S. HRG. 113–870 

PROPOSALS TO REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE: 

PROTECTING OUR COMMUNITIES WHILE 

RESPECTING THE SECOND AMENDMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, 

CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 12, 2013 

Serial No. J–113–3 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 
PROPOSALS TO REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE: PROTECTING OUR 

COMMUNITIES WHILE RESPECTING THE SECOND AMENDMENT 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

26–144 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 113–870 

PROPOSALS TO REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE: 

PROTECTING OUR COMMUNITIES WHILE 

RESPECTING THE SECOND AMENDMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, 

CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 12, 2013 

Serial No. J–113–3 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

MAZIE HIRONO, Hawaii 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa, Ranking Member 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

DICK DURBIN, Illinois, Chairman 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

MAZIE HIRONO, Hawaii 

TED CRUZ, Texas, Ranking Member 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

ORRIN HATCH, Utah 

JOSEPH ZOGBY, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SCOTT KELLER, Republican Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

FEBRUARY 12, 2013, 10 A.M. 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Cruz, Hon. Ted, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas ..................................... 3 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 148 

Durbin, Hon. Dick, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois .............................. 1 

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah, 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 147 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 145 

WITNESSES 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 51 

Cooper, Charles J., Partner, Cooper and Kirk, PLLC, Washington, DC ............ 33 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 112 

Heaphy, Timothy J., U.S. Attorney, Western District of Virginia, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC ....................................................................... 5 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 52 

Hupp, Suzanna, Lampasas, Texas ......................................................................... 31 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 141 

Tribe, Laurence H., Carl M. Loeb University Professor, Harvard Law School, 

Cambridge, Massachusetts .................................................................................. 26 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 60 

Webster, Daniel W., Sc.D., M.P.H., Director and Professor, Johns Hopkins 

Center for Gun Policy and Research, Baltimore, Maryland ............................. 35 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 95 

appendix ............................................................................................................ 105 

Wortham, Sandra J., Chicago, Illinois ................................................................... 28 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 109 

QUESTIONS 

Questions submitted to Timothy J. Heaphy by Senator Grassley ....................... 156 

Questions submitted to Suzanna Hupp by Senator Grassley .............................. 159 

Questions submitted to Laurence H. Tribe by: 

Senator Graham ............................................................................................... 154 

Senator Grassley .............................................................................................. 160 

Questions submitted to Daniel W. Webster by: 

Senator Graham ............................................................................................... 155 

Senator Grassley .............................................................................................. 162 

ANSWERS 

[Note: At the time of printing, after several attempts to obtain responses 

to the written questions, the Committee had not received any communication from Timothy J. Heaphy.] 

[Note: At the time of printing, after several attempts to obtain responses 

to the written questions, the Committee had not received any communication from Suzanna Hupp.] 

Responses of Laurence H. Tribe to questions submitted by: 

Senator Graham ............................................................................................... 166 

Senator Grassley .............................................................................................. 163 
Page

IV 

Responses of Daniel W. Webster to questions submitted by: 

Senator Graham ............................................................................................... 170 

Senator Grassley .............................................................................................. 172 

MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Academic Pediatric Association, McLean, Virginia, statement ............................ 179 

Advancement Project, Washington, DC, statement .............................................. 187 

American Academy of Pediatrics, Washington, DC, statement ........................... 189 

American Baptist Home Mission Societies, statement ......................................... 196 

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Washington Legislative Office, 

Washington, DC, statement ................................................................................ 198 

American Federation of Teachers, Washington, DC, statement .......................... 207 

American Nurses Association (ANA), Silver Spring, Maryland, statement ........ 209 

appendix ............................................................................................................ 212 

American Public Health Association, Washington, DC, statement ..................... 214 

Andrinopoulos Mina, Angelike, Esq., Arlington, Virginia, statement ................. 217 

Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 220 

Articles, letters, and statements submitted by Hon. Ted Cruz, a U.S. Senator 

from the State of Texas ....................................................................................... 552 

Association of Prosecuting Attorneys (APA), Washington, DC, statement ......... 225 

Atwood, James E., Dr., Springfield, Virginia, statement ..................................... 227 

Baimel, Jill, Newtown, Connecticut, statement .................................................... 229 

Baker, Karen D., statement .................................................................................... 231 

Baldwin, Larry, statement ...................................................................................... 234 

Basch, Rachel, Sandy Hook, Connecticut, statement ........................................... 235 

Bensinger, Katharine, Chicago, Illinois, statement .............................................. 237 

Berger, Lisa, Newtown, Connecticut, statement ................................................... 239 

Berger, Paul, Newtown, Connecticut, statement .................................................. 243 

Bergman, Maura S., Newtown, Connecticut, statement ...................................... 245 

Bilgin, Klara, Oakton, Virginia, statement ........................................................... 246 

Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Washington, DC, statement ................. 247 

Brainard, Catherine E., M.A. Special Ed., Bethel, Connecticut, statement ....... 259 

Brandon, Gregory H., McLean, Virginia, statement ............................................. 260 

Burlakoff, Nikolai, U.S. Army veteran, statement ............................................... 261 

Calhoun, John A. ‘‘Jack,’’ statement ...................................................................... 263 

Callery, Jennifer, Sandy Hook, Connecticut, statement ....................................... 264 

Cardinal Glennon Children’s Medical Center, St. Louis, Missouri, statement .. 265 

Casper, Cindy L., Bridgeport, Connecticut, statement ......................................... 267 

Catholic Dioceses of One Spirit, The, Clifton, Virginia, statement ..................... 502 

Church of the Brethren, Peace Witness Ministries, Washington, DC, statement ...................................................................................................................... 268 

Cicarelli, Rebecca, Sandy Hook, Connecticut, statement ..................................... 270 

City of Charlottesville Police Department, Charlottesville, Virginia, statement ...................................................................................................................... 271 

Cleary, Laura, New Fairfield, Connecticut, statement ......................................... 274 

Clements, Abbey, Newtown, Connecticut, statement ........................................... 275 

Clements, Brian, Ph.D., Newtown, Connecticut, statement ................................ 276 

Clements, Sarah, Newtown, Connecticut, statement ........................................... 278 

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), Washington, DC, statement ................ 282 

Cramer, Clayton E., February 7, 2013, letter ....................................................... 636 

Crandall, Marie, M.D., M.P.H., Chicago, Illinois, statement ............................... 286 

Delgado, Beatriz, Norwalk, Connecticut, statement ............................................. 289 

Dessau, Sylvie, statement ....................................................................................... 290 

Dolzall, Donnette, Newtown, Connecticut, statement .......................................... 293 

Episcopal Church, The, New York, New York, statement ................................... 504 

Faiths United to Prevent Gun Violence, Washington, DC, statement ................ 294 

Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM), statement ............................. 302 

Filkins, Andrea, Alexandria, Virginia, statement ................................................. 305 

Fronckiewicz, Laura, Denver, Colorado, statement .............................................. 307 

Giusti, Ron and Marsha, Springfield, Virginia, statement .................................. 309 

Habtu, Elilta ‘‘Lily,’’ M.S., Virginia Tech Injured Survivor, statement .............. 310 

Hagmann, Suzanne and Daniel, Wilton, Connecticut, statement ....................... 315 

Haywood, Kim, Newtown, Connecticut, statement ............................................... 316 

Herve, Heather Borden, Wilton, Connecticut, statement ..................................... 317 

Hodson, Dee, statement .......................................................................................... 320 
Page

V 

Hodson, Sophia, statement ..................................................................................... 321 

Horwatt, Sally Singer, Ph.D., Licensed Clinical Psychologist, statement .......... 322 

Hull, Margaret, Newtown, Connecticut, statement .............................................. 324 

Injury and Violence Prevention Network (IVPN), statement .............................. 326 

Institute of Social Medicine and Community Health, McLean, Virginia, statement ...................................................................................................................... 330 

Interfaith Alliance, Washington, DC, statement .................................................. 332 

Kassirer, Susan J., Sandy Hook, Connecticut, statement .................................... 334 

Kelly, Anne, Goshen, Connecticut, statement ....................................................... 339 

Kenausis, Veronica, Bethel, Connecticut, statement ............................................ 340 

Kent, Samantha, Newtown, Connecticut, statement ............................................ 342 

Killin, Hugh E. ‘‘Tripp,’’ III, Newtown, Connecticut, statement .......................... 343 

Killin, Jennifer, Newtown, Connecticut, statement .............................................. 345 

La Rabida Children’s Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, statement ............................... 349 

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, San Francisco, California, statement ..... 350 

League of Women Voters of the United States, Washington, DC, statement .... 353 

Leon-Gambetta, Wendy, Newtown, Connecticut, statement ................................ 356 

Levinson, Michelle, Connecticut resident, statement ........................................... 357 

Levy, Robert A., February 11, 2013, letter—Redacted ......................................... 649 

Loganathan, Uma M., daughter of slain Virginia Tech Professor G.V. 

