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



                  HEARING ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE
                           FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WEAPONIZATION
                        OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

                                 OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________


                        WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 2024

                               __________


                           Serial No. 118-80

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary





                 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]





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

                               ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

55-793                    WASHINGTON : 2024












                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

DARRELL ISSA, California             JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking 
MATT GAETZ, Florida                      Member
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                  ZOE LOFGREN, California
TOM McCLINTOCK, California           SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin               STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
CHIP ROY, Texas                          Georgia
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina           ADAM SCHIFF, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana             ERIC SWALWELL, California
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin          TED LIEU, California
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
BEN CLINE, Virginia                  J. LUIS CORREA, California
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota        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                  BECCA BALINT, Vermont
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina
Vacancy

                                 ------                                

            SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE
                           FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

                        JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

DARRELL ISSA, California             STACEY PLASKETT, Virgin Islands, 
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky                  Ranking Member
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York          STEPHEN LYNCH, Massachusetts
MATT GAETZ, Florida                  LINDA SANCHEZ, California
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota        DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida           GERRY CONNOLLY, Virginia
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina           JOHN GARAMENDI, California
KAT CAMMACK, Florida                 SYLVIA GARCIA, Texas
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             DAN GOLDMAN, New York
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio                JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina

               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
              CAROLINE NABITY, Chief Counsel for Oversight
         AARON HILLER, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
           CHRISTINA CALCE, Minority Chief Oversight Counsel









                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                              ----------                              

                        Wednesday, May 22, 2024

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Select Subcommittee on the 
  Weaponization of the Federal Government from the State of Ohio.     1
The Honorable Stacey Plaskett, Ranking Member of the Select 
  Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government 
  from the Virgin Islands........................................     3

                               WITNESSES

Ryan M. Cleckner, former Army Ranger, Co-Founder, Gun University 
  LLC
  Oral Testimony.................................................     7
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    10
Andrew Graham, former Deputy Assistant Director (DAD), 
  Enforcement Programs Services, ATF
  Oral Testimony.................................................    13
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    15
Kelly Sampson, Senior Counsel, Brady United
  Oral Testimony.................................................    20
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    22
The Hon. Bud Cummins, Attorney, representing the Bryan 
  Malinowski's family
  Oral Testimony.................................................    28
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    31

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

All materials submitted for the record by the Select Subcommittee 
  on the Weaponization of the Federal Government are listed below    69

A search warrant from the United States District Court, Eastern 
  District of Arkansas, submitted by the Honorable Dan Goldman, 
  of the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
  Government from the State of New York, for the record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Stacey Plaskett, Ranking 
  Member of the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the 
  Federal Government from the Virgin Islands, for the record
    A letter to the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Select 
        Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
        Government from the State of Ohio, May 21, 2024, from the 
        U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
        Firearms and Explosives, for the record
    An affidavit from the United States District Court, Eastern 
        District of Arkansas, Mar. 24, 2024
    A letter to Detroit Gun Factory, LLC, May 5, 2022, from the 
        U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
        Firearms and Explosives
    A letter to Detroit Gun Factory, LLC, Apr. 14, 2023, from the 
        U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
        Firearms and Explosives
    A letter to the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Select 
        Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
        Government from the State of Ohio, and the Honorable 
        Stacey Plaskett, Ranking Member of the Select 
        Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
        Government from the Virgin Islands, May 23, 2024, from 
        the National Fraternal Order of Police
    A report entitled, ``Report of Firearms Compliance 
        Inspection,'' U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of 
        Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
An executive summary entitled, ``97Percent Annual Gun Owner 
  Survey,'' Oct. 2023, Research Findings Executive Summary, 
  submitted by the Honorable Jamine Crockett, a Member of the 
  Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
  Government from the State of Texas, for the record

                                APPENDIX

A statement from the Honorable Sylvia Garcia, a Member of the 
  Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
  Government from the State of Texas, for the record
A statement from the Honorable Gerry Connolly, a Member of the 
  Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
  Government from the State of Virginia, for the record

                 QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD

Questions and responses from Kelly Sampson, Senior Counsel, Brady 
  United, submitted by the Honorable Sylvia Garcia, a Member of 
  the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
  Government from the State of Texas, for the record









 
                  HEARING ON THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE
                           FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, May 22, 2024

                        House of Representatives

   Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Jim Jordan 
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Jordan, Issa, Gaetz, 
Armstrong, Steube, Bishop, Cammack, Hageman, Davidson, 
Plaskett, Lynch, Wasserman Schultz, Connolly, Goldman, and 
Crockett.
    Also present: Representative Hill.
    Chair Jordan. The Subcommittee will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess at any time. We welcome everyone to today's Hearing on 
the Weapon-
ization of the ATF.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Dakota to 
lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
    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. I thank the gentleman from North Dakota.
    Without objection, the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Hill 
will be permitted to participate in today's hearing for the 
purposes of introducing a witness, which we will get to in just 
a few minutes.
    The Chair now recognizes himself for an opening statement.
    In June 2021, just a few months after taking office, 
President Biden directed the Justice Department to adopt a 
zero-tolerance policy to revoke firearms--excuse me, Federal 
firearms licenses from those who committed, quote, ``willful 
violations of the law.''
    That same month ATF updated its internal best practices 
guide to State, quote,

        ATF will, absent extraordinary circumstances, initiate 
        proceedings to revoke the license of any dealer that has 
        committed a willful regulatory violation of the Gun Control Act 
        for specified violations.

    These willful violations now include purposefully broad 
classifications like, quote, ``falsifying documents'' and 
``failing to maintain records needed for successful firearms 
tracing'' and would essentially allow the ATF to revoke the 
licenses of FFLs for simple technical and nonmaterial paperwork 
violations.
    The ATF is zealously doing just that. The year after the 
zero-tolerance policy went into effect ATF revoked over 90 
licenses, more than any year since 2006. Last year that number 
jumped to 157 FFL revocations. The year before zero tolerance 
went into effect there were just 40 revocations.
    To be sure, the Gun Control Act authorizes the ATF to 
inspect FFLs to ensure they are compliant with record keeping 
requirements and all other applicable laws and regulations. 
That is so the government can ensure that there are no illegal 
firearms transfers occurring, not for revoking licenses for 
simple paperwork violations.
    We have talked to some of the affected FFLs. We have even 
talked to some who beat the ATF in court and were able to keep 
their license. They told us it cost over $150,000 in fees to 
keep their license. There is no way the average small business 
can afford that much in legal and consulting fees and ATF knows 
this.
    The data shows this brazen scheme is working. The number of 
voluntary business closures post inspection has risen sharply 
from 24 in 2021, to 69 in 2022, and to 80 last year. This is 
exactly what the left wants.
    Democrats and Joe Biden have been trying to take guns away 
from Americans for years. If they can't take the FFLs away, 
they are going to limit the number--if they can't take the guns 
away, they're going to limit the number of places where law-
abiding Americans can go purchase their firearms.
    Today we'll examine the actions by ATF that led to the 
untimely and unnecessary death of Bryan Malinowski. At this 
time, I want to offer my condolences to the Members of Mr. 
Malinowski's family.
    Some of them are here with us today. We're also joined by 
Congressman Hill, who I mentioned earlier, who represents Mr. 
Malinowski and his family and has sought justice on their 
behalf.
    In the early morning hours of March 19, 2024, armed ATF 
agents arrived at the Malinowski family home in at least 10 
vehicles to execute a search warrant. According to the warrant, 
the ATF alleged that Mr. Malinowski was selling firearms 
without a license.
    Footage from the Malinowski's doorbell camera shows ATF 
agents approaching the house with riot shields and subsequently 
disabling the camera to prevent their conduct from being 
recorded.
    On hearing the commotion and fearful of a home intrusion, 
Mr. Malinowski awoke and prepared to defend his family. Mr. 
Malinowski encountered what he and his wife believed to be home 
intruders. An exchange of gunfire ensued. Mr. Malinowski was 
shot in the head, and he died from his wounds two days later.
    The circumstances of Mr. Malinowski's death raise questions 
about whether the ATF followed proper protocol during the 
execution of this search warrant. DOJ policy and President 
Biden's Executive Order 14074 requires ATF agents including 
those who conducted the search warrant on the Malinowski family 
home to wear active body-worn cameras during the execution of 
that warrant.
    The department, however, has since confirmed to the 
Malinowski family that ATF agents were not wearing body cameras 
during the raid, a clear violation of the department policy.
    It is also unclear whether ATF agents complied with Justice 
Department policy on no-knock entries. In explaining the 
rationale for this policy, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco 
noted that, quote,

        Because of the risk posed to both law enforcement and civilians 
        during the execution of no-knock warrants it is important that 
        this authority be exercised in only the most compelling 
        circumstances.

    Furthermore, Ms. Monaco directed the use of no-knock 
entries should be restricted to instances in which an agent has 
reasonable grounds to believe that at the time of the warrant--
that the warrant is sought that knocking and announcing the 
agents' presence would create an imminent threat of physical 
violence to the agent or to another person.
    It's not clear if the raid was a no-knock encounter 
because, in part, the ATF agents disabled the Malinowski's home 
camera. ATF has yet to explain why it resorted to a risky 
predawn entry of Mr. Malinowski's home when it could have 
peacefully executed the warrant while he was away from his 
residence. I think that's a huge question.
    The ATF wanted Mr. Malinowski to be home when they executed 
the search warrant. We know ATF abandoned a previous attempt to 
execute the search warrant when they learned Mr. Malinowski 
wasn't home. They were actually primed and ready to go the week 
before but didn't go because he wasn't there.
    Why did they need him to be in the home as this was a 
search warrant and not an arrest warrant? In fact, there were 
numerous other dangerous options--less dangerous options 
available to the ATF.
    The ATF knew his pattern of life. They could have chosen to 
wait for Mr. Malinowski to leave for work and safely approached 
him after he had exited his home.
    The ATF could have conducted the raid after Mr. Malinowski 
left for work and had other agents meet him at his work where 
he was not allowed to carry a firearm.
    The ATF could have waited until he was gone and asked Ms. 
Malinowski to call him back after the house was secure. ATF 
agents could have given Mr. Malinowski more time to answer the 
door during the knock and announce, so he knew it was the 
police.
    Since the ATF chose to ignore their own policy, not wear 
body cameras, we will never know if they gave him the 10 
seconds or 60 seconds or whatever to answer the door, and 
tomorrow in front of the Full Judiciary Committee Director 
Dettelbach will have a chance to explain the actions of the 
ATF.
    Today we look forward to hearing from our witnesses. I want 
to thank them all for being here.
    I now yield back and now recognize the Ranking Member for 
an opening statement.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you to the Chair. Good morning and 
thank you to the witnesses and others that are here and joining 
us at this hearing.
    Last week after Trump insider and convicted criminal Steve 
Bannon demanded that Chair Jordan do more to protect Donald 
Trump and this Committee answered the call. It's no accident 
that last week this Committee called as a witness a former 
defense attorney for Donald Trump in the classified documents 
case, Rudy Giuliani's former lawyer and the attorney who has 
written and filed Chair Jordan's amicus briefs to the Supreme 
Court to support Donald Trump's many indictments.
    Republicans rolled their eyes and snickered when I noted as 
the Ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee that the plain goal of 
that hearing was to influence the New York hush money trial 
against Donald Trump.
    Just so the public is clear how closely this Committee is 
trying to link Donald J. Trump's criminal and civil matters and 
use this Committee to act as outside defense Special Counsel, 
two days ago Robert Costello, a Republican witness from last 
week's hearing, was called by Donald Trump as a witness for the 
defense in that very trial and used his same manic rambling 
testimony that he gave in this Subcommittee.
    Thankfully, now maybe the Chair and GOP Members won't 
continue to be blasted by Fox News and other MAGA news outlets 
and blogs for not doing enough with the Committee to support 
the former President.
    Costello got to try out his testimony. Defense counsel 
thought it was good enough to appear as a witness on the stand 
last week. I know the American people don't believe that this 
is an appropriate use of the $20 million allocated to this 
Committee holding six full hearings to bolster disproven lies 
that the government is colluding with social media companies to 
target conservatives, calling in an antisemitic anti-vax racist 
conspiracy theorist who claims a worm ate part of his brain as 
a witness.
    Others just spread the widely debunked fringe claims about 
the Deep State or have personnel grievances from appropriate 
firing from their former employers that the Committee offers 
them time to air here.
    This is what Republicans have made of the Committee 
process, but I guess it goes along with their inability to 
effectively legislate in this Congress as well.
    People often wonder with my courtroom litigation background 
having been a prosecuting assistant district attorney if I 
enjoy these hearings.
    I have to tell you every time I get a notice of a hearing 
for this Committee my stomach hurts because I'm disturbed by 
the use of this legislative time to prop up a failed 
individual, one individual--a loser in elections, a disastrous 
dictatorial wannabe in governing, a perennially bankrupt false 
revenue inflating con artist in business, and a cheater in 
marriage even. That's who the Republicans want us to spend our 
time on, supporting Donald Trump rather than the American 
people.
    Today we're going a step further. We are somehow having a 
hearing to protect the gun lobby, to prop up Donald Trump's 
pro-death agenda when more than 100 Americans die of gun 
violence every day.
    We have colleagues who have lost friends, classmates, and 
mass shooters. Some of us in this Congress see the scourge of 
illegal guns coming across State and city lines to ravage 
communities with gun violence and death of youths.
    These deaths happen everywhere, haunting every corner of 
the American experience, and without a robust Federal law 
enforcement, an ATF and FBI, Americans will die at a faster 
rate.
    I know that the Virgin Islands, my home, our Federal law 
enforcement play a critical role in combating the scourge of 
drugs and guns trafficking. Without these agencies or with more 
guns available to bad people my region where I live and all of 
America will be even more dangerous.
    Families of gun violence victims have their lives ripped 
apart and turned upside down in a moment. None of that is 
helped or made less common occurrence when we attack and 
undermine the ATF and the FBI.
    Republicans on this Committee simply--it's not a matter of 
caring about those mass victims. Families in Uvalde identified 
their children by shoes because they could not identify them by 
the faces that they have looked at every day.
    It's easy to become desensitized in politics, but if that 
doesn't hurt you, if you don't feel anything for that, God help 
us all. There have already been 27 deaths from school shootings 
this year alone.
    Almost 4,000 children and teens are shot and killed every 
year, 15,000 more injured. Guns are the number one cause of 
death and children between the age of 1-18--the first cause of 
death--guns. Not car accidents, suffocation, drowning, 
poisoning, and cancer. Number one, guns, an entirely 
preventable death if guns were in fact well regulated.
    Instead of addressing this real problem and instead of 
listening to three-quarters of gun owners--gun owners--three 
quarters that support common sense gun safety laws. We're 
continuing with this.
    They brought us here right after Police Week in furtherance 
of a mission to defund and dismantle the agency trying to save 
our children, save Americans from gun violence.
    The ATF is a central agency dedicated to stopping the 
source of gun violence. Its agents ensure the background check 
laws are followed. They keep guns out of the hands of 
criminals.
    They investigate gun crimes. They prevent mass shootings, 
school shootings. They support local law enforcement and gun 
tracing and enforcement efforts. They do the vital work we so 
desperately need.
    You're going to hear today about ATF overreach and 
especially about the death of Mr. Malinowski. That is a tragic 
loss of life.
    Every loss of life is tragic. Our sympathies, all of us, I 
believe, go out to the family. While an investigation is 
ongoing into it's inappropriate to draw conclusions before the 
results of an investigation or release.
    We do know from affidavits from the court that it was 
alleged that Mr. Malinowski was a mass-gun trafficker, and we 
know that some of the guns he sold were used to commit crimes.
    We know that ATF agents were serving a legitimate search 
warrant. Beyond that, we await the results of an investigation, 
and this Committee shouldn't seek to influence that.
    Let's not be mistaken. Republicans are not here today 
because they're concerned about the tragic loss of life during 
a police raid. You know why I know that?
    Because they have not uttered a word about a Florida deputy 
shooting and killing Senior Airman Roger Fortsman in his 
apartment just a week ago. You know why I know that? Because 
they don't say anything--they don't say the name Breonna Taylor 
who, in 2020, was shot and killed in her home through an 
inappropriate police raid.
    They don't want to talk about the gun violence impacting 
communities or how across the country a Black American is shot 
and wounded every 11 minutes.
    They don't want to talk about the interstate gun 
trafficking that's fueling violence in Illinois where on an 
average someone is killed every six hours with a gun and where 
Black individuals are 38 times more likely than White 
individuals to die by gun homicide, triple the national 
average.
    So, while homicides dropped by 13 percent in Chicago last 
year that doesn't mean that people aren't still dying. Those 
victims deserve to be more than statistics. We don't talk about 
that. They don't want to talk about that.
    They don't want to talk about other kinds of police raids. 
They want to talk about this police raid on Mr. Malinowski 
because it fits their narrative about how to dismantle the ATF. 
That's what this is about.
    Don't let them fool you. They don't care, and when they do 
care it's not about every American. It's only about a specific 
type of American that they're concerned about those deaths 
because I don't hear those other names being called by them.
    Ms. Sampson, Mr. Graham--I want to thank our witnesses for 
being there today. Ms. Sampson, your expertise and past 
experience in gun violence prevention spaces is truly 
impressive. I'm confident it will be invaluable as we examine 
those issues here today.
    Mr. Graham, I'd also like to thank you for your more than 
37 years of public service at the ATF. I guess I will be 
enlightened as to why you've begun getting paid by the very gun 
lobby fighting ATF's work.
    I want to thank the other witnesses. I would ask all four 
of you today in your testimony answers to remember something. 
As we engage in this hearing in the three or so hours we'll be 
sitting here before us more than a dozen Americans will lose 
their lives to gun violence.
    It's a somber but necessary reminder of the gravity of what 
we have discussed here today and what's really at stake.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
    Without objection, all the opening statements will be 
included in the record. I will now recognize the gentleman from 
Arkansas to introduce one of our witnesses.
    Mr. Hill. I thank the Chair, I thank the Ranking Member, 
for the invitation today to appear before the Committee to 
introduce my constituent and my friend Bud Cummins.
    Bud Cummins is a prominent central Arkansas attorney. He's 
a former U.S. attorney and former counsel to former Governor 
Mike Huckabee. He's joined today, Mr. Chair, by the widow of 
Bryan Malinowski, Maer, and we're glad to have her here to be 
witness to this event today.
    Mr. Cummins is representing the Malinowski family who are 
still seeking answers from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
Firearms, and Explosives, after ATF agents raided their family 
home in the early hours of March 19th.
    This predawn raid resulted in a deadly shootout, in which, 
ATF agents shot and ultimately fatally wounded Bryan 
Malinowski--as I said, a friend and constituent of mine--in his 
own home, and Maer Malinowski is a widow at the hands of gun 
violence by her own government.
    Nobody knows more about this case than Bud Cummins. I'm 
glad he's here to answer the Committee's questions and help get 
answers for the family and the American public.
    Thank you, Chair Jordan, for your leadership in holding 
this hearing and I hope through your efforts we can obtain well 
deserved answers to what led to the tragic death of Bryan 
Malinowski. Bryan's widow, family, and the public deserve a 
full accounting from the ATF. I thank the Chair and I yield 
back.
    Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman. I thank you for your 
work in bringing this terrible situation to our attention. 
Thank you very much.
    We also have Mr. Andrew Graham. Mr. Graham is the founder 
and CEO of Graham Industry Advisors, a veteran-owned consulting 
firm that advises the firearms industry on compliance with the 
Gun Control Act and the Safe Explosives Act.
    He previously served as the ATF Deputy Assistant Director 
of Field Operations and Deputy Assistant Director of 
Enforcement Programs and Services.
    Mr. Ryan Cleckner is an attorney who specializes in Federal 
firearms law and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 
Explosives compliance. He previously served our country in the 
U.S. Army where he was a ranger and sniper instructor assigned 
to the First Ranger Battalion. We thank you for that service as 
well.
    Ms. Kelly Simpson is the Director of Racial Justice and a 
Senior Counsel at Brady. Her work focuses on racial justice and 
reducing gun violence.
    We welcome our witnesses and thank them for appearing 
today. 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're about to give is true and correct to the best 
of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
    Let the record show that each of the witnesses answered in 
the affirmative. Thank you. Please be seated. Please know that 
your written testimony will be entered into the record in its 
entirety.
    Accordingly, we ask that you summarize your testimony. We 
will start with Mr. Cleckner, and we will move right down the 
aisle.
    Mr. Cleckner, you're recognized for five minutes, more or 
less.

