[Senate Hearing 118-644]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-644
HOW BUMP STOCKS AND OTHER
CONVERSION DEVICES ARE AMPLIFYING
THE GUN VIOLENCE EPIDEMIC
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 13, 2024
__________
Serial No. J-118-83
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
www.judiciary.senate.gov
www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-375 WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chair
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina,
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota Ranking Member
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut JOHN CORNYN, Texas
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey TED CRUZ, Texas
ALEX PADILLA, California JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
JON OSSOFF, Georgia TOM COTTON, Arkansas
PETER WELCH, Vermont JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
LAPHONZA BUTLER, California THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
Joseph Zogby, Majority Staff Director
Katherine Nikas, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Durbin Hon. Richard J............................................ 1
WITNESSES
Cleckner, Ryan................................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Ludwig, Jens..................................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 26
O'Donnell, Laura................................................. 10
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Sanchez-Gomez, Esther............................................ 7
Prepared statement........................................... 51
Responses to written questions............................... 67
Smith, Zack...................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 60
HOW BUMP STOCKS AND OTHER
CONVERSION DEVICES ARE AMPLIFYING
THE GUN VIOLENCE EPIDEMIC
----------
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2024
United States Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice at 10 a.m., in Room
226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
Chair of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Durbin [presiding], Whitehouse,
Klobuchar, Blumenthal, Hirono, Booker, Ossoff, and Butler.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Chair Durbin. The Senate Judiciary Committee will come to
order. Let me say at the outset that the Republican Caucus is
having a leadership election as we meet here today and will be
unable for the most part to join us. They've given me
permission to proceed. We always try to wait until there's
bipartisan presence, but today it will be extremely difficult,
and we certainly want to be cooperative with their own
undertaking.
I'll make an opening statement and introduce the witnesses,
and have them each make an opening statement, and then proceed
to questions. This is our 14th gun violence prevention hearing
in the last 4 years. Why? Because every Monday morning, I wake
up to the news of how many people have been shot and killed
over the weekend, not just in Chicago, but around the United
States.
And those who believe that the gun violence is only a
product of Blue States and Blue cities are just plain wrong.
Gun violence is across this Nation in every political
environment that you can imagine, and we should view it as an
American problem, not as any political problem for any
particular party.
I hope to be able to work with the new incoming Chairman of
the Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley. He and I have
literally been friends for 30 years, and that friendship is
going to continue. We proved something that our critics didn't
think was possible. We came up with a sentencing reform bill,
known as the First Step--First Step Act that was passed and
signed into law by President Trump, a bipartisan measure, which
has been viewed as one of the singular reform measures when it
comes to criminal sentencing. I hope we can follow that same
model on a bipartisan basis in the new Congress.
And now to the subject of our hearing. We're examining the
spread of deadly conversion devices that are increasing the gun
lethality of gun violence in America. On October the 1st, 2017,
a gunman opened fire in a crowd of concert goers in Las Vegas,
killing 58, wounding over 400, traumatizing thousands. The
extent of the carnage was made possible by a conversion device
known as a bump stock. In the aftermath, Republicans and
Democrats agreed that we needed to act swiftly to restrict
access to go to bump stocks. I just wanted to check. We have a
video that I want to run, and I wanted--let's if we're ready.
Let's do it now.
[Video is shown.]
Chair Durbin. After the Las Vegas shooting, Republicans and
Democrats agreed that we needed to act swiftly to restrict
access to bump stocks. Then President, Donald Trump, directed
the Department of Justice to issue a rule banning bump stocks,
and he said, quote, ``We will ban all devices that turn legal
weapons into illegal machine guns,'' end of quote. Then
Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, a staunch defender of the
Second Amendment said it, and I quote, ``This proposed rule is
a critical step in our effort to reduce the threat of gun
violence. That's in keeping with the Constitution and laws
passed by Congress.''
But earlier this year, the Supreme Court struck down the
Trump Administration's regulation in a 6-3 decision. The
Republican-appointed justice has concluded, wrongly in my view,
that the Trump Administration could not define bump stocks as
machine guns under the National Firearm Act. Congress should
respond to this court decision by passing legislation making it
clear the National Firearms Act covers bump stocks, but Senate
Republicans have objected to the legislation such as the Bump
Act that would ban the sale and possession of these deadly
devices.
Additionally, we'll hear from witnesses today about
particularly dangerous device known as the Glock switch because
it can easily convert or switch a Glock pistol from a semi-
automatic handgun into an automatic machine gun. Glock
switches, which are banned under Federal law, are cheap, often
costing less than $20, and they've been increasingly common
across our country. ATF agents recovered over 5,400 guns with
conversion devices at crime scenes between 2017 and 2021. A 570
percent increase from the previous 5-year period.
This disturbing trend has not slowed in recent years. Last
month, for example, four people were killed, 17 injured in a
mass shooting outside of nightclub in Birmingham, Alabama, by
an individual using a gun with a Glock switch. A survivor of
the shooting, he said, and I quote, ``It literally looked like
a war scene. It's scary knowing how close I was to dying.''
We cannot allow this to continue. I've said it many times
before, but I don't know how else to say it as I have in the
past. We have the tools to address the gun violence crisis in
America, and this is one of them. We must act. Gun
manufacturers can and should do more to ensure their products
cannot be converted into illegal machine guns. If manufacturers
fail to act, Congress should take up legislation to hold these
companies liable for the foreseeable consequences of their
actions.
And I agree with Senator Grassley that Federal agencies
must increase their efforts to prevent illegal Glock switches
from being smuggled into the United States by foreign
companies. I stand ready to work with my colleagues. When
Senator Graham arrives today, or if he decides that he can't be
with us, I'll insert his opening statement at this point in the
record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Graham appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. At this point, I want to introduce the
witnesses before us. Give them an opportunity to speak after
they're sworn in. Majority witnesses, the first is Jens Ludwig.
I hope I pronounced that correctly. Is that right?
Professor Ludwig. Yes.
Chair Durbin. Close?
Professor Ludwig. Yes.
Chair Durbin. Thank you. The Edwin A. and Betty L. Bergman
Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago,
and director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab. He's also
the co-director of the National Bureau of Economic Research
Working Group on the economics of crime.