Loganathan, statement ........................................................................................ 359 

Lucia, Joan Hubbard, Newtown, Connecticut, statement .................................... 363 

Malcolm, Joyce Lee, letter—Redacted .................................................................... 647 

Mayors Against Illegal Guns, ‘‘America’s Mayors Urge Congress To Support 

Making Gun Trafficking a Crime as Part of a Larger Legislative Package 

To Reduce Gun Violence,’’ statement ................................................................. 374 

Mayors Against Illegal Guns, ‘‘U.S. Mayors Call on Congress To Support 

Assault Weapons Ban,’’ statement ...................................................................... 364 

Mazier, Giselle, Wilton, Connecticut, statement ................................................... 386 

McNabb, Lu Ann Maciulla, Centreville, Virginia, statement .............................. 387 

Million Mom March, Virginia State Chapters, statement .................................... 539 

Misencik, Sally and Paul, Reston, Virginia, et al., statement ............................. 389 

Miwa, Linda J., Burke, Virginia, statement .......................................................... 390 

Monaghan, Georgia, Sandy Hook, Connecticut, statement .................................. 392 

Morosky, Andrew M., Newtown, Connecticut, statement .................................... 393 

Morosky, Katherine, Newtown, Connecticut, statement ...................................... 395 

Murray, Po, Sandy Hook, Connecticut, statement ................................................ 396 

Murray, Tom, Sandy Hook, Connecticut, statement ............................................. 400 

Myles, Sandra, Oakton, Virginia, statement ......................................................... 402 

Myles, Steven J., Oakton, Virginia, statement ..................................................... 403 

Naphen, Sarah, Newtown, Connecticut, statement .............................................. 410 

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Legal 

Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), New York, New York, statement ...................................................................................................................... 404 

National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems (NAPH), Washington, DC, statement .......................................................................................... 411 

National Association of School Nurses, Silver Spring, Maryland, statement ..... 415 

National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), Bethesda, Maryland, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 417 

appendix 1 ......................................................................................................... 418 

appendix 2 ......................................................................................................... 423 

National Association of Social Workers (NASW), Washington, DC, statement . 427 

National Council of Churches USA, Washington, DC, statement ....................... 431 

National Education Association, Washington, DC, statement ............................. 433 

National Law Enforcement Partnership To Prevent Gun Violence, Washington, DC, statement .......................................................................................... 437 

National Network To End Domestic Violence (NNEDV), Washington, DC, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 441 

National Parent Teacher Association (PTA), Alexandria, Virginia, statement .. 445 

National Urban League (NUL), New York, New York, statement ...................... 447 

Neff, Richard H., Ed.D., Fairfax, Virginia, statement .......................................... 450 

Neff, Robert T., Jr., Newtown, Connecticut, statement ........................................ 451 

Neuhoff, John, Sandy Hook, Connecticut, statement ........................................... 452 

Newtown Action Alliance, The, Newtown, Connecticut, statement .................... 454 

Nikitchyuk, Andrei, Sandy Hook, Connecticut, statement .................................. 456 

O’Shea, John S., M.D., F.A.A.P., ‘‘Disarming the U.S.,’’ statement ..................... 458 

Pacchiana, Miranda, Sandy Hook, Connecticut, statement ................................. 460 
Page

VI 

Poje, Gerald V., Ph.D., Vienna, Virginia, statement ............................................ 461 

Police Foundation, Washington, DC, statement ................................................... 463 

Poupon, Eric, Newtown, Connecticut, statement .................................................. 466 

Powers, Pamela S., M.Ed., M.S.W., L.C.S.W., C.A.P., U.S. Navy retired, statement ...................................................................................................................... 468 

Pratt, Larry, February 12, 2013, letter .................................................................. 640 

appendix ............................................................................................................ 642 

Prevey, Melissa, Redding, Connecticut, statement ............................................... 470 

Professors of Constitutional Law, Bruce Ackerman et al., statement ................. 471 

Pumilia, Maria C., Albuquerque, New Mexico, statement ................................... 477 

Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago (RIC), Chicago, Illinois, statement .............. 479 

Richardson, Barbara B., Sandy Hook, Connecticut, statement ........................... 480 

Roome, Ethel-Anne, Southbury, Connecticut, statement ..................................... 481 

Samples, Diane, New Fairfield, Connecticut, statement ...................................... 482 

Schuetz, Jennifer, statement .................................................................................. 485 

Schwartz, Lisa, Newtown, Connecticut, statement .............................................. 487 

Scoville, Rebecca, statement ................................................................................... 489 

Sentencing Project, The, Washington, DC, statement .......................................... 507 

Sivigny, Virginia D., Virginia resident, endorsing Martina Leinz’ statement .... 490 

Snyder, Mark, New Fairfield, Connecticut, statement ......................................... 491 

Sriram, Sanjeev K., M.D., M.P.H., ‘‘An Assault Gun Ban, Mr. Congress Man?’’ 

poem ...................................................................................................................... 492 

St. Louis Children’s Hospital (SLCH), St. Louis, Missouri, statement ............... 494 

Stern, Julia, Newtown, Connecticut, statement .................................................... 496 

Swain, Colleen, Sandy Hook, Connecticut, statement .......................................... 498 

Swain, Ken, Sandy Hook, Connecticut, statement ............................................... 499 

Swanson, Veronica C., M.D., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement ................ 501 

Tripp, Robert L., Reston, Virginia, statement ....................................................... 516 

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, Washington, DC, statement ...................................................................................................................... 520 

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), Washington, DC, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 517 

United States Conference of Mayors, The, Washington, DC, statement ............ 511 

Velush, Joan, and Craig Rogers, Sandy Hook, Connecticut, statement .............. 522 

Velush-Rogers, Zoe, Sandy Hook, Connecticut, statement ................................... 527 

Violence Policy Center (VPC), Washington, DC, statement ................................. 531 

Wall, Jennifer, Virginia resident, statement ......................................................... 542 

Washington Ethical Society, Washington, DC, statement ................................... 543 

West, Robert C., Jr., Afton, Virginia, statement ................................................... 544 

Wilson, Donald, letter .............................................................................................. 546 

Wilson, Maureen, Newtown, Connecticut, statement ........................................... 547 

Win The War! Against Violence, Lexington, Kentucky, statement ..................... 548 

Yergovich, Maryanne, statement ............................................................................ 551 
Page

VII 

ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Submissions for the record not printed due to voluminous nature, previously 

printed by an agency of the Federal Government, or other criteria 

determined by the Committee, list ..................................................................... 654 

Cramer, Clayton, Professor, ‘‘Reforming Colorado Mental Health Law,’’ issue 

paper: 

http://www.claytoncramer.com/scholarly/ColoradoMentalHealthReform1.pdf ............................................................................................................... 654 

Pratt, Erich, and Michael Hammond, Gun Owners of America, ‘‘Current Gun 

Control Proposals Will Endanger the Rights of Law-Abiding Americans,’’ 

statement: 

http://gunowners.org/congress02122013.htm ............................................... 654 

Reynolds, Glenn Harlan, Professor, ‘‘Second Amendment Penumbras: Some 

Preliminary Observations,’’ research paper: 

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstractlid=2002132 ................. 654 

(1) 

PROPOSALS TO REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE: 

PROTECTING OUR COMMUNITIES WHILE 

RESPECTING THE SECOND AMENDMENT 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2013 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS

AND HUMAN RIGHTS, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in 

Room SH–216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Dick Durbin, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Durbin, Franken, Blumenthal, Hirono, Cruz, 

Graham, Cornyn, and Hatch. 

Also present: Senators Feinstein, Schumer, Klobuchar, and 

Grassley. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DICK DURBIN, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Chairman DURBIN. This hearing of the Subcommittee on the 

Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights will come to order. 

Today’s hearing is entitled, ‘‘Proposals to Reduce Gun Violence: 

Protecting Our Communities While Respecting the Second Amendment.’’ This is the first hearing of the Constitution Subcommittee 

of the 113th Congress, and I want to welcome my Ranking Republican Member, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. Thank you for joining 

us at this Committee hearing, as well as my other colleagues who 

will be here. 

I also want to thank Senator Pat Leahy, Chairman of the full 

Committee, for giving this opportunity to us to have this hearing 

today. The Chairman held a hearing on January 30th to begin this 

conversation on gun violence, and we continue it today. 

We are pleased to have such a large audience for our hearing. 

It demonstrates the importance of this issue, and at the outset I 

want to note that the rules of the Senate prohibit outbursts, clapping, or demonstrations of any kind at these hearings. There was 

so much interest in today’s hearing that we have had to expand the 

opportunity for the audience to an adjoining room. The overflow 

room is 226 in the Dirksen Building. 

I will make a few opening remarks, give my Ranking Member, 

Senator Cruz, the same opportunity, and then welcome our first 

witness. 
2 

We are here today to discuss a critically important issue, maybe 

even a very basic question. We venerate in this country our commitment to the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of those who 

live in America. We also guarantee under our Bill of Rights the 

right to bear arms. Can we make these two consistent? Can they 

work together? Can we protect a person’s right to own a firearm 

and still say to the rest of America, ‘‘We also need to protect your 

right to life, to peace, to freedom from violence from those same 

firearms’’ ? 

According to the Centers for Disease Control, over 11,000 Americans—11,000—are murdered with guns every year. That is more 

each year than all the American lives that were lost in the tragedy 

of 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Each year. 

Every day more than 30 men, women, and children are killed in 

violent shootings; 200 are shot but survive. These are sobering statistics. But numbers do not really capture the deeply personal impact of gun violence. 

There are too many families who now face an empty seat at a 

dinner table, too many parents who walk past an empty bedroom, 

too many husbands and wives who have lost the love of their lives 

because of gunfire. It is heartbreaking and, sadly, it has become almost routine in this great Nation—in a park in Chicago, at a nightclub in East St. Louis, Illinois, at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, at a shopping center in Tucson, Arizona, in a Sikh temple in 

Oak Creek, Wisconsin, at a military base in Texas, in college lecture halls in DeKalb, Illinois, and Blacksburg, Virginia, and in first 

grade classrooms in Newtown, Connecticut. Americans all across 

the country are saying, ‘‘Enough.’’ We have reached a tipping point. 

