise, but I have had some expertise. So, the more--when 
police officers have options as to what to do and what to use, 
right, they have more different ways they can respond to a 
situation.
    Now, there are different rules for devices that are 
possessed by law enforcement as well under the statute that 
Congress wrote.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. So, would you agree the incorporating, that 
incorporating nonlethal weapons in the GCA definition of a 
fireman that might actually hamper our ability to develop new 
avenues for law enforcement?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I don't know the full answer to that 
question. I understand that you have a letter pending. I will 
check into it, and we'll try to respond.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. I mean, wouldn't it make sense to put an 
exception in there for tasers? To me and like I said, there's a 
private corporation that's very frustrated by the 
characterization under the GCA. So, I'm just wondering. It 
makes common sense, doesn't it?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I know it's frustrating, but there's a very 
significant process for people in the Executive Branch weighing 
in on legislation. I can tell you I will check on this in 
response to your letter.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, thank you very much, and I expect 
some type of response. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Kiley. Ms. Escobar is recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Escobar. Good afternoon, Mr. Dettelbach. To members of 
your team, thank you so much for your public service. Thank you 
for your work. Thank you for doing everything you can to 
increase safety in our country and communities across America.
    I want to thank the volunteers who are here today. I know 
that there are many, many more who are watching throughout the 
country--all these incredible advocates and activists who come 
together time and again to demand fundamental safety for 
yourselves, for your families, for our smallest, tiniest 
Americans. Thank you for everything that you do.
    I represent El Paso, Texas, a community that has had two 
mass shootings since 2019. I have also had someone very close 
to me murdered through gun violence. It is absolutely 
everywhere. We are a Nation awash in guns.
    It's not that we are becoming a more violent country per 
se, or a country that is actually seeing massive increases in 
crime. It's that the crimes are getting deadlier because of the 
weapons that have flooded our communities.
    In fact, one of my local newspapers, the El Paso Times, 
recently had an article about how juvenile crime is not up. In 
fact, in many ways, juvenile crime in my community is stable. 
What has changed is that crime is now more frequently used by 
juveniles with access to guns, because it is so easy to get 
guns in our country. So, we're seeing more bloodshed, more 
death, more fear.
    We heard from my colleague in Pennsylvania who talked about 
her visit with young people in her district. It was eerily 
similar to what I was going to share with you. Just this 
weekend, I met with my youth advisory council--incredibly 
talented, optimistic, hopeful, and ambitious young people. One 
of their top topics--in fact, the biggest issue for them right 
now--is gun violence and the fear that they live in.
    I cannot believe the trauma that we are instilling in our 
children because we cannot come to an agreement that their 
lives have value. It is stunning to me that we're not moving 
closer and closer to common-sense solutions.
    What is happening is, we've been, the House Democrats, the 
Senate Democrats, we've been consistent in wanting common-sense 
solutions, but it's been my Republican colleagues that have 
been moving the needle in the other direction--in fact, looser 
gun laws; making sure more people have more guns; making sure 
those guns are even deadlier. Oh, and let's fight about what 
they call ``a piece of plastic'' that makes shootings deadlier, 
more targeted. It is really unbelievable to me.
    Now, they have really ramped up the extremism, to the point 
where, not only are we further and further away from common-
sense solutions, but they now want to abolish the ATF. This 
should not be a surprise. This is the same party that wants to 
abolish the FBI.
    Mr. Dettelbach, I would like to ask you a question. A 2021 
investigation found many instances in which Federally licensed 
gun dealers were violating the law, but were allowed to stay 
open. According to that investigation, ATF officials had been 
routinely downgrading their recommendations for disciplining 
these gun dealers, so they could continue selling guns.
    According to the article, more than 200 dealers were cited 
for selling guns to people who indicated on background check 
paperwork that they were prohibited from owning them. Dozens 
made false statements in official records. A Florida gun dealer 
sold a handgun to a convicted felon in a parking lot, and the 
examples go on and on.
    Overall, the investigation found that approximately 99 
percent of the businesses found to have violated the law were 
allowed to stay open. By revoking the licenses of corrupt or 
irresponsible gun dealers, is the ATF acting on new regulations 
or enforcing longstanding law?
    Mr. Dettelbach. At ATF, we do not write the law. Congress 
writes the law, and we enforce that longstanding law.
    I believe that you're referring to a recent Inspector 
General report, and that was a report that, that I think had a 
lot of different recommendations. We welcome them. We will seek 
to implement recommendations from that report, to do our job 
more effectively and efficiently, to use crime gun 
intelligence. We've already started doing that, changing, 
because the period was already 16 months old. So, we've already 
started doing that.
    That was a report that--I think one of the bottom lines of 
that report sort of criticized that ATF wasn't being strict 
enough, right? So, what we do at ATF is we try to do the best 
we can with the resources that we have. These--the men and 
women who are out there inspecting, there are 800 of them total 
for nearing a 100,000 Federally licensed firearms dealers, and 
more inspections, because we also have to inspect all the 
explosive dealers every three years.
    We will continue to work hard to apply the laws--Congress 
has written it--and to hold those accountable who are 
committing willful violation, and to work with the law-
abiding--
    Mr. Kiley. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Dettelbach. --firearms dealers to try and protect the 
American people, together, in partnership.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much. I yield back.
    Mr. Kiley. I would like to take a moment to ask a few 
questions of the witness.
    Director Dettelbach, thank you for your testimony today.
    Do you believe that the Second Amendment is an important 
right?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I believe all the constitutional rights 
that we have are important.
    Mr. Kiley. So, you're not one of those people who says we 
would be better off without it?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I'm one of those people that says, what the 
law says, what the Constitution says, is what we should do, and 
what we have to honor.
    Mr. Kiley. I understand that, and I'm glad to hear you say 
that. As sort of a matter of what's best for society, do you 
think it is important that our Constitution does have a Second 
Amendment?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I think that all the Amendments are 
important. It's very hard to start comparing the right to 
freedom of religion versus the right--they're all important. 
They're all important rights.
    Mr. Kiley. OK. So, why do you think the Second Amendment is 
important?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Why? Why do I?
    Mr. Kiley. Why is it important that we have a Second 
Amendment?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Well, at the most, at the most basic 
notion, because I'm an American, because I follow the 
Constitution and the Founders or--they enacted the Bill of 
Rights.
    Mr. Kiley. I'm asking about this--
    Mr. Dettelbach. I mean, I--
    Mr. Kiley. Why is it important, the Second Amendment? That 
particular right, why is it important?
    Mr. Dettelbach. It's part of our founding document. It's in 
the Constitution of the United States, along with all these 
other rights that are very important.