                 STATEMENT OF RYAN M. CLECKNER

    Mr. Cleckner. Good morning, Chair Jordan, Ranking Member 
Plaskett, and the Members of the Subcommittee. I'm Ryan 
Cleckner. I'm an attorney specializing in Federal firearms law 
and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives 
compliance.
    I am actively involved in the firearms industry, and I help 
Federal firearms licenses, or FFLs, to stay compliant with 
Federal laws and ATF rules and regulations either through 
online training at RocketFFL, or most recently through free 
ATF-compliant software I made, FFLSafe.
    I'm also a former Firearms Industry Executive, a university 
lecturer, and a Special Operations Sniper. I'm here today 
because I'm concerned with what I see as the overreach of the 
ATF when it comes to their enforcement actions over FFLs and 
the current administration's zero tolerance policy when it 
comes to licensee inspections.
    The Gun Control Act of 1968 is the main body of law 
concerning standard firearms and the Federal firearms licensing 
system and, specifically, the GCA allows the ATF to revoke an 
FFL's license for a willful violation of the law.
    Originally, the GCA had no such willfulness standard but 
Congress in 1986 amended the GCA to specifically include the 
willfulness requirement to, quote, ``ensure that licenses are 
not revoked for inadvertent errors or technical mistakes.''
    The Senate notes on that matter reference Rich v. U.S., 
where the ATF was required to reissue a license absent a 
showing of a willful violation because willful at that time was 
found to mean purposeful and intentional behavior.
    Now, the addition of willful standard by Congress is 
significant because an FFL's compliance obligations are largely 
clerical and technical in nature, and in some instances a mere 
typo could be considered a violation of the Gun Control Act.
    By requiring willfulness Congress clearly raised the 
standard for revocation to only include situations in which a 
licensee purposefully and intentionally violates the law. The 
administration's current zero tolerance policy flies in the 
face of Congress' intent and it's causing harm to otherwise 
law-abiding FFLs, and it's wasting ATF's limited resources.
    I have a client, Point Blank Firearms, an FFL in Michigan, 
that is a perfect example of the harm caused by the zero-
tolerance policy and overreach by the ATF. The ATF is currently 
trying to revoke their license based on an inspection that 
started on July 26th of last year, and in April of this year 
the Acting Director of Industry Operations for the Detroit 
field division provided my client with a notice of revocation.
    We elected to have a hearing on the matter and have yet to 
be provided with a date. My clients, the owners of Point Blank, 
are here with me now while their employees are back home unsure 
about their jobs and one of the owners, a first-generation Arab 
American, also owns a second FFL business with another partner 
who is being denied his due process because they have to have 
their inspection on hold until this inspection is finalized.
    In this matter the ATF falsely claimed that my client had 
308 missing firearm transaction forms. In reality, my client 
has zero missing forms. Every single one has been located, 
matches the FBI background check numbers, and bears the 
customers' signature.
    The ATF also falsely claimed that they made errors by 
transferring firearms more than 30 days after the background 
check. That also is completely untrue. Those were probably 
transferred the exact same day the background check happened.
    Now, to be fair, the ATF inspectors weren't aware of the 
facts during the inspection. However, when we presented all 
this information and facts to the ATF, and asked them to 
reconsider this revocation they denied that and are pushing 
forward.
    I'm going to share a few facts about my client that are 
relevant to understanding what type of FFL the ATF is spending 
all this time, energy, and money trying to shut down.
    In over the 12,000 firearms acquired by Point Blank not a 
single firearm has ever been lost or stolen. Point Blank has 
100 percent accountability of the 4473s, over 11,000 of them.
    Point Blank has never transferred a firearm to someone who 
failed a background check. They've never failed to make, 
submit, or keep a multiple sales report and not once in the 
approximately 300 ATF trace requests had they failed to give 
timely and accurate information.
    In summary, Point Blank has never engaged in any activity, 
even accidentally, that would have any negative impact on 
public safety. They take their role very seriously.
    I think ATF's zero tolerance policy is severely misguided 
and is wasting ATF's limited resources and this overzealous 
policy is harming the ATF's relationship with retailers.
    ATF should focus its resources on trigger pullers on the 
street and not shutting down honest, hard-working, and law-
abiding gun stores.
    Thanks for the opportunity to speak today. I look forward 
to answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Cleckner follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Chair Jordan. Mr. Graham, you're recognized for five 
minutes. Hit that microphone if you could, Mr. Graham, so 
everyone can hear you. Go right ahead.

                   STATEMENT OF ANDREW GRAHAM

    Mr. Graham. Thank you, Chair.
    Good morning again, Chair Jordan, Ranking Member Plaskett, 
and distinguished Members of the Select Subcommittee. My name 
is Andrew Graham and I appreciate the opportunity today to 
appear before you and testify about an issue which has impacted 
my career as a former ATF employee as well as one that truly 
hits home.
    For 37 years I have proudly served in the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and I am a veteran of the 
United States Air Force National Guard.
    As the Deputy Assistant Director I served in the capacity 
over ATF's regulatory enforcement as well as Deputy Assistant 
Director over the enforcement program services--that is 
tracing, etc.
    During this time, I've worked alongside some of the most 
talented men and women that I've known who've done a yeoman's 
work in providing safer communities, enforcing the laws and 
regulations to uphold the Constitution.
    I've developed strong relationships with our agents, field 
investigators, better known as IOIs, as well as directors of 
industry operations at all 25 field divisions.
    Some of you find it surprising that the agents and the IOIs 
develop a rapport with FFLs or better known as retailers, but 
that relationship is critical as FFLs are often the first line 
of defense in linking--in keeping firearms out of the hands of 
prohibited people. They share tips with ATF of suspected 
traffickers and/or potential straw purchasers.
    I can tell you from personal experience now as a consultant 
that members of the firearms industry do not want firearms to 
go into the wrong hands and I put a lot of emphasis on that. 
That is a standing. We do not want firearms to be in the hands 
of prohibitive persons.
    In fact, the firearms industry is one of the most heavily 
regulated industries. Firearm retailers spend countless hours 
ensuring that they're up to speed on current laws and 
regulations.
    FFLs are human and the best of the retailers they do make 
mistakes. That was part of my job for 37 years is identifying 
these errors, working to help that they aren't repeated, ensure 
that the proper training was deployed, and to provide an 
opportunity for an FFL to get back on track.
    In the summer of 2021, President Biden announced a 
comprehensive strategy to prevent and respond to gun crimes and 
ensure public safety which included directing the ATF to revoke 
Federal firearm dealers under a zero tolerance policy if they 
violate the law--willfully violate on the following counts: (1) 
Transferring a firearm to a prohibited person; (2) failing to 
run a background check; (3) falsifying records such as 
transaction forms--those are the ATF Form 4473s; failing to 
respond to a trace request within 24 hours; and (4) refusing to 
permit ATF to conduct an onsite inspection during normal 
business hours.
    Revocation is the loss of a Federal firearms licensee 
license and closes the business entirely. So, this is a big 
deal. It's not just the loss of a license, but it's a loss of 
one's livelihood.
    As stated by ATF in 2014, when detailing the Federal 
firearms revocation process, willfulness is not defined by the 
regulation but is defined by case law to mean the intentional 
disregard of a known legal duty or plain indifference of the 
licensee's legal obligation.
    In the case of an FFL who has willfully violated the law, 
has shown an intentional disregard for the legal requirements 
or has knowingly participated in criminal activity, revocation 
may be the only viable option.
    The problem is the breadth of the zero-tolerance policy is 
much larger than just the rogue gun dealers. It was initially--
it was supposedly carried out to address willful violations 
being redefined on a case-by-case basis.
    With numerous enforcement complexities it strained the 
relationship between the regulator and the industry. This is 
putting FFLs who should never have been caught up in this new 
policy and damaged the cooperative trust built between the 
agency as well as industry members.
    It's become so rampant that FFLs facing revocations that 
never would have faced them now are pressured into shutting 
down their businesses and depleting funds that they, quite 
frankly, don't have.
    In December 2022, I made the tough decision to retire from 
civil service and in my time since leaving ATF I have continued 
to do what I've enjoyed while I was there with ATF, working 
with members of the firearms industry to ensure regulatory 
compliance, and in the event that FFLs are ensnared in this new 
policy I help them to navigate the process to help preserve 
their livelihood and their law-abiding businesses.
    Thank you for your time. I look forward to answering your 
questions as well.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Graham follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Graham.
    Ms. Sampson, you're recognized for five minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF KELLY SAMPSON