We need to act. We need to better protect our kids, our families, 

our schools, our loved ones from the epidemic of gun violence. 

Some say we should just enforce the laws that are on the books, 

but that is not enough. There are so many gaps in those laws that 

we know they have created the situation we face today. 

The Senate will take up many proposals that will close those 

gaps and help prevent and reduce gun violence. We will consider 

universal background checks for gun sales, tougher gun laws 

against illegal straw purchasing and gun trafficking, stopping the 

flood of new military-style assault weapons onto our streets, limiting the capacity of new gun magazines to a level that allows for 

reasonable self-defense but reduces the scope of carnage that a 

mass shooter can cause. 

All of these proposals are based on common sense; all of them 

have strong support among the American public; and all of them, 

I believe, are clearly consistent with our Constitution and the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. 

In the landmark Supreme Court decision in Heller in 2008, the 

Court held that Americans have an individual right to possess firearms for lawful purposes such as self-defense. But Justice Scalia— 

no liberal, Justice Scalia—writing for the Court’s conservative majority, made clear that the Second Amendment right is ‘‘not unlimited,’’ and that like other rights, it is subject to reasonable regulation. In fact, the Heller decision takes pains not to cast any doubt 

on common-sense gun laws. Over and over, the Heller Court de-
3 

scribed gun regulation as ‘‘permissible,’’ supported by historical tradition and ‘‘presumptively lawful.’’ 

When given the opportunity to retreat from those statements in 

the 2010 McDonald case, the Court instead reinforced the same 

statements and described them as ‘‘assurances.’’ And in hundreds 

of cases following Heller, lower courts have upheld common-sense 

gun laws as consistent with the Second Amendment. 

There are some who continue to challenge the constitutionality 

of reasonable gun regulation, even though history, precedent, and 

the Supreme Court statements in Heller and McDonald weigh 

heavily against them. They do so hoping that judicial activism will 

advance their no-compromise ideology when it comes to guns. But 

I think we need to be careful. This is not some abstract, legal debate. Guns have forever changed the lives of so many people. Let 

me mention just a few of them. 

Hadiya Pendleton, an honor student and inspiration to her 

friends. ‘‘A walking angel,’’ her cousin called her. She was taken 

from us 2 weeks ago. Hadiya’s family is here today. 

Ryanne Mace, a student at Northern Illinois University, with a 

warm heart, a bright future, murdered in her classroom by a man 

with a history of mental illness. Ryanne’s mother, Mary Kay, is 

here today. 

Blair Holt, 16 years old and full of promise, killed while shielding 

his female friend from a gang member spraying bullets on a Chicago city bus. Blair’s mother, Annette, is here today. 

Marcus Norris, who was hit in the face by a bullet that came 

through the wall of his house when he was 9 years old. Thank God 

Marcus survived, and we are blessed to have him here today. 

Chicago police officer Thomas Wortham IV, a true American hero 

who dedicated his life to serving his country and his community, 

killed by gang members with a straw-purchased gun. I attended his 

funeral service. Officer Wortham’s family is here, and his sister, 

Sandra, will testify today. 

There are many more here in this room today whose lives and 

whose families have been changed by gun violence. I would like to 

ask those friends and family of the victims of gun violence to please 

stand. 

Look about this room. Understand that the debate we have before us has affected so many lives, and thank you all for being here 

today. As we conduct this debate and we honor your loved ones 

who are no longer with us, we know that we have to act. Thank 

you so much for joining us at this hearing. 

Senator Cruz. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say it is a particular honor to serve as Ranking Member on this Committee with 

you, and it is also a particularly high honor to serve on the Committee with two former Ranking Members and Chairmen of this 

Committee, Senator Cornyn and Senator Hatch, as well as the 

Ranking Member of the entire Committee, Senator Grassley. 

All of us were rightly horrified by the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut. To see young children senselessly murdered takes your 
4 

breath away. Let me say to each of you who has come here today 

that are the victims of crimes of violence, my heart goes out to you. 

Thank you for coming. Thank you for standing for your lost loved 

ones. 

I will tell you, I have spent personally much of my professional 

career working in law enforcement to, number one, prevent these 

horrible crimes of violence; and, number two, to ensure that anyone 

that carries them out is subject to the very strictest punishments. 

And I am hopeful that the fervor that we see in this Judiciary 

Committee hearing for standing up for victims of crimes of violence 

will carry over to issues other than gun control. I am hopeful that 

that same fervor will be present with judicial nominees are here 

who have a record and history of allowing those who have committed violent crimes to walk free. I hope that same fervor on a bipartisan basis will be present when we are talking about how to 

ensure that the laws and resources are there to prevent violent 

criminals from carrying out their horrific crimes and to ensure that 

every one of them receives a fair and just punishment. 

In my view, the divide on this issue is fairly straightforward. The 

focus of law enforcement should be on criminals, and we should be 

unstinting in protecting communities. Many of the communities 

that each of you has suffered losses in are communities that, sadly, 

law enforcement has been failing. And we should be working to fix 

that problem. 

At the same time, I think we should continue to respect and protect the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. It is often lost 

in the debate over guns that the Second Amendment is part of our 

Constitution. It is part of the Bill of Rights. It is indeed, as Justice 

Joseph Story put it, the ‘‘palladium of liberty,’’ a fundamental protection of every American. And in my view, stripping the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens does nothing to prevent criminals from carrying out violent crime. And, indeed, the overwhelming weight of the empirical evidence demonstrates that when 

the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, to protect 

their homes, to protect their families are taken away, that violent 

crime increases; that citizens defenseless are more vulnerable to 

violent criminals. 

For that reason, the two cities with the strictest gun control policies in the country—Washington, DC, and Chicago—both of which 

for years had effectively total bans on firearms ownership, so it 

could not be possible to have a stricter policy, both have, sadly, suffered from some of the highest crime rates and highest murder 

rates notwithstanding those laws and, I would suggest, in significant part because of those laws. 

If you look in contrast to jurisdictions that have protected the 

constitutional right to bear arms, you have consistently seen lower 

crime rates, lower murder rates, as individual citizens are able to 

protect their family. 

The Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald were 

landmark decisions. They concern the question whether each of us 

is protected by the Bill of Rights, because the position of the cities 

of DC and Chicago in that litigation was that no individual has any 

right whatsoever under the Second Amendment. The position of the 

litigants in those cases, I would suggest, was quite extreme. Today 
5 

we are discussing what are the limits on that right because the Supreme Court made absolutely clear that the Second Amendment is 

a constitutional right of every American. And I would point out 

that constitutional rights are designed to be protected not just 

when they are popular, but especially when passions are seeking 

to restrict and limit those rights. 

And so I look forward to this hearing underscoring the vital protections of the Second Amendment to every American. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you, Senator Cruz. 

In keeping with the practice of the Committee, the witness will 

please stand and raise his right hand to be sworn. Do you affirm 

that the testimony you are about to give before the Committee will 

be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help 

you God? 

Mr. HEAPHY. I do. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you. 

Let the record indicate that the witness answered in the affirmative. 

We are pleased to be joined by a witness from the Department 

of Justice, U.S. Attorney Timothy Heaphy. I would note that at our 

last hearing on gun violence on January 30th, there was a specific 

request from the Republican side for the Justice Department to 

send a witness to our next hearing to discuss the enforcement of 

current gun law. The Department has responded to this request. 

Timothy Heaphy was confirmed by the Senate in 2009 to serve 

as the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Virginia. Prior to 

his appointment, he served for 12 years as Assistant U.S. Attorney 

in Virginia and the District of Columbia. He has also worked in 

private practice and taught at the University of Virginia School of 

Law. He received his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Virginia as well. 

Mr. Heaphy, thanks for joining us today. We will give you 5 minutes for an opening statement. Your complete statement will be 

part of the record, and then we will ask some questions. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY J. HEAPHY, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. HEAPHY. Thank you very much, Chairman Durbin, Ranking 

Member Cruz, and Members of the Subcommittee. I serve as the 

United States Attorney for the Western District of Virginia, and in 

that capacity, I am pleased and honored, really, to speak with you 

about the continuing work of the United States Attorney community and the Department of Justice to address gun-related violence. 

This is a very personal issue to me, Chairman Durbin. I have 

prosecuted literally hundreds of gun cases in my 15 years as a Federal prosecutor, including a year-long trial of a violent drug gang 

right here in Washington, DC. I currently serve as United States 

Attorney in a district that has felt the pain of a mass shooting on 

the campus of Virginia Tech. I have spent my career talking to the 

victims of these awful crimes, folks much like those in the audience 

today, and working with the men and women who investigate them 

on the street. 
6 

Attorney General Eric Holder has consistently emphasized that 

combating violent crime and fostering safe communities is a top 

priority of the Department of Justice. To that end, he has tasked 

the Nation’s 93 United States Attorneys with the responsibility to 

develop localized strategies to apprehend and prosecute individuals, street gangs, and other criminal organizations that engage in 

gun-related violence. 

These local strategies require us to work smarter by gathering 

intelligence and targeting our enforcement efforts on the most dangerous and complicated threats in our communities. We use that 

intelligence to vigorously prosecute gun crime, relying on close coordination with agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and 

Firearms and our other State, Federal, and local partners. 