We're also joined by Esther Sanchez-Gomez. Ms. Sanchez-
Gomez is the litigation director at Giffords Law Center, where
she also leads the Center's and Make Us Brief Program.
We also welcome Laura O'Donnell. Thank you for being here,
Laura. She's a former officer with the Chicago Police
Department, where she worked for over 24 years, retiring as a
sergeant in 2021. She managed 22 real time crime centers across
Chicago. Received the superintendent's award of merit for your
service. She's also, coincidentally, a survivor of the 2017
mass shooting at Route 91 Harvest Festival in Las Vegas.
The two minority witnesses are; Zach Smith. Thank you for
being here. Senior legal fellow and manager of the Supreme
Court and Appellate Advocacy Program for the Edwin Meese Center
for Legal and Judicial Studies of the Heritage Foundation.
And Ryan Cleckner, former special operations sniper team
leader with the U.S. Army's 1st Ranger Battalion. Also, an
attorney who represents Federal firearm licensees and helps
them to stay compliant with Federal laws and regulations.
I want to thank all our witnesses and ask them to please
rise for the administration of the oath.
[Witnesses are sworn in.]
Chair Durbin. Thank you. Let the record reflect that all of
the witness, thank goodness, answered in the affirmative, so
that we can go forward. And we're going to start with Mr.
Ludwig.
STATEMENT OF JENS LUDWIG, EDWIN A. AND
BETTY L. BERGMAN DISTINGUISHED SERVICE PROFESSOR,
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
Professor Ludwig. Good morning. Thanks so much for having
me. I'm here to talk about a particularly troubling trend that
we're seeing in the data, which reflects a particularly
troubling trend that we're seeing on the streets of America.
In the past several years, we're seeing a rise all across
the country in the so-called ``shooting fatality rate'' defined
as the fraction of gunshot victims that wind up dying as a
result of their wounds. In my hometown Chicago, the fraction of
shootings that resulted in the victim's death has increased by
6 percentage points. That's about 50 percent since 2010.
Research by Janet Lauritsen and Theodore Lentz shows
something similar is happening all across the United States.
That's to say this isn't a problem that seems to be unique to
Chicago, it's not unique to other big cities. It's not unique
to suburbs, rural areas, Red States, or Blue States. It seems
to be a problem everywhere.
When we look at the data to see why this is happening, the
explanation that's best supported seems to be a large increase
in the number of rounds fired per shooting. And a significant
increase--a significant contributor to the increase in the
number of rounds fired per shooting seems to be the use of
things like Glock switches and bump stocks, what are sometimes
called ``machine-gun conversion devices''. This was mentioned
in the opening statement. These devices modify semi-automatic
firearms, so they fire automatically functionally equivalent to
a machine gun. A switch does so for a handgun, a bump stock for
a rifle.
In Chicago, the number of firearms recovered that have been
modified by these devices to fire automatically has increased.
It was just 9 in 2010. So, it was 9 in 2010, and in 2023, that
number had increased to, fully, 465. In fact, just last week,
only a few miles from my house on the South Side of Chicago, a
Chicago Police officer named Enrique Martinez was carrying out
a traffic stop in the Chatham neighborhood and was shot and
killed with a weapon outfitted with one of these switches.
This proliferation of machine-gun conversion devices
together with the growing use of high-capacity magazines have
contributed to this large increase in rounds fired and shooting
fatality rates. Now, I know that a shooting fatality rate is a
very abstract way to think about the real-world impact of the
problem. So, I want to offer a different way to think about the
public safety implications of this that might be more concrete.
In the city of Chicago where I live, we've averaged
something like 2,000 to 3,000 shootings per year since I've
lived there, in 2007. A 6-percentage point increase in the
shooting fatality rate since 2010 means that there are 184 more
murders that happened in 2023 in Chicago than would have
happened if the shooting fatality rate had been the same.
One hundred eighty-four murders in Chicago is about one-
third of all the murders that happened in my hometown. That's a
huge proportional increase in the total number of people killed
at the hands of someone else as a result of these trends in
what's happening with firearms.
So, what might be done? The good news is that the data
suggests there are multiple, potentially helpful paths forward.
Of course, Glock switches, as was mentioned by Senator Durbin,
Glock switches are already illegal under Federal law. Evidence
to suggest that ban is helpful comes from the 1930 data that
looks at the 1934 National Firearms Act, which resulted in a
sharp drop in the number of shootings with machine guns that
happened in the United States.
What else could be done? When I talk to my friends who are
Chicago Police officers, one thing they tell me they're
increasingly worried about is the possibility that 3D printers
are being used to create these switches. Whether there are
legislative ways to make that harder could be one policy the
data suggests might be worth exploring and has some analogs to
policies that make it harder, for an instance, for color
printers to print counterfeit money. There's a large body of
evidence from social science showing the deterrent effects of
prosecution and sentencing that suggests the potential value of
ensuring or potentially enhancing the capacity of local U.S.
attorney's offices to investigate and prosecute gun crimes
involving machine gun conversion devices.
Finally, some of the work that my own research center, the
University of Chicago Crime Lab, has been doing with different
government agencies and nonprofits suggest there are different
social programs that can help prevent young people from picking
up guns in the first place and using them against other people,
which seems particularly valuable in a world in which these
guns are getting more lethal over time.
Beyond specific possible solutions, the main point I would
like to emphasize here is that on the long list of things that
we could be worried about from a public safety perspective,
this increase in shooting lethality needs to be, in my opinion,
near the very top. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Professor Ludwig appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Professor. Mr. Smith.
STATEMENT OF ZACK SMITH, SENIOR LEGAL
FELLOW, HERITAGE FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member
Graham, and distinguished Members of the Committee. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today.
My name is Zach Smith, and I currently serve as a senior
legal fellow in the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies
of the Heritage Foundation. Before joining Heritage, I served
for several years as an assistant United States attorney,
worked in private practice, and clerked for Hon. Emmett R. Cox
on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
Fundamentally, today's hearing is focused on the wrong
solution, aimed at the wrong problem. Contrary to the title of
today's hearing, there is not a gun violence epidemic in our
country, but there is a violent crime epidemic. And
unfortunately, too many elected leaders are refusing to take
the simple yet necessary steps needed to combat this crime
epidemic, namely, funding the police and prosecuting criminals.