    Mr. Kiley. So, you're glad it's there, the Second 
Amendment?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Sorry?
    Mr. Kiley. You're glad it's there? You're glad it's part of 
our Constitution?
    Mr. Dettelbach. It's part of being an American, is that 
that Constitution, when we take an oath in public service, 
unlike any other country, right, we take an oath to uphold and 
defend the Constitution and laws of the United States. That's 
what we swear to do.
    Mr. Kiley. Sure.
    Mr. Dettelbach. So, that's an important oath and that's a 
very important document.
    Mr. Kiley. I'm glad to hear you say that. We have had 
Amendments that have been repealed. You're not someone who says 
it would be better if we just repealed the Second Amendment, 
right?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I have never participated in anything like 
that. Again, it is my job--
    Mr. Kiley. Well, your opinion. Your opinion, whether you 
think that would be a good or bad thing?
    Mr. Dettelbach. It is my job, as ATF Director, to honor the 
constitutional rights and legal statutes passed by Congress, 
and I do.
    Mr. Kiley. I'm very glad to hear you say that. As an 
American, do you think that would be a good or bad thing, if 
the Amendment was appealed?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, I don't think, as Director of ATF, 
me giving my personal opinions on which laws are more or less 
important is, is the right thing to do. Something in the 
Constitution is, of course, very important.
    Mr. Kiley. OK. So, you don't want to say, right now, affirm 
that you believe it's good that we have a Second Amendment?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I don't want to--I don't think it's 
appropriate to give my personal opinion on any of the 
particular Amendments. They're in the Constitution.
    Mr. Kiley. All right. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Dettelbach. They're the highest law of the land.
    Mr. Kiley. So, you also testified in your written testimony 
that we have more than 100 people who die from firearms 
violence across the country every day, and you say that most of 
these tragedies never make the news. Are you aware of a--and I 
think we can all agree that this is an unspeakable tragedy for 
every family. Are you aware of a study from 2017 by the 
University of Chicago that showed that the average murderer or 
shooting suspect had approximately 12 prior arrests in their 
criminal record?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I'm not aware of that particular study, but 
I'm not aware if that particular study, no, sir.
    Mr. Kiley. Does it sound wrong to you? Or does it sound 
plausible?
    Mr. Dettelbach. As I said before, there's this many people 
who do crimes, and then, trigger pullers are a much smaller 
percentage, and they tend to repeat crimes.
    Mr. Kiley. Sure.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Identifying those for State and local law 
enforcement is very important--
    Mr. Kiley. Absolutely.
    Mr. Dettelbach. --so that we can focus our resources on the 
shooters, right?
    Mr. Kiley. Exactly.
    The D.C. Police Chief has said that it's, on average, 11 
prior arrests for homicide suspects. In this jurisdiction--this 
is Robert Contee, Chief of Police in D.C.--he said that,

        What we have to do, if we really want to see homicides go down, 
        is keep bad guys with guns in jail, when they're in jail, they 
        can't be out in communities shooting people.

Do you agree with that statement?
    Mr. Dettelbach. We work very closely with D.C. Police. When 
their lab was decertified--
    Mr. Kiley. OK. I'm not asking you who you work with and who 
you don't.
    Mr. Dettelbach. --we took over the gun lab--
    Mr. Kiley. I'm asking, do you agree with that statement 
from the Chief of Police, ``when they're in jail, they can't be 
in communities shooting people.''?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Dangerous people who commit violent crimes 
should be incarcerated.
    Mr. Kiley. All right. Thank you.
    We've heard a lot of statements from the other side of the 
dais today, sort of in very high tones, speaking about the lack 
of efforts to deal with gun violence, and a lot of very 
partisan attacks. As you might be aware, Congress recently, 
actually, acted to prevent violent crime in Washington, DC, by 
repealing a measure that would have lowered penalties for crime 
across the board that the District of Columbia had enacted.
    Now, that measure was signed into law by President Biden, 
as you may know. Eighty-one Members of the U.S. Senate voted 
for it by 81-14 yet, every single person on the other side 
today who has spoken up, saying that we need to do more about 
gun violence, voted against that measure. Does that strike you 
as hypocritical, Director?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Sitting here today, there are, obviously, 
very passionate views on all sides, as I sit in the middle 
here.
    Mr. Kiley. Sure.
    Mr. Dettelbach. It's not my role to engage in that kind of 
role. I run a law enforcement agency, and the decisions that 
Congress makes on policy are things that we, then, take and try 
to implement in the--
    Mr. Kiley. Your testimony talked at great length about gun 
violence, and you've just recognized that much of it stems from 
repeat offenders. So, isn't it a good thing that we managed to 
at least make it, so we don't have as many repeat offenders in 
this district?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, I don't run law enforcement in the 
district. They are partners of ours. We work closely with them. 
I'm not a policymaker. I'm not a Member of this body. I leave 
it to Members of these bodies to make those policy decisions. 
Then, we take the results and try to protect people with them.
    Mr. Kiley. I thank you.
    Ms. Bish is recognized for five minutes. Ms. Bush is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Bush. Yes, Bush. Thank you.
    First, let me just say to the advocates that are in the 
room--to Moms Demand Action, Students Demand, Everytown, to 
every single advocate/survivor that is here--sorry that you 
have to continue to keep coming back in and advocating in this 
way, and putting yourself in the middle of this trauma and 
pulling it forward, to be able to save more lives.
    As an activist myself, let me just tell you, on those days 
when it feels like it's ``I'm tired. I can't do it anymore,'' 
just know that your presence; continuing to show up; continuing 
to speak; continuing; letting us see you; letting people see 
you--just know, even if it means you save one life, that's a 
life that you saved. You're saving lives. So, I just want to 
remind you all that your work is not in vain.
    St. Louis and I are here today to talk about accountability 
for gun violence, for this epidemic that continues to ravage 
our communities and our country. As my colleagues have pointed 
out, we lose approximately 120 people in this country every 
single day to gun violence, and firearm-related incidents are 
the leading cause of death for children and for teenagers in 
the United States, and that has been OKed. Actually, we've 
given it, like, a red carpet.
    This is no coincidence. It is the obvious consequence of 
dangerous policies in Republican-controlled States that flood 
our gun--that flood our streets with guns and enable mass 
shootings that shatter families and destroy lives. I know this 
personally, as someone who has survived and been traumatized 
myself by gun violence.
    The Republicans are desperate to make ATF a distraction 
from their pathetic and shameful obedience to the NRA that's 
getting people killed. That obedience is having a devastating 
impact on communities around our country.
    Director Dettelbach, thank you for being here.