But we do more than arrest and prosecute. In communities 

where violence persists, we are forging partnerships with prevention organizations and supporting their important work. Our Violence Prevention Strategy relies upon a nationwide effort to keep 

guns out of the hands of prohibited persons. When licensed gun 

dealers run a background check on every potential gun buyer, they 

ensure that they are not selling firearms to felons, domestic abusers, drug users, people with recognized mental health issues, or 

others who by law cannot possess a firearm. But the background 

check system is only effective if it contains all relevant information 

from every source. 

The Department of Justice is working to create incentives and 

provide assistance to State governments, the prime contributors to 

that background check system, to ensure that they put all relevant 

criminal and mental health records into the National Instant 

Criminal Background Check System, or NICS. 

Even if we find a way to get every record into NICS, our effort 

to prevent criminals from getting guns is hampered by current 

holes in the background check system. Our experience shows that 

violent criminals often seek out sellers, whether at gun shows, on 

the Internet, or in the Yellow Pages, who are not licensed dealers 

and are not required to run the background check. Extending the 

background check requirement to all commercial transactions, absent some limited exceptions, is our best opportunity to keep firearms out of dangerous hands and help keep our children and communities safe. 

Strategies for enforcement of firearms offenses will vary, depending on the nature of the problem in particular communities. We 

work closely with State prosecutors and local law enforcement officials to determine if a particular gun case or gun offender should 

be charged in Federal or State court. When cases come to us, we 

use Federal firearms statutes to prosecute prohibited persons who 

obtain and possess firearms, people who were prevented from obtaining a firearm due to an interception of the background check. 

We prosecute individuals engaged in the business of dealing firearms without a license or who ignore or disregard the law, preventing gun sales to prohibited persons. We charge violent criminals with using guns to commit a range of other crimes, from drug 

dealing to robbery to homicide, using statutes which often carry 

lengthy mandatory sentences. 
7 

Additionally, we do all we can to pursue cases involving gun trafficking and straw purchases of firearms, despite the enormous challenges that such cases present. There is currently no single Federal 

statute specifically devoted to punishing firearms trafficking or 

straw purchasing. This gap in current law requires prosecutors to 

try to find other gun-related criminal statutes, generally paperwork 

violations, that can be applied to the facts of a particular trafficking scheme. Without a stand-alone statute and more meaningful penalties for those who traffic in firearms, we will continue to 

find it difficult to dismantle the criminal networks that exploit 

these statutory gaps. 

I want to end by reassuring this Committee and the American 

people that the Department’s commitment to vigorous pursuit of 

impactful gun prosecutions is as strong as ever. While the number 

of gun defendants charged by United States Attorneys has declined 

slightly since 2005, our numbers are significantly higher than they 

were back in fiscal years 2000 to 2002. During the same period of 

time, the number of murders and other violent crime has declined 

nationwide at an even greater rate. In short, our commitment to 

gun prosecutions has never wavered and has helped lead to an 

overall decrease in violent crime. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

I look forward to answering your specific questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Heaphy appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thanks, Mr. Heaphy. Let me say a word 

about Chicago. It is a great city, but it is not an island. Just outside Chicago in a suburb is one gun store that we can hold responsible for 20 percent of the crime guns that we confiscate in the city 

of Chicago. So despite the laws in Chicago, the fact that you can 

cross outside the city into the suburbs, go downstate, to neighboring States—we have even found in the last 20 years 9 percent 

of the crime guns in the city of Chicago could be traced to the State 

of Mississippi. We cannot deal with this in isolation community by 

community. 

I want to address the issue of straw purchasing. Straw purchasing is a dangerous act that supplies many criminals in the city 

of Chicago and across the United States and other prohibited purchasers with guns. Under the current Federal law, the primary 

statute used for charging penalizes a person who ‘‘knowingly makes 

a false statement about a fact material to the lawfulness of a gun 

sale.’’ This statute is essentially about document fraud. The crime 

is tied to lying on sale paperwork when the straw purchaser checks 

‘‘yes’’ on the ATF form that asks, ‘‘Are you the actual buyer of the 

firearm listed on this form? ’’ 

Can you talk about the challenge in prosecuting cases that appear to be paperwork prosecutions? 

Mr. HEAPHY. Yes, Senator. I appreciate the question, and you are 

exactly right, that when someone goes into a gun store, buys a gun 

on behalf of someone else, our hands are tied. We can prosecute 

that as a paperwork violation but not as what it is, which is an 

illegal straw purchase of a gun. 

Section 922(a)(6) is the statute which punishes a false statement 

on a firearm form. That requires evidence that the person knew 
8 

that he was making the false statement, and that oftentimes just 

on the misrepresentation is a difficult threshold for us to meet. 

Prosecutions under that law carry a very minimal recommended 

Sentencing Guideline range. I think CRS did a study years ago in 

which they found that fully a third of the 922(a)(6) charges resulted 

in a not guilty verdict largely because of this intent standard; and 

then another 37 percent resulted in a sentence of less than a year 

in prison. So the statute itself, even if we have the evidence of a 

specific intent to conduct a straw purchase, does not give us very 

much teeth, sir, on the back end in order to get actionable intelligence about that straw purchase. 

Chairman DURBIN. So, Mr. Heaphy, those who argue that we already have laws on the books, we just need to enforce them, you 

are telling us that this law is essentially a weak law; it is a paperwork prosecution which is not taken as seriously as the ultimate 

crime or death that might result from this straw purchase. 

Mr. HEAPHY. In our business, Senator Durbin, we are constantly 

focused on gathering intelligence about more and more serious patterns of crime. Gun trafficking is no exception. It is essential for 

us, when we arrest someone who is a straw purchaser, to get actionable intelligence about where that gun was going, who hired 

him to conduct that straw purchase. The leverage that we have to 

gain that intelligence comes from a significant penalty, and if the 

penalty essentially is a paperwork violation that is not intimidating, it is difficult for us to get that intelligence to work up the 

chain of those straw purchasing networks. 

Chairman DURBIN. I have joined with Chairman Leahy in cosponsoring legislation relating to straw purchasers. There are several other bills. Senator Kirk, my colleague from Illinois, Senator 

Gillibrand, they have one. 

Do you believe that creating a separate Federal offense for straw 

purchasing would put a significant dent in the criminal gun market? 

Mr. HEAPHY. Yes, Senator, I do. The Department strongly supports a stand-alone straw purchasing statute. It will give us those 

more serious penalties that we need in order to gain intelligence 

and buildup the chain of these networks of individuals that conduct 

straw purchases. 

Chairman DURBIN. I have found in my State and we have heard 

in other States that there is a cooperation between State and local 

prosecutors and Federal prosecutors in allocating these prosecutions. And many times what could be an offense under either law 

is passed along to the local or State prosecutors. 

Can you tell me how this affects the statistics on Federal prosecution of gun laws? 

Mr. HEAPHY. Yes, Senator. We have to work very closely with 

our State and local partners in a collaborative approach to gun violence. We do that in every single district in the country. In my district, in Charlottesville, Virginia, when someone is arrested with a 

gun, there is a conversation between myself and my elected Commonwealth’s attorney in that jurisdiction. We talk about whether 

or not it makes sense for that offender to be charged federally or 

under State law. Since the Virginia Tech shooting in Virginia, 

there are increased penalties for being a felon in possession. It is 
9 

a concurrent jurisdiction where the State can prosecute the same 

act as we can. And if the State penalty is as significant, that case 

often goes to State court, and that has contributed to that slight 

decline in our overall number of gun defendants. 

Chairman DURBIN. The last point I will make is that March 1st, 

unless something else is done, there is going to be a sequester and 

a cutback in the Department of Justice in the resources available 

for the prosecution of crime. About a thousand Federal prosecutors 

may be terminated or at least reduced in service. I think the impact is obvious, but would you like to comment on that? 

Mr. HEAPHY. We are trying our best to do all we can with the 

limited resources we have. As those resources diminish, whether 

they are prosecutors, whether they are agents, our job is made 

more difficult. Those sequester cuts would be very difficult for us 

to absorb. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you. 

Senator Cruz. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Heaphy, I want to 

thank you for being here. I want to thank you for your service on 

the front lines of law enforcement. What you are focusing on doing, 

which is bringing the criminal laws to bear, stopping and punishing violent criminals, is critically important, and I commend you 

for that service. 

Mr. HEAPHY. Thank you, sir. 

Senator CRUZ. I would like to address two issues that came up 

in your testimony. The first is the efficacy of gun control laws and, 

second, the question of straw purchases. Let us start on gun control 

laws and do they work. 

Are you aware of any serious empirical basis for the proposition 

that significantly restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens to 

keep and bear arms actually results in reducing violent crime? 

Mr. HEAPHY. Sir, violent crime is down substantially from where 

it was. I think that is due in part to vigorous enforcement, getting 

guns out of the hands of violent criminals. I do not know that we 

are ever going to stop violent crime. Unfortunately, the business in 

which I work will always be necessary. 

What we are trying to do is increase the barriers to the commission of that violent crime, make it more difficult for offenders to get 

the firearms in the first place to—— 

Senator CRUZ. Mr. Heaphy, let me point out a couple of things. 

Number one, your statement that violent crime is down is a statement about national trends, and you are right, and I agree that 

vigorous enforcement of criminal laws targeting violent criminals, 

that works. 