    Ms. Sampson. Chair Jordan, Ranking Member Plaskett, and 
distinguished Members of the Select Subcommittee, thank you for 
inviting me to testify today.
    I'm Kelly Sampson, Senior Counsel and Director of Racial 
Justice at Brady, the oldest national gun violence organization 
in America.
    Gun violence is a public health epidemic, causing more than 
44,000 deaths each year--44,000 deaths and many more who live 
with injury and trauma. Since 2020, gun violence has been the 
top cause of death for American children and teens, which is 
why thousands of kids and their parents plead for Congress to 
protect them.
    Despite our country's love of freedom gun violence is a 
reason why many Americans no longer feel free to go to school, 
a July 4th parade, the movies, concerts, the grocery store, and 
places of worship.
    Gun violence is why many of your own constituents, gun 
owners and nongun owners alike, are desperate for you and your 
colleagues to pass common sense gun laws and ensure those laws 
are properly implemented.
    With tens of thousands dead and many more injured Congress 
should be focused on ending our gun violence epidemic and 
equipping the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 
Explosives, or ATF, to meet its mandate and to enforce the 
Nation's gun laws. Just days ago, Congress celebrated Police 
Week where members gave countless speeches in support of law 
enforcement.
    ATF is not only law enforcement in and of itself, but also 
a critical ally of State and local law enforcement agencies 
across the country. ATF is the only Federal law enforcement 
agency which has specific jurisdiction over firearms and gun 
industry oversight.
    It should also be noted that guns are the leading cause of 
death for police officers killed in the line of duty. Guns 
don't grow on trees. Almost all firearms are sourced from 
illegal markets, manufactured, imported, distributed and sold 
by Federal firearms licensees, or FFLs.
    Generally, manufacturers and importers sell to distributors 
who sell to dealers who then sell to the public. Dealers are 
the first line of defense against gun trafficking and most take 
this responsibility very seriously.
    In fact, the large majority of gun dealers won't sell a 
single crime gun in a given year. A small number of dealers' 
negligent practices filter guns directly into the criminal 
market.
    According to the last available data, nearly 70 percent of 
crime guns were traced back to just over one percent of 
licensed dealers.
    So, even though the portion of the gun industry most 
responsible for supplying crime guns is miniscule, ATF 
nonetheless struggles to meet its mandate.
    ATF only has the resources to inspect about eight percent 
of active FFLs annually, falling far short of its own internal 
goal of inspecting each FFL every three years.
    To reach that goal ATF would need to more than double its 
current compliance staff. In fact, over 2,000 active gun 
dealers have gone for more than a decade without inspection.
    ATF struggles to meet its mandates because it's been under 
resourced and deprived of a confirmed director for decades. 
Indeed, just this year Congress voted to once again reduce 
ATF's budget despite the gun violence epidemic.
    These obstructions erode ATF's oversight capacity, forcing 
hard-working law enforcement agents to regulate a behemoth 
industry with their arms tied behind their backs.
    Undermining ATF doesn't just hinder the agency but it also 
harms local law enforcement across the country. ATF plays an 
essential role in supporting State and local law enforcement 
nationwide including in your districts.
    When an incidence of gun violence occurs, ATF helps local 
and State law enforcement partners by generating investigative 
leads and information on guns recovered in crimes by tracing 
them to their last known retail purchaser. ATF also trains 
officers to better understand advanced firearms technology.
    These services strengthen State and local law enforcement, 
providing them with information, coordination, and education 
necessary to enforce existing laws and prevent future gun 
crimes.
    Congress must listen to their constituents and recognize 
that the American people are begging for gun violence 
prevention policies. Americans, gun owners, and nongun owners 
want to be safe. Federal oversight for the firearm industry 
does not hinder any law-abiding citizen's Second Amendment 
right.
    Instead of attacking ATF you should be building up the 
agency and supporting its efforts to end gun violence. In the 
shadow of Police Week, we must remember that ATF agents are law 
enforcement, too, and they play an important role in protecting 
the public and other law enforcement officers all over the 
country from gun violence.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Sampson follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Chair Jordan. Thank you, Ms. Sampson.
    Mr. Cummins, you're recognized.