    I would like to ask, yes or no, would you agree that the 
states with the weakest laws restricting gun ownership have 
Republican legislatures? I'm talking about Missouri, Alaska, 
Wyoming, Montana, and Mississippi.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Respectfully, it is not my role to talk 
about these kinds of questions in my law enforcement role.
    Ms. Bush. Well, I will say--I can tell you that a recent 
study by Everytown comprehensively documents the states with 
the weakest gun laws. The weakest gun laws, the States with the 
weakest gun laws are overwhelmingly Republican States.
    Yes or no, Director, would you agree that these States have 
some of the highest rates of gun violence?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, I'm not here to take issue with any 
of the data that you said, but, in my role as running a law 
enforcement agency, we take the laws that are passed by 
legislatures like Congress and we implement them as best we can 
to protect people. Others have that debate, and will continue 
to, of course. It's an important discussion. I'm not minimizing 
it. In my current role, it's just not part of what I am focused 
on doing.
    Ms. Bush. Well, thank you for that.
    They do. For example, in my home State of Missouri, which 
is a Republican State, it is among the 10 States with the 
highest rates of gun deaths in the country, the highest rates 
of gun death and the weakest gun laws in the country. This is a 
State that Donald Trump won.
    Yes or no, Director, would you agree that lax gun policies 
in certain States have resulted in firearms flooding 
municipalities that are unable to override those State-level 
policies?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, respectfully, I don't know the 
details of all that, but it wouldn't be in my role as ATF 
Director, as a law enforcement officer, to become involved in 
debates in State, State policy matters.
    Ms. Bush. Communities like St. Louis experience the brunt 
of gun violence, this epidemic, because of State-level policies 
in Missouri and elsewhere. They fail to enact common-sense gun 
laws to keep our communities safe. Republicans' failure to act 
is deadly. We've seen it over and over again; it's deadly.
    Less than six months ago, we had a mass shooting at the 
Central Visual and Performing Arts High School in St. Louis 
that may have been prevented if Missouri Republicans had agreed 
to enact a red flag law.
    So, when we talk about accountability, we need to talk 
about who's really at fault here. We need to make sure that our 
communities aren't being unfairly targeted by the failures of 
others.
    So, Director, let me ask--let me switch gears. The ATF has 
had issues in the past with racist and bigoted behavior by 
agents. Yes or no, are you aware of the Good Ol' Boys Roundup 
that the ATF agents participated in the 1980s and 1990s?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I am not. I would say, I have been to St. 
Louis recently and the shooting that you referenced, I just 
want to say, of course, the survivors of gun violence--I meet 
with victims and survivors wherever I go.
    ATF was among the first people participating in that 
investigation on that scene. I just want to say there's a lot 
of really good, collaborative work going on in St. Louis that I 
know about--
    Ms. Bush. Uh-hum.
    Mr. Dettelbach. --to try and help protect people, both 
sides of the river, on this issue.
    Ms. Bush. Right. Your work is being inhibited by those 
Republican policies. So, thank you. You're right, we are 
collaborating.
    Could you--would you answer the Good Ol' Boys Roundup 
question?
    Mr. Moore. [Presiding.] Your time is up.
    Mr. Dettelbach. I don't--
    Mr. Moore. The lady's time is up.
    Mr. Dettelbach. I can followup on that. I don't know about 
that city.
    Ms. Bush. OK. We will send you the information. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Moore. The Chair recognizes Mr. Cline for five minutes.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you, Director, for being here.
    From day one, President Biden has made it clear that he 
intends to target Second Amendment rights of millions of law-
abiding Americans. From the ATF pistol brace rule to the recent 
zero tolerance Executive Order targeting Federal firearm 
licensees and background checks, it is more apparent than ever 
that the rights of law-abiding Americans are under attack.
    I want to go to the out-of-business records issue again. It 
was discussed earlier. As you know, FFLs must give their server 
or firearm transaction records to the ATF once they go out of 
business, and these files are converted into screenshots, which 
you testified that ATF cannot be searched electronically, and 
that the--
    Mr. Dettelbach. No, by name.
    Mr. Cline. By name, right. So, let's talk about that 
because the data is searchable by other computer functions, 
correct?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I want to get--I don't want to misState on 
a technical question because I'm not, certainly not a computer 
expert. But my understanding is we take out functionality to 
flatten that data.
    Mr. Cline. Right.
    Mr. Dettelbach. It limits its search function consistent 
with the restrictions set by Congress. That most of that was 
already happening before that report, but, then, there was 
some--an individual server that had not been accessed, but was 
not compliant, that had to be--we had to do that with that 
particular data to make sure that we were fully compliant.
    Mr. Cline. OK. So, you're aware that a FOIA request by the 
Gun Owners of America revealed that a user can filter results 
using serial number, document type, FFL number, role, frame, 
manufacturer, weapon type, caliber, model, batch description, 
batch name, and comments?
    Mr. Dettelbach. So, we are compliant with the restrictions 
that Congress has set forth, but, Congressman, these searches, 
these background checks that we conduct are done in homicide 
investigations, where time matters and lives matter. We are 
going to use the allowable things that we can do to try and 
help local law enforcement to catch killers.
    Mr. Cline. You said that the ATF processes tens of millions 
of records per year. In 2021, ATF told Congress they had over 
920 million out-of-business records, including both digital and 
paper records.
    So, has ATF's out-of-business record gun registry surpassed 
one billion records total?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I don't know. I know that last year the 
paper records we received were something like 70 million, and 
I'm not quite sure of the exact number. There are a tremendous 
amount of records that we receive, and we are doing our best--
some of them are stored in boxes that sit on the side, and we 
run into those boxes where there's an investigation and try to 
help our local law enforcement partners. We're doing our best.
    Mr. Cline. So, with all of these, this information that 
you're gathering, that is searchable, that is enough for you to 
create a list of every, for example--
    Mr. Dettelbach. It's not.
    Mr. Cline. Well, it is. If you want to search by 
manufacture, weapon type.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Every single firearms dealer that's 
currently in business every single one, we don't have any 
records.
    Mr. Cline. You have the ability to create a registry, for 
example, of AR-15s and create an enforcement list of this new 
ban on pistol brace weapons, correct?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I disagree.
    Mr. Cline. Well, I think the evidence is clear that you 
have that ability, even if you say you don't. Just freezing the 
name, the searchable data base by name is not enough.
    So, what we have here is valid concerns that ATF is taking 
a backdoor approach to creating a Federal firearms registry, 
despite Congressional intent and the law that says no such 
registry should be created.
    So, last year, we received a response to a letter sent to 
ATF regarding our concerns surrounding the out-of-business 
records and a potential gun registry. In response, you said--or 
the ATF said, ``The vast majority of the criminal firearms 
traces completed by ATF/NTC are done for State and local law 
enforcement agencies''--as you just said,

         . . . across the country, pursuant to active law enforcement 
        investigations. And the NTC only traces crime guns, and every 
        trace must be identified as such by the requester, by selecting 
        an appropriate crime code when submitting the trace request.