The question about stripping the rights of law-abiding citizens, 

however, the only way to ascertain that is to engage in a comparative analysis of those jurisdictions that have done so versus those 

jurisdictions that have not. For example, if you look at cities, of the 

top six cities with murder rates, Detroit, sadly, in 2001 topped the 

list with 48 murders per 100,000 people. Baltimore, Maryland, was 

second with 31 murders per 100,000 people; Philadelphia third 

with 21 murders per 100,000 people. Memphis, Tennessee, the only 

one of the top six without especially vigorous gun control laws, is 

fourth with 18 murders per 100,000 people. Washington, DC, is 
10 

fifth with 18 murders per 100,000 people, and Chicago, Illinois, is 

sixth with 16 murders per 100,000 people. Five of the six cities 

with the highest murder rates are among those cities with the 

strictest gun control. 

If you contrast that to cities that do not have strict gun control, 

for example, my home town of Houston, where there are 9 murders 

per 100,000 people, that is less than quarter what Detroit suffers 

under. Or if you look at other cities in my home State of Texas, 

San Antonio has 7 murders per 100,000 people. Austin has 4 murders per 100,000 people. El Paso has 2 murders per 100,000 people. 

That means Detroit, the murder rate is 24 times higher than it is 

in El Paso. 

And I would also point out the argument that you and the Chairman were discussing about cities such as Chicago not being isolated islands, that there are places elsewhere in the country where 

people can legally purchase firearms. None of those cities I discussed—Houston, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso—are isolated islands. Indeed, in the entire State you can purchase firearms, and 

what we see in terms of the murder rates is the murder rates are 

consistently lower. 

So my question to you is not your subjective belief, but are you 

aware of any empirical data—every one of us wants to reduce murder rates. My question to you is: Is there any empirical basis for 

saying stripping the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens 

would result in decreasing murder rates rather than increasing 

them, which, unfortunately, is the pattern that I think we have 

seen? 

Mr. HEAPHY. Senator Cruz, let me start answering your question 

by thanking you and this Committee for expanding our discussion 

on guns beyond the mass shooting to urban violence. I have spent 

my career working on urban violence issues in relative obscurity, 

and the fact that we are having this discussion about urban violence is much appreciated by those of us who work on the line. 

My career of working on this issue has shown me that there is 

no single factor that drives this. It is a complicated problem. It is 

a factor of educational opportunity, economic opportunity, health 

care. It is a comprehensive situation that breeds violence. So to tie 

gun ownership or restrictive or permissive gun laws to a murder 

rate I think isolates one factor—— 

Senator CRUZ. Mr. Heaphy, with respect, if I could stop you, because my time is running out, I will just point out for the record 

that twice given the opportunity to answer is there any empirical 

basis for the proposition that strict gun control would reduce violence, twice you have not been able to give an example of that. 

Very briefly on the second point, on straw purchases, you focused 

on straw purchases. I think that may actually be an area of potential bipartisan cooperation. The Chairman brought it up, and I 

think all of us agree that if there are those that with criminal intent are transferring firearms to felons, that there should be strict 

punishment for that. So that may be a productive area of cooperation. 

But I would point out that one of the largest straw purchasers 

we have seen in recent years was, sadly, the United States of 

America in the Fast and Furious program, which sent thousands 
11 

of firearms, deliberately allowed them to go into the hands of violent drug cartels, which in turn were used to murder hundreds of 

citizens, innocent citizens in Mexico and at least one Federal law 

enforcement officer. In your experience in law enforcement, has the 

idea of walking guns, allowing violent criminals to have illegal 

guns, is that you have ever condoned, and would you characterize 

that as typical law enforcement practice? 

Mr. HEAPHY. Senator Cruz, the Fast and Furious Operation has 

been the subject of considerable inquiry. Our own Inspector General issued a very lengthy report and found that mistakes were 

made. It was a regrettable incident, and it is one from which we 

have learned. We have very carefully now evaluated our approach 

to undercover investigations and will continue to incorporate the 

lessons learned from that report. 

But I want to go back, if I may, just briefly to your earlier question about empirical evidence. Prediction of violence or prevention 

of violent crime is not an exact science. It is very, very difficult to 

find data that any individual factor, be it gun membership, be it 

poverty, be it educational opportunity, is tied directly to the murder rate. So I think—I understand your question. It is a good question, and I appreciate the focus on these murder rates. But it is a 

bit of alchemy to try to come up with a single factor that is most 

determinant with respect to reducing levels of violent crime. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Mr. Heaphy, and my time has expired. 

Chairman DURBIN. Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing. I want to thank some folks who are here from Minnesota 

who have been courageous in sharing their own stories of gun violence: Mary Johnson, Angela Cradle, Maya and Sam Rahamim, 

and Police Sergeant Mike Dezann. I am looking forward to spending some time with you, with each of you tomorrow afternoon. 

I also want to extend my condolences to the people in Oakdale, 

Minnesota, who experienced a horrific shooting last night. 

I spent some time traveling around Minnesota in the aftermath 

of the shooting at Sandy Hook, and what I have learned is that we 

can honor Minnesota’s culture of responsible gun ownership while 

taking some reasonable steps to make our communities safer. Gun 

control is a central part of this, so I support a ban on assault weapons and a limit on the size of magazines. 

I also believe that we need to improve and expand our background check system. Millions of people because of our background 

check system have been denied guns. And it seems like there is a 

consensus being built around the idea that we should do a background check on all purchasers of guns. 

Part of improving the background check system involves updating the mental health records in the national data base and, of 

course, improving access to mental health is an important part of 

this entire discussion, too. 

What we cannot do is stigmatize mental illness. What we must 

do is improve the way our country helps people who live with it. 

If we are going to talk about mental health, let us make it more 

than just a talking point. Let us make it a true national priority. 

I would really encourage all my colleagues to take a look at my 

Mental Health in Schools Act, which is one of the things I have 
12 

been working on in this area. The bill will improve access to mental health services for our children so that we can catch this early. 

I have talked to moms who have gotten professional help for their 

children. It has not only change their children’s lives; it has 

changed their lives. And I would just encourage my colleagues to 

look at this piece of legislation. 

Mr. Heaphy, I asked the Vice President’s Gun Violence Task 

Force to move forward with implementing the Wellstone–Domenici 

Mental Health Parity Act, and I want to thank the administration 

for agreeing to do that. It is very important. 

A vast majority of people with mental illness are not violent, but 

there is a very small percentage who can become violent if they do 

not get—if they are not diagnosed and they do not get treatment. 

And I know that you have put a special emphasis on communitybased crime prevention projects since you have become U.S. Attorney. 

Based on your experience, can you talk a bit about why it is so 

important for people to have access to mental health services in 

their communities? 

Mr. HEAPHY. Yes, absolutely, Senator. I can talk about this issue 

from the Virginia Tech experience. As I said at the beginning, I 

serve just up the road from Blacksburg, and those wounds linger. 

They never really heal. 

One of the things that we did in Virginia on a bipartisan basis 

was change the way in which we capture mental health adjudications in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. 

Virginia now is really the gold standard for ensuring that it is respectful of privacy when folks are adjudicated by a judge or civilly 

committed with mental health issues. Those records are put into 

the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The 

shooter at Virginia Tech had mental health issues but, unfortunately, those records were not. So we have focused on this issue, 

as you said, increasing access to treatment for those who need it, 

but ensuring that when people do, are flagged in the system as 

having issues, that those records are in NICS. 

Many States, unfortunately, have not followed Virginia’s lead 

and have not put those records in NICS, so that is one of the holes 

in the background check system. The Department has supported 

grants to States to help ensure full NICS compliance. Those 

records need to be comprehensive. But, Senator, as you said, it goes 

all the way back to making sure that the treatment is available. 

That is a crucial component of any public safety strategy. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, and my time has run out. Just let 

me emphasize this for everyone listening. The vast majority of people with mental illness are no more violent than the general population. In fact, they are more often the victim of violence than the 

general population. But there is a very, very small minority of people with mental illness who can become more violent if they are not 

diagnosed and if they are not treated, and we can catch those people earlier, we can identify them, and we can perhaps prevent some 

of the types of things that we have seen lately. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thanks, Senator Franken. 
13 

We have an early bird rule on this Committee, and the Republican side has informed us that the next in line is Senator Grassley. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Heaphy, for coming. As a follow-up to Chairman Durbin’s questions on straw purchasers, we 

have heard that all too often law enforcement presents cases of 

suspected straw purchasers to U.S. Attorneys and the cases are declined for prosecution for one reason or another. How many cases 

were presented to U.S. Attorneys for suspected straw purchasers 

last year that were declined prosecution? 

Mr. HEAPHY. Senator, I do not know exactly. I can get that information for you, but I do not have a specific number. I know that 

we did only 44 cases of lie-and-try, so the cases where someone applied for a firearms—went through the background check and it 

bounced back. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I will appreciate your answer in writing. 

Thank you. 

[The information referred to appears as a submission for the 

record.] 

Senator GRASSLEY. The title of today’s hearing obviously has 

been known, ‘‘Proposals to Reduce Gun Violence: Protecting Communities while Respecting the Second Amendment.’’ Now, your testimony makes no mention of the Second Amendment, so the question: Has the Department of Justice taken any position on the constitutionality under the Second Amendment of legislation pending 

before the Senate that would ban so-called assault weapons? 

Mr. HEAPHY. Senator, the Department of Justice and the administration understand the impact of the Heller decision, which found 

that Americans have a fundamental Second Amendment right to 

self-defense. But I believe the Heller decision admits reasonable restriction on that right—time, place, and manner type restrictions. 