                    STATEMENT OF BUD CUMMINS

    Mr. Cummins. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member Plaskett, 
and thank you, Representative French Hill, for the 
introduction.
    Representative Hill has been very engaged and concerned 
about the death of Bryan Malinowski in his district and we 
really appreciate his help bringing attention to this tragedy.
    My name is Bud Cummins. I'm an attorney for Bryan Mali-
nowski's family. I'm a former United States Attorney from the 
Eastern District of Arkansas.
    I want to tell you a little bit, Mr. Chair, about Bryan 
Mali-
nowski. Until two months ago Bryan was the Executive Director 
of the Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport in Little 
Rock. He is 53 years old.
    He and his wife, who's present with us today, Maer, 
celebrated their 25th Anniversary last December and he had 
many, many good friends. He grew up in Pennsylvania with his 
brother and his two sisters and he wanted to be a fighter 
pilot, but he didn't have the eyesight.
    So instead, he went and got his certified--became a 
certified flight instructor, got a college degree, and went 
into the airport management industry and he had several stops 
along the way in Pennsylvania, Florida, but in El Paso, Texas, 
is where he met his wife Maer and, as I said, they've been 
married 25 years.
    He found his way to Little Rock and eventually was named 
the Executive Director of our airport. By all accounts he's 
very good in his profession.
    Our airport is one of nine--I've heard a few different 
numbers--less than 12 in the country that's debt free and that 
maybe that's a concept that's strange here in Congress but I 
think that represents some good management.
    Bryan was also a lifelong collector. As a child he started 
collecting coins. He had various hobbies. He was that guy. I've 
been to their home and seen books this thick about coin 
collecting, collecting currencies, and other--about card 
playing. He studies card playing, and he tried his hand at 
competitive card tournaments.
    About six years ago Bryan's father gave him his gun 
collection and that sparked interest--a new interest, a 
collection interest in Bryan, since then he has become also a 
gun collector and at gun shows he found other people who shared 
his enthusiasm and his interest in not only guns, but in coins, 
and other artifacts that you'll find at a gun show.
    He'd set up a table on weekends occasionally and he'd 
display some of his guns and he'd display his coins, and he 
would buy, sell, and trade with other collectors. It is legal 
to buy, sell, and trade firearms without a Federal firearms 
license if you're a collector or a hobbyist.
    At some point ATF suspected that Bryan Malinowski may have 
crossed a very murky line, and he was no longer a hobbyist. 
Because of that, ATF concluded that he was required to buy a 
$200 FFL--Federal firearms license--before he sold any more 
guns.
    One thing is certain. His family and his friends and all 
his work colleagues would all guarantee you if they were here 
today that he loved his career and he loved being in the 
airport management business, and if anybody had ever suggested 
to him that his weekend hobby was in any way threatening that 
he would have immediately been hands off.
    Nobody told him. Instead, ATF launched a criminal 
investigation into Bryan. They researched his background. They 
put a tracker on his car. They put tails on him and surveilled 
him, and soon they obtained a search warrant to search his 
home.
    By the time they obtained the warrant they knew a lot about 
Bryan. They knew he worked in a secure environment at the 
airport.
    They knew he had lived a law-abiding life with absolutely 
no criminal history, and they knew he lived at home with his 
wife and his two dogs, and they kept a very regular schedule.
    Despite all this knowledge, ATF hatched a plan to execute 
the warrant by force and on March 19th at 6:01 a.m., over one 
hour before sunup, 10 carloads of ATF agents, and Little Rock 
Police Department officers came to the Malinowski home to 
execute the search warrant.
    They wore full tactical SWAT gear, and they approached the 
door at 6:02:42 a.m. That's about one hour and 15 minutes 
before sunup that day.
    They had a piece of tape ready, and they covered up his 
doorbell camera so if he had time to wonder who was at the 
door--I think people get a doorbell camera to see who's at the 
front door, but they took away his ability to do that.
    Moments later Ms. Malinowski heard a loud crash as their 
front door caved in and fearing for his wife's safety, Bryan 
jumped up at the sound of a crash, found a pistol, loaded a 
magazine in it, and left the bedroom to investigate.
    He warned his wife to stay behind him in the bedroom, but 
she stubbornly followed him through the doorway. It appears to 
us that ATF also killed the electricity to the home, making it 
difficult for Bryan to see in the predawn hours.
    Ms. Malinowski saw only darkness as she peered down toward 
the front entryway and could see shadowy outlines of presumed 
home invaders standing in her front hallway. That's what Bryan 
saw, too. There was gunfire and Bryan was fatally wounded.
    His wife was standing just a few inches from him when he 
received a fatal wound to his head. A mere--we know--we don't 
know all the details of what happened at the front door because 
they covered up the Ring camera, and because they didn't wear 
body cameras in spite of a three-year-old policy initiated by 
the President of the United States that mandated that they wear 
body cameras when executing search warrants.
    We do know this. We know 57 seconds elapsed from the time 
they covered up the lens of the camera to the time Mr. 
Malinowski was dead. So, something less than 57 seconds is the 
time it took them to knock, if they knocked, but we don't know 
if they knocked--forced entry on the front door and for Mr. 
Malinowski to emerge--to wake up, find a gun, and come from the 
bedroom.
    That means they couldn't have been at the front door more 
than 20-30 seconds. Although, her husband had just been shot in 
the forehead right in front of her, the agents dragged Ms. 
Malinowski into the front yard. She was barefoot, wearing 
minimal night clothing and the temperature was 32 degrees.
    They locked her in the back seat of a car where she was 
detained for four or five hours. She begged to be allowed to 
check on her husband, but they refused those requests and kept 
her locked in the car in her nightgown.
    She also had not been to the restroom yet since she'd just 
gotten out of bed and they refused her request to go to the 
neighbor's and use the restroom and then, finally, took her to 
a nearby fire station, made her walk through in her 
nightclothes in front of the firemen and use the restroom with 
a female police officer present in the room while she went to 
the restroom.
    Ms. Malinowski does not have the answers to many of her 
questions and there are a lot of questions. We give Federal law 
enforcement awesome powers. We have given--and when I was a 
United States attorney, I was responsible for the use of those 
powers.
    It's a huge problem if those powers fall into the wrong 
hands. Everyone--I've been involved in public controversy for 
many years.
    I've never been involved in anything that more Arkansans 
have come to me to express their concern and they all ask the 
same question, why, and I don't have an answer for that.
    We don't have an answer to that question, and we hope this 
Committee will pursue this and find the answer why, and if 
there's not an answer we hope that you'll find the problem and 
fix it.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Cummins follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Cummins. That was well said, 
and so wrong.
    The gentleman from--we will now proceed with five-minute 
questioning. The gentleman from North Dakota is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Armstrong. Early morning hours riot shields, probably a 
no-knock warrant but either way a full-on Tommy tactical 
assault on a residential dwelling.
    Mr. Cummins, you said it in your opening statement, but 
where did Mr. Malinowski work?
    Mr. Cummins. He was the Executive Director of the Little 
Rock Airport.
    Mr. Armstrong. Do you know if firearms are permitted at the 
Hillary Clinton National Airport?
    Mr. Cummins. To my knowledge it's like every other airport. 
They do not allow you to carry firearms in the airport.
    Mr. Armstrong. To your knowledge, had Mr. Malinowski ever 
been accused of bringing firearms to work?
    Mr. Cummins. Not to my knowledge. I'm not aware of him 
being accused of any misconduct at his job.
    Mr. Armstrong. Would it stand to reason that if Mr. 
Malinowski had been driving into work or driving home from 
work, he would not have brought a gun with him, given that it's 
a gun-free zone?
    Mr. Cummins. I think that's a fair assumption.
    Mr. Armstrong. Do you think that in the process of 
executing their search warrant they would have--the FBI or the 
ATF would have been able to get a copy of Mr. Malinowski's work 
schedule?
    Mr. Cummins. I think his work schedule was well known to 
the ATF.
    Mr. Armstrong. I want to be, clear, because we're talking 
ATF and because we're talking firearms, and we're doing all 
these things and this is basically a licensing dispute.
    Mr. Cummins. Yes, sir, and it's an alleged violation that 
the definition is subjective, and it's been actually litigated 
quite a bit here recently, and it's become apparent that it's 
almost--every person in this room could read it and come up 
with a different interpretation.
    Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Graham, during your tenure at the ATF 
were you ever involved in planning and execution of search 
warrants?
    Mr. Graham. Congressman, I have not.
    Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Cummins, as your time as a U.S. Attorney 
did you have a chance to review search warrants?
    Mr. Cummins. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Armstrong. When do you use no-knock warrants? Let me 
stop. What's the most dangerous kind of warrant to execute?
    Mr. Cummins. A no-knock warrant. When you kick the door in 
and wake people up out of their beds when they may have a gun 
nearby.
    Mr. Armstrong. When's the worst time to execute that?
    Mr. Cummins. Probably at 6 a.m.
    Mr. Armstrong. If you're in charge as a U.S. attorney or 
ATF supervisor or any of those things, what's your number one 
concern when determining whether or not to execute a no-knock 
warrant?
    Mr. Cummins. Safety of the officer and safety of the 
public.
    Mr. Armstrong. Was there anything--you talked earlier about 
tracking devices and can you go through a little bit of this of 
what they were doing prior to the night the warrant was issued?
    Mr. Cummins. They had followed Mr. Malinowski around town 
and surveilled him on numerous occasions. They ran agents in to 
do undercover buys at gun shows. They had taken pictures of him 
at the gun show.
    It's breathtaking the amount of resources for an agency 
that claims budgetary constraints that they put this many 
resources on a gun show case.
    Mr. Armstrong. I can think of 500 different ways in which 
this warrant could have been executed to protect the law 
enforcement officer and protect the victim in this case. I 
don't know what else you'd call them.
    What is the stated reason for executing the no-knock 
warrant?
    Mr. Cummins. I think in case law you would look for exigent 
circumstances. They might be at risk of escape. They might be 
the destruction of evidence. They might be a danger to some 
other party that's in the house.
    Of all the exigent circumstances I'm aware of that have 
ever been discussed in any case none of them existed here and 
that was well known.
    Mr. Armstrong. Likelihood of the evidence being--I mean, 
surveillance--
    Mr. Cummins. You can flush drugs.
    Mr. Armstrong. Yes, all the difference--used a lot--
utilized a lot in drug cases. They know somebody had delivered 
it at midnight. They know it's getting farmed out the next day. 
So, with all this information and all the things you know about 
the case, have they stated any exigent circumstance for 
utilizing the known or utilizing this type of enforcement of 
the warrant?
    Mr. Cummins. To my knowledge, DOJ has released the 
affidavit that supported the search warrant and has called me 
and Senator Tom Cotton to tell us that there were no body 
cameras used that day and that's the only statement they've 
made about this case.
    Mr. Armstrong. We need to just take a step back here and 
recognize if this was anything else other than ATF and firearms 
people would be apoplectic about how this warrant was set up 
but because it involves something that has a political reason--
but there's a person dead.
    Somebody is dead because the ATF decided to execute a 
warrant in the most unprofessional, irresponsible, and 
dangerous way and I think that oftentimes law enforcement have 
a very difficult job. The number one concern is the safety of 
the officer.
    The reality of this was executed for reasons that make no 
procedural sense. They make no safety sense, and somebody is 
dead because they decided they wanted to go into a house at 1 
a.m., of a known gun owner for the purpose of making--I can't 
think of anything else--other than a political statement.
    Thank you for representing the family. Thank you for being 
here today. The ATF has a history of doing these things with 
warrants and it has to stop.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Goldman. Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous consent motion.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman is recognized.
    The gentleman yields back. The gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. Goldman. I'd like to introduce the search warrant 
affidavit and search warrant, which is not a no-knock warrant.
    Mr. Armstrong. Was it still at 1 a.m., with--
    Mr. Goldman. I don't know how many people in--6 a.m., in 
Tommy tactical gear.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection. The Chair now recognizes 
the gentlelady from Florida.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I'm repulsed to hear my colleagues' calls to destroy the 
one agency that actually provides for firearm safety. I vividly 
recall the tragic events that unfolded on February 14, 2018, at 
Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, in 
my home county.
    That day our Nation witnessed one of the deadliest school 
shootings in American history where 17 innocent lives were 
brutally taken and countless others irrevocably changed. The 
horror of it still resonates across our community.
    In case my Republican colleagues forgot, these victims were 
students and educators with dreams and aspirations snuffed out 
by an AR-15, which is a battlefield rifle.
    One was Alyssa Alhadeff, a 14-year-old soccer star, another 
Scott Beigel, a teacher who died protecting his students. My 
colleagues will and are citing what they claim are injustices 
today, but none of them will mention Scott or Alyssa's name, 
nor will they mention the tens of thousands of others just like 
them who are shot and die from firearms each year.
    My colleagues also won't share how Stoneman Douglas 
students huddled in classes or sent tearful desperate texts to 
loved ones while every school parent was knotted in panic 
awaiting news about whether their child was alive or dead that 
day.
    My colleagues are not here to talk about those real-life 
but grim gun realities. They want to bury those realities and 
ignore the fact that the U.S. gun homicide rate is 26 times 
that of other high-
income countries.
    Instead, they brought us here to do the bidding of the gun 
lobby and for that they should be ashamed of themselves.
    Ms. Sampson, I want us to clear up the ridiculous assertion 
that gun dealers' licenses are revoked over minor clerical 
errors or typos.
    Isn't it true that clerical errors can often be serious 
problems that cause guns to fall into a criminal's hands and 
that a typo could be an attempt to falsify business records?
    Ms. Sampson. That is true, and as you noted, when 
discussing the zero-tolerance policy there are five enumerated 
actions that will qualify and it would be something like 
falsifying a record which you cannot do accidentally. You can't 
by a typo falsify a record. It has to be a willful and 
deliberate violation.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Like, for example, it could include 
not running a background check on a purchaser when legally 
required to or include selling that firearm to a violent felon, 
correct?
    Ms. Sampson. Correct.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It's fair to say then that clerical 
errors includes very dangerous situations where firearm dealers 
shirk their duties and sell guns to criminals?
    Ms. Sampson. That's not only true, but they're not clerical 
errors when you look at what they actually are. These are 
deliberate and willful wrongdoings.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. One such group of criminals that I'm 
concerned about getting their hands on guns are domestic 
abusers. Every month an average of 70 women are shot and killed 
by an intimate partner. That's more than two per day in the 
United States.
    Yet, today we sit here so gun lobby lackeys can try to 
block background checks that would prevent these abusers from 
getting guns in the first place. We're here so Republicans can 
protect gun traffickers who skirt the rules and let guns fall 
into criminal hands.
    To pretend that noncompliant dealers are the victims when 
we are losing thousands of our mothers, sisters, and daughters 
to abusers who get their hands on guns sure seems like that's 
why we're really here.
    Ms. Sampson, how much more is an abused woman likely to die 
if her male abuser has a gun?
    Ms. Sampson. The exact statistic just left my mind, but I 
believe it's four times that--
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I think it's five times.
    Ms. Sampson. Five times more likely.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Why is that?
    Ms. Sampson. It's because having a firearm in that 
situation makes it more likely for it to escalate quickly, and 
contrary to some of the statements around it being an equalizer 
for women, even if a woman has a firearm she can quickly be 
disarmed, and that gun can be turned against her.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right. Yet, I've heard my Republican 
colleagues say that the solution to this is for women to have 
guns, too. Tell me, Ms. Sampson, does a woman having a gun in 
the home make her safer against an intimate partner?
    Ms. Sampson. Absolutely not.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. In general, isn't it true that 
adding more guns to a violent situation actually increases 
fatality rates?
    Ms. Sampson. That's correct.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Before I yield back, I want to make 
it clear that we have far too many loopholes in our system. For 
example, my Jamie's Law legislation named for Fred Guttenberg's 
daughter who was murdered at Parkland would prohibit anyone 
from purchasing ammunition who is already barred from buying a 
gun.
    It's a common-sense layer of protection but Federal law 
doesn't require a background check to prevent prohibited 
purchasers from acquiring ammunition. Jamie's Law closes this 
ammo loophole.
    Why do we need it? Nearly 40,000 people die from guns in 
