    [Senate Hearing 119-382]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                           S. Hrg. 119-382

                              THE SECOND AMENDMENT
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                              HOMELAND SECURITY AND
                              GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 15, 2026

                                   __________

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                           Printed for the use of the
            Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                            U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    63-505 PDF                      WASHINGTON : 2026
    =======================================================================

           COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                         RAND PAUL, Kentucky, Chairman
    RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
    JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             MAGGIE WOOD HASSAN, New Hampshire
    RICK SCOTT, Florida                  RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
    JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri                JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania
    BERNIE MORENO, Ohio                  ANDY KIM, New Jersey
    JONI ERNST, Iowa                     RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona
    ASHLEY MOODY, Florida                ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan

                    William E. Henderson III, Staff Director
         Christina N. Salazar, Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                   J. Ryan Arient, Professional Staff Member
                   David M. Weinberg, Minority Staff Director
         Christopher J. Mulkins, Minority Director of Homeland Security
                     Alan S. Kahn, Minority General Counsel
                         Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
                       Ashley A. Gonzalez, Records Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                     ------
    Opening statements:
                                                                       Page
        Senator Paul.................................................     1
        Senator Peters...............................................     2
        Senator Johnson..............................................    17
        Senator Hawley...............................................    24
    Prepared statements:
        Senator Peters...............................................    29

                                   WITNESSES
                           WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 2026
                                    Panel I

    Hon. Thomas Massie, Member U.S. House of Representatives.........     4

                                    Panel II

    Hon. Ken Cuccinelli, Senior Fellow for Homeland Security and
      Immigration, Center for Renewing America.......................     7
    Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President, Gun Owners of America........     9
    Dudley Brown, President, National Association for Gun Rights.....    10
    Stephen I. Vladeck, Agnes Williams Sesquicentennial Professor of
      Federal Courts, Georgetown Law.................................    12

                         ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

    Brown, Dudley:
        Testimony....................................................    10
        Prepared statement...........................................    67
    Cuccinelli, Hon. Ken:
        Testimony....................................................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................    31
    Massie, Hon. Thomas:
        Testimony....................................................     4
    Pratt, Erich:
        Testimony....................................................     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    33
    Vladeck, Stephen I.:
        Testimony....................................................    12
        Prepared statement...........................................    70

                                    APPENDIX

    Senator Paul's Letter to ATF.....................................    80

                              THE SECOND AMENDMENT

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 2026

                                         U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Homeland Security
                                      and Governmental Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room
    SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Rand Paul, Chair
    of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Paul [presiding], Johnson, Lankford,
    Scott, Hawley, Moreno, Moody, Peters, Hassan, and Blumenthal.

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL

        Chairman Paul. The Committee will now come to order.
        As we reflect on the 250th anniversary of our Nation, some
    of our most cherished rights stand at the crossroads. Modern
    prosperity and technology provide us with the means to enjoy
    and exercise our God-given rights to a greater extent than ever
    before. Yet as the means and interest of Americans in
    exercising those rights have increased, so has the desire and
    tools for tyrants, both inside and outside of government, to
    tighten control over who, where, and how these rights are
    exercised.
        We have discussed, at great length, the grave attempts by
    our government to censor unfavored, unpopular, and inconvenient
    speech, no matter how true, during the pandemic and beyond. We
    have also examined the threats to privacy and collection of
    data about all aspects of our lives by a myriad of government
    agencies.
        Today we examine the growing threats by our government to
    restrict the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the
    Second Amendment. In the wake of a Federal officer shooting and
    killing a protester who was legally carrying a holstered
    firearm, a succession of Federal officials rushed to declare
    that citizens cannot exercise their First and Second Amendment
    rights at the same time.
        Administration official stated, ``You cannot bring a
    firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of protest
    that you want. It's that simple.'' Another administration
    official said, ``If you approach law enforcement with a gun,
    there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in
    shooting you. Don't do it.'' These statements were alarming and
    are part of the reason we are here today.
        Government employees take an oath to support and defend the
    entire Constitution of the United States, not just the parts
    which are convenient, depending on the political news of the
    day. It is not their job to decide when and which of your
    rights count on any given day, just as our constitutional
    rights are nonpartisan and belong to all Americans across the
    political spectrum. These liberties are also non-negotiable.
        These freedoms are not independent of each other but are
    undeniably bolstered by one another. They ensure that not only
    Americans have rights but that they can defend and speak about
    those rights without fear of government overreach. Unlike free
    speech, free exercise, and privacy, the right to keep and bear
    arms has been strengthened recently by the courts, and
    restrictions on that right are being overturned.
        In 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the Heller case, an
    individual's right to possess firearms in the home. Two years
    later, the Court ruled in the McDonald case that the right to
    bear arms is applicable to laws enacted at the State and local
    levels. In 2022, the Court again ruled on the side of liberty
    in the Bruen case, stating that the Second Amendment protects
    an individual's right to carry a handgun for self-defense
    outside the home.
        Even though the Supreme Court has made these rulings,
    politicians have not given up. Their attempts to usurp our
    constitutional right to keep and bear arms continues. In recent
    months we have seen, in Virginia, the State where we won our
    independence from the tyrannical British crown, forced through
    the General Assembly countless pieces of misguided legislation
    intending to disarm lawful gun owners. In fact, just days ago,
    bills sent to the Governor from the State legislature aimed to
    prohibit the carrying of a loaded firearm in public across the
    commonwealth.
        Another bill, poised to become law, makes it a Class I
    misdemeanor for any person who imports, sells, manufactures,
    purchases, or transfers an assault firearm, all while creating
    an exemption for any government officer. As we saw during the
    pandemic, the government's mantra continues to be ``rules for
    thee but not for me.''
        Unfortunately, the case in Virginia is not unique. Many
    other states, including Colorado, Rhode Island, and California
    passed similarly egregious legislation. While most of these
    laws will undoubtedly be challenged through the courts, this
    should be a wake-up call for every State across the Nation. It
    is important to look at these and other specific instances of
    infringements on the right to keep and bear arms. We must be
    watchful to any and all violations and act accordingly.
        But what we really should do is aspire to, in this 250th
    year of our Nation, is a government that stops asking how much
    restriction on our liberties it can get away with and instead
    asks how it can protect and promote all of our rights,
    including our right to keep and bear arms.
        The Ranking Member is recognized for his opening statement.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS\1\

        Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and, Mr. Chair, I
    certainly appreciate you convening this Committee for the
    discussion here today.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appears in the
    Appendix on page 29.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        But given President Trump's unconstitutional and
    unauthorized decision to go to war with Iran, his abuse of
    power to enrich himself and punish his political enemies, and
    his decision to usurp congressional powers, including the
    appropriations of funds, I am troubled by the topic that we
    have chosen. While I agree that the Constitution gives
    Americans the right to bear arms, the Second Amendment is one
    of many such liberties that are guaranteed by the U.S.
    Constitution. While there may be some discreet examples where
    the right has been tested, the Second Amendment is simply not
    under the same threat as so many of our other constitutional
    rights today.
        The Trump administration's violations of Americans' First,
    Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights, and the Administration's
    flouting of Congress' constitutional authorities are basically
    creating a crisis for the rule of law in our country.
    Meanwhile, Republicans in control of Congress have become mere
    cheerleaders of the Executive while they allow the
    constitutional power that Congress has to be undermined. That
    is something that as the Senate's top oversight body I believe
    this Committee should examine on a larger scale, and I hope
    that you would consider that, Mr. Chair.
        Today I want to expand the discussion to address these
    other issues and what Congress must do to not only reclaim our
    own authorities, as the co-equal branch of government, but also
    how we can restore the checks and balances that our
    Constitution created to ensure that no single branch of
    government can infringe on the constitutional rights and
    protections that are the very core of our democracy.
        The Trump administration has pushed the bounds of executive
    authority further than any other President, and our Republican-
    led Congress has failed to push back, instead ceding its
    constitutionally delegated responsibilities almost entirely to
    the President. Those in control have laid down and allowed
    loyalty to party to override duty, and even self-interest, when
    preserving a meaningful check on the President.
        Now, there is no question that past administrations of both
    parties have tested these boundaries, so their authorities, and
    Congress, as led by both parties, has basically been
    responsible for delegating away these authorities over many
    years. But today, we have an Administration that has refused to
    follow the laws passed by Congress, abused emergency powers for
    political purposes, imposed chaotic tariffs that have raised
    prices on everyday goods for American families, bypassed
    Congress to wage unjustified military interventions, and is now
    trying to completely circumvent Congress' power of the purse by
    refusing to pass bipartisan appropriation laws to fund key
    functions of government. In return, we have a Republican
    majority that has almost entirely capitulated to the
    President's whims.
        On top of that, this Administration has repeatedly violated
    the First Amendment rights of Americans by retaliating against,
    and even going so far as to arrest individuals who exercised
    their rights to free speech, assembly, religion, petitioning
    the government, and the press. This Administration has violated
    Americans' Fourth Amendment rights by allowing immigration
    enforcement officers to enter and search people's homes without
    a judicial warrant. It has violated America's right to due
    process under the Fifth Amendment, detaining and removing
    individuals to countries they have no connection to and without
    any opportunity to petition for redress from the government in
    the courts.
        Last year, I released a report detailing these
    constitutional violations and the overreach from the Executive
    Branch. In that report I laid out how the checks and balances
    designed in our Constitution are absolutely vital to protecting
    Americans' freedoms. I warned how President Trump's
    unprecedented actions to usurp Congress' Article I powers
    disregard the limitations of the Executive in Article II, and
    defy the judiciary's Article III lawful court orders have
    undermined our democratic principles and left us with a
    President who now is completely unaccountable.
        The Constitution provides Congress with the means necessary
    to check an Administration that is eroding the very principles
    and the institutions that have always made this country great.
    But that is only possible if Congress, especially the party in
    power, currently the Republican majority, stands up and takes
    action. I know many of my colleagues on the other side of the
    aisle are eager to discuss their views of perceived attacks on
    the Second Amendment, but I urge all of you to join me in
    broadening this discussion and finding the courage to take
    action that will protect our laws and our most fundamental
    rights before it is too late.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Paul. Our first witness will be Representative
    Thomas Massie. Thomas Massie represents Kentucky's 4th
    congressional District. He serves as the Chairman of the House
    Second Amendment Caucus and sits on the Judiciary Subcommittee
    on the Constitution and Limited Government. Congressman Massie,
    you are recognized for your opening statement.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS MASSIE, MEMBER, U.S. HOUSE OF
                            REPRESENTATIVES