So without opining on a specific measure of one of the bills, whether it is or is not constitutional, I believe that there are ways to regulate guns respectful of the Second Amendment but provide those 

reasonable restrictions. 

Senator GRASSLEY. So the Department has not taken any position on specific legislation. Do you know why they have not taken 

a position yet? 

Mr. HEAPHY. The Department supports an assault weapons ban 

and will work hard to ensure that whatever comes out, if one 

comes out, is constitutional, Senator. 

Senator GRASSLEY. The Supreme Court in the Heller decision applied a form of heightened scrutiny to laws seeking to impede the 

Second Amendment. What is your understanding of that portion of 

the ruling? 

Mr. HEAPHY. My understanding of the ruling is that it allows, 

recognizes the Second Amendment right to defend oneself in his 

home, and the District of Columbia statute at issue in Heller impinged upon that because it was an absolute prohibition of firearms 

in the home. It does not go beyond that and create a general right 

to carry firearms anywhere. Again, I think that Justice Scalia, as 

the Chairman pointed out, in the Heller opinion did admit that 

there would be potential limitations on the right when time, place, 
14 

and manner restrictions are consistent with that overall right to 

fundamental self-defense. 

Again, there is a sweet spot here, sir, between respecting the 

Second Amendment and everybody’s right to defend himself and 

doing what we can to minimize the public safety threats that are 

presented by these dangerous weapons. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Well, what level of scrutiny should be applied 

to address whether or not an assault weapons ban is constitutional 

or not? 

Mr. HEAPHY. Sir, I am not familiar enough with the Heller opinion to really give you an opinion on that. I am sorry. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Okay. We had Fast and Furious brought up. 

Since I started that investigation, I would like to ask you a question on it. But I want to also state that when you said that policies 

have been changed, I have an email here to U.S. Attorneys: ‘‘As I 

said on the call, to avoid any potential confusion, I want to reiterate Department policy. We should not design or conduct undercover operations which include guns crossing the border.’’ And so 

the policy has not been changed about encouraging licensed gun 

dealers to sell—encouraged by the Federal Government for licensed 

gun dealers to sell guns. It is only that they are ordered not to do 

it if they know they are going to cross the border. 

So it seems to me to kind of be just a conflict of policy for people 

in Government to say we ought to ban certain guns at the very 

same time you are having licensed gun dealers encouraged to sell 

guns to people illegally. 

In regard to Fast and Furious, as U.S. Attorney would you ever 

support ATF to encourage Federal firearms licensees to sell firearms to those they suspect of being straw purchasers? 

Mr. HEAPHY. Senator Grassley, we learned a lot from Fast and 

Furious, and the email that you are referring to encourages us to 

carefully monitor all undercover operations. There are times when 

those undercover operations involve criminal activity, and unfortunately, a dirty reality of our business is that we have to at times, 

working with our agents, work with people that are involved in 

criminal activity. We have to monitor that closely. Part of the problem with Fast and Furious was an insufficient level of scrutiny all 

up the chain. And we are hoping that since we have learned lessons from that, we will do a better job of protecting public safety 

as we work with undercover investigations. 

Senator GRASSLEY. My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you, Senator Grassley. 

Senator Hirono. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to thank the family and friends of victims of gun violence who are here with us today. This is a very critical issue for 

our country and for our communities. 

To our testifier, you mentioned that the Department supports a 

stand-alone straw purchaser statute. Do you also support closing 

another loophole, which is the purchase of guns at gun shows 

where there is no background check? So my question is: Would you 

also support a strong closing of the loophole background check law? 

Mr. HEAPHY. Yes, Senator Hirono. Currently it is too easy for 

prohibited persons—felons, drug users, domestic abusers, or folks 
15 

with mental health issues—to evade the background check requirement. Rather than go into a licensed Federal firearms dealer, they 

can walk down the street, go to a gun show, and with no background check, walk out with a gun. That is a gaping hole in the 

system. 

So we strongly support increasing to effectively a universal background check system. It should admit for some limited exceptions— 

intra-family transfers or estate passage of firearms. But commercial transactions ought to be run through this background check 

system. 

Senator HIRONO. And, of course, we need to improve the information that gets into the system. 

We have had a discussion this morning regarding the correlation 

between tough gun control laws and violent crimes in places such 

as Washington, DC, and Chicago. And I am all for using facts in 

evidence to inform our decisions, but it is the cause-and-effect conclusions we draw from this kind of information that can be very 

problematic and questionable. 

For example, Hawaii has pretty strict gun control laws, and yet 

we have, I would say, very low—knock on wood—gun violence 

crimes in Hawaii. So, you know, I do not know of any empirical evidence showing the cause and effect between weaker gun laws and 

fewer gun violence crimes unless you are aware of any such empirical cause-and-effect studies? 

Mr. HEAPHY. Senator, I have worked on this issue for 20 years, 

again, spent time with victims, spent time with killers, with people 

who have been involved in these acts of violence and who are hoping for some leniency by cooperating with us. And I cannot say that 

I know what causes gun violence. I wish we did. There is no more 

pressing problem to me or my colleagues in the Department than 

this. But, unfortunately, it is a complicated, layered, contextual 

problem that has so many different factors. 

So I agree with your question, Senator, that it is very, very difficult to isolate one cause and tie it very specifically to violent 

crime rates. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you. 

Have you had any experience with bullying in our schools leading to violence? Because we had a police officer or a police captain, 

I believe, who testified before the full Committee saying that he 

considered bullying in our schools that could lead to violence, that 

could lead to the easy obtainment of guns, and that could lead to 

tragedy. And he acknowledged that as a concern. 

Have you had experience in this area? And if so, what can we 

do to prevent bullying in our schools that could very well escalate? 

Mr. HEAPHY. Yes, I appreciate that question because it gives me 

an opportunity to talk about a more comprehensive anti-violence 

approach. We cannot just arrest people and think that we are going 

to have a safer community. We have to do what we can on the front 

end to prevent potentially violent criminals from getting guns and 

from perpetrating those awful acts. And bullying is part of that, absolutely. We have to do what we can to help prevent and provide 

resources for people that are bullied. 

Every U.S. Attorney is trying to implement a very localized 

place-based anti-violence strategy, and in some communities, our 
16 

prosecutors, particularly in the Civil Rights Division, have done a 

lot of work on anti-bullying programs and have helped young people appreciate the unfortunate consequences of school bullying. 

And, yes, I think there are stories, very difficult stories, where bullying has prompted someone to violence. 

So our approach to this problem has to be 360 degrees. It cannot 

simply be ‘‘let us charge people who commit mass shootings after 

the fact.’’ It has to also contemplate what we can do in advance, 

bullying and other prevention measures, to try to prevent those 

things from happening in the first place. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thanks, Senator Hirono. 

Senator Lindsey Graham. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Heaphy, for your service to our 

country. Do you own a gun? 

Mr. HEAPHY. I do not. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. Do any of your close friends own guns? 

Mr. HEAPHY. Yes. I live in a State in which guns are held in high 

esteem. But I do not. I have young children, Senator. 

Senator GRAHAM. No, I understand. 

Mr. HEAPHY. And I do not feel comfortable having a gun in our 

home given the fact that I have young children. 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, that is certainly your right to make that 

decision. 

Under the universal background proposal, if Senator Cornyn and 

I—if I wanted to buy a shotgun, could I do so without having to 

go through a background check? 

Mr. HEAPHY. Yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. Because he is a friend? 

Mr. HEAPHY. I am sorry. If you were actually exchanging a gun 

with Senator Cornyn? 

Senator GRAHAM. Yes. I would not have to go through a background check? 

Mr. HEAPHY. Senator, I think there are a lot of proposals that 

would create exceptions between—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Would you agree with that exception? It would 

be a waste of money? 

Mr. HEAPHY. I think there should be limited intra-family or 

intra-community transfers that would be excepted from the universal background check, yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. So you have not answered my question. John 

and I went hunting a month or so ago. He has got a better shotgun 

than I have, and I actually talked to him about buying it. Under 

the regime being proposed, would I have to go through a background check if I bought Senator Cornyn’s shotgun? 

Mr. HEAPHY. I am just not specifically familiar, sir, with whether 

or not the current legislation would require a background check. 

Senator GRAHAM. Size of magazines. Can you envision a situation where a law-abiding citizen may need more than a 10-round 

magazine to protect their family? 

Mr. HEAPHY. Long and extended clip magazines make it much 

easier for people to commit more grievous acts of violence. 
17 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, I understand that. Do you agree that 

mentally ill individuals and felons should not have one bullet? 

Mr. HEAPHY. Yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. Do you agree there may be times where a 

mother protecting her two children may need more than six if there 

is more than one perpetrator or the six shots will not take the guy 

down? 

Mr. HEAPHY. Senator, we need to be respectful of people’s right 

to defend themselves, absolutely. 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, the point is I can envision a situation 

where, like in Atlanta, the revolver—she had a six-shot revolver. 

Someone broke into her home. She shot the guy five of six times. 

He was still able to get up and go out the door. And they tell me 

that one-third of all assaults involve more than one perpetrator, so 

I would just make the point that I do not think criminals are going 

to be limited by any capacity magazine size law. And if you start 

restricting the amount of—a 10-shot limit, in some circumstances 

that may disadvantage the law-abiding citizens and do not much 

to the criminal. 

Now, on the number of people who actually are prosecuted, how 

many people a year fail the background check? 

Mr. HEAPHY. I believe in 2012 it was around 80,000. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. And how many of those were false 

positives? 