It further states that the NTC,

         . . . has no ability to determine the successful prosecution 
        of hundreds of thousands of crime gun traces it completes 
        annually, nor does it have any way to link a trace for a 
        specific prosecution for a particular year.

Last week, you wrote back to a further request that said,

        The NTC cannot determine the number of prosecutions resulted 
        from completing gun . . . from crime gun trace requests.

    So, can you tell me what percentage of local law 
enforcement agencies use the NTC to trace crimes?
    Mr. Dettelbach. So, with respect to the percentage that are 
currently using, which I think we should--I talk to people 
about trying to increase it. It's free information, and the 
criminal--
    Mr. Cline. It's about half, right?
    Mr. Dettelbach. It's around 50 percent give or take.
    Mr. Cline. Right. So, if half of the country's local and 
State law enforcement isn't using the NTC, then what's the 
purpose of it, other than to create an unlawful registry, if 
there's no way to determine that they're contributing to 
successful prosecutions?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Well, it's because we were asked by--it's 
over 600 separate times by State and local law enforcement 
running criminal investigations to trace firearms that they--
local cops, chiefs, sheriffs--associated with a crime. That is 
important criminal investigative materials that we get back to 
them--
    Mr. Cline. How do you know? You don't have that data?
    Mr. Moore. The gentleman's time--
    Mr. Dettelbach. In Highland Park, Illinois, a mass shooter 
killed seven people in--
    Mr. Cline. It's anecdotal evidence.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Dettelbach. In New York, on the subway a mass shooter--
    Mr. Moore. The gentleman's time is expired.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Ivey.
    Mr. Ivey. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Dettelbach, I'd like to give you a chance to finish 
your answer. I found, when I was a Federal prosecutor, that 
this kind of information was extremely valuable, especially in 
tracking down the potential connection between a single gun and 
multiple--
    Mr. Dettelbach. There's example after example that I've 
heard, but that the public has heard, about how traces are 
critical in, in dealing with violent crime.
    In Highland Park, Illinois, a mass murderer killed seven 
people celebrating the 4th of July in our country. An urgent 
trace was conducted on a Federal holiday, turned around within 
hours, which we can't do for all of them; only the urgent 
traces, because of some of the legal limits we have. They used 
that information, our local partners and Federal partners, to 
catch that person before he could kill again.
    In the subway shooting in Brooklyn, another mass incident, 
we were able to turnaround an urgent trace that led to the 
capture of the killer.
    In case after case after case, this is something that local 
detectives, that local gang task forces, ask us to do, and we 
turn around those investigative leads--that's what they're 
called; they're called leads in criminal cases--so that we can 
help to protect people from being hurt again.
    Mr. Ivey. Yes, and so, for example, you might have a gun 
that's recovered in a shooting. If you use the trace, you can 
find it maybe was connected to a previous shooting by a 
different shooter and get that guy off the street, when you 
wouldn't have been able to do it otherwise, right?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Right. There's a NIBIN tool, which is so 
important. It, basically, allows us to run a criminal history 
of a crime gun. So, that there might be a shooting over here 
where there's no evidence, but just down the block a couple of 
weeks ago, there was another murder. Or somebody shoots up a 
stop sign. On that one, we can connect those two to find out 
they were fired by the same weapon, and the local police can, 
then, say, ``Oh, we don't have evidence on this one, but we 
have a license plate reader on that guy who shot at the stop 
sign.'' So, we now, we're cooking with gas, right? We've got a 
lead that we can work on in an active criminal case to try and 
catch the person.
    As I think somebody asked me from the other side of the 
room it's important because these people act again many times. 
So, by interrupting the shooting cycle, we're both holding 
somebody accountable who hurt or killed somebody, but we're 
also stopping them from doing it again.
    Mr. Ivey. So, to go back to some of the previous questions 
you were just asked about getting violent offenders off the 
streets, wouldn't this be an extremely valuable tool for doing 
that? If we want to get people off the streets who have used 
guns before to actually commit crimes, why wouldn't we want to 
get as much information as possible to link it to them, so we 
could actually arrest and prosecute them?
    Mr. Dettelbach. While only 50 percent of the agencies 
participate, I have found, at least anecdotally, that those 
with the highest rates of violent crime understand and use the 
tracing and NIBIN tool very aggressively to try and solve 
cases. We help our law enforcement partners clear homicides, 
killings.
    Mr. Ivey. Yes, and 50 is better than zero. So, I think it 
makes sense, and 100--
    Mr. Dettelbach. Six hundred thousand, of course, is better 
than--that's how many times they asked us individually to trace 
crime guns just in 2022.
    Mr. Ivey. Absolutely.
    So, I know there's concern on the other side about a 
firearms registry and this isn't that. In fact, I believe the 
GAO found, in 2016, that the out-of-business data base was 
totally compliant. So, I, actually, don't think that's an 
issue, either. I think what is clearly an issue is the 
violence, gun violence on the street, mass shootings, in 
particular.
    I want to join in commending the action groups--Moms 
Against Violence, or Moms Demand Action, and the like--for the 
work that you're doing. It makes a huge difference in the 
communities.
    I'm old enough to remember Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I 
was in school. So, it was still happening. I remember I was 
actually a student prosecutor. You had people driving with the 
wheel in one hand and a beer in the other one, and everybody 
thought that was fine. That type of social action changed the 
approach to that and created laws, and I think the work that 
you're doing is helping to move this in the right direction, 
too.
    Lord knows, we need it. You know, what? I think it was 170-
plus mass shootings already this year. So, we know the gun 
violence isn't slowing down, and the use of these AR-15s and 
other weapons of, I'll say it, mass destruction, essentially, 
on our streets is really devastating communities. I think we 
need to take steps to address it.
    Just one last quick point. I will join in sort of noting 
that I've colleagues who are actually sponsoring legislation to 
eliminate the ATF, eliminate the FBI. One suggested eliminating 
the Department of Justice. So, if they have their way with that 
kind of stuff, we won't have any means to prosecute, not only 
gun violence at the Federal level, but anything--cartels, 
gangs, and terrorists. We won't be able to prosecute them at 
the Federal level if that kind of approach goes forward.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Ivey.
    Mr. Hunt, you are recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Hunt. I'm going to say the quiet part out loud, because 
we all know exactly what's going on here. It wasn't a fully 
automatic machine gun that was banned. 1986. It wasn't the bump 
stock. It certainly is not the pistol brace, and it is not the 
AR-15, of which I am the owner of multiple.