the U.S. every year. That's four people every hour whose dreams 
are snatched away by a gun and a bullet, each one leaving a 
trail of sorrow and pain for friends and family to navigate 
over an entire lifetime.
    Now, it's only elected Republicans that are chained to the 
gun lobby and Republicans are really good at saying that we 
don't need more laws--we just need to enforce the ones that are 
already on the books.
    Well, it's already illegal for prohibited purchasers to 
purchase ammunition, but we don't enforce it. So, I think that 
all my colleagues I would expect would join me in co-sponsoring 
Jamie's Law, bringing it to the floor immediately so that we 
can actually enforce a law already on the books instead of 
adding a new one.
    Thank you. Practice what you preach. I yield back the 
balance of my time.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Cummins, what was Bryan Malinowski's principal 
livelihood?
    Mr. Cummins. He was the highest paid city employee in the 
city of Little Rock as the Executive Director of the Little 
Rock Airport, and it's a matter of public record I think he 
made about $260,000 a year.
    Chair Jordan. So, it wasn't selling guns?
    Mr. Cummins. No, sir. This was collecting guns was a hobby.
    Chair Jordan. The law at the time says if your principal 
livelihood is not in selling firearms you do not need an FFL. 
Is that accurate?
    Mr. Cummins. That's my understanding to the best you can 
have an understanding.
    Chair Jordan. So, what was the crime? What did he do wrong?
    Mr. Cummins. You'd have to ask ATF. They decided that he 
committed--maybe had committed a crime even though--
    Chair Jordan. Now, the standard has changed but the new 
rule didn't take effect until this past Monday. Is that right?
    Mr. Cummins. That's correct.
    Chair Jordan. Even under the new standard there was a 
question of whether he was in violation of the law. Is that 
accurate?
    Mr. Cummins. A huge question.
    Chair Jordan. Huge question. Under the old standard it was 
pretty simple--is your principal livelihood selling firearms.
    Mr. Cummins. That's correct.
    Chair Jordan. For Bryan Malinowski it wasn't?
    Mr. Cummins. Obviously not.
    Chair Jordan. It wasn't, and yet at 6:02, March 19th, 10 
cars pull up to his home and to the gentlelady behind your's 
home, come up to the door in tactical gear and put a tape 
across the doorbell camera, so no one can see what's going to 
go on.
    Mr. Cummins. Correct.
    Chair Jordan. Now, that's scary to me.
    Mr. Cummins. Probably scary to everyone.
    Chair Jordan. Now, if the guy had done--if he had for sure 
done something wrong, a crime, OK. They do that and then 57 
seconds later gunshots erupt and Bryan Malinowski is no longer 
with us, a good man by your--you knew the guy. Served your 
community. Highest paid city official in Little Rock. What the 
heck do you think's going on here?
    Mr. Cummins. That's the question on the lips of every 
person in Arkansas that's contacted me and that's a large 
number of people.
    Chair Jordan. Isn't it true that a week before these same 
agents were there in the Wal-Mart parking lot close by the 
Malinowski home, going to go execute the search warrant and 
then decided not to because Bryan Malinowski wasn't home? Why 
was this so critical that he'd be home?
    Mr. Cummins. I don't know, Mr. Chair. It was a search 
warrant. In fact, they could have waited until nobody was home 
and come--they wanted to kick the door down. They could have 
come at noon and kicked the door down, when Maer and Bryan were 
both gone.
    Chair Jordan. Searched and found whatever they were looking 
for.
    Mr. Cummins. Exactly.
    Chair Jordan. Anything they wanted on Mr. Malinowski--if 
they wanted his phone or anything they could have served that 
warrant.
    They could have got a warrant for that. I'm sure the judge 
would have given it to them, and they could have done that at 
the airport--at his principal livelihood at the airport, 
correct?
    Mr. Cummins. Correct.
    Chair Jordan. Then, to add insult to injury--this is the 
part that just--I know infuriates Mr. Hill as your Member of 
Congress and I would bet any American--to add insult to injury, 
the way they treated his spouse, Ms. Malinowski, sitting behind 
you, the way they treated her at a moment that may be the most 
high-anxiety moment in any individual's life. Their spouse has 
just been shot. That to me is unbelievable what she had to go 
through.
    Mr. Cummins. It makes me very angry.
    Chair Jordan. Well, it should. It should make all of us 
angry. I think it makes the Democrats--there's no--there's no 
explanation for that. That to me--and if you--and I keep coming 
back to was this done for some kind of--we have seen this from 
other agencies, frankly--intimidation.
    We had the FBI--Mr. Houck, come in, arrest him in front of 
his wife and children. Same thing. Predawn raid, seven kids 
there, and take him away. When his attorney said, we'll be 
happy to work with you, you would have been happy to work with 
these guys if they had contacted you or any--
    Mr. Cummins. Absolutely.
    Chair Jordan. That's the part that gets us. That's the part 
that--what was his principal livelihood? It was not selling 
firearms. I can't figure out what the crime is.
    By the way, any of the guns--any of the firearms that Mr. 
Malinowski sold as part of his hobby--excuse me--any of them 
ever be used--were any of them ever used in a crime?
    Mr. Cummins. The affidavit alleges that they were--they 
were found in crimes, but the crimes were three traffic stops 
where there was marijuana and a firearm in the car. So, that 
was a crime. Two other ones but they were never fired in the 
commission of a crime.
    Chair Jordan. The guns themselves were never used in a 
crime.
    Mr. Cummins. They were never used in the commission of a 
crime according to the affidavit.
    Chair Jordan. Yes. You asked it in your testimony. You said 
the right thing. Why? Why did they do it? Why did this happen? 
That's what we're going to try to find out and tomorrow Mr. 
Dettelbach will be sitting right where you guys are sitting, 
and we're going to ask him questions about this.
    He's probably going to say ongoing investigation, but we're 
going to push him as hard as we can. We're trying to figure out 
why they would behave in this way and why they didn't wear body 
cams.
    It's almost like, what are they trying to hide? Cover up 
the doorbell and no body cams. What are they trying to hide? 
We'll get to those questions tomorrow. I see my time has 
expired.
    I will now recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. 
Lynch.
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    So, as a Member of the House Oversight Committee, I 
strongly supported the independent investigations years ago of 
operations conducted by the ATF and that included Operation 
Fast and Furious and Operation Wide Receiver by the Department 
of Justice.
    I also believe that under the circumstances surrounding the 
death of Mr. Malinowski, we should also institute a full and 
independent review.
    However, like Ms. Sampson, I do not agree with the ad 
hominem attacks on our ATF agents and law enforcement 
personnel. I was here in 2002, when President George Bush--
George W. Bush, excuse me--reestablished the ATF within the 
Department of Justice and he did that for all the right 
reasons, I believe.
    We had a mission to protect communities from violent 
criminals, criminal organizations, and also we needed to get at 
the problem of the illegal use and trafficking of firearms.
    To this end the ATF regularly, to my experience, works with 
local and State law enforcement agencies nationwide to reduce 
gun violence, a national crisis that's affected each of our 
communities.
    In my own district which includes part of the city of 
Boston the ATF Boston field division recently partnered with 
the Boston Police Department, the Suffolk County Sheriff's 
Office, the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office, and the 
U.S. Attorney's Office on a new initiative to combat the flow 
of illegal guns and the incidence of violent crimes using those 
guns.
    In particular, the Boston Firearm Intelligence Review 
Shooting and Trafficking program or the Boston First program 
was developed to deploy State of the art ShotSpotter technology 
or tracking tech--ballistics tracking technology is another 
term--to assist a law enforcement agency in reviewing shooting 
incidents and firearms trace data to take illegal guns and 
violent criminals off the street and also to respond more 
quickly to those incidents of gun violence.
    The ATF Boston field division also participates in several 
critical multi-agency task forces within our State and our 
city. A perfect example of what that collaboration can do is we 
had a shootout at my local park.
    So, I grew up in the housing projects. We have a park 
across the street. We have got--it's heavily, heavily used, the 
second most heavily used park in the city, and we had a 
shootout between two rival gangs and it was during a couple of 
lacrosse games--a lacrosse tournament and a basketball 
tournament--and it ended up in a situation where moms and dads 
had to lay on top of the bodies of their kids to prevent them 
from being shot.
    There were only 60 shots fired. It only lasted a couple of 
minutes but that couple of minutes felt like a couple of hours 
to those parents trying to protect their kids.
    So, we were able to with the help of the ATF and Boston 
police, the FBI, the DEA, who I asked to get involved as well, 
and also police departments from Boston, the city of Brockton, 
Quincy, Stoughton, to begin to attack that problem and bring in 
some of that technology to reduce the likelihood of that 
happening again.
    I'm very thankful. I'm thankful for my ATF agents and law 
enforcement personnel for the job that they do. It's not easy.
    Ms. Sampson, if you could talk a little bit about last week 
we had--you wouldn't believe it, but we had law enforcement 
officers' National Police Week where we show appreciation.
    Now, we're going after them. Could you further discuss the 
extent to which ATF supports local law enforcement in 
preventing gun violence and gun trafficking?
    Ms. Sampson. Thank you.
    There are a variety of forms that this takes. First, we 
have to think about the context that were, in which, is 
epidemic gun violence.
    So, we have over 44,000 people killed each year and that 
doesn't account for all the shootings that happen where people 
are injured or where there's just shots fired.
    So, local law enforcement agencies are trying to respond in 
that environment and ATF is the only Federal agency that can 
help them understand, first, where are the guns coming from. 
They can't figure that out without ATF.
    So, every time a gun incident happens ATF is the one who 
tells them where the gun came from, can help them identify 
suspects, and follow those leads along.
    ATF also helps law enforcement understand firearms 
technology so that they can better understand what's going on 
in their communities, and then in terms of preventing gun 
violence in the first place because gun violence is the number 
one cause of death for police officers ATF's work around 
regulating the industry and preventing guns from being 
trafficked into communities stops gun violence before it 
starts, which is a huge help to local law enforcement.
    Mr. Issa. [Presiding.] I thank the gentlelady. I'm sorry--
    Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chair, just so you know, the previous 
witness had, like, eight minutes and so, you could extend the 
courtesy--
    Mr. Issa. I would ask unanimous consent the gentlelady have 
an additional minute. I was not trying to short--I gave her an 
extra 55 seconds.
    Mr. Lynch. I don't think you were here. I don't think you 
were here, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
    Mr. Issa. If you could wrap up in one minute, please.
    Ms. Sampson. Sorry. Yes. So, to just put a finer point on 
it, local law enforcement agencies could not do their work 
without ATF.
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you for your courtesy, Mr. Chair. I yield.
    Mr. Issa. I might recall the time the gentleman and I were 
in the outback of Pakistan and the gentleman was hurt in a 
sniper fire. So, we go back a long way on gun safety.
    The gentleman is correct that we do need the Alcohol, 
Tobacco, and Fire. We definitely do need ATF.
    Mr. Graham, thank you for your decades of service. You, 
obviously, stayed there because of your dedication to the very 
mission that we're talking about today of making sure that guns 
are not in the hands of people who are not entitled to have 
them or may misuse them. Is that correct?
    Mr. Graham. That's correct, Chair.
    Mr. Issa. So, in that dedication in 37 years you've seen 
some zigs and zags. Can you talk about what you've seen or saw 
that might have changed in the last few years that concerns 
you?
    Mr. Graham. Certainly. From a field investigator 
perspective all the way through the first and second level of 
supervision I've personally conducted field inspections to 
where errors were disclosed on an 4473. That is the transaction 
record that individuals buy--complete when they buy firearms 
through a Federal firearms licensee.
    What concerns me is with the zero-tolerance policy ATF has 
had a long-standing administrative action policy that did 
address licensees' level of compliance or the level of 
violations in compliance with the code of Federal regulation 
and through the inspections they were given an opportunity. 
Those violations that weren't directly linked to public safety; 
those were corrected.
    Mr. Issa. So, let me just interrupt you briefly. So, what 
you're saying is that in the past your job was to get maximum 
compliance knowing that mistakes are made, but that changed in 
2021, didn't it?
    Mr. Graham. Most certainly. It put a lot of focus where 
there was minimal latitude allowed with the zero-tolerance 
policy. However, there was the exception of presenting 
extraordinary circumstances. However, those were to be 
discussed during a held hearing at the various division levels.
    Mr. Issa. Is that necessary? In other words, prior to 2021 
do you believe that compliance with a clear threat of both the 
cost that comes with going to court and the possibility of 
losing that valuable license was sufficient to get a vast 
majority of people to make every effort to comply?
    Mr. Graham. Providing that the violations, Chair, did not 
have a direct nexus to criminal activity the FFLs were provided 
an opportunity to remediate.
    Basically, it's the investigator's job to ensure that the 
records that are executed are fully compliant simply because 
it's those records that criminal enforcement uses to trace a 
firearm to the last known legal possessor, and if those records 
are inaccurate, it could, perhaps, affect how a warrant is 
served, who the individual is that may be, perhaps, looked at.
    So, prior to 2021 there were opportunities using the 
administrative action program to address violations that were 
found at a Federal firearms licensee given the previous 
inspection history considered in the entire process.
    Mr. Issa. Let me just give a couple of quick questions and 
you may be not the only one that wants to answer it. Certainly, 
during the Obama Administration Operation Fast and Furious went 
counter to everything you normally did, allowing more than 
2,000 weapons to end up in the cartels' hands.
    That was a deviation from any sensible thing that you saw 
during most of your 37 years. That was, quite frankly, not what 
happened during the next four years after President Obama.
    The question is should your agency be able to operate 
substantially the same without regard to who happens to be in 
the White House and should your mission be more consistent and, 
in fact, looking at what happened with Fast and Furious, what 
happened in the Obama Administration as an attack on guns and 
particularly on their ability to collect money, which was a 
separate program, versus the four-years of President Trump and 
the eight years of President Bush before that, and now 
President Obama--President Biden.
    Do you see kind of a back and forth that reeks in general 
of politics rather than your being able to do your job in a 
consistent way? You can comment on any of these Administrations 
you feel appropriate.
    Mr. Graham. Quite frankly, Chair, I have no comment to make 
on Fast and Furious. That was a criminal enforcement endeavor.
    As far as their regulatory perspective is concerned, you 
have both ATF agents and industry operation investigators that 
are dedicated to upholding the United States Code, as well as a 
Code of Federal Regulations.
    When there are changes it not only affects how the 
investigators deploy their onsite inspections--compliance 
inspections--of a Federal firearms licensee but on the industry 
member themselves.
    There is a lot of back and forth, there's a lot of 
confusion, and going back to the zero-tolerance policy did 
create confusion as to last year or a few years prior, I may 
have been inspected.
    However, I wasn't cited for whatever that Code of Federal 
Regulations citation was. However, this year during the current 
inspection because of this new directive they are being pursued 
for revocation.
    Mr. Issa. OK. I want just a yes or no from anyone--
hopefully, everyone very quickly. In what happened that the 
Chair was talking about a few minutes ago should this Committee 
seek to mandate body cams anytime potential lethal force is 
being used in any ATF operation? Yes or no.
    Mr. Cleckner. Yes.
    Mr. Graham. Yes.
    Ms. Sampson. Yes.
    Mr. Cummins. Yes.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you. That was a yes, ma'am?
    Ms. Sampson. Yes.
    Mr. Issa. I got four yeses. I'll take it. We now go to the 
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly.
    That is hard to get but I will take yes for an answer. Mr. 
Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. I say yes too, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Cummins, I just want to clarify something in your 
testimony. You heard my colleague from New York entered into 
the record the actual warrant which was not a no-knock warrant.
    Is it still your testimony that what occurred--the tragedy 
that occurred with Mr. Malinowski and his family was a no-knock 
warrant?
    Mr. Cummins. Because body cameras weren't worn, and the 
doorbell camera was covered up we don't know what happened at 
the front door.
    I would say based on what we do know that 57 seconds I 
described minus the time to allow for Mr. Malinowski to respond 
to the crash in the door and whatever time it took them to 
knock on the door, if they knocked after they covered up the 
door--we know that it was 20 or 30 seconds, and my answer is 
there's a distinction without a difference. All you hear is a 
crash.
    Mr. Connolly. All right. For the record--
    Mr. Cummins. What do you know?
    Mr. Connolly. For the record, you're a lawyer.
    Mr. Cummins. Yes.
    Mr. Connolly. The warrant filed was not a no-knock warrant.
    Mr. Cummins. Not on its face. No, sir.
    Mr. Connolly. That's right. Thank you. Just wanted to 
clarify that.
    Ms. Sampson, Mr. Cummins described really a horror that 
should not occur to any American citizen or American resident. 
Is there, however, distinctions in the solution?
    The solution before us today is abolish the agency because 
they engaged in behavior that was brutal or violent or beyond 
acceptable norms. Do you believe that's the solution?