But why are elected leaders reluctant to take these common-
sense steps? Unfortunately, too many have bought into the twin
myths that our criminal justice system is systemically racist,
which it's not, and that we have a mass incarceration problem,
or that we lock up too many people in our country. We don't.
But many have called for policy choices to be made based on
these faulty assumptions.
For example, the Brennan Center for Justice has called for
the prison population to be reduced by 39 percent. The ACLU has
called for a 50 percent reduction, and one academic has even
proposed policies that would result in an 85 percent drop in
the number of people behind bars. These proposals are
astounding because most people behind bars today are serving
time in prison for committing violent crimes.
As I've explained elsewhere, the vast majority of people in
prison today are serving time in State prisons, and the vast
majority of State prisoners are there for committing crimes
such as murder, manslaughter, robbery, aggravated assault, or
other crimes, including gun-related crimes.
According to 2022 statistics, those convicted of violent
crimes make up 62.9 percent of all State prisoners. So,
reducing the prison population by 50 percent or more
necessarily means not locking up or releasing from prison
early, clearly violent criminals. We also know that repeat
offending is a fact of life with criminals, with many offenders
going on to re-offend again after leaving prison. And we know
that aside from the seriousness of someone's crime, nothing
affects that individual's sentence more than their own criminal
history. This generally means that when someone repeatedly
commits more crimes, their subsequent sentences tend to be and
likely should be harsher.
In States such as California that have adopted three
strikes laws, these harsher sentences have increased the prison
population. But guess what? These laws are effective at
combating crime. Sadly, many elected officials at the local,
and State levels, as well as Federal leaders have ignored
common sense policies and have instead pushed policies that
hurt public safety.
One simple action that any Justice Department should pursue
is an emphasis on felon-in-possession prosecution, Section 922G
cases as they're colloquially known after the relevant U.S.
Code Section. This provision makes it illegal for those who
have been convicted of a felony and those who meet certain
other requirements too, to possess a firearm.
Think about it. By definition, if someone is convicted of
this offense, they already have a felony conviction. They're
disregarding relevant laws by illegally possessing a firearm.
And from a resource perspective, these cases tend to be
straightforward to prosecute and are very effective in
targeting individuals who are often drivers of violent crime in
their own communities.
The Justice Department under the Trump Administration
prioritized prosecuting these cases, particularly in
jurisdictions burdened with rogue prosecutors at the local
level, and hopefully, will prioritize them again. The District
of Columbia with its unique status also provides insight into
what happens when local leaders defund the police and
prosecutors refuse to prosecute crimes. Crime rates, including
gun crimes increase as a result. Because of the District's
unique status, subject to Congress's control, reforming these
problematic policies should be a top priority.
Finally, the Committee does deserve praise for holding
today's hearing in at least two regards. First, today's hearing
focuses, albeit indirectly, on victims. Too often today,
criminals are treated as victims and the true victims are the
forgotten component when discussing crime, violence, and
criminal justice reforms. Second, the Committee deserves praise
for considering this problem rather than passing the task to
unelected, unaccountable individuals in administrative
agencies.
So, while this Committee's time and efforts would be better
spent focused on the violent crime epidemic taking place across
our country, at least the conversation is taking place here
with the American people's elected representatives.
I appreciate the Committee's invitation to testify, and I
welcome the Committee's questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Ms. Sanchez-Gomez.
STATEMENT OF ESTHER SANCHEZ-GOMEZ,
LITIGATION DIRECTOR, GIFFORDS LAW CENTER
TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK
Ms. Sanchez-Gomez. Thank you, Chairman Durbin, and Members
of the Committee for the opportunity to testify here today.
My name is Esther Sanchez-Gomez, and I'm the litigation
director with Gifford's Law Center to prevent gun violence. I'm
here to talk to you about machine guns, dangerous weapons that
Congress has taken action on repeatedly, and for which there's
no constitutional impediment to legislation.
But I'd like to begin by reflecting on the origins of the
organization that I represent. Nearly 14 years ago, in my
hometown, Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was shot in the head
during a constituent event. On that January morning, in Tucson,
in 2011, 6 people were killed and 12 others injured. Six years
later, my fellow panelist, Laura O'Donnell, survived a
different mass shooting, one that killed 60 people and injured
500 more. That gunman equipped his firearms with bump stocks.
When a rifle is modified with a bump stock, the shooter
only needs to pull the trigger once, and the gun will fire
continuously so long as the shooter keeps his trigger finger
stationary and applies forward pressure by leaning into the
bump stock. The shooting heard at the scene that day was
accurately described as machine gun fire. Perhaps the biggest
tragedy is that these shootings aren't just isolated moments in
our Nation's history, but examples of the sort of preventable
gun violence that continues to ravage this country.
In response to the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, and under
President Trump's direction, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
Firearms and Explosives, or ATF, amended its regulations to
make clear that bump stocks meet the current Federal definition
of a machine gun. As machine guns, they were subject to the
Federal ban.
But this past June, the Supreme Court supplanted its
firearms expertise for that of the ATF and issued a decision in
Garland v. Cargill striking down ATFs regulation. Although bump
stocks are currently regulated by a number of States, they're
now legal under Federal law.
Unfortunately, bump stocks aren't the only devices
equipping shooters with weapons capable of automatic fire. In
March of this year, 8 high schoolers were shot while waiting at
a bus stop in Philadelphia. The shooter fired 30 rounds in mere
seconds. The gunman was able to do so because his Glock handgun
was equipped with an auto sear.
Autos sears are small Lego size machine gun conversion
devices. They can be easily inserted into a firearm, allowing
it to fire continuously with a single pull of the trigger.
These devices are also called Switches or Glock switches
because of their pervasive use on Glock pistols. Unlike bump
stocks, autos sears are classified as machine guns under
Federal law and are currently illegal.
Despite this, autos sears have proliferated significantly
in recent years with the help of online marketplaces and the
rise of 3D printing technology. ATF's most recent data shows
that there was a 570 percent increase, 570 percent increase, in
auto sears recovered by the agency during the last decade. That
statistic is sadly borne out in the lived trauma of our
communities.
This isn't the first period of American life marred by
machine gun violence. During the 1920's and 1930's, the country
was rocked by a gun violence epidemic fueled by Prohibition Era
organized crime. This violence spurred Congress to action. They
passed the National Firearms Act in 1934 to regulate automatic
firearms through registration and taxation.
