[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-9
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
59-577 WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair
DARRELL ISSA, California JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Ranking
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona Member
TOM McCLINTOCK, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
THOMAS P. TIFFANY, Wisconsin ZOE LOFGREN, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
CHIP ROY, Texas HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin Georgia
BEN CLINE, Virginia ERIC SWALWELL, California
LANCE GOODEN, Texas TED LIEU, California
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas J. LUIS CORREA, California
BARRY MOORE, Alabama MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
KEVIN KILEY, California JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, Wyoming LUCY McBATH, Georgia
LAUREL M. LEE, Florida DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina
WESLEY HUNT, Texas BECCA BALINT, Vermont
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York
ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas
BRANDON GILL, Texas
MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona, Chair
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin LUCY McBATH, Georgia, Ranking
TROY NEHLS, Texas Member
BARRY MOORE, Alabama JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
KEVIN KILEY, California DAN GOLDMAN, New York
LAUREL LEE, Florida STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina ERIC SWALWELL, California
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
JULIE TAGEN, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, March 4, 2025
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
The Honorable Andy Biggs, Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime and
Federal Government Surveillance from the State of Arizona...... 1
The Honorable Lucy McBath, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on
Crime and Federal Government Surveillance from the State of
Georgia........................................................ 2
The Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on
the Judiciary from the State of Maryland....................... 4
WITNESSES
Doug Ritter, Founder and Chair, Knife Rights, Inc.
Oral Testimony................................................. 8
Prepared Testimony............................................. 10
Gregory Jackson, Jr., Former Deputy Director, White House Office
of Gun Violence Prevention
Oral Testimony................................................. 16
Prepared Testimony............................................. 18
Dave McDemott, Esq., Founder, McDermott Law Group
Oral Testimony................................................. 23
Prepared Testimony............................................. 26
Diana Muller, Founder, Women for Gun Rights
Oral Testimony................................................. 30
Prepared Testimony............................................. 32
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
All materials submitted by the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal
Government Surveillance, for the record........................ 61
A letter to the Honorable Andy Biggs, Chair of the Subcommittee
on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance from the State of
Arizona; the Honorable Lucy McBath, Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance from
the State of Georgia, and the Member of the Subcommittee on
Crime and Federal Government Surveillance, Re: H.R. 60, Knife
Owners' Protection Act, Feb. 27, 2025, from the Texas
Representative Harold Dutton, Jr., Chair of the Juvenile
Justice & Family Issues Committee, submitted by the Honorable
Andy Biggs, Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal
Government Surveillance from the State of Arizona, for the
record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Lucy McBath, Ranking Member
of the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government
Surveillance from the State of Georgia, for the record
A letter to the Hon. Jeanne Shaheen, Chair of the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justic, Science, and Related
Agencies, Senate Committee on Appropriations; the Hon.
Jerry Moran, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on
Commerce, Justic, Science, and Related Agencies, Senate
Committee on Appropriations; the Hon. Hal Rogers, Chair
of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justic, Science, and
Related Agencies, House Committee on Appropriations; and
the Hon. Matthew Cartwright, Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justic, Science, and Related
Agencies, House Committee on Appropriations, Aug. 18,
2023, from the National Sheriffs' Association
A letter to the Members of the U.S. House Judiciary
Committee, Jun. 26, 2024, from the Police Leaders for
Community Safety
An article entitled, ``More than half of US teachers think
being armed would make students less safe, report
finds,'' May 31, 2023, CNN
An article entitled, ``Dems demand details from AG Bondi on
Trump's directive to review gun regulations,'' Mar. 3,
2025, Courthouse News Service, submitted by the Honorable
Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on the
Judiciary from the State of Maryland, for the record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Eric Swalwell, a Member of
the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance
from the State of California, for the record
A report entitled, ``California's Fight Against the Ghost Gun
Crisis: Progress and New Challenges,'' Oct. 2024, Office
of Gun Violence Prevention, California Department of
Justice
An article entitled, ``Former Uvalde school district police
chief charged with child endangerment after shooting that
killed 21,'' Jun. 28, 2024, NBC News
An article entitled, ``Police Use of Robot to Kill Dallas
Suspect Unprecedented, Experts Say,'' Jul. 8, 2016, Texas
Tribune
THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE
----------
Tuesday, March 4, 2025
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Andy Biggs
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Biggs, Tiffany, Nehls, Moore,
Kiley, Lee, Knott, McBath, Moskowitz, Goldman, and Swalwell.
Also present: Representative Raskin.
Mr. Biggs. The Subcommittee will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time. I welcome all of you to this hearing today,
which the topic is the Right to Self-Defense.
I now recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Tiffany,
to lead us in the pledge of allegiance.
All. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States
of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one
Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all.
Mr. Biggs. I thank the gentleman.
Now, I will recognize myself for on opening statement.
Again, thank you everyone who is here today. I am pleased
to Chair the hearing we have before us focusing on the Second
Amendment and the right to self-defense. The Second Amendment
protects our rights to keep and bear arms, which includes both
firearms and knives.
The Supreme Court's landmark decision in New York State
Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen held that the Second
Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun for self-
defense outside the home, not just inside the home as the court
held in Heller.
At a time when violent crime continues to plague our
communities and rogue prosecutors allow criminals back out on
the streets, now more than ever it is important to preserve our
right to defend ourselves and our loved ones. It's disgraceful
to think someone protecting their family from deadly attack
could be punished for defending their family.
Unfortunately, my colleagues across the aisle do not share
the same views. Instead of passing legislation to keep
criminals off the streets, former President Joe Biden's ATF
sought to achieve far-Left policy outcomes through Federal
agency rulemaking.
Former President Biden's ATF promulgated various rules to
regulate pistol braces and the frames and receivers on
firearms, or so-called ghost guns. Former President Biden's ATF
also issued a rule to create several presumptions about when an
individual is defined as a dealer in firearms and needs to be
licensed as a Federal firearms licensee. Instead of continuing
the longstanding relationships with FFLs, which serve as the
first line of defense against criminals, the Biden ATF actually
treated FFLs like they were the criminals. These efforts
targeted lawful firearm owners and did nothing to prevent
actual criminals from committing violent crimes.
My colleagues across the aisle fail to realize how more gun
control only harms and impacts on the vulnerable populations
they claim they want to protect. Thankfully, under this new
administration, firearms owners and firearms businesses alike
can breathe a sigh of relief.
The right to self-defense is a cornerstone in our country.
Despite what the mainstream media may like you to believe, 38
States have Stand Your Ground laws compared to a duty to
retreat. However, the current landscape of firearm laws across
the country surrounding when and where you carry a firearm are
often complex and difficult to navigate. To think that a person
lawfully owning and carrying a firearm in one State becomes a
criminal as soon as they cross into another is completely
absurd. Some things need to change.
The same confusing landscape of complex criminal laws
exists for carrying a knife across State lines. My bill, the
Knife Owners' Protection Act, would protect the right of law-
abiding citizens to transport knives interstate notwithstanding
the burden and patchwork of State and local prohibitions. I
look forward to marking up the Knife Owners' Protection Act in
this Committee. Our Committee will continue to stand with FFLs,
firearms and knife owners, and any law-abiding citizen who
refuses to become a victim.
This week, the two Ranking Members sent a letter to the
Attorney General asking her to refrain from repealing the ATF's
unconstitutional regulations. In that letter, they cited a
misleading statistic that I'd like to take the time to clarify.
They said, quote,
Today, there are more gun dealers than there are locations of
Starbucks, McDonalds, Dunkin' Donuts, Burger King, Subway, and
Chick-fil-A combined.
They justify this statement by citing to a report on the number
of active firearm licenses.
However, the Ranking Members mistakenly equate one firearm
license to one firearm dealer, as if a single FFL has a retail
outlet. In fact, there are only about 25,000 physical addresses
for firearms dealers in this country. A single firearms dealer
can hold multiple licenses, and someone can have a license
without actually being a firearms dealer. That is the fact.
At this time, I am going to yield back and recognize the
Ranking Member, Ms. McBath, for her opening statement.
Ms. McBath. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate it.
Good morning and thank you to all our witnesses that are
joining us this morning.
Every single day more than 110 Americans die from gun
violence and more than 110 families have to confront their
worst fear, that they have lost a person who means absolutely
everything to them. I came to Congress because one of those
families was my family.
In November 2012, I got the call that no parent should ever
have to face, that my son had been taken by gun violence. My
son Jordan would now have just celebrated his 30th birthday.
Every day I think about the life that he should be living, and
I think about the millions of Americans' lives that are lost or
changed by preventable gun violence. I know that I am not
alone.
For decades, survivors and those who aspire to a safer
tomorrow have been working together to bring an end to gun
violence. In June 2022, after more mass shootings in Uvalde and
Buffalo, we passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the
first comprehensive gun violence prevention bill in nearly 30
years.
For the past 2\1/2\ years, the Bipartisan Safer Communities
Act has kept guns out of the hands of dangerous people, like
gun traffickers and domestic abusers. It has invested in
improving mental health resources, both in our local schools
and throughout all our communities. It has supported State and
local efforts to reduce gun violence, including funding State
crisis intervention programs.
Since the passage of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act,
there have been 3,500 fewer murders. That's more than 3,000
families who have never had to receive that devastating news
that would change their lives forever. Those are families with
a son or daughter who did come home from school, with a mom who
did make it back from running an errand or attending a prayer
service, or with a dad who did come home after working the late
shift. In just two years, there are more than 3,000 families
who didn't have to face the pain of losing a loved one to
murder, the two largest single year decreases in murder ever
recorded. We have the ability to keep this momentum going.
It's not just reducing murder. The Bipartisan Safer
Communities Act has helped bring violent crime down to an
almost 50-year low without infringing on the Constitutional
rights of a single responsible gun owner or gun seller.
Given this incredible progress, it is no wonder that law
enforcement supports the work that we have done and the
improvements that continue to be made because of this historic
law.
In 2023, the National Sheriffs' Association called on
Congress to appropriate $200 million for the Community Violence
Intervention and Prevention Initiative, a program that we
doubled in size by passing the Bipartisan Safer Communities
Act.
As the sheriffs' letter explains, this funding supports law
enforcement mentorship, life skills, and vocational training
programs. This work is making all of us safer and changing
lives for the better, bridging gaps and encouraging trust
between law enforcement and the communities that they serve.
Similarly, last year we received a letter from Police
Leaders for Community Safety in support of a provision of the
Bipartisan Safer Communities Act that requires those who sell
guns predominantly to earn a profit to obtain a license and
conduct background checks. Police Leaders for Community Safety
explain that this provision prevents felons and other
prohibited purchasers from evading background checks and
enhances public safety.
We know that we're still losing far too many lives to gun
violence, violent crime, and suicide, but the solution is
clear. We must continue the progress of the Bipartisan Safer
Communities Act, and we must build on it.
Our colleagues want to take us back to a time where there
were more guns in our communities that might end up in the
hands of people who simply should not have them, but we know
what is at stake and that is American lives.
At the end of a long day, we all just want our loved ones
to come home safely, so that our husbands or wives will walk
through the door, whether they work in an office, a school, a
hospital, or a police precinct. We want to tuck our children
into bed each and every single night. We want our moms, our
dads, and our best friends to be kept safe from harm and able
to speak to us on the other line of a telephone.
The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act is making sure more
people share these important moments together and that fewer
families face the heartbreak when those moments abruptly stop.
I once again call on my colleagues to stand with us in working
together to end unnecessary gun violence.
Before I yield back, I ask unanimous consent to submit into
the record a letter from the National Sheriffs' Association in
support of community violence intervention funding.
Mr. Biggs. Without objection.