    The left has been chipping away at our Second Amendment 
rights for decades, and I'm sick of compromising. Every time my 
colleagues on the right compromise on guns, the next thing the 
left says is, ``We need to do more.'' If the left can't repeal 
the Second Amendment, then they'll have an unelected 
bureaucrat, like yourself, sir, issue a regulation that will 
make 40 million Americans felons overnight. That's a fact.
    Compromising on our fundamental rights is not going to keep 
our children safe, either. Our children should not be prey for 
homicidal maniacs, and our schools should not be safer--should 
be as safe as we have here in Congress. They should be far 
safer than we have right now. If we're willing to spend $113 
billion on Ukraine, then we could pay to keep our children 
safer.
    So, the gentleman in the corner, thank you, sir, for 
standing in the corner with a gun, and I feel safer by his 
presence already. Every school should have you present.
    I was in high school when Columbine happened. Prior to 
Columbine, we didn't have the level of violence that we're 
seeing today. In 1986, you could walk into a store anywhere in 
this country and buy a fully automatic weapon. Being from 
Texas, acquiring a weapon has always been relatively easy in my 
lifetime.
    Were there more or fewer mass shootings across our country 
when machine guns were available? I think we all know the 
answer to that. We still weren't having these problems because 
it's not the guns; it's our core values that have plummeted.
    The left has been chipping away at our rights for years. 
They've also been chipping away at our core values. In 1960, 61 
percent of Black Americans were married. Today, the number has 
plummeted to 30 percent.
    I'm a current Member of Congress today because I was raised 
in a two-parent household. We ate dinner together every single 
night. We prayed before dinner. We went to church every single 
Sunday. My parents were heavily involved in my education. I 
said the Pledge of Allegiance every single day proudly, and I 
know every word to God Bless the USA by Lee Greenwood.
    Because of these values, my sister and my brother and I all 
graduated from West Point. We all served our country honorably. 
There's 60 years' worth of military service just in my 
immediate family, which is, by definition, the American dream. 
It's because of these values.
    A recent Wall Street Journal survey came out, and it kind 
of confirmed there is a decline in our core American values 
over the course of past 25 years. The question was, what values 
are viewed as, quote, ``very important''?
    Patriotism. In 1998, 70 percent surveyed felt like 
patriotism was very important; today, 38 percent.
    Religion. Sixty-two percent, very important; today, 39 
percent.
    Having children. Fifty-nine percent in 1998; 30 percent 
today.
    Community. Sixty-two percent in 1998; 27 percent today.
    The guns haven't changed. The guns have always been 
available in the United States. Our society has changed, and 
it's changed drastically, in my opinion, for the worse.
    So, where does that leave us today? There's a reason why 
crime and gang violence are up. There's a reason why Black 
women are the fastest-growing demographics of gun owners in 
America. You know that, sir. Many of them live in Democrat-run 
cities with rising crime rates and district attorneys that put 
criminals ahead of innocent women, like we see in New York. By 
the way, it's not their husbands or their significant others 
that are purchasing guns for them. Black women are purchasing 
guns their selves because we know that Democrats replaced Black 
husbands with Uncle Sam a long time ago.
    I have been listening to my colleagues on the left talk 
about guns all day. You have no idea what you're talking about. 
I fear that, if you can't tell me the difference between a man 
and a woman, I am not surprised that you don't know the 
difference between 5.56 and 330 Blackout.
    The problem with this administration is always having 
people that are appointed to one of these agencies that aren't 
fully qualified. They don't understand exactly what's going on 
and how things work.
    If I were running the ATF, I would know a thing about the 
``F'' in ATF. By the way, for the record, that's firearms, sir. 
It's firearms.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Moore. I thank the gentleman.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Van Drew for five minutes.
    Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Chair.
    Just before I begin, I didn't even plan to speak on this 
particular piece, but, as I have been in and out because we had 
multiple committees today, I have heard this constant harangue 
about Republicans causing gun violence. Now, let's really look 
at this.
    So, I thought about the big cities. I thought about 
Chicago, New York City, Washington, DC, Baltimore, 
Philadelphia--just to name a few of them. Is Chicago a 
Republican city? Is New York City a Republican city? Is 
Baltimore a Republican city? Is Washington, DC a Republican 
town? Is Philadelphia a Republican city?
    They all have the worst crime rates. Little babies, 
children, others are killed virtually every week in these 
places. They have the strictest gun laws you can find anywhere. 
It is cruel to tell people, because you are going to make a 
stabilizing brace illegal, that their little babies are going 
to be OK; that their children are going to be OK; that their 
families are going to be OK--because it just isn't true.
    Mr. Hunt is exactly right; it has to do with our family 
structure, our family, our faith, our belief in freedom, and 
patriotism. Our society has fallen apart to a great degree. 
This administration has taken every chance possible--every 
chance--to politicize gun violence, to push more and more 
restrictive measures on legal and law-abiding gun owners.
    I'm a gun owner. I go to the range once or twice a week. 
The guys that I see there are not bad people. They're 
sportsmen. They practice. They are very responsible. They know 
how important it is to be responsible.
    You know what I do know? I know the ATF and the progressive 
district attorneys have decided to focus efforts not on 
punishing the individuals who commit the real crimes, the bad 
guys--and there are bad guys--but, instead, use tragedy to push 
a political agenda, to try to waste Second Amendment rights.
    So, my first question to you is, which scenario makes 
Americans safer? I want everybody to think about this. What 
makes Americans safer--turning law-abiding Americans into 
felons by banning pistol braces or, if we have a weak-on-crime 
DA who lets people in and out of jail? Some of these people 
have 20-40 priors. So, is it the violent gun offender that is 
let out over and over again or is it a pistol brace that a 
veteran is using, or an older man is using, when they shoot? I 
would like you to answer that question.
    Mr. Dettelbach. At ATF, we focus a huge percentage of our--
    Mr. Van Drew. I asked you to answer the question.
    Mr. Dettelbach. --resources on fighting the kind of violent 
crime that you have talked about. It's important and 
protection--
    Mr. Van Drew. So, I'm respecting your position, and I have 
asked you to answer a simple question. Is it the brace that's a 
problem or is it the fact that people who have committed 
felonies are let of over and over again? Which is it? Is it the 
brace or the felony? Which is it?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Or when--
    Mr. Van Drew. Is it the brace or the felony? Which is it?
    Mr. Dettelbach. When we do an investigation of a violent--
    Mr. Van Drew. Which is it? Is it the brace or the felony, 
sir?
    Mr. Dettelbach. --felon, a gang member, and we discover 
that gang member with a brick of crack cocaine and a short-
barreled rifle those are both dangerous things.