Mr. HEAPHY. A small percentage. I am not certain exactly. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. Of those 80,000—— 

Mr. HEAPHY. I am sorry, Senator. When you say ‘‘false positive,’’ 

what exactly do you mean? 

Senator GRAHAM. That you actually were entitled to buy a gun, 

but the system kicked you out. 

Mr. HEAPHY. Yes. I think there is an appeal process, and there 

have been a number of times where someone was bounced back but 

then appealed. 

Senator GRAHAM. Right. Do you know the percentages? 

Mr. HEAPHY. I think it is small, but I can get you a specific figure. 

Senator GRAHAM. Sure. 

[The information referred to appears as a submission for the 

record.] 

Senator GRAHAM. Now, let us nail this down, if we can. Do you 

believe that the best way to deter somebody from misconduct is to 

make sure that prosecution is certain and swift? 

Mr. HEAPHY. That is part of—needs to be part of a comprehensive solution. Whether it is best or not—— 

Senator GRAHAM. No, but in terms of the deterrent aspect of 

using criminal law. I agree with Senator Franken we should do 

something about mental health. I agree with that. But, you know, 

I have been a prosecutor for a while, too, in my older days—younger days, sorry. And I thought that if you knew you were going to 

get caught or likely to get caught and the punishment was going 

to be severe, that was a pretty—that was a good—do you agree 

with that general concept? 

Mr. HEAPHY. I absolutely do, yes. 
18 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. Of the 80,000 people who failed background checks, what percentage wind up getting prosecuted, those 

who were not false positives? 

Mr. HEAPHY. A small percentage. 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, let us put a number on it. 

Mr. HEAPHY. Last year, out of the 80,000, I believe U.S. Attorneys brought about 44 cases. 

Senator GRAHAM. Forty-four is what percentage of 80,000? 

Mr. HEAPHY. A very small percentage. Lawyers do not do math 

very well. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator GRAHAM. And apparently Members of Congress do not 

either. That is why we are $16 trillion in debt. But I think there 

are people on my staff that can run the numbers, and I will present 

is to the Committee. The truth of the matter is we are talking 

about expanding a system where the current system is 0000-pointsomething. I think we have got our priorities wrong. I think we 

should take the current law and enforce it. Thank you for your 

time. 

Chairman DURBIN. Senator Feinstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you for allowing me to sit with this Subcommittee. As you 

know, I am not a Member, and I appreciate it very much. And 

thank you, sir, for being here and for your measured responses. It 

is very much appreciated. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to put in the record a letter written 

yesterday by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, signed by the mayor of 

Boston and the mayor of New York City and supported by 850 

mayors of both political parties all around this country, supporting 

the assault weapons legislation and the ban on high-capacity ammunition clips. 

[The letter appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I think there are some very good quotes in 

this letter. I will not take the time to read them now, but as a 

former mayor, mayors see what happens on the streets, and so I 

am very grateful for this endorsement and this support. 

Mr. United States Attorney, to the best of my knowledge, the assault weapons legislation which existed from 1994 to 2004 was 

never struck down by any court in the land. Is that your information as well? 

Mr. HEAPHY. Yes, exactly, Senator. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Do you believe it was constitutional? 

Mr. HEAPHY. Yes. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Do you believe that it is possible to draft legislation which is reasonable, which exempts over 2,000 weapons 

but essentially concentrates on weapons that were designed for 

military use, generally high-velocity weapons? 

Mr. HEAPHY. I believe it is possible to craft a law consistent with 

the Second Amendment and with the Heller decision that would be 

constitutional, yes. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

Twenty cosponsors and myself have introduced this legislation. I 

would just like to ask—it is specific, it is drafted in bill language— 
19 

that you take a look at it, and if you have any problems with it, 

that you let us know. 

Mr. HEAPHY. I will, Senator. Thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman DURBIN. Senator Cornyn. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Heaphy, thank you for your service as U.S. Attorney and for 

being here today, and I want to join the other Members of the Committee in expressing my gratitude to the family members who are 

here today who have lost a loved one as a result of an act of violence. I believe that we owe it to you not to engage in tokenism or 

symbolic acts but, rather, to try the best we can to address the 

causes and to come up with solutions and at the same time respecting the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms, as 

protected by the Second Amendment. And I think it is possible for 

us to do that. 

But I also think it is important that we need to look at the laws 

that are already on the books, and I know there has been some discussion of this, Mr. Heaphy, and forgive me if I am repeating it, 

since I had to leave briefly to go down to speak on the floor. But 

you are aware of the fact that in 2008 Congress passed a provision 

that required that the States forward for inclusion in the background check data base people who were adjudicated mentally ill. 

You are familiar with that law, are you not, sir? 

Mr. HEAPHY. Sir, I believe that is voluntary. I do not know that 

States are required to participate in the NICS system and make 

that information part of the system. We strongly encourage them 

to do so, but I believe, unfortunately, it is still voluntary. 

Senator CORNYN. Why in the world would we make that optional? 

Mr. HEAPHY. I do not know, Senator. As I said before, we really 

need to ensure that those relevant records are in the background 

check system. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, my understanding is that it is not optional, but it is not being complied with. The General Accounting 

Office points out that while about 1.2 million records have been forwarded for inclusion in the NICS criminal background check system, that is largely a result of about 12 States’ efforts. And I am 

glad to say Texas is one of those that has the highest—seventh 

highest rate of sharing of those records in the Nation. 

But do you not agree that it would be important to have individuals who have been adjudicated mentally ill to have those records 

in the NICS background data base? 

Mr. HEAPHY. Absolutely. I would strongly agree with that. 

Senator CORNYN. And if that law is not mandatory now, do you 

believe it should be mandatory? And if it is mandatory and it is not 

being enforced, do you believe it should be enforced? 

Mr. HEAPHY. I believe it should be enforced, Senator. I believe 

the way it is structured is that the Attorney General has the authority to withhold aid to State and local law enforcement in the 

form of the Byrne and JAG grants, percentages of that, if States 

are not complying and putting their mental health and criminal 

records into the system. And, again, there are incentives for States 
20 

to do that. But as you said, that is spotty, and not everyone has 

the Texas approach and puts those records in. 

Senator CORNYN. And would you not think that would be more 

reasonably calculated to protect innocent victims of gun crime than 

other actions that may be more symbolic in nature? 

Mr. HEAPHY. I am not sure what would be more or less reasonably calculated, but I am certain that if we do not have all relevant 

records in the background check system, it undercuts the effectiveness of the background check. 

Senator CORNYN. And I know you have been asked about this before, but I cannot resist asking you about it again. People who lie 

on background checks, the record of prosecuting those individuals 

is pathetic. Would you not agree? 

Mr. HEAPHY. Well, I am glad you asked because I did not get a 

chance to answer it when Senator Graham asked the question. As 

you know from your experience, Senator Cornyn, we need evidence 

to prove that a crime was committed. And because someone applied 

to get a gun and went through a background check and there was 

a misstatement on the form does not in and of itself constitute evidence that it was an intentional falsehood. 

The common defense in those cases is, ‘‘I did not know that I was 

prohibited,’’ ‘‘I did not know that I had a conviction which disqualified me or that I had something in my background.’’ And that is 

sometimes credible because, again, they could go down the street 

to a gun show and get the same weapon without having had to submit a form. So it is difficult—— 

Senator CORNYN. So it is credible for them to say, ‘‘I did not 

know I had a conviction,’’ but yet to say on the background check, 

‘‘I have no conviction’’ ? 

Mr. HEAPHY. Again, Senator, we have to have evidence that it 

was an intentional falsehood. The fact that it was false is not 

enough. It is a difficult case to prove. Even if we prove it, Senator 

Cornyn, fully a third of those cases result, unfortunately, in no 

finding of guilt. Another 37 percent result in a sentence of a year 

or less. We are evaluating every case on a spectrum of danger, and 

the gun background check worked there. We focus our resources 

much more aggressively on people that actually obtained firearms 

and used them, not necessarily on the ones where the background 

check—— 

Senator CORNYN. I know the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Department of Justice have limited resources and you have to 

prioritize. My concern is that we not pass additional laws that will 

not be enforced and we pat ourselves on the back and say we have 

actually solved the problem or contributed to a solution. 

And I see my time is about up. If I could just say for 10 seconds, 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Suzanna Hupp, one of my constituents 

here today. She has got a chilling story about her personal experience of losing her mom and dad in an episode of mass violence 

where 23 people lost their lives in 1991. I think she has got some 

very important testimony for the Committee, and I am glad she is 

here today to share that. 

Thank you. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thanks, Senator Cornyn. 
21 

I will recognize Senator Blumenthal, and correct the record: 

Newtown, Connecticut. I mentioned it earlier incorrectly. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 

express my appreciation for your holding this hearing, Senator 

Durbin, and to my colleagues for being here today. And I want to 

thank you, United States Attorney Heaphy, for your extraordinary 

service in one of the busiest Federal districts in the country. I had 

your job in Connecticut some years ago, and I always regarded it 

as the best job I ever had. 

Mr. HEAPHY. I have heard that before, Senator. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. So thank you for your excellent service. 

Mr. HEAPHY. Thank you. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I want to really begin by thanking the 

Newtown families who are here today. I know that some of them 

are. I may not know of all of them. Chris and Lynn McDonnell are 

here, and Po Murray and Miranda Pacchiana. And I want to express my regret at a statement that was made, I think within the 

last 24 or 48 hours, by a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association 

who said that his group was hoping that the ‘‘Connecticut effect’’ 

would pass so that his group could be more effective in its lobbying. 