Ms. McBath. Also, a letter from the Police Leaders for
Community Safety in support of the engaged in business
provision of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.
Mr. Biggs. Without objection.
Ms. McBath. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Biggs. The gentlelady yields. The Chair now recognizes
the Ranking Member for the entire Committee, Mr. Raskin, for
his opening statement.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly, Mr. Chair. Just on that
interesting point you raised at the beginning, I think we stand
by our math. There are more than 50,000 gun-dealer licensees in
America, more than 6,000 pawnbroker licensees, and more than
20,000 manufacturer licensees, who each have the right to
directly sell from their unique physical locations. That does
add up to more than the various fast-food outlets and so on
that we identified. We'll submit for the record the exact
arithmetic. I'm glad that you at least implicitly seem to agree
that, if true, this is a shocking statistic that there are that
many gun violence dealers in the country.
In 2022, shocking levels of gun violence caused Congress to
come together after decades of inaction to pass the first major
piece of gun safety legislation in 28 years.
Ever since President Biden signed the Bipartisan Safer
Communities Act into law and with the efforts of the ATF, we've
made substantial gains in reversing the gun violence epidemic.
We ended 2024 with a 25 percent drop in nationwide
homicides compared to 2022. Of course, firearms are involved in
more than 80 percent of murders in the country. According to
the Office of Gun Violence Prevention's one-year progress
report, in September of last year more than 600 defendants had
been charged under our new gun trafficking and straw purchasing
laws and 900 firearm transfers to people under the age of 21
were prevented by enhanced background checks.
The key point is that this law and other Biden
Administration regulations saved thousands of lives,
contributing to 3,500 fewer murders between 2023-2024, without
ever once infringing on the Second Amendment.
We know this because the Supreme Court never invalidated
any part of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act or any other
Biden Administration gun safety rule as a violation of the
Second Amendment. On the contrary, they've all been deemed to
be Constitutional.
Yet, our colleagues continue to insist that commonsense gun
safety laws of this type violate the Second Amendment. The
Second Amendment doesn't protect the right of access to a
firearm without a violent criminal background check or the
right to purchase machine guns or military-style assault
weapons.
The Supreme Court, including in the District of Columbia v.
Heller decision, has repeatedly stated that reasonable
regulations of firearms to protect public safety are consistent
with the Second Amendment. Our colleagues want to preempt State
and local law and force Americans to accept more dangerous
weapons in their community, all under the guise of protecting
the Second Amendment.
I challenge my colleagues to explain how any of the Biden
Administration reforms actually violate the Second Amendment,
because no court ever said they did. The problem is that some
of our colleagues have completely deformed and misstated what
the Second Amendment stands for. Their now-infamous
insurrectionist theory says that the Second Amendment gives you
the right to overthrow the government.
Our former colleague, Matt Gaetz, said the Second
Amendment, quote,
Is about maintaining within the citizenry the ability to
maintain an armed rebellion against the government if that
becomes necessary.
This purported right to overthrow the government means that the
people must enjoy access to munitions equivalent to that of the
arsenal possessed by the government. As my friend,
Representative Chip Roy, says, the Second Amendment was, quote,
. . . designed purposefully to empower the people to resist
the force of tyranny used against them.
My friend Lauren Boebert says that the Second Amendment, quote,
. . . has nothing to do with hunting unless you're talking
about hunting tyrants maybe.
Despite all this pseudo-revolutionary rhetoric about how
the Constitution provides a right of civil insurrection, the
actual Constitution in a half dozen different places treats
insurrection and rebellion not as protected rights but as
serious and dangerous offenses against our government and
against our people. Article I gives Congress the power to call
forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress
insurrections, and repel invasions.
The Republican Guarantee Clause in Article IV tells the
U.S. to guarantee a Republican form of government to the States
and protect them, quote, ``against domestic violence.'' These
provisions followed Shays' rebellion, an armed uprising in
Massachusetts in the 1780s, which the Founders strongly
condemned, and which influenced the writing of the
Constitution.
The Constitution thoroughly rejects the Right-wing fantasy
that random bands of disgruntled citizens can claim the powers
of a militia to commit violent acts against the police. Article
I, section 8, clause 16 reserves, quote,
To the States respectively the appointment of the officers and
the authority of training the militia, according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress.
This intergovernmental cooperation is how we come to have
what the Second Amendment calls for in its first clause, a
well-regulated militia. This means well-regulated by the
government, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly said. The Proud
Boys and Oath Keepers are not a militia. A private militia is a
contradiction in terms.
In 1886, the Supreme Court upheld a State law criminalizing
private paramilitary groups, and every State in the Union today
bans private militias. A militia is not the reserve power of
the people to attack the government. On the contrary, it is the
instrument by which the Federal and State governments can
suppress violent insurrections against the government.
Now, today, when I point out these problems with their
theory to my distinguished colleagues, they generally fall back
on two responses. One is they will quote Patrick Henry, who
said, ``Give me liberty or give me death,'' which is great
because that was a great bumper sticker in the 18th century.
Patrick Henry was an anti-Federalist who opposed the
ratification of the Constitution, so that's like quoting
speeches by Jefferson Davis to settle the meaning of the 14th
Amendment.
They also invoke, more plausibly, the American Revolution
and the Declaration of Independence for the idea that after a
long train of abuses and usurpations, an aggrieved people have
the right to alter or abolish the bonds holding them to a
tyrannical government.
Now, that's true, of course, but it's irrelevant because
the revolutionaries undoubtedly asserted their right not as a
right under the British Constitution or the Magna Carta, but as
a matter of natural right to overthrow a tyrannical government.
That's very different from saying the Constitution itself
guarantees the right to have the means to overthrow the
government.
If you think that the 2020 Presidential election, for
example, which Joe Biden won by more than seven million votes,
306-232, is an exercise of tyranny akin to King George's
tyranny against the colonists, by all means, you can come down
and beat up our police officers and try to overthrow the
government. If we catch you and we stop you, we will prosecute
you under the full force of the law and put you in jail, at
least until the next President decides to pardon the people who
have done that.
Look, this fraudulent Constitutional philosophy of insur-
rectionism is exacting a brutal toll on the American people and
our social contract by blockading perfectly reasonable and
Constitutional gun safety measures that are saving lives in
America. The whole purpose of the social contract is to make
ourselves safer than we would be in a lawless State of nature,
which Hobbes described as a State of war.
Yet, the insurrectionist caucus has brought us gruesome
episodes of high-tech military-style violence everywhere in
America, from Walmarts to grocery stores to elementary school
classrooms. It's time to reassert the real primacy of the
Constitution and its real meaning.
Thank you. I yield back to you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you. I didn't know you were going to make
it to the yield part. Thank you, Mr. Raskin.
I would just--since you invoked me directly, I'll respond
directly. You said implicitly in my statement was that I was
shocked at the number of retail gun dealers. I am not shocked
by that. It is a legal enterprise.
I still question the data that you have. I would refer to
you a couple things. Just VanDerStok v. Garland, a Fifth
Circuit case, as well as Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, which
contradict--you were essentially arguing as to Heller.
So, with that, since you invoked my name directly, I feel I
had the right to respond.
Mr. Raskin. Why would you bother to contradict the data if
you're proud of that fact?
Mr. Biggs. So, now what we're going to do is we're going to
swear in the witnesses.
I would just say this too: Without objection, all the
opening statements will be included in the record.
Now, we'll introduce today's witnesses before we swear them
in.
Mr. Doug Ritter is the Founder and Chair of Knife Rights, a
nonprofit organization that advocates on behalf of knife
owners. Formed in 2006, Knife Rights advocates at the Federal,
State, and local levels and engages in litigations that
challenge unduly restrictive laws pertaining to the possession
and ownership of knives.
Ms. Dianna Muller is the founder of Women for Gun Rights, a
nonprofit organization that advocates for gun rights,
education, firearm safety, and violence prevention. She's a
retired police officer, having served 22 years with the Tulsa,
Oklahoma, Police Department.
Mr. Dave McDermott is the founding partner of the McDermott
Law Group, a firm that specializes in criminal defense and
personal injury cases. He's litigated criminal justice cases
for more than 27 years and specializes in self-defense cases.
Mr. Gregory Jackson is the former Deputy Director of the
White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention. He's a community
organizer, advocate, and campaign strategist.
We welcome all of you today. We appreciate your time coming
and sharing your expertise with us, and we look forward to
hearing from you today.
We're now going to ask you to be sworn in, so if you'd
please stand and raise your right hand.
Do you, each of you, swear or affirm under penalty of
perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and
correct, to the best of your knowledge, information, and
belief, so help you God.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you. You may be seated.
The record will reflect that the witnesses have answered in
the affirmative.
I want you to know that your written testimony will be
entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask
you to summarize your testimony in five minutes. What that
means is, about 15 seconds before I'll just give a couple of
raps so you know that it's time to wrap it up. Then once you
get to five minutes, I'll hit it a little harder, so you know
that you're approaching filibuster territory. Then at some
point I'll just have to interrupt. I'll try not to interrupt
because we do want to hear what you have to say.
Our first witness today, who's going to testify is Mr.
Ritter. You may begin.
STATEMENT OF DOUG RITTER
Mr. Ritter. Chair Biggs, Ranking Member McBath, and the
Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify
about the Knife Owners' Protection Act, or KOPA. This bill is
commonsense criminal justice reform that would protect law-
abiding knife owners when they are traveling throughout the
U.S., despite whether they are traveling through States or
localities with restrictive knife laws.
Please indulge me for a moment for a hypothetical. Imagine
a chef is driving across the U.S. to cook at guest appearances,
perhaps from or in your own districts. The chef has numerous
knives in his vehicle that many may exceed some arbitrary
local-length limitations.
Now, imagine the chef is stopped by the police for, I don't
know, a broken taillight, and the police officer asks, do you
have any weapons in the vehicle? The chef, being the
responsible citizen that he is, discloses that although he
doesn't consider them weapons, he has knives in his vehicle.
This simple scenario could result in the chef being
arrested and charged. It could result in severe consequences
for the chef and, in turn, for his family. KOPA would protect
our chef from unnecessary encounters with the police, which too
often end in tragedy.
This bill is the right policy for everyone. It levels the
playing field for all. This bill is--this is why knife law
reform measures have received bipartisan support in many
States. Under KOPA, if possession of the knife is legal where
the journey starts and ends and the knife is locked up in
accordance with KOPA, a knife owner would no longer be
threatened with arrest simply for traveling from one place to
another, even if they have to pass through a jurisdiction where
the knife is illegal.
Currently, those who travel across the country with knives
for work and recreation are subject to arrest and prosecution
under a very confusing patchwork of inconsistent State and
local laws and regulations. What is perfectly legal in one
place may be a serious crime just over the border of that
jurisdiction and can carry significant penalties, including
jail time. Moreover, enforcement is not uniform even within
jurisdictions.
In response to this problem, over the past 16 years, 51
criminal justice reform bills have been enacted in 32 States to
repeal bans on various knives that are possessed for work and
recreation, and most have had bipartisan support. In fact, the
knife reform legislation has been passed in seven of the ten
States represented on this Committee, five of them with
bipartisan support: Georgia, New York, Tennessee, Texas, and
Wisconsin.
Other States already do not ban knives of any sort, yet
some States and many other localities still have knife bans on
the books. Virtually all the existing knife bans were
instituted against a background of racial bias after the Civil
War in the late 1950s.
We also know all too well that minorities and the
economically disadvantaged are too often inappropriately
stopped by law enforcement, sometimes with tragic consequences.
This bill simply ensures that owners with their knives locked
up in accordance with this proposed law are protected and not
subject to unjust prosecution for possessing a knife that is
legal in the vast majority of the States.
Knives are one of humankind's oldest tools possessed and
carried by hundreds of millions. They are carried daily by law-
abiding laborers, truck drivers, campers, hikers, sportsmen and
sportswomen, and many others as they travel this great Nation.
KOPA with simply providing safe harbor to someone traveling
with knives where it is lawful for the knives to be possessed
at both points of origin and destination so long as the knives
are transported in accordance with the specific requirements
that keep them inaccessible during the intervening travel.
These knives will not be a threat to anyone since they are
required to be locked up.
This bill cannot be used to protect bad actors. If someone
transports a knife with the intent to commit an offense that is
punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year, that person
cannot be protected by this law. Also, KOPA does not override
TSA regulations.
I strongly urge everyone on this Committee, Republican and
Democrat alike, to support KOPA. This is not a partisan bill.
It is a balanced solution to the difficult patchwork of knife
laws throughout the United States. KOPA is a criminal justice
reform bill that protects innocent knife owners while ensuring
bad actors are not shielded.
I look forward to answering any questions the Committee may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ritter follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Ritter.
And now I would recognize Mr. Jackson for his five minutes.
STATEMENT OF GREGORY JACKSON, JR.
Mr. Jackson. Thank you, Chair Biggs, Ranking Member McBath,
and the Members of the Committee, for inviting me to be a part
of this important hearing.
I'm Greg Jackson, the former Deputy Director for the White
House Office of Gun Violence Prevention that led our country to
a 25 percent reduction in homicides during the Biden-Harris
Administration.
I spent the last decade of my life working to address gun
violence from across the country. From teens lost in shootings
at festivals in Baltimore to bowlers in Lewiston, it is crystal
clear that gun violence is shattering communities across our
country and stealing from America what President Jefferson
acknowledges are natural rights of life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness.
As someone raised on a farm in rural Virginia, some of my
earliest memories were hunting with my father and celebrating
the rich heritage of his first rifle, a Winchester Ranger
shotgun, as he handed it down to me.
In 2013, my life changed forever when I was caught in a
crossfire when walking home in Washington, DC. The bullet that
struck me left me within 50 percent of dying that night, and
one of the hardest nights of my life by far.
Since I was shot, more than a million Americans have been
shot or killed by this crisis, students in elementary schools,
worshippers in churches, senior citizens in grocery stores, and
even fans of Superbowl parades. Every year, over 140,000
Americans are shot, and that's equivalent to double the crowd
of the Superbowl. That's equivalent to our entire Active Duty
for the U.S. Marine Corps being shot every single year.
This is now the leading cause of death for youth in
America, and also a leading cause of death for pregnant women
in America, and now a leading cause of newly disabled
Americans. During the height of the pandemic, gun deaths
surged, increasing homicides by 45 percent and even gun
suicides by nearly 10 percent. As the Nation mourned in 2022,
when mass shootings struck in Buffalo and Uvalde, activists
like myself and those sitting behind me demanded action. We saw
Democrats and Republicans step up and work together to pass the
first law in 30 years, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.
This bill took important steps to advancing our background
check system, making gun trafficking a Federal offense, and
prohibiting gun purchases from domestic abusers. It also
invested $15 billion, which created the largest investment in
youth mental health, adding 14,000 school-based mental health
professionals to our schools, creating the 988 Suicide and
Crisis Lifeline, and also provided historic investments in law
enforcement and community-based violence intervention programs
across our country.
After signing this law, President Biden created our office
to implement this law, to expand partnerships, to improve
services for those impacted, but also to identify new ideas.
When we saw things like 76 percent of school shootings coming
from guns in the home, we worked with the Department of
Education to launch the first-ever school-based Safe Storage
Campaign.
When we saw Glock switches terrorizing communities in
places like Birmingham, we worked with ATF to shut down over
350 websites that were selling these Glock switches to
Americans from China. We took innovative approaches to direct
this crisis, within the bounds of the law and the Second
Amendment.
Most importantly, our actions saved lives. In 2023, we saw
a 12 percent decline in homicides. In 2024, we surpassed those
reductions, bringing down homicides by 14 percent and a 10
percent reduction in violent crimes. These reductions were
actually steepest in major cities that had tough gun laws and
had strong leaders resourcing law enforcement and community-
based strategies.
Boston went down 80 percent, Greensboro down 41 percent,
Milwaukee down 42 percent, Philadelphia down 36 percent,
Baltimore down 22 percent, the State of Arizona down 50
percent, the steepest decline in that State's history.
Even places like Miami saw the lowest number of homicides
since the 1950s. There was no accident. This is no accident
when we see these numbers. This is a direct result of strong
gun laws and strong investments in strategies that we know work
and can save lives.
Frankly, I'll closing with this. These percentages and
data, for so many people you hear them and you see them as
numbers, but we know it's more than numbers. In 2023, I lost my
mentee de Marcos. He was literally on his front porch after
basketball practice and was shot and killed as a bystander. You
literally sit next to a strong leader and champion,
Congresswoman McBath, who lost her son to a fatal but
preventable shooting.
We know that with every number and every life we save,
that's one more family that gets to go to a wedding instead of
a funeral, that gets to attend a baby shower instead of walking
to a hospital to decide if their loved one has been lost.
So, we stand proudly by this work. We know that these gun
laws and these resources, they save lives, they make our family
safer, they make your family safer, and they make America
safer. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jackson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Biggs. Thank you. Now, we're going to recognize Mr.
McDermott for his five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAVE MCDERMOTT
Mr. McDermott. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Biggs,
Ranking Member McBath, and the distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to share
my experiences as a leading self-defense attorney in this
country.
My name is David McDermott. I've been a private criminal
defense attorney for 27 years. I'm the founding partner of
McDermott Law Group, which is also referred to as not your
typical attorneys.
For the past 10 years, I've focused on a niche area of
defending people after they've had to defend themselves. I
refer to these cases as self-defense cases, although the
prosecutor's office refers to them as murder cases, attempted
murder cases, or a host of other cases stemming from criminal
charges.
I've provided legal representation to hundreds of people
throughout the country both before and after they've been
involved in a self-defense incident. You'd be hard-pressed to
find anybody that's litigated more of these cases.
I have appeared on or in multiple news channels, podcasts,
magazines, radio shows, and newspapers to discuss these cases
and answer questions on self-defense laws. I've given countless
lectures in front of thousands of people in multiple States
throughout the country on the issue of self-defense, and I've
garnered a nationwide reputation for consistently securing not
guilty verdicts after asserting self-defense on behalf of my
clients.
A good number of people that I represent in this matter are
U.S. Concealed Carry Association members, also known as the
USCCA. The USCCA is one of the largest and fastest-growing
organizations dedicated to educating and training responsible
gun owners. I'm a proud member of the USCCA and one of the
critical response attorneys for over 860,000 members
nationwide.
Training and education are paramount to being a responsible
gun owner and, in my opinion, nobody does this better than the
USCCA. This type of exposure and knowledge helps to navigate
through these stressful and highly intense situations to better
understand what people should and shouldn't do and, where
necessary, to save lives in the process.
I'm incredibly passionate about what I do for a couple of
reasons. First, I believe in what I do. I believe in a person's
Constitutional right to defend him or herself as well as
others. Second, I was a victim of a random act of violence,
which also allows me to personally relate to the fear my
clients describe when they find themselves involved in these
situations.
At the age of 17, I was walking with my then girlfriend,
now wife, Dana, one of my sisters and a few friends when a
large group of gang members ran over to us. As they grabbed the
hat off the head of one of my friends, I quickly turned to my
sister and Dana and told them to run. I was certain we were
about to be attacked. As soon as I could say this, though, I
was hit very hard in the head with a blunt object. I
immediately went down on my knees as I was beaten repeatedly
with a lead pipe and baseball bat. Dana and my sister were held
at gunpoint as these gang bangers continued to beat me bloody.
As luck would have it, a police officer happened to drive by in
the parking lot next to where this was happening and the gang
members quickly dispersed.
Nobody wakes up and says, I hope today is the day where I
get attacked and I wonder if I'm going to die. Unfortunately,
these acts of random violence happen more than we want to
believe. We often see or hear about these incidents in the news
when we turn on the TV or the radio. With such a focus and
emphasis on violent crimes, it comes as little surprise that
more and more people have decided to purchase firearms to
defend themselves.
Unfortunately, many people find themselves in situations
where they are forced to defend themselves and then being
criminally charged after doing so. My firm has had five self-
defense jury trials set this month alone. The first of these
trials was scheduled to start yesterday but, as luck would have
it, we were able to convince the prosecutor to dismiss the case
against our client.
I have no shortage of exposure to these types of cases,
which is why I'm excited to be in front of you to share some
perspective as to what happens after someone has been involved
in a self-defense shooting.
I often say this with self-defense shooting cases. You can
go from being a victim of the aggressor to being a victim of
the system as quickly as you pull the trigger. Our system is
flawed when it comes to self-defense, as there's a lot of
ignorance when it comes to this topic. The fact that we lack
uniformity in our Nation's laws is a significant contributing
factor.
For example, if you're being attacked and you reasonably
believe you're about to receive great bodily harm or death,
some States require you to attempt to run or flee from your
attacker before using lethal force to defend yourself, while
others allow you to stand your ground.
Whether and how you can defend yourself shouldn't come down
to what State you're in. Everyone should have the right to
defend themselves in the same way. The disparity between these
different rules of engagement concerning self-defense has
caused a lot of confusion.
From my personal experience, this confusion is not merely
confined to people outside of the legal profession but people
in the legal profession as well. I've seen attorneys, criminal
defense attorneys, prosecuting attorneys, and even judges that
have been mistaken about the self-defense laws of the
jurisdiction in which they practice.
If this isn't bad enough, there is such a negative stigma
concerning firearms in this country. Many people believe that
all firearms are bad, some even going so far as to believe that
people that own firearms are bad as well. Many believe that
they shouldn't be able to carry or to defend themselves against
firearms. Some of these people that share these beliefs are
judges, others are potential jurors.
Imagine being the victim of a violent attack, being robbed,
or being carjacked. Imagine you reasonably believe you are
about to receive great bodily harm or death. Imagine that the
only way to stop this threat is to shoot the attacker. Imagine
protecting yourself under these circumstances.
Now, imagine a legal system that is divided in terms of how
it perceives this incident, a system that regards you as the
criminal after defending yourself, a system that arrests you, a
system that criminally charges you, a system where attorneys
and/or judges don't always apply the correct law, a system
where you are being prejudged merely because you own a firearm
and/or because you chose to protect yourself with that firearm.
This is not the system we want for the people of the United
States.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I welcome
any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McDermott follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. McDermott.
Now, we recognize Ms. Muller for her five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DIANNA MULLER
Ms. Muller. Good morning. Thank you, Chair Biggs and
Ranking Members McBath and Raskin.
I'm Dianna Muller. I'm a 22-year retired police officer
from Tulsa Police Department. I'm a national world champion
shooter and a founder of Women for Gun Rights, a nonpartisan
organization dedicated to safeguarding the Second Amendment.
It's an honor to represent the countless women who have
experienced unthinkable tragedy and crime, like murder, rape,
domestic violence, and stalking. Their stories are absolutely
horrifying but underscore the importance of our organization
and the desire of citizens to protect themselves and their
families. Everyone in this room, Democrat and Republican, red
shirt or teal shirt, we all have the same goal. We all want to
be safe.
Women for Gun Rights believes that education is the key to
firearm safety and violence prevention. Women are the fastest
growing group of gun owners in our Nation and for good reason.
We are smaller and less equipped for violence, and firearms
level the playing field in an attack from a larger or faster
assailant.
Women are choosing to carry to protect a life, not to take
a life. I applaud the Majority for having this hearing
highlighting the positive attributes of guns and gun ownership
and welcoming input from people with experience with firearms,
with training, and with violence.
With 22 years of work in the police work, I can tell you
that you are your own first responder. On February 22, 2024,
Laken Riley went for a jog in broad daylight on a campus in a
nice area. She was physically fit. She's brilliant. She's
beautiful. She had no idea the evil she would meet that day.
She fought for 18 minutes to save her life. I've been in
fights, and two minutes is a long time. She fought for 18
minutes. She was her own first responder, but she didn't have
the tools to come out a victor.
One of our best tools is our mind, and how we prepare that
is critical for survival. Words have power, and each of you
have influence in your communities. If you are telling women
that they cannot protect themselves or that she's more likely
to have a gun taken from her and used against her, you're
creating a victim.
Women for Gun Rights is intent on empowering women and
creating victors, not victims. Stop telling women they can't.
They can. For example, one of our delegates from New Mexico was
asleep in bed. In the middle of the night, a serial rapist let
out early broke into her home and attacked her in bed. He had a
firearm. She fought him, gained control of his firearm and shot
him three times and ran out of the house. The gun that was
intended to harm her saved her life.
On the other hand, you have Amanda. She was prepared. She
had a concealed carry permit, she was a self-defense person,
and she parked next to the campus police station. One night
going to her car, a violent attack happened. He raped her. Not
only did he rape her, but he went on to kidnap, rape, and kill
his third victim. He's in prison now, but Amanda is confident
if she had not been legislated out of the opportunity to
protect herself, her story and the other girl's story would
have come out differently. The law, the commonsense law that
was supposed to protect her was the law that made her a victim,
caused her pain, and another to lose her life.
I implore you, stop working against women and start
empowering them. If you want to save lives, I respectfully
request that this body fund training for our citizens,
especially women, to learn how to avoid conflict and survive an
attack with any tool she deems fit for the job. It's her body,
it's her choice, right?
I'll close with this. The Second Amendment and self-
defense, for that matter, should not be a partisan issue, but
it seems like the Democrats have coalesced against it. I, for
one, am encouraged by the efforts of this Congress and this
administration to restore our Constitutionally protected
freedoms and make guns great again.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Muller follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
Tiffany, for his five minutes.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. McDermott, I take it you're from Chicago, in the windy
city, right?
Mr. McDermott. That is correct.
Mr. Tiffany. Tell us--so I'm just North of you in
Wisconsin. Everything I understand is that you have some of the
toughest gun laws in the country in the city of Chicago.
Mr. McDermott. In certain respects, but we also have the
right to stand your ground. So yes, we have tough gun laws; but
when it comes to self-defense, we do have the right to stand
your ground, although most people don't know that.
Mr. Tiffany. Have those tough gun laws made Chicago safer?
Mr. McDermott. In my opinion, not at all. Unfortunately,
there are, as I'm sure you know, approximately 120 firearms in
this country for every 100 citizens. A lot of those firearms
are in Chicago. There was a period of time where the vast
majority during COVID were being purchased out of Illinois.
So, we have a tremendous amount of firearms that are being
purchased to combat the firearms that are already in existence
there. More and more people are being attacked violently in
Chicago. More and more people are in serious fear of being
attacked by those individuals, and they're trying to, as best
as possible, arm themselves against the situation.
Mr. Tiffany. Yet, those tough gun laws have not reversed
that trend. Is that correct?
Mr. McDermott. Not in any way.
Mr. Tiffany. Ms. Muller, do gun-free zones work? We see
gun-free zones. You see the signs regularly, schools, other
places like that. Do gun-free zones work?
Ms. Muller. No, sir, they do not. They are actually the
opposite of what they are intended to do. When you see a gun-
free zone, 94 percent of mass public shootings happen in gun-
free zones. They are killers. They empower criminals to come
after people and basically shoot people in a barrel, shoot fish
in a barrel. They are killers.
Mr. Tiffany. So, I've had a couple school administrators
say to me that just give us the option to be able to not put
that sign ``Gun-Free Zone'' on the front of our school, and it
actually would make it safer.
Do you agree with those school administrators?
Ms. Muller. I absolutely agree. I believe that if you put
up the sign that said ``there were people armed in there'' and
people weren't actually armed, that would make your school
safer.
Mr. Tiffany. I want to talk to you a little bit about the
final page of the testimony that I saw from you in regard to
mental health. I really find it very interesting where you get
into psychotropic drugs and things like that and how much we
give this to people.
In particular, I'm concerned about the amount of
psychotropic drugs that are given to boys that are 6-7 years of
age, in kindergarten, first grade, to control their behavior. I
believe it's rewiring their brains. Now, I don't have
scientific evidence of that, but I think we should be doing
some research in regard to it.
Tell us what you think are some solutions that could be
helpful to prevent some of these shootings that happen as a
result of mental health breakdowns?
Ms. Muller. That's a great question. I'm not a doctor, and
that is a deep, deep well that you just dove into. I do know
that when you tell me that there are black box warning labels
and that it causes homicidal and suicidal tendencies, that's
pretty much a no-brainer as to why don't we look and do some
studies as to how these drugs are affecting our kids and even
our adults. So, I would like some research in that area.
Mr. Tiffany. Have you not found much research? Because I
haven't either, and it seems to me it's something that there
should be--you think about the National Institute of Health and
how they've squirrelled or--I can't use that term here at the
dais--how they've wasted money, the American taxpayers' money.
It seems something like this would be a really good
research project, especially with some leading universities
around America. Isn't there much more research that needs to be
done?
Ms. Muller. Well, I'm glad that you brought that up,
because it seems like there's one-sided research in several
different areas, not only in the mental health and how it
affects guns, but also just the gun-related deal.
The CDC did do a study in 2013 and the numbers that this
saves. What's missing from this conversation is that the number
of 45-48 thousand deaths annually from firearm-related causes
is a horrible number, but you guys are leaving out of the
conversation the number of saves.
That study said three million, up to three million saved
annually. If we're going to look at apples and apples, yes,
45,000 deaths are terrible. When you compare that to the three
million that it saved, we should have that conversation as
well. It's disingenuous.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you in regard to that.
Ms. Muller. It's scrubbed from the CDC. It's no longer
there.
Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Chair, I think that we should be following
up with the administration to try to get better research in
regard to this and get more comprehensive research.
I want to ask one other question for Mr. Ritter.
Give some context to these crime statistics that we've just
been hearing from the other side. Hasn't crime been going down
for a few decades, had spiked in 2020, and now is coming back
down? Could you give us some context.
Mr. Biggs. The gentleman's time is expired, but we'll allow
the witness to answer.
Mr. Ritter. These statistics primarily deal with a broad
range of weapons. My concern is knives. We certainly see that
crimes committed with knives have remained somewhat steady over
the years if you look at the FBI statistics. We know that the
majority of those crimes are committed with chef's knives. So,
if you want to ban knives, maybe take everyone's chef's knifes
away.
Mr. Tiffany. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, Ms. McBath.
Ms. McBath. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just before I ask my questions, I just want to say in
reference to what Mr. McDermott said, it's absolutely the
truth. It's correct that guns coming into Illinois we know
specifically are trafficked from outside that State, as that's
happening all around the country.
The Office of Gun Violence Prevention made demonstrable
improvement in reducing gun violence in America. In its first
days in office, the Trump Administration eliminated the office,
threatening the progress that we've made in gun violence.
Mr. Jackson, my questions are for you. If you can be
succinct because I have a number of questions for you.
The Trump White House shuttered the Office of Gun Violence
Prevention. What work won't happen as a result of that?
Mr. Jackson. Well, there's no longer a team that's focused
every day on getting the resources to life-saving strategies.
We talked about domestic violence, but one of our jobs was
pushing over $450 million to States to help them implement
strategies to remove firearms from domestic abusers.
Now, without our office there to oversee the dollars
getting to the communities needed, implementing and expediting
laws or executive actions, frankly, processes will be slowed
and, unfortunately, lives will be lost.
Ms. McBath. Please tell us how State and local governments
have taken up the mantle of the White House Office of Gun
Violence Prevention?
Mr. Jackson. Yes. Seeing the results that we saw federally,
when we started the administration, there was only one
statewide Office of Gun Violence Prevention. Now, there's 14.
There were only 20 at the city level. Now, there's 140. Across
the country, watching cities and States think about how do they
prevent violence, looking at an all-of-government approach to
not only keep guns out of the hands of those who are most at
risk or most vulnerable, but how do we invest in mental health,
behavior health, community violence intervention, crime gun
intelligence, and law enforcement to reduce violence.
Ms. McBath. Some Republicans are attempting to defund
Federal law enforcement, including the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the ATF.
How important is the ATF to State and local law
enforcement's efforts to solve violent crime and protect our
communities?
Mr. Jackson. When we traveled the country, we heard
firsthand from local law enforcement how important ATF is.
There are real limitations to what local law enforcement can
do. We looked at, for example, ATF prosecuted over 680 gun
traffickers. Like Mr. McDermott said, guns that are moving from
one State into another, ATF is the team that can prosecute and
get those criminals off the streets. They also made sure that
4,600 domestic abusers were prohibited from getting firearms,
and made sure they didn't purchase firearms through the
enhanced background check system.
The ATF is crucial to look at how guns are moving across
States and causing harm but also looking upstream and how do we
hold traffickers, gun dealers, and the manufacturers
accountable.
Ms. McBath. Thank you. Everyone is affected by gun
violence. Have rural communities been receptive to the CBI
programs?
Mr. Jackson. Rural communities have heavily embraced our
work. Frankly, when we think about gun violence, homicides, and
suicides are such a devastating part of this problem, but we
notice suicides are most intensely impacting older White males
in rural America.
That's why our office partnered with the Department of
Veterans Affairs, even connected with the Department of
Agriculture to think about how do we educate our older
Americans about lethal means and safe storage, but also start
to empower families on how they can leverage tools like extreme
risk protection orders to ensure that their elder family
members are safe even in those moments of crisis.
Ms. McBath. What more should we be doing to support State
and local law enforcement?
Mr. Jackson. Well, we have to continue to invest and
resource them. We had a roundtable with President Biden with
police chiefs from across the country, and the number one thing
that they said supported their work was having true community
partners. That's where investments in community violence
intervention and victim services played a huge role in assuring
that it's not just law enforcement trying to solve this
problem, that we have health departments, doctors, community
organizations, and schools and principals, all equipped with
tools and resources, to prevent violence before it happens.
We have to keep building on that. We have to strengthen the
full ecosystem that's working together to keep our communities
safe. We can do that by passing the Office of Gun Violence Act
that will create an office beyond the White House, but also
just protecting those important investments through the
appropriations process.
Ms. McBath. There has been so much success, but we also
have so much more to do, and we have to keep going. We have to
continue to make sure that we keep all our communities safe.
I myself, having been exposed to gun violence directly, I
care about everyone's community. I don't care what side of the
aisle we sit on; we have to keep our communities safe.
I have a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent
to enter into the record an article by Alisha Ebrahimji
entitled ``More than half of U.S. teachers think being armed
would make students less safe, report finds,'' published by CNN
on May 21st.
Mr. Biggs. Without objection.
Ms. McBath. Thank you.
Mr. Biggs. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, Mr.
Moore.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the witnesses
being here today in attendance.
Ms. Muller, are you familiar with the ATF zero-tolerance
policy that was implemented by Biden's ATF?
Ms. Muller. I have heard of it.
Mr. Moore. What are some of the consequences of taking
these aggressive enforcement actions, do you think?
Ms. Muller. Well, I'll begin with I'm a professional
shooter, I'm not an FFL. What I do understand, and I hear from
people who are FFLs is that the Biden Administration and the
way they went--it wasn't a partnership anymore. It was more of
an adversarial relationship. Therefore, it really hurts the
relationship between the FFLs and the ATF.
So, I think it was a mistake and not really going after the
right target.
Mr. Moore. Yes. They're usually our front lines, right?
They're keeping prohibited buyers off of the purchasing rolls,
if you will. I would think working with the ATF would be
beneficial, but often it looked like it was adversarial. Some
of the FFLs were targeted in many ways by the ATF. It was
counterproductive. Really, what they were intending to do and
what they should have been doing maybe are two different
things. It sends a wrong message a lot of times.
So, tell me. I've got a wife and two daughters. They're
both concealed carry. Tell me how being able to carry a
firearm, really, it levels the playing field for our female
folks who are on the streets in dangerous situations. Tell us a
little bit about that. How does that help?
Ms. Muller. It really does level the playing field and give
us a chance. People--I believe that the people that advocate
for gun control are doing it with good intentions, but they're
doing it from a place of privilege.
If you don't think that you need the Second Amendment and
you don't think that you need to carry a firearm or have
training, or have self-defense as a defense, then you are
coming from a place of privilege. You're not living in a
community that is plagued with violence. You're not living in a
community that needs to have that kind of security. I would
check your privilege and say that the Second Amendment is what
gives everyone the right to be safe.
Mr. Moore. I would agree with that. Very often the Left in
the country wants to disarm its citizens, and then at the same
time they often call for defunding the police.
You put those citizens in a tough spot because you don't
want them armed to defend themselves. In many cases, the DAs
and AGs in those communities were turning criminals loose with
a slap on the wrist, basically, sometimes just cash bail. It
puts those folks in those communities in grave danger.
Mr. McDermott, I noticed Memorial Day weekend in Chicago,
well actually, the statistics were 34 were shot, eight were
killed, and the youngest was a 20-year-old.
You said in Chicago we're seeing more and more gun
purchases, but why are we seeing that? What's going on?
Mr. McDermott. Well, quite frankly, the reason we're seeing
more people purchasing firearms is because there's such an
emphasis on defunding the police. There's so many different
rules and regulations put in place to restrict what police can
and can't do with respect to, for example, carjackings, which
are a very significant crime in Chicago. They're very often
taking place.
We are now saying the police can't--or not just now, but
we've been saying police can't pursue these vehicles after a
certain speed. There's no way for people to be able to protect
themselves--excuse me, there's no way for people to really feel
a particular comfort in the police being able to protect them
from these types of dangers. They're seeing it. It's constantly
on the news. It's constantly in their face. More and more
people are purchasing firearms to be able to defend themselves.
A big issue here, a lot of people direct the issue toward
guns. There's not an issue with guns. The issue is with
criminals. We continue to empower criminals on a daily basis.
We continue to write laws that help criminals to get away with
more crime and to disable at the same time those law-abiding
citizens that are being forced to put--that are being put in a
position where they're forced to defend themselves.
Mr. Moore. Great.
With that, Mr. Chair, I'll yield back.
Mr. Biggs. The gentleman yields.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman, the Ranking Member
of the entire Committee from Maryland, Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So, Mr. Jackson, guns are the leading cause of death for
young people in America. Guns are--I learned from you, the
leading cause of death for pregnant women in America. They are
the leading cause of disabilities for newly disabled people I
learned from you.
I know that the U.S. has more firearms than people, and I
know that we've got a firearm homicide rate 25 times higher
than other comparable wealthy countries.
Now, I hear the argument that because our society is
swimming in firearms that people need more firearms to defend
themselves. Of course, people have a Constitutional right to
purchase a handgun to defend themselves, right, under the
Heller v. District of Columbia case. Isn't that right?
Mr. Jackson. Correct.
Mr. Raskin. So, people have that right. It seems to me that
the argument that is being advanced is a huge non sequitur. The
claim is being made pushing an open door that people have a
right to a gun to defend themselves if that's how they choose
to defend themselves, and therefore, we shouldn't do anything
else to try to limit the staggering amount of gun violence in
society.
Now, you're here to tell us that the Biden Administration
saw great success. Will you just give us what were the major
elements of that success in reducing gun violence?
Mr. Jackson. Right. Just to build on your statement, if
guns made us safer, we would definitely be the safest country
in the world, considering how many firearms there are in our
communities.
We knew that gun violence is about more than just solving a
crime, it's about preventing a health crisis. So, we looked at
strategies to help victims heal, investing in the Crime Victims
Fund and VOCA, investing in violence intervention programs and
law enforcement crime intelligence strategies.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Were any of those things struck down as
violative of anybody's Second Amendment rights?
Mr. Jackson. No.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Why isn't everybody celebrating across the
aisle that we actually saved thousands of lives through the
things the Biden Administration did without violating anybody's
Second Amendment rights?
Mr. Jackson. It baffles me, because I think we should all
have the same goal of saving lives, and we now have a strategy
that has been proven for two years in a row to save historic
lives. Our cities are, frankly--Boston had an 82 percent
reduction. I don't know how we can even debate--
Mr. Raskin. Eighty-two percent reduction in gun homicides?
Mr. Jackson. In homicides. Yes.
Mr. Raskin. Can you explain this to me? People have a right
to have a gun to defend themselves. Everybody agrees with that.
You never challenged that, did you, in your office?
Mr. Jackson. Correct.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Why is it that people are taking the
position we shouldn't be doing anything to reduce gun violence
other than selling more guns?
Mr. Jackson. Frankly, the gun industry is big business. We
talked about there being over 20,000, 30,000, and 25,000 FFLs.
Frankly, that may not sound big to some folks, but that's
enough to fill Madison Square Garden. There's a lot of profit
to be made in selling firearms, but we have seen firsthand
that's not how we prevent violence.
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Mr. Jackson. Guns don't make us safe. Preventing violence
is what makes us safe, and that's what we have proved that has
worked.
Mr. Raskin. The whole point of the social contract, if you
read John Locke, Hobbes, or Rousseau, anybody who wrote about
the social contract, is we'll be safer coming together with
laws than we would be if we were just in a State of war, a
State of violence against each other.
Mr. Jackson. Right. If we're talking about how to promote
self-defense, aren't the laws that you're talking about
themselves instruments of self-defense and community safety?
Mr. Jackson. Correct. We should always focus on preventing
conflict in the first place. We talked a little bit about
stand-your-ground laws here today, but I will be up front with
you. If I tried to stand my ground when I was shot, I would be
dead because evading is the number one way to move--
Mr. Raskin. There's so many of these spectacular mass gun
shootings at schools and Walmarts, and so on where there were
armed guards around, right?
Mr. Jackson. Correct.
Mr. Raskin. There are lots of cases where they just go
right through the guards.
Mr. Jackson. We think about Uvalde where we had hundreds of
law enforcement or we had Buffalo where armed folks engaged the
shooter and lost. We have to realize that the way that we can
truly save lives is preventing someone from walking onto a
campus or approaching senior citizens in a grocery store in the
first place.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Biggs. The gentleman yields.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Kiley.
Mr. Kiley. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to bring to the Committee's attention what is
the single most radical attack on the Second Amendment that we
have seen in a long, long time. It is a bill that was just
introduced in the California Legislature, AB-1333, the relevant
text of which is here behind me. What this bill seeks to do is
to effectively overturn the Castle Doctrine to say that it is
no longer a justifiable form of self-defense to defend a
habitation or a property.
Now, you might say, Well, OK, something crazy is being
proposed in California. What else is new? One of the advocacy
groups for this measure--in fact, that by all reports seems to
have written the measure--has stated that this bill is, quote,
``a blueprint for the rest of the Nation.'' So, it is worth
taking very seriously the outrageous affront to the Second
Amendment that this measure represents.
Even jurisdictions that have the weakest protections for
the Second Amendment and for the right to self-defense have
generally upheld the Castle Doctrine. Even States that impose a
right to retreat, let's say, when you're confronted with deadly
force still maintain the basic view that your home is your
castle, and you have the right to defend yourself if there is a
home invasion. After all, if you're confronted in your home,
where are you supposed to retreat to?
Let's just try to get our minds around the absurdity of
this idea. You're asleep in your home in the middle of the
night. A burglar breaks into your home, is heading to the room
where your young children are fast asleep, and what are you
supposed to do? You have to affirmatively somehow confirm that
this individual is actually posing a risk. This is what--I
believe the Latin is res ipsa loquitur, ``the thing speaks for
itself.'' He has just invaded your home in the middle of the
night. Of course he is posing a risk.
What are you supposed to do? You run him through a metal
detector, and only then if it goes off, you do have the right
to defend yourself and your family and your children? Just
think about what the impact of this is going to be. It will
massively tip the scales in favor of the criminal in the case
of such a confrontation.
It puts the onus on you, the victim, an ordinary citizen
minding your own business in your own home whose home has just
been invaded, to somehow meet a set of legal requirements
before exercising your inherent right to self-defense.
The criminal, knowing this, will use it to press their
advantage. Indeed, more broadly, criminals knowing that
homeowners have been rendered defenseless will be much more
likely to burglarize homes. Citizens, knowing the legal peril
that they might face, will be less likely to take steps to
actually defend themselves, which, again, will incentivize more
burglaries.
Again, this is a measure that the lead advocacy group
called a blueprint for the rest of the Nation. Maybe I'll pose
this question to Mr. McDermott and Ms. Muller, if you have any
thoughts as well.
What do you see as the risk of a measure like this, and how
can we assure that we are protecting the Second Amendment
rights of folks across the country in the face of these
proposals?
Mr. McDermott. Thanks for the question.
More than anything else, as Ms. Muller put it, many of
these people that are enacting or proposing the enactment of
these laws come from a place of privilege. I represent a lot of
these people, post-self-defense incidents. It's an entirely
different story.
It's entirely different when you have to speak on
somebody's behalf and defend them in court as to what they did
and something that many people would think makes sense. It was
something that was life-sustaining. It was something that was
necessary to preserve the lives and the lives of their family.
Criminals are not restricting their ability to commit
crimes, but so many law-abiding citizens are restricted in
their ability to defend themselves, and this is another way in
which that happens.
I think a very serious concern here--and I talked about it
in my opening statement--is the fact that we are imposing or
suggesting the imposition of additional duty-to-retreat States,
or duty-to-retreat jurisdictions, and this is very wrong.
This is basically coming from a place of--I liken this to
Monday morning quarterbacking where you basically--when I'm
litigating these cases in court in real time, and I'm listening
to all these different things and I'm taking this all in,
knowing what my client actually went through, and you have got
somebody that's sitting in the comfortable place of their home
and they're watching the football game on a big screen and they
see all the different options that the quarterback has when he
hikes the ball.
The quarterback is seeing a number of different people
running at him full speed, big people getting ready to take him
out, has seconds, sometimes milliseconds to go ahead and
respond in those types of situations, and then people on Monday
morning--just like lawmakers, unfortunately, the different
jurisdictions are saying you should have done this differently.
It's pretty sad. It's pretty pathetic.
It's not helping people to defend themselves, which is an
innate right. Everybody in this room can agree that everybody
has a right to defend themselves. It's just half this room
disagreeing as to why or how they can do that.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Goldman.
Mr. Goldman. Well, I agree with Mr. McDermott. Everybody in
this room recognizes there's a right to self-defense. I hope my
colleague from California is permitted by his former colleagues
to speak at the hearing on the California bill that is not a
bill in this Congress.
Mr. McDermott, I want to just clarify something you said.
You said earlier on that, in Chicago, that the gun laws have
not worked. I beg to differ. The Everytown Gun Law Rankings
that just came out--and I'm happy to introduce this: Illinois,
in terms of its gun law strength, at number three. California
is one; Massachusetts is two; Illinois is three; my home State
of New York is four. The problem with those States is that
there is an Iron Pipeline where guns that are manufactured
outside of those States are trafficked into those States.
The ATF is the Federal Government agency that is charged--
and I believe, Mr. Jackson, am I right that the ATF is the only
one with technology that can trace guns?
Mr. Jackson. They're definitely the best at it.
Mr. Goldman. Yes. So, most local law enforcement send the
guns to the ATF to trace so that they can figure out where they
are coming from. That allows us to enforce Federal laws against
gun trafficking.
Now, I want to raise a different point here because not
only was Kash Patel recently confirmed to be the Director of
the FBI--he has never managed a local bakery much less an
institution of the size of the FBI--but then, President Trump
named him also to be the Acting Director of the ATF. Mr. Patel
spoke at the inaugural summit of an organization called the Gun
Owners of America, which says on its website that they advocate
for abolishing the ATF.
Mr. Jackson, briefly, can you just summarize what would
happen if the ATF were abolished?
Mr. Jackson. We would lose the ability to federally enforce
rogue gun dealers, to focus on disrupting problematic iron
pipelines, as you spoke of--there's multiple across the
country--to prosecute gun traffickers. It would greatly
handicap our background check system and our ability to
identify and frankly deny dangerous sales of firearms. Most
importantly, it will strip us of the ability to look out for
emerging threats. We know that there are things like Glock
switches and innovations that are happening every day that are
making weapons more deadly.
Mr. Goldman. Ghost guns, right? Ghost guns as well.
Now, that's not just a potential problem. That's a real
problem because the President has issued an Executive Order to
reevaluate every gun regulation that has been implemented by
the Biden Administration through Mr. Jackson and the excellent
work, in part, of the Office of Gun Violence Prevention.
Now, one of those rules is engaged in the business of
selling guns rule, which is clearly a target of my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle. It's pretty remarkable to me
because that rule--which is often referred to as the zero-
tolerance policy--revokes Federal firearm licenses for people
who, (1) willfully transfer a firearm to a prohibited person,
someone who the law says is not allowed to own a gun; (2) fails
to run a required background check; (3) falsify records; (4)
fail to respond to a tracing request; or (5) refuse to permit
ATF to conduct an inspection in violation of the law. In other
words, that regulation is designed solely to enforce the law,
and yet, for some reason, that is a purported infringement on
our Second Amendment rights.
Ms. Muller, I have a couple of quick questions for you. Is
there a Second Amendment right for a mentally ill person to own
a firearm?
Ms. Muller. There isn't one that is--
Mr. Goldman. Is there a Second Amendment right for--I just
have a little time--for someone convicted of or with an
outstanding order from domestic violence to own a gun?
Ms. Muller. Repeat the question, please.
Mr. Goldman. Can someone who has committed domestic
violence own a gun? Is there a Second Amendment right?
Mr. Biggs. The gentleman's time has expired. You may answer
the question if you can.
Ms. Muller. No, sir.
Mr. Goldman. No, there's not. This is not a Second
Amendment issue.
Mr. Biggs. Your time has expired. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Nehls.
Mr. Nehls. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Kiley, thank you for
your questions. You think about California. Well, it's
California. You figure that.
As an old sheriff from Fort Bend County, Texas, we love the
great State of Texas, if you come into the great State of Texas
and you start waving a gun around and threatening our citizens
or you break into a home in the State of Texas, you're leaving
in a bag. You will leave in a bag. As a sheriff, many did.
Breaking into people's homes, their castles, threatening, or
scaring people, that's California for you, but I will tell you,
not in the great State of Texas. We won't allow it.
First, I want to ask about the effect of Left-wing DAs
charging people with crimes for engaging in obvious self-
defense or defense of others. Mr. Daniel Penny, his name comes
to mind as a recent example. Last year, Mr. Penny restrained
Jordan Neely on the New York City subway after Neely continued
to threaten women and children on the train, which
unfortunately resulted in his death. I am sure that Mr. Penny
didn't want to have to take the man's life. Nobody wants to do
that.
Although this was an obvious case of self-defense of
others, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg charged Penny with
manslaughter, likely due to public pressure from the Left-wing
radicals who felt Mr. Neely should have been allowed--be
allowed to threaten women and children with impunity. Even
though the jury came to an obvious outcome of a full
acquittal--it didn't take long--a full acquittal, the damage to
Mr. Penny had already been done. He had been through an 18-
month ordeal in which his name and reputation--they drug it
through the mud.
So, the government and the media's message to New Yorkers
was clear: Dare to protect your fellow citizens, and we will
destroy your life.
You know the old Good Samaritan? Do you have Good
Samaritans out there anymore? You may not have them anymore.
Why would anybody do it when you have-jobs like Alvin Bragg,
and others that want to go after and make the individual that
wants to help other people--he's all of a sudden the suspect?
Mr. McDermott, do these kinds of political prosecutions
deter people from coming to the defense of others, and how does
that put at risk vulnerable populations like women and children
and the elderly? In other words, how important is it? How
important is it for us to have a society where people feel
empowered to come to the defense of the vulnerable, Mr.
McDermott?
Mr. McDermott. Obviously, the question answers itself. It's
extremely important. We have a number of different problems.
First, many people recognize the right to defend themselves,
and very often, they disregard the right to defend others, as
happened in that particular case.
There is certain uniform, I would say, rules in this space.
There are certain things that you see repeating themselves very
often. For example, my clients that are being charged with
various serious charges, the majority of these clients, the
vast majority of these clients, close to all of them, have no
criminal backgrounds. Yet, the victims that are being--the
complaining witnesses in these cases do have backgrounds. They
have violent backgrounds.
I have a client right now that's in custody that will not
be released from custody because she has been determined--it
has been determined that she's a danger to society. She is a
grandmother. She was protecting herself, she was protecting her
daughter, and she was protecting her 75-year-old mother from
two grown men that were beating on them, and she is being
charged. This is happening far too often.
Mr. Nehls. Thank you. Thank you, McDermott. I have got one
question and one minute left. I want to talk about the Second
Amendment and uniformity in the Second Amendment.
Based on the current laws of the States of New Jersey and
Pennsylvania, for example, a Pennsylvania resident could
receive an 18-month prison sentence and a $10,000 fine simply
for possessing a knife in New Jersey that he is legally allowed
to have in Pennsylvania.
So, Mr. Ritter, how do you think that is in the spirit of
the Second Amendment? How does the lack of uniformity among
States--even in what kind of knife one can carry--degrade the
right to self-defense?
Mr. Ritter. The issue is, under Bruen, there really is no
defense for creating a ban on a particular kind of knife
because all these knives are common; all these knives are,
quite frankly, less dangerous than a firearm.
The purpose of my bill is to ensure that if someone from
your great State of Texas is going to the great State of New
Hampshire and has to pass through New Jersey, that they can do
so without risk of being imprisoned for simply carrying a knife
that's legal at both the start and the finish of their journey
as long as they lock it up. This is about protecting your
constituents.
Mr. Nehls. Thank you, Mr. Ritter. With that, I yield back.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina,
Mr. Knott.
Mr. Knott. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think it's interesting that my friends on the other side
of the aisle have tiptoed around the issue and even claim to
not be against the Second Amendment. They're not hostile toward
the Second Amendment, but life experience and observation of
any objective record shows that they are very hostile toward
the Second Amendment. Even in some of the cases that they have
cited in limited support of their questions, whether it be
Heller or Bruen, the Democratic Party has been against those in
lockstep and have been challenging those at lower circuits ever
since those opinions went into effect.
Even in these questions, the insinuation that there are far
too many guns in the United States. You should pass more laws
but don't buy more guns. You should prosecute people who are
too aggressive in self-defense. You should prosecute the use of
lethal force even if it results in the death of an attacker.
These are things that are fundamentally contrarian and against
the claim that they are not for the Second Amendment.
One of the statements that was made by a witness at the
panel says that guns do not make us safe, and as a career
prosecutor, I have to differ in my opinion in the strongest
sense.
I'll start with you, Ms. Muller. Do you agree with that
statement? In your experience as a police officer, one
statement that you made said that we are our own first
responders. So, in your experience, ma'am, what is your opinion
on whether or not guns do in fact make us safe?
[Audio malfunction in hearing room.]
Mr. Biggs. The Subcommittee is called back to order. We
appreciate your patience. We've rebooted the whole system.
Mr. Knott has been recognized, and so, Mr. Knott, we
recognize you for the completion of your five minutes.
Mr. Knott. Thank you.
Ms. Muller, do you remember the question I asked?
Essentially the notion that guns don't make us safe. In your
experience as a law enforcement officer, and as a woman who
carries, do you agree with that statement? Why or why not?
Ms. Muller. No, sir, I do not. I honestly believe that gun
control is the remnants of the racism and the systemic racism
we hear about in America. Think about the newly freed slaves.
What did they do to them? They disarmed them. They made it
certain that they couldn't defend themselves.
The bottom line is that gun control is racist. Today, the
communities that are most impacted by violence, they need the
proper education about firearms and firearm safety. They don't
need to be disarmed.
Mr. Knott. In your experience, ma'am, are firearms used as
a deterrent for violent crimes that could result in serious
injury or death?
Ms. Muller. Absolutely. That's what that CDC study showed,
and that's why it's no longer on their website. It's because it
doesn't support their narrative.
Mr. Knott. Right. Now, in regard to your experience as a
law enforcement officer, ma'am, what effect on safety in local
communities did defunding the police and the open border
policies of the Biden Administration have on public safety?
Ms. Muller. I think it was detrimental, and I think that
that's why Americans flew to the gun stores, and we've had
record sales. We're touting that the bipartisan bill has
decreased crime. Well, I would submit that it was because we
have had over one million gun sales a month for the past four
years, and that there's an estimated 26 million first-time gun
owners. So, it's not that gun control is working. Maybe it's
the opposite, that firearms do prevent crimes.
Also, on the heels of defunding the police, Baltimore has
hired police officers, and they have prosecuted criminals. That
is how you maintain a safer community.
Mr. Knott. Now, Mr. McDermott, in regard to Chicago, there
has been a lot of talk about this Iron Pipeline and so on and
so forth, but their current mayor, Mr. Johnson--he campaigned
as someone who was very hostile toward the police department.
He was very progressive in his willingness to let positions go
unfilled.
What effect does local law enforcement backing the blue and
enforcing existing laws have on gun violence in Chicago and
other cities where violence is a problem?
Mr. McDermott. Thank you. I believe Mr. Raskin indicated
that Chicago is a place where there has been a lot of--the gun
law strength has become much better. If you ask the people of
Chicago, they don't feel safer. They don't feel safer at all.
As a matter of fact, they feel even more scared, especially
when you are talking about things such as defunding the police.
This gives rise to a great concern.
A lot of people, as I said, are going out and purchasing
firearms because they don't believe they can now feel that they
have that type of protection there. It has created a number of
different situations that weren't created before.
Something that hasn't been brought up is that the number of
people that are being charged after defending themselves is at
an all-time high from my experience. I don't know if there are
any statistics on that, but from my experience, there is a
number--there is a tremendous number of people that are being
charged that were never being charged before after defending
themselves in Chicago.
Mr. Knott. Yes. I find it interesting that the other side
of the aisle says we need to pass more laws. That will reduce
gun violence, passing more laws, right?
Mr. McDermott. Well, because--
Mr. Knott. It's illegal to sell drugs. What do people do?
They sell drugs. It's legal to commit assault. What do people
do? Commit assault. It's illegal to commit property crimes.
What do they do? They commit property crimes. If we just pass
more laws, the criminals who use firearms will obey them.
That's the narrative.
Mr. McDermott. Absolutely. That's the narrative. Obviously,
that's not what's happening. We are seeing that we are
disarming--again, disarming law-abiding citizens.
Mr. Knott. Is there a gun control measure that will not
affect lawful responsible gun owners but will affect criminals?
Mr. Biggs. The gentleman's time has expired. You may answer
the question, Mr. McDermott.
Mr. McDermott. I am sorry. In what respect? You are saying
is there a--
Mr. Knott. Is there a law that could be passed that will
not punish law-abiding and responsible gun owners, but will
prohibit criminals from breaking the law?
Mr. McDermott. Not in this context. Not at all.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair?
Mr. Biggs. The gentleman's time has expired. I understand
you have a UC?
Mr. Raskin. Yes. Actually, I have a point of order first.
The witness--
Mr. Biggs. Please state your point of order.
Mr. Raskin. The witness just falsely identified something
that he claimed I said. I never even mentioned the word
``Chicago.'' If we could change the record on that or at least
I would like to clarify. He may have been thinking of something
somebody else said, but I never mentioned Chicago.
Mr. Biggs. We're going to let it stand. The record speaks
for itself.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Then, I just want to state that this was
completely false.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you. Now, the Chair--do you have a UC?
Mr. Raskin. I have a unanimous consent request to enter
into the record an article from Benjamin Weiss titled, ``Dems
Demand Details From Bondi on Trump's Directive to Review Gun
Regulations,'' published by Courthouse News on March 3, 2025.
Mr. Biggs. Without objection.
Mr. Biggs. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
California, Mr. Swalwell.
Mr. Swalwell. Well, this hearing is--
Mr. Biggs. Hold it. We've got a problem with the clock
again.
Mr. Swalwell. I will take as much time as I may consume.
Mr. Biggs. I know I'm not giving you 10:34.
Mr. Swalwell. You don't want to give me 10:34.
Mr. Biggs. So, they're checking on it. We're going to be in
recess for another--are we good? Are we good?
OK. All right. I need some help watching that clock. Now,
Mr. Swalwell, please.
Mr. Swalwell. Well, this hearing is beautifully titled,
``The Right to Self-Defense.'' I see some moms who are here who
would like to talk about the right to self-defense because a
lot of moms lost their children in many of the mass shootings
conducted with assault weapons over the last 10 years.
I would like to ask, what was the self-defense in Aurora
where 12 people were killed? What was the self-defense in
Newtown where 26 people were killed, most of them babies,
little kids? What was the self-defense in Orlando where 49
people were killed? What was the self-defense in Vegas where 58
people were killed?
What was the self-defense in Sutherland Springs where 26
people were killed? What was the self-defense at Parkland where
17 people were killed, mostly students? What was the self-
defense at a synagogue in Pittsburgh where 11 people were
killed? What was the self-defense in Thousand Oaks where 12
people were killed? What was the self-defense in Gilroy where
three people were killed? What was the self-defense in El Paso
where 22 people were killed?
What was the self-defense in Dayton where nine people were
killed, or Boulder, where 10 people were killed, or the self-
defense in Buffalo where another 10 were killed, or Uvalde
where 21 were killed--mostly babies, mostly little kids--or
Highland Park--not an assault rifle--or Charleston in a church,
or Santa Fe? What was this self-defense?
When most parents hear that, that there's a right to self-
defense, they say bullshit. My kids have a right to go home. My
kids have a right to go home. I should be able to look them in
the eye in the morning when I send them off to school and not
have to think about what they're wearing because I may have to
identify them later. That's what parents do right now. I know
because they tell me. I know because I have three littles, two
of them whom are already doing mass shooter drills.
I talked to a substitute teacher recently who told me that
a student came up to her in her classroom and said, ``Do you
know where to put us?'' She was confused, and she said, ``What
are you talking about where do I put you?'' The student said,
``You're not our normal teacher. Our normal teacher knows where
to put us if somebody comes in here with a gun. Did they tell
you where you're supposed to put us?''
Those are the questions that our children are asking right
now. Will you protect me? Do you think they feel protected by
this hearing? By putting into our streets and our communities
the most dangerous weapons so they can go into the hands of the
most dangerous people. That doesn't protect anybody.
Mr. Jackson, I wanted to ask you--and thank you for your
work--can you think of a legitimate purpose for an untraceable,
unregistered gun?
Mr. Jackson. No.
Mr. Swalwell. Would you agree that the only reason you need
what's called a ghost gun is because you're a prohibited
purchaser and you can't get one any other way, or you intend to
commit a crime and you don't want people knowing where the gun
came from?
Mr. Jackson. Exactly.
Mr. Swalwell. I would like unanimous consent, Mr. Chair, to
enter into the record a California Department of Justice report
on California's fight against ghost guns.
Mr. Biggs. Without objection.
Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Jackson, can you talk about some of the
preparations and trainings and studies you and your office had
done around mass shootings and what we can do to not traumatize
our kids--because I think there is trauma associated with
having to go through some of these drills--but, to also not
leave them unprepared if that ever came to their classroom?
Mr. Jackson. Yes. We looked pretty intensely at how guns
are impacting our schools, and frankly, what steps have been
taken, and one thing that was clear is that the biggest threat
is guns that are coming from the home. Seventy-six percent of
school shootings come from the home and not just some bogeyman
in the alley. The real work that needs to be done is engaging
parents to be more responsible and securing and storing their
firearms to help prevent these tragedies.
Mr. Swalwell. That's not taking anyone's gun. That's just
saying there are things you can do to lock it up and keep it
away.
Mr. Jackson. Exactly.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Biggs. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the Chair of the Full Committee,
Mr. Jordan.
Chair Jordan. Yes. I just want to make a point. Earlier,
one of our Democrat colleagues talked about Kash Patel running
the ATF. What I will say is this: When the ATF was run by
someone else, I know some of the crazy things that happened.
Any of you have ever heard of Bryan Malinowski and what
happened to Mr. Malinowski? They said that he had somehow
sold--was accused of selling six firearms that he wasn't
supposed to sell. They had a search warrant. Instead of going
to Bryan Malinowski while he worked--he was the highest-paid
municipal employee at the Little Rock, Arkansas--he worked at
the Bill and Hillary Clinton Airport. Instead of going to the
airport and talking to him, going to his house, and then doing
the search warrant, they decided they were going to do a
predawn raid.
They were all set to do it on one particular Friday, and
then they found out he wasn't home. They called it off and they
said we're going to wait until the next Friday when he is home
and go at--again, a predawn raid. Ten cars pull up, ATF agents
and local police. They go up.
The first thing you see from the doorbell cam is them
putting the tape on the doorbell camera, and then 53 seconds
later, Bryan Malinowski is shot in the head because he does
what any normal person would do.
It's why Mr. Kiley brought up about the crazy law they're
proposing in California. He was defending himself. He thought
he was getting robbed. He was defending himself, gets shot in
the head, and dies several hours later.
That's the ATF before. You can criticize Kash Patel. That's
ridiculous. Thank goodness he is running the ATF, and we don't
have the same people who ran it when that happened to Mr.
Malinowski. It made no sense. Fifty-three seconds. Why not just
execute the search warrant like you should? Why not talk to
him? Why not pick him up at the airport? Mr. Malinowski, we're
going to your house. Call your wife. Let him know we're coming.
We'll go there. We'll execute the search warrant. No, they
couldn't do it that way. I thank the Good Lord Kash Patel is
running the FBI and, frankly, the Interim Director of the ATF.
I don't know if you guys want to comment. Ms. Muller, you
can say something or Mr. McDermott. I will let you guys say
something if you want, but--
Ms. Muller. Amen.
Chair Jordan. Amen. God bless you. I appreciate that. I
appreciate that.
I'll yield the rest of my time. I appreciate the witnesses
here today. I appreciate the Chair and the good work he does. I
yield the rest of my time to the Chair.
Mr. Biggs. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Ritter, are knives included in the definition of arms
under the Second Amendment?
Mr. Ritter. Certainly. They have been considered arms for
millennia. Perhaps man's oldest.
Mr. Biggs. Are there any cases, Supreme Court or other
Federal cases, that shed light on how knives are protected
under the Second Amendment?
Mr. Ritter. Certainly. Both Heller and Bruen bring up the
subject of knives as arms, and they are certainly protected by
the Second Amendment.
Mr. Biggs. Under the KOPA, Knife Owners' Protection Act,
the purpose of that is to allow someone to move from State to
State, and while they're actually in transit, they don't have
access to their knives. Is that correct?
Mr. Ritter. That is correct.
Mr. Biggs. That's why there has been bipartisan support.
Generally, they don't have access to those knives, but they
also shouldn't be prosecuted for transporting their knives
across State lines?
Mr. Ritter. That is correct. The reason we get bipartisan
support is because the bills that we propose are all about
criminal justice reform and people not being stopped simply
because they're carrying a knife with no criminal intent
whatsoever.
Mr. Biggs. In KOPA, there's a provision dealing with
private right of action. Why is that so important to the bill?
Mr. Ritter. Private rights of action are very important to
KOPA, because KOPA is closely related to the Firearm Owners'
Protection Act. In fact, it was originally based on that.
Unfortunately, the Second Circuit in Torraco v. Port Authority
determined that those sorts of claims do not give rise to a
private right of action.
In some of the States where folks are most in danger of
being prosecuted for having an illegal knife, even if they were
to follow the--lock them up according to KOPA, there's a
precedent that they have no right of action, and without a
right of action, there's very little deterrence for rogue law
enforcement or prosecutors to go after them, despite what
Congress' intent may be.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you. With that, the time--I'm going to
yield it back to Mr. Jordan who is gone, and so the time has
expired.
Now, I recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. Laurel
Lee. I'm sorry. Florida. I'm sorry. What did I say?
Ms. Lee. California.
Mr. Biggs. Oh, gracious.
Ms. Lee. Understandable mistake, Mr. Chair. I will yield my
time to the Chair.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you. Ms. Muller, are people who want to
restrict Second Amendment rights supportive of women's rights?
Ms. Muller. Negative.
Mr. Biggs. How so?
Ms. Muller. Well, like I mentioned in my opener, that we
are smaller and less equipped for violence, and that is why
women are the fastest growing demographic of gun owners. It
levels the playing field. If anybody thinks that they don't
need a firearm or chooses not to have a firearm, that's their
choice, but they're going to do so from a place of privilege
because they may have security or they may live in a community
that doesn't necessarily need to have security. Not all of us
can afford to have our own security. Therefore, we have to take
it in our own hands. I know mothers that refuse to outsource
the security of their children.
Like Mr. Swalwell said, school shootings and all those
shootings that you mentioned--I was trying to keep up with you,
but I was thinking gun-free zone, gun-free zone, gun-free zone,
and gun-free zone. Obviously, gun-free zones do not work. They
are dangerous, they are deadly, and we can't protect our
children. We cannot traumatize our children. There's a program
called FASTER Saves Lives, and I would love to discuss that
with you.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
Mr. McDermott, should law enforcement officers be allowed
to carry a firearm in gun-free school zones or on public
transportation?
Mr. McDermott. Absolutely.
Mr. Biggs. Would you--
Mr. McDermott. I'm sorry. I was just going to further along
the lines--
Mr. Biggs. Yes. I'm going to get back to that in a second.
There are two questions I really want to ask here.
OK. Ms. Muller, would you have liked the option to purchase
your service weapon right when you retired as a police officer?
Ms. Muller. Yes, sir.
Mr. Biggs. OK. Now, Mr. McDermott, I saw you writing
furiously when my colleague from California was iterating
various shootings, and I wondered what in the devil were you
writing and what would be your response?
Mr. McDermott. All right. A loaded question, no pun
intended. When Mr. Swalwell was indicating--he kept on asking,
was is self-defense here? Was is self-defense here? Was is
self-defense here? It just kept hitting me a particular way. If
there had been some form of self-defense, if somebody had been
able to defend themselves in those particular areas, if
somebody had actually done so, we wouldn't have been naming off
these higher numbers.
Instead, to Ms. Muller's point and what I stand by myself,
we have all these different gun-free zones, which is basically
a fallacy. They do nothing to make our communities safer. They
basically leave the good defenseless against criminals--law-
abiding citizens defenseless against criminals, and they take
advantage of it. They take full advantage of it.
Mr. Biggs. Mr. McDermott, how difficult is it for someone
traveling across State lines to know what the self-defense laws
are in each State?
Mr. McDermott. It's incredibly difficult. I'll tell you,
when I said at the very beginning I've lectured in front of
thousands of people now, one of the very first questions I ask
after defining whether people know in the room what it is to be
able to use lethal force and when you're compelled to use
lethal force to defend yourself--one of the very first
questions I ask at these different jurisdictions is, who in the
room knows which type of jurisdiction they reside in?
Very often, people are confused. Very often, in certain
States which are very anti-firearm, and which are very anti-
police, many people believe in those jurisdictions that they're
automatically a duty-to-retreat. That's also something that is
argued by prosecutors in these particular States.
Even if they have stand-your-ground law, your client or
this defendant could have actually retreated or could have
gotten to a safer place. The reason that this client--she is
being charged is because she discharged her firearm or because
she shot this person, and that's not why--that's not
appropriate. It's not proper. It's not even correct, and it
continues to happen.
Mr. Biggs. So, looking at ATF, what actions do you think
ATF under President Trump need to be prioritized?
Mr. McDermott. What actions are under the ATF? Really,
that's a loaded question. I think that we need to stop--first
and foremost, we need to stop attacking law-abiding citizens
with respect to their ownership of firearms. We need to
recognize that people have a right to defend themselves. We
need to recognize that we are not in a position--nobody is in a
position to tell people how they can and can't defend
themselves.
In that respect, we have to stop with this campaign to
continuously collect firearms from law-abiding citizens. You
need to do a bit more research into this, and you need to make
sure that we're not crossing lines at those particular times.
Mr. Biggs. Ms. Muller, same question.
Ms. Muller. Well, I don't know about the ATF specifically,
but I'll address the Office of Gun Violence Prevention. I
actually wanted to rename that to the Office of Violence
Prevention because we're all against violence. Guns are
inanimate objects, and they are not violent in and of
themselves.
Mira O'Connell, who was the one who defended herself from
the serial rapist and took his gun, that is the exact
opportunity for a gun to be used for good in good hands and for
bad in bad hands. I would like to keep that office and use it
for firearms education and actual studying.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
Mr. Swalwell. A unanimous consent request for a June 27,
2024, NBC News story about a former Uvalde District Chief
charged with child endangerment when he had a gun, and 21 kids
were killed because he didn't use it.
Also, a Texas Tribune, July 8, 2016, story: ``Police use of
robot to kill Dallas suspect.'' Unprecedented because five
Dallas officers died while armed officers were not able to take
down the shooter.
Mr. Biggs. Without objection.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you.
Mr. Biggs. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Moskowitz, for
five minutes.
Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. McDermott, I want to tell you a quick story about my
experience in my community. I come from a city called Parkland.
I graduated Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. In 2018, I
was on the House floor at the time, and my wife texted me and
she said, ``I just drove past Marjory Stoneman Douglas and I've
never seen that many police in my lifetime.''
I wound up turning on the news and finding out that a
troubled young man had walked into Marjory Stoneman Douglas and
killed 17 people, a kid that the school board knew was a
problem and didn't do anything about, had given him chance
after chance after chance. Police had been to his house. The
FBI had gotten hits on him and didn't followup. This has
resulted in lawsuits and settlements.
He walked into that school and killed 17 people. He walked
right past the security monitor. A person on a golf cart with a
walkie-talkie saw him, OK, and didn't radio. He went from floor
to floor. He started on the first floor. He started killing
people in the hallway. He never entered a classroom. He just
put his gun up to the glass of every door and just fired
through the little glass window that these classrooms had,
killing all sorts of kids and adults. We had adults run into
the building to try to help kids. They were killed as a result
of this.
The guy they depended on, that the students depended on,
the SRO, right, did he respond? He didn't. He stayed outside
the building like a coward. He never went into the building.
When the police department showed up--by the way, everyone was
dead by the time they got there. When the police department
showed up, do you know what the SRO on scene told those police
departments? Don't go in. He instructed--because he's the
incident commander on scene. He instructed them not to go in,
two different police departments. Eventually, Coral Springs,
the local police department, decided to go in.
The Sheriff of the Broward County Sheriff's Office, OK, was
removed by Governor DeSantis over this. The superintendent lost
his job in Broward County over this.
So, what did Florida do? Florida. Republican Florida, run
by the House--Republicans in the House, in the Senate, a
Republican Governor, now a U.S. Senator, the whole Republican
cabinet, the ``gun-shine State.'' What did they do? Well, they
passed the Marjory Stoneman Douglas School Safety Act. You know
what that did? That did a bunch of things. It raised the age to
buy a gun to 21 years old. Not possession. Parents could still
buy their kids a gun. It raised the age to buy a gun to 21
years old. It instituted three-day waiting periods, red flag
laws.
It also, by the way, created the Guardian Program which
allowed nonclassroom teachers to go through training, and as a
result, there would be additional guns on school campus. Folks
that went through training with the sheriff's office. They made
it a local option so that counties could decide if they wanted
to do that. By the way, almost every single county opted into
the program, OK? The program has been a success. It has
actually been a success.
It was a comprehensive bill. It did all things. It looked
at the problem and said, ``what is the issue?'' We can't just
wait for the police departments to get there because sometimes,
by the time they get there, everyone is dead. Well, we can't
just depend on the SRO because sometimes these guys don't do
the right thing.
We also have got to recognize that there are a lot of
troubled people out there with mental health. We put hundreds
of millions of dollars into mental health. We also wanted to
make sure that young people, if they wanted to go hunting with
their father or their parents, and they could do that, right?
Their dad could take them, or their mom could take them and
could buy their gun. We didn't want an 18-year-old walking into
a gun store like this kid did and come out with an AR-15,
unlimited ammunition, body armor.
This guy, as the kids were fleeing out of the building,
tried to pick children off as they were running out of the
building. You know why he didn't succeed? The hurricane glass.
We got lucky. Hurricane glass, which was put in the building to
stop hurricanes, actually stopped the trajectory of the
bullets. It took a lot of the speed out of the bullets' way so
that they just fell on the ground and didn't kill anyone.
I would tell you that Florida is one of the most gun-
friendly States in America. It has been for the longest time.
Marion Hammer, the head of the NRA, was the main lobbyist
there, right? Stand your ground, born and bred in Florida, OK?
I give my Republican colleagues credit. They saw what was
happening. They saw an epidemic. They don't want to take
people's guns away. They are Second Amendment rights advocates
through and through. They did the right thing because there is
a balance. This idea that there is no balance, I reject, and
Florida proved that absolutely wrong.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Biggs. The gentleman yields. I now yield myself for
five minutes.
The first thing I want to cover--and I appreciate--Mr.
Jackson, I appreciate you being here and your testimony today.
As I listened to your testimony talking about post the all-
time highs, I guess, of murders that took place during the
COVID-19 era, I began thinking--I wonder what other independent
variables went into that. Was there retrograde analysis done in
that study, if there has been a study done at all, and were any
of those other independent variables isolated?
I would suggest to you that--actually, in your testimony
and in other people's testimoneys today, we know that there was
a spike. It happened during COVID-19. What caused the spike?
Some people say it was COVID-19 that caused the spike. The
people were frustrated. People were sick. People were out.
People were isolated. All of that took place.
We also know that once that went away--I don't know that
you can attribute it all necessarily to the legislation that I
think my colleagues have--you actually changed as society began
trying to get back to normal. That's why you see this spike,
and you see this certain level that's kind of moving like that
on the graph line that was there, and then you have the spike,
and then it starts winding its way back down.
You don't know what the--actually, we don't know what the
dependent variables are or the independent variables are as we
look at that study--if we're going to look at it as a study,
and that's why it's so important in my mind to really actually
isolate those variables and you do the regressive analysis to
see what's there. That's just where I am to start with.
I want to go now to Ms. Muller. Ms. Muller, what are some
of the potential negative consequences of a jurisdiction that
fails to grant an individual's application for a concealed
carry permit?
Ms. Muller. Are you referring to shall-issue and may-issue?
Mr. Biggs. Yes, I am. I was going to get that from Mr.
McDer-mott, but I'm here with you. So, you go ahead.
Ms. Muller. Well, that any time you throw a barrier up
between, let's say, a woman who is facing domestic violence and
any time you throw a barrier to her being able to defend
herself is going to be detrimental. We hear it time after time.
I know there was a woman in New Jersey that was waiting for her
concealed carry permit. She was stabbed, I believe, in her
driveway. The criminals don't wait, and if you need to defend
yourself now, then you're only creating a barrier for people to
be safe.
Mr. Biggs. Ms. Muller, you were a law enforcement officer
for 22 years in Tulsa, right?
Ms. Muller. Twenty-two years. Yes, sir.
Mr. Biggs. So, you encountered stressful situations as a
law enforcement officer, right?
Ms. Muller. Yes, sir.
Mr. Biggs. Did you ever encounter somebody who was a
violent criminal?
Ms. Muller. Yes, sir.
Mr. Biggs. What is the stress level when you encounter
somebody that is threatening violence?
Ms. Muller. On a scale of one to 10?
Mr. Biggs. Yes.
Ms. Muller. I'm going to go 8-10.
Mr. Biggs. Yes. We really need to keep that in mind as we
talk about these things, too.
So, Mr. McDermott, I want to talk to you. What's the
difference between those may-issue and shall-issue
jurisdictions with respect to the concealed carry permits?
Mr. McDermott. Well, obviously, that was addressed in
Bruen. It's just a significant--it's the may-issue and the
discretion that extends to the government. The local police
sometimes--in Illinois, it's ISP that makes the determination.
The fact that it's often abused, and it certainly violates our
Second Amendment.
There are States, such as Illinois, that are considered
shall-issue States, and because of that and because of the
ruling, in my opinion, there's a misconception with respect to
the fact that Bruen doesn't actually apply to Illinois.
Illinois is a State which is shall-issue. However, it has--when
you look at the Concealed Carry Act, it has approximately 20-
plus different ways in which they can go ahead and deny
firearms to people. It's very discretionary. You can't get in
touch with anybody. When you call to ask, you're never given a
name. There's never a direct line. There's not an office where
you can speak to somebody. It's basically an eyes-behind-the-
curtain type of situation. Somebody is deciding who gets the
firearms and who doesn't.
I know somebody that was arrested for having a FOID
revoked. His FOID was revoked, his Firearm Owners
Identification Card, which is what is required in Illinois, for
example. His FOID was revoked because he was charged with a
felony. The prosecutor later reduced it down to a misdemeanor
because the evidence didn't support the felony. He took a plea
for supervision on a misdemeanor, which he would never have had
his FOID lost as a result of. He later--because he didn't know
that it was permanently revoked--was arrested and charged with
having a revoked FOID, which is mandatory jail time, or prison
time, in the State of Illinois.
It's being abused consistently. These may-issue
jurisdictions shouldn't exist, and that's what Bruen stands
for.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you. I thank all the witnesses and
everyone who has attended this hearing. This concludes today's
hearing.
Without objection, all Members will have five legislative
days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses
or additional materials for the record.
Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
All materials submitted for the record by Members of the
Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance can
be found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent
.aspx?EventID=117971.
[all]