As technology changed, our regulation of automatic firearms
has adapted to keep pace. Since 1934, Congress has acted twice
to address the violence that the proliferation of machine guns
and conversion devices causes. First, in 1968, Congress
expanded the definition of machine gun to include a combination
of parts that could convert a weapon into a machine gun. Then
in 1986, Congress completely banned civilian ownership of newly
manufactured machine guns. Congress has repeatedly taken action
to regulate machine guns, and address technological advances
and workarounds.
The violence we see perpetrated today with bump stocks and
auto sears can be prevented. Congress has the constitutional
authority to ban bump stocks, and Congress can grant ATF and
other Federal law enforcement agencies the resources to
properly enforce these laws.
We aren't condemned to live in a society where every
shooting is a mass shooting. Our schools, places of worship,
political rallies, concerts, and other gatherings need to be
protected from gun violence. The Supreme Court has made clear
that you can act, and the harm occurring in our communities
compels you to do so.
Thank you again, Chairman Durbin and Members of the Senate
Judiciary Committee for the opportunity to testify here today.
I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sanchez-Gomez appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Ms. Sanchez-Gomez. Mr. Cleckner,
before you begin, let me thank you for serving our country.
You're welcome today to start your testimony.
STATEMENT OF RYAN CLECKNER,
ATTORNEY, FFLSAFE, FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA
Mr. Cleckner. Good morning, Chairman Durbin, and Senators
of the Committee. I'm Ryan Cleckner. I'm an attorney
specializing in Federal firearms law, and the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives compliance.
I'm here today as a firearms expert to talk about the legal
and technical qualities and the differences between bump stocks
and conversion devices. And I'd like to address them separately
because they are two very different things.
Now, a machine gun under the National Firearms Act is a
firearm that will expel more than one bullet for a single
operation of the trigger. Bump stocks are not machine guns.
They are pieces of plastic that could be put onto some firearms
in place of their standard bump stock that allows someone to
bump fire the firearm. Now, the term bump fire, that's not
illegal. Matter of fact, I can bump fire a firearm without a
bump stock. Bump firing is nothing more than allowing a firearm
to move rearward under its recoil, and then be pulled back into
a stationary trigger finger.
Now, bump stocks do make it easier for some people to bump
fire, but that's all they are. The fundamental operation of the
firearm has not been changed. The trigger still needs to be
manipulated every single time a bullet comes out of the firearm
just like it was designed and intended.
Now, putting this into perspective of how big of a problem
bump stocks by themselves are, the FBI's most recent crime
stats from last year say that all rifles were used in about
15,000 incidences of violent crime. Includes all categories of
violent crime by the FBI. Blunt objects such as hammers were
used 78,000 times. More than five times--more than all rifles,
not just rifles, which could have a bump stock or even the
smaller category of rifles that actually did have a bump stock
on them.
The only evidence I can find of a bump stock being used is
the horrible, horrific 2017 Las Vegas shooting. And what that
mass murderer did was horrific. I don't think a bump stock
being on some of his firearms makes a difference enough to try
to redefine the law about what these items are.
Now, these conversion devices, or Glock switches, or auto
sears, they are absolutely machine guns, Okay? Not only the
National Firearms Act define the firearm, but later laws like
the Gun Control Act says that any parts that can be used to
convert a firearm into a machine gun are also a firearm. That's
what these things are. They're already heavily regulated.
They're already completely illegal.
The ATF is already going out of the way to enforce this
rise that we have with them being used, but the vast majority
of them that I know of are being imported right now into this
country, and they're not being stopped as they're being
imported in this country.
I think the way that we solve this problem is not to make
an item more illegal because it's status of being a
significantly illegal item does nothing, apparently, to stop
these criminals from using them. I mean, that's the definition
of a criminal, right? Someone who doesn't obey the law.
I don't think we can make them more illegal, and if we did,
I don't think that's going to stop their use. I think what's
going to stop their use is if we actually prosecute the
criminals that are using these illegal items, if we keep these
dangerous people off the streets, and we do maybe the best we
can to stop the influx of these items across our border.
I'm also seeing lawsuits right now against firearms
companies like Glock saying that their design somehow invites
the use of these devices. I think on its face, that's false. I
think the reason that there are common with Glocks is because
Glocks are so common. Sixty percent or more of law enforcement
across the country uses Glock pistols. The Capitol police I
passed on the way in this building had Glock pistols on. That's
why they're so common. I think lawsuits against these
companies, I think, a misguided focus on trying to make certain
items more illegal is only going to harm more Americans because
the real solution is getting the bad people off the streets.
Thank you. I welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cleckner appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Cleckner. Ms. O'Donnell.
STATEMENT OF LAURA O'DONNELL, RETIRED
CHICAGO POLICE LIEUTENANT, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
Ms. O'Donnell. Good morning, Chairman Durbin, and Committee
Members. My name is Laura O'Donnell. I'm a retired Chicago
police lieutenant, and I am one of the over 22,000 survivors of
the 2017 Route 91 Music Festival in Las Vegas.
I spent over 24 years serving some of the most violent
areas of Chicago. I'm accustomed to seeing people on their
worst day. I've witnessed numerous crime scenes, gunshot
victims, and even people taking their final breath. Yet nothing
could have prepared me for October 1st, 2017, the day of the
deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.
We all know what happened that night. However, I'd like you
to hear it firsthand. My husband, best friend, coworker, and I,
all Chicago police officers, along with my sister-in-law, who's
a nurse, traveled to Las Vegas to attend a 3-day country
concert. On the last night, at 10:05 p.m., the unimaginable and
indescribable chaos began.
We heard a pop, pop, pop, at first thinking it was
fireworks. But then a few seconds later, we heard it again, and
we knew it was gunfire. My husband pushed us all to the ground,
and he laid his body over ours as you can hear the bullets
hitting the ground and screams surrounded us.
When the shooting momentarily paused, we tried to escape,
but encountered bottleneck people as more gunfire erupted. We
were separated from my friends. We dropped to the ground, but
realized the risk of getting trampled. With the gates being
locked, people started climbing eight-foot fences, desperate to
escape.
As police officers, we're trained to seek cover when under
gunfire, but the only protection was these metal bleachers.