Their presence today, the families being here today, and tonight 

at the State of the Union I think is a statement and a picture 

worth a thousand words that the Connecticut effect will last and 

that it will be a call to action. 

The NRA lobbyist’s comment—it happened to be a lobbyist for 

the Wisconsin chapter of the NRA—is callous and offensive, and I 

call on the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, to repudiate and reject it. I 

think it is an insult to all of us in America, but most especially to 

the 26 families in Newtown who directly suffered this loss. 

Your position, sir, is a nonpolitical position. You are a law enforcer. Is that correct? 

Mr. HEAPHY. Yes, sir, and I have been a career prosecutor and 

served in multiple administrations, yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And I appreciate your coming before us 

today in that capacity. 

When folks talk about existing laws—and you have just made refinancing to it—I think many of us on this Committee are aware, 

but maybe not most Americans, that you often know that a crime 

has been committed, and you know who has committed it, but you 

need more than that knowledge on your part. You need evidence 

to go into court and prove it. Is that correct? 

Mr. HEAPHY. Exactly right, yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. So when the NRA or any of our witnesses 

or Members of this Committee say that there have not been enough 

prosecutions, very often the reason is you do not have enough evidence to make those prosecutions. 

Mr. HEAPHY. Unfortunately, that is sometimes correct, yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And so my feeling is, my strong belief is 

that we ought to do everything possible to enable more effective 

prosecutions under existing laws and, as Senator Cornyn has very 

aptly just said, under any new laws, but focus on enforcement. And 

so let me ask you about the ban that currently exists on certain 

categories of people buying firearms—felons, fugitives, people who 
22 

are seriously mentally ill, people under court orders for domestic 

abuse. 

Right now, with respect to a very large number of firearms purchases, about 40 percent when they are private sales or so-called 

gun show sales, you simply have no way of having the evidence to 

enforce that existing law. Am I correct in saying that? 

Mr. HEAPHY. If there was no background check, sir, and they obtained the gun end-running that system, then you are exactly 

right. We have no evidence. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And the current law also prohibits purchases of ammunition to those very same categories of people. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. HEAPHY. Yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Without a background check now, do you 

have any effective way of enforcing that law? 

Mr. HEAPHY. No. Again, it is too easy for those dangerous persons that you have cited to get around the background check. That 

gets guns into their hands too readily, and those guns are used 

with dangerous regularity on our streets, making all of our jobs 

more difficult. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And the same is true of ammunition, is it 

not? There are simply no checks, no criminal background checks 

whatsoever on ammunition purchases, correct? 

Mr. HEAPHY. That is right. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. So that you have no practical way, with 

all due respect to the immense powers that you have as a Federal 

prosecutor to enforce that law? 

Mr. HEAPHY. That is right. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. It is essentially dead letter. 

Mr. HEAPHY. All too often that is right, yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Let me ask you about the Second Amendment, and I think you have done a great job of describing that balance that applies to all constitutional rights. None of them is absolute. Is that correct? 

Mr. HEAPHY. That is right, exactly. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And, very often, constitutional rights butt 

against each other. There is a tension between those constitutional 

rights. 

Mr. HEAPHY. That is life in a democracy, exactly. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And it is one of the geniuses of our Constitution that it manages to reconcile fundamental rights that 

sometimes are in tension. 

Mr. HEAPHY. That is right. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. So these proposals that have been made 

for reasonable regulations are perfectly consistent with everybody’s 

right to have a gun, go hunting, use it for target shooting, because 

reasonable regulation—you used the word ‘‘restriction,’’ but ‘‘regulation,’’ ‘‘restriction’’—are consistent and, in fact, the genius of our 

Constitution. 

Mr. HEAPHY. Just exactly right, Senator. I just cannot reiterate 

strongly enough that the President and the Attorney General and 

all of us who work in law enforcement respect the Second Amendment, are not trying to remove the basic right to self-defense for 

people to own firearms. We are trying to, as you said, tinker with 
23 

the balance and provide reasonable restrictions that keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of people that use them, that do 

grievous things with them. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And nobody has ever suggested that a 

criminal, a convicted felon or a fugitive or a drug addict or someone 

seriously mentally ill, dangerous to himself or others, or a domestic 

violence abuser has a fundamental Second Amendment right to 

have a firearm? 

Mr. HEAPHY. Those acts from their past remove their Second 

Amendment right to possess a firearm. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Or to buy ammunition. 

Mr. HEAPHY. Exactly. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you very much. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thanks, Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator Hatch. 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to 

welcome all of you folks here today, and especially you, Mr. 

Heaphy, and especially my old friend and debating partner, Professor Larry Tribe, who I have a lot of respect for. Happy to have 

you here. 

I just want to make an observation about the constitutionality of 

the so-called assault weapons ban. Under Heller, you said Heller allows what you called ‘‘time, place, and manner’’ restrictions, although you said you did not read the whole decision. But the assault weapons ban is not a time, place, or manner restriction. It is 

an absolute ban, and I just wanted to make that clear. Plus maybe 

I can make something else a little more clear, too. The distinguished Senator from California, a dear friend of mine, indicated 

that the assault weapons ban was never stricken down as unconstitutional. But the fact of the matter is that that ban expired before 

the Heller decision. So who knows what would have happened had 

it really been tested? And the distinguished Senator from California may be right on that. 

Now, Mr. Heaphy, I want to congratulate you for your work 

here—you have been an excellent witness—and for the work that 

you have done, all your professional service and career. But you 

also indicate in your testimony that the Department of Justice focuses on prosecuting people who evade the background check system and acquire weapons illegally. They do not focus on those who 

attempted to purchase the firearm through the background check 

system but were unsuccessful. 

Now, I think this shows what has been obvious to many people 

for a long time, that criminals do not walk into a gun shop to buy 

weapons and submit themselves to a background check. They get 

them on the street. You know it, I know it. 

Mr. HEAPHY. That is exactly right, sir. 

Senator HATCH. Okay. In other words, the people who we least 

want to have a weapon are the least likely to be caught by a background check. So, you know, some on our side wonder why then do 

we raise all this fuss about background checks when we have them 

in existence but they are not going to be abided by, anyway. 

Let me ask you this question. I am sure you a familiar with 

Project Exile, which was launched by the Department of Justice in 

1997 in Richmond, Virginia. It was a collaborative effort among 
24 

State, local, and Federal prosecutors and law enforcement officers 

to vigorously enforce existing Federal gun laws. Richmond residents were put on notice through billboards and bus advertisements that all violations of the Federal firearms laws would be 

prosecuted, and defendants faced 5-year mandatory minimum sentences. As a result of this collaborative effort, 372 persons were indicted on Federal gun violations and 440 guns were seized. 

Now, Richmond realized a 36-percent decrease in homicides and 

I think a 41-percent decrease in firearm homicides. Are there any 

plans for any similar collaborative efforts to enforce existing Federal gun laws, to your knowledge? 

Mr. HEAPHY. Yes, Senator Hatch, thank you for the question. 

Exile was very successful, and it is a great model for a working 

partnership between Federal authorities and State and local officials. It was a program in which the Commonwealth’s attorney, the 

U.S. Attorney, the ATF, and Richmond Police came together to 

comprehensively focus on violent crime. At the time that Exile existed, there was a huge disparity between Federal law in terms of 

punishment and State law. That disparity has changed. So today 

in Richmond, more of those cases that would have come Federal 

are prosecuted at the State level. Mike Herring, the Commonwealth’s attorney, will take those cases and get every bit as much 

of a sentence as we could get in Federal court. And there are Exiletype programs going on around the country. 

East St. Louis, Illinois, Senator Durbin’s home town, has seen a 

spike in gun prosecutions just since Steve Wigginton, the U.S. Attorney, has been there, because State and local authorities came together, decided we have got to do something about East St. Louis. 

There are burning fires of violence in that community, and we have 

to pool our resources and work collaboratively, and that has led to 

an increase. On the southwest border, in Senator Cornyn’s district, 

a very similar effect. So we are still doing Exile-type programs, 

Senator. 

Senator HATCH. Good. Let me ask one other question. In each of 

the mass killing tragedies in Newtown or Aurora or Columbine, the 

killers violated numerous, in some cases literally dozens of local, 

State, and Federal laws. They were able to obtain and use their 

weapons of choice and either avoided or actually passed background checks. Each time politicians say they will ensure that it 

never happens again, and, of course, they turn around and they 

call for passing more laws. 

Now, don’t these tragic experiences show that simply putting 

more laws on the books will not prevent individuals who are either 

ill or evil from harming others? 

Mr. HEAPHY. Senator, I wish that I could reassure this Committee and the people sitting here that we could pass a law that 

would prevent—— 

Senator HATCH. I wish we could, too. 

Mr. HEAPHY. But we cannot do that. There is no question that 

no matter what we do, unfortunately, there will be dangerous people that get access to weapons that continue to perpetrate acts of 

violence. We are trying to make that more difficult. We are trying 

to create more road blocks, make it harder for them to commit 

those acts of violence. It is not going to be perfect. I wish that it 
25 

was. We are just trying to make it more difficult to have to jump 

over additional hurdles in order to commit those grievous acts. 

Senator HATCH. Well, you have been an excellent witness, and I 

want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thanks, Senator Hatch. 

Mr. Heaphy, thanks for your testimony. We appreciