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


                            ATF'S ASSAULT ON
                         THE SECOND AMENDMENT:
                         WHEN IS ENOUGH ENOUGH?

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

                              JOINT HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC GROWTH, ENERGY 
                       POLICY, AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

                                 OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                                AND THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND FEDERAL 
                         GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE

                                 OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                          [Serial No. 118-11]

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 23, 2023

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
  
 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


                  Available on: http://www.govinfo.gov
                           oversight.house.gov
                             docs.house.gov
                             
                              __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
51-632 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                   
                             
                             
                             
               COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                    JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman

Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking 
Mike Turner, Ohio                        Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Gary Palmer, Alabama                 Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Pete Sessions, Texas                 Ro Khanna, California
Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Jake LaTurner, Kansas                Katie Porter, California
Pat Fallon, Texas                    Cori Bush, Missouri
Byron Donalds, Florida               Shontel Brown, Ohio
Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota        Jimmy Gomez, California
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
William Timmons, South Carolina      Robert Garcia, California
Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Maxwell Frost, Florida
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Becca Balint, Vermont
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Greg Casar, Texas
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Dan Goldman, New York
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina        Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Nick Langworthy, New York
Eric Burlison, Missouri

                       Mark Marin, Staff Director
       Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
                James Rust, Chief Counsel for Oversight
                        Sloan McDonagh, Counsel
      Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk
                      Contact Number: 202-225-5074

                  Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
                      Contact Number: 202-225-2051

                                 ------                                

 Subcommittee On Economic Growth, Energy Policy, And Regulatory Affairs

                      Pat Fallon, Texas, Chairman
Byron Donalds, Florida               Cori Bush, Missouri, Ranking 
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania                Minority Member
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Shontel Brown, Ohio
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida               Columbia
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina        Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Nick Langworthy, New York            Ro Khanna, California
                      
                      
                      COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                       Jim Jordan, Ohio, Chairman

Darrell Issa, California             Jerrold Nadler, New York, Ranking 
Ken Buck, Colorado                       Member
Matt Gaetz, Florida                  Zoe Lofgren, California
Mike Johnson, Louisiana              Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Steve Cohen, Tennessee
Tom McClintock, California           Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Georgia
Tom Tiffany, Wisconsin               Adam Schiff, California
Thomas Massie, Kentucky              David N. Cicilline, Rhode Island
Chip Roy, Texas                      Eric Swalwell, California
Dan Bishop, North Carolina           Ted Lieu, California
Victoria Spartz, Indiana             Pramila Jayapal, Washington
Scott Fitzgerald, Wisconsin          J. Luis Correa, California
Cliff Bentz, Oregon                  Mary Gay Scanlon, Pennsylvania
Ben Cline, Virginia                  Joe Neguse, Colorado
Lance Gooden, Texas                  Lucy McBath, Georgia
Jeff Van Drew, New Jersey            Madeleine Dean, Pennsylvania
Troy Nehls, Texas                    Veronica Escobar, Texas
Barry Moore, Alabama                 Deborah Ross, North Carolina
Kevin Kiley, California              Cori Bush, Missouri
Harriet Hageman, Wyoming             Glenn Ivey, Maryland
Nathaniel Moran, Texas
Laurel Lee, Florida
Wesley Hunt, Texas
Russell Fry, South Carolina

               Christopher Hixon, Majority Staff Director
          Amy Rutkin, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
                      Contact Number: 202-225-6906
                                 ------                                

       Subcommittee On Crime And Federal Government Surveillance

                     Andy Biggs, Arizona, Chairman

Matt Gaetz, Florida                  Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas, Ranking 
Tom Tiffany, Wisconsin                   Member
Troy Nehls, Texas                    Lucy McBath, Georgia
Barry Moore, Alabama                 Madeleine Dean, Pennsylvania
Kevin Kiley, California              Cori Bush, Missouri
Laurel Lee, Florida                  Steve Cohen, Tennessee
Russell Fry, South Carolina          David N. Cicilline, Rhode Island
                        
                        
                        C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on March 23, 2023...................................     1

                               Witnesses

Mr. Alex Bosco, Founder and Inventor of Stabilizing Brace
Oral Statement...................................................     9
Ms. Amy Swearer, Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
Oral Statement...................................................    11
Mr. Rob Wilcox, Federal Legal Director, Everytown for Gun Safety
Oral Statement...................................................    13
Mr. Matthew Larosiere, Partner, Zermay Larosiere
Oral Statement...................................................    14

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

                           Index of Documents

                              ----------                              


  * Article, ABC News, ``Father of Parkland victim speaks out 
    after being tossed from White House for chiding Biden''; 
    submitted by Rep. Biggs.
  * Article, The Washington Times, ``Number undercut Biden 
    administration claims on ghost guns''; submitted by Rep. 
    Biggs.
  * Graphics; submitted by Rep. Luna.
  * Report, ``Ten individuals who were shot in Ohio's 11th 
    Congressional district since the start of this year''; 
    submitted by Rep. Brown.
  * Bill Text, H.R. 1678; submitted by Rep. Higgins.
  * Statement for the Record by Rep. Jamie Raskin.
  * Statement for the Record by Rep. Paul Gosar.

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

 
                            ATF'S ASSAULT ON
                         THE SECOND AMENDMENT:
                         WHEN IS ENOUGH ENOUGH?

                              ----------                              


                    Thursday, March 23, 2023

                        House of Representatives

               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

 Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs

                           jointly, with the

                       Committee on the Judiciary

              Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government

                              Surveillance

                                           Washington, D.C.

    The Subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., 
in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Pat Fallon 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy 
Policy, and Regulatory Affairs] presiding.
    Present from Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy 
Policy, and Regulatory Affairs: Fallon, Donalds, Perry, 
McClain, Boebert, Fry, Luna, Edwards, Langworthy, Bush, Raskin, 
Norton, Krishnamoorthi, Khanna, Brown, and Stansbury.
    Present from Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government 
Surveillance: Representatives Biggs, Jordan, Gaetz, Tiffany, 
Nehls, Moore, Kiley, Lee, Jackson Lee, Nadler, McBath, Dean, 
Cohen, and Cicilline.
    Also present: Representatives Higgins, Roy, Clyde, Frost, 
Swalwell, and Ivey.
    Mr. Fallon. Welcome, everyone. This is a joint hearing of 
the Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy, Regulatory 
Affairs and the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government 
Surveillance, will come to order. Again, I want to welcome 
everyone, and without objection, the Chair may declare a recess 
at any time.
    Without objection the following Members are waived on to 
the Subcommittee for the purpose of questioning witnesses: 
Representative Andrew Clyde of Georgia, Representative Clay 
Higgins of Louisiana, Representative Wesley Hunt of Texas, 
Representative Chip Roy of Texas, Representative Maxwell Frost 
of Florida, Representative Eric Swalwell from California, 
Representative Joe Neguse from Colorado, Representative Glenn 
Ivey of Maryland. And the Majority and the Minority can each 
control 10 minutes for the purpose of opening statements.
    I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening 
statement.
    Again, good morning, and welcome to today's joint hearing 
with the Oversight and Accountability Subcommittee on Economic 
Growth, Energy Policy and Regulatory Affairs and the Judiciary 
Committee Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government 
Surveillance. I want to thank Chairman Biggs and his staff for 
joining us in this critical oversight hearing to explore and 
expose government overreach by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
and Firearms.
    The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution 
plainly states, ``The right of the people to keep and bear arms 
shall not be infringed.'' ``Shall not be infringed,'' four key 
and critical words. Ever since Mr. Biden took office, his 
Administration has actively sought to infringe on this right, 
and I am deeply concerned that the ATF and their recent actions 
against firearms manufacturers, Federal Firearms Licenses, or 
FFLs, and law-abiding Americans who wish to procure and use 
firearms. Under the Biden Administration, the ATF has been 
weaponized against gun owners and Americans who wish to acquire 
firearms in numerous ways in recent years.
    The ATF issued the ``Frame or Receiver'' final rule in 
April 2022, infringing on Americans' ability to assemble their 
own firearms from component parts. More recently, the ATF 
issued a final rule at the end of January 2023 that will have 
an effective impact of criminalizing the possession of 
stabilizing braces in most instances, even though those braces 
were lawful to possess for over a decade by the ATF's own 
guidance. These braces were originally designed to assist 
disabled veterans who were physically unable to utilize 
traditional pistols for self-defense or to enjoy recreational 
firearms activity. The congressional Research Service estimates 
that--now get this--approximately 40 million of these devices 
are already in circulation.
    On November 26, 2012, over a decade ago, the Obama 
Administration, their own ATF Firearms Technology Branch issued 
a letter to Mr. Alex Bosco, one of our witnesses here today and 
the inventor of the stabilizing brace. The letter clearly 
stated that the ATF finds that the submitted forearm brace when 
attached to a firearm does not--does not--convert that weapon 
to be fired from the shoulder and would not alter the 
classification of a pistol or other firearm. It also stated 
that such a firearm would not be subject to the National Act or 
NFA controls. In fact, they underlined ``would not be.'' It is 
underlined in the letter.
    Millions of people acquired stabilizing braces, relying on 
the ATF's determination, and they did it in good faith made 
over a decade ago under the Obama Administration that these 
ingenious devices were perfectly legal and did not convert a 
firearm into a short barrel rifle subject to NFA controls. Now, 
anyone who has a stabilizing brace will be committing a crime 
after May 31 of this year unless they permanently remove and 
dispose of the stabilizing brace, turn in their firearm to a 
local ATF office, destroy the firearm, or try to obtain an NFA 
registration through a byzantine process that includes marking 
the firearm so it can be traced. This rule will effectively 
turn many law-abiding gun owners into criminals if they fail to 
comply even though Congress did not act. We didn't pass any new 
criminal laws or penalties related to stabilizing braces. We 
had unelected bureaucrats create a rule. It is not the way this 
should work.
    In addition to these overreaching regulations, the ATF has 
abused its enforcement authority at the direction of President 
Biden and other gun control advocates who simply don't care 
about the Second Amendment and, by extension, our Constitution 
or the proper role of government. In June 2021, Mr. Biden 
directed the Department of Justice to adopt a zero-tolerance 
policy when inspecting firearms merchants, known as again the 
FFL, and to revoke their license for any violation, no matter 
how minor or unintentional. This policy has led the ATF to 
revoking licenses on the basis of small and technical paperwork 
errors without showing any pattern, intent, practice, or 
materiality. Revocations have skyrocketed. In 2022 alone, the 
ATF revoked 90 licenses, more than in any other year since 
2006.
    So, at the end of the day, unfortunately, the actions taken 
by the ATF have clearly demonstrated that the Agency has 
changed its focus from those who commit crime to law-abiding 
Americans who wish to exercise their constitutional rights. 
Instead of going after actual criminals, the ATF, by changing 
the rules without any input from Congress, is trying to turn 
law-abiding citizens into criminals. It is unacceptable, it is 
unfair, and, quite frankly, it is unconstitutional. This 
hearing will examine how the Biden Administration's ATF has 
engaged in a host of practices to chip away at your 
constitutional rights. I want to thank the witnesses for 
appearing today, and look forward to their testimony.
    I now yield to Chairman Biggs for the purpose of making an 
opening statement.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be here 
today. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and your staff for hosting 
this important hearing today. The business before us today is a 
hearing entitled, ``ATF's Assault on the Second Amendment: When 
is Enough Enough?'' That really is the question of this. When 
is enough, enough? That is a question that we have to resolve 
because there is a concerted effort to change the regulations 
that ATF has put in place and that millions of people have 
relied upon.
    ATF has engaged in various practices that seek to undermine 
the Second Amendment rights of Americans across the United 
States. The Biden Administration has weaponized the ATF as it 
has weaponized every institution of our Federal Government, and 
this weaponization is an attack on law-abiding Americans. It is 
time for Congress to uphold the appropriate checks and balances 
by examining these actions by its own government against the 
American people. Hopefully, today's hearing is just the 
beginning of holding ATF and countless other agencies under 
this administration accountable for its lawless over-regulation 
of law-abiding Americans. And the good news is this is just the 
beginning of oversight as we have been informed today that ATF 
will come to a hearing in April.
    We are having this hearing in part because the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has abused its 
rulemaking authority, authority delegated to it by Congress, 
this body. Earlier this year ATF issued a final rule titled 
``Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached `Stabilizing 
Braces'.'' That rule effectively bans pistol-stabilizing braces 
nationwide. We will hear today from the inventor of those 
braces. Disabled persons, including the disabled veterans for 
whom the pistol brace originally was created, will lose the 
benefit of this useful tool and potentially their ability to 
operate firearms entirely.
    The final rule provides that pistols equipped with 
stabilizing braces meet the definition of a firearm under the 
National Firearms Act, and that any weapons with stabilizing 
braces or similar attachments that constitute rifles under the 
NFA must be registered. Under this rule, millions of law-
abiding gun owners will be forced to remove their stabilizing 
braces from their pistols, install longer gun barrels, register 
their weapons as short-barreled rifles or destroy their braced 
weapons, or face felony charges. You heard that correctly. 
Millions of law-abiding Americans will be turned into felons 
overnight by the stroke of a pen and without any congressional 
action, in other words, by unelected bureaucrats who believe 
they can make law, apply law, enforce and adjudicate law. That 
is something every American should be concerned about because 
that is the definition that James Madison wrote so eloquently 
in the 62d Federalist as the definition of tyranny.
    And it doesn't just apply to this Agency. Those of you who 
applaud it in this Agency, will you applaud it in every other 
agency when an Administration changes, and you have been 
relying on a rule and it changes without your elected 
representative weighing in on it? This is not an international, 
but a nationwide threat. This is not what our Nation's founders 
intended. This rule terrifies my own constituents. They ask me 
how Congress passed this law. They are shocked when I described 
the administrative rulemaking process. They did not vote for 
this. They did not elect the individuals making these 
decisions, and, in fact, I did not vote for this. That is a 
huge problem.
    The pistol brace rule exceeds the ATF's statutory 
authority. Congress has neither criminalized the use of pistol 
braces under the Gun Control Act, nor authorized the regulation 
under the National Firearms Act. To make matters worse, for 
more than a decade, ATF actually told the manufacturers and 
consumers of pistol braces that the devices were perfectly 
legal before this abrupt about-face. That can happen with every 
agency. I hope you are not applauding this abuse of 
bureaucratic authority today because you happen to be 
sympathetic with what this rule is, because I can tell you, 
every agency can then turn on the American citizen.
    When ATF isn't exceeding their statutory authority 
criminalizing products they once deemed illegal, they are 
making it more difficult for law-abiding Americans to purchase 
firearms by capriciously revoking the licenses of American gun 
dealers. The Biden Administration, acting on behalf of the gun 
control lobby, has targeted firearm businesses.
    Another example. Soon after taking office, President Biden 
demanded the Justice Department adopt a zero-tolerance policy 
to revoke Federal Firearms Licenses from those who committed 
willful violations of the law. That wasn't what the law is. 
There was no statutory authority for that. But shortly 
thereafter, ATF updated its Federal Firearms Licensee Quick 
Reference and Best Practices Guide to state, ``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 or specified violations.''
    ATF has begun to revoke the licenses of FFLs for simple 
technical and non-material paperwork violations, violations 
that are anything but willful. They are revoking licenses for 
minor paperwork violations that have no bearing whatsoever on 
public safety. ATF's overzealous enforcement of paperwork 
infractions is shutting down small businesses and diverting 
resources away from holding criminals accountable. FFLs and 
law-abiding citizens are not the cause of firearm-related 
deaths. The Biden Administration knows this. If it were 
concerned with safety, they would not be the most-soft-on-crime 
Administration in my lifetime. Guns are not the problem. Law-
abiding gun owners are not the problem. Violent criminals whose 
sentences are cut short due to lax prosecution, who roam the 
streets instead of being incarcerated, are the problem. The ATF 
should be directing its agents to go after these criminals, not 
directing their agents to check for technical paperwork errors 
from FFLs and chase down disabled persons with pistol braces.
    When is enough, enough? Well, I think we have seen enough, 
and I hope that we can act to put an end to this ATF overreach. 
And I would suggest that the most effective approach is to 
reduce funding, or, better still, eliminate all funding, and 
even better, eliminate this woke weaponized Agency. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Bush 
for the purpose of making an opening statement.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our 
Ranking Members Raskin and Nadler and Ranking Member Jackson 
Lee, as well as to the gun safety advocates in the room and to 
all the survivors in the room.
    St. Louis and I are here today to talk about the 
extraordinary gun violence epidemic in this country. In St. 
Louis and nationwide, gun violence is a public health 
emergency, and commonsense regulations are a necessity. As a 
survivor of gun violence, I know firsthand the urgency of this 
issue. When I was in my early 20's, I found myself in a 
relationship with an abusive partner. He had guns. He kept one 
in the kitchen cabinet and another in between our pillows at 
night when we slept. One day my abuser did not approve of the 
way I was cooking food, he got upset, and he began to hit me. I 
ran out the back door, and as I ran, I remember thinking to 
myself, he was behind me and now he is not. Why isn't he 
chasing me? Where did he go? Where is he? Next thing I knew, I 
heard gunshots, gunshots aimed at me.
    My experience is not an anomaly. It is one too many 
survivors of gun violence know all too well, and it is not my 
only experience. I survived that harrowing and traumatic 
experience, but many others have not. Just five months ago, a 
shooter opened fire on students and teachers at the Central 
Visual & Performing Arts High School in St. Louis, a 
predominantly Black school. Two people were killed, seven were 
injured, and the entire CVPA and Collegiate School of Medicine 
and Bioscience community was traumatized. Like so many 
shootings, this one could have been prevented. The shooter 
failed an FBI background check, and his own mother had 
concerns, but his gun was unable to be confiscated because 
Republican anti-gun safety lawmakers refused to enact a red 
flag law in Missouri.
    Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children 
and teenagers in the United States. With Black children eight 
times more likely--eight, eight times more likely--to die from 
firearms than white children. Two-thirds of intimate partner 
homicides in the United States are committed with a gun, and 80 
percent of intimate partner firearm homicide victims are women. 
Nearly 80 percent of homicides are committed with a firearm. In 
this year, we have already had more than 100 mass shootings. It 
is only March. The cause of these statistics is obvious. This 
country has more guns than people.
    There are approximately 400 million privately owned 
firearms in the United States, which has a population of 332 
million. The U.S. is home to nearly half of the world's 
civilian firearms, but for many Republicans, this is not 
enough. Students being murdered at their desks is not enough 
for them to value lives over toys. Republicans want the U.S. to 
have an even higher share of the world's gun supply. They don't 
want commonsense regulations on gun ownership. Their perverted 
view of the Second Amendment compels them to argue against 
reasonable restrictions. We are asking for reasonable 
restrictions.
    Our work has to be to save lives. Republicans' refusal to 
accept commonsense regulations is why we are here today as 
killing machines flood rural and urban communities and 
slaughter our children. They want to pretend that regulating 
ghost guns is an assault on our liberties. They want to pretend 
that regulating stabilizing braces intended to convert a pistol 
into a short-barrel rifle is trampling on our freedoms. They 
want to pretend that Democrats are coming for peoples' guns, 
but let's be clear. Republicans want to pretend that people who 
support gun safety measures are coming for everybody's guns. We 
are not. We are coming for the end to gun violence. We are 
coming for the end of this public health crisis. We are coming 
for the end of a society where the number of guns exceeds the 
number of people. We are coming for the end of weak gun laws 
that allow people to buy an assault rifle and kill and 
traumatize school children, traumatize teachers, and traumatize 
grocery patrons. That is what we are coming for, and it doesn't 
require taking away people's right to bear arms.
    Our work is about saving people's lives. We will not 
succumb to the nihilist insurrection view of the Second 
Amendment. We will not allow the apologists for gun violence to 
win. We will double down on a public health response to the 
public health emergency--that is, gun violence in our country--
and together, we will end this crisis once and for all.
    I now yield to the gentlelady from Texas, Ranking Member 
Sheila Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank the gentlewoman and Ranking 
Subcommittee Member from Missouri, Congresswoman Bush. Let me 
acknowledge our Chair from the Oversight Committee and as well 
Chair from Judiciary, and, of course, the Ranking Members of 
the full Committees on Oversight, Congressman Raskin, and, of 
course, the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. 
Nadler. I thank them for their service and leadership, and I 
thank Mr. Chairman for convening a hearing that will evidence a 
very sharp contrast in the issue of saving lives.
    I do want to acknowledge, in particular, Moms Demand Action 
and the many other good people of advocates who are wanting to 
have a reasonable protocol and structure for the owning of guns 
in America. I call you patriots, and I am grateful for your 
presence here today. I call those who sadly and devastatingly 
are either the family members of victims long gone or who are 
victims themselves. I thank you for your courage. I acknowledge 
the witnesses here today, and I hope that they will understand 
that this democratic process is both a purpose with a purpose, 
and the purpose, of course, is truth.
    I am incredulous that we are holding this hearing. I am 
stunned, I am almost in a sense of pain because we have had 
over 100 mass shootings only since the beginning of 2023, 
constant range of gunfire across America. Sometimes one would 
think during the week you would be relieved, but it is during 
the week, it is on the weekend, it is on Friday night, it is on 
Saturday night, it is on Sunday, when many people in America 
are seeking the solace of faith. It is in our temples, 
synagogues, churches. It is in places in the park, schools, 
hospitals and beyond.
    As far back as 1886, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
Firearms, and Explosives have been one of this country's most 
important Federal agencies, fulfilling a multifaceted mission 
to protect American communities from violent crime, while 
keeping us safe through regulation and enforcement of Federal 
laws. Today's ATF's role is more crucial than ever before to 
help with public safety as there are more guns in the United 
States than people. The No. 1 killer for children is homicide, 
and the tool of the homicide are guns--precious children, 
America's children, America's future.
    Fueled by politics and anxieties brought on by the COVID-19 
pandemic, firearms sales have surged. In 2021, Americans 
purchased approximately 19 million firearms, down 12.5 percent 
from 2020, according to several industry estimates, but 2021 
was still the industry's second busiest year on record, while 
last year was the third busiest. We rely on the ATF to ensure 
firearms do not end up in the hands of those who should not 
have them. That is all. That is all they do, and to regulate 
the purchase and transfer of firearms, licensing of firearms 
manufacturers and dealers, and innovations within the industry 
to ensure compliance with Federal law, particularly when 
manufacturers and dealers attempt to circumvent longstanding 
statutes and regulation.
    Contrary to what some of my Republican colleagues might 
say, evidence shows that more guns lead to more shootings. Gun 
violence is now the leading cause of death among children, as I 
said, while an average of 70 women are shot and killed by an 
intimate partner every month, and every day 316 people on 
average are shot. Congresswoman Bush's story is real, evident, 
and it is painful. In an average year, guns account for roughly 
two-thirds of homicides. However, in 2020, 77 percent of 
murders involved firearms.
    Despite these appalling statistics, congressional 
Republicans, aided and abetted by extreme rulings from the 
Federal judiciary in favor of possessing and carrying firearms, 
have allowed our communities to be flooded with guns of every 
kind, even in grocery stores and shopping at our major box 
stores on a Saturday morning. This push to reduce regulation 
enforcement along with the surge in gun sales has only made 
communities across the country--rural, urban and suburban--less 
safe.
    Tragically, mass shootings have become an all-too-common 
occurrence, and stolen guns, untraceable weapons, firearms 
purchased in states with fewer restrictions on gun purchases, 
ghost guns, are trafficked through the iron pipeline into 
states with stiffer laws, boosting the gun-related crimes. It 
is ironic that yesterday with the two-year anniversary of the 
massacre of 10 people, including a police officer, at the King 
Soopers supermarket in Boulder, Colorado, and Republicans are 
here today to attack the ATF and mount a defense of every 
firearm and modification involved in that shooting.
    I commend the ATF for their work in identifying a problem 
and providing guidance to prevent the harm created by the 
misuse of stabilizing braces which convert everyday firearms 
into killing machines. I want to just remind everybody of ghost 
guns, ghost guns that led a shootout in my city against three 
police officers. I would point out that the ATF performed a 
similar analysis during the previous administration to create a 
rule for bump stocks following the mass shooting in Las Vegas 
that left 60 people dead. In both cases, the firearms and 
hardware used by the shooters were legally purchased and 
possessed, but it was evident that something had been done or 
had to be done after seeing the destruction they cause. And 
while the vast majority of guns are purchased by law-abiding 
citizens, there are many ways that legal guns end up in the 
hands of those who should not have them. And Democrats have 
never interfered with the purchase of law-abiding citizens 
under the Second Amendment.
    And while the vast majority of guns are purchased, the 
reporting from ATF indicates that more than 1 million guns were 
stolen from private citizens in the five-year period from 2017 
to 2021. That number is very likely much higher since there is 
no law that requires gun owners to report theft or loss of 
firearm. Again, ironically, Republicans have attacked the very 
data base that ATF maintains to track weapons and solve 
problems.
    The ATF has taken affirmative steps to prevent future 
violence using technology to get violent criminals off the 
streets. In 2016, ATF created a Crime Gun Intelligence Center, 
launched as an interagency collaboration designed to collect, 
analyze, and distribute intelligence data about crime, guns, 
mass shootings, and major incidents across multiple 
jurisdictions. The 25 CGICs are strategically located. Mr. 
Chairman, as I close, I would like to finish this last 
paragraph. Through their work, more than 616,000 investigative 
leads were generated by CGIs in 2020 and 490,800 crimes were 
traced back to their origins. In my home state, in Houston, the 
police department and other local agencies joined the ATF Crime 
Gun Strike Force.
    Finally, that is why Democrats passed several additional 
pieces of legislation last Congress to ban assault weapons, 
bump stocks, ghost guns, and high-capacity magazines, encourage 
safe firearm storage practices, raise the age at which 
semiautomatic rifles can be purchased, pass a huge amount for 
violence intervention, and keep firearms out of the hands of 
prohibited persons. Democrats will continue to promote 
responsible firearm ownership through commonsense laws that 
keep Americans safe and support the efforts of the ATF to 
enforce those laws. I don't know about anyone else here, Mr. 
Chairman. I believe in saving the lives of our babies and our 
fellow Americans. I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. And just for the interest of equal 
time, there was about two-and-a-half minutes over, and we--me 
and Mr. Biggs--might take that when we have our questions.
    Now I am pleased to introduce our witnesses today. Alex 
Bosco was a Marine Corps and Army veteran, and the founder of 
SB Tactical, and the inventor of the pistol-stabilizing brace. 
Amy Swearer is a senior legal fellow at the Heritage 
Foundation. Ms. Swearer is an expert on the Second Amendment 
and firearms in the United States and in 2022 received the 
Second Amendment Institute's 2022 Gun Rights Champion award. 
And now, Mr.--can you help me with your last name?
    Mr. Larosiere. Larosiere.
    Mr. Fallon. Losiere?
    Mr. Larosiere. Larosiere. My apologies for being French.
    Mr. Fallon. Larosiere. Thank you. You are forgiven. Matthew 
Larosiere is an attorney and partner at the Zermay-Larosiere. 
As an attorney, Mr. Larosiere has represented Federal Firearms 
Licenses, who have--licensees rather--who have had their 
licenses revoked by the ATF. He has also written extensively on 
the Second Amendment and firearms law. And Rob Wilcox is the 
Federal legal director at Everytown for Gun Safety, leading the 
organization's Federal policy work, and has served on the board 
of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence. I look forward to hearing 
from the witnesses today on these very important issues 
regarding Americans' Second Amendment rights.
    Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witnesses will please 
stand and raise their right hands.
    Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 
about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
the truth, so help you God?
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    Mr. Fallon. OK. Let the record show that the witnesses all 
answered in the affirmative. You can sit down. Thank you.
    We appreciate all of you being here today and look forward 
to your testimony. Let me remind the witnesses that we have 
read your written statements, and they will appear in full in 
the hearing record. Please limit your oral statements to five 
minutes. As a reminder, please press the button on your 
microphone in front of you so that it is on and the Members can 
hear you. When you begin to speak, the light in the front will 
turn green. After four minutes, it turns yellow, and when the 
red light comes on, I am going to give you a little tap. We 
maybe will play five or 10 seconds, then I will shut you off, 
OK? And I recognize the first witness. We are going to go in a 
little bit of a different order here, so let's go with Mr. 
Bosco. You are recognized for five minutes, sir.