    Ms. Sampson. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Connolly. So, the very same people who condemned those 
who called for that solution with the Minneapolis Police 
Department after the George Floyd tragedy have a different 
solution today for ATF.
    For some reason this particular police force ought to be 
abolished and no other, even if they also engage in violent 
behavior, brutal brutality, and violation of the law. Do you 
note the irony?
    Ms. Sampson. I do, and with respect to the ongoing 
investigation that's not what my area of expertise is. We, of 
course, believe in accountability because we live in a 
democracy. So, there should be accountability and 
investigation.
    Mr. Connolly. Right. The solution isn't to abolish the 
agency.
    Ms. Sampson. Exactly.
    Mr. Connolly. In fact, the agency has some very important 
missions, as Chair Issa just indicated. He said, ``no, we need 
ATF.'' I agree with him. Reform it? Yes. Abolish it? Very 
different kind of answer.
    What would happen if we abolished the ATF? What kinds of 
consequences might flow from that?
    Ms. Sampson. There will be consequences for all Americans. 
First and foremost, we would lose the only Federal agency 
responsible for making sure that firearms are not trafficked 
into our streets.
    Mr. Connolly. Ah, maybe that's why some people don't like 
the ATF, that particular charge--that they don't want 
regulation of arms of any kind, and they don't like the Federal 
agency that has that mission, which may be why for so many 
years they have blocked the confirmation of an ATF director.
    Ms. Sampson. That could be. All I know is that ATF is the 
only Federal agency that we had and we're dealing with epidemic 
gun violence.
    Mr. Connolly. Well, let's look at that. So, if we abolish 
it would that make it easier for criminal cartels to traffic 
firearms in this country?
    Ms. Sampson. Yes.
    Mr. Connolly. If we abolish it would that, in fact, 
strengthen Mexican cartels engaged in human trafficking, drug 
trafficking, and arms trafficking?
    Ms. Sampson. Yes.
    Mr. Connolly. Would we expect more assault weapons to be 
funneled to the Black market if some of my colleagues succeeded 
in abolishing the ATF?
    Ms. Sampson. Yes.
    Mr. Connolly. Could it affect violent crime in the United 
States?
    Ms. Sampson. Absolutely.
    Mr. Connolly. How so?
    Ms. Sampson. Well, ATF right now, as I said, they are 
responsible for regulating the industry and so we know that 
most--almost every gun starts out in the legal market, and it's 
funneled from the legal market, which are FFLs who are 
regulated by ATF, into the illegal market.
    So, if ATF is no longer there then that channel, which is 
already larger than it should be, would overwhelmingly increase 
and we would have more guns and more gun violence.
    Mr. Connolly. So, if we abolish ATF as the Chair of the 
Select Committee, not Mr. Issa, want to do and that is 
supported by an agency that gave him an A+ rating in Gun Owners 
of America that actually sells merchandise calling for abolish 
the ATF--if we did that it's your testimony--I don't want to 
put words in your mouth--that it would actually make Americans 
less safe and would remove the only Federal agency charged with 
trying to protect them from firearm violence and trafficking in 
America?
    Ms. Sampson. Yes, that is true.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman.
    We now go to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Gaetz, for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Cleckner, what is the ATF's zero tolerance 
policy?
    Mr. Cleckner. It is a change in how they used to enforce 
violations of the law against FFLs to no longer allow them to 
fix errors or to improve their compliance. It has no tolerance 
for these typos and wants to revoke their licenses.
    Mr. Gaetz. Give me a flavor of the type of errors that 
might have previously resulted in the ATF working with a 
license holder and now would result in the agency trying to 
revoke that license.
    Mr. Cleckner. I'd love to give you the examples that fly in 
the face of what the zero-tolerance policy says it is, which is 
prohibited persons and background checks and things like that.
    The problem is my client did none of those things that are 
even stated in the zero-tolerance policy and they're still 
falling subject to getting revoked. We can talk about a typo, 
or an abbreviation of somebody's name when they shouldn't have 
done that.
    We can talk about accidentally listing United States as the 
country instead of paying attention to the box saying county. 
Things like that.
    Mr. Gaetz. Ms. Sampson gave testimony that these are 
essential--that these are necessary regulations to enforce at 
the finest point. Do you have a response to that testimony?
    Mr. Cleckner. Some are essential, I agree--the background 
check requirements, the identification requirements, and making 
sure we know who the purchaser is, that they're not a 
prohibited person.
    That's not what this exact case I'm dealing with has to do 
with at all. There are no prohibited persons involved here. 
There were no missing background checks. There was no missing 
anything that would actually affect public safety.
    Mr. Gaetz. In the case I'm aware of in my district, the 
error wasn't even made by the license holder. The error was 
made by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement because they 
were charged with a certain feature of the background check.
    So, if a license holder has to rely on a State entity to do 
some portion of the check and they make an error that certainly 
shouldn't result in the license holder experiencing a 
revocation action, should it?
    Mr. Cleckner. We agree it should not.
    Mr. Gaetz. Yet, that's the circumstance and I'm wondering 
just how you hear that testimony, Mr. Cummins, as you deal with 
representing a family that's dealt with such loss at the hands 
of such a grave error. Does the hypocrisy not ring pretty loud?
    Mr. Cummins. I've been on all sides of this. I've been a 
United States Attorney. I've prosecuted more gun crimes than 
probably many prosecutors in the country. It was the number one 
priority in the Bush Administration to prosecute gun crime. Not 
administrative gun crime, real gun crime.
    People that are out committing crimes with guns, and we 
prosecuted a whole bunch of them. I've also been a defense 
attorney and I've been with families and people that are in 
prison.
    I've been to prisons and met with people. Anybody that 
thinks that the guns that are being sold in private sales are 
driving the level of crime we're seeing in our community, on 
the list of things that are driving the level of crime we see 
in our community private gun sales is way down at the bottom 
and there's a great number of other things that aren't being 
discussed here at all that have to be driving it more than--
    Mr. Gaetz. I want you to be able to respond specifically to 
Ms. Sampson's testimony that guns make their way from the legal 
marketplace to the illegal marketplace, because it seems to me 
hearing that testimony that then you wouldn't attack the people 
who are trying to legally engage in the legal transfer of 
firearms, right.
    You would go after the people engaging in illegal conduct. 
What's your reaction to that testimony?
    Mr. Cummins. I agree with that. I think gun crimes are 
committed by people, not guns, and we need to focus on the 
people that are committing the crimes, and we need to be asking 
ourselves, why is this person a criminal--what's their 
background.
    I know the answers to a lot of those questions because I've 
been living it for 35 years. It doesn't really have much to do 
with where they acquired the firearm.
    Mr. Gaetz. Everything we know about the law for someone to 
be a criminal they have to have the intent to commit a crime. 
That's the mens rea, right?
    Mr. Cummins. Correct.
    Mr. Gaetz. Do you worry as you look at some of the ways in 
which these laws are being weaponized against people that we're 
getting away from someone actually wanting to commit a crime 
and, indeed, people are experiencing this really, really harsh 
regulatory action when they want to be legally compliant?
    Mr. Cummins. I would suggest that the tactics that were 
used in the Malinowski search would be incompetent and reckless 
if it was a very serious crime. It's even much more offensive 
because this is not a serious crime that they suspected. It's 
probably the lowest level crime that would ever be drug into a 
United States Attorney's office.
    Mr. Gaetz. So why did this happen? Is this just to send a 
message? Is this someone's incompetence? Do you wonder about 
that?
    Mr. Cummins. I wonder about it, and that's probably a 
question for this Committee to answer, not me. I'm certainly 
concerned about it, and it makes this tragedy even harder to 
take to think that it might be politically motivated or for 
some other reason.
    Mr. Gaetz. Thank you. I see I'm out of time. I yield back.
    Mr. Steube. [Presiding.] The gentleman's time has expired. 
I now recognize Ms. Plaskett for five minutes.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you very much.
    First, I want to say it's very interesting that we keep 
talking about the fact that there were no body cams on the ATF 
officers that were there to execute that warrant.
    What's very interesting--and I'd like to admit and submit 
into the record a letter that's been sent from ATF to Mr. Jim 
Jordan dated May 21, 2024, from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
and Firearms and Explosives.
    Mr. Steube. Without objection.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. In that letter, it reminds this 
Congress that in 2021, the department directed its law 
enforcement components including ATF to develop plans for a 
phased implementation of body worn cameras.
    The very thing that they're trying to do, which is to 
eliminate the ATF, is the reason that they don't have body 
cams, because they didn't give them the funding for it. 
Congress has specifically stated in its appropriations that 
they don't want to fund ATF.
    They don't want to give them the money to be able to 
operate. They don't want to give Mr. Cleckner's clients 
sufficient ATF officers to be able to quickly do the kind of 
paperwork that they need.
    That's why they're taking so long. They don't want to give 
them the funding to be able to have body cams and so ATF has 
only a third of its individuals who are wearing body cams, and 
I have specifically requested from Congress the funding so that 
everyone can wear those body cams and my colleagues have denied 
that.
    They're the ones who have said they don't need that money. 
Let's get rid of ATF. They have legislation to abolish the ATF, 
the Elimination of the ATF Act--Abolish the ATF Act and 
eliminate this woke, weaponized agency--everything's woke when 
you don't like it--eliminate it and that way these are the 
reasons.
    So, they want to have it both ways. They want to say that 
they don't have body cams and that's the reason they're--we 
feel sorry for people who haven't had the body cams.
    They're the reason they don't have them. Point it right 
back at yourself why those body cams weren't on them and see if 
that continues to work for you.
    We're also talking about another thing that was discussed, 
which I found very interesting was that individuals who are 
doing this as hobbies.
    One of the reasons that we changed the rule to the engaged 
in business rule is because an individual who can have as his 
primary income a large income can then sell a lot of firearms 
and not be considered a firearms dealer because their primary 
income is more than the firearms income that they're doing, 
even if it's voluminous the amount of firearm sales that 
they're making if their primary income level is higher.
    So, a couple years ago in 2022 President Biden signed the 
bipartisan Safer Communities Act which has as one of its rules, 
a rule with regard to no longer can an individual hide the fact 
that they are by all accounts, by a common law person's 
account, an actual firearms dealer and not a hobbyist.
    One of the ways I would look at determining if, in fact, a 
person is a hobbyist as opposed to a firearms dealer is--Ms. 
Sampson, in your opinion is someone who buys and then almost 
immediately resells at least 150 firearms in a three-year 
period a hobbyist or an unlicensed gun dealer?
    Ms. Sampson. If that is what a person was doing then they 
would be more likely to be an unlicensed gun dealer.
    Ms. Plaskett. Is it concerning to you if someone sells 150 
firearms and conducts no background check on the individuals 
who are purchasing those firearms?
    Ms. Sampson. Yes, because ATF data shows that those 
unlicensed and unbackground-checked sales usually end up going 
to prohibited purchasers.
    Ms. Plaskett. I'd like to submit for the record the actual 
search warrant--the unsealed application for a search warrant 
and the affidavit and other information therein which on page 
28 states that as of February 27, 2024, approximately six 
firearms are known to have been recovered in the commission of 
crimes. Those are related to the firearms that Mr. Malinowski 
purchased and then sold.
    Mr. Cummins. Mr. Chair, could I--
    Ms. Plaskett. No, I'm speaking. It's my time.
    Mr. Cummins. OK. I'm sorry.
    Ms. Plaskett. OK. Thank you. Then, in your opinion, Ms. 
Sampson, would ATF be justified in being concerned when someone 
sells a firearm to an individual who has been convicted of 
robbery and is prohibited from owning a gun?
    Ms. Sampson. Yes, because selling to a prohibited purchaser 
is a violation of the law.
    Ms. Plaskett. In your opinion, would ATF be justified in 
being concerned--
    Chair Jordan. [Presiding.] The time of the gentlelady--the 
time of the gentlelady--
    Ms. Plaskett. --when selling a firearm that lands in the 
hands of a 15-year-old member of the Norteno criminal street 
gang?
    Ms. Sampson. Yes.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Cummins, I think Mr. Steube will give you a chance to 
respond.
    Mr. Steube. Mr. Cummins, did you want to respond to that?
    Mr. Cummins. I just wanted to quickly say--
    Ms. Plaskett. Is this his time now?
    Chair Jordan. Yes, it's his time.
    Ms. Plaskett. OK.
    Mr. Cummins. The Ranking Member made a misstatement that's 
been repeated in the press and I'd just like to correct it.
    That affidavit refers to approximately--I think it's 142 
but call it 150 guns--that Mr. Malinowski purchased over four 
years, which I can tell you--I could name a lot of people in 
Arkansas that have bought 150 firearms in four years. It only 
documents six, I believe, sales of any firearms in that 
affidavit, not 150. It only--it documents that he purchased 150 
guns, but it only documents that he sold about six.
    Chair Jordan. Which you're allowed to do in America, right?
    Mr. Cummins. As far as I know.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. Steube. This whole case is outrageous to me and, Ms. 
Malinowski, I feel like we owe you an apology on behalf of the 
American government today because ATF isn't going to give you 
that apology.
    So, we'll do it today on behalf of our government who 
just--I'm kind of uniquely situated. I have a military 
background, but my father's a retired sheriff, did 20 years on 
the SWAT team, executed countless search warrants.
    My brother's 10 years on the SWAT team, still on the force, 
executed countless search warrants and you have conversations 
with them. I have a military background so I kind of understand 
clearing a room and that sort of thing, and when they execute a 
search warrant, they would wait until the individual wasn't at 
their home where they knew that there was a firearm present to 
avoid a situation where one of their officers were injured.
    Your testimony is and it's in the record that they followed 
Mr. Malinowski. They knew where he worked. Mr. Gaetz made a 
very good point that he worked at an airport, a secure 
environment where it would have been very easy to go in and 
execute a search warrant, and if they were going to arrest him 
or question him do that there were there were no weapons 
involved. It would have been peaceful.
    Did ATF ever serve him with an administrative cease and 
desist letter?
    Mr. Cummins. No, sir.
    Mr. Steube. Did he have any--
    Mr. Cummins. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Steube. Did he have any knowledge or understanding that 
he was being investigated for any type of crime?
    Mr. Cummins. Well, obviously, he's not available for me to 
ask that question to but to the best of my knowledge and based 
on our investigation the answer is no.
    Mr. Steube. You and his wife, obviously.
    Mr. Cummins. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Steube. Since Malinowski did not receive a cease-and-
desist letter did he ever get any other--well, I just asked 
that.
    In the ATF search warrant application agents indicate that 
they talked to him on February 8th, just over a month prior to 
the raid. The agents indicate that he attempted to elude them.
    Is there any indication that Mr. Malinowski was ever aware 
that the people following him were law enforcement officers?
    Mr. Cummins. No. That portion of the affidavit is comical.
    Mr. Steube. Would you like to expand?
    Mr. Cummins. Maybe more--maybe embarrassed. It's an 
irrelevant portion in the affidavit where they talk about 
traffic and try to follow him. It sounds like somebody that 
isn't a very good driver to me.
    I'm familiar with the area that they're describing, and 
everybody is in jeopardy when they make that transition. It has 
nothing to do with this case.
    Mr. Steube. Again, it was, like, 6:00 in the morning. So, 
he doesn't know he's being investigated. There's no, like, 
letter that's sent that you need to cease and desist of what 
you're doing or we would like to have a conversation with you.
    It sits hard with me because I would react the exact same 
way. If somebody beat my door in at 6:00 in the morning, I can 
guarantee you myself and my wife would be approaching the door 
with a firearm.
    So, it's not--and you would think that the ATF agents would 
also conclude that that's a reasonable response to your door 
getting beaten in at 6:00 a.m., when you don't know you're 
being investigated. Does ATF typically have body cams? Does the 
Little Rock Police Department typically have body cameras?
    Mr. Cummins. Interestingly, according to my understanding 
Little Rock police does wear body cams, but they didn't have 
them on that morning and so they were under the supervision of 
ATF, and you have to ask ATF why Little Rock didn't have theirs 
on.
    Mr. Steube. Little Rock typically does have body cams and, 
again, my experience with my family they have body cams and if 
they would have turned them off in the execution of a search 
warrant that would be a very big problem for any law 
enforcement agent that is involved in an execution of a search 
warrant with no body cameras--
    Mr. Cummins. That's one of the specific times they'd be 
required to have them on.
    Mr. Steube. Did ATF ever have an opportunity to serve this 
search warrant at a time when it would have been less 
dangerous?
    Mr. Cummins. Probably a thousand opportunities that we 
could sit here and speak.
    Mr. Steube. I've only got--I'm just outraged. Mr. Goldman 
said that it was a no-knock--it was not a no-knock warrant and 
you stated that there was, like, 47 seconds or something.
    So, if they did knock at 6:00 in the morning it's 
reasonable that the Malinowskis didn't hear that because you 