Bullets struck them echoing with a ping, ping sound, while the
smell of burning food filled the air as rounds hit the metal
grills in the concession stands through a slot of the
bleachers. I watched my husband move cautiously through the
venue, urging people to drop everything and go while checking
on those, lying on the ground amid hundreds of bullets I feared
he might get hit and die right in front of me.
When you're in a fight-or-flight response, your body shuts
down everything that's not essential. Things seem to move in
slow motion, and it's difficult to process anything. However, I
remember thinking, ``How can this still be going on? How can
someone still be firing rounds?'' I also remember trying to
think of the last things I said to my three children, my twin,
and my younger sister.
I had thought I might die, and I had hoped that I told them
I loved them. When the shooting finally stopped. I have no
memory of the minutes that followed. As we passed the medical
tent. I sometimes wonder how chaotic and horrific it must have
been that my mind blocked it. Yet, other memories are still so
vivid to this day.
In the aftermath of the shooting, I was in a daze. My mind
was moving slow, yet I was hypervigilant. I had trouble
sleeping, and I struggled to cope with flashbacks. I had
survivor's guilt. I often wondered, ``Why am I still here? Why
not me?'' Panic attacks struck me in places like the grocery
store, and I would leave without buying anything. Leaving home
alone felt unsafe, especially in crowds. I wanted some control
and my normal life back. So, I returned to work, but it was
challenging.
At the time, I was a coordinator of the first SDSC,
basically, a real time crime center in one of the most violent
areas of Chicago, Englewood. One of my duties was to listen to
audio of gunfire captured by ShotSpotter. As you can probably
imagine, it was distressing for me, and I needed to take more
time off of work.
I sought help through my employee assistance program and
returned to work. But triggers of the shooting would lead to
heightened anxiety during scenario-based training and firearm
qualifications. It was difficult to be in charge of officers
during major events with large crowds and fireworks. I knew I
needed more help.
I began cognitive behavioral therapy with a trauma
therapist who worked with law enforcement. I joined a weekly
support group through the Vegas Strong Resiliency Center. I
also attended an intensive inpatient therapy program at Onsite
called Triumph Over Tragedy for mass shooting survivors. There,
I learned coping skills that I still rely on today.
Seven years later, loud noises, crowded places, outdoor
concerts just to name a few still activate me. To give you an
example, a coworker once invited me to a Cubs game. And this is
how it plays out in my mind. It's an outdoor venue. It's going
to be crowded. Will I be sitting near an exit? I'll make sure
to wear gym shoes in case I need to run. This usually leads me
to decline invites to things I once enjoyed.
I have my life before Route 91, and I have my life after
Route 91. I know there must be a purpose to my life and a
reason I survived. Maybe telling my story here today is one of
those reasons. The shooter had 23 weapons, including 14
modified with a bump stock, turning them into fully automatic
weapons capable of firing over 100 rounds in 10 seconds. That's
almost 10 times more than without that modification.
While I was in the venue, he unleashed over 1,000 rounds in
11 agonizing minutes. Four hundred people were shot, over 800
were injured. Fifty-eight people died that day. Thirty-six
women, 22 men. The 3 youngest were only 20 years old. I believe
that if the shooter did not have a bump stock, more people
would've escaped. Less people would've been injured, and, of
course, less would've died.
Every day, I think of those people who lost their lives. Do
not let these lives be forgotten. Links to the gunfire are in
my written testimony. I urge you all to take the time to listen
to it and take action today to ban these modifications to
prevent future tragedies. Just last week, Chicago police
officer, Enrique Martinez, was killed in the line of duty by a
firearm modified with a switch, making it fully automatic.
There's no good reason to turn a semi-automatic weapon into a
machine gun.
Despite my progress, the scars from October 1st, 2017,
continue to impact my life. It's a day that I will never
forget. It will never be forgotten by the 22,000 survivors or
the family members of those who died. I hope you honor their
memory as our lives will never be the same. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. O'Donnell appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chair Durbin. Thank you, not only for your testimony about
that horrible day in your life, but for your service as a
police officer in Chicago. It's not an easy assignment, and I
respect the fact that you did it for over 20 years.
So, let me ask you this. Do you think most policemen that
you served with in Chicago or in other places would agree that
bump stocks have no place to be sold in the United States?
Ms. O'Donnell. Yes, I believe most police officers would
agree with me with that.
Chair Durbin. Mr. Cleckner, you and Mr. Smith seem to zero
in on the mechanics of mass shooting. When we think of the
purpose of the Second Amendment for self-defense, sport, and
hunting, is there a circumstance that you think in the ordinary
course of life where you need to have that capacity of a
firearm?
Mr. Cleckner. Senator Durbin, respectfully, I think you're
missing a category of why the Second Amendment exists. We wrote
it shortly after overthrowing a tyrannical government. And I
think that a bump stock, although has no application for
hunting and maybe not very much for self-defense, I don't
believe that banning this item would stop a criminal that's
already willing to ignore so many other laws.
Chair Durbin. You just mixed two things up. We talked about
ending tyranny against the United States, and you talked about
a criminal in the same breath.
Mr. Cleckner. Fair.
Chair Durbin. I don't understand
Mr. Cleckner. What I'm saying, sir, Senator, is that
banning an item or making it illegal is not going to prevent a
criminal from using it. It's already illegal for that shooter
to be a mass murderer. It's already illegal for them to do many
other things that the laws did not prevent them from doing.
Chair Durbin. So, let's stick with your logic. What's the
point of banning machine guns?
Mr. Cleckner. Well, machine guns, Senator, are actually
legal. They're legal for some people to possess. They're just
extremely regulated, and I believe----
Chair Durbin. Is that a violation of a constitutional
right, to regulate that firearm?
Mr. Cleckner. I think most gun laws are infringements of
the Second Amendment. Yes, Senator.
Chair Durbin. Well, I think that's where we're going to
part company. Because I think most people would agree, even
firearm owners in my own family, that reasonable regulation is
not too much to ask if it means saving the life of innocent
people. When you hear Ms. O'Donnell's portrayal of what
happened, you described it as a mass murder.
Mr. Cleckner. Yes.
Chair Durbin. You described it as horrific.
Mr. Cleckner. Mm-hmm.
Chair Durbin. And to think that some regulation might slow
down the purchase of a device which converts a regular gun into
an automatic gun, a semi-automatic into automatic gun is an
unreasonable restriction on the constitutional rights, I think
that's where we would disagree. Certainly would.
Ms. Sanchez-Gomez, when it comes to the incidents of mass
shootings and the proliferation of these devices, what do you
see lies ahead?
Ms. Sanchez-Gomez. I think it's incredibly important that
we regulate these weapons. Machine guns are designed to do one
thing; kill a lot of people in a very short amount of time. We
have been regulating machine guns in this country since the
beginning of the 20th century. We made them unlawful for
civilian ownership in the 1980's, and we need to extend into
the future our regulation of machine guns to incorporate
changes in technology workarounds that the gun industry has
found for the current State of the law. And there is no
constitutional impediment for doing so.
Chair Durbin. I think of the situation just a few years ago
in Highland Park, Illinois, on the 4th of July, when people
were assembled for a 4th of July parade. And there were many
members of law enforcement there who were watching the scene
and even marching in the parade, and a lone shooter got on the
roof of a building and fired off, I believe 83 rounds in 60
seconds, killing seven people and injuring dozens of others.
It was a young man who had some mental issues before that
day, and his father decided that a good thing for him to do was
to buy this type of assault weapon and practice with it in a
shooting range. It prepared him for that awful day, which
changed lives in every direction.
I look at that and think, what is the purpose of his
ownership of that gun? Is it to stop tyranny according to Mr.
Cleckner, that's one of the elements that went into the
Founding Father's calculation of the Second Amendment? What do
you think about that?
Ms. Sanchez-Gomez. The Supreme Court has been incredibly
clear that military-style weapons are not protected by the
Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has explained that any
reading of the Second Amendment and of the Court's decisions
would be startling if it implied that the NFA and its
regulations of machine guns was unconstitutional.
Chair Durbin. Professor Ludwig, when you hear Mr. Smith
describe this as a gun violence problem, or a crime problem and
not an issue that should involve firearms, I think, I don't
think he mentioned bump stock in his testimony maybe once at
the beginning. What is your reaction?
Professor Ludwig. I think one potentially useful comparison
is the United States versus the United Kingdom. When you look
at rates of--so there's a sense in which Mr. Smith is right;
that there are countries around the world that have lots of
guns and very low crime rates, and that does not lead to lots
of gun violence. But there are other countries around the world
which have similar rates of violent crime to the United States,
similar numbers of robberies, similar number of assaults,
countries like the United Kingdom, and they have almost no
guns.
And what you see in countries with lots of violent crime
and no guns is very, very few murders. So, London is a city
that's three times the size of Chicago. They have fewer murders
per year than my hometown. The thing that makes violent crimes
so deadly in the United States is the ready availability of
guns.
As you and many in the room know, we have something like
400 million guns in circulation and 330 million Americans. And
I think there's lots of evidence from the data that suggests
that widespread gun availability increases the lethality of the
violent crime that happens. And I think there's lots of
evidence to suggest that the availability of these machine gun
conversion devices further increases the lethality of firearms.
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Professor. Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Thank you, Chairman, for
having this very important hearing right now. I'll start with
you, Professor Ludwig, with the facts. In 2023, police in
Minneapolis reported that they recovered three times as many
Glock switches as they did when they first started tracking
them in 2021. That's only in 2 years. Could you talk, and we've
seen these same kind of numbers nationally, how does the
increase proliferation of illegal machine-gun conversion
devices threaten public safety?
Professor Ludwig. And so, we're seeing these increases,
unfortunately, as you note, Senator, in every big city in which
I've been able to see the data. We're seeing these increases. I
think the challenge that the growing use of machine-gun
conversion devices play, maybe combined with the availability
of high-capacity magazines, means now that more and more people
are able to fire off larger numbers of rounds over a shorter
period of time.
We can see in the data that that's leading to more shots
fired per shooting incident, more injuries per shooting event,
and higher lethality rates. Even modest changes in the shooting
lethality rate winds up leading to very outsized increases in
the number of people who die as a result of gun violence.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Ms. Sanchez-Gomez, I
introduced legislation to require Federal law enforcement to
coordinate with our State and locals because of what we're
seeing, in my former job as a prosecutor. And, in fact, one of
parts of this that we have to look going forward as there are
efforts to reduce or defund, not the ATF, on the national basis
coming from some of our Federal colleagues.
I just want to give one example of ATF working with the St.
Paul Police Department, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal
Apprehension, and our U.S. Attorney, was well respected on both
sides of the aisle, Andy Luger, to investigate and convict a
teenager who led police down a high-speed chase after firing a
Glock equipped with a machine-gun conversion device into a
densely populated neighborhood.
Can you talk about the importance of funding ATF in
addition to putting in place better safety guardrails when it
comes to these devices?
Ms. Sanchez-Gomez. Thank you, Senator. I think that that's
exactly right. We need to be giving law enforcement the
resources that they're asking for. We've been hearing from
attorneys general across the country, and from ATF, and from
local law enforcement, that they need more education and more
resources to understand the scope of the problem and to address
it at the source.
Which is, one, importantly, preventing these items from
being trafficked into the country and preventing them from
ending up in the hands of people who would use them to do harm.
Harm, like the harm that occurred in Detroit, Michigan, when 2
people were killed and 19 others injured at a neighborhood
block party.
It's important that we give law enforcement the tools that
they're asking for. These are already illegal, has been
mentioned a number of times, and preventing them from ending up
in our communities is the most important first step in
combating the problem.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Ms. O'Donnell, thank you for
your work and your searing testimony. I believe we need to do
more to protect our law enforcement officers and support them.
That's why I lead the COPS Reauthorization Bill and have done a
lot of work in this area. Could you talk about the challenges
that law enforcement face when responding to gun violence
incidences that involve handguns that are illegally modified
into automatic?
Ms. O'Donnell. Thank you for the question. What I could say
is, I think just the last few officers from Chicago who died in
the line of duty were all from switches. So, you don't have
time to react. They're just firing too fast. We don't have the
same weapons firing back. So, it is a big problem. It's
definitely multiplied in the last few years, as Professor
Ludwig said, and it's becoming a bigger and bigger problem.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Chair Durbin. Senator Hirono.
Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I sit here, I
remember one of our earlier hearings on firearms legislation,
that both the minority witnesses as well, in fact, the entire
panel consisting of majority and minority witnesses said they
agreed that this Nation is awash with guns. And Mr. Ludwig, you
mentioned that we have over 400 million guns and 330 million
Americans. So, we are awash with guns. I mean, is there anybody
on this panel who does not think that we are awash with guns in
this country? Raise your hand if you think otherwise.
Okay. So, we are awash with guns. And meanwhile, the
Supreme Court in various decisions, Heller was pretty much an
astounding decision to me, when suddenly individuals by the
Second Amendment could own firearms. But Scalia did say that we
could legislate various kinds of limitations, I suppose that
you could call it that. And then you fast forward to the Bruen
decision, where suddenly we're supposed to look to what the
Founding Fathers thought about in, what, 1791, or some
astounding timeframes such as that Bruen has led to some
unintended consequences, by the way.
So, here we sit talking about--debating about whether or
not we should put some limits on these kinds of enhanced
weapons. My staff person just showed me a video of how these--
how fast these enhanced weapons shoot. And I can understand why
in the Las Vegas situation, so many people were killed.
Astounding, horrifying. And just listening to the firepower of
these weapons, one questions whether or not these should be
illegal at all, and we should not be sitting here talking about
whether ATF can regulate these firearms or whether we--it is
somehow left to Congress, ``Hey, good luck with that.''
So, I hardly know where to start, but maybe it does occur
to me that there are few, very few instances where Congress has
rendered companies to be immune. So, gun manufacturers are
immune from the consequences of people using their products.
So, Mr. Ludwig, is there a possibility that gun manufacturers--
making them liable, is that an approach that we should
consider?
Professor Ludwig. I'm not a lawyer so I wouldn't want to--
thank you for the question, Senator. I'm not a lawyer, so I
wouldn't want to speak to the legality of that. I think as an
economist and a social science scientist, I would talk about
the larger data and evidence about the effects of product
regulation. And I think we have lots of examples from other
products like motor vehicles where changing--changing product
designs have led to massive improvements in safety, whether
that's through litigation approaches or regulation approaches.
We can see that when products become safer, products that are
prone to misuse, that can wind up leading to lives----
Senator Hirono. Oh, do we not have any lawyers on the
panel? Okay, so Ms. Sanchez-Gomez----
Ms. Sanchez-Gomez. Yes, absolutely.
Senator Hirono [continuing]. You're a lawyer.
Ms. Sanchez-Gomez. Yes.
Senator Hirono. Yes. What about holding manufacturers
liable?
Ms. Sanchez-Gomez. I think it's a really, really important
point. I think regulating the gun industry in the way that we
regulate other industries using litigation, which changes
incentives for them to act in ways that are responsible to act,
in ways that prevent the foreseeable harmful consequences of
their actions, is an incredibly important tool of our civil
legal system.
Senator Hirono. Could States hold gun manufacturers liable,
or is this an area for--or that only the Federal Government can
act?
Ms. Sanchez-Gomez. Well, the Federal Government passed--the
Congress passed a law that gives----
Senator Hirono. Yes.
Ms. Sanchez-Gomez [continuing]. The gun industry broad
immunity. It's not absolute immunity, but it is very broad and
unprecedented for this industry. And so, the Federal Government
is the one that needs to act if we want to repeal that
immunity.
Senator Hirono. Well, I have the--but the question is, can
States act? Can States enact legislation that holds gun
manufacturers liable?
Ms. Sanchez-Gomez. Yes, absolutely. And States are passing
laws.
Senator Hirono. Okay. I think that's one of the ways that
we can proceed. So, the fact of the matter is, as I watch what
the Supreme Court is doing, and I have described, by the way,
this Supreme Court majority as an out of control Supreme Court,
because I have a growing list of precedents that this Supreme
Court is tossing out in so many areas of the law, and they're
not done yet.
So, I just want to say to this Committee and my wonderful
Members of the Judiciary Committee that I think we need to pay
attention to Supreme Court reform, starting with that they
don't even have any ethics provisions that apply to them. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Durbin. That's an issue we've talked about a lot, and
I hope we'll continue to. Ms. Sanchez-Gomez, how is it that a
person can buy a 3D printer with instructions from the internet
to create a Glock switch or a ghost gun? What is that all
about?
Ms. Sanchez-Gomez. Glock switches are incredibly small
devices. They're Lego sized devices that are very simplistic,
easy to manufacture, and that's also why they're so easy to
traffic into this country. They're small, they're difficult to
detect, and that's why a bill like Senator Klobuchar's, which
would give resources to law enforcement to prevent these from
being trafficked into the country, to detect, you know,
marketing that is deceptive to consumers, that implies that
these are lawful to own. That's why we need to get ahead of
this problem to stop it from getting into our communities in
every direction.
Chair Durbin. Why are pistols equipped with another device,
which we haven't spoken much about? The stabilizing brace,
particularly dangerous to the public?
Ms. Sanchez-Gomez. So, stabilizing braces are not machine
guns. I want to start off by being clear. When we talk about
stabilizing braces, we're talking about short-barreled rifles.
And short-barreled rifles are more dangerous because they
allow a pistol to be shot from the shoulder, which gives it
more power and more velocity, and therefore more lethality. But
still being concealable in the way that a pistol is because
it's smaller.
Stabilizing braces were initially designed to allow a
shooter to stabilize a handgun on the wrist or forearm, but
what started happening was that the gun industry saw a loophole
where they began designing stabilizing braces that allowed a
shooter to shoot from the shoulder, thereby making--converting
that weapon into a short-barreled rifle, which is regulated
under the National Firearms Act, and subject to taxation and
registration.
Chair Durbin. Mr. Cleckner, what do you think about that?
Mr. Cleckner. I don't think pistol braces are a problem. I
don't think they're being used in crimes. I don't think they're
making crimes worse. I think she brings up a great point about
the concealability. I think it makes it much harder to conceal
a pistol when there's a pistol brace on. It makes it much
larger. And if we're going to talk about increased lethality
and velocity, a pistol brace does neither of those.
In fact, a regular rifle has increased velocity and
lethality, and that has a regular butt stuck on it, which is
arguably worse than a pistol brace.
Chair Durbin. So, pistols with braces have been used in
several mass shootings in Dayton, Ohio, and Boulder, Colorado,
but you don't think that's a problem?
Mr. Cleckner. I'm not saying it's a problem that they're
being used, Senator. I think that, like I said before, I think
banning them is not going to stop it any more than the banning
mass murder is going to stop it.
Chair Durbin. Ms. Gomez, any reaction to that?
Ms. Sanchez-Gomez. When we talk about firearms, we know
that access to firearms is a key tool in reducing firearm
violence, in reducing gun violence. And I think that regulating
access to dangerous weapons like machine guns, like short-
barreled rifles, is an important tool that we have to reduce
gun violence in this country.
Chair Durbin. I see Senator Blumenthal has returned, and
he's now recognized.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Senator Durbin. Thank you
for having this hearing. And you know, I must say, as I talk to
law enforcement personnel in Connecticut and around the
country, these kinds of conversion devices, call them Glock
switches, whatever, are among their biggest worries because
they're on the firing line. They're the ones who often are
targets, and they're outmatched when their adversaries,
criminals have these kinds of devices that can convert semi-
automatics into automatics.
And even if you say they should be permitted to some
extent, I'm wondering whether gun manufacturers don't have a
responsibility to make devices that they sell safer. And I know
that Senator Hirono kind of raised PLCAA. I have been a
longtime advocate of repealing PLCAA and enabling litigants who
have been harmed the opportunity to take action against gun
manufacturers, just as they do against manufacturers of cars,
toasters, most consumer products, all consumer products except
some that are given a specific exemption.
So, Mr. Ludwig, let me ask you. Are there ways that private
litigants, if given the right to take action--and I was
Attorney General of the State of Connecticut for some 20 years,
but I used to welcome the people I called ``private attorneys
general'', who indicated the public interest by taking action
on their own behalf--would gun manufacturers have more of an
incentive to make their products safer and to avoid the kind of
advertising that they do now, often appealing to young men as a
matter of their manhood, if there were the right of individuals
to take action in our courts?
Professor Ludwig. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I'm
an economist. I look at data for a living. We haven't had lots
of these regulations in the past, so we don't have a lot of
data to look at what would happen in the case of firearms,
specifically. But we can look at other consumer products where
we've changed incentives for manufacturers.
I mentioned--I mentioned automobiles earlier. There's a
long list of examples of whether it's regulation or whether
it's litigation, where we've changed incentives for
manufacturers to improve the safety of their products. And
we've seen big improvements in product safety and response.
Senator Blumenthal. Let me ask other witnesses whether they
have a view on that question. Ms. Sanchez-Gomez, do you have an
opinion?
Ms. Sanchez-Gomez. Thank you, Senator. As a litigator, I
know that litigation is an incredibly powerful tool in creating
incentives for, in any industry, and the gun industry in
particular, to change its behavior, to address problems that it
knows its products are causing in communities. And I think the
repeal of PLCAA would be an incredible step in that direction.
Senator Blumenthal. Ms. O'Donnell.
Ms. O'Donnell. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't litigate
anything, but I think, if anything, to get these high-powered
and fast-firing weapons off the streets is great.
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse. Give me a minute to get settled.
Chair Durbin. Okay. We'll just give my colleague a moment
to get settled in.
Senator Whitehouse. So, welcome, Ms. Sanchez-Gomez. What do
you foresee as the legal perils to bump stock bans at the State
level? And what legal safeguards do you see, assuming that a
State like mine, Rhode Island, has a ban on bump stocks? To
what extent do you think that is a safe safeguard, or is it one
that can be overruled by Congress for instance?
Ms. Sanchez-Gomez. I think that there is no constitutional
impediment to regulating bump stocks. The Supreme Court has
made incredibly clear that machine guns can be regulated, that
machine guns are unprotected by the Second Amendment, and bump
stocks are machine guns in that they approximate rates of fire
that can only be achieved by fully automatic weapons.
The Supreme Court in its recent decision, while it said
that ATF could not bring bump stocks within the Federal
definition of machine gun, it did invite Congress to act to do
just that. And I think in doing that, it suggested very
strongly that Congress could do this constitutionally, and that
States, of course, could also do this.
Senator Whitehouse. Well, indulge me in the hypothetical
that we end up with a Congress that makes bump stock bans
illegal at the State level----
Ms. Sanchez-Gomez. At the State level.
Senator Whitehouse [continuing]. Tries to repeal or
override State-level bump stock bans. How do you see that
fitting into the constitutional matrix?
Ms. Sanchez-Gomez. Well, a State is welcome to repeal a
bump stock ban if it so chooses, but I think that that would be
a dangerous choice because these weapons are incredibly
dangerous. They allow a person to shoot a weapon in a way that
it increases the lethality of that weapon and ultimately
sacrifices the accuracy in doing so. These are weapons that are
very dangerous for people to own. We've been regulating machine
guns on the Federal level for a very long time, and it's
precisely because of the sort of features that a bump stock
gives to a rifle.
Senator Whitehouse. Do you think Congress has the
constitutional authority to override local laws against bump
stocks?
Ms. Sanchez-Gomez. If Congress were to pass a law
regulating bump stocks, I think it would be in addition to. I
think that Congress absolutely has the authority to ban bump
stocks on the Federal level by bringing bump stocks within the
Federal definition of machine gun.
Senator Whitehouse. Yes, I'm clear on that. What I'm
worried about is that Congress in years ahead will go the
opposite direction and ban, not bump stocks, but bump stock
bans.
Ms. Sanchez-Gomez. That's an interesting question, Senator.
I'm not sure that I'm prepared to answer exactly that
particular issue of Federal law.
Senator Whitehouse. If you don't mind taking that as a
question for the record and responding, I'd be gratified.
Ms. Sanchez-Gomez. I'd be very happy to. Thank you.
Senator Whitehouse. Thanks very much. Thank you, Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Thank you to the panel for your testimony.
The record will be open for 1 week for submission of materials,
and if there are any further questions from the colleagues who
were precluded from attending today.
This is an issue of life and death and should be viewed as
such. Just not a political debate. And the question we have
before us is whether this Congress, whoever controls it, is
going to try to make America safer. I certainly hope we do. We
owe it to the people of this country.
So, thank you-all for coming today. And with that, the
hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:04 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]