    Mr. Van Drew. Well--
    Mr. Dettelbach. Law-abiding citizens should not be 
targeted--
    Mr. Van Drew. I guess you're saying felony.
    Mr. Dettelbach. --I agree with you on that, but there are 
violent people who are using these--
    Mr. Van Drew. We are letting people out more than we ever 
have in our history. Crime rates are going up in the cities 
more than we've ever seen because of the new, ultra-left 
philosophy that we have on criminals. It's a fact. I'm not 
making this stuff up.
    So, it's an upside-down world in which we live in, and 
we're turning millions of law-abiding Americans into felons 
because you made a change about a gun brace. We don't--that's 
not going to help these ladies. It's cruel to do this to these 
ladies. I know some of them may think you're going to be the 
heroes, but you're not.
    The assumption by the ATF that these pistols braces make a 
normal, law-abiding person suddenly a violent criminal is 
bizarre, which leads to my second question.
    We already know that you're unable to exactly define what 
is an assault weapon is. You said so. We have it on tape. So, 
instead, I'll ask--
    Mr. Dettelbach. It's not my role to define it.
    Mr. Van Drew. I know. I know.
    Mr. Dettelbach. If you delegate me that authority by 
statute--
    Mr. Van Drew. It's Alcohol--
    Mr. Dettelbach. If you ask me to make a rule--
    Mr. Van Drew. It's Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, but we 
know nothing about it. Have you ever used a firearm with a 
pistol brace attachment?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I've used many different types of firearms.
    Mr. Van Drew. Have you?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I believe--
    Mr. Van Drew. Did it make you feel like committing a crime?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I believe I have used a firearm with a 
stabilizing brace which was designed to be shouldered.
    Mr. Van Drew. I mean, did it flow through your blood that 
you wanted to commit a crime?
    Mr. Moore. The gentleman's time has--
    Mr. Van Drew. I yield back.
    Mr. Dettelbach. I believe that people--
    Mr. Van Drew. I yield back.
    Mr. Moore. The gentleman's time is expired.
    Mr. Dettelbach. --possess firearms, and that the firearms 
aren't things that flow through their blood. So, I don't--
    Mr. Moore. The Chair recognizes Ms. Hageman from Arizona.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    There's been much discussion in this Committee about the 
issue of regulatory abuse, the growing Administrative State, 
and the role ATF plays in this undermining of our 
representative government. This has been discussed through the 
pistol brace rule, among others, but I want to make it clear 
that this is not a new issue and that the ATF, and the entirety 
of the Administrative State continues to engage in illegal 
lawmaking.
    Director Dettelbach, are you familiar with the case Cargill 
v. Garland?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I do know that case. I believe that's a 
pending case in the Fifth Circuit, I believe.
    Ms. Hageman. Yes, it's a case that was decided in January 
of this year and it relates to challenging to ATF's bump stock 
rule.
    Now, you have repeatedly stated that the ATF only carries 
out the laws as passed by Congress, but that isn't true. The 
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in fact, ruled against the ATF, 
and I'm just going to cover a few of the findings that the 
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals made.
    This case was a case--this was initiated by a gun owner in 
response to the ATF promulgating a regulation to interpret 
Federal law; specifically, the National Firearms Act and the 
Gun Control Act, to define ``firearm accessories'' as machine 
guns, even though Congress had not done so.
    The regulation was pursued in direct contrast to a position 
that the ATF held for over a decade, and that's, in fact, 
similar to the pistol brace, where the ATF, actually, issued 
letters to owners of bump stocks and pistol braces saying that 
they were legal accessories. Yet, the ATF eventually changed 
their mind, but not because Congress issued any new law; it was 
a new interpretation on your part.
    In fact, the Court in the Cargill case found that there had 
been bills that had been introduced regarding bump stocks, but 
before they could be considered in earnest, the ATF went 
forward with this rule, quote, ``short-circuiting the 
legislative process.''
    The Fifth Circuit further concluded that, even if the ATF 
interpretation of the statute were correct, the rule would 
clash with the rule of lenity because, quote, ``It purports to 
allow ATF, rather than Congress, to set forth scope of criminal 
prohibitions.''
    Director Dettelbach, does this situation and the legal 
questions raised sound familiar to you outside of the scope of 
the Cargill case?
    Mr. Dettelbach. The rule was promulgated during the prior 
administration. It is currently in the courts. The Circuits are 
actually split, and there's a--
    Ms. Hageman. Right. The Fifth Circuit and the Sixth Circuit 
ruled yesterday, finding again that the ATF did not have the 
legal authority to issue the bump stock rule, correct?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Another Circuit--and another Circuit has 
upheld it, and it is on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
    Ms. Hageman. I understand that. My point is that what the 
ATF did with the bump stock is very similar to what you're 
attempting to do with the pistol brace rule, isn't it?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Those are different situations. They are 
both--
    Ms. Hageman. You're attempting--
    Mr. Dettelbach. --applications of Congress'--Congress'--
    Ms. Hageman. Well, that's not what the Court--that's not 
what the Fifth Circuit found, though, is it?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Well, obviously, this is before the courts. 
Our position has been--
    Ms. Hageman. The Fifth Circuit didn't find that, did they?
    Mr. Dettelbach. --is in hundreds of pages of public 
documents.
    Ms. Hageman. Neither did the Sixth Circuit.
    Mr. Dettelbach. I will tell you, with respect to bump 
stocks, I fired a bump stock, and I will tell you, it is 
impossible to simply fire one, one round--impossible.
    Ms. Hageman. So, it's a pretty scathing indictment of the 
ATF's attempt to subvert the lawmaking authority of Congress by 
misinterpreting statutes, so that an unelected bureaucratic 
can, essentially, alter the underlying statute and apply new 
criminal prohibitions.
    This bump stock fight began in 2018, and many of these 
rules we are examining here began after the 2020 election. The 
common denominator is the weaponization of the ATF by unelected 
bureaucrats who are always pushing to expand their power and 
the scope of Federal gun laws to infringe on the Second 
Amendment.
    However, your agenda becomes even more dangerous combined 
with this administration's antigun views, which is pushing to 
infringe on our Constitution and our natural rights.
    Director, who elected you to expand and rewrite the scope 
of Federal gun laws?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I'm appointed by the President and 
confirmed by the Senate.
    Ms. Hageman. You haven't been elected by anyone, is that 
right?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I do not stand--I'm not a politician, and I 
don't run for office.
    Ms. Hageman. Mr. Dettelbach, is your priority, as ATF 
Director, to catch criminals who violate the law or to change 
the laws to create new criminals?