wouldn't be approaching--if somebody knocked on my door at 6:00 
in the morning, I wouldn't assume that it's a bad guy because 
they wouldn't knock.
    If you hear a door beaten in at 6:00 in the morning, there 
was such a short period of time between the door getting kicked 
in and knocked in, and then Mr. Malinowski being shot that it's 
reasonable to believe that they didn't hear the knock if there 
was a knock, which I'm looking forward to the Judiciary 
Committee asking all these questions.
    I hope that the Chair is going to ask for and I know they 
have asked for every officer that was present that day because 
I would love for this Committee with the oversight authority 
that we have over the ATF to depose every single one of those 
officers that were present that day and get a sworn deposition 
from every single one of those people.
    Again, Ms. Malinowski, I'm sorry for your loss and the loss 
of your family to a clear abuse of the rule of law, in my 
opinion.
    I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes--the gentleman from New York is 
recognized.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    First, I want to express my condolences to Ms. Malinowski. 
I'm terribly sorry for your loss and for what you had to endure 
that day.
    I do want to get into some of the details because I think 
they're very important. It was actually the search warrant 
affidavit, without going into great detail, demonstrates that 
Mr. Malinowski did purchase 142 guns from 2019 to February 27, 
2024.
    He resold at least nine because we have the six plus the 
three to the undercover firearm. He also had at various times 
at various gun shows 12 or 13 firearms on the table to be sold 
and he offered one witness, who was the one convicted of 
robbery and therefore was a prohibited person, many more 
firearms than what he purchased.
    Many of these firearms were purchased just days before they 
were sold. So, whether or not you want to assert, Mr. Cummins, 
that this was a hobby of his you agree that there's certainly 
probable cause to believe that he was selling guns to 
individuals without a license and without performing a 
background check because he didn't have a license?
    Mr. Cummins. There's no allegation that he knowingly sold a 
gun to anyone that was prohibited--
    Mr. Goldman. That's not what probable cause--
    Mr. Cummins. --and under ATF's interpretation of--
    Mr. Goldman. You don't have to--you don't have to do that. 
I just said that he--
    Mr. Cummins. I'm just answering your question.
    Mr. Goldman. Selling without a license. Like, there's 
certainly probable cause that he was in the business of selling 
without a license.
    Mr. Cummins. Under ATF's interpretation of a vague, vague 
regulation.
    Mr. Goldman. Not yours. So, you would say that if you 
purchase 142 firearms within a four-year span as a former U.S. 
attorney and you have evidence of nine sales within that period 
of time plus many other more weapons offered for sale, you 
would say as you, not the ATF--as you as a former U.S. attorney 
that there is no probable cause to believe that this person is 
in the business of selling guns without a license?
    Mr. Cummins. I would agree that this could be probable 
cause.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you. So, we have probable cause. The 
Little Rock police are there with the ATF. They go in and the 
one fact that doesn't ever seem to be mentioned here, and that 
the Chair's letter does not mention is that an ATF agent was 
shot. Is that correct, Mr. Cummins?
    Mr. Cummins. That's correct.
    Mr. Goldman. OK. So, an ATF agent was shot and then in 
response fired back at Mr. Malinowski. Is that accurate?
    Mr. Cummins. That is accurate and it's also a tragedy.
    Mr. Goldman. It is a tragedy. I agree. I agree. You also 
agree, I assume--I was an Assistant U.S. Attorney for 10 years, 
secured many, many search warrants, oversaw the execution of 
them and arrest warrants. They're routinely done at 6 a.m. Is 
that right?
    Mr. Cummins. A lot of warrants are executed at 6 a.m. 
Whether I agree with that as a tactic is another discussion. 
Yes, that's not uncommon.
    Mr. Goldman. Yes. No, OK, I want to understand that we're 
making a big deal out of the 6 a.m. here, but that is the 
standard time that law enforcement executes arrest warrants and 
executes search warrants.
    So, I certainly am sorry that this is a tragedy that Mr. 
Malinowski died. I'm also sorry that Mr. Malinowski shot an ATF 
agent during a search, and I think if he were truly not in the 
business of selling firearms the way to respond to a search 
warrant is to allow your house to be searched and to cooperate.
    It is insane to me that we are sitting here criticizing the 
ATF because they retaliated with deadly force after someone 
shot an agent. That is what happened here. This was not an out 
of the ordinary execution of a search warrant. This is a 
standard operating procedure.
    Mr. Cummins acknowledges that there was probable cause to 
do it and now there is an investigation of this incident. Is 
that right, Mr. Cummins?
    Mr. Cummins. There has been an investigation that's been 
handed over to the local prosecutor.
    Mr. Goldman. So, the local prosecutor is investigating it, 
and as a prosecutor that none of the witnesses or the relevant 
people involved are allowed to discuss this publicly while an 
investigation is going on, correct?
    Mr. Cummins. I don't know what the policy of ATF is on 
that.
    Mr. Goldman. Well, was it your policy as a prosecutor? It 
certainly was mine. Witnesses do not talk to the public while 
there's an investigation going on.
    One last question. As a U.S. Attorney did you ever send a 
notification to a target of yours who's selling a hundred--who 
is buying 140 guns, selling at least nine of them, that, hey, 
you're under investigation--just a heads up?
    Mr. Cummins. I hope I would have, yes.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman's time--
    Mr. Goldman. You would have? You would have reached out and 
said, hey, by the way I'm investigating--
    Chair Jordan. The question was asked, and the question 
asked and answered.
    Mr. Goldman. --so you can go ahead and destroy all and hide 
all the evidence? You would have done that? You notified the 
targets that you would--
    Mr. Cummins. I have.
    Chair Jordan. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Mr. Goldman. I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman from--the gentleman yields 
back. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Bishop. Mr. Cummins, with some economies of time do you 
wish to respond to the last barrage?
    Mr. Cummins. Well, only to say that nobody disputes that 
when a law enforcement is fired on that they have a right to 
fire back.
    The point is that everything that created that situation 
was incompetent, unnecessary, and reckless and it defied the 
law because as a former assistant--the Fourth Amendment cases 
that allow either a no-knock or what I would call a tap and go 
type entry with no real waiting for someone to come to the door 
are only justified by exigent circumstances that do not exist 
in this case.
    So, in my opinion as a former U.S. Attorney this was a 
completely illegal search because of the forced entry and the 
lack of time they gave the occupants of a fairly large home to 
get up at 6:00 in the morning.
    The law requires them to wait for enough time--for a 
reasonable amount of time for someone to come to the door and 
admit them in.
    Chair Jordan. Fifty seconds is not a reasonable--
    Mr. Goldman. I assume the local prosecutor--
    Mr. Bishop. Whoa, whoa, whoa. My time. My time. My time. 
You've had plenty.
    Mr. Cummins, I appreciate that very effective rebuttal. 
Here is what's interesting to me as this hearing evolves, I 
hear Mr. Goldman defending the practice that he says is engaged 
in every day, and earlier on the Ranking Member invoked the 
Breonna Taylor episode and I've just been sitting here 
reviewing it.
    Mr. Goldman said earlier on, well, this wasn't a no-knock 
warrant. OK. What's the difference in the situation if they 
knock and they blow in 20 seconds or it's a no-knock? In fact, 
in the Breonna Taylor case that wasn't a no-knock warrant. They 
said they knocked and waited 45 seconds and they went in.
    Here's something that's interesting. In the Breonna Taylor 
thing, she was killed on March 13, 2020, in that--it was 
execution of a search warrant just like this one.
    Ms. Plaskett. Breonna was murdered. Murdered.
    Chair Jordan. The time belongs to the gentleman.
    Mr. Bishop. The police officer--the first police officer 
was fired June 20th. In September 2020, Louisville entered into 
a $12 million settlement with the family.
    Have you been made any overtures by the Department of 
Justice to settle liability against the government on behalf of 
Mr. Malinowski's family?
    Mr. Cummins. No, sir.
    Mr. Bishop. In September, also, one of the police officers 
was indicted for willful endangerment or wanton endangerment 
and a second officer was fired in January 2021. A third officer 
was retired in April 2021.
    Oh, I left out in October 2020, grand jury testimony was 
leaked. Later in 2021, DOJ indicted four officers and even now 
is retrying one who--for the hung jury. I don't understand the 
difference. I don't understand my colleagues' reaction that 
this--
    Ms. Plaskett. If you would yield, I could share the 
difference with you.
    Mr. Bishop. No, you've talked for a long time. I'm going to 
talk during my time.
    Ms. Plaskett. OK. Then, I will tell you--
    Mr. Bishop. Maybe, you can provide context for your 
egregious double standard. No one that I recall on the 
Republican side when the Breonna--by the way, you said this was 
interfering in the process to have this hearing.
    The first time Congress had a hearing was in June 2020, 
over the Breonna Taylor episode. There was no concern about 
interfering. The concern was about the use of this kind of 
tactic to enter unnecessarily and jeopardize people's lives. 
Now, suddenly that seems to be of no concern whatsoever.
    Can you account for that difference, Mr. Cummins?
    Mr. Cummins. The facts are very similar, although that was 
a drug investigation and under the case law they are allowed to 
go in faster because of the potential for destruction of 
evidence.
    Mr. Bishop. Yes. So, in this case we're talking about 
conduct that the law would say is malum prohibitum, not malum 
in se.
    In other words, the reason they entered this residence and 
jeopardized this entire family including Ms. Malinowski, who 
has no allegations against her, and shot this man dead is 
because he didn't have the proper license for the business, 
they say he was engaged in, and it's even disputed about 
whether he was engaged in that business.
    Mr. Cummins. Correct.
    Mr. Bishop. In that case Breonna Taylor's boyfriend was 
without any contradiction engaging in illicit drug activity and 
receiving and dealing. He was a drug dealer, and he was 
carrying it on in her place of residence.
    I can't account for the gross disparity except that 
Americans hear a lot and I hear a lot about concern about 
double standard of justice. Is there a double standard of 
justice here, Mr. Cummins, in those two episodes?
    Mr. Cummins. There appears to be and that causes a loss of 
trust in government and in these agencies.
    Mr. Bishop. Mr. Cleckner, the only place I see reaction 
besides a hearing like this exposing stuff is that Attorney 
Generals across the Nation have sued over the two rules--the 
engaging in the business rule, that's an issue here, I guess, 
really, and the pistol brace rule.
    Why is that the only recourse that people have, to have 
State Attorneys general file litigation?
    Mr. Cleckner. I don't understand your question, 
Congressman. Are you saying that they should be--
    Mr. Bishop. My time has expired anyway. I wanted to get one 
more. I've run out.
    Chair Jordan. Well, we can give you a chance if you want to 
rephrase the question.
    Mr. Bishop. Yes, if I can--thank you, Mr. Chair. If I can 
rephrase the question. Here's what I'm saying.
    Congress doesn't seem to be able to do anything to press 
back against this overreach, at least it hasn't, including 
under Republican leadership.
    The only thing that seems to be available to people for the 
government to do to provide recourse, is I see State Attorney 
Generals out filing lawsuits in great numbers, 21 States--in 
one case, 24.
    Is that the only recourse that people have--can expect from 
their government in response to these kinds of abuses?
    Mr. Cleckner. It apparently is the only one they have but 
it's not what they should expect. We should expect that the 
administrative agency is reined in a little bit here.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Jordan. We're trying. We're trying.
    The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Texas for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and the 
vigorous back and forth regarding Breonna Taylor.
    First, I do appreciate you being here and your answering of 
the questions. I do want to make sure that before we go down 
this road, I clarify some things that were different in the 
Breonna Taylor case.
    Second, the officers were considered to have botched what 
took place on that day because they fired blindly into a home, 
meaning that they initiated some sort of deadly force, and the 
only information that they had was allegedly that this was the 
place of some sort of drug activity.
    At that point in time, you ended up having her boyfriend 
who returned fire believing that someone was breaking in. It is 
very different when you are returning fire versus initiating 
fire and there was no need to do so.
    In addition to that, no-knock warrants and knock warrants 
are basically a couple of seconds of difference, if I'm going 
to be honest.
    One of the things that I worked on in the State legislature 
was actually making sure that we could reform no-knock warrants 
because it is a risk not only to the people in the homes, 
especially in a State like Texas where everyone is allowed to 
have a gun, but it's also a huge risk to law enforcement.
    So, being able to do this effectively--this is dangerous 
work that law enforcement engage in every single day and I do 
want to be clear that I am always sorry for the loss of life. I 
don't care about the race.
    I don't care about any of those things and, honestly, I 
believe in the criminal justice system. I believe that if 
someone is accused of something they should have their day in 
court.
    So, I do want to say that I take issue with anyone losing 
their life, period, even if it's somebody that's accused of a 
crime and I believe that they should go through due process and 
have an opportunity.
    In this particular set of circumstances, we know that if 
somebody shoots at me--in fact, some would argue that last week 
I had a colleague that decided she wanted to shoot at me--I'm 
going to shoot back and that's what happened here.
    What's more frustrating for me in this hearing and what 
seems to be a pattern, is that we continue to attempt to 
litigate pending cases. We saw that one of the witnesses in the 
Trump trial.
    He came and testified before us last week and then he went 
and testified this week in front of the judiciary, and then we 
know that this is still a pending case and I do want to afford 
an opportunity for those that will be granted access to 
discovery, video, whatever video doesn't exist, as well as any 
statements, depositions, all those things, some folk that have 
access to all the information and, ultimately, if this needs to 
go to court having a jury that will make a decision based on 
the facts and the evidence.
    So, with that, I want to make sure that we move onto 
something else, which is the reality that--in fact, let me do 
this before I run out of time.
    Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record 
``97Percent's Annual Gun Owner Survey,'' October 2023 report 
which details these and other statistics pertaining to gun 
owners' views on commonsense gun control policies and I'm going 
to go back up to what those views are.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much.
    The 97Percent, a bipartisan group of gun owners and nongun 
owners which conducts research on gun safety policies, found 
that with regarding to commonsense gun policies 86 percent of 
gun owners, well over the simple majority, support keeping guns 
out of the hands of violent criminals.
    Seventy percent of gun owners say that they wish we would 
enact some kind of gun reform. Sixty-six percent of gun owners, 
for instance, think guns should be restricted on school grounds 
and 67 percent think that they should be restricted in 
government buildings, and I will tell you that I fall into 
those categories because I am a licensed gun owner.
    Yet, despite the majority of Americans and the majority of 
gun owners, Republicans last week passed a bill out of the 
House that eliminates States' ability to regulate firearms on 
private property, government buildings, playgrounds, and gun-
free school zones.
    If that's not hypocrisy I honestly don't know what is, and 
it doesn't end there. As the party self-proclaiming itself as 
law enforcement's biggest advocate and supporter Republicans on 
this very Committee have introduced legislation to abolish the 
law enforcement agency entirely.
    Ms. Sampson, I have a few yes or no questions. I may only 
get to one. Yes or no, are you familiar with the role of ATF?
    Ms. Sampson. Yes.
    Ms. Crockett. To your understanding the ATF is in fact law 
enforcement, correct?
    Ms. Sampson. Yes.
    Ms. Crockett. Does ATF duties include preventing incidents, 
investigating cases, and recommending prosecution for issues of 
violent crimes and weapons for gangs and career criminals?
    Ms. Sampson. Yes.
    Ms. Crockett. Narcotic traffickers?
    Ms. Sampson. Yes.
    Ms. Crockett. Domestic and international arms traffickers?
    Ms. Sampson. Yes.
    Ms. Crockett. Armed human traffickers?
    Ms. Sampson. Yes.
    Ms. Crockett. Terrorists?
    Ms. Sampson. Yes.
    Ms. Crockett. With that, I will yield.
    Chair Jordan. Bryan Malinowski was none of those. The 
gentlelady yields back.
    The gentlelady from Florida is recognized.
    Ms. Cammack. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I am first and foremost very, very sorry, Ms. Malinowski. 
As the wife of a SWAT medic, from one wife to another, I am 
deeply apologetic, and I can't even begin to understand the 
pain and suffering that you and your family are going through.
    My husband, as I said, who is a SWAT medic, when we heard 
about this case, he was so thoroughly disgusted and 
heartbroken. That is truly, I believe, not a reflection on the 
good men and women in law enforcement that intend to do their 
jobs the best they can and we're so very sorry.
    Mr. Chair, I'm also deeply disappointed that the discussion 
today has been centered around ways to restrict constitutional 
rights to law-abiding citizens instead of the mental health 
crisis that we face in this country, which is a massive driver 
of crime in this country.
    Also, very little has been talked about when we're 
discussing the overgrown, overly aggressive, and woefully 
inadequate Administrative State.
    So, with that, I'm going to jump right into Mr. Cleckner. 
Thank you for returning back to Congress to provide testimony.
    In a March 10, 2023, Judiciary Subcommittee on the 
Administrative State you addressed the ATF stabilizing rule--
brace rule. In your testimony you said, quote,

        This rule effectively gives the ATF the power to determine who 
        is a felon by the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen. This is not an 
        appropriate enforcement of law. It is tyranny.

I agree with you.
    What is sad is that in this rule, we are seeing a microcosm 
of what is happening at other Federal agencies. The American 
people are under assault by the Biden Administration's 
regulatory regime from all corners of the Federal Government.
    That is why I introduced the REINS Act. As many of you 
know, the bill would address regulatory overreach by requiring 
every new major rule proposed by Federal agencies be approved 
by Congress before going into effect.
    This is the reassertion of Article 1 authority that is how 
the Founding Fathers intended, not unelected, nameless, 
faceless bureaucrats arbitrarily dictating law. After all, we 
know that Americans pay $2 trillion a year, in additional 
compliance costs--economic loss--for this aggressive regulatory 
regime.
    The stabilizing brace rule and ATF's zero tolerance policy 
are prime examples of regulations that not only impose 
compliance costs on firearm retailers but infringe on 
Americans' basic Second Amendment rights.
    So, I'm going to go down the line and I'm going to come 
right back to you. Mr. Cummins, yes or no, should Federal 
agencies be able to shift criminal statutes and rewrite law?
    Mr. Cummins. No.
    Ms. Cammack. Thank you. Ms. Sampson?
    Ms. Sampson. That's not what happened here. They're 
enforcing a Congressional rule.
    Ms. Cammack. I did not ask that. I asked for a yes or no. 
Should Federal agencies be arbitrarily able to write law?
    Ms. Sampson. No, and that's not what happened here.
    Ms. Cammack. Thank you. Mr. Graham?
    Mr. Graham. No, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Cammack. Mr. Cleckner?
    Mr. Cleckner. No.
    Ms. Cammack. Thank you.
    Mr. Cleckner, my understanding is that this rule disregards 
ATF's own approval of stabilizing braces in 2012, correct?
    Mr. Cleckner. This current zero tolerance policy rule? I'm 
not sure what you're asking.
    Ms. Cammack. Regarding how they classified the pistol 
braces as an accessory, therefore, not subject to full ATF 
regulatory standards.
    Mr. Cleckner. Right.
    Ms. Cammack. So, in the time since they approved them in 
2012 to today ATF has done a full 180 on the issue and has 
chosen to impose erroneous regulations on firearm accessories 
that were originally intended for disabled veterans, correct?
    Mr. Cleckner. Uh-huh. That's true, and on which people 
relied on their opinion when they were acting and they're now 
in trouble for.
    Ms. Cammack. Absolutely. The owners of these firearms would 
now be committing a felony if they did not register, surrender, 
or destroy the accessory?
    Mr. Cleckner. Correct, which means their right to even 
possess a firearm for the rest of their life is now gone.
    Ms. Cammack. Exactly. Did Congress ever approve this 
legislatively?
    Mr. Cleckner. No, ma'am.
    Ms. Cammack. Can you quickly outline the specific penalties 
for failing to register a pistol brace under this rule?
    Mr. Cleckner. Quickly, yes. Felony.
    Ms. Cammack. Financial as well?
    Mr. Cleckner. Oh, for sure. Defending yourself, financial 
costs, losing the right to protect yourself or have firearms in 
the future. All those things.
    Ms. Cammack. Right. So, now that this rule is being 
litigated in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals considering the 
rule has criminal implications, can you speak to the risks 
associated with circumventing the legislative process in this 
case?
    Mr. Cleckner. The risks now, going forward, are even 
companies don't know what they're supposed to do because it 
changes back and forth so many times.
    I think people are afraid, as someone said earlier, about 
what they're supposed to do, what they're going to get in 
trouble with, whose guidance they're supposed to follow. It's 
all unclear.
    Ms. Cammack. I appreciate that, and I know my time is 
expiring. I have a list of questions for you, Mr. Graham, that 
I will submit for the record.
    I think it is clear that what we are seeing today, 
particularly, under the ATF is a gross overreach, a 
weaponization of the Federal Government in its true form. It's 
something that I think Republicans, Democrats, and all 
Americans should be equally concerned about.
    With that, I yield.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentlelady from Wyoming is recognized.
    Ms. Hageman. I'm going to continue with that same line of 
questioning.
    Mr. Cleckner, this Subcommittee's last hearing, in fact, 
was on the Biden Administration's use of lawfare against 
political opponents and we have seen that play out in a variety 
of ways including in the case that's been ongoing in New York 
City as well as what's been happening in Georgia and Florida, 
etc.
    Each and every ATF rule subjects more Americans to legal 
compliance which, if ignored, even unknowingly, imposes 
criminal and monetary penalties as well as additional fees and 
legal costs.
    Mr. Cleckner, do you think that the rulemaking agenda is an 
attempt to employ lawfare against Americans who stand for the 
Second Amendment?
    Mr. Cleckner. I do.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. If so, what does that say about where we 
stand when the Biden Administration considers its citizens who 
believe in and adhere to the Constitution as its political 
enemies?
    Mr. Cleckner. That is scary if that's their motivation and 
it's very difficult to comply with for sure.
    Ms. Hageman. In December 2023, the ATF Little Rock field 
office received a case referral for Mr. Malinowski. In the same 
month it opened its investigation and spent the next several 
months surveilling his activities including tailing him and 
placing trackers on his car.
    I find this absolutely frightening that we have agencies 
who are willing to go to this extent with a law-abiding 
citizen. The ATF knew his movements, his schedule, where he 
was, and when he was there and, therefore, the ATF knew when he 
was home and when he wasn't, meaning that the ATF decided to 
execute the search warrant when he was home even though they 
knew that he would have firearms in the home.
    In fact, Mr. Cummins, you have uncovered the fact that the 
ATF team members gathered to execute the search warrant the 
week before the raid, but then changed their plan when they 
learned that Mr. Malinowski would not be home. In other words, 
they wanted him there and they wanted him there bad.
    Mr. Graham, is this standard operating procedure for the 
ATF to ensure that the target is there when they executed this 
kind of a search warrant or can they do it without the target 
being in the home?
    Mr. Graham. Madam Congresswoman, unfortunately, I have no 
firsthand knowledge of the warrant process and/or how they are 
executed.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, Mr. Cummins, what about you? Do you 
think that this would be standard operating procedure to wait 
until the gentleman was there at 1:00 in the morning, knowing 
that he had guns, versus just going ahead and executing the 
search warrant when he wasn't there?
    Mr. Cummins. Well, clearly, it's a search warrant. He 
didn't need to be there. I think they definitely wanted him 
there and I think that this does happen in Federal law 
enforcement quite a bit.
    They want the target there because they want to surprise 
them, and this is part of the reason they go at 6:00 in the 
morning. They want to surprise them. They want them in their 
night clothes. They want their hair to stand up.
    They want them scared, angry, shocked, and then they want 
to violate their Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate 
themselves before they remember they have a Sixth Amendment 
right to call their lawyer.
    So, it's a trifecta. They want to violate three 
constitutional rights--the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth--all in one 
scoop and in this case, it didn't work out for them.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, and it seems to me that the overarching 
issue here is that the government should have standards in 
place to ensure the safety of all citizens in the conduct of 
its investigations and actions even when criminal activity is 
suspected.
    In the case of execution of a search warrant for Mr. 
Malinowski the ATF appears to have deviated from this premise 
and standards which are in place and, in fact, ended up 
executing Mr. Malinowski himself.
    Mr. Cummins. That's exactly right.
    Ms. Hageman. The Constitution secures our rights by placing 
limits on the Federal Government's power even when Americans--
an American citizen is suspected of being engaged in unlawful 
behavior.
    As you just indicated, the Fourth Amendment secures 
citizens against unreasonable search and seizure. The Fifth 
Amendment ensures due process.
    The Sixth Amendment guarantees--has certain rights for 
criminal defendants and the Eighth Amendment provides against 
and protects us against cruel and unusual punishment.
    Mr. Cummins, is it fair to say that a responsible execution 
of a search warrant is one of the primary mechanisms that we 
have in place to guarantee an American's rights in criminal 
proceedings?
    Mr. Cummins. I can't imagine what the British were doing to 
people that would be worse than what happened to Bryan Mali-
nowski on March 19th that would have brought about the Fourth 
Amendment to the Constitution.
    Ms. Hageman. Mr. Graham, do you have any recommendations of 
how to address the situation we're describing today to ensure 
that this does not happen again? What kind of reforms should 
Congress take up to make sure that we can protect Mr. 
Malinowski and other people like him?
    Mr. Graham. Madam Congresswoman, once again, having limited 
exposure to the warrant process and/or the execution, I would 
defer to Congress creating whatever laws, regulations, they 
deem appropriate to be delegated to the appropriate enforcement 
agency.
    Ms. Hageman. Mr. Cleckner, what about you? What 
recommendations would you have?
    Mr. Cleckner. I agree with Mr. Graham. I think Congress' 
oversight here is really important. I think what you asked me 
earlier about the Administrative overreach is these 
Administrative agencies specifically going against what 
Congress has put into place like the Gun Control Act or like 
the willfulness requirement.
    Ms. Hageman. Between the bump stocks and the pistol braces 
and those things what we have are agencies who are 
intentionally adopting vague rules and regulations to 
criminalize lawful and unconstitutional conduct. It needs to 
end.
    I appreciate you all being here. I am sorry for your loss 
as well, Ms. Malinowski. We have to expose these types of 
activities so that we can prevent them from happening in the 
future.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
    I would just let the witnesses know we have just a few more 
minutes. Mr. Davidson, I don't know if Mr. Fry will be able to 
join us, and then a couple of comments or minutes with Ms. 
Plaskett, the Ranking Member, and myself and then we'll be 
done. So, if you need a break, obviously, let us know but we 
should be done here in the next 1five minutes is sort of the 
goal.
    The gentleman from Ohio is recognized.
    Mr. Davidson. I thank the Chair and thank our witnesses 
and, Ms. Malinowski, please accept my sincere apologies and 
deepest sympathies.
    This is something that was avoidable and I'm encouraged, 
frankly, because I hear colleagues that were once highly 
concerned about warrant practices and held hearings when they 
were in the majority about criminal justice reform may actually 
be willing to do it instead of politicizing it.
    I felt as a guy who was not part of the Judiciary 
Committee--I'm on Financial Services and Foreign Affairs--and 
only on this because we have seen abuses of the Fourth 
Amendment that creep into your financial privacy.
    We have seen weaponized government go after every kind of 
nook and cranny they can for what have historically been viewed 
as law-abiding citizens. Restraints against general warrants--
so John Adams said, ``general warrants swept up whoever might 
have been present in the square on certain days.''
    These kinds of things that went on are part of what led to 
the revolution. So, it was an abuse of privacy. If you look at 
it, part of the concern for warrants is that they don't take 
the least risky means possible, which does expose officers to 
risk.
    It exposes not just people that maybe you do have probable 
cause to suspect a crime, but it exposes their family members 
and others to unnecessary risk, and maybe there is a way that 
we should look at the intent of the Fourth Amendment, that it 
would minimize the risk here.
    It seems that there was a much less invasive way to solve 
the crime that was alleged here, and you would think that 
because of the Biden Administration's focus on this crime that 
this was the big crime wave that's sweeping the country, that 
apparently the only reason we have guns on the street are 
because people like Mr. Malinowski that--but for Mr. Malinowski 
and people like that the streets would be safe in Washington, 
DC.
    People wouldn't be getting carjacked and robbed at 
gunpoint. Chicago wouldn't see massive waves of murders. It's 
pistol braces. It must be the pistol braces because they're 
going after the pistol braces.
    There is no basis in terms of the crime that the Biden 
Administration is going after, and I think that's why the 
public is so concerned. You're targeting people in part, 
because of political ideology.
    President Biden's recent Executive Order concerning 
firearms dealers was described by the White House themselves as 
getting, quote, ``as close to universal background checks as 
possible without additional legislation.''
    I do not recall Congress voting on universal background 
checks. On the contrary, this is a bureaucrat at an agency 
passing pseudo laws--fake laws--and they're using them to 
effectively force defendants to spend their treasure defending 
against a crime that hasn't even become crime in the normal way 
by law.
    So, Mr. Cleckner, what steps can be taken to defund and 
defeat these fake laws originating at the ATF in particular?
    Mr. Cleckner. I think Congress needs to hold them 
accountable.
    Mr. Davidson. To point that out one of the main ways we do 
that is with appropriations. So, it's not just whether they're 
funded, but what can they do with the funds and part of that is 
timely.
    We're going back into appropriations. Having passed on 
holding accountable the agency this time, hopefully, we'll find 
the resolve to do that this time in the next path.
    Mr. Cummins, I just wanted to close out with you because 
you're highlighting an important case. You've had a background 
where you are familiar with the warrant process and I think not 
just here in this case you pointed out, look, it is a practice.
    Is it good practice to knock at 6 a.m., and come in and--
you would think that--El Chapo maybe no-knock warrants. There's 
a time and a place. How do they weigh the right time and place 
for those kinds of tactics versus maybe less intrusive, less 
risky tactics?
    Mr. Cummins. Well, we have given great deference to law 
enforcement to choose their tactics and we are concerned about 
law enforcement officers' safety and so that's a good reason to 
do that.
    I do believe we have over militarized our law enforcement. 
I have great concerns about that. I think we do that this way 
too often, and we need to take a hard look at it.
    In this particular case, I don't think they did it lawfully 
at all and there's zero justification. Even that said, law 
enforcement does this kind of thing quite a bit.
    Mr. Davidson. You point out that there's surveillance for a 
while. It wasn't like an exigent circumstance--there wasn't 
evidence that was going to be flushed down the toilet or 
disposed of.
    There was evidence that would be physically present onsite 
and there were lots of periods of time where Mr. Malinowski was 
in a place where he could have been detained and questioned, 
could have been brought to the residence or could have been 
caught as he's walking into or about to walk out of a home.
    So, there were lots of less invasive means and I just hope 
that we can find a way in statute or in practice to be able to 
say let's do it that way more often and let's not violate the 
civil liberties of our citizens.
    With that I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
    The Ranking Member is recognized for closing comments or 
questions.
    Ms. Plaskett. I just want to thank the witnesses for being 
here.
    Ms. Malinowski, I see the pain that you are still in, and I 
pray that there's resolution for you and your family, and I 
thank you that I see that you have a support system with you. 
Thank you to those who are there with you providing that 
support to you in this time.
    I have nothing at this time further. I would, however, 
request and introduce for the record the Demand of two letters 
sent to Point Blank Firearms.
    Being on the Demand two letter program for two years in a 
row means that a business sold 25 or more firearms than a 
business here that were connected to a crime.
    Chair Jordan. Without objection.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
    Then, I would also remind my colleagues about that 
appropriations process, that removing funding from ATF 
individuals on this Committee who pass or want to have laws 
passed such as the elimination of ATF, and the abolition of ATF 
is not the way to support regulating guns in this country--that 
we need to do this comprehensively. A step in the right 
direction was the bipartisan gun legislation that was passed in 
2022.
    There's more work to be done, and with that, I yield back.
    Chair Jordan. Mr. Cummins, when government changes the 
rules without a vote of Congress is that the weaponization of 
government?
    When you have these agencies unilaterally change the law 
without a vote of the Legislative body, would you call that the 
weaponization of government?
    Mr. Cummins. It seems that way to me.
    Chair Jordan. Mr. Cleckner, would you agree?
    Mr. Cleckner. I do.
    Chair Jordan. Mr. Graham?
    Mr. Graham. Chair, that's a department doing what they're 
directed to do, sir.
    Chair Jordan. OK. Let me say this. So, when the ATF 
unilaterally changed the definition of what a pistol brace and 
how that worked, and overnight made law-abiding citizens then 
felons--you either have to turn the gun in or you're a felon--
is that the weaponization of government, Mr. Cleckner?
    Mr. Cleckner. It sure is, especially when we don't know 
that every American that had one of those got the message.
    Chair Jordan. Exactly. The same thing seems to be 
happening--seems to have happened in the case of Mr. 
Malinowski.
    The ATF decided to change the definition of what an FFL--
what a licensee was from principal livelihood to someone who's 
earning a profit, but it's even worse because they didn't have 
the definition changed and enacted when this terrible incident 
happened with Mr. Malinowski.
    That, to me, is the weaponization of government, 
unilaterally making changes without it going through the 
Legislative Branch of government the way our system is supposed 
to work--the checks and balances how they're supposed to work--
and in the case we're talking about so much today they hadn't 
even fully made that change.
    They didn't even follow their own rule, for goodness sake, 
and we have an American who's no longer with us because of 
that.
    Mr. Cummins, a response?
    Mr. Cummins. I agree with everything you said.
    Chair Jordan. Let me ask you one other question. Was the 
Little Rock police involved in the raid on the Malinowski home?
    Mr. Cummins. We know they were present. We don't know 
exactly what their role was. There were 10 carloads of agents 
at the house.
    Chair Jordan. We have seen the video of all the carloads 
coming from the Wal-Mart parking lot to the Malinowski 
neighborhood. We have seen that video.
    Were the Little Rock police officers wearing body cams on 
the morning of this raid on the Malinowski home?
    Mr. Cummins. According to what we have been told nobody had 
body cams on even though Little Rock police are equipped with 
body cams.
    Chair Jordan. That was my next question. They're supposed 
to wear them, the Little Rock--
    Mr. Cummins. It's my understanding. I'm not 100 percent 
sure about that.
    Chair Jordan. Do you believe that the ATF told Little Rock 
police officers not to have their body cams on or not to have 
them engaged?
    Mr. Cummins. When the local PD is supporting a Federal 
agency typically they're taking orders from the Federal agency. 
So, I would presume--I don't know--that ATF instructed them to 
not wear it.
    Chair Jordan. That would be a logical presumption. As a guy 
who is a former U.S. Attorney the way it works Federal law 
enforcement--
    Mr. Cummins. That's consistent with my understanding of how 
those relationships work.
    Chair Jordan. Again, we're back to the question you asked 
in your opening statement a couple hours ago. Why?
    Why would ATF tell Little Rock, don't follow your own 
rules? We're not going to follow our rules. We don't want you 
following your rules. We don't want any video footage of what 
we're about to do at the Malinowski home, an upstanding citizen 
by all accounts--your whole testimony--highest paid official in 
Little Rock municipal government.
    Why would they do that?
    Mr. Cummins. We have no idea.
    Chair Jordan. Yes, but we got to find the answer to that 
because this is the weaponization of government if I've ever 
seen it.
    We thank you all for being here today, for your testimony, 
and I got to say something official here before we close our 
hearing.
    That concludes today's hearing. We thank our witnesses for 
appearing before the Subcommittee today. Without objection, all 
Members will have five legislative days to submit additional 
written questions for the witnesses or additional materials for 
the record.
    Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

    All materials submitted for the record by Members of the 
Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal 
Government can be found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/
Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=117338.

                             [all]