     STATEMENT OF ALEX BOSCO, FOUNDER AND INVENTOR OF THE 
                       STABILIZING BRACE

    Mr. Bosco. Chairmen Fallon and Biggs, Ranking Members Bush 
and Jackson Lee, distinguished Members of Congress, my name is 
Alex Bosco, and I am the inventor of the forearm stabilizing 
brace and founder of SB Tactical. As a naturalized citizen, 
former member of the Army and Marines, and small business 
owner, it is my high honor to share with you my experience 
aboard the ATF regulatory roller coaster. My original effort to 
help a friend, an injured veteran, to safely and accurately 
participate in pistol shooting and then build a business has 
put me and millions of law-abiding Americans on a whiplash-
inducing regulatory odyssey that has serious consequences, 
including imprisonment. I urge you and your colleagues to 
reverse the arbitrary, inconsistent, and capricious action of 
the ATF.
    The forearm stabilizing brace, which I originally designed 
to allow a disabled veteran to more accurately and safely enjoy 
the sport of pistol shooting, has been used by millions of law-
abiding citizens to more safely shoot large pistols. Each SB 
Tactical product is designed as an orthotic device made out of 
an elastomer material, basically rubber, and has one or more 
flaps and a strap to safely secure the firearm to the shooter's 
forearm. The stabilizing brace is not a force multiplier. It 
merely adds an additional point of contact at the forearm to 
more securely hold a firearm.
    Since I began my business, I have made every effort to 
comply with all the rules and regulations set out by ATF. After 
submitting the original brace to the ATF for their review, ATF 
responded in writing stating that attaching a stabilizing brace 
``would not alter the classification of a pistol or other 
firearm'' and that ``such a firearm would not be subject to 
National Firearms Act controls''. In the 10 years that 
followed, ATF repeatedly held that various pistol brace designs 
did not convert a pistol to a short-barreled rifle, and my 
business steadily grew.
    In 2017, ATF stated that incidental shouldering of a brace 
pistol does not result in a redesign and, therefore, is not a 
regulated NFA firearm, and that ``stabilizing braces are 
perfectly legal accessories for large handguns or pistols.'' 
Along the way and at significant cost, I worked with attorneys, 
former ATF regulators, and even a former Presidentially 
appointed ATF director to seek guidance from ATF whenever we 
made adjustments to the original design of the brace that I had 
submitted back in 2012.
    Shortly after his swearing-in, President Biden decided to 
reverse the previous decade of ATF decisions on stabilizing 
braces. He ordered ATF to treat pistols modified with 
stabilizing braces as short-barreled rifles subject to NFA 
controls. This change, the President said, would require an 
owner of a pistol equipped with a stabilizing brace to pay a 
$200 fee, submit their name and other identifying information 
to the Justice Department, or face criminal penalties. The 
President even admitted that his goal was to make these changes 
``without having to go through Congress.'' ATF responded to the 
President's directive and published a final rule on January 31, 
2023.
    The effects of this change are enormous. According to the 
ATF, millions of Americans who followed ATF's advice for the 
past decade have, unbeknownst to anyone, been committing felony 
crimes, and ATF almost certainly underestimates the scope of 
the impact of the rule. In the final rule, ATF assumes that 
there are approximately 3 million firearms with attached 
stabilizing braces in circulation, but ATF failed to include 
sales after 2020. SP Tactical alone sold more than 2.3 million 
braces since 2020. Unless this rule is put on hold by Congress 
or the courts, the company I founded, and many others, will go 
out of business soon.
    Furthermore, responsible gun owners will be harmed. None of 
them want to run afoul of the NFA as a result of ATF's flip-
flop, but neither do they want to purchase new braces when ATF 
now says that in order to use these braces, people must 
register in a Federal data base and submit their photographs 
and fingerprints to the government. The effects of ATF's rule 
is to put out of business the industry that ATF itself fostered 
for 10 years, and punish consumers who relied on ATF's prior 
decisions. Ironically, this rule eliminates an important and 
widely adopted safety feature that will arguably make the sport 
of pistol shooting less safe. Ultimately, this rule should be 
seen for what it is: circumvention of the legislative process.
    In Federalist Paper 47, James Madison observed that ``The 
accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and 
judiciary in the same hands may justly be pronounced the very 
definition of tyranny.'' It is in Congress that the legislative 
authority is vested, and the President must faithfully execute 
those laws. The President and the ATF don't get to do both. I 
urge Congress to reverse ATF's arbitrary decision, take back 
its legislative authority, and strike a blow for liberty and 
good government. Thank you, and I look forward to your 
questions.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Mr. Bosco. The Chair recognizes Ms. 
Swearer for her five minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF AMY SWEARER
            SENIOR LEGAL FELLOW, HERITAGE FOUNDATION

    Ms. Swearer. Chairmen Fallon and Biggs, Ranking Members 
Bush and Jackson Lee, and distinguished Members of Congress, 
ATF is, in some respects, much like the guns that it is 
supposed to regulate. In a vacuum, ATF is neither inherently 
good nor inherently bad. It depends in large part on who 
controls it and the ends for which its power is exerted. Like 
all branches or forms of government, ATF is imbued with certain 
coercive powers that can be wielded either properly or 
improperly and for either constitutionally sound or abusive 
purposes.
    ATF is not some natural-born villain. The Agency was 
neither conceived in constitutional sin nor did it come out of 
the executive branch womb covered in iniquity. It has the 
potential for tremendous good, and, at its best, ATF plays a 
vital role in keeping Americans safe from violent crime. 
Unfortunately, ATF also has a habit of turning into its worst 
self when left unsupervised by Congress for extended periods of 
time, and that is a problem because at its worst, ATF tends to 
use its vast and often unchecked regulatory powers to 
accomplish through Agency rulemaking the very types of 
unreasonable and unconstitutional gun control measures that 
elected officials couldn't accomplish through the democratic 
process.
    The litany of recent abuses is long. In just the last year, 
ATF, at the prompting of the President, implemented a zero-
tolerance policy for violations by Federal firearms licensees 
that has dramatically increased the number of licenses the 
Agency revokes. Where the Agency used to see itself as 
partners, working with FFLs, to ensure compliance with the vast 
array of Federal gun laws, almost overnight it turned itself 
into an antagonist. The new policy presumes that many 
violations merit revoking a license absent extraordinary 
circumstances, even for first-time violations. The zero-
tolerance policy often applies to situations that are basically 
clerical errors or paperwork mistakes that don't result in any 
actual harm. And this is particularly ironic given ATF's 
propensity for sloppiness with its own firearms and records 
which has sometimes resulted in actual harm.
    As Mr. Bosco explained, ATF also told potentially millions 
of American gun owners that despite a decade of ATF assurances 
to the contrary, their pistol-braced firearms were actually 
heavily regulated short-barrel rifles, and if these gun owners 
want to keep their pistol-braced firearms without immediately 
being branded as felons, they would have to register each gun 
with the government and pay a $200 per gun tax. Otherwise, yes, 
the ATF is coming for their guns. In another recent rule 
change, ATF decided that Congress hadn't given it enough 
regulatory authority and decided it would rewrite Federal law 
altogether. Whereas Congress said ATF could regulate firearms, 
anything readily convertible into firearms, and the frames and 
receivers of firearms, ATF told gun owners that actually it 
could, without any supporting statutory authority, also 
regulate almost frames and almost receivers.
    In addition to increasing the number and complexity of 
records that FFLs must maintain, ATF told them that these 
records must now be maintained indefinitely instead of for 20 
years as under the old rule. And why, you ask, did ATF impose 
this tremendous burden on FFLs? Well, because it might help the 
Agency in 0.002 percent of gun traces where having records 
older than 20 years might meaningfully further an 
investigation. And not all of ATF's malignant actions are 
recent. Federal law generally prohibits the importation of 
firearms and ammunition, except for those that are useful for 
sporting purposes. For decades now, ATF has maimed and 
mutilated the definition of ``sporting purposes'' in a 
purposeful attempt to inhibit Americans' access to commonly 
owned and constitutionally protected semi-automatic rifles. 
Despite the fact that millions of peaceable Americans routinely 
use these firearms for legitimate sporting purposes to say 
nothing of other lawful uses, ATF continues to defy reality by 
insisting that they are not, in fact, useful for the sporting 
purposes.
    To be clear, Congress should not undermine ATF's legitimate 
efforts to enforce Federal law and stop violent criminals, but 
it should absolutely step in to restrict ATF's discretion as to 
where it should focus its efforts and how it should wield its 
vast regulatory powers. It can and should consider statutorily 
undoing ATF's recent and not-so-recent attacks on the Second 
Amendment rights of peaceable Americans.
    You have asked us today when is enough, enough. How long, 
oh Lord, will ATF continue being its worst self at the expense 
of peaceable Americans? Respectfully, the Constitution provides 
a clear answer. It is enough when you say it is enough, and it 
will continue until you do something to stop it. In my written 
submission, I have outlined a number of specific ways in which 
Congress can begin undoing ATF's problematic attacks on the 
Second Amendment and the separation of powers, and prevent the 
Agency from using the same abusive tactics in the future. I 
look forward to your questions on these important corrective 
actions.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Wilcox 
for his five minutes.

STATEMENT OF ROB WILCOX, FEDERAL LEGAL DIRECTOR, EVERYTOWN FOR 
                           GUN SAFETY

    Mr. Wilcox. Thank you, and good morning, Chair Fallon and 
Biggs, Ranking Members Bush and Jackson Lee, and distinguished 
Members of the Subcommittees, and those who have waived on. I 
truly appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning.
    My professional work on gun policy and gun violence 
prevention is deeply informed by a number of personal 
experiences. I grew up in Brooklyn, New York in the 1980's and 
1990's where gun violence was not an uncommon occurrence. But 
at the same time, my father, who was a veteran of the Special 
Forces, taught us to respect firearms. At our family farm, we 
enjoyed hunting, sports shooting, target practice, and learned 
about responsible gun ownership, including securing our 
firearms in a locked gun safe.
    Unfortunately, my family's experience with guns took a 
violent turn when my 19-year-old cousin, Laura, was shot and 
killed by someone who never should have had a gun in the first 
place. Laura was extraordinarily talented, kind, and with a 
beautiful spirit. She was an outstanding student, graduated as 
high school valedictorian, and at the time of her death as a 
sophomore at Haverford College was in the midst of her campaign 
for student body president. But in January 2001, when Laura was 
home on winter break filling in as a receptionist at a rural 
county behavioral health clinic, a client came in and opened 
fire. He shot Laura four times at point blank range, killing 
her instantly. When his rampage at the clinic and a nearby 
restaurant was done, three people lay dead and three more were 
injured, another mass shooting in the long line of mass 
shootings that doesn't always break through the national media.
    My aunt and uncle processed this tremendous loss while also 
fighting for a safer future for others. They became advocates 
who turned pain into progress, working to pass dozens of gun 
safety laws, and they are role models. I have now spent 20 
years of my career working on gun policy and law around 
firearms, and one thing I know for sure is that ATF plays an 
essential role in keeping us safe by enforcing the laws on the 
books.
    ATF is one of the Nation's leading law enforcement agencies 
with 5,000 brave men and women doing work across this country 
in 25 field divisions and 200 local offices. Its mission is 
clear: to protect the public from violent crime. And they work 
hand-in-hand with our state and local law enforcement to solve 
crimes and do their job. ATF also regulates the gun industry 
through education and accountability, supporting those who want 
to do better and holding those who break the law accountable.
    ATF's role in this system is unique in its effort to keep 
communities safe. From 2017 to 2021, ATF processed nearly 2 
million crime gun traces and 1.5 million NIBIN cases in order 
to assist local law enforcement in linking crime scenes, 
developing leads to solve crimes, and identifying gun 
trafficking channels. These crime gun traces show that guns are 
moving faster than ever from dealer to crime scene. Nearly half 
of these crime guns have a time-to-crime of under three years 
and a quarter with a time-to-crime of under one year. Guns with 
short time-to-crime indicate trafficking, and it is where ATF 
and the industry can take action to step in and shut it down, 
like, for example, when a gun dealer was selling multiple guns 
to people, he should have known it was intending to break the 
law. ATF traced those guns to multiple crimes, including 
murders. ATF investigated, and the licensed dealer, the gun 
traffickers, and the shooters were all prosecuted.
    The fact of the matter is, is that only ATF can make sure 
there is accountability from the shooter up to the supplier. 
ATF protects and serves at a time in this country when we need 
it to be at its strongest, fully funded, and supported because 
gun violence is threatening communities across the country. In 
an epidemic exacerbated by rogue gun dealers, gun sales without 
background checks, and industry innovations, like arm braces, 
ghost guns, and bump stocks, ATF boldly steps into this space 
to enforce the laws passed by Congress and stop the illegal 
diversion of firearms.
    It is truly not lost to me, as the Ranking Member 
mentioned, that yesterday was the two-year mark of the shooting 
at a grocery store in Boulder, Colorado, where 10 people, 
including a law enforcement officer, were killed. The shooter 
used a short-barreled Ruger AR-15 pistol that came equipped 
with an SB Tactical arm brace, the same kind of firearm that 
ATF now regulates.
    ATF has been there time and again under Republican and 
Democratic administrations to respond to these threats and 
enforce our laws. Its mission is to protect the public from 
violent crime and stop gun trafficking. In other words, its 
mission is to save lives, keep illegal guns out of communities, 
and save the lives of concert goers, lives of supermarket 
shoppers, lives of students, and so many others. And that is 
what ATF has done using the tools and authorities granted to it 
by Congress. I am personally thankful for the men and women who 
are dedicated to their service at ATF and do this work to 
prevent senseless tragedies. Thank you again for the invitation 
to be here and look forward to the questions.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, sir. Mr. Larosiere is recognized for 
his five minutes, my good Frenchman friend here.

                 STATEMENT OF MATTHEW LAROSIERE
              PARTNER, ZERMAY-LAROSIERE LAW GROUP

    Mr. Larosiere. Much appreciated. Chairmen Fallon, Biggs, 
Ranking Members Bush and Jackson Lee, thank you so much for the 
invitation and for the opportunity to speak on this important 
measure. I am an attorney working in the Second Amendment 
space. I am a child of immigrants, and I guess in following 
their lead, I decided to do a job that most Americans didn't 
want to, and that is protecting fundamental rights.
    I have been studying the law and policy of arms for over a 
decade, but I think most important for this hearing is my 
experience representing individuals and small businesses who 
have been caught up in some of the flip-floppery that ATF has 
engaged in; representing individuals and small businesses that 
have had their lives shattered, their employees left jobless, 
because of, frankly, innocent omissions that were characterized 
as intentional misconduct by the ATF. These individuals, 
oftentimes in the firearms industry, are employers with less 
than 15 employees. That is the majority of the industry here, 
and I have represented these people for nominal or no fee, 
frankly, because I feel it is the right thing to do, and what I 
have seen ATF doing in these prosecutions is extremely 
concerning. The threats that are posed by ATF's overreach are 
not theoretical. They are very real, and they are not limited 
to arm braces or the zero-tolerance rule either.
    I would like to tell you guys about Patrick Tate Adamiak. 
He was a 28-year-old Navy sailor, and he was recently convicted 
for dealing in machine guns. Now, looking at that headline 
might not cause you to take a second thought, but when you 
scratch a little deeper, the machine guns Tate was convicted of 
dealing in were actually boxes of cut-up inoperable parts that 
the ATF had approved the importation and sale of as unregulated 
parts kits years ago. And then in an unpromulgated, 
unpublicized change of opinion, ATF decided that that amount of 
cut up was not quite cut up enough. They have secured a 
conviction, and, again, 28-year-old Tate, who dealt in parts 
that were purchased in open commerce with a credit card, is now 
awaiting sentencing, and his plans of marriage are indefinitely 
on hold. I would like to tell you about Matthew Raymond Hoover, 
who is a political commentator who is accused of advertising 
metal cards with a drawing of an alleged machine gun part on 
it. A drawing. ATF took the incredibly aggressive position and 
vindictively has prosecuted Mr. Hoover, suggesting that this 
drawing is actually a combination of parts. He is facing over 
60 years in prison, a cancer-stricken man with not an ill-
willed bone in his body and several young children.
    I think it is important when we think about the pistol 
brace problem to look at what law we're dealing with. We are 
talking about interpretations of the National Firearms Act. 
This is an act that, in its original drafts, sought to regulate 
handguns, and this is why it sheds some light as to just how 
absurd the pistol brace problem is. Short-barreled rifles were 
added to the act to correct an obvious loophole to a handgun 
restriction. It was raised in the hearings that if pistols were 
regulated, but you could simply cut down a rifle, well, that 
would be the effective equivalent of a pistol. Later on, to 
secure passage, the reference to pistols and revolvers were 
slip-shottedly removed, but the vestigial remains of a pistol 
regulation, the barrel length restrictions were there, leaving 
the rules that we are now dealing with, the law that we are now 
dealing with interpretations of, it is kind of like a cancer-
prone vestigial organ. It doesn't accomplish anything useful. 
But as many Americans and some of my clients have found out, it 
sure can get you into trouble.
    The argument that these guns, under a law that was designed 
to regulate concealable firearms, become more dangerous when 
you make them less concealable by adding a component to the 
end, is so obviously and intensely contrived. It is kind of 
absurd.
    Insofar as zero-tolerance goes, the GCA, the Gun Control 
Act, has made Federal firearms licensees the gatekeepers to 
access to the Second Amendment right for most Americans. What 
we are seeing now is a two-pointed prong where ATF is revoking 
licenses for little to no reason. The violations that were 
alleged were as simple as a customer had filled out Black as 
their race, but not picked ``Hispanic'' or ``Latino.'' That 
didn't strike me as terribly nefarious. I think that ATF has a 
moral obligation to really look at how it is enforcing these 
laws. I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Mr. 
Gaetz for his five minutes.
    Mr. Gaetz. The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office 
issued a report in June 2016, ``Firearms Data: The ATF did not 
always comply with the Appropriations Act Restriction and 
should better adhere to its policies.'' Mr. Wilcox, you are the 
witness the Democrats invited here today. Are you familiar with 
that report?
    Mr. Wilcox. I am.
    Mr. Gaetz. And does the fact that the ATF broke the law 
concern you?
    Mr. Wilcox. The report, I believe, supported ATF's action 
in cataloging records to stop crime.
    Mr. Gaetz. I will read from it. It says, ``A technical 
defect allows ATF agents to access data, including purchaser 
data, beyond what ATF policy permits.'' Do you take any umbrage 
with that conclusion?
    Mr. Wilcox. ATF has been collecting out-of-business records 
pursuant to a law signed by Ronald Reagan, and President Trump 
digitized more records than any other President.
    Mr. Gaetz. I don't care who did it. I am just worried about 
the impact on my citizens. And I would acknowledge there may be 
Republican Presidents who didn't do enough in the 80's to 
protect our gun rights, but on this finding, the ATF had to 
delete 252 million records, didn't they?
    Mr. Wilcox. So, this is a tool that has helped solve 50 
percent of crime----
    Mr. Gaetz. Wait, wait, wait. Did they have to delete 252 
million records?
    Mr. Wilcox. What I know about this tool is that it is a 
crime-fighting tool.
    Mr. Gaetz. That is now what I am asking you. Did they have 
to delete? You said you are aware of the report. Is that 
conclusion correct, they had to delete 252 million records?
    Mr. Wilcox. I am not aware of that line, but what I am 
aware of is the tool is a crime-fighting tool.
    Mr. Gaetz. OK. Well, I will represent to you that that is 
what had to happen. The fact that the government collected 252 
million records that was beyond the law, beyond policy, never 
approved according not to me, not to my fellow Republicans, but 
to the GAO, should that be concerning to us, that scope of 
records being collected?
    Mr. Wilcox. ATF's collection of out-of-business records was 
fully complying with the law. The issue----
    Mr. Gaetz. That is not what the GAO said. So, you disagree 
with the GAO report?
    Mr. Wilcox. Well, there are two points they made. One is 
the collection of out-of-business paper records that FFLs keep. 
The second piece was the collection of electronic records that 
FFLs keep. And what the GAO said was the electronic records 
were not being converted sufficiently, and that is what ATF 
fixed to become in compliance with the law.
    Mr. Gaetz. Right. So, that is why they had to delete it 
because they had gone beyond their authority. You see, that 
that is the concern of my constituents, when they go beyond 
their authority, and you may find those things virtuous, but no 
one elected you. They elected us to make the laws, and when we 
make the laws and they don't follow them, then people's rights 
get diminished.
    Another area is this issue of the arm braces. Now, in Mr. 
Wilcox's testimony, he says that an arm brace makes a weapon 
more powerful. Mr. Bosco, you know a lot about arm braces, 
don't you?
    Mr. Bosco. I do.
    Mr. Gaetz. Do arm braces make firearms more powerful?
    Mr. Bosco. They do not. They do not.
    Mr. Gaetz. Does it concern you that the witness that the 
Democrats brought would make such a claim that is obviously 
disproven by any utilization of those arm braces?
    Mr. Bosco. I hope that my testimony today can help everyone 
here understand that the brace does nothing to make the weapon 
any more dangerous than it already is.
    Mr. Gaetz. And so, when you have got the ATF going beyond 
their authority, collecting 252 million records that they have 
to destroy, well, that can just be explained because they are 
doing their best. But when Americans get inadvertently 
converted to felons because the ATF has exceeded their 
authority, there is no such grace for them, is there, Ms. 
Swearer?
    Ms. Swearer. That would seem to be the case under the 
recent policy change to zero tolerance.
    Mr. Gaetz. Zero tolerance for our fellow Americans, when 
they are trying to exercise their rights and protect their 
liberties, but all the tolerance in the world for a corrupt 
bureaucracy that is violating the law, exceeding their 
authority, and collecting records that they have no business 
collecting.
    I would make this final observation. I had the great 
privilege to spend two years on the House Judiciary Committee 
with the gentlelady from Missouri. And while she and I disagree 
strongly on this issue, her beliefs are sincere, and they are 
strong, and they are powerful, particularly when she expresses 
them. And so when she says to people that she wants to defund 
the police, she means it; and when she says in this Committee 
meeting that gun violence is a public health emergency, well, 
she means that, too. And our fellow Americans know the impact 
of folks up here in Washington declaring everything and 
anything a public health emergency. That means you are more 
likely to be locked in your homes, deprived of your freedoms, 
less healthy, less safe, less secure, and less able to live a 
truly American life.
    So, know this. When the left talks about this as a public 
health emergency, get ready to see those enhanced authorities 
abused by the ATF. And, Mr. Chairman, it is my sincere hope 
that in the very near future, we will have those very folks 
from the ATF here. And I intend to be utilizing the new rules 
that we have in the House of Representatives to offer 
amendments to the Appropriations Act, to zero out their 
salaries for breaking the law and abusing the liberties of our 
fellow Americans.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, and the Chair now recognizes Mr. 
Raskin for his five minutes.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you much, Mr. Chairman. The stabilizing 
braces have evolved significantly from their original intended 
use, which was allowing disabled gun users to fire an AR-style 
pistol. Today's braces are largely used to exploit a loophole 
in the regulatory structure to allow owners to turn their 
weapons into short-barreled rifles, efficient weapons of war, 
without triggering traditional ATF oversight of this kind of 
weapon. But don't take my word for it. Take the word of the 
people who use these so-called risk-stabilizer braces. Please 
play the video, if you would.
    [Video shown.]
    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Wilcox, why are short-barreled rifles more 
dangerous and strictly regulated than other kinds of firearms?
    Mr. Wilcox. Short-barreled rifles are more easily 
concealable than long-barreled rifles and have more destructive 
power than traditional handguns. For example, common ballistic 
vests worn by police protect against handgun ammunition, while 
rifle ammunition, like those filed by short-barrel rifles, can 
penetrate it.
    Mr. Raskin. And what is the difference between a short-
barreled rifle and a firearm with a stabilizing brace as we saw 
brandished in the video there and as we see on the poster 
behind me?
    Mr. Wilcox. When it comes to usability, I think next to 
none.
    Mr. Raskin. There really is no difference in the power and 
potential violence of the weapon, and there is very little 
difference in the weapon's design. Look, our colleagues know 
that gun violence is the leading cause of death among children 
in the United States of America today. They know that more 
people proportionately die of gun violence in America than in 
any other industrialized country on earth, whether we are 
talking about Canada, or Germany, or France, United Kingdom, 
Japan, Israel, you name it. They know that the states with the 
highest rates of firearm deaths are the ones with the weakest 
gun laws, and the states with the lowest levels of firearm 
deaths have the strongest gun laws. But they say that all of 
this chaos and destruction is just the necessary price we have 
to pay because of the Second Amendment. All those thousands of 
people gunned down at church, and school, at the Walmart, in 
parks, in grocery stores are just the human sacrifice we have 
decided to pay as a society for our Second Amendment. My 
colleagues, this is a lie.
    Our colleagues advance a completely flawed theory of the 
Second Amendment, which leads them to oppose even reasonable 
commonsense gun safety rules that the Supreme Court has 
approved and which the vast majority of Americans endorse. Our 
colleagues embrace what is called the insurrectionist theory of 
the Second Amendment. Our colleague, Mr. Gaetz, says the Second 
Amendment is ``about maintaining within the citizenry the 
ability to maintain an armed rebellion against the government 
if that becomes necessary.'' Our colleague, Chip Roy, says, 
``The Second Amendment was designed purposefully to empower the 
people to resist the force of tyranny used against them.'' And 
Congresswoman Boebert says the Second Amendment ``has nothing 
to do with hunting, unless you are talking about hunting 
tyrants, maybe.'' Well, this theory is completely debunked and 
destroyed by the text of the Constitution itself and by Supreme 
Court precedent, and yet their theory of the Second Amendment 
is killing Americans.
    Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the Constitution gives 
Congress the power to provide for a calling forth of the 
militia to execute the laws of the Union and suppress 
insurrections and invasions. The republican guarantee clause 
tells the U.S. Congress to guarantee a republican form of 
government to the states and to protect them against domestic 
violence. There are six other provisions in the Constitution, 
including the treason clause, that debunk what they are saying, 
and we are going to have to get through their false notion of 
the Second Amendment in order to save human life. Thank you. I 
yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Donalds for 
his five minutes.
    Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Real quick, I find 
that interesting to my colleagues have no problem with the ATF 
going outside its boundaries with respect to this brace. 
Meanwhile, my colleagues have no issue with the fact that the 
President of the United States has made a complete 
bastardization of asylum at the southern border, which has led 
to more fentanyl killing more people between the ages of 18 and 
45 in the United States. Fentanyl is the No. 1 killer of 
Americans in the United States, and they have no problem 
talking about that. They don't even want to discuss it, but we 
are here talking about this. Ms. Swearer, you just saw a video 
that was up on the screen. Do you have a response for this 
video?
    Ms. Swearer. Yes, though I suppose Mr. Bosco does as well. 
I think it is being used in a way to misconstrue the reality of 
SBRs. Like, SBRs are actually still used by plenty of Americans 
who do have disabilities, but also just from the standpoint of 
SBRs themselves, they were the loophole. In an attempt to 
regulate a loophole while trying to essentially ban handguns, 
their restriction under the NFA has always been irrational. 
This idea that somehow a 14.5 inch barrel is more concealable 
than a 16.5 inch barrel, when you walk in to commit a mass 
shooting and that is why they choose it, it is just not 
realistic. It is the same gun. If you take that same gun and 
put it in a 16-inch barrel, if anything, the muzzle velocity 
will be increased when it is fired. So, it just doesn't make a 
whole lot of sense, and I am sure Mr. Bosco has some thoughts 
on that as well.
    Mr. Donalds. Mr. Bosco, you are the inventor. What do you 
think?
    Mr. Bosco. Yes, thanks. You know, I think there are a lot 
of people online, and we have seen some of those videos. The 
reason I invented the brace was for people with limited 
mobility. Well, that was the inception. That was why I made it. 
It was for a friend. Yes, there are people that are not using 
my product the way that I have designed it to be used, but the 
intent has always been that. The idea that by adding a brace to 
a pistol makes the firearm more concealable and, therefore, 
more dangerous is laughable. It is a piece of plastic. It 
weighs a certain amount. It makes the firearm longer. It is not 
making the firearm more concealable. It is making it less 
concealable.
    Mr. Donalds. Mr. Bosco, let me answer your question. How 
many Americans do you think will become felons as a result of 
this rule?
    Mr. Bosco. Well, I think we should probably look at what 
congressional Research Services did. They came up with a study 
that said anywhere between 10 and 40 million Americans own arm 
braces at this moment. If we use the smallest number that they 
have, which is 10 million, you will have an effect that come, I 
believe, it is May 16, which is the deadline, if someone wasn't 
smart enough to look up the Federal Register, who didn't know 
about this rule from one day to the next, he will be in 
possession of an unregistered short-barreled rifle. And he will 
be committing a crime, which is punishable of up to 10 years in 
prison. It is a felony offense, $250,000 fine.
    Mr. Donalds. So, in order to avoid this, the American will 
have to spend $200, get their fingerprints taken, get a photo 
of them given to the ATF. Am I correct in that?
    Mr. Bosco. So, the Agency even with this has flip-flopped 
back and forth. Originally, they were suggesting that Americans 
pay $200.
    Mr. Donalds. Well, and, Mr. Bosco, not to totally cut you 
off. Let me ask you this question real quick. Did Congress pass 
a law to stipulate the ATF do this?
    Mr. Bosco. Unequivocally, no.
    Mr. Donalds. Mr. Wilcox, how are you doing, fellow 
Brooklynite over here? Grew up the same time. Let me ask you 
this question. Do you think it is OK for the ATF to act outside 
of congressional legislative authority, criminalizing 10 
million Americans who are currently law-abiding citizens?
    Mr. Wilcox. It is good to see another proud son of 
Brooklyn. I don't think or believe that is what ATF is doing 
here, so I disagree with the premise.
    Mr. Donalds. Do you think that by this rule there will not 
be 10 million felons in the United States because they bought a 
product that the ATF authorized to be sold and that the ATF 
said was legal up until the Biden Administration?
    Mr. Wilcox. Not liking a law isn't a reason for ATF not 
to----
    Mr. Donalds. But, Mr. Wilcox, there is no law. Congress 
didn't pass it. That is a rule from ATF. Let me ask you this 
question. Do you believe in separation of powers?
    Mr. Wilcox. Of course.
    Mr. Donalds. Do you believe that the legislative power 
resides within the congressional body and not the executive?
    Mr. Wilcox. I do.
    Mr. Donalds. So then, why do you think it is OK for the ATF 
to come up with some rule with the force of law that Congress 
did not pass?
    Mr. Wilcox. Congress passed the law 90 years ago and ATF--
--
    Mr. Donalds. So, you are saying to me that a law that 
Congress passed 90 years ago allows for 10 million Americans to 
become felons today?
    Mr. Wilcox. Congress passing a law allows ATF to regulate 
as technology changes.
    Mr. Donalds. Come on, Mr. Wilcox. Don't do that to the 
American people. We know better. Don't do that. I yield.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Mr. 
Nadler for five minutes.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gun violence continues 
to take the lives of more than 100 Americans every day. It 
changes how safe we feel in our schools and in our houses of 
worship. It reduces vibrant cities to somber headlines. It 
takes our loved ones, old and young, and leaves us with another 
anniversary of lives cut short and the community forever 
changed. One of those tragic anniversaries was yesterday. On 
March 2, 2021, at 2:30, a shooter opened fire in the parking 
lot of a supermarket in Boulder, Colorado. The shooter used a 
pistol with a stabilizing brace--an accessory that turned the 
gun into a concealable assault rifle. Ten people were killed, 
including officer Eric Talley, a father of seven and one of 69 
officers killed on duty that year.
    It is against this sobering backdrop that Republicans have 
called this hearing to criticize the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, the law enforcement agency 
tasked with keeping guns out of the wrong hands. Rather than 
inviting the Agency's director for serious discussions of ATF's 
work, the Majority has called representatives of the gun 
industry and those who profit from defending them. The 
witnesses include the person who invented self-stabilizing 
braces just like the one used to kill ten people in Boulder.
    At least Republicans are transparent about their goal. They 
have introduced a bill to abolish the ATF. They seek to 
eliminate the law enforcement agency responsible for protecting 
communities from gun violence, stopping gun trafficking, and 
ensuring lawful and responsible gun ownership. Local law 
enforcement depends on ATF to provide resources to help them 
solve crimes and prevent gun violence, but the Majority seeks 
to strip them of this vital assistance to keep their community 
safe. It is essential that we conduct oversight of our agencies 
to make sure they are fulfilling their missions, but today's 
hearing makes no attempt at that. Instead, it shows how 
radically out of step my Republican colleagues are with both 
the American people and with law enforcement.
    Democrats have put forth a variety of solutions to prevent 
gun violence, to support law enforcement, and to solve crimes. 
But our colleagues across the aisle continue to push for 
unfettered access to assault weapons, concealable rifles, and 
ghost guns. As Republicans continue to seek freedom from gun 
regulation, we will continue to see communities free from 
violence. We know that the Second Amendment, only half of which 
the Chairman quoted, reads, ``A well-regulated militia being 
necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the 
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'' We know 
that it was adopted because of the framers' fear of standing 
armies. This fact was not disputed, and the Second Amendment 
turned into a general license for the private possession of 
firearms until an extremist Supreme Court decided the Heller 
Case 11 years ago.
    Mr. Wilcox, we have heard a lot of talk today about the 
ATF's rule subjecting firearms equipped with stabilizing braces 
to regulation. Does that rule do anything more than close a 
loophole that allowed people to evade public safety regulations 
simply by adding accessories to pistols to transform them into 
short-barreled rifles? And again, short-barreled rifles have 
been regulated under the National Firearms Act passed by 
Congress in 1934, haven't they?
    Mr. Wilcox. Thank you, Ranking Member. Yes, you are 
correct. This was ATF enforcing a law that has been on the 
books for 90 years, catching up with changing technology, and 
regulating weapons that Congress long ago decided needed to be 
treated differently than other firearms.
    Mr. Nadler. Mr. Wilcox, more than 300 Americans are shot 
every day, and more than 100 of those people who face gun 
violence lose their lives every day. Do other countries have 
similar rates of gun violence and gun deaths, and if not, what, 
in your opinion, accounts for the difference?
    Mr. Wilcox. So right now, the United States has a gun 
homicide rate 26 times higher than other high-income countries. 
I think that is what we have had enough of, and what we need is 
strong gun laws because the states with strong gun laws have 
less gun violence. And I am very proud to have seen Congress, 
in a bipartisan manner, pass the first Federal legislation in 
30 years last year to strengthen our laws, invest in 
communities, and save lives because that is our ticket. It is 
downstream investment in community-based organizations and 
upstream enforcement on the sources of illegal guns.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. My colleagues across the aisle like 
to blame Democratic cities for this Nation's problem with gun 
violence. Can you please explain what the iron pipeline is and 
how it contributes to gun violence in cities and states that 
have stronger gun regulations?
    Mr. Wilcox. Yes. So, the iron pipeline is describing a gun 
trafficking channel. It is how guns move from states with weak 
gun laws to states with stronger gun laws, but I really do 
think about it as just the movement of illegal guns. And what 
we know is that criminals are targeting states with weaker gun 
laws, sales without background checks, gun dealers who they 
know will skirt the law to acquire illegal guns and move them 
into our cities. That is the critical intervention point. That 
is what ATF does. Just recently, they busted a gun trafficking 
ring that moved 500 guns that were acquired from online, no 
background check sales in Georgia to California. It is why we 
need ATF on this front line.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Ms. Boebert for 
her five minutes.
    Ms. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, it is 
interesting hearing the rhetoric from the other side of the 
aisle. I used to say we don't differ in our hearts. We differ 
in data. No one wants to see children injured or even lose 
their lives. However, especially since serving in Congress, I 
have seen that Democrats do differ in their hearts because they 
are doing nothing to save lives in the womb. We had a Born-
Alive Act where one Democrat voted in favor of a full-term baby 
who is being aborted and survived that abortion would be born 
alive and then issued medical care to save that child's life. 
So, we do differ in our hearts. I have not seen my Democrat 
colleagues defend innocent life, but they want to use these 
talking points of children in tragic, horrible scenarios as a 
political pawn to regulate law-abiding citizens.
    Now, for far too long, rogue politicians and partisans at 
the ATF have really run amok, infringing and trampling on the 
Second Amendment. The rights of the American people this shall 
not be infringed, period. There is no comma after ``shall not 
be infringed,'' and it is trampled on by the Federal 
Government, by these states, and local governments on a regular 
basis to disarm Americans, to make them subjects rather than 
citizens. And I stand by the statements that I made because 
this is to protect the people from a tyrannical government, and 
it is for self-preservation. This is to defend yourself, your 
life, which is so valuable.
    But anyone remember, since we are talking about the ATF, 
and, Mr. Chairman, I actually second Mr. Gaetz's comments. I 
would love to have the ATF in here so we can actually question 
them on this rule. But do any of you remember Project Gunrunner 
and Operation Fast and Furious? Yes, the fact that the ATF 
allowed 1,000--no, more than that--thousands of guns to end up 
in the hands of Mexican cartels and criminal organizations. And 
they lost thousands of these traced firearms, and then one of 
these guns was used to kill Border Agent Brian Terry, all 
through some brilliant government program, and it is absolutely 
outrageous.
    If you think the ATF is going to be successful in this, 
making millions of Americans felons through this rule, that is 
an overreach of the separation of powers. You have heard it 
from the witnesses today. You don't necessarily agree with my 
stance. Mr. Wilcox says that it is us to make the law. Congress 
makes the law, not bureaucrats, and they are seeking to make 
millions of Americans felons with this rule.
    Now, what happened with Fast and Furious, with these traced 
guns that they lost, thousands of them, the records in 
question. Well, a judge found that they were not covered by 
privilege and that they were supposed to be released to the 
American people. Well, what happened to those records? That is 
right. Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats ended the House lawsuit 
when they took control in 2019 and further buried this scandal. 
Absolutely shameful.
    As the National Shooting Sports Foundation has pointed out, 
in just the last five years, ATF, under political pressure, has 
at least on three occasions, through administrative fiat, 
changed longstanding positions to declare products lawfully 
sold in full view of the ATF and in reliance upon ATF 
classification letters to now be illegal and/or regulated under 
the National Firearms Act. ATF bureaucrats are not only 
ignoring the direction of Congress, they are literally ignoring 
the law and trying to rewrite it themselves, a complete 
separation of powers.
    And I apologize, I did have some questions for the 
witnesses, and I do thank you all for being here and providing 
testimony. But hearing this on the other side and then just 
realizing that we differ in data as well as in our hearts 
because we do want to protect innocent lives, that is why we 
support the Second Amendment. It is your right to defend 
yourself, and we will always speak up to defend life. Thank 
you. I yield.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Ranking Member 
Bush.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. St. Louis and I rise 
because the gun violence epidemic affects all of the people of 
this country, but some more than others. I am talking about 
children whose leading cause of death is now guns. I am also 
talking about Black and Brown communities that have borne the 
brunt of gun violence and mass incarceration. But gun violence 
may, as we have seen, be a political tool for some of my 
Republican colleagues, but it is a matter of actual life or 
death, especially for Black and Brown communities.
    Last October, as I spoke about, in St. Louis, a gunman 
fatally shot a student--her name, Alexzandria Bell, and the 
teacher, Jean Kuczka--at Central Visual and Performing Arts 
High School where more than two-thirds of the students are 
Black. The shooter's mother was concerned, and a third party 
known to the family had taken his gun just a few days before, 
but he regained possession. This is why commonsense gun safety 
measures like red flag laws that Republicans refuse to support, 
why they are so important. In addition to ensuring the safe 
ownership of guns, we must also stop the flow of guns into our 
communities. Weak Republican laws are flooding communities with 
guns that are killing people. In 2020, per capita murder rates 
were 40 percent higher in states won by Donald Trump than those 
won by Joe Biden. Nine of the ten states with the highest gun 
mortality rates, including my state of Missouri, are red 
states.
    Mr. Wilcox, first of all, thank you for your strong, well-
informed advocacy. I want to build on Mr. Nadler's question. 
Can you explain how the iron pipeline and weak Republican laws, 
or gun laws, disproportionately harm Black and Brown 
communities?
    Mr. Wilcox. Yes, Ranking Member, and thank you for the 
question. As you stated, what we see pretty clearly from 
examining gun laws and looking at rates of gun violence is 
states with stronger gun laws see less gun violence. Why is 
that? It is because it is too easy for guns to be illegally 
diverted from legal commerce, responsible law-abiding citizens, 
into gun trafficking channels. What are the ways that that 
happens? No background check gun sales, straw purchasing, gun 
theft, and rogue gun dealers. We are here to talk about ATF, 
and that is exactly what they are to focus on is that diversion 
of illegal guns because we have to invest in communities, but 
we also have to stop the flow of illegal guns. And that is 
exactly what ATF is here to do, and that is exactly why we need 
them to be well resourced and supported in doing it.
    One of the most troubling things we saw during the pandemic 
most recently is guns are moving even faster from dealer to 
crime scenes, especially when it comes to young people. You see 
almost 40 percent of guns that were used by in crime by young 
people in 2021 moved from the gun dealer to that young person's 
hand in under a year. That is where we have to intervene. That 
is where we have to stop it. And for those in the industry that 
want to help out, let's give them that tools and education. For 
those who want to look the other way, let's actually hold them 
accountable.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you. Thank you. And instead of blaming, as 
we often hear, Black and Brown communities for gun deaths, we 
need to, and I will continue to say it, make sure that there is 
a public health approach to address this epidemic. Mr. Wilcox, 
can you tell us how can a carceral strategy solve the gun 
violence epidemic?
    Mr. Wilcox. I don't think you can do it alone. I think 
there has to be accountability, but I think we also need 
investment. We need investment in community-based organizations 
that are doing the work on the ground, proven effective with 
cognitive behavioral health therapy, hospital-based violence 
intervention, street interruption. These are proven effective 
programs that we need to be investing in to intervene prior to 
acts of violence. On the other hand, there are laws and people 
have to be held accountable if there is violence. But more 
importantly, if they are moving guns into the iron pipeline, 
into the gun trafficking pipeline, we have to invest downstream 
in community, and we have to hold upstream accountable the 
suppliers of illegal guns.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you because the carceral strategy cannot be 
the answer. Thank you for that. I think it is a critical point 
that you just made and just our response to this crisis cannot 
be mass incarceration. I just want to make that clear. Many 
communities around this country face high rates of gun violence 
and are disproportionately targeted by the carceral 
infrastructure that becomes the default response to every 
single social problem. This only results in compounding trauma 
and a cycle of violence that doesn't help anyone. The only path 
forward is through investing in our communities using evidence-
based public health strategies that will solve this public 
health crisis. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Moore for 
his five minutes.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, first, let me say 
mass shootings are fine when you have a shooting with three or 
more people die. That is 74 people in the U.S. died in mass 
shootings last year. We have had 107,000 opioid overdoses. No. 
1 killer of people between the ages of 18 and 45 is opioid, and 
based on testimony we have been hearing about the open border, 
they are getting younger and younger. So, if we really, really 
care about young people in this country dying, we need to 
address the issue of opioids and those poisonings, that sort of 
thing, rather than this type of hearing here and trying to come 
after law-abiding citizens.
    Mr. Bosco, I have a district that has more veterans in it 
than any district in Alabama. I have Fort Rucker and Maxwell-
Gunter, and, you know, one of the things we do for wounded 
warriors very often is we will take them offshore fishing. I 
have hosted a couple of tournaments and take them out, let them 
shoot, hunt. It kind of gives them their life back. It gives 
them opportunities to do things. So, tell me a little, when you 
invented this pistol brace, what was your motivation?
    Mr. Bosco. Well, I mean, I was at a range. A lot of us 
veterans enjoy shooting sports, shooting guns safely. And a 
range officer was out there, and he essentially told my buddy 
that he didn't want him shooting the weapon the way he was 
shooting it because in his opinion, he was firing unsafely.
    Mr. Moore. Now your buddy, he is----
    Mr. Bosco. He is a vet.
    Mr. Moore. Wounded warrior.
    Mr. Bosco. Yes, he is a wounded warrior, lost a limb, and 
obviously you obey the range officer's rules. But the initial 
impetus was to get this guy back out there shooting a firearm 
safely, and I think it did a good job of that, and it has 
brought a lot of other veterans back to shooting sports. It is 
the one thing that all of us enjoy doing. You know, I don't 
even think my colleague would disagree that it is something 
that veterans do. I mean, his father did it. I trained my kids 
the right way. It is something that really helps. It is 
cathartic to other veterans, including even wounded veterans, 
and it is cathartic to people who just want to go out there and 
enjoy it. We are all talking about Second Amendment issues 
here. I was really looking forward to talking about how this 
brace helps other people, how it helps wounded veterans, how it 
helps people with limited mobility. It is a piece of plastic 
that allows people to shoot a firearm better. That is what it 
is.
    Mr. Moore. You know, and my daughters shoot, and I 
understand that the brace allows three points of contact. So, 
some of the wounded among--some of the weaker maybe couldn't 
hold a handgun, and it allows them an opportunity to shoot as 
well. Is that correct?
    Mr. Bosco. That is exactly right. All it does is allows for 
a third point of contact to help you fire the weapon more 
safely. Nothing about this product makes the weapon any more 
dangerous.
    Mr. Moore. Wait now. So, you are saying, No. 1, it doesn't 
make the weapon more dangerous. Actually, it probably makes the 
weapons safer.
    Mr. Bosco. It does.
    Mr. Moore. And more accurate, I would think, which is a 
good thing. When you are firing downrange, I would assume you 
want to hit targets.
    Mr. Bosco. Exactly.
    Mr. Moore. So, thank you for that. And, Ms. Swearer, I got 
to move quickly here. I want to ask you, are you aware of any 
data that suggests that an increase in firearm ownership leads 
to an increase in violent crime?
    Ms. Swearer. No, not on the whole. It is all about who, in 
particular, has that firearm and whether it is for criminal 
motives. But generally speaking, who are the mass of gun 
owners, are not having that violent intent, and they are, 
therefore, not a danger to themselves or others.
    Mr. Moore. Are you aware of any law that would stop gun 
violence? Is there a law that we could pass as Congress that 
would actually stop murders in this country by firearms?
    Ms. Swearer. Congressman, even if you could pass a law 
outright banning guns, you would still have to be able to snap 
your fingers to make them disappear out of the hands of violent 
criminals, and it would be an impossibility to eliminate gun 
violence. We can certainly work on getting guns out of the 
hands of violent criminals and enabling law-abiding citizens to 
defend themselves with that lethal force as is their natural 
right and their constitutional right. But to suggest that we 
can somehow eliminate gun violence, I mean, you are talking 
about eliminating human nature and this propensity that violent 
people have to commit crimes.
    Mr. Moore. Yes. I am reminded of Rwanda where they killed 
all those people with machetes, right. It is more about human 
nature, actually, than it is the weapon we happen to be using. 
You know, it is interesting because most of the cities that are 
controlled by the Democrats, I moved to D.C., and I am here 
part-time. I have only been in Congress 24 months, but, you 
guys, I feel so much less safe here. I mean, they are pretty 
restrictive on firearms, so much less safe here than I did in 
the hometowns I grew up in, the cities, and my state because we 
are carrying concealed, so we are safe in that respect. But 
just the crime that we are seeing in the cities where they 
think they can pass a law to change human morality is just 
staggering to me, and the statistics simply do not support that 
approach. But with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Ms. Jackson Lee 
for her five minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much. This 
really warrants 10 minutes to probe this thrust that we have 
here today. We realize that what we are facing is really a gun 
trafficking crisis, that the ATF is trying to intervene and 
save lives. You take a city like Baltimore, looking for an 
anecdotal story, you will find that it is gun trafficking, to 
my good friend, from Washington, DC. In Washington, DC, I feel 
very safe, but the point is Washington, DC. is being flooded 
with guns coming from places like Virginia, where the laws are 
loose. I mean, do we have any common connection here? Here is 
an article that says, ``Alleged Gun Smugglers Indicted in New 
York Under the New Federal law.'' Thank God. We are saving 
lives.
    And so, I am very grateful to all of the witnesses. Mr. 
Larosiere, I applaud you, but I am a fighter for the 
Constitution, First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the 
Fourteenth Amendment, and the Second Amendment. We are fighters 
for that, if I might say. Mr. Bosco, I take no backseat to 
fighting for my veterans. I love them. I love the combat 
soldiers and others, sailors and others, every list of men that 
you can imagine, love traveling with the Marines and see what 
they do on the front lines. They are the first in. And then 
Army wants to tell me no, not really. Each one of them ought to 
be respected.
    But let me just share with you, we know that stabilizing 
braces have been used to perpetrate horrific acts of violence, 
including the murder of nine people outside a bar in Dayton, 
Ohio, and ten people, including a police officer, at a grocery 
store in Boulder, Colorado. You are a nice person and a 
businessman, but surely you do not want people using your 
stabilizing braces to murder police officers. Is that true?
    Mr. Bosco. That is absolutely true.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. And so, the work of the ATF is to ensure 
that we regulate not your work, not your brace, but to ensure 
that it does not get in the hands of those who would not be 
able to, if you will, use it as you would want it to be. Let me 
move quickly. Thank you for that.
    Let me move quickly. Mr. Wilcox, doesn't the Bruen decision 
represent a radical departure from the line of reasoning that 
Justice Scalia used in Heller, in which he recognized that the 
rights secured by the Second Amendment are not unlimited, and 
that nothing in that opinion should be taken to cast doubt on 
longstanding prohibitions against carrying of dangerous and 
unusual weapons. Just as a Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs 
has endangered the health and safety of millions of women, do 
you anticipate that Bruen decision will threaten the safety of 
Americans and why?
    Mr. Wilcox. So, I think the Bruen decision has created a 
lot of confusion. It has created over-abundant reliance on 
history looking for a deep specific historical twin by some 
courts rather than an analog, and what it led to is perverse 
results. In the Fifth Circuit--I know the Ranking Member's home 
circuit--we saw the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals strike down 
a provision in Federal law that prohibits domestic abusers 
under protective orders from purchasing and possessing guns.
    Now going forward in your circuit. Sadly, Ranking Member, 
domestic abusers under protective orders, in the most dangerous 
time, can access firearms. I don't think that is what Bruen 
meant. I do not think that is what the Supreme Court meant. But 
that language is too broad, and it needs to be tightened up 
because we can't live in a country where dangerous domestic 
abusers, felons, gun traffickers can go free and terrorize our 
women, our children, our communities.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. If you talk to police officers, as I do, 
the most dangerous call is the domestic violence call. I lost a 
beloved sergeant saving the life of a mother and son, but he 
died, wounded and died on a domestic violence call.
    Let me quickly move to this issue of FFLs. How does it 
impact public safety if FFLs are not being regularly inspected? 
And how would increasing the ability for ATF to inspect FFLs 
impact law-abiding citizens? Mr. Wilcox, I don't want to put 
anyone out of business. I am just trying to save lives. 
Regulation of FFLs.
    Mr. Wilcox. Look, I think it is incredibly important what 
this Administration has done, and we have heard a little bit 
that I think goes beyond the facts because what this 
Administration has done is to say we are going to target 
inspections on those dealers that are most connected to crime 
guns. Have you been connected to crime guns? Are there violent 
crimes connected to your store? And then they are going to look 
at very specific willful violations, such as you can conduct a 
background check on your sale. You knowingly sold to a 
prohibited person. These are serious years offenses.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me get this in. How does the ATF's 
ghost gun rule promote public safety and reduce crime? Can he 
just answer since I got it under the bell, Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Fallon. Yes, and I apologize--we gave you an extra 
four-and-a-half; minutes earlier, so we are going to cut it off 
here.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much to all of the 
witnesses for their answers. Thank you.
    Mr. Fallon. The Chair recognizes Mr. Fry.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. President Biden and the 
ATF purposely decided to put a plan together to take millions 
of law-abiding citizens and turn them into felons after May 31, 
just like that, through a rule on stabilizing braces, which is 
nearly a total ban. This action, despite prior guidance from 
the ATF, Mr. Bosco, as you testified earlier, to the contrary. 
Does that sound crazy? Of course, it does, but this is just 
another day in Joe Biden's America. Inaction, in this body, is 
sanctioning a lawfully established good actor in the community, 
your company, Mr. Bosco. Let's just change the rules midstream.
    In order to register firearms under this proposal, gun 
owners are required to destroy, turn in, rebuild their guns, or 
fill out what is called a Form 1. This is the Form 1. It is a 
17-page guidance on how to fill out a government form. This 
means that owners of up to 40 million braces will spend a 
collective 160 million hours registering their lawfully 
acquired firearms to comply with ATF's unconstitutional rule. 
Anyone who does not register, turn in, rebuild, or destroy 
their brace firearm by ATF's arbitrary deadline will be subject 
to a 10-year in Federal prison or $250,000 per firearm. These 
aren't illegal guns. These are lawfully acquired guns.
    For perspective, in 2020, ATF reported that they processed 
512,000 National Firearms Act gun registration forms. At that 
rate, assuming no further backlog and assuming all effective 
gun owners comply with gun registration date by May 31, it 
would take the ATF over 78 years to process all the pistol 
registration forms. The ATF is proposing regulations they 
aren't even capable of handling. Ms. Swearer, who is in charge 
of making the rules, making law in the United States of 
America?
    Ms. Swearer. That would be Congress.
    Mr. Fry. Would you say that it is a fair assessment that 
ATF is attempting to usurp Congress' powers and undermine the 
Second Amendment?
    Ms. Swearer. I think ATF in recent years has sought to do 
that in several ways, yes.
    Mr. Fry. In what ways? I am curious.
    Ms. Swearer. So, as I noted both in my written and my 
opening remarks, so one of them is with this pistol brace rule. 
So, Congress, yes, I think irrationally in 1934, but 
nonetheless, did seek to regulate short-barrel rifles, and ATF 
for a long time took the position that these were not short-
barrel rifles. And then just like that, it changed its mind and 
said we are going to override that.
    With respect to firearms themselves, ATF decided 
unilaterally that even though Congress said we can regulate 
firearms, and frames and receivers of firearms, well, we think 
now we can regulate almost frames and almost receivers, which 
is really just a hunk of drilled-out metal. It is not a 
functional firearm in and of itself. And in that way, we are 
going to claw back more power for ourselves. So, I think you 
will see this quite a bit, of ATF not just interpreting the 
law, but intentionally misinterpreting the law to give itself 
more power.
    Mr. Fry. The pistol brace ban is unconstitutional. It is 
irresponsible, and it is, quite frankly, downright maddening. 
In this poster behind me, you see two guns. Mr. Bosco, would 
option A or option B make you a felon under ATF's proposed 
rule?
    Mr. Bosco. Well, option B in 120 days will make you a 
felon.
    Mr. Fry. Do you think the common American citizen would 
reasonably be able to distinguish which is the firearm of a 
felon versus a law-abiding citizen?
    Mr. Bosco. Well, that is the whole point here. I mean, this 
is what I was talking about. Again, I have no disagreement with 
Ms. Jackson Lee. I have no disagreement with my colleague with 
respect to what the ATF does, but this is not what the ATF 
should be doing. The ATF is making a rule, OK, and they are 
saying that this rule has criminal implication. It circumvents 
the legislative process. That is what is happening here. All I 
am saying and all I have been saying is that ATF should not be 
making laws. That is up to the people at the front of me.
    Mr. Fry. What makes this firearm behind me illegal under 
the ATF proposed rule?
    Mr. Bosco. Well, essentially what they are saying, after 10 
years of saying the opposite, is that the piece of plastic 
attached to the back of that firearm, which is a piece of 
rubber with two flaps and a strap, is now a stock similar to 
the one in A.
    Mr. Fry. Does the arm brace make the firearm more deadly? 
For example, does it turn a semi-automatic weapon into a 
machine gun?
    Mr. Bosco. It doesn't turn the firearm into anything. All 
it is, is an orthotic device that allows you to fire that 
weapon in a more safe fashion.
    Mr. Fry. What is the impact of this proposed rule, if 
enacted, to your company?
    Mr. Bosco. We will go out of business. The ATF itself said 
that four of the five companies will go out of business in 
their impact study. They said that, so they know that they are 
doing with this.
    Mr. Fry. Has the Federal Government ever indicated to you 
that they would be willing to compensate you for shutting down 
your business?
    Mr. Bosco. Never.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know I am out of time. 
I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Mr. Fry. The Chair recognizes Ms. 
Brown for five minutes.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, we are 
all too familiar with the horrifying statistics that gun 
violence is the leading cause of death for children and teens 
in this country. Since the start of this year, ten people--ten 
people--under the age of 25 were shot and killed in Ohio's 11th 
congressional District, ten young people whose lives were taken 
too soon and did not have the opportunity to realize their 
potential. I have in my hand a list of reports describing each 
of these tragedies. Mr. Chairman, in recognition of the lives 
lost, I ask unanimous consent that this list be entered into 
the record.
    Mr. Fallon. So, moved.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you. Just recently, an 18-year-old high 
school senior was waiting for the bus at John Adams High 
School, just waiting for the bus, and while on his way home 
from school, he was shot and killed. Mr. Chairman, John Adams 
High School is my alma mater. A few days ago, two men in 
Cleveland were arrested for selling an undercover ATF agent 
nearly 100 guns as part of an ongoing law enforcement operation 
to combat gun smuggling.
    Many of the guns recovered by the law enforcement were 
ghost guns, firearms that can be assembled in parts without 
serial numbers, making them extremely difficult to trace. That 
is why they are called ghost guns. ATF estimates that about 
45,000 ghost guns have been recovered from crime scenes since 
2016, with more than 19,000 recovered in 2021 alone. As they 
are a massive source of violent crime, the reasonable thing to 
do is regulate ghost guns, but reasonable regulations to 
protect Americans, like tracking ghost guns, have been strongly 
opposed by Republicans and the gun industry. And that is 
despite thousands of American mayors and the majority of the 
American people begging for more regulation. Because in 
Republican eyes, not being allowed to manufacture and own 
deadly weapons of war somehow infringes on the Second 
Amendment. So, Mr. Wilcox, if you would, please describe the 
law enforcement challenges presented by the prevalence of ghost 
guns.
    Mr. Wilcox. Thank you, Congresswoman, and I completely 
agree with your sentiments and respect how you are lifting up 
the survivors from your community. You know, I think this is 
one of the fastest-growing threats to public safety in our 
country because the untraceable product is the dream of gun 
traffickers and prohibited people who want to acquire easy-to-
make guns with no record and no background check. I think we 
heard a suggestion that these are incredibly difficult to make. 
They are hunks of metal. That is not the case at all. These are 
readily converted by just about anyone. And building a ghost 
gun from the parts that these companies are selling is as close 
to gunsmithing as making a Lego set is as close to 
architectural design. These are not the same thing. This is 
something that is very easy to do with common tools and can be 
done in about an hour.
    So, imagine acquiring these parts with nothing but a credit 
card or mailing address, some common hand tools, and an hour of 
time, and now you have an untraceable handgun. That is exactly 
what a gun trafficker wants, and that is why I am proud ATF is 
stepping up to regulate that as Congress intended.
    Ms. Brown. On that point, can you please describe how the 
ATF supports law enforcement in their daily activities, 
particularly when guns are recovered in a crime?
    Mr. Wilcox. As I understand it talking to multiple local 
law enforcement officials across this country, ATF is the best 
partner they have in Federal law enforcement. They are on the 
scene, they are in the field, and they are doing the hard work. 
Supporting ATF is supporting law enforcement because that is 
who is helping them with ballistics information, with crime gun 
tracing, and connecting the dots to trafficking channels. As I 
mentioned earlier, the only way to get from the shooter to the 
supplier is in partnership between local law enforcement and 
ATF.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you so much. Let the record reflect I am a 
licensed gun owner and respect the rights of individuals 
afforded under the Second Amendment. However, we can preserve 
those rights while also implementing commonsense gun safety 
measures, many of which are supported by our law enforcement, 
to help them do their jobs and keep all of us safe. Despite 
this, we continue to hear talking points across the aisle 
against legitimate restrictions on firearms that will support 
the job of law enforcement and keep our children and community 
safe. In the 117th Congress, I was proud to support the 
Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which provided hundreds of 
millions of dollars to support commonsense gun reform. In fact, 
Cleveland was already awarded $2 million from that fund to 
support city-led collaborative community violence intervention 
and public engagement.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand my time has expired, 
but I do want to say this. President Biden is taking action 
that is desperately needed and timely, and along with that, the 
congressional Democrats are ready and willing to continue our 
diligent work to save lives of our country, communities, and 
children. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Fallon. Your time has expired. The time has expired. 
The Chair recognizes Mr. Jordan.
    Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wilcox, did you or 
anyone in your organization communicate with the ATF or the 
Biden Administration about these issues we are discussing today 
prior to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking?
    Mr. Wilcox. We submitted formal petitions for rulemaking 
through the appropriate channels, sir.
    Mr. Jordan. Before the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking?
    Mr. Wilcox. That is correct.
    Mr. Jordan. So, you are in communication with the Biden 
Administration wanting to make these changes?
    Mr. Wilcox. We filed formal petition for rulemaking through 
the appropriate channels.
    Mr. Jordan. Who did you talk to?
    Mr. Wilcox. It was a written submission, sir.
    Mr. Jordan. Did you speak to anyone personally?
    Mr. Wilcox. I didn't.
    Mr. Jordan. Did anyone in your organization talk to anyone?
    Mr. Wilcox. I have to check, but I believe we submitted the 
written submission as a formal submission----
    Mr. Jordan. People in your organization may have talked to 
folks at the ATF prior to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking?
    Mr. Wilcox. Not that I am aware.
    Mr. Jordan. Did anyone in your organization talk to Mr. 
Dettelbach before the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking?
    Mr. Wilcox. I don't believe Mr. Dettelbach has----
    Mr. Jordan. Or he came in afterward? Has anyone talked to 
Mr. Dettelbach about this personally?
    Mr. Wilcox. Of course, we have been in communication with 
the ATF and this Administration and in prior administrations.
    Mr. Jordan. Talking to the director? You have talked to the 
director?
    Mr. Wilcox. I mean, we have worked with ATF across 
administrations.
    Mr. Jordan. Have you talked to the director? It is a simple 
question.
    Mr. Wilcox. Yes, I have communicated with the director.
    Mr. Jordan. You have talked to Mr. Dettelbach.
    Mr. Wilcox. Of course.
    Mr. Jordan. Yes, and I find that interesting. I just know, 
as we are speaking upstairs, the president of the National 
School Boards Association is sitting for a transcribed 
interview because the same thing happened there. National 
School Boards Association talked with the Biden White House, 
the Biden Justice Department, the Biden Department of 
Education, concocted this letter that set in motion this whole 
attack on parents showing up at school boards. And it looks to 
me like we have a similar operation going on here where you 
guys worked with the ATF to change something that had been the 
law for 10 years to go after law-abiding Second Amendment 
supporting Americans. Mr. Bosco, you invented this stabilizing 
brace, is that right?
    Mr. Bosco. That is correct.
    Mr. Jordan. And you did it for a Marine buddy, a friend of 
yours who served our country and was injured?
    Mr. Bosco. That is correct.
    Mr. Jordan. And you were told 10 years ago that the 
stabilizing brace does not convert a pistol into a short-
barreled rifle. Is that right?
    Mr. Bosco. That is correct.
    Mr. Jordan. I got the letter right here from the ATF. 
November 26, 2012, right? And then, seven weeks ago, 180-degree 
change, right? 180 degree change, just the opposite. They now 
say it is just the opposite of what they told you 10 years ago. 
I know others have talked about this. I think it is so clear, 
180-degree change. So, in 10 years and two months, the rule was 
one way, and you develop business based on the rule that they 
told you. Your government told you this was fine, and now they 
have changed it.
    Mr. Bosco. That is correct.
    Mr. Jordan. When did the bill pass to change the law?
    Mr. Bosco. There was no bill.
    Mr. Jordan. No bill. That is the fundamental issue, right? 
No bill. Mr. Dettelbach, the new director, he never ran for 
Congress. I don't remember a bill going through Mr. Nadler's 
committee last Congress that changed the law. I would have 
known because I am on that committee, the Judiciary Committee, 
which has jurisdiction over this stuff. I would have known. I 
don't remember bill passing the full Congress. I don't remember 
bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee passing or going through 
the Senate, and I certainly don't remember a bill going to 
President Biden's desk that he signed into legislation that 
changed the rule, but this could potentially impact millions of 
Americans--law-abiding, Second Amendment supporting Americans. 
Is that right, Mr. Bosco?
    Mr. Bosco. That is absolutely correct.
    Mr. Jordan. How many products have you sold, just your 
company alone, to Americans? How many stabilizing braces have 
you sold?
    Mr. Bosco. Many millions. I can say that from 2020 until 
today, which are the years that the ATF didn't concern itself 
with when it did its impact study, we sold, our company alone, 
2.3 million braces.
    Mr. Jordan. So, while they were doing their study, they 
didn't count the number of braces that were being sold?
    Mr. Bosco. They didn't count in their impact study.
    Mr. Jordan. That is probably because Mr. Wilcox's 
organization told him not to count it, right?
    Mr. Bosco. I don't want to----
    Mr. Jordan. Well, they were talking to him all the time, it 
sounds like, putting this all together going after people to 
support the Second Amendment. How many Americans do you think 
it is total? So, I have heard estimates as many as 40 million 
Americans can be impacted by this.
    Mr. Bosco. Correct. Congressional Research Services has 
said anywhere between 10 and 40 million Americans own a 
stabilizing brace.
    Mr. Jordan. Unless you remove the brace, lengthen the 
barrel, turn in or destroy your firearm, or register your gun 
with this government that you know you can trust because Mr. 
Wilcox has been working with them, unless you do those four 
things, what happens? What are you?
    Mr. Bosco. A felon.
    Mr. Jordan. A felon. A felon for something 10 years ago 
they said was just fine, that you build a business on, and the 
business started because you wanted to help a man who put the 
uniform of his country on his back and served our country was 
injured. And now they are going to put you out of business and 
make people felons. But don't worry, Everytown USA, Mr. Wilcox 
has been working with our government to implement this to 
target Americans who support the Second Amendment. Such a deal. 
Such a deal. That is why we need legislation to say--we need to 
pass that law. That is what we do need to pass into law now, 
based on what has happened with this organization. Mr. 
Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, sir. The Chair recognizes Ms. 
Stansbury for five minutes.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uvalde, Buffalo--
this week, Sumter, Milwaukee, Tampa. Some of you may not have 
heard that, just this morning at the street in Baltimore. When 
will this violence stop? Our communities are living in fear. 
Our children are literally afraid to go to school. When will 
this body take meaningful action? This includes in my hometown 
of Albuquerque, where just a year-and-a-half ago, a young man 
named Bennie Hargrove, who was only 13 years old, an eighth 
grader at Washington Middle School, tragically lost his life.
    I want to tell you Bennie's story. It was Friday, August 
13, 2021. It was only the third day of school. He had just 
started the 8th grade. Bennie was a good student. He was a good 
friend. He was brave. And shortly before 1 p.m. on that day, he 
saw one of his classmates bullying another one of his 
classmates. He stepped in to try to deescalate what was going 
on, but what Bennie did not know on that day was that his 
classmate had brought a gun to school, and Bennie died in the 
hospital at 13 years old. Now, just this last week in my state 
legislature in New Mexico, my own state House representative, 
who is championing these issues at home, Pamelya Herndon, just 
passed the Bennie Hargrove Safety Act in New Mexico, and our 
Governor proudly signed it. But people across the country are 
begging us to take action because our children are literally 
afraid to go to school.
    I have heard a lot of testimony this morning from my 
friends across the aisle calling into question the Second 
Amendment, and the right to freedom, and law-abiding citizens. 
That is not what we are talking about this morning. We are 
talking about the safety of our children and our communities, 
and about taking meaningful action in this body to stem the 
tide of violence that is affecting every single community 
across the country. I want to thank the moms, and the 
advocates, and the survivors who I see here in the audience 
today and who are tuning in here today to hear this first of a 
hearing. I want to thank Mr. Wilcox for being here to help 
represent the voices of all of those individuals here in this 
hearing today.
    I have listened to my friends across the aisle take umbrage 
with our Federal law enforcement this morning. These are men 
and women who put their lives on the line every single day to 
serve our country. When are we going to take action to protect 
our children? When is this body going to take meaningful 
action? That is what our children are asking us. Now don't get 
me wrong. I am deeply proud of the bipartisan Community Safety 
Bill that we passed last summer. It is the most significant 
piece of legislation in 30 years because of the impact of the 
gun lobby, which I am sure is loud and proud in the background 
in this hearing today, but we need to take meaningful action. 
And so, Mr. Wilcox, I want to ask you, what are the actions 
that we must take to protect our communities?
    Mr. Wilcox. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman. I 
think first we need to be implementing the Bipartisan Safer 
Communities Act and the laws on the books, just like ATF has 
been doing with ghost guns, and with arm braces, with 
unlicensed sellers who make gun sales without background 
checks. We also have to keep passing foundational laws, 
background checks on all gun sales, ensuring there is an 
extreme risk protection order process across the country, and 
that people who own guns, like my family, store them securely 
because we know that 80 percent of the guns that are used in 
school shootings, those are coming from the home, the home of 
the parent, or family, or relative. And that is our 
intervention point, responsible gun ownership, which I think 
there is agreement on this dais about, as well as commonsense 
and constitutional gun laws to keep guns out of the hands who 
shouldn't have them, while supporting our Federal law 
enforcement officers at ATF.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Wilcox. And with that, Mr. 
Chairman, I yield back, and I beg my colleagues to take urgent 
action now.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair recognizes myself for my 
time. Mr. Wilcox, is a stabilizing brace a ghost gun?
    Mr. Wilcox. No.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. So, I just want for the record to recognize 
the fact that our Democratic colleagues were in charge of this 
chamber for four years, and there was no legislation passed to 
regulate or ban ghost guns. In fact, it wasn't even marked up, 
and my colleague just said that they were begging for action. 
Well, you had four years, and you did nothing about that 
particular issue at all. We are talking about a stabilizing 
brace, and we are also talking about bureaucratic overreach and 
an end-around to the democratic process, and I suspected that 
we were going to be insulted, and I wasn't disappointed. So, 
Mr. Wilcox, is it your firm belief that less guns will equate 
to less violence?
    Mr. Wilcox. Thanks for the question, Chairman. It is my 
belief that strong gun laws lead to less gun violence.
    Mr. Fallon. So, less guns is better?
    Mr. Wilcox. No, strong gun laws lead to less gun violence.
    Mr. Fallon. What are stricter laws going to do? It was 
going to limit gun ownership, wouldn't it?
    Mr. Wilcox. So, we looked at every state across 50 
policies, and what we found is the states that had the 
strongest suite of policies had the least amount of gun 
violence.
    Mr. Fallon. Well, that is not what I am asking. 
Furthermore, you can play a game with states. You compare 
Vermont to Texas, and it is very unfair comparison. I can also 
compare North Dakota to California. You are not comparing 
apples to apples. So, I think that it is very interesting to 
point out that in 1980, in this country, there were 226 million 
people. We had 23,040 murders. It was a murder rate of 10.2 per 
100,000, and there were approximately 280 million guns. In 
2019, there were 400 million guns, so a significant increase. 
They were 16,425 murders for a murder rate of 5.0.
    We understand that one murder is one too many, but you 
can't legislate away evil. Gun control in Mexico is very 
strict. In fact, for all intents and purposes, it is very 
difficult for an average Mexican citizen, although the 
constitution says they can own a gun, it is very difficult for 
them to do so, and also, every single firearm in Mexico is 
supposed to be registered. Mexico has 124 million people----
    [Disturbance in hearing room.]
    Voice. I think----
    Mr. Fallon. Whoa. Whoa. Ma'am? Ma'am?
    Mr. Biggs. OK, Officer----
    Mr. Fallon. All right.
    Mr. Biggs. Out she goes. She has got to go.
    Mr. Fallon. Please remove that woman, please.
    Mr. Biggs. Yes, Officer, please.
    Mr. Fallon. You are removed. You are breaching protocol and 
disorder in the Committee room.
    Voice. You took my son away from me. I am not going 
anywhere.
    Mr. Biggs. He never took anyone away.
    Mr. Fallon. No, no. Officer, please remove her, and remove 
the gentleman, too, and I am going to read a statement for the 
other folks in attendance. The Committee welcomes the public to 
this meeting. We have people on both sides of the aisle that, 
not only up here, but in the audience, that have differing 
opinions. While you are welcome here, I want to point out to 
the Members and to the audience in attendance today, House Rule 
11 provides that the Chairman of the Committee may punish 
breaches of order and decorum by censure and exclusion from the 
hearing. All participants will be required to avoid unruly 
behavior and inappropriate language. Expressions of support or 
opposition are not in order. I expect all parties to these 
proceedings to conduct themselves at all times in a manner that 
reflects credibility on the House of Representatives.
    OK. Now I am going to reclaim my time. You know what? I am 
probably pretty emotional as well. I think some people are, and 
we should be, because it is my firm belief that if you look at 
Mexico with 124 million people, the murder rate in this country 
is 5 per 100,000. Mexico with their very strong, strict gun 
laws, the murder rate is 29 per 100,000. That is remarkably 
higher, so how can that be if laws can wash away, 
unfortunately, human nature. They can't, and evil is evil.
    Whether someone is murdered with a gun, with a knife, with 
a car, a bomb, or even with your bare hands, the fact of the 
matter is what a firearm does is equalizing the playing field, 
particularly for elderly and for women, for folks that may not 
have the physical strength to defend themselves. So, when we 
were called apologists for gun violence, we are using this for 
political tools, insurrectionists, and we are out of step, this 
is about the democratic process. We are supposed to pass laws. 
Congress, not unelected bureaucrats.
    If that is the case, we can all just go home. I would 
rather spend more time with my family, quite frankly, my 13-and 
16-year-old sons. I want to keep them safer. I want to keep 
everybody in this room safer, and I find it very hypocritical 
that some Members of Congress hire armed security to protect 
themselves with firearms. So, firearms are OK if they protect 
them, but not other people, the great masses.
    Alcohol-related deaths in 2020: 13.1 per 100,000. We are 
talking about regulating anymore alcohol? We are talking about 
banning it? We are talking about making new rules to make it 
harder to get alcohol? No. Deaths by car, vehicles: 38,824, 
11.2 per 100,000. Anybody want to ban cars? Any talk of that? 
No. Mass shootings, one is too many. In November 2021, in 
Wisconsin, a driver drove his SUV through a Christmas parade 
and he killed six. Was there any talk of banning cars? No. We 
weren't going to ban the Ford Escape he used or any like them. 
The Ford Super Duty pickup truck in October 2017 in Manhattan, 
drove his truck along a bike path and crashed into a school 
bus, killing eight. There was no talk of that. It is not the 
gun that kills people. It is the person pulling the trigger. A 
gun is merely a tool.
    So, you have a stabilizing brace, Mr. Bosco.
    [Disturbance in hearing room.]
    Mr. Fallon. See, this is exactly what we have to avoid, 
which is some minority of folks trying to silence dissent. 
Dissent shouldn't be kryptonite. We should have a civil 
conversation. We should have a spirited exchange of ideas. Mr. 
Raskin and I do, and I really respect him because he is good 
and he firmly believes what he believes. I believe, a lot of 
the time differing, but there is a decorum that should be 
adhered to.
    So, Mr. Bosco, your brace is not a ghost gun, correct?
    [Disturbance in hearing room.]
    Mr. Fallon. Is this an insurrection? So, will they be held 
to the same--I don't want another January 6. Do we? Mr. Bosco--
--
    Mr. Cicilline. If they are trying to overthrow the 
government, they ought to be held to the same standard, but I 
think they are trying to express their----
    Mr. Fallon. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. The Member is out 
of line.
    Mr. Cicilline. Point of order. The gentleman's time has 
expired.
    Mr. Fallon. Yes, and here is a point of order.
    Mr. Biggs. He wasn't here to begin with.
    Mr. Fallon. You weren't here to begin with. Ms. Jackson Lee 
went four-and-a-half; minutes over. We said that I was going to 
take one additional minute and Mr. Biggs was going to take one 
additional minute. She went over by four-and-a-half minutes.
    Mr. Bosco, you invented the pistol brace after witnessing a 
disabled combat veteran struggling to shoot while----
    [Disturbance in hearing room.]
    Mr. Fallon. Does the Capitol Police not doing their jobs? 
What the hell is going on? All right. This hearing is recessed.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Fallon. This proceeding is called to order. Just a 
quick note on what had transpired. There are House rules that 
govern proceedings. Unfortunately, we had some folks that were 
disruptive during the hearing. We asked Capitol Police to 
remove them, they were then removed, and then one decided to 
come back in while we were still gaveled in and disrupted the 
hearing. That is when we had a recess. Capitol Police were 
overwhelmed outside in the hallway, and now we are back in 
session.
    So, I have one minute left, and this is what I want to talk 
about. Dissent is not kryptonite. It is the basis of this 
Nation. I was on a city council, first elected office I had in 
2009. We used to give our citizens five minutes to speak, and 
she came in and told us how awful we were and enumerated the 
reasons as to why, and I thought that was wonderful. In fact, 
she ended writing me a letter, and I put it in a frame, and I 
put it in my office, and my friends would come in and read it 
and say why on earth would you put that in your office? And I 
said because she can write that letter to a government official 
knowing in this country that her house isn't going to be burned 
down, that her car is not going to be confiscated, that she is 
not going to have a fear of suffer violence because she simply 
spoke up to folks that are in power and elected.
    And that is the majesty of our representative republic, and 
we should have a spirited exchange of ideas which we have had 
in this Committee and, I would imagine, over the next hour or 
so, we will continue to have. But to be that disruptive and to 
be that narcissistic to breach the quorum and disruption 
shouldn't be applauded, and it is sure as hell shouldn't be 
applauded by Members of this Committee. That is why I was a 
little bit shocked that one Member did that. So, my time has 
now expired.
    Mr. Ivey. Would the gentleman yield for a moment?
    Mr. Fallon. I will not yield. We are just going to move on. 
Go ahead if you have a quick question.
    Mr. Ivey. I just wanted to say this. There is a bill coming 
up that is a Republican-sponsored bill based on the Loudoun 
County School Board protests. And the Republicans, I guess, are 
arguing that that gentleman who was removed from that 
proceeding was mistreated, and that is part of the FBI 
weaponization strategy, I guess.
    Mr. Fallon. All right, sir. I have absolutely, literally no 
idea what you are talking about.
    Mr. Ivey. Let me just say this.
    Mr. Fallon. No, we are done. We are done. We are done. No, 
no, no, we are moving on. We are not going to get in this. We 
can have a discussion all day long. I will see you on the 
Floor. We can talk all day. I love that, and I think that you 
can learn from people that disagree with you, and so I have no 
problem with chatting. We will chat each other out----
    Mr. Ivey. We will continue with this when it is time to 
vote on Republican bill.
    Mr. Fallon. Very good, and we will chat each other out. OK. 
So now, the Chair recognizes Ms. Holmes Norton. Is she here? 
No. Who is going to be next? Mr. Cicilline, you are next.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. I want to just quickly rebut two 
claims that have been made in this hearing, one, that we have 
done nothing about ghost guns. The ATF has taken action to 
limit ghost guns. We passed my bill to ban ghost guns as part 
of the Protect Our Kids Act. It wasn't acted upon by the 
Senate. And second, this notion that somehow guns level the 
playing field for women. Really? More than two-thirds of the 
victims shot and killed by intimate partners are women. And the 
presence of a firearm makes an abuser five times more likely to 
take a partner's life than if no firearm was present. So, we 
will just set those two claims aside quickly.
    The reality is every day in this country, 120 people are 
killed by gun violence. That is one life lost every 12 minutes. 
Gun violence is now the leading cause of death in children and 
teens in this country. There have been more mass shootings than 
days in 2023. Our children are participating and being 
traumatized by active shooter drills because the risk of a 
school shooting is so high. We have even seen a new design for 
bulletproof mini room to be installed in classrooms to provide 
better protection if they are forced to shelter in place. This 
has become our day-to-day reality in the United States, but we 
cannot accept this as normal. And yet as we continue to see the 
gun violence epidemic in this country continue to grow, how do 
my Republican colleagues respond? By trying to abolish the ATF, 
the Agency responsible for implementing regulations to curb 
this violence and carnage.
    And that brings me to my first question. Mr. Bosco, this is 
a ``yes'' or ``no.'' Is this AR-15 equipped with an SB tactical 
arm brace?
    Mr. Bosco. Yes, it is.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. Now, for members of the audience, 
this is a picture of the weapon used by the mass shooter who 
killed five people and wounded 17 on November 19 in the Club Q 
shooting, an LGBTQ club in Colorado. It appears to have an SB 
tactical arm brace just identified. The shooter had several 
run-ins with law enforcement before this massacre, including an 
incident where he had held his grandparents hostage that led to 
a SWAT team standoff in 2019. Mr. Wilcox, if the ATF arm brace 
rule had been enacted earlier, even last year, would the 
shooter have been able to obtain this kind of weapon?
    Mr. Wilcox. Thanks for that question. The fact is, is that 
short-barreled rifles aren't showing up in mass shootings 
unless they have been equipped with an arm brace because those 
have been able to get around the national firearm restrictions. 
So no, that product wouldn't have been available as easily as 
it was if the regulation had been in place.
    Mr. Cicilline. And Colorado Springs is sadly just one 
example. Mr. Wilcox, have any other mass shootings been 
committed with AR-15 style weapons with arm braces?
    Mr. Wilcox. Yes, Congressman. I am aware of at least two 
others, one in Dayton, Ohio, and another in Boulder, Colorado.
    Mr. Cicilline. Now, we have heard a lot today about ATF 
rules subjecting firearms equipped with stabilizers and braces 
to regulation. Does that rule do anything more than close a 
loophole that allowed people to evade public safety regulations 
simply by adding accessories to pistols to transform them into 
short-barreled rifles?
    Mr. Wilcox. No, Congressman. This is ATF enforcing the laws 
on the books, assessing technology going through the notice and 
comment rulemaking process, taking appropriate action, and 
providing ample compliance opportunities, waiving the fees that 
come with the National Firearms Act, and having a grace period 
so that law-abiding, responsible citizens can take advantage 
and register their weapons, if they wish.
    Mr. Cicilline. And again, short-barreled rifles have been 
regulated under the National Firearms Act since 1934. Isn't 
that correct?
    Mr. Wilcox. That is correct. Your predecessors in Congress 
established the clear law in the 1930's around short-barreled 
rifles.
    Mr. Cicilline. And stabilizing braces have been examined by 
the ATF since 2012. Why did it take so long for the Agency to 
close this loophole?
    Mr. Wilcox. So, it is because I believe technology has 
changed in that time, and, in fact, this wasn't the first time 
ATF acted. Under the last Administration, the Trump 
Administration, they took action sending a cease and desist 
letter to one company that was selling a short-barreled rifle 
equipped with an arm brace. And so we have seen ATF 
consistently act as they start to assess technology before 
entering the formal notice and comment rulemaking process.
    Mr. Cicilline. And does the ATF rule prohibit veterans, or 
the disabled, or any law-abiding American from possessing a 
firearm equipped with a stabilizing brace? And will disabled 
veterans be able to keep these types of firearms, even if the 
stabilizing brace was designed to be fired from the shoulder?
    Mr. Wilcox. Absolutely, Congressman. There is no 
prohibition in this regulation. There is no prohibition on 
short-barreled rifles in the National Firearms Act. In fact, 
ATF processes hundreds of thousands of national firearm 
applications every year for millions of firearm. This is 
something ATF knows how to do and does do.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. I want to just end by thanking 
all the advocates here for gun safety for all your good work 
and for being present today to hold everyone accountable for 
their remarks and their votes, and I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. The Cair recognizes Mr. Perry for his five 
minutes.
    Mr. Perry. I thank the Chairman.
    Mr. Fallon. Sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Biggs. OK. Mr. Perry, go 
ahead.
    Mr. Perry. I am trying to balance, right? I am trying to 
balance the safety of the citizens in the United States of 
America with the God-given constitutional rights enshrined in 
the Constitution, came down from God that we can defend 
ourselves. We are trying to balance that, and that, I think, is 
what this discussion is about. And then who does that 
balancing, whether we are a Nation of laws or a Nation of 
hysteria and screaming, which doesn't seem to produce much but 
a bunch of screaming, and I get that people are exercised. But 
there are people here that are elected and accountable to make 
the laws. Unfortunately, in this case, folks that aren't 
accountable seem to be making laws with the power to put you in 
jail, the authority to put you in jail if you disagree. Mr. 
Wilcox, are you a gun manufacturer?
    Mr. Wilcox. Are you asking if I am a licensed gun 
manufacturer?
    Mr. Perry. I am just asking if you are a gun manufacturer?
    Mr. Wilcox. I am not.
    Mr. Perry. Licensed or otherwise. So, you are not. Have you 
made a so-called ghost gun?
    Mr. Wilcox. I have not.
    Mr. Perry. You have not. What are the tools necessary to 
manufacture the so called ghost gun?
    Mr. Wilcox. So, I have worked with a number of veterans who 
have made this, and to make the handgun model if you buy the 
polymer frame with the kit, what you need is a hand drill and a 
hand file. So actually, these aren't motorized tools or 
battery-operated tools at all. They are just working with 
muscle power, and----
    Mr. Perry. So, you have done it? When you said you have 
worked with them, you stood right next to them, you held the 
tools, you are saying a hand drill, and what was the other 
thing, a file?
    Mr. Wilcox. A hand file, yes, sir. I would be happy to send 
you the link. It is on YouTube. It actually, shockingly, has 4 
million views of people seeing these hand tools in under an 
hour convert this frame into something that can be used in a 
firearm.
    Mr. Perry. So, you don't have the tools, and you are 
talking about that you have assisted veterans doing it, and I 
can go watch on YouTube. Do you think that everything you see 
on YouTube is real?
    Mr. Wilcox. I sure hope not, or my kids would be in 
trouble.
    Mr. Perry. OK. All right. Well, I think that is fair. What 
are the components of what you characterize as a ghost gun?
    Mr. Wilcox. The core of the ghost gun is the frame or the 
receiver that can be readily converted into operational status, 
and ATF is making that----
    Mr. Perry. So, hold on a second. Let's be clear. The frame 
or the receiver, or the frame and the receiver, what is it?
    Mr. Wilcox. It is a good question, sir.
    Mr. Perry. I know it is.
    Mr. Wilcox. But the frame is for the handgun, and the 
receiver is for the long gun.
    Mr. Perry. So, a handgun doesn't have a receiver?
    Mr. Wilcox. That is correct.
    Mr. Perry. And a long gun does?
    Mr. Wilcox. Correct.
    Mr. Perry. Interesting. On YouTube, when you watch this 
video, so to speak, at what point did the components--or forget 
the YouTube. When you assisted, when you personally assisted 
with a hand drill, not even on an electric--you are talking a 
hand drill with a crank, right? When you assisted with that, at 
what point did those components become a gun?
    Mr. Wilcox. When Polymer 80 was selling those parts, those 
are firearms and would be regulated as such.
    Mr. Perry. No. So, it was in the package and it showed up, 
was it a gun?
    Mr. Wilcox. Yes, that is a firearm.
    Mr. Perry. You could fire it when it showed up in the 
package?
    Mr. Wilcox. That is not what the law says, sir.
    Mr. Perry. No, no, I am asking you. When it showed up, 
however it showed up at the house in the package before the 
hand drill and the file, was it a gun?
    Mr. Wilcox. Yes, sir, because Congress has defined 
firearm----
    Mr. Perry. Could you fire it?
    Mr. Wilcox. That is not how Congress define ``firearm,'' 
sir.
    Mr. Perry. And how does Congress define ``firearm?''
    Mr. Wilcox. An operational weapon----
    Mr. Perry. Is it operational when it shows up in the mail, 
the components?
    Mr. Wilcox. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Perry. So, why are you filing, and why are you drilling 
it?
    Mr. Wilcox. Because the firearm definition is operational 
or----
    Mr. Perry. No, no. I am asking you if it doesn't work when 
it shows up, why do you have to do those things? Sir, the point 
is it is not a gun. At what point are you going to outlaw or 
are you going to sanction the ATF outlawing a block of 
aluminum, a block of steel, a screw? And by the way, you have 
no idea what you are talking about regarding receivers or 
frame. Sir, you are unqualified to comment on this because you 
have no idea what you are talking about. You haven't 
manufactured anything. Let's face it, you have no idea. Sir, I 
am going to turn to Mr. Larosiere. Do folks that kill other 
people, do they apply for permits when getting a gun?
    Mr. Larosiere. Certainly not in my experience.
    Mr. Perry. Criminals. Do criminals go out to their local 
gun shop, and fill out the paperwork, and pray to the good Lord 
that they are not found out to be criminals when they want to 
purchase a gun?
    Mr. Larosiere. I think it would be odd for them to do that, 
so no.
    Mr. Perry. I yield the balance, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. 
Krishnamoorthi for his five minutes. No? All right. Yes, yes. 
OK. Good.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to address 
some issues that have been raised in this hearing. First of 
all, I believe that there have been some claims of the Biden 
ATF and Democrats attacking the Second Amendment, so I just 
wanted to clarify the record a little bit. Mr. Wilcox, I was 
under the impression that it was the ATF under the Trump 
Administration that issued a notice seeking public comment on 
criteria for evaluating stabilizing braces, correct?
    Mr. Wilcox. That is correct.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And that was December 18, 2020. 
However, ATF notice to address the stabilizing brace was 
abruptly abandoned on December 31 following pressure from House 
Republicans. Isn't that right?
    Mr. Wilcox. That is my understanding.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. In fact, 90 of my House Republican 
colleagues pressured ATF into withdrawing its guidance on this 
particular topic. Mr. Wilcox, how long did it take for a mass 
shooting to occur involving an AR-style pistol with a 
stabilizing brace following the rescinding of ATF's notice?
    Mr. Wilcox. Tragically, sir, I think it was mere weeks.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Well, it ended up being only three 
months later. On March 22, 2021, ten people were tragically 
killed at King Soopers grocery store in Boulder, Colorado by a 
gunman who was armed with an AR-style pistol with a stabilizing 
brace. Now Mr. Larosiere, you have a YouTube channel called 
Fudd Busters. Isn't that right?
    Mr. Larosiere. Yes. I see you are a fan.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I actually have a screenshot right 
here. This is your YouTube channel, correct?
    Mr. Larosiere. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. OK. And Fudd Busters is kind of your 
handle for YouTube and social media. Isn't that right?
    Mr. Larosiere. For YouTube, correct.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. OK. And you have a similar account for 
Twitter with Fudd Busters, correct?
    Mr. Larosiere. Yes.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. OK. Very good. Very good. Well, we went 
back and looked at your Twitter history on Fudd Busters--can 
you hold that, please--and this is what we found. Can you see 
this tweet?
    Mr. Larosiere. Yes, I can.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. This is from January 27, 2023, at 7:51 
p.m. where you said something very, very disturbing. What were 
you thinking when you wrote that statement?
    Mr. Larosiere. I was very upset about the very public 
execution of an individual, but I don't think that that is the 
subject of this hearing.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Those are your words, right?
    Mr. Larosiere. Oh yes, they are.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Correct. I find these deeply offensive 
as somebody who believes very much in protecting law 
enforcement, not attacking them. Mr. Wilcox, what is your 
reaction to this particular tweet by Mr. Larosiere?
    Mr. Wilcox. I find the words offensive. I think it is an 
attack on law enforcement. And to the subject of this hearing, 
we need to be supporting agencies like ATF who are doing the 
work on the frontlines, not threatening to abolish or defund 
them.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And certainly not this probably, too?
    Mr. Wilcox. No, sir.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. You know, Mr. Chairman, I just 
respectfully submit that when we talk about law enforcement in 
this way, using such epithets about them, that we are really 
harming public safety, not enhancing it, and, Mr. Larosiere 
this is deeply, deeply disturbing conduct. Thank you so much, 
and I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. The Chair recognizes Mr. Biggs.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am just going to 
submit two articles for the record, one from the Washington 
Times and from ABC News, interestingly, where the gentleman who 
was escorted out earlier, was escorted from the President's--
President Biden's event earlier. Thank you.
    Mr. Fallon. Without objection, so moved.
    Mr. Fallon. The Chair recognizes Mr. Tiffany for his five 
minutes.
    Mr. Tiffany. I haven't been in this hearing room before, 
Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bosco, we are hearing about banks and other 
lending institutions that are not lending to companies that 
make firearms, make munitions, things like that. Are you 
familiar with that?
    Mr. Bosco. I am, yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Tell us how pervasive it is.
    Mr. Bosco. Well, I mean, as a small business owner, when 
you start off a company, obviously somebody like myself, who 
does not come from money, had to go through typical lenders to 
try and find funding for what I was doing, and, you know, you 
need to find a smaller bank essentially. If you use a larger 
bank and you say what you are doing, essentially they will tell 
you no, so there is no other place to go other than smaller 
lending institutions.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, what do you think when you hear that that 
the ability to lend is being suppressed?
    Mr. Bosco. I believe it.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, where is it driven from?
    Mr. Bosco. I mean, it is a politicization. You certainly 
have people in banks that have political opinions, and what 
they do is they use those political opinions to essentially 
stop you from obtaining any money from them.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, there is a real-world example going on, 
right in our state of Wisconsin. At this time, I believe it is 
Bank of America has cutoff a company that is involved in 
producing these types of products, and fortunately, a regional 
bank who really does a good job, it is good for them. They are 
going to pick up that business, but you got one of the big 
banks that are just saying you are now persona non grata. Won't 
you kind of put this under the heading of ESG----
    Mr. Bosco. I would, yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, for sure. I hope I say your name 
correctly, Mr. Larosiere. Do you have any comments in regards 
to that issue?
    Mr. Larosiere. As far as de-banking the firearms industry?
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes.
    Mr. Larosiere. It has been an incredible source of tumult 
for my clients, and especially, when you are talking about 
small businesses, fewer than 15 employees, then having to pay 
exorbitant rates, you know, for things like credit card 
processing. That is why I am glad that measures have been 
taking in states like my own in Florida to kind of put a stop 
to that. But I am also involved in the firearms industry, and I 
can certainly say that most people will have to either find 
some unconventional loans, or self-start and bootstrap, and 
very often resort to credit cards whereas other businesses 
don't have that problem.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you. Mr. Wilcox, if a person lies on 
Form 4473 and is a user of unlawful drugs, you can get between 
5 to 10 years for that. Is that correct? Is that my 
understanding?
    Mr. Wilcox. No, I believe Congress changed the sentence 
last Congress.
    Mr. Tiffany. What is that sentence now?
    Mr. Wilcox. Up to 15.
    Mr. Tiffany. Up to 15 years. Why hasn't Hunter Biden been 
prosecuted for the crime that he committed?
    Mr. Wilcox. I am not aware of the facts of that case, and I 
can't comment on it.
    Mr. Tiffany. OK. Who would we talk to, to see why this case 
is not being prosecuted? I mean, he said very clearly in his 
book that he used drugs, he had gun, a gun, at least a gun.
    Mr. Ivey. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Fallon. State your point of order?
    Mr. Ivey. Totally irrelevant and not germane to this 
proceeding.
    Mr. Fallon. Sir, he has got his five minutes. Go ahead, 
continue.
    Mr. Tiffany. OK. I understand why you do not want Mr. 
Wilcox to answer that question. It is very clear why you don't 
want it because there is a dual system of justice in America. 
That is what is going on right now, and everybody is talking 
about it across America. There are two standards of justice 
that are going on.
    So, I will just close by saying this, Mr. Chairman. You 
know, time and again, we find ourselves addressing these 
cynical plays by the Biden Administration. Now they are, you 
know, going after the gun-owning people of America, by the way, 
of legal gun-owning people across America, and it is always 
using administrative law to do it. This is nothing but a 
cynical ploy that is going on by the Biden Administration, 
trying to score points with those people that are in their 
corner of the American public.
    All you got to do is look at what happened with the student 
loan thing. It was an election year gambit that went on. They 
were trying to motivate young people to get out and vote, and 
how could they do that best? By playing the Supreme Court and 
Republicans off, oh, those are those evil people that are going 
to make you have to pay off your student loan. By the way, I 
have two daughters who have student loans, and they should pay 
it off. They signed the contract. Our family signed the 
contract. They should do it. And yet this is this kind of 
cynical stuff that goes on with the Biden Administration all 
the time, and this is no different. This is no different at 
all.
    It is time that my colleagues on the left in the Biden 
Administration stop trying to unconstitutionally make law-
abiding citizens into criminals. Stop using administrative law 
the way you are using it. I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mrs. McBath for 
five minutes.
    Mrs. McBath. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
so much to our witnesses today. I have read your testimoneys. I 
am grateful that the Majority has provided us this opportunity 
to highlight the great and very successful work that the ATF is 
doing to combat gun violence and also keep our community safe.
    As most people in this room know, the ATF finally has a 
permanent director after almost 10 years without a leader at 
the helm of one of the most consequential agencies in the 
Federal Government, an agency tasked with keeping guns out of 
the hands of those who are in danger to themselves or their 
communities, an agency that partners day in and day out with 
our local and our state law enforcement agencies, and an agency 
that simply just helps stop crime before it happens.
    I know that there has been an effort in this room to 
criticize the ATF and the important work that they are doing. 
However, I think something that we can all agree upon is that 
we all want to save American lives, we all want to prevent 
violent crime, and we all want to keep our community safe, and 
that is exactly the type of work that the ATF does day in and 
day out.
    And it is not just this side of the aisle that recognizes 
the importance of a supported ATF. When Director Dettelbach was 
nominated, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, 
which represents over 26,000 law enforcement professionals, 
issued a letter of support, as did the International 
Association of Chiefs of Police, the world's largest 
organization for police leaders, and the Women in Federal Law 
Enforcement Foundation. The public, law enforcement groups, and 
survivors, such as myself, know the difference that a supported 
ATF can make in our fight against gun violence.
    My questions are for you, Mr. Wilcox. The ATF recently 
issued a comprehensive report on gun trafficking for the first 
time in 20 years. Can you please speak to the importance of 
regular gun trafficking reports in our fight against gun 
violence, and how lawmakers such as ourselves sitting in this 
room, or some of us sitting in this room, can utilize such 
reports in crafting legislation?
    Mr. Wilcox. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman, and 
your leadership. I think as the director said in the opening, 
information is power, and the second volume of the gun 
trafficking report provides real information about where we 
should be focusing our attention. It taught us that there has 
been a 1,000-percent increase in the recovery of ghost guns in 
the past five years, a 500-percent increase in the recovery of 
machine gun conversion devices, and that guns are moving from 
gun dealers to crime scenes faster than they ever have before.
    These are concrete intervention points where we could focus 
resources to address the proliferation of ghost guns, machine 
gun conversion devices, like auto sears, that slip into a 
handgun and can be printed for quarters on the dollar from 
computer code, and cracking down on the gun-trafficking 
channels. ATF has taken that information and converted it to 
action by going after rogue gun dealers like the one who was 
selling dozens of guns to individuals who are engaged in 
unlicensed unlawful gun sales. cracking down on trafficking 
rings that are moving hundreds of guns from one state to the 
next.
    And so these are really the clues, but it is not the end of 
the story. There is volume 3 and 4 still to come. And the hard-
working, brave men and women at ATF are going to continue to 
accumulate data, produce it, and hopefully lead us to the data-
driven results and solutions we know we need, like the 
Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.
    Mrs. McBath. Well, thank you. Local and state law 
enforcement, they regularly work with ATF in solving crimes and 
preventing them from happening again and again and again. Can 
you please describe the expertise and the resources that the 
ATF provides to our local and state police departments?
    Mr. Wilcox. There really is no better partner to local and 
state law enforcement than ATF. They provide needed technology 
to assess ballistics, to trace crime guns, identify crime 
trafficking patterns, and help solve investigations. Just 
recently, they helped to bust a fentanyl trafficking ring that 
also involved a gun-trafficking element. So, ATF is out in the 
world. They are out in the community doing the work, providing 
a force multiplier for local law enforcement who is seeking to 
address violent crime, illegal guns, and to keep our community 
safe.
    Mrs. McBath. Well, thank you so very much for that. And 
honestly, I am so grateful that we do have a director at this 
time because right now, we do seem to be making some headway, 
making some commonsense decisions, and keeping Americans safe. 
Thank you so much, and I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Clyde for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Clyde. Thank you, Subcommittee Chairman Fallon and 
Subcommittee Chairman Biggs for allowing me----
    Mr. Fallon. You can just call us ``chairman.'' That is 
fine. You don't have to be specific.
    Mr. Clyde. ``Chairman'' works? But thank you for allowing 
me to participate in this joint hearing. As one of the few 
Federal firearms licensees in Congress and a small business gun 
store owner for over 30 years, I have had a lot of experience 
working with ATF. Our unalienable right to keep and bear arms, 
this fundamental freedom, is certainly under attack by 
President Biden and the ATF with the new framing receiver rule, 
the pistol brace rule, and now the most recent attempt at 
universal background checks through President Biden's executive 
order.
    On January 13, the ATF finalized its pistol brace rule, 
which unlawfully treats firearms as stabilizing braces, as 
short-barreled National Firearms Act restricted weapons, 
effectively turning millions of law-abiding gun owners, 
including many disabled veterans, into criminals in just 120 
days. Unelected anti-gun bureaucrats announced a law to law-
abiding gun owners possessing these pistols with these attached 
braces, that starting on January 31, they have only 120 days to 
register, turn over, dismantle, or destroy their firearms. 
Failure to comply with this unconstitutional measure will 
result in up to 10 years in jail and a $250,000 fine. The ATF's 
abuse of rulemaking authority dangerously violates Americans' 
Second Amendment rights, irresponsibly disregards Congress' 
sole legislative authority, and reveals yet another uninformed 
flip-flop decision by anti-gun bureaucrats at the ATF.
    Back in 2012, pistol braces were determined legal to use 
and shoulder. The decision was reversed three years later in 
2015, claiming stabilizing braces were illegal to shoulder 
turning pistol brace firearms into unregistered short-barreled 
rifles. This changed again in 2017, when stabilizing braces 
were once more determined to be legal to shoulder. And now here 
we are in 2023 as the ATF is, yet again, vilifying pistol 
braces and turning their owners into criminals, and, in the 
process, destroying the hard work of entrepreneurs and small 
business owners like Mr. Bosco.
    To help with this injustice, this week, I introduced the 
joint resolution of disapproval, H.J. Res. 44, under the 
congressional Review Act, with Congressman Richard Hudson, as 
well as the support of over 180 of my House Republican 
colleagues as original co-sponsors, to repeal the tyranny of 
ATF misguided and unconstitutional pistol brace rule. This ATF 
rule and every other form of gun control pushed by the Biden 
Administration is nothing more than a thinly veiled assault on 
our Second Amendment Rights. It is yet another attempt to 
advocate backdoor gun control in order to disarm our Nation and 
dismantle Americans' Second Amendment freedoms. The intended 
end result would be an unarmed America, which would make for a 
less safe and less free America.
    Mrs. Swearer, will the ATF's pistol brace rule reduce crime 
and save lives, do you think?
    Ms. Swearer. Almost certainly not. In fact, it is mostly 
liable to create felons where there were not felons before 
instead of attacking violent crime as it currently exists.
    Mr. Clyde. And by the tens of thousands of them?
    Ms. Swearer. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Clyde. So, if the intent is not to reduce crime and 
save lives, what do you believe is the purpose of ATF's pistol 
brace rule?
    Ms. Swearer. I firmly believe that the intended purpose is 
simply to try to do something, if you will, about gun violence 
in the typical way of, well, look, we have done something. We 
have regulated more. The problem is the regulation is not 
directed at the violent criminals themselves. It is directed at 
millions of peaceable citizens who are not and never were the 
problem. Meanwhile, to the extent that it is regulating these 
devices for would-be-violent criminals, congratulations. They 
have a plethora of other ways of either obtaining that same 
firearm because if they are not prohibited and just bent on 
violence, they can pay the $200 tax and they still have the 
same firearm. So, we have not even cut down that option for 
them, or they can turn around, as most of them do, and break 
other laws, obtain firearms off the street with a pistol brace 
or no pistol brace, NFA or not NFA. And, as most of them do, 
they are already not using these firearms. They are using non-
NFA firearms.
    Mr. Clyde. Right.
    Ms. Swearer. It just is not directed remotely at any part 
of the problem.
    Mr. Clyde. Mr. Bosco, in 2012 and 2017, the ATF found 
pistol braces were not subject to the National Firearms Act 
controls. Has the basic design of stabilizing brace has changed 
over the last six to 10 years?
    Mr. Bosco. The brace has been the same thing that I have 
done in 2012. It is a piece of rubber that attaches to the back 
of the firearm with two flaps and a strap, and it allows you to 
fire the weapon more safely. It does nothing to change the 
lethality of the firearm.
    Mr. Clyde. OK. So, why do you think ATF flip-flopped and 
then flip-flopped again on the decision process concerning the 
legality of the pistol brace accessory?
    Mr. Bosco. Because the political winds at the ATF changed. 
That is simply it. They needed to do something, anything, and 
the one thing that I think a lot of people wanted to talk about 
was the brace issue. And they talked about it, and the process 
through which they are doing it is this promulgation of 
regulation. And now after, I don't know how much time, I mean, 
another 2 weeks, 3 weeks, 2 months, 10 to 40 million Americans 
will be criminals.
    Mr. Fallon. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Clyde. Thank you.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Ms. Holmes 
Norton.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This question is for 
Mr. Wilcox. Mr. Wilcox, we are still early in the 118th 
Congress, and we have already had numerous hearings on public 
health emergencies, specifically fentanyl. However, it is 
shocking that the first hearing on firearms held by this 
Congress does not address the fact that guns are the No. 1 
cause of death for children in the United States. Now, that has 
been alluded to before in this hearing, but it should be noted 
that in 2020, for the first time, guns surpassed auto accidents 
as the leading cause of death in children. Six thousand 
children were killed or injured by firearms just last year in 
2022. Our Republican colleagues don't focus on gun deaths. 
Instead, they are worried that the ATF is taking steps to 
better regulate short-barreled rifles, which they have had the 
authority to do for nearly a century.
    But let's get back to public health. Mr. Wilcox, how did 
guns get to be the leading cause of death for children in the 
United States?
    Mr. Wilcox. Thank you for the question. I think it is 
because the other leading causes--automobiles, cancer--well, 
those are instances where we have innovated for safety. We have 
innovated for safety with laws, with regulations, with concrete 
industry action. You know, the way we drive cars today is very 
different than how we drove it 10, 15, 20, 30 years ago, and we 
have seen children's deaths from automobiles decrease 
dramatically as children's death from firearms continue a slow, 
but steady increase. And so, we need that same kind of 
attention to law, regulatory change, and industry effort if we 
are going to keep our kids safe.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Wilcox. I do want to note for 
the record that North Dakota has a higher per capita murder 
rate than California, and there is a difference with cars 
because they are registered. I want that noted for the record. 
Mr. Wilcox, during the pandemic, we saw a surge in gun sales 
across the country. Mr. Wilcox, what effect did the surge on 
sales have in gun trafficking?
    Mr. Wilcox. So, the surge in gun sales also came with an 
exacerbation of existing loopholes and a dramatic spike in the 
speed of gun trafficking. In 2021, we saw guns move faster from 
dealer to crime scene than we really have at any time before in 
recent time. You know, 54 percent of the crime guns that were 
recovered in 2021 were likely trafficked because they had been 
purchased within three years, and, shockingly, 32 percent of 
the crime guns recovered in 2021 were purchased just a year 
before, so a third of the crime guns were purchased a year 
before. I think those are very troubling statistics, but there 
are also opportunities for intervention so that we can stop the 
flow of the iron pipeline. We can stop illegal gun trafficking.
    Ms. Norton. Recently, the President promulgated an 
executive order on gun violence that has been very much noted 
in the news, and ATF has been taking steps to pursue its 
mission to stem gun violence. So, Mr. Wilcox, how will these 
actions help stem the public health risks posed by guns to 
Americans across the country?
    Mr. Wilcox. So, I think the President's most recent 
executive order is a homerun for public safety. If I can touch 
on just one piece, it is to take a part of the Bipartisan Safer 
Communities Act and direct the Attorney General to issue a 
clarifying regulation that will get as close to universal 
background checks as possible. And through that, we will take a 
major bite out of the marketplaces that gun traffickers go to 
acquire guns, the gun show loophole, the online sales loophole. 
That is what the President is getting at, and that has the 
potential to have a big win for public safety, to keep our kids 
safe and keep our communities safe.
    Ms. Norton. Well, thank you very much. I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mrs. Luna for 
five minutes.
    Mrs. Luna. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for 
being here today. I just wanted to start out by saying that, 
probably not just on this Committee, but in the entire House of 
Representatives, I am the only Member of Congress that has both 
survived an armed robbery, a home invasion, a gang shooting on 
my school campus. And I remember being a young girl and being 
brought to a cousin's funeral that had been murdered. She was 
shot. So, when I hear people trying to turn this, which is a 
hearing on a stabilizing brace, into issues of gun violence, 
and raising the topics and concerns of children and violence 
against children, I would like to remind people that in 
Washington--Chairman, if I could submit these to the record--in 
Washington----
    Mr. Fallon. So, moved.
    Mrs. Luna. Thank you. We are allowing for late-term 
abortion and these babies were born alive, and my colleagues 
are not acknowledging that. So, I just want to put that in 
perspective that I don't believe that this is about protecting 
children. I believe that this is a political argument from 
people that have not gone through experiences and are seeking 
to use this platform to write legislation that is 
unconstitutional. So, my following questions are for Ms. 
Swearer. Do you believe that firearms and women that have 
firearms is apparently anti-woman?
    Ms. Swearer. Yes. So, this has been something that has been 
raised several times in this hearing, this idea that guns don't 
protect women. Of course, they do, and I personally take 
offense at having my natural right to self-defense mansplained 
to me by Members of this body who come to work every day 
protected by armed men with guns, very much believing that 
those guns are keeping them safe. And I tend to agree with them 
that those guns are, in fact, a large component in keeping them 
safe. I would also point to the Defensive Gun Use Data base 
that we have run at Heritage. So many of those instances 
involve women, women who otherwise would have been at a 
physical strength and disadvantage who were able to use, 
essentially, self-defense at a distance to take on and defend 
their rights in ways they otherwise would not have been able 
to.
    Mrs. Luna. Thank you. My next question is for Mr. Bosco. 
Mr. Bosco, as I am sure you may know, one of the leading cause 
of death in this country is obesity. Do you believe that we 
should place a ban on spoons?
    Mr. Bosco. I don't think spoons should be regulated, but if 
they are regulated, it should be Congress that does it and not 
the FDA.
    Mrs. Luna. Do you believe that somehow controlling 
someone's spoon access is going to prevent them from becoming 
obese?
    Mr. Bosco. I don't believe it will make any difference, no.
    Mrs. Luna. Well, I am so glad you have clarified because 
clearly in this instance, and oh, actually, I would like to 
follow up with one more question. For veterans that are 
disabled, would this law turn those veterans who have served 
their country, regardless of party affiliation, into criminals?
    Mr. Bosco. So, this law will place burdens on every 
American who owns them, and it won't allow people to own this 
product without following through the process. So, will 
veterans not be able to use the product? They will have to 
register their firearms and go through a burdensome process----
    Mrs. Luna. If a veteran is unaware that this has passed, 
would that turn that veteran into a criminal?
    Mr. Bosco. Well, anyone who does not read where you can 
find all the regulations is not going to know about it, and 
they will be subject to a 10-year felony offense. And I don't 
know how many people read promulgation of regulation on their 
spare time. I know that a lot of us do here. But I can 
certainly tell you that there are a lot of gun owners in the 
United States that don't know anything about this.
    Mrs. Luna. What the ATF has done with this Administration, 
with the weaponization of this Agency, to take something that 
is basically done to aid people that are disabled, and then 
make this about protecting children from a majority of Members 
who have never experienced gun violence and/or seen the direct 
outcome of what happens when bad people obtain guns, of which 
you will never be able to regulate, is not only an abusive, I 
think, authority, but it is unconstitutional. I thank you for 
being here today, and, Chairman, I yield my time.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Swalwell 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Swalwell. I want to thank the activists who have stayed 
in this fight for reasonable gun safety, and thank you for 
showing up today. I am also sorry that you were targeted 
earlier. You know, the same people that want to have you 
arrested and put in jail want to go to the D.C. jail this week 
to take the January 6 terrorists out, if you can believe that 
or not. We probably should not be surprised that this hearing 
has deviated to include Hunter Biden's laptop. And for such a 
serious issue like this, I would encourage my colleagues to go 
through Hunter Biden's laptop on their own time. Whatever they 
want to see in there, they should do that on their own time and 
not when we have such an important topic like gun safety.
    I also have to just say that as the son of a police officer 
and a brother to two police officers, I am a little surprised, 
especially growing up in a Republican family, that my 
colleagues have abandoned the position I have long known them 
to hold, which is to defend and protect the police, and 
instead, they have brought here a witness who said, ``Fuck the 
cops,'' and they have among their ranks a colleague who sells 
campaign merchandise that says, ``Defund the FBI.''
    And the title of this is ``ATF's Assault on the Second 
Amendment.'' This is a law enforcement agency charged with 
protecting the community, and so what we are really coming to 
find is that this gang is not interested in backing the blue. 
They are entirely interested in backing the coup. They don't 
stand up for the officers who protected us at the Capitol that 
day, and certainly by bringing witnesses here today that say, 
``fuck the cops,'' we know that that is exactly where they 
stand. Otherwise, they would not have invited somebody like 
that.
    But what is really disturbing is that this hearing has gone 
way outside the mainstream because most Americans believe that 
you should be able to own a firearm to protect yourself, that 
you should be able to own a firearm to take your kids hunting, 
and that you should be able to own a firearm to go to a range 
and shoot for sport. Most Americans agree with that. An 
organization called 97Percent, which only focuses on gun 
owners, has found that 78 percent of gun-owning Republicans 
want laws that restrict the ownership of a firearm if you have 
been committed of a violent crime. 70 percent of gun owners 
also want, according to 97Percent, red flag laws.
    Most of us live in the great big center where we think that 
we can protect our kids and protect the Second Amendment. What 
we are seeing here today is just chaos. They don't want 
solutions. They want chaos. They want to attack the people who 
are charged with protecting our community. And also, I always 
thought Republicans were, you know, the self-proclaimed 
protector of free markets, but here, they seem to have a 
problem that a free-market society that has banks would say we 
don't want to bank with a certain individual. They had no 
problem when in a free market, a baker said, I don't want to 
make a cake for a gay couple, never stood up for that guy, but 
they are here to stand up for someone where a bank said we 
don't want to do business with this particular client.
    I do want to ask you, Mr. Wilcox, if you wanted to respond 
to Mr. Jordan when he said and suggested that the ATF does not 
meet with gun manufacturers and sellers. Do you have a response 
to that?
    Mr. Wilcox. I think the ATF has an open-door policy, both 
to the regulated industry and interested members of the 
community, and I really do commend Director Dettelbach and the 
ATF for taking that approach to really take in all views.
    Mr. Swalwell. And I agree they should do that. They should 
have open dialog with manufacturers and sellers. Also, my 
colleagues said earlier and suggested that Democrats do not 
have any lived experiences with firearms, and I know one person 
who ran for Congress because of a tragic lived experience with 
firearms. And if it is OK, I would yield my remaining time to 
Mrs. McBath.
    Mrs. McBath. Thank you so much. I really appreciate you 
yielding to me from my colleague from California. And I would 
just like to say to my Republican colleague, you know, to make 
a blanket accusation that others in this room have no relative 
experience with violence or gun violence other than you is 
definitely very premature. Since my son was murdered in 2012, I 
have spent every day, every hour, as many individuals in this 
room have, many of our experts, many of our survivors, many of 
the people that are sitting in this room working on this issue, 
probably have far more experience and relative knowledge about 
what it is going to take to change the culture of gun violence 
in this country, and we actively work on it every single day. 
So, I really take offense to the language and to what you said, 
and I would hope that you would just think more candidly about 
the remarks that you make going forward. Because as a survivor, 
I am very, very--I will just say I am very disgusted by that 
remark. Thank you.
    Mr. Swalwell. I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. The Chair recognizes Mr. Edwards.
    Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chair. To all of you, thanks 
for being with us this afternoon. Mr. Wilcox, we probably have 
gone through this, but I just need to clarify a couple of 
points to help me make a point. And this is irregardless of the 
fact that many of my colleagues have and a couple of the 
witnesses have already made the point that the laws of this 
land should be made by Congress, not by any Federal agency. So, 
I will skip through that. Did you testify that a pistol brace 
will not change the capacity of a firearm?
    Mr. Wilcox. I don't believe I was asked that question.
    Mr. Edwards. All right. Will a pistol brace change the 
capacity of a firearm?
    Mr. Wilcox. What do you mean by ``capacity,'' sir?
    Mr. Edwards. The number of rounds.
    Mr. Wilcox. No, sir.
    Mr. Edwards. Will a pistol brace change the firing speed of 
a firearm?
    Mr. Wilcox. No, sir.
    Mr. Edwards. Well, let me back up there just a minute. And 
so what I hear you saying is a pistol brace will not change the 
basic mechanisms of a firearm that makes it more dangerous.
    Mr. Wilcox. No, sir. I don't think that is precisely 
correct.
    Mr. Edwards. OK. Mr. Bosco, are you familiar with a Form 
4473?
    Mr. Bosco. I am.
    Mr. Edwards. All right. Are you an FFL dealer?
    Mr. Bosco. I am.
    Mr. Edwards. Yes, so am I. It is getting to be a smaller, 
smaller club.
    Mr. Bosco. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Edwards. I am glad we are here. On a Form 4473, there 
are basically two types of firearms referenced. Will you tell 
us what they are?
    Mr. Bosco. One is ``other.'' Well, there is pistol, rifle, 
and there is ``other,'' or ``receivers'' is what we call them.
    Mr. Edwards. So yes, dependent on the form, line gun, 
handgun--which of those is typically more regulated by the 
states?
    Mr. Bosco. Pistol.
    Mr. Edwards. And so we saw a diagram that Mr. Fry had here 
a while ago of a long gun and then of a pistol that had been 
made into a long gun. Can you help me think through the 
rationale of why anyone would want to make a gun or would want 
to prevent us from making a gun that look like and behave like 
one that was less regulated? Is there some logic there that you 
can see that I cannot?
    Mr. Bosco. I have not seen much logic, with all due respect 
to everybody here. And I think the problem is, is that a lot of 
people really are not informed about what is and is not a 
pistol and what is and is not a rifle, and, frankly, it is very 
nuanced. So, in their defense, it is hard to really understand 
all of this. So, what I would say is that the product is a 
safety device. My colleague was talking about innovation for 
safety when it comes to vehicles, and that is what has helped 
vehicles be safer. Well, this is an innovation for safety for 
firearms. All it does is help you fire a large pistol more 
safely. It does nothing to change the lethality of the firearm.
    Since Mr. Cicilline has well said, showed the picture, it 
is a terrible thing that happened, but whether my product is on 
there or not changes nothing, and it hasn't changed anything 
for 10 years. All of a sudden, now we are going to say that a 
pistol is a short-barreled rifle. It is not the way things are 
done. If they want to make that change, they can make that 
change through Congress. ATF should not be able to make and say 
that a firearm, all of a sudden, is something else. It is not 
the way it should work.
    Mr. Edwards. Thank you. And so what I heard here is that a 
pistol brace does not change the firing capacity of a short 
gun, and a pistol brace makes a pistol, a short gun, into a 
long gun, which is even less regulated, and that seems to defy 
logic. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, I would like to yield 
the rest of my time to Mrs. Luna.
    Mrs. Luna. I just want to correct for the record, as words 
matter, especially here in Washington, that I did not say I was 
the only person, but I am definitely the only person that has 
those listed experiences. So, to take my words out of context, 
I am not in the business of listening to people who are 
offended. I am in the business into finding the facts, and the 
facts are that I have one job, and that is to uphold and defend 
the Constitution, and for people to try to take that and then 
use this position, clearly that, again, I will reiterate that 
we are focusing on a brace, not gun violence and the rest of 
these topics and rabbit trails that they are going down. The 
point is that bad people will always obtain guns, and 
regulating the rights of law-abiding citizens to do other than 
that is not going to do anything but enable the bad guys.
    Mr. Fallon. The Chair recognizes Representative Frost.
    Mr. Frost. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. You know, I am 
glad to hear that my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle--and I have heard it said time and time again--are very 
concerned about the overreach of government, and I want to give 
a suggestion. We should look at a state where government is 
very much overreaching, my state of Florida, where our 
Governor, Ron DeSantis, is abusing the power of the state to 
target people who disagree with him. And so, if folks want to 
talk about government overreach, I suggest going to where it is 
the worse in fascist Governor DeSantis.
    I will also say this. We heard people talking about, you 
know, folks talking about disabled veterans, which is an 
incredibly important issue to me as my father and a lot of 
folks in my families are veterans, I come from military family. 
But I just want to state for the record, no disabled veteran 
groups submitted public comment about the ATF rule as an issue, 
and when we reached out to these groups, they advised that they 
do not intend on taking that position. Mr. Wilcox, do you want 
to speculate why they are not wanting to comment on this?
    Mr. Wilcox. I am reticent to speak for another 
organization, but I would have to guess that it is because they 
do not see it as a disabled veterans' issue.
    Mr. Frost. OK. Thank you. Mr. Wilcox, how many people did 
we lose last year due to gun violence?
    Mr. Wilcox. There was 48,830 people killed by guns in this 
country last year.
    Mr. Frost. I know we lose 100 lives a day due to gun 
violence. Hundreds are shot a day, and thousands survived 
shootings. Is that correct, Mr. Wilcox?
    Mr. Wilcox. That is right, and my numbers actually were for 
2021, not last year.
    Mr. Frost. For 2021. Over time, is this problem getting 
worse or is it getting better?
    Mr. Wilcox. Sadly and tragically, it is getting worse. You 
know, the rate of gun death has increased 39 percent from 2012 
to 2021.
    Mr. Frost. Does the premise of this hearing get us any 
closer to solving gun violence?
    Mr. Wilcox. I think at times we have talked about the value 
of ATF and common-sense gun laws, but I think the premise 
itself does not get us, of the hearing, much closer to the 
solutions that we need to this gun violence epidemic.
    Mr. Frost. I just heard one of my colleagues bring up the 
fact that this hearing is about a brace and it is not about gun 
violence or victims or anything like that, and I think it goes 
to show just how much people don't understand what it means to 
take a step back and look at an issue holistically, and that is 
why this is about everything. It is about victims. It is about 
the brace. It is about the families. It is about the fact that 
if you have a child in this country, and God forbid they die 
before the age of 18, the most likely reason is because they 
were shot to death, in this country in 2023.
    You know, I plan on acknowledging three people, both of 
them are not in this room anymore, folks who I have worked with 
and that I know, Manny and Patricia Oliver, who lost their son, 
Joaquin Oliver, in the Parkland shooting. To lose a child to 
gun violence, to see the photos of your child sitting in a pool 
of blood, I can't imagine that. You know, Manny and Patricia 
have dedicated their lives to fighting for world where true 
justice can be achieved because unfortunately, there is no 
justice for the dead, and true justice is ensuring that this 
never happens again.
    I fight alongside Manny and Patricia Oliver. I believe that 
they are American heroes, and what they always say is they 
don't want their son, Joaquin, to be remembered as a victim. 
They want him to be remembered as an activist. And today, 
Republicans on this Committee chose to sit in front of those 
parents, and the survivors, and organizers, and advocates that 
are in the audience right now, people who are reliving their 
trauma listening through this, people impacted by gun violence 
across the Nation, and show that their priority is gun lobby 
money, manufacturers who profit off death, and creating fake 
narratives for political gain.
    Again, the leading cause of death for kids in America is 
guns, and today's hearing is about distracting the people from 
the truth. They want you to believe that the greater threat is 
the ATF and not the facts that are in front of us. So, we heard 
one of my colleagues bring up facts. Let's us look at the 
facts, and I just said them: a hundred people a day. And I know 
it is easy to say a number and forget that behind every number 
there is a human. There is a Joaquin Oliver. Enough is enough. 
Not one more.
    And to all the organizers, advocates, survivors, and 
families here today, I am so sorry that you have had to sit 
through this hearing. I am so sorry that you had to see what 
happened outside to Manny and Patricia, who are just fighting 
for a world where no other parents have to go through what they 
went through. And I, for one, believe this has nothing to do 
with policy and everything to do with politics, and I won't be 
listening to another second of it, and I wouldn't blame you all 
if you made the same decision. I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. The Chair recognizes Representative Higgins.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 
introduce for the record a copy of a bill, H.R. 1678, titled, 
Protecting Legal Firearms Ownership Act of 2023. This bill was 
given to staff prior to committee, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Fallon. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, evil is 
not born in the mechanisms of man, it is born in the heart of 
man. A lot of passionate discussion here today. Let us call it 
that. There is no such thing as gun violence, ladies and 
gentlemen. It is only human violence. It is intellectually 
unsound to assign an act of violence to a mechanism of man. So, 
we are an assemblage of people, and sometimes it is quite 
inconvenient to my colleagues that lean left that we live in a 
representative republic, and we are a constitutionalist Nation. 
So, the Constitution doesn't say a lot of things we wish it 
would, does say something that others don't like, but it most 
certainly grants every free American the right to keep and bear 
arms, says that right shall not be infringed.
    We have a balance of power, Mr. Chairman, as the founders 
intended, between the executive branch, the legislative branch, 
and the judicial branch, and the executive branch is intended 
to have broad and sweeping authorities. When you have an 
executive branch that abuses that authority, you don't change 
the authority, you change the executive. That is what elections 
are for, and that is what we will do.
    So, in the meantime, we are responding to ATF oppression of 
our Second Amendment rights very calmly and judiciously because 
we have that right as American citizens to uphold our right to 
keep and bear arms. That is what this legislation does. The 
Biden Administration, with the stroke of a pen through ATF 
rule, is forcing Americans into felony possession of illegal 
firearms, with the stroke of that pen. So, this legislation 
maintains the legal possession and ownership of a firearm or 
firearm attachment according to the rule regime that existed 
when it was legally owned and possessed. Pretty simple response 
to the oppression we are seeing out of the Federal Government.
    Ms. Swearer, thank you for being here. Do you recognize 
that the founders intended to give broad authority to the 
executive branch?
    Ms. Swearer. No, the authority of the executive branch, 
just as for all branches of government, is fairly limited, and 
certainly, the executive branch is not tasked with such broad 
authority to create or pass or legislate laws into existence 
just to enforce those.
    Mr. Higgins. OK. Solid answer. We can debate about that 
when we have more time. I would suggest that the language of 
the Constitution does indeed intend--that is what is called 
executive authority. There are no votes. There is no 
legislation passed. There is no judicial procedure. It is 
executive authority. So, when that executive authority is 
abused and infringes upon our constitutional rights, do we not 
as Americans--you are a constitutionalist, good lady, I am 
sure--do we not as Americans have the right to respond and 
stand for our rights?
    Ms. Swearer. Well, certainly the congressional branch has 
the opportunity to respond with both other branches for checks 
and balances----
    Mr. Higgins. We can write legislation, but individual 
Americans have that right to stand, correct?
    Ms. Swearer. Yes. We certainly have the right to----
    Mr. Higgins. So, what I am getting at with this is that 
Americans were left out of this loop. They purchased a weapon 
legally. They went to their gun dealer, they gave their 
information, they had their background check, they purchased 
their weapon, they brought it home, they have committed no 
crime, and yet they have been criminalized by the Biden ATF. 
And my colleagues across the aisle can deny that if they want 
to, but what I just stated is fact.
    Mr. Chairman, I thank you for allowing me to participate in 
today's joint committee hearing, and I yield.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Ms. Dean.