        Mr. Massie. Thank you, Chairman Paul and Ranking Member
    Peters for allowing me to speak to the upper chamber here
    today.
        I am very passionate about this issue of the right to keep
    and bear arms. I got my first firearm when I was 12 years old
    from my father, and with that I learned the responsibility and
    the rights that come with owning a firearm.
        I formed the Second Amendment Caucus about a decade ago,
    and have been using that venue to bring in people like Alan
    Gura, the lawyer who was responsible for arguing the Heller
    case and also the McDonald case, and he won both of those cases
    in the Supreme Court. In fact, we have had Dick Heller in our
    caucus, and we have had some of those brave men who have
    stopped mass public shootings. It has been a great venue for
    teaching myself and others more about the Second Amendment.
        In keeping with the Committee's request, I prepared a
    speech, but I will only deliver part of that, and then with
    your indulgence, I would like to talk about some legislation
    that I think is important that is sitting in the House.
        The simple and direct language of our Constitution is
    clear--the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not
    be infringed. There are no qualifiers on who may keep arms,
    what types of arms they may keep, or for what purposes, and it
    certainly doesn't say that the right to bear arms is about
    trivial matters like deer hunting or skeet shooting. The Second
    Amendment exists for one clear reason--defense, for the defense
    of one's home, one's family, and one's community, for the
    defense of liberty and safety, not only from a lone assailant
    but from the whole of tyrannical government. That is why we
    have the Second Amendment.
        Our Founders understood the greatest risks to liberty are
    not always found outside a nation's borders, even though we go
    looking for fights abroad, sometimes too frequently, but
    oftentimes from within, when a corrupt and dangerous few grow
    too ambitious and attempt to subjugate the masses. When such
    tyranny arises, snakes prefer the path of least resistance.
    They prefer a population that is vulnerable. As George Mason
    reminded us, in 1788, ``To disarm the people is the best and
    most effectual way to enslave them.''
        History is riddled with oppressive states that striped and
    abused their own people to keep riches for the assaulting
    cabal, and in every instance, before those snakes bit, they
    first took away the guns, whether it was Hitler, Stalin, Mao,
    Castro, or Chavez. Gun confiscations and restrictions came
    first. Then the infringement of all the other liberties, and in
    many cases, millions were killed by their own governments. It
    is not by the grace that America has averted similar
    atrocities. It is because of our Constitution's design.
        As Madison wrote, in Federalist 46, ``The advantage of
    being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of
    almost every other nation, forms a barrier against the
    enterprises of ambition, a barrier against tyranny, and
    oppression by a ruling class.''
        To this point, I think it is incumbent upon us to advance
    legislation that will protect the Second Amendment here. We
    have sworn an oath to the Constitution to protect it from
    enemies from within and abroad.
        Four pieces of legislation that I have sponsored in the
    House that I want to talk about today, one is to repeal the Gun
    Free School Zone Act. Ninety-four percent of mass public
    shootings happen in gun-free zones, so we should not be
    advertising as the default that our children are sitting ducks,
    that are unprotected. In the states and school zones where they
    have allowed the carrying of firearms there have been no such
    catastrophes.
        The other bill that is easy to explain is a bill to allow
    18-to 21-year-olds to buy handguns from a federally licensed
    dealer. I think it is somewhat ridiculous that you can be
    conscripted to serve your country in a war, you can be 18, 19,
    or 20, and forced into service to fight for your country, but
    you cannot defend your own family with a handgun that you
    bought at a licensed dealer. We should repeal this Federal
    restriction.
        A piece of legislation that is coming up in the House next
    month, which I think is very important, is to report some of
    the data that we collect in the National Instant Criminal
    Background Check System (NICS) database. When you go to buy a
    gun you fill out a Form 4473--it is that gold form--and they
    collect data on there that they never report. What we have
    discovered, through my friend, John Lott, who is an economist
    and a statistician and an author, is that there is inherent
    racism in the NICS background check system. Because it is
    sloppy and they check only phonetically similar names, when you
    go to purchase a gun you can be deprived of purchasing that
    gun, and the appeals process can get messy to prove you are not
    the same person that they think is the person who is
    prohibited.
        It turns out if you are a Black American or Hispanic, you
    are far more likely to share a name phonetically with somebody
    who is a prohibited person, who has been convicted of a crime,
    that has a punishment of a year or more. In fact, you are
    probably twice as likely, if you are Hispanic, to be falsely
    denied the purchase of a handgun and three times as likely if
    you are Black to be denied the purchase of a gun at a dealer.
        This bill that is coming up in the House would just--and by
    the way, it has passed unanimously in our Judiciary Committee.
    Democrats and Republicans have both voted for it--simply
    requires the Department of Justice (DOJ) to publish that data,
    not of individuals but in the aggregate, of the denials by sex
    and also by race or ethnicity.
        Finally, the bill that I am most excited about is the
    National Constitutional Carry Act, and Senator Lee has that
    here in the Senate now, and some of you are sponsors of that. I
    thank you.
        Several years ago there was legislation advanced to force
    reciprocity among the states for concealed carry permits. Now,
    that made sense at the time because in most of the states you
    needed a permit to carry a firearm. But 29 states now recognize
    that the right to keep and bear arms should not require
    permission from your government to bear those arms, and so they
    have permit-less carry.
        I have advanced a bill, the National Constitutional Carry
    Act, that would extend that to all 50 states and the
    territories. Now, you may ask, well, does that violate the
    Tenth Amendment? Are you infringing on State rights? Thanks to
    the McDonald case, in 2010, which came two years after the
    Heller case--see, Heller was decided in D.C. so it did not
    impinge on the states--but the McDonald case, versus Chicago,
    incorporated the Second Amendment to the states, so the states
    are constrained by the Second Amendment. So no, it does not
    violate the Tenth Amendment to tell the states that you must
    follow the right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment.
    I would love to see some action on that here in the Senate.
        With that I will return to my prepared remarks and close.
        When we look to our Constitution, remember it is a document
    by our people, for the purpose of constraining our government,
    not the other way around. The Second Amendment is the ultimate
    check on our government. Any attack on those core tenets,
    whether it is the Second Amendment, the First Amendment, or the
    Fourth Amendment, or any other provision of our Constitution,
    is dangerous and wrong, and one does not need to look too far
    back in history to find examples of why.
        I will close with these words from Patrick Henry. ``Guard
    with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who
    approaches the jewel. The great object is that every man be
    armed.''
        Thank you very much for allowing me to testify today.
        Chairman Paul. Congressman Massie, thank you for your
    statement today. We appreciate your time. Thanks for coming to
    be with us.
        The next panel will now come forward and take your places.
        [Pause.]
        It is the practice of the Homeland Security and
    Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) to swear in witnesses.
    Will each of you please stand and raise your right hand.
        Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this
    Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
    the truth, so help you, God?
        Mr. Cuccinelli. I do.
        Mr. Pratt. I do.
        Mr. Brown. I do.
        Mr. Vladeck. I do.
        Chairman Paul. Thank you. Our first witness will be Ken
    Cuccinelli. He currently serves as the Senior Fellow for
    Homeland Security and Immigration for the Center for Renewing
    America. He previously served in the Virginia Senate and as
    Virginia's Attorney General from 2010 to 2014.
        Mr. Cuccinelli, welcome to the Committee.

    TESTIMONY OF HON. KEN CUCCINELLI,\1\ SENIOR FELLOW FOR HOMELAND
         SECURITY AND IMMIGRATION, CENTER FOR RENEWING AMERICA

        Mr. Cuccinelli. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of
    the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today
    on the evolving landscape of Second Amendment rights.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Cuccinelli appears in the
    Appendix on page 31.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I will focus on recent developments in the Commonwealth of
    Virginia, which provide a timely and instructive case study of
    how rapidly state-level policy can reshape the practical
    exercise of a constitutional right.
        In 2026, Virginia's General Assembly passed a sweeping
    package of firearm-related legislation. These measures, taken
    together, represent the most significant shift in firearm
    policy in Virginia's modern history. They illustrate not only
    the breadth of regulatory approaches being pursued nationwide,
    but also the constitutional tensions that are likely to define
    Second Amendment and state-level equivalents jurisprudence in
    the coming years.
        Most notably, Virginia lawmakers approved legislation that
    would prohibit the sale, manufacture, importation, and transfer
    of many commonly owned semi-automatic firearms classified as
    ``assault firearms,'' along with magazines capable of holding
    more than 15 rounds. While generally allowing current owners to
    retain previously acquired firearms, it would effectively halt
    the future legal acquisition of entire categories of arms that
    are widely possessed for lawful purposes and makes it
    impossible for current owners to transfer their firearms, with
    exceptions for government officials, which I will touch on
    later.
        This type of prospective ban raises serious constitutional
    questions under both the Federal and Virginia constitutions. In
    its individual rights jurisprudence, the U.S. Supreme Court has
    emphasized that the Second Amendment protects arms ``in common
    use'' for lawful purposes such as self-defense. Policies that
    prohibit future acquisition while allowing continued possession
    create a legal paradox. They implicitly acknowledge the
    widespread lawful ownership of these firearms, while
    simultaneously restricting future citizens from exercising the
    same right.
        In addition to firearm-specific bans, Virginia is expanding
    restrictions on where firearms may be carried beyond
    historically recognized ``sensitive places,'' to potentially
    encompass large portions of ordinary public life. This raises
    important questions under the Supreme Court's framework
    requiring firearm regulations to be consistent with the
    Nation's historical tradition of regulation.
        Virginia lawmakers have also pursued policies imposing
    affirmative legal duties on firearm owners. Secure storage
    legislation would require individuals to store firearms in a
    manner that prevents access by others. While the goal of
    preventing unauthorized access is widely shared, such mandates
    must be carefully evaluated to ensure they do not unduly burden
    the core right of self-defense within the home, long recognized
    as a central component of the Second Amendment, as noted, for
    example, in the Heller decision.
        Further, the commonwealth is expanding its use of ``red
    flag'' laws. These laws allow for the temporary removal of
    firearms from individuals deemed to pose a risk. Although
    courts have generally upheld the concept, expansions to these
    laws, particularly those affecting evidentiary standards,
    duration, or who may initiate proceedings, raise due process
    concerns that deserve careful scrutiny. I fully expect to see
    the 2026 expansions of these laws weaponized to punish gun
    owners for political purposes completely unrelated to gun
    safety.
        Finally, the commonwealth has moved toward allowing civil
    liability actions against firearm manufacturers and
    distributors. Their approach seeks to navigate around existing
    Federal protections in an effort to destroy this industry
    through litigation. Taken together, these measures demonstrate
    a broader trend to transform firearm policy from a framework
    focused primarily on prohibited persons and background checks
    into one that increasingly regulates categories of arms,
    locations of carry, methods of storage, and the broader
    ecosystem of lawful commerce, all in an effort to cut into the
    rights of law-abiding gun owners and potential gun owners, and
    in many respects, to attempt to turn such citizens into law
    breakers of bureaucratic restrictions, in order to take their
    guns away or deter them from buying guns in the first place.
        In addition to obvious litigation, this devolution also
    creates growing divergence among states, leading to patchwork
    of laws that may complicate compliance for ordinary citizens. I
    would respectfully suggest that that is part of the point. It
    is one way of attacking Second Amendment rights, as I noted, as
    a practical matter.
        One law carried over to next year in the Virginia General
    Assembly is a double-digit tax rate on gun and ammunition
    purchases. As we know from the beginning of the republic, the
    power to tax is the power to destroy, and that is what is
    intended for it to be used as, and I expect to see that next
    year in my beloved commonwealth.
        With that I appreciate your time and consideration, and
    look forward to answering your questions.
        Chairman Paul. Thank you.
        Next up we have Erich Pratt, who is the Senior Vice
    President for Gun Owners of America (GOA), where he has been
    employed since 1990. Mr. Pratt, you are recognized for your
    opening statement.

    TESTIMONY OF ERICH PRATT,\1\ SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, GUN OWNERS
                               OF AMERICA

        Mr. Pratt. Thank you. Chairman Paul, Ranking Member,
    Members of the Committee, my name is Erich Pratt, and I serve
    as Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America. I represent
    more than two million Americans who believe the Second
    Amendment is the amendment that protects all the others.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Pratt appears in the Appendix on
    page 33.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I appreciate the opportunity to discuss some of the threats
    to our Second Amendment rights, and I want to begin with the
    gun owner registry that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
    Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is compiling. In 2021, GOA
    exposed that the Biden administration had accumulated 54
    million gun owner records in a single year. Now, Representative
    Michael Cloud and 51 colleagues demanded answers from the ATF,
    and what they received was shocking. The ATF admitted to
    amassing nearly 1 billion records of American gun owners, with
    94 percent already in digital format.
        This is gun owner registration, pure and simple. It is a
    violation of Federal law, and it is the reason the Senate
    should pass Senator Risch's bill, S. 119. His bill would
    destroy this illegal, searchable gun registry, hopefully by
    dropping the ATF computers containing this database into the
    deepest part of the ocean. Basically, ATF needs to have their
    own boating accident.
        Because, look. A database like this invites abuse, and we
    have already seen it happen. Biden's ATF tried to ban up to 40
    million pistols with stabilizing braces, and these were
    firearms that had been legal during the Obama administration.
    But by a stroke of the pen, Biden's ATF turned millions of
    Americans into felons overnight.
        Thankfully, GOA took this to court, and we won protection
    for our members. But had this rule remained in place, the ATF
    would have known where every single one of those firearms were,
    because of the 4473 forms on file. This is not a registry in
    name only. That is a confiscation list waiting to be used.
        History tells us where this leads. The governments of
    Australia and Venezuela have carried out large-scale gun
    confiscations in recent years. Canada is now threatening to use
    its registry to do door-to-door confiscations.
        But this is not just an other-world problem. It has already
    happened here. In the 1960s, New York City (NYC) began
    registering long guns with promises that they would never
    confiscate them. Yet by 1991, they banned many of those guns,
    and in 1992, a New York paper reported that, ``Police raided
    the home of a Staten Island man who refused to comply.'' They
    seized his firearms and noted that spot checks were planned for
    other homes. That is the problem with maintaining records of
    gun owners' names. We are always just one step away from gun
    confiscation.
        Now, turning to some other important Federal issues, let me
    say this. The Trump administration has achieved many pro-gun
    victories in several departments outside of the DOJ, and I
    champion those in my written testimony and talk about them.
        Sadly, the Department of Justice has continued to fight us
    in court at almost every turn, including on Biden's pistol
    brace ban, his engaged in the business rule, and the frame and
    receiver rule, which registers every gun sold after 2002. The
    fact that a Republican DOJ is still defending Biden-era gun
    rules, in whole or in part, should tell us everything. That is
    why Congress must repeal every Federal infringement and finish
    the job by defunding, dismantling, and abolishing the ATF.
    After all, the Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is not
    about sport. It ultimately about preserving freedom. But right
    now our rights are under attack, by databases, by bureaucrats,
    and by government attorneys who too often would rather defend
    unconstitutional laws than the Constitution itself.
        By the way, just a word for the wise for Republicans on the
    Committee and in the rest of the Congress. These problems need
    to be fixed immediately, if you hope to win the gun vote in the
    midterms, because gun owners, as you know, are very politically
    active, and every time the DOJ attempts to moot our cases or
    continues to enforce a Biden-era policy, gun owners become less
    excited to vote.
        Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
        Chairman Paul. Thank you. Our next witness is Dudley Brown,
    who is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the National
    Association for Gun Rights, where he has grown the group from a
    small grassroots organization to the Nation's second-largest
    gun rights group. Mr. Brown, you are recognized for your
    testimony.

     TESTIMONY OF DUDLEY BROWN,\1\ PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
                             FOR GUN RIGHTS

        Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member, and
    Members of the Committee. My name is Dudley Brown. I live in
    northern Colorado. I am the President of the National
    Association for Gun Rights, and it has been my privilege to
    represent gun owners for 33 years now.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Brown appears in the Appendix on
    page 67.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        A few months ago a man was shot and killed at a protest in
    Minnesota. Now, I am not here to litigate Alex Pretti's
    actions, whether the shooting was legally justified, or to
    endorse the politics of the protest he attended. I suspect he
    and I would have agreed on very little. My concern is what the
    current Administration said afterward.
        In those 33 years representing gun owners in State
    legislatures and the Federal Government, what is the main tool
    I have relied on to preserve firearms freedoms? Easy. The First
    Amendment.
        Today, I find it prudent to speak on the intersection
    between the First and Second Amendments, and the reason is
    simple. We, as a Nation, have never seen these rights as wholly
    separate. The First Amendment is how free people speak to
    power. Americans have shown since the founding they will
    tolerate being governed, but not tolerate being ruled.
        That is the arrangement that makes this country different
    from every other on Earth, and it is precisely why an attack on
    the right to bear arms at a lawful public assembly is not a
    Second Amendment problem alone. It is an attack on the entire
    architecture of American liberty.
        Before I go further, let me disavow the notion that this is
    a partisan issue. Regardless of the drastic changes of party
    control over the White House and the two legislative chambers,
    the one constant is that all those in power must be reminded
    that a civil right is in place to protect all the people,
    regardless of their politics, their race, or their creed.
        Consider what was actually said by officials from the
    Administration in the wake of that shooting. The President of
    the United States said, ``You can't have guns. You can't walk
    in with guns.'' The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
    Director remarked, ``You simply cannot bring a firearm to a
    protest.'' The former Secretary of Homeland Security said, ``I
    don't know of any peaceful protester that shows up with a gun
    and ammunition rather than a sign.''
        That last statement is the most revealing. Former Secretary
    Noem was not citing law. She was kind of declaring a worldview,
    that carrying a firearm is inherently incompatible with
    peaceful assembly. I think it is a worldview the Founders would
    not have recognized.
        Just before the Second Amendment was ratified, 6 of the 13
    colonies did not merely permit citizens to carry firearms to
    public assemblies, they actually required it. The generation
    that wrote ``the right of the people peaceably to assemble''
    looked at an armed citizen in a crowd and did not see a threat
    to the peace. They saw its guarantee.
        The argument being made implicitly is that you may have a
    Second Amendment right and a First Amendment right, but not
    both at once. Choose one. If you choose wrong, do not be
    surprised if Federal agents unceremoniously snatch one of
    those, or both of those rights from you.
        Several states today forbid the carry of firearms at public
    demonstrations. Those laws deserve scrutiny not only on
    constitutional but also on historical grounds. Their roots
    trace directly to the Jim Crow laws. A law conceived to control
    a people does not become legitimate simply because time has
    passed and the target has changed. The states that enacted
    these laws were not concerned with public peace, but with
    public control.
        Each party has the same capacity for authoritarianism as
    the other side when it serves their short-term interests. I
    will ask the members in this room directly: Is this the
    precedent we intend to set, that officials can decide, after
    the fact, that a citizen had no right to carry because the
    Administration disliked his politics? That is not a legal
    conclusion. That is a rationalization.
        There is no textual, historical, or traditional basis for
    the proposition that Americans must choose between their First
    and Second Amendment rights. You do not forfeit one by
    exercising the other. These rights are not in competition. They
    are the same right expressed twice. An armed people is a people
    whose assembly the government must take seriously. A disarmed
    people protest at the government's pleasure.
        The Second Amendment does not exist in isolation. It exists
    to ensure that all the others remain meaningful. The Founders
    understood that. The statements made by this Administration
    suggest they do not understand it. The Members of this
    Committee have the standing, the authority, and the obligation
    to say so. I hope they will find the courage to use it.
        On behalf of the millions of members of my organization,
    who take this matter very seriously, let me thank you for your
    time.
        Chairman Paul. Thank you. Senator Peters will introduce the
    next guest.
        Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our next witness is
    Professor Stephen Vladeck, the Agnes Williams Sesquicentennial
    Professor of Federal Courts at the Georgetown University Law
    Center. Professor Vladeck is a nationally renowned expert on
    the Supreme Court, Federal courts, national security law, and
    military justice. He is also a highly recognized appellate
    advocate, having argued before the Supreme Court, Federal
    civilian courts, and military courts.
        Professor Vladeck is the recipient of numerous awards for
    his legal scholarship, including the 2024 University of Texas
    President's Research Impact Award and a selection by the Order
    of Cloth to serve as its Distinguished Visiting Professor for
    2025.
        Professor, thank you for taking the time to be here today.

          TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN I. VLADECK,\1\ AGNES WILLIAMS
      SESQUICENTENNIAL PROFESSOR OF FEDERAL COURTS, GEORGETOWN LAW

        Mr. Vladeck. Thank you very much, Ranking Member Peters,
    Chairman Paul, distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank
    you for the invitation to testify today.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Vladeck appears in the Appendix
    on page 70.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Of all of the conversations that we can and should be
    having about the U.S. Constitution, this Committee's focus on
    the Second Amendment strikes me as singularly misplaced. Every
    day we see headlines documenting other unconstitutional
    behaviors by this Administration, from arrogating Congress'
    appropriations power to claiming the authority, to entering
    private homes without judicial warrants, to suppressing and
    chilling the constitutionally protected speech of law firms,
    universities, and political critics, to blowing up suspected
    drug boats, invading Venezuela, and going to war against Iran
    without even a scintilla of congressional authorization, which
    led one commentator to post on social media that, ``It's a good
    thing Congress isn't alive to see this.''
        Indeed, all of this unconstitutional behavior has come not
    in the face of a hostile Congress but without any attempt to
    even obtain statutory authorization, even though the
    President's party also controls both legislative chambers,
    including this Committee.
        Instead of making the case for why Congress should loosen
    or repeal the various mandates that the Executive Branch is
    regularly violating or should authorize the unilateral conduct
    in which the Executive Branch is regularly engaging, this
    Administration is effectively thumbing its nose at our elected
    representatives, that is, at you. In response, this Committee
    chose to hold this hearing.
        It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that it would be far more
    useful for this Committee to discuss the structural problems
    that have been highlighted by this Administration's disdain for
    the Constitution, and two, in particular, stand out.
        First, there is a large swath of unconstitutional behavior
    by the Federal Government that has proven to be effectively
    insulated from meaningful judicial review. On the individual
    rights side, a combination of rulings by the Supreme Court and
    legislation from Congress has all but foreclosed damages suits
    by Americans whose constitutional rights have been violated.
    That lacuna comes at the particular expense of First and Fourth
    Amendment claims, since unlike the Second Amendment claims,
    about which we have heard so much already this morning,
    violations of those provisions are typically fleeting.
        On the separation of powers side, the Supreme Court has
    likewise made it effectively impossible for litigants to
    challenge the President's arrogation of Congress' two most
    important powers, its power of the purse and its control of the
    war power.
        Second, the political constraints that have historically
    served to rein in systemic, unconstitutional behavior by the
    Executive Branch have also completely broken down. Examples
    abound, but an especially revealing one is a statement by House
    Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole, who suggested last
    year that it was perfectly fine for the President to ignore
    congressional appropriations because, in his words, not mine,
    an appropriation, ``is not a law.'' In fact, the Constitution
    requires that appropriations be, by law, entirely so that this
    branch, and not the President, will decide how the people's
    money will and will not be spent.
        Both of these problems could be fixed quickly and easily by
    a Congress that cared more about the separation of powers than
    the separation of parties. For instance, it would take a one-
    sentence statute to ensure that everyone whose constitutional
    rights are violated by the Federal Government can have their
    day in court, and beyond new legislation, Congress, including
    this Committee, has numerous means to impose such
    accountability directly, through its oversight function, its
    ability to exact concessions out of the Executive Branch in
    exchange for everything from appropriations to appointments,
    and, if necessary, its impeachment power.
        Finally, to whatever extent Members of this Committee may
    tell themselves that they can just reclaim these abandoned
    powers the next time a Democrat is President, history and
    common sense are both to the contrary. The more time passes,
    the harder these powers will be to claw back. In the interim,
    the Executive's lawlessness and Congress' abdication of
    responsibility have combined not just to produce an
    unprecedented breakdown in the separation of powers but a
    growing and seemingly unending array of deleterious impacts on
    both everyday people and, at the risk of bringing some of this
    back to this Committee's jurisdiction, the long-term security
    of our homeland.
        If we are going to talk about the Constitution, we should
    talk about why and how it is being so systemically violated by
    the current Administration, why and how Congress is sitting
    idly by while that happens, why and how that attitude is
    destructive of our Nation's most fundamental ideals, and why
    and how a Congress that actually took its constitutional
    responsibility seriously should and would respond.
        As for the nominal topic of today's hearing, it seems to me
    that at this moment in our history, devoting resources to the
    Second Amendment is burying all of our heads in the sand. Even
    if we cannot agree on much, I hope we can all at least agree
    that it should not be the case that the only way to hold the
    Federal Government accountable is to elect a new one.
        Thank you for inviting me to testify today, and I look
    forward to your questions.
        Chairman Paul. Thank you. We will now proceed to a round of
    questions, and I will start things off. I have been to, I don't
    know, thousands of rallies. I have probably been the speaker at
    thousands of rallies. I have attended hundreds and hundreds of
    rallies. At every rally I go to someone is armed, and the
    people that are with me are armed. My driver is armed, and we
    do it for self-defense.
        I was also at the ballfield when 160 shots were fired at me
    and others, so I know what violence is like, and I know how
    important it is to have people there. We had Capitol Hill
    Police there that day, and they and the Alexandria police saved
    many lives. Steve Scalise almost died, and another young man
    was shot under the arm. The bullet traveled around his rib cage
    and came out the front of his chest, and did not get inside his
    rib cage, and he survived.
        But, I think if we pass laws like we are talking about in
    Virginia, where maybe it is OK for me to get protection but not
    for you because you are a private citizen, I just cannot
    imagine the hypocrisy of something like that.
        We have very prominent people in our society, some of the
    richest people in our society, who all the time lobby for gun
    control, and they want less guns out there. Yet they will have
    a phalanx of eight to ten people with them, all armed, because
    they can afford that, and most of us cannot.
        I was wondering, Mr. Cuccinelli, if you would comment on
    the law and the distinctions that they are talking about
    between that the government could have security but a private
    CEO or a private person or even a bail bondsman, not a rich
    person but somebody who does a risky business of repossessing
    cars, that somehow it would be illegal for them to have a gun.
    I cannot imagine a government official, yes, and then the bail
    bondsman or the repossessor of cars, no?
        Mr. Cuccinelli. I will take the kind of highest profile.
    The law they are passing, the so-called Assault Weapons Ban,
    exempts government officials and employees, thereby
    acknowledging the utility of the guns in question, which gets
    to the Supreme Court's judge of historical utility of a
    particular weapon. The law itself acknowledges that, and yet
    denies it to ordinary citizens, but allows their own employees
    to carry.
        To examples closer along the lines of what you described,
    there have been several amendments. The way Virginia's process
    worked, the General Assembly is now out of session. The
    Governor can propose amendments back to the General Assembly,
    and Governor Spanberger has done that this week. The General
    Assembly will be back next week to either accept or reject
    those amendments and then vote on the original bill if they
    reject the amendments.
        Several of those bills restrict exactly the kind of
    carrying rights and location that you are describing. In
    Heller, Justice Scalia spoke about sensitive places, and
    allowed room for regulation, meaning the banning of guns, in,
    for instance, school buildings was an example that he used.
        But what the Virginia General Assembly is now proposing
    goes far beyond that. If you are a person whose business or
    whose safety involves being armed, or you would choose to
    protect yourself that way, you are now going, in Virginia, to
    be restricted, depending on how litigation ends up. I am sure
    all of this will be litigated. I hope to participate in that.
    But those restrictions are now very real.
        Again, to my opening comment about the practical ability to
    utilize and exercise your right to self-protection, as we all
    know here, this is not granted by government. James Madison did
    not give us this right. The Bill of Rights was put in place to
    preserve what were understood to be already existing rights, in
    the case of self-defense, both of self and society.
        Unfortunately, that is the direction that the current
    government in my home State is trying to go. I hope that we
    will be able to reintroduce them to the concepts of George
    Mason, Patrick Henry, and James Madison. I know they have
    driven by their houses while they have been driving around
    Virginia, since we have that history there. Nonetheless, it is
    being ignored and now abused, and it is going to,
    unfortunately, have to be fought out in the courts to protect
    it.
        Chairman Paul. Senator Peters.
        Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Constitution
    guarantees each of us certain liberties, including the freedom
    to speak our minds, practice our religion, receive due process,
    and the right to bear arms, as we have been talking about here
    today. Our framers knew that the freedoms protected under our
    Constitution, however, would be at risk if any one branch of
    government was allowed to go unchecked. They did not trust
    anybody in government, figured you had to make sure there were
    checks and balances.
        Ronald Reagan, I think, explained the importance of this
    system of checks and balances very well, and I will just quote
    Ronald Reagan. ``The genius of our constitutional system is its
    recognition that no one branch of government alone could be
    relied on to preserve our freedoms. The great safeguard of our
    liberty is the totality of the constitutional system, with no
    one part getting the upper hand.''
        Professor Vladeck, as you noted in your testimony,
    President Trump has gone to war with Iran without congressional
    approval, as required in the Constitution, usurped Congress'
    appropriations powers under Article I, powers are being
    usurped, and turned Federal agencies against American citizens,
    all while, unfortunately, most of my Republican colleagues have
    either cheered him on or they just kind of look the other way.
        My question for you, sir, is, is Congress currently
    functioning as a co-equal branch of government, as outlined in
    the Constitution, and if not, what is the danger that we are
    facing right now? What should the American people be concerned
    about?
        Mr. Vladeck. The short answer, of course, is no, and I
    think the danger is both a short-term danger, Senator, and a
    long-term danger. Just briefly, the short-term danger is that
    without Congress, without the President having to look over his
    shoulder, there is nothing to stop him from engaging in ever-
    more aggressive usurpation of appropriations, spending money he
    does not have, not spending money he is supposed to, violating
    individual rights in a context in which there is no way to
    challenge that in court, and going on ever-more misguided,
    misbegotten military operations, all to the detriment of our
    national security, of our economy, of our rights.
        Senator, in the long term, this destabilizes the ability of
    Congress to ever exercise those powers again. We have a Supreme
    Court that has interpreted the separation of powers, by
    reference to what Justice Frankfurter called ``historical
    gloss.'' If the gloss of the 2020s is that the President can do
    whatever he wants as long as a majority of Congress is not
    going to stop him, that is a gloss that can be deployed by
    future Presidents, Senator, with whom you and I might agree
    more to do plenty of things that I think would be deeply
    problematic for our rule-of-law society.
        Senator Peters. You mentioned the courts as a possible
    check. Obviously, Congress is a major check, and I would argue
    that our Founders always thought Congress was the preeminent of
    the three branches. We are Article I. But the courts are
    important, and unfortunately we have seen this Administration,
    based on recent actions, believes that they are above the law,
    including court decisions. Time and time again, judges have
    found that the Administration has violated court orders.
        One Federal judge found that the Department of Homeland
    Security (DHS) had, ``utterly disregarded the court's earlier
    order,'' and, ``made no attempt to offer any justification for
    their blatant lack of effort to comply, thumbing their nose at
    the court.'' Another found that U.S. Immigration and Customs
    Enforcement's (ICE) refused to provide information ordered by
    the court. Another case found that DOJ, ``elected to simply
    ignore valid court orders.''
        I want to be clear. These are not liberal activist judges,
    as President Trump and some of my colleagues would claim. All
    of these quotes come from judges that were appointed by Donald
    Trump. These are judges he appointed, who saw how outrageous it
    was for them to ignore these orders.
        What does it mean for Americans if there is not a
    consistent adherence to the rule of law and some laws just
    simply do not get followed?
        Mr. Vladeck. Yes, I mean, John Adams, at the founding,
    said, ``Ours is a government of laws, not of men.'' A world in
    which the Executive Branch does not abide by court orders and
    faces no repercussions in Congress for violating court orders
    is a world in which that is not true, and it is a world in
    which the President can do what he wants.
        Senator, too many people may not care about those cases
    because those are immigration detention cases. But if the
    government puts one of us in immigration detention and says,
    ``You are not a U.S. citizen,'' even if it is a mistake, the
    only way to get out is a government that is going to comply
    with an adverse court order. That is the problem. That is the
    slippery slope. It is very slippery, and it is one that we are
    falling down way too quickly.
        Senator Peters. Thank you. The Fourth Amendment protects us
    from unjustified invasions of privacy by the government.
    However, this Administration has basically disregarded decades-
    old privacy protections, to combine and share Americans' most
    sensitive tax, health, and Social Security data. It is tracking
    Americans' location using data brokers. It is monitoring their
    social media activity, and potentially even using spyware to
    break into the phones of Americans. I am very concerned about
    these activities.
        My question for you, sir, or Professor Vladeck, is at the
    time when so many people chose to share all kinds of details
    online, why should we be concerned about information the
    government is collecting right now, and how might they use
    these tools against us?
        Mr. Vladeck. I think the concern, Senator, has been driven
    home by what we have seen this Administration do, which is
    retaliating against people because of, for example, what is in
    their social media profiles, denying visas to non-citizens who
    have done nothing wrong other than perhaps express sympathy for
    Palestinians. That is not supposed to be how the government
    uses our data, and there is a rich tradition, Senator, as you
    well know, of this Congress actually stepping in to protect
    Americans' privacy rights, even before the courts have had a
    chance to do so. The Wiretap Act was a response to the Supreme
    Court's refusal to apply the Fourth Amendment to wiretaps. That
    is the kinds of conversations we should be having, about what
    is happening in our government right not, not the possibility
    that some State laws might be subject to challenge in court,
    where those challenges are deeply available.
        Senator Peters. Thank you.
        Chairman Paul. Senator Johnson.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON

        Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
    calling this hearing. It is, I think, a very interesting one.
    It is an important debate. I always like hearings that kind of
    stay focused on the actual title of the hearing, which is ``The
    Second Amendment.'' You want to go into other areas, that is
    fine.
        Mr. Pratt, you seem to not be particularly happy with this
    Administration's reaction to some of these things. The same
    with Mr. Brown. I am not disagreeing with you at all. Mr.
    Pratt, you said that Congress has to act. The problem is we
    have those of us who support the Second Amendment, the
    opposition party basically wants to disarm Americans. I mean,
    they say they won't but that is the direction, I think, is
    pretty obvious in terms of all these guns laws and stuff.
        I would just ask, for the record, I would like you to list
    the things that the Executive Branch can do to undo some of the
    harm, some of the violations, I would say, of our
    constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and particularly
    that confiscation list, which I think is pretty much what it is
    going to be. I mean, why can't they just deep-six that? Is that
    something this Administration could do, and should we be
    putting a lot of pressure on President Trump and members of his
    Administration to do just that?
        Mr. Pratt. Thank you for the question, Senator Johnson. Gun
    Owners of America has been working with the Administration to
    do just that with the registry. They are coming out with a new
    rule, because under Biden they made those records permanent.
        Senator Johnson. We will go through the Administrative
    Procedures Act (APA) and that will happen.
        Mr. Pratt. I am sorry?
        Senator Johnson. They will go through the Administrative
    Procedures Act, and you believe that will happen.
        Mr. Pratt. Yes.
        Senator Johnson. OK.
        Mr. Pratt. We are urging them, a ``shall not be infringed''
    view would mean the ATF retains those 4473s for zero years, not
    10, not 20, 30, or indefinitely, but zero.
        Senator Johnson. Limited time. Mr. Cuccinelli, I think you
    are a pretty observant follower of the Supreme Court. A lot of
    President Trump's actions have been challenging in court.
    Correct?
        Mr. Cuccinelli. Yes.
        Senator Johnson. The minority witness has pointed those
    out. But President Trump has actually got a pretty good record
    before the Supreme Court. Correct? Have you been keeping track
    of that?
        Mr. Cuccinelli. He does have a pretty good record before
    the Supreme Court. He has a better record before the Supreme
    Court than many of the lower courts. When you look at
    injunctions, for example, over 90 percent of them came in five
    districts. That is probably not a coincidence.
        Senator Johnson. There has been a little venue shopping.
        Mr. Cuccinelli. There has been significant venue shopping.
        Senator Johnson. OK. Professor Vladeck, I assume that you
    are not a Trump supporter. It does not sound like you are
    particularly enamored with this Administration.
        Mr. Vladeck. I am not enamored with any administration,
    Senator, that does not commit to following the Constitution.
        Senator Johnson. Right. You talked a lot about war powers.
    Has any President since the War Powers Act been passed,
    accepted that as a constitutional constrained on that
    President?
        Has any President not acknowledged, admitted that this is a
    constitutional act?
        Mr. Vladeck. I think we have seen Presidents follow it,
    including President Carter.
        Senator Johnson. Again, I am asking has any President
    acknowledge this is constitutional? Has any Supreme Court ruled
    on the constitutionality of the War Powers Act?
        Mr. Vladeck. No, because as I suggested in my testimony the
    Supreme Court has made it hard to challenge it.
        Senator Johnson. Did President Obama ever get a
    congressional authorization in his military action against
    Libya?
        Mr. Vladeck. No, he did not.
        Senator Johnson. OK. Did President Clinton ever get
    congressional authorization in his military action in Kosovo?
        Mr. Vladeck. I think that one is a tougher question because
    it depends upon how you interpret the North Atlantic Treaty
    Organization (NATO) treaty and some of the authorities under
    that.
        Senator Johnson. He did not get authorization. Congress did
    not declare war. Congress has not passed----
        Mr. Vladeck. I agree. Senator, I have been critical of the
    War Powers----
        Senator Johnson. So you have blinders----
        Mr. Vladeck [continuing]. By Presidents of both parties.
        Senator Johnson. You have blinders on.
        Mr. Vladeck. No. I think Presidents of both----
        Senator Johnson. You have blinders on. Let me ask another
    question. I thought it was very interesting in Representative
    Massie's testimony the regime after regime after regime that he
    ticked off, that the first action these totalitarians, these
    tyrants, enacted was gun control, OK. I thought it was
    interesting because he was leading right up to, but he did not
    mention, the ayatollahs.
        Professor Vladack, you are part of academia, who I just
    think--I am not sure about Georgetown Law, but, it was shocking
    how many protests in favor of Hamas occurred on college
    campuses. That is because we have leftist professors poisoning
    the minds of our young people. But I hope our young people are
    watching. I am assuming, you do not support the ayatollahs in
    Iran, do you? Do you think they are anything less than a
    brutal, tyrannical threat and menace to world peace?
        Mr. Vladeck. No, but I also do not think that is the
    standard for when Presidents have the constitutional authority
    to send Americans men and women into harm's way.
        Senator Johnson. Do you think it would be a good thing if
    the ayatollahs were on the dustbin of history, that they no
    longer represented a threat and a menace to world peace? Do you
    think that would be a good thing?
        Mr. Vladeck. What I think and what this government has----
        Senator Johnson. You cannot even answer that question?
        Mr. Vladeck. Senator, I do not know why what I think is
    relevant. Yes, I do, but I also think that you should be more
    interested in what the Constitution provides for.
        Senator Johnson. The point I want to make is they were a
    menace. They are an existential threat. I mean, they get a
    nuclear weapon, they have got missile technology.
        Mr. Vladeck. So the law does not matter?
        Senator Johnson. Park a barge off the United States, lob a
    missile up, hit off, explode a nuclear weapon, wipe out our
    electrical grid. That is an existential threat. We had to act
    before we could not act. But the hope was in acting, the hope
    is still there, that if we weaken the regime the Iranian people
    can take control, regain their freedom. Why can't they? Because
    they have been disarmed. Getting right back to the purpose of
    this hearing, because the Iranian people have been disarmed by
    the brutal, tyrannical regime within Iran. When are we going to
    finally learn that lesson?
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Paul. Thank you, and we will do another round if
    anybody has any other questions. I will start us off on that.
        I opened by talking about that I have been to a lot of
    rallies with guns. I have never seen anybody commit violence.
    That is not why I support the right to have a gun at a rally.
    The right is separate of whether the practicalities are
    supportive of it. It is something that precedes government. It
    is a natural right, the right of self-defense.
        But I would be interested, Mr. Brown, if you know of any
    statistics looking at legal gun owners and whether they commit
    crimes, how frequently, compared to the criminal population, et
    cetera.
        Mr. Brown. Yes, thank you, Senator. The estimates are right
    now that there are somewhere around 22 million concealed
    handgun permits issued to Americans. There are, however, now,
    as you mentioned, 29 states that allow permit-less carry. The
    estimates are roughly that 16 million people carry on a regular
    basis in America, and that they commit crimes at one-third the
    rate of other Americans, people who do not carry. Of course,
    those are broad, general estimates.
        But we know in states with permits that those people are
    arrested at a much lower rate, not just for gun crimes like,
    for instance, carrying in a, ``illegal'' place or a sitting
    duck zone, as Congressman Massie called them, but they are
    also, on a regular basis, not arrested for other means, like
    assault. I think we can surmise the reason.
        I know, for me, I carry virtually every waking money that I
    can. It is because there an added level of seriousness when you
    do carry a firearm, and a responsibility. And so, yes, I think
    you just avoid problems wherever you can.
        Chairman Paul. Same question, Mr. Pratt.
        Mr. Pratt. Yes, the statistics show that concealed carry
    permit holders, for example, commit crimes at a lower rate than
    the police do. Interestingly enough, you have more private
    citizens who stop--over 50 percent of mass shootings in non-
    gun-free zones are stopped by law-abiding citizens. That is
    actually a greater percentage than police. That is because if
    you are in danger and you are in a gun-free zone, the police
    are minutes away, but if you are able to protect yourself, you
    are able to immediately respond.
        Chairman Paul. Yes, and I think that is the thing about
    people who do not own guns and fear the sight of a gun, and the
    gun scares them, is that people who own and carry guns are some
    of the most responsible people, as far as safety, as far as
    everything else. They do not brandish their weapon. They are
    carrying a weapon for self-defense, and it does work.
        On the idea of separation of powers, some of the discussion
    is the implication that this is a one-sided thing, that somehow
    this is Republicans are terrible, Trump is terrible, but maybe
    Democrats were somehow good. I would say both parties have been
    abysmal at this, and frankly, the court has not be very good
    either.
        One of your colleagues, Randy Barnett, goes back to
    Lochner, and I am with him on that. I am a libertarian that
    thinks Lochner was correctly decided. But it has been opposed
    by most on the left, and many on the right, frankly, for the
    last 100 years. The problem is in Lochner the Court did decide
    that they were going to make assertive decisions based on
    constitutionality. They basically decided in Lochner that the
    right to contract is a right, and that states cannot infringe
    upon the right to contract. That was a great direction, which
    has been reversed by 100 years.
        But for a 100 years now or more, the Court really has shown
    deference. I will not mention the Justice, but I recently met
    one in a casual situation, and the discussion was concerning no
    longer giving deference to the administration overturning
    Chevron, which I am in favor of. But the question I had to the
    Justice was, ``Well, you seem pretty deferential. Why wasn't
    there a discussion of the First Amendment in the TikTok case,
    or why was it sloughed over for national security?''
        The point that was made by the Justice was that, oh well,
    we still give deference to Congress. When we have had questions
    of separation of powers, for example, some pretty explicit
    things. Taxes have to originate in the House. The Tax Reform
    Act of 1986 (TRA) was a bill, back in 1986. Congressmen took it
    there, and the Court basically will do stuff, like, you do not
    have standing, and so they never really decided on it.
        Recently we had a really big case on tariffs. I agree with
    the Court's decision on the tariffs. But they also made the
    decision, I think based on Ashwander, that, oh, we are not
    really going to decide on the Constitution. Heaven forbid we
    make a constitutional decision. We are going to decide it on
    the statute.
        I think there is some blame over there, and there is
    certainly a lot of blame in Congress, but really the blame is
    absolutely bipartisan and people tend to switch their
    positions. People who were once are now very critical of the
    war power under President Trump, which I have been. Many of
    them were very quiet when President Obama was bombing Libya,
    and that was the point I think Senator Johnson was making, is
    that the consistency on this position has been very partisan.
        I will just finish with, let's start out with the Court,
    with Lochner. Decided correctly? Is that part of the problem?
    Not decided correctly? Then with Ashwander, should Ashwander be
    binding us and keeping the Court from making constitutional
    judgment on what they call political questions?
        Mr. Vladeck. Mr. Chairman, I agree with, I think, a lot
    more of what you said than you might expect. I have been a
    consistent critic of abuse of the war powers by Presidents of
    both parties, and would have loved the chance to actually
    explain that to Senator Johnson.
        I think the point, though, that you are making, Mr.
    Chairman, is that the deference the Court is showing assumes a
    Congress that is exercising its ordinary oversight and
    accountability powers. I am not here to blame one party or the
    other, Mr. Chairman. My point is just that at this particular
    moment in American history we are seeing, in technicolor, just
    how significant the cost of that abdication, whenever it
    started and whoever is to blame are for the rights of all
    Americans.
        Chairman Paul. Here is my question. I think you are right.
    Congress is abdicating their duty. What about the Court then?
    Congress is not doing their duty. Does the Court have a duty,
    and they skate political questions, and they try to decide
    things on non-constitutional, which gets back to Lochner. In
    Lochner they had a more certain idea that if a State is acting
    unconstitutionally, if they are bridging the right to contract,
    we will overturn the State law. Then they got away from that.
        Really it is the question of Lochner being correctly
    decided or not correctly decided, and if the Court, if you want
    them to act in separation of powers issues like this, then is
    Ashwander, should it be binding as far as trying to go to the
    least common denominator instead of deciding based on the
    Constitution?
        Mr. Vladeck. Mr. Chairman, I think the Ashwander question
    is a nuanced one and really depends on exactly what Congress
    has done and said. A statute, Mr. Chairman, that was ambiguous,
    you and I might both think better to avoid the question. But
    where I think Congress has clearly tried to rein in the
    President, and has clearly tried to push back, the Court should
    be deciding on the question.
        If I may, just very briefly, I think we are seeing some of
    the same problems in that direction that we are talking about
    with regard to the relationship between Congress and the
    Executive Branch, which is Congress also used to be much more
    active in regulating the courts, and the Supreme Court in
    particular. I think over the last generation we have seen that
    fall away, as well.
        Chairman Paul. Senator Peters.
        Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree. The
    Chairman and I agree. This has been an issue with both parties
    over time. In my opening comments I was very clear that we have
    seen Congress give powers to the Executive on a continuous
    basis. I think we could argue whether or not it is accelerating
    or not, which was part of your point, Professor.
        But to that point, with war powers, I know, Mr. Chairman, I
    would actually like to hear your answer to the question our
    colleague asked about war powers. We are actually interested in
    learning about that, not just giving a speech.
        Mr. Vladeck. Yes. I think that the point I was trying to
    make to Senator Johnson is that I think Presidents of both
    parties have abused the war powers, and I do not think it is a
    particularly Democratic or Republican or conservative or
    liberal phenomenon. Presidents are going to use the powers they
    have, Senator.
        I think part of the problem is that we have seen perhaps
    more aggressive pushback when the President was a Democrat,
    perhaps because those were periods when you had some cross-
    party control. We have seen more aggressive pushback when a
    different party has controlled one or both chambers of Congress
    than when it has been the same party, and that has been true in
    both directions.
        It seems to me the result should not be to say, so-and-so
    is a hypocrite, but rather to say, well then, let's fix the
    problem, period, as opposed to let's fix the problem when
    someone else is in charge.
        Senator Peters. Yes. I think that is right, and the checks
    and balances works. Sometimes when you do not have one control,
    one party in all control, based on the partisanship that we are
    seeing in the country right now, unfortunately.
        Professor, you also stated in your testimony that the Trump
    administration has taken sweeping actions to undermine the
    First Amendment. The Chairman of the Federal Communications
    Commission (FCC) threated the American Broadcasting Company
    (ABC) for airing a comedian who criticized the Administration.
    This Administration has also revoked the press credentials of
    journalists whose coverage it basically did not like. It
    targeted law firms, universities, and former government
    officials because it did not like their protected speech. It is
    trying to use Federal grants now to force organizations to
    adopt the President's political ideology with Federal money.
        Could you talk about Congress' role in addressing the scale
    of the Trump administration's systemic violations, particularly
    of the First Amendment right now?
        Mr. Vladeck. Yes. It seems like there are a couple of
    different things that Congress could do and that prior
    Congresses have done. I think the first is more robust
    oversight, using, for example, nominations hearings, using
    oversight hearings, using budget hearings as opportunities to
    ask the Administration what exactly it is doing and why. I
    think there are ways in which Congress could condition funding
    for some of these agencies on not engaging in those behaviors.
    It is not unconstitutional for Congress to condition Federal
    funds on the Administration refusing to retaliate.
        But also, Senator, I think Congress could make it easier
    for those who are having their speech chilled in these contexts
    to sue directly, because I do not think it is possible, even
    for a well-meaning Congress, to actually enforce every single
    flash point between the government and its citizens. That is
    why I think the absence of a meaningful remedy, even for
    ephemeral constitutional violations, is something that has been
    exposed over and over again as a structural flaw of our current
    moment.
        Senator Peters. Professor, you also noted in your testimony
    the Constitution grants Congress, not the President, the power
    to decide how the government spends taxpayer money. This power
    of the purse allows us to basically serve as a check on abuses
    by the Executive Branch.
        After two American citizens were shot and killed by DHS
    officers as a result of the Administration's tactics, many of
    us tried to use the Congress' spending power to ensure reform
    as well as accountability. But when the President decides to
    ignore Congress and claims the spending power for himself, not
    Congress, it leaves Congress basically with no leverage and the
    American people with basically no accountability.
        My question for you, sir, is are you aware of other
    instances in history where the President has violated Congress'
    power to appropriate funds and Congress basically did
    absolutely nothing? What are the consequences when the
    Administration ignores Congress' appropriations power, as
    granted in Article I of the Constitution?
        Mr. Vladeck. Senator, I am not aware of another example
    where we saw this degree of appropriations misbehavior by the
    Executive Branch and no congressional reaction. I think, as you
    know, the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) itself was Congress'
    response to not comparable but at least loosely analogous
    behavior by the Nixon administration, and Congress responded
    by, I think quite powerfully, reclaiming its power, and indeed,
    authorizing, Senator, some of the behavior President Nixon had
    engaged in, while prohibiting the rest of it.
        It seems to me that is the point I would have liked to have
    made to Senator Johnson, which is you can think the President
    having this power is a good thing or not. The point is that
    Congress has to provide it. It seems like what is missing from
    this conversation is the idea that if we like what the
    President is doing we should not worry about the separation of
    powers.
        Just to quote the Supreme Court for a second, it would be
    ironic if in the name of national defense we would sanction the
    subversion of one of our civil liberties that makes defense of
    the Nation worthwhile.
        Senator Peters. Thank you.
        Chairman Paul. Senator Hawley.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HAWLEY

        Senator Hawley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
    thanks to all of the witnesses for being here.
        Mr. Pratt, if I could just start with you, I want to ask
    you about something that I think deserves some answers. In
    fact, I have waited years for a substantive response on this.
    Back in 2021, I sent a letter to then President Biden's ATF
    asking about Rule 2021R-05, which is the rule that requires gun
    dealers to keep records on buyers permanently. They never gave
    me an answer.
        Thankfully, we now have a new administration, but it is
    often the case that old rules live on in sort of zombie-like
    lifestyle through bureaucratic inertia. Do you know, Mr. Pratt,
    how many Biden-era ATF rules are still either on the books or
    continue to be enforced, that we ought to be concerned about?
        Mr. Pratt. Thank you for the question. Unfortunately, there
    are several. With the one you just mentioned, the DOJ, even as
    of last week, was saying they intend to enforce the Biden rule.
    The same with the engaged in business rule. Same with the
    pistol brace rule. We are fighting every single one of those.
        I am so glad you took an interest in the registry, because
    GOA actually the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA'd) the ATF
    manual, and you can search the make, model, and serial number
    of, let's say, every firearm made by Smith and Wesson. You
    could then use that as a confiscation list to know which ones
    were the pistols with stabilizing braces.
        When ATF Director Steven Dettelbach testified before the
    Congress he told the Senate Judiciary Committee that they
    actually pay extra money to remove the search function on the
    names, and that was supposed to be our big defense against a
    confiscation list, our big defense against tyranny. They are
    paying extra money. What if they stop paying the extra money,
    or what if they open up that Adobe document in some other type
    of document? They would still be able to search by name.
        The only answer that we really have is to delete the
    registry.
        Senator Hawley. Speaking of registries, my understanding is
    that sitting right now in a warehouse in West Virginia, and you
    described this in your testimony, is roughly 1 billion gun
    owner records, 94 percent of them that are already in digital
    format.
        Mr. Pratt. Yes.
        Senator Hawley. Now, Federal law is supposed to prohibit a
    national gun registry, but I am wondering, what would you call
    that?
        Mr. Pratt. We call that a registry.
        Senator Hawley. It looks like it to me too. I mean, let's
    just walk through this. If a future administration that is
    hostile to Second Amendment rights in this country were to get
    its hands on those records, 1 billion gun owners' names, other
    information contained there, what do you think it might be able
    to do with them?
        Mr. Pratt. That is absolutely the problem, is with any gun
    ban that is passed they are able to search the makes and models
    of those guns, and if they stop paying for the names attached
    to them they know exactly who is not in compliance with the
    law, which, again, is something that already happened in New
    York City when they registered guns in the 1960s, passed a ban
    in the 1990s, and then they did spot checks on people that they
    believed were not complying with the law.
        Senator Hawley. In 1967, correct, New York required
    registration of rifles, I think it was.
        Mr. Pratt. That is right.
        Senator Hawley. Shotguns, as well. Promised then that, oh,
    it would not be used for confiscation. But then, in fact, they
    were confiscated. I think they went door-to-door back in the
    late 1960s.
        Mr. Pratt. Mayor David Dinkens signed the ban, and that is
    exactly what they did.
        Senator Hawley. Then, in 1991, New York City also banned
    another class of weapons, and officials used, as I understand
    it, an existing database to do the same thing, to force
    confiscation. There is also, I suppose, the example of our
    Australian friends. In 1996, I think it was, Australia passed
    the National Firearms Agreement (NFA), they called it, which,
    as I understand it, restricted gun ownership and mandated the
    creation of a firearm registry. Then, lo and behold, they went
    and used that to enforce mandatory buybacks.
        I seem to recall more than one Democratic candidate for
    President talking about mandatory buybacks. I mean, this is not
    a far-fetched conspiracy theory. This is something that has
    happened in our country. It has happened in our ally nations.
    You have members of the opposition party who are saying it is a
    great model. I mean, we should be concerned about this,
    shouldn't we?
        Mr. Pratt. We should be concerned about it, and that is why
    that registry cannot continue to exist, Senator.
        Senator Hawley. What is the thing that we have to do? What
    is the most urgent action we need to take, Mr. Pratt, to make
    sure this registry (a) is not abused, and (b) is eliminated so
    that it cannot be used for nefarious purposes, namely the
    violation of the constitutional rights in the future?
        Mr. Pratt. The No Registry Rights Act by Cloud in the House
    and Risch in the Senate would delete that registry. If Congress
    would take that up and send it to the President, that would be
    fantastic.
        Senator Hawley. I hope we will do that post haste. Thank
    you very much for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Paul. I think this is a good discussion, and
    furthering on this I would just like to add that we have been
    requesting information also from the ATF for quite a while. We
    sent a letter\1\ in April of last year, requesting some of the
    same information that you FOIA'd, and we have gotten no
    response and no documents, and we have followed up.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The letter referenced by Senator Paul appears in the Appendix
    on page 80.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We are going to pursue, through the Committee, the process
    of subpoenaing that information. It will be in consultation
    with the minority. But if you have an interest in that, if you
    will work with our office, if there is specific information you
    want to add to that subpoena. It is a friendly administration,
    but the ATF still is not giving us anything in a year. That is
    just too long, and we should figure out more about it.
        In our letter we refer to some of the FOIA'd things, and
    apparently there is evidence now that ATF agents can have their
    own target that they can monitor for 30 to 180 days, and
    monitor, along with the FBI, through this. It sounds like no
    due process or courts or anybody involved with this. The fact
    that they will not tell Congress what they are doing, I think
    our patience should wear thin, and I think we should really
    find out what is going on over there. Because sometimes even
    when an administration changes, people at the top change, but
    somebody who is in charge of this program may be the exact same
    people that were doing it in the previous administration. But
    we are going to try to get to the bottom of that.
        I do not have any further questions. We have gone a couple
    of rounds. Do you have anything you would like to say? I think
    we are going to wrap it up.
        Mr. Cuccinelli. Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman Paul. Yes.
        Mr. Cuccinelli. Can I just comment on that briefly?
        Chairman Paul. Yes.
        Mr. Cuccinelli. Senator Peters earlier, he did not use the
    phrase ``third-party doctrine,'' but he described examples of
    what is the third-party doctrine. The third-party doctrine was
    established by the Supreme Court in the 1970s in a bank case
    and a phone case, back when we made a phone call and wires
    actually connected, that connected you to me. You could put a
    trap on it, and you could see everybody I dialed.
        The theory of the third-party doctrine is that if I dial my
    phone, I know that I am giving the phone company that
    information, and therefore, giving up all constitutional rights
    to privacy----
        Chairman Paul. A terrible theory.
        Mr. Cuccinelli [continuing]. Regardless of whether I have a
    contract with that phone company to keep those records private,
    on the old, pre-privacy theory of Fourth Amendment rights,
    which was based on, oh, the Constitution, and trespass theory,
    et cetera. Contract would fit in there. Same with my bank
    records. When I use a bank, and we all do, they fall under the
    same rules.
        You just commented, Mr. Chairman, about no warrants, no
    judicial, no due process. That is exactly right. Because all of
    our government agencies can just go ask the bank for your
    records. Now, then it is up to the bank whether they turn them
    over, or even let you know about it.
        Chairman Paul. Right. This is a huge issue----
        Mr. Cuccinelli. Until that is legislated----
        Chairman Paul [continuing]. A huge issue, and then the
    Court helped a little bit to abbreviate the expanse of the
    third-party doctrine in the Carpenter decision. I actually
    think and several Senators were caught up in this recently, in
    Carpenter--it was either Carpenter or the other case before
    that--they make the decision that your geolocation is actually
    among. It is all the data that the Court does not care about,
    and they say you have no privacy interest and no personal
    interest in. You do have it in your location.
        Mr. Vladeck. That was Jones, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Paul. Excuse me?
        Mr. Vladeck. The Jones case, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Paul. Jones case. So there are two, but it was the
    Jones case.
        I really think, absolutely, and I do not know if any of the
    Senators--you were not on that list, were you? You were on the
    list? But I think it needs to be pursued based on that case,
    because they did look at geolocation. They are looking at where
    you were on January 6th. Of course, the phone companies did not
    defend anyone. One phone company defended one Senator, and the
    other one did not defend anybody.
        But I think you have a real case on this. The question is
    whether or not this is a violation of the government or whether
    the phone companies have an obligation to protect geolocation.
    You could sue the phone companies, but can you sue the
    government over it too?
        Mr. Cuccinelli. You are going to run into sovereign
    immunity, and with the third-party doctrine established by the
    Supreme Court you will not be able to successfully sue the
    government, absent trying to go all the way to the Supreme
    Court, to getting the third-party doctrine overturned.
        Chairman Paul. But even though they have allowed now that
    geolocation is not protected by the third-party doctrine.
        Mr. Vladeck. Mr. Chairman, there was the bill that Congress
    passed last year, that I believe--Senator Hawley can correct
    me, but I believe authorized at least some Members, perhaps
    Senators, to sue over at least some of the phone records
    questions.
        But I do think the larger point, Mr. Chairman, is that
    whether we are particularly concerned with the phone records of
    Senators or Americans who do not hold elected office, the
    problem is the same, which is that there are woefully
    insufficient remedies for any government violation of our
    Fourth Amendment rights.
        Chairman Paul. Oh, I agree completely. I think Smith and
    the other decisions were all incorrectly decided. It took 60
    years to go from Olmstead and saying you could wiretap
    anybody's phone, all the way to Katz. You had a long period of
    time until the Court finally started getting it right, but they
    still are not completely getting it right, and Carpenter and
    Jones are a step in the right direction.
        But I actually think Jones is on point here, and I do think
    that you can win a case. My suggestion is that you get--oh, you
    are a lawyer. I do not know. I think there still is an opening,
    the third-party doctrine does not, because geolocation, they
    say, is something that is not just that anymore. You have a
    personal interest in geolocation.
        Mr. Cuccinelli. They ratcheted or created exceptions, is
    how I would characterize it, to the third-party doctrine with
    respect to that level of nuance, which, of course, they did not
    foresee in the 1970s. But the 1970s technology was not foreseen
    by the Founders. I would suggest that it would be better, and
    it does not strike me as particularly difficult, to get
    bipartisan support to introduce this kind of protection,
    particularly given what has happened around here recently.
        Chairman Paul. We have that legislation, and I will
    introduce it again. Thank you. Mr. Vladeck, did you have
    another comment on this?
        Mr. Vladeck. No. Mr. Chairman.
        Thanks, everybody. I think we actually covered more than
    just the Second Amendment. We did the Second Amendment, we got
    some of the Fourth Amendment, we talked about First Amendment,
    the separation of powers. I think it was a good hearing.
    Thanks, everybody.
        [Whereupon, at 11:24 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]