    Mr. Dettelbach. We use the laws as Congress has passed them 
to try to protect people from violent crime and catch people 
who are violating the law--murderers, corporate--
    Ms. Hageman. How is your regulatory agenda accomplishing 
that goal?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Because, when Congress passes a law that 
Congress determines advances public safety, like the National 
Firearms Act, the law has to be implemented by somebody. It has 
to be enforced by somebody. Law enforcement officials, like 
myself and the brave men and women who work for me, do that. We 
do that in a variety of different ways.
    Ms. Hageman. Congress didn't pass a law banning bump 
stocks, did it?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Congress--
    Ms. Hageman. Just answer my question. Yes or no--
    Mr. Dettelbach. Congress passed--
    Ms. Hageman. --did Congress pass a law banning bump stocks? 
Yes or no?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Congress delegated to ATF rulemaking 
authority.
    Ms. Hageman. Did--
    Mr. Dettelbach. Congress' Act--
    Ms. Hageman. Actually, the courts held you don't have 
rulemaking authority. That was the Fifth Circuit decision.
    Mr. Moore. The lady's time is up.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Other Circuit--and it's before the courts 
now. Whatever the decisions of the courts are, we will abide, 
of course.
    Ms. Hageman. Did Congress ban pistol braces? Yes or no?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Congress passed the National Firearms Act 
and said short-barreled rifles were subject to additional 
regulations.
    Mr. Moore. The lady's time is up.
    Ms. Hageman. He won't answer the question.
    Mr. Moore. The Chair recognizes Mr. Fry.
    Mr. Dettelbach. --a ban--none of it.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for having this hearing 
today.
    Before I begin, I think it's important to highlight some of 
the important things that we learned in our prior hearing about 
the ATF pistol brace rule.
    Ms. Amy Swearer, a Senior Fellow, Legal Fellow, at the 
Heritage Foundation, testified that the ATF has long sought to 
undermine the authority of Congress by interpreting or 
intentionally misinterpreting the law to give itself more 
power, as Ms. Hageman so eloquently highlighted.
    We also know that Mr. Alex Bosco, the founder and inventor 
of the stabilizing brace, said that, ``for over 10 years, the 
ATF did not classify the use of pistol braces as being against 
any rule of the agency.'' Now, the ATF has, suddenly, changed 
its mind--without any law passed by Congress, I might add.
    Thanks to Chair Jordan's questioning of Mr. Rob Wilcox, the 
Director of Policy at Everytown for Gun Safety, we also know 
that gun control advocacy groups have been welcomed into the 
Biden White House. The ATF, through a backdoor, has set these 
rule changes in motion--much of this being facilitated outside 
the appropriate rule change petition protocols.
    President Biden's decision to treat pistols with 
stabilizing braces as short-barrel rifles under the NFA was 
done without Congressional approval, and clearly, indicates how 
gun control lobbies and this administration wish to force their 
restrictive agendas on Americans.
    I, along with my colleagues, believe that the ATF has 
overstepped their bounds, and they are usurping Congressional 
authority with its rulemaking, and should leave the business of 
making laws to Congress. I want to ensure that you, Mr. 
Dettelbach, understand that.
    Mr. Dettelbach, in your eyes, who has the power to make 
laws? We'll go back to the Schoolhouse Rock days. Who has the 
power to make laws in the United States?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Statutes must be passed by Congress of the 
United States.
    Mr. Fry. Excellent. Has Congress explicitly criminalized 
the use or possession of pistol braces under the Gun Control 
Act?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Congress delegated--
    Mr. Fry. Have they--
    Mr. Dettelbach. --they delegated to ATF rulemaking 
authority--
    Mr. Fry. Director, we can do this dance all day long. Has 
Congress explicitly criminalized the use or possession of 
pistol braces under the Gun Control Act? Yes or no.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Congress created the short-barreled rifle 
as a category that wasn't banned or criminalized but required 
additional restrictions.
    Mr. Fry. We're talking about the Gun Control Act.
    Again, have we defined pistol braces under the act, and 
have we criminalized the use or possession of them?
    No. The answer to that is no. You can't answer that.
    Mr. Dettelbach. The pistol brace itself alone is not the 
subject of the rulemaking.
    Mr. Fry. Again, that's not my question.
    Mr. Dettelbach. It's the short-barreled rifle that's 
created.
    Mr. Fry. Director, that's not my question. My question is, 
have we done that? The answer is no, because you can't point to 
it. You can't point to a statute that has that. Has Congress 
explicitly authorized the regulation of pistol braces under the 
National Firearms Act?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Our positions, which are set forth in legal 
briefs, say that--we believe we are acting within our 
regulatory authority as delegated by Congress on short-barreled 
rifles.
    Mr. Fry. Correct. So, 10 years ago when this came forward 
and ATF sanctioned the creation of and use of pistol braces, 
those have been outlined pretty extensively.
    Mr. Dettelbach. That was an individual product. The way it 
works is people submit an individual product. Many different 
products beyond that have been produced and used since that 
time.
    Mr. Fry. In reliance on ATF's guidance, right?
    Mr. Dettelbach. You can't have one thing classified and 
then say you're relying on it, and you change the product and 
say--and that's what was going on. People were saying that 
things had been approved by ATF that had never even been 
presented to ATF.
    Mr. Fry. Director, how many pistol braces are owned by 
American citizens?
    Mr. Dettelbach. So, we don't regulate the brace itself, so 
I don't know. The estimates in the rule name a number that is 
far lower than the number that I hear others saying and one of 
the number was--
    Mr. Fry. What would you say that--in your estimates?
    Mr. Dettelbach. I would have to look at the rule, but I 
think it's--in the rule it has an impact estimation and it's--I 
don't want to misState. I believe it's several million, but I'm 
not sure.
    Mr. Fry. Several million. OK. So, we can at least agree 
several million, according to the agency, there's speculation.
    Mr. Dettelbach. You have to check the record.
    Mr. Fry. That's fine. We can at least stipulate to that.
    With implementation under this rule--obviously, we have 
gone through that--you either have to surrender your weapon, 
you have to disassemble it, you have to destroy it, turn it in, 
or what happens? You're subject to criminal penalties. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Dettelbach. So, you have to either--by the way, we have 
waived all taxes on this during the period of time. There's no 
taxes. We have--
    Mr. Fry. Again--
    Mr. Dettelbach. --you can either disassemble the brace from 
the weapon. The weapon still works as the way you bought the 
weapon.
    Mr. Fry. Hold on. Back up. I'm going to reclaim my time for 
a second.
    So, the agency for 10 years has allowed this to come into 
being, has sanctioned the existence of and the implementation 
of and the furtherance of these pistol braces into the 
marketplace and now with at least several million, as you 
stipulated to, now they want to clamp down on that.