    Ms. Dean. Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 
the recognition, and I am glad to be here in this august room. 
I just think that the title of this Subcommittee hearing is 
really way off base. Instead of, ``ATF's Assault on the Second 
Amendment: When is Enough Enough,'' I think this should be 
called, ``Defund and Dissolve the ATF.'' And I would put in a 
subtitle of ``when is enough gun violence and slaughter enough 
in this country for us to do something about it.''
    I am a bit perplexed by the posture of this hearing as I 
have been observing it. You know, for the better part of two 
years, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made 
it a point to highlight the elevated risk rates of violent 
crime in this country, which we have suffered since 2020. They 
are not wrong to raise that issue. Analysis by the Brennan 
Center shows that the murder rate increased by roughly 30 
percent, and assaults increased by 10 percent. Seventy-five 
percent of murders in 2020 were committed with a firearm. In 
the following year, 2021, nearly 49,000 Americans were killed 
by gun violence.
    Let us put that into perspective. Over the course of 20 
years of war in both Afghanistan and Iraq, sadly, 7,000 U.S. 
service members were killed. In just one year, we lost seven 
times that number of American civilians to gun violence. It is 
the ATF's job to help us address this uniquely American 
disaster. ATF is the Federal law enforcement agency tasked with 
ensuring gun sellers and manufacturers, that they are following 
the law, and it is the agency tasked with investigating and 
preventing firearms trafficking, and it is the Agency's 
responsibility for tracing firearms found at crime scenes. The 
ATF's job essentially is saving lives, saving lives from gun 
violence, and yet some of my Republican colleagues have 
introduced legislation to abolish or defund, doing both, to 
this critical agency. I am dumbfounded. No one who is serious 
about stemming the scourge of violent crime would make such an 
appeal.
    Mr. Wilcox, if you would, let's take a look at a couple 
things. We had the ATF in front of a caucus, and the director 
of the ATF told us that they are struggling because they are 
severely underfunded and, therefore, cannot efficiently do 
their job to protect American lives. Could you speak to that 
part of ATF's burden?
    Mr. Wilcox. ATF has been underfunded for years, and I 
think, thankfully, this Congress finally changed that last 
appropriation cycle where they were appropriated $1.7 billion, 
which was a 14 percent increase, and included a $75 million 
appropriation to build a new crime gun tracing facility out in 
Kansas, an event that the director was at, along with Senate 
Republican, Senator Moran, showing the bipartisan nature of 
funding ATF when there is real desire to fight crime and 
prevent gun violence.
    Ms. Dean. Yes, and I hope we don't undo that. Last year, 
ATF took action to reduce the prevalence of ghost guns, 
particularly difficult in my Southeastern region of 
Pennsylvania, guns that lack a serial number and cannot be 
traced by law enforcement. Why are ghost guns a particular 
threat to our public safety?
    Mr. Wilcox. Look, ghost gun parts and the companies that 
sell them was a kind of money-making endeavor to get around the 
gun safety laws and create a product that was untraceable, 
perfectly designed for gun traffickers or those who wish to 
avoid a background check or detection. It makes law 
enforcement's job incredibly difficult because when a ghost gun 
is recovered at a crime scene, you can't tell who made it, who 
sold it, who first purchased it, and so the trail can run dry 
in an investigation right off the bat. And you can't actually 
identify the gun trafficking channels that are funneling guns 
into our cities.
    Ms. Dean. I thank you for that. Again, this was about ATF's 
assault on the Second Amendment. I wonder if any of the 
panelists, do you represent the ATF? Anybody here on behalf of 
the ATF?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Dean. I find it strange that we would have such a 
hearing about ATF's alleged assault on the Second Amendment 
without bothering to ask.
    Mr. Biggs. Will the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Dean. No, I won't. Thank you. Without bothering to ask 
ATF. With that, I yield the remainder of my time.
    Mr. Fallon. To Mr. Biggs? No. OK. The Chair recognizes Mr. 
Roy.
    Mr. Roy. I thank my colleague from Texas, and I would 
simply note, and I just came from another hearing--I know we 
got votes coming on the floor--the extraordinary concern that 
we have with bureaucrats making law, right? I mean, that is at 
the crux of this. We talked about guns. We could talk about 
putting bad guys in jail. I will do that in a minute. But at 
the crux of this is a bureaucrat making a unilateral decision 
to try to turn millions of Americans into felons, to advance a 
radical leftist agenda, which is clearly what is at play. And I 
am wondering, Ms. Swearer, if you could comment to the extent 
you already haven't, but just to reiterate the extent to which 
the unilateral action by bureaucrats and an agency at ATF to do 
what Congress has not done, how that is clearly in violation of 
our separation of powers principles at play.
    Ms. Swearer. So our Constitution, as you mentioned, is set 
up with separated powers where you have the executive branch, 
whose job is to enforce the law, and you have Congress who 
passes laws because Congress is held accountable to the people. 
They are the ones who are elected. No official at the ATF is, 
or any other agency is elected and held accountable through the 
democratic process.
    Mr. Roy. And you believe the ATF has abused its rulemaking 
authority here?
    Ms. Swearer. Yes, and it has done so in a way that 
infringes on rights without the American people having a 
process by which to recall those appointees.
    Mr. Roy. And so therefore is it your position that the 
rulemaking in question is, in fact, unconstitutional, unlawful?
    Ms. Swearer. Yes, in several capacities.
    Mr. Roy. And, therefore, though, it being applied to 
American citizens would be unlawful and unconstitutional, and 
therefore, Congress, in its duty in separation of powers, has 
an obligation to check that overrun executive branch. Would the 
gentlelady agree?
    Ms. Swearer. I would, yes.
    Mr. Roy. Well, I appreciate that. And, you know, I would 
note, I heard one of my Democratic colleagues earlier, you 
know, complaining that if we were to go after individuals who 
are violent criminals, that somehow that would put more people 
in prison. Yes, that is, in fact, the goal and the objective of 
that effort, is if people are violating the law, and they are 
violent, and they are a danger to society, then yes, I want 
them to be in prison.
    And as a former Federal prosecutor who prosecuted bad guys 
with guns under Project Safe Neighborhoods, a bipartisan effort 
to try to target criminals who are using guns to carry out 
violent acts and crimes against the American people, yes, I put 
bad guys in jail, and I am glad. I am glad. I hope we can put 
more bad guys in jail, but I don't want to put law-abiding 
citizens in jail who are exercising their Second Amendment 
rights and being able to defend themselves in their 
communities. And yet, that is what we are having an executive 
branch bureaucrat unilaterally decide to do. This should send 
shivers down the spine of all Members--of Article II.
    And look, I don't view this through the lens of it being a 
Democratic Administration. I didn't like it when the Trump 
Administration was doing stuff like this, whether it was the 
bump stock ban. I didn't like that either. But my colleagues on 
other side of the aisle, no doubt, loved that because they 
loved the policy outcome. I thought that was bad. I thought it 
was bad that you go down the road of using executive power with 
respect to building a wall which I support. I do support 
building a wall, but I don't support unending use of emergency 
powers to carry out that kind of executive action. And I 
introduced legislation in the previous administration to 
address that because I think we should actually, on a 
bipartisan basis, try to stand up against the overreach of the 
executive branch. And in fact, it is our duty in Congress to do 
so, irrespective of which party is holding power in the 
executive branch.
    I would only ask one last question to you, Mr. Bosco. When 
you were involved with the creation, development of the 
stabilizing brace, in your wildest dreams, did you think a 
bureaucrat would try to say that you didn't have a Second 
Amendment right to be able to use that? And could you please 
extol and accentuate the benefits of the brace?
    Mr. Bosco. I never, never would have thought that ATF would 
unilaterally make a decision through the bureaucratic process 
to ban my product. Again, and as I said before, that is up to 
you guys. That is not up to a bureaucratic agency. The product 
was designed, again, as a safety product, an orthotic device. 
It changes nothing on the firearm. I have no disagreement with 
ATF's ability to do their job of putting criminals in prison, 
but I don't think anybody on this side should agree to give the 
ATF the authority to unilaterally make a product illegal and 
circumvent the legislative process. That is the only reason I 
am here to talk about with you guys is to say that I don't want 
ATF to do that. If you want to do that, then you do that, but 
don't let an executive agency circumvent your power, your 
authority.
    Mr. Roy. With that, I yield back. Thank you, Chair.
    Mr. Fallon. The Chair recognizes, Mr. Khanna.
    Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I want to use 
my five minutes to speak about what happened in this room 
earlier. Manuel and Patricia Oliver were here. They lost their 
son to gun violence. As a parent, anyone knows that that is the 
most painful thing that can happen to a human being. Now, I am 
not going to say that their disruption shouldn't have been 
handled, but we need to, in this country, have some empathy. We 
need to have some understanding for people who have lost their 
child. I felt the same way, by the way, about the woman who 
testified here and lost two of her children to fentanyl, and I 
said we need to have empathy for someone who is coming to the 
U.S. Congress and borne grief of the most unspeakable kind. And 
so if they curse, or if they are angry, let us understand where 
that anger and pain is coming from.
    Mr. Fallon. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Khanna. This is not about debating policy. We can have 
policy disagreements. This is about human empathy for a family 
who has faced enormous grief, regardless of where you sit.
    Mr. Fallon. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Khanna. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Fallon. How in the world do I know? I didn't know that 
woman. I didn't know. I have empathy for anyone that loses a 
child. I have children. I had no idea who she was. She was 
disrupting the hearing. She was asked to stop, she continued, 
and then she was removed, and then she ended up reentering. I 
don't know her. She was a stranger to me.
    Mr. Khanna. Mr. Chair, I am not questioning your motives, 
actually, and we have been on committees together. We have had 
conversation. One of the things I am hoping you will ask is, my 
understanding is, that the father here was actually arrested. 
And I hope you would echo on a bipartisan basis that he should 
not be arrested for that, and that someone who has lost their 
son, that they should at least--yes, OK, they disrupted the 
hearing but, come on, to arrest him for that. And I think----
    Mr. Fallon. I believe he wasn't arrested for just leaving. 
I don't know what happened in the hallway. He might have been 
resisting. I don't know. I can't speak to that. They weren't 
arrested. We did not request their arrest. We just requested 
their removal. What happened in the hallway, I can't speak to.
    Mr. Khanna. You know, I think what would be helpful, Mr. 
Chairman, and I know Chairman Gallagher did this in protests in 
the China Committee, is if you would consider making a 
statement that given their grief and given what they have been 
through, that they should not be arrested. I mean, we can look 
at the circumstances. I can't imagine they did something that 
was not simply based on human emotion for losing their child.
    And I guess this is my broader point, Mr. Chairman, is 
this. Obviously, we are divided in this room about what the gun 
policy should be. You know, all the Democrats believe we need 
more regulations. The Republicans are saying, no, we don't need 
those regulations. And this is divided, the country is divided, 
and I acknowledge that division. And I am not saying, OK, one 
side has the full monopoly on the truth. We are a divided 
Nation on issue after issue, but there has got to be some 
sense, even as divided as we are, of human civility, of coming 
together as Americans, of recognizing tragedy, of recognizing 
loss, of recognizing pain.
    You know, the way this Committee came together, frankly, 
when the Ranking Member Raskin had issues, and then the 
Committee came together. Can't we come together as people in a 
human way, of tragedy, regardless of our view on guns? That is 
all I am asking from this Committee and from you, Mr. Chair, 
and to acknowledge that people who were here, many of them have 
suffered unbearable loss. And even if you believe, even if you 
are a gun rights, total Second Amendment believer, I know 
people understand the pain, and they probably understand why 
those individuals want stronger gun laws, even if they disagree 
with that. Let's acknowledge that pain. Let's respect that 
pain. Let's respect the anger and anxiety out there, and let's 
do that in a bipartisan way.
    Mr. Biggs. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Fallon. Will the gentleman yield for a second?
    Mr. Khanna. Yes.
    Mr. Biggs. Thanks, Mr. Khanna, and I do appreciate that 
because we have worked together on a lot of things. We have a 
lot of agreement on lot of issues. I will speak for myself. I 
do have empathy for people who have had an unspeakable loss. I 
don't think either one of us knew who either those people were, 
but I will tell you that the gentleman has a history of 
disrupting and being arrested. He was arrested at President 
Biden's event for the same conduct. And I don't know why he was 
arrested ultimately, Mr. Khanna, but, I mean, we can empathize, 
but we also have to understand that does not give license to 
pursue that type of conduct. And I yield back to you, Mr. 
Khanna. Thank you.
    Mr. Fallon. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
recognizes Mr. Langworthy.
    Mr. Langworthy. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 
and I would like to thank all of our witnesses for being here 
today to discuss the crucial need to uphold the Second 
Amendment. And I know our witnesses today and many of my 
colleagues will agree that the right to bear arms is one that 
we must do everything in our power to uphold and defend for the 
American people that elected us. Now, Mr. Larosiere, are you at 
all familiar with the ATF's Form 4473, the Firearms Transaction 
Record?
    Mr. Larosiere. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Langworthy. Can you explain the evolution of this 
document?
    Mr. Larosiere. So, this began in the Gun Control Act, 
right, which is what established Federal firearms licensees to 
begin with. And originally, this document, you would 
effectively just attest that you were non-prohibited. Of 
course, over time, what makes an individual prohibited has 
expanded rapidly, but for right now, I guess your question is, 
what do you include in the document. So, personal identifying 
information, you know, name, address, a proof, a piece of ID, 
and then the firearms that are to be transferred.
    Mr. Langworthy. OK. I believe it started off as a one-page 
document. It is now a seven-page document, and I will say that 
even when I tried to download it, it took a very long time. The 
ATF has made it very hard to acquire the document, and you need 
certain system requirements, and then you have to go through 
several hoops just to download it, and I hear a lot of feedback 
from our constituents on that. Can you speak to the language in 
the document?
    Mr. Larosiere. I can mostly from memory, yes.
    Mr. Langworthy. OK. You know, constituents in my district 
have said that it has become so complex that it is deterring 
people from obtaining and purchasing weapons.
    Mr. Larosiere. So, the instructions are certainly very 
obtuse, right? There are ``yes'' and ``no'' questions on the 
front. They ask for identifying information. They ask for 
identification on the firearm. Then there is a whole additional 
box whether or not you picked it up on the day of purchase. So, 
it can be quite complicated, especially in jurisdictions where 
you have a mandatory waiting period.
    Mr. Langworthy. OK. Do you believe that the agenda at the 
ATF was to make the document a deterrent for law-abiding 
citizens to purchase firearms?
    Mr. Larosiere. I believe that the Gun Control Act was 
pretty facially a deterrent to the interstate transfers in 
arms.
    Mr. Langworthy. OK. Now, I want to move on and talk about 
pistol braces. Mr. Bosco, we have all heard the story of about 
why you created the pistol brace. An innovation like yours is 
what makes this country exceptional, and we applaud it. Why 
would the ATF impose rules against your pistol brace?
    Mr. Bosco. I mean, I can't speak specifically to why or 
what the ATF did. I do know that it is a political issue. So, 
essentially, the political winds at ATF changed after 10 years, 
and they decided that that was something that they were going 
to go after. We do understand that there was a transition team 
involved when Trump finished his presidency, and there was a 
Biden transition team that went into ATF and requested ATF, 
asked them what things should we be working on. And those were 
the points that President Biden pointed out in his first speech 
about firearm regulation in his first weeks in office.
    Mr. Langworthy. Well, I do know that constituents of mine, 
specifically returning veterans, who go to ranges, think it is 
an absolutely great innovation. It is very helpful to them in 
their lives. And last, Ms. Swearer, do you think that the 
recent ATF rules that are allegedly meant to deter crime might 
be leading Americans to obtain weapons in illegal fashion?
    Ms. Swearer. I am sorry. I am not sure I understood that 
question.
    Mr. Langworthy. OK. Some of the various ATF, you know, 
rules and regulations that have been put on the books in the 
last several years, do you believe that they have been intended 
to make our law-abiding gun owners and purchasers appear to be 
acting in an illegal fashion?
    Ms. Swearer. Well, I am not sure that the intent is to make 
it look that way, but in practice, that is what happens, is you 
have law-abiding, peaceable citizens who, especially in the 
case of this pistol brace rule, are sitting there with their 
lawfully obtained firearms. And then, a lot of times even 
without their knowledge because they are not paying attention 
to what goes on in regulatory rulemaking processes, overnight, 
they are now felons whether they recognize it or not. So, in 
practice, regardless of what the intent is, in practice, this 
is not directed at violent criminals. It is directed at and has 
the effect of creating criminals out of peaceable citizens.
    Mr. Langworthy. That is great. In my home state of New 
York, many regulations have been put on the books that have 
drastically deterred legal gun dealers from selling to law-
abiding citizens and preventing them from purchasing arms. Can 
you speak to what ridiculous gun regulations are doing to the 
law-abiding gun owners and legal gun dealers?
    Ms. Swearer. Again, I would say, and I know that time has 
essentially expired.
    Mr. Langworthy. Sure.
    Ms. Swearer. But to summarize, it has that same effect. 
Regardless of what the intent is, in practice, the biggest 
impact that it has is to create criminals where there were not 
criminals previously. It is not directed at violence or violent 
crime.
    Mr. Langworthy. Thank you very much, and I yield back, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. All right. We are going to recess 
and reconvene immediately after votes, so I would say about 10 
minutes after votes. And we are now in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Fallon. The Committee is called to order, and the Chair 
recognizes Mr. Biggs for his time.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses 
for being here today, all of you. And even though I disagree 
with Mr. Wilcox on many things, we have encountered each other 
before in other hearings, so I appreciate you being here as 
well, and I appreciate all of you and your testimony. 
Passionate and thoughtful. If somebody were to just join us, 
just real briefly, Mr. Bosco again, a pistol brace is designed 
to do what?
    Mr. Bosco. A pistol brace is an orthotic device designed to 
help people with limited mobility, including our wounded 
veterans, fire these large, unwieldly pistols in a more safe 
manner.
    Mr. Biggs. And it does not make the gun more lethal?
    Mr. Bosco. It is not a force multiplier, no.
    Mr. Biggs. All right. Well, let us just get to the nub of 
this, and I will ask all of you this question. Mr. Bosco, as 
the designer, inventor of the pistol brace, did the ATF contact 
you for input or collaboration when they went to change the 
rule that you had been relying on for 10 years?
    Mr. Bosco. No, they didn't, but for years, we worked with 
ATF to try to get to the bottom of parameters that we could 
work with to allow us to make a product that fit and suit what 
they thought the needs should be.
    Mr. Biggs. Ms. Swearer, as an expert in this area, were you 
contacted?
    Mr. Swearer. I was not, no.
    Mr. Biggs. Mr. Wilcox, I believe you initiated some of this 
with regard to pistol brace, the rule change. Am I wrong at 
that? I thought that is what you testified to earlier.
    Mr. Wilcox. That is incorrect, sir.
    Mr. Biggs. You submitted a request through the portal. What 
did you request?
    Mr. Wilcox. That was for the ghost gun regulation.
    Mr. Biggs. Oh, excuse me. OK. So, you requested a 
regulation change for ghost guns?
    Mr. Wilcox. Yes. We submitted a petition for rulemaking 
through the formal process.
    Mr. Biggs. OK. But you initiated that. That wasn't like 
they came to you. You initiated that, right?
    Mr. Wilcox. Correct.
    Mr. Biggs. OK. Mr. Larosiere, as a practitioner in this 
area, were you extended the opportunity by ATF, did they call 
you and say let us collaborate on this?
    Mr. Larosiere. No, sir.
    Mr. Biggs. OK. Mr. Larosiere, were any laws changed in 
Congress to allow any of these things, the outlawing of the gun 
brace, the ghost gun law, or the zero-tolerance policy, 
anything that will authorize that zero-tolerance policy by this 
body?
    Mr. Larosiere. Absolutely not, sir.
    Mr. Biggs. Ms. Swearer, is that accurate?
    Ms. Swearer. Sorry. Can you repeat the question?
    Mr. Biggs. Yes. Did this body, this House of 
Representatives, Congress, and the President enact any law 
providing for control of ghost guns, outlawing pistol braces, 
and authorizing ATF to enact a zero-tolerance policy?
    Ms. Swearer. No, it did not.
    Mr. Biggs. So, this is essentially a bureaucratic 
institution that has decided it is going to impose its will, 
and that will is going to be imposed by one or two people at 
the top of ATF, and then they are going to funnel it down to 
all the ATF workers to enforce. I want to tell you that that is 
certainly antithetical to the Constitution of the United States 
and the separation of powers.
    So, my constituents fear that what they legally possess 
today will soon make them a felon through administrative 
rulemaking. One of my constituent tells me that the ATF is 
denying his fourth NFA tax stamp because the ATF says that 
information is incorrect on his application. That is a 
technical issue. The only problem is that the ATF said the 
information was correct most recently in the same e-form that 
was correct in October 2022. Another concerning example: an FFL 
in my district was inspected by the ATF, and the agent took 
personal pictures of the FFL's records without the FFL's 
consent. This happened in my district. One constituent waited 
more than 450 days for ATF to resolve his suppressor 
application.
    I could go on. I have got a whole list of these things that 
have gone on in my district, and this is because ATF is 
basically run amok. It is a bureaucracy, and they are the same 
people that gave us Operation Fearless, if you remember. Those 
of you who may remember Operation Fearless, where they lost 
guns and weapons in Milwaukee, and then they came and testified 
before Congress that that sting operation, you know, it was a 
mistake, yes, and we only did it in Milwaukee. And then reports 
came out they had done it all over the country in many 
locations. This is the same group of people that put together a 
Fast and Furious, Fast and Furious where traces indicated that 
a gun sold by the FFL was actually sold to ATF agents. And I am 
told we should trust the ATF, they are a great Agency, and I am 
telling you they are not.
    And I would just make a couple other quick comments here. I 
did think it was humorous when my friend, the Ranking Member 
Nadler, talked about the radicalist Supreme Court because he 
didn't like their ruling. I thought that was interesting, and I 
thought it is also interesting that he now supports ATF's 
rulings on any of these bans. But guess what? He seemed to be 
OK with them for the previous 10 years and they had controlled 
every arm of government: House, Senate, and the presidency. 
They could have made all these changes through the appropriate 
mechanism, which is to introduce legislation, vote on it, 
debate on it, and if it passes, send it to the President. 
Couldn't get it done, so now what they want to do is resort to 
what they always want to do, and that is the authoritarian 
complex to the left, and I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. In closing, I want to thank our 
panelists once again for their important and insightful 
testimony today, all of you. I apologize for what happened 
earlier, and, you know, listen, we have rules for the way 
Members, witnesses, and the public conduct themselves, and 
regardless of the reasoning. And there is no way anybody up 
here can be a mind-reader. Otherwise, I wouldn't do anything 
different and won't. We have to have decorum. We have to have 
civility. We have to be above. And you know what? That is what 
makes our country special, the fact that we do have a right to 
redress and freedom of speech, but we can't do it in that 
manner. There are some constraints and guidelines.
    So, with that, and without objection, all Members will have 
five legislative days within which to submit materials and to 
submit additional written questions for the witnesses which 
will be forwarded to the witnesses for their response.
    Mr. Fallon. If there is no further business, without 
objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 2:51 p.m., the Subcommittees were 
adjourned.]

                                 [all]