    My problem is--I hear the snickering and the sneers from 
the crowd at some point today and they might think it's funny. 
I'm concerned about average, everyday Americans who aren't 
aware of this rule who are now going to be turned into felons 
subject to up to a $250,000 fine.
    I think it's ridiculous that we're even here, Director, and 
I think the mission of ATF is not in compliance with what 
you're actually doing with this rule.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Fry. The Chair recognizes himself 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Director, I want to remind you you're under oath. Can 
you tell me are there any other rules coming down the pike in 
ATF that we need to warn the American consumers that they may 
be made felons?
    Mr. Dettelbach. So, there is a process for rulemaking 
that's outlined under the APA and ATF works through and honors 
that process. So, we consider matters and when it comes time, 
we actually publish a public notice of the intent to issue a 
rule. That's the way we speak about whether we are seeking to 
enact a rule.
    Mr. Moore. So why now? I mean, the pistol brace has been 
around for over a decade. Why now?
    Mr. Dettelbach. If one reviews the notice of proposed 
rulemaking there is a very detailed public--this is a 
transparent process. That's the good thing about the APA and 
notice and comment rulemaking.
    We talk about the history of the individual devices that 
were presented, some inconsistency, which is important to say, 
and then the necessity to try and clarify for people who want 
to follow the law which factors are going to make things into 
short-barreled rifles.
    Mr. Moore. So, I just curious. So, is there anything coming 
down the pike we need to warn our gun owners about--our 
American consumers, our Second Amendment folks?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, when we want--the APA provides for a 
process and when there's rulemaking that we publish a notice of 
proposed rulemaking and that gives the public time to submit 
comments, and we get comments and we read and review and take 
into account those comments at that point.
    Mr. Moore. Mr. Director, can you define an assault weapon 
for me?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Again, if Congress chooses to take up 
legislation involving assault weapons, I believe Congress would 
have two choices.
    Either Congress itself could write the definition of what 
an assault weapon is, as happened in Congress in 1994, has 
happened in seven, eight, nine, or 10 different State 
legislatures who have different definitions, by the way, or 
Congress could delegate to ATF--
    Mr. Moore. Which we probably won't do as long as--
    Mr. Dettelbach. Well, from the tone of some of the 
questions--
    Mr. Moore. Yes, I hope we would never do that.
    So, why is it with--I got limited time--why when you put a 
pistol brace on it, we have so many people define it then as an 
assault weapon when we haven't defined it?
    Mr. Dettelbach. A pistol brace, when it's added to the 
weapon--with certain types of pistols, not all and not all 
types of braces, can form a short-barreled rifle, which is--
Congress set an inch number, right, number of inches for the 
barrel and then it has to be, according to Congress, designed 
or intended to be shouldered and that's what the rule seeks to 
provide clarification on so we can have a consistent set of 
objective features of the firearm.
    Mr. Moore. Well, let me say really quick I went to buy a 
shotgun a few months ago and my time expired--the background 
check. I finally just--it expired, and they called me and said, 
you can come on and get it. So, it's not so easy in Alabama to 
get a gun.
    With that, Mr. Chair, I'll yield the remainder of my time 
to you, sir.
    Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Mr. Dettelbach, the pistol brace is an accessory, right? 
Regulated arms--
    Mr. Dettelbach. Alone, without attached to anything, the 
pistol brace is not something that we regulate.
    Chair Jordan. When it's attached to a pistol it can become 
a short-barreled rifle and then is subject to under the 
National Firearms Act. That's what you're saying?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Depending on the features--
    Chair Jordan. I understand. I understand.
    Mr. Dettelbach. --of both the pistol and the brace, and 
there are some--the forearm--everybody talks about forearm 
braces. True forearm braces that are not designed and intended 
to be shouldered would be classified and not covered.
    Chair Jordan. The bump stock's an accessory, right?
    Mr. Dettelbach. The bump stock is a conversion device, I 
believe. So, I want to check. Our position on that is in 
briefs. That's a different provision of the act. That's a 
provision that encourages--
    Chair Jordan. The bump stock gets added to the firearm and 
that's now subject to the NFA and--
    Mr. Dettelbach. So, the NFA specifically says that items 
which can be used to convert something to a fully automatic 
weapon are covered by the NFA. So, those are the words Congress 
used. They didn't use the word accessory. They used things 
that--
    Chair Jordan. Right. Then you guys said bump stock fits 
that definition and is subject to the NFA, right?
    Mr. Dettelbach. Correct. The bump stock then was--
    Chair Jordan. That's been challenged in court, right?
    Mr. Dettelbach. It's currently before the court, sir. It's 
a split in the different courts.
    Chair Jordan. Split in the court. I'm just looking at the 
one that came out yesterday. Sixth Circuit, the one you're 
familiar with. Sixth Circuit.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Right. The Sixth Circuit ruled yesterday.
    Chair Jordan. Again--
    Mr. Dettelbach. A panel of the Sixth Circuit. There's a 
prior en banc and I haven't had a chance to read the whole--
    Chair Jordan. Just let me read and just tell me if you 
think that--here's what the court said,

        The viability of competing interpretations is exemplified not 
        only by the myriad and conflicting judicial opinions on the 
        issue, but also by the ATF's own flipflop in its position,

and that's what I think concerns Americans is you guys told us 
all one thing, told the country one thing on the bump stock, 
and then you change.
    You told the country all one thing on pistol braces and 
then you change, and that's the conflict. On this situation, 
bump stocks--I don't know how many Americans had that, but my 
guess is not near as many as had the brace.
    Now, we're talking about a situation that I doubt you've 
ever been in before where you're going to make a rule that's 
going to impact millions and millions of Americans and that's 
the problem. That's the concern. That's why you're here talking 
to us today.
    Lots of Americans have--that's why there are cases all over 
the country because you said one thing and you flip-flopped. 
Not my words. The Sixth Circuit--their words. That's the 
problem.
    Mr. Dettelbach. Of course, I understand the legal record 
and I haven't read the opinion and I will with respect to what 
happened in the prior administration when that rule was issued. 
Of course, I wasn't there. I don't know the details.
    Our legal position is spelled out publicly as to what the 
rule that was issued in the prior administration said.
    Chair Jordan. I thank the--I'll yield back to--you're the 
Chair. You're functioning as the Chair. I'll yield back to you 
to close it out.
    Mr. Moore. That concludes the hearing for today. We thank 
our witness for appearing before the Committee.
    Without objection, all Members will have five legislative 
days to submit additional written questions for the witness--
additional materials for the record.
    Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:28 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

    All items submitted for the record by Members of the 
Committee on the Judiciary can be found at https://
docs.house.gov/
Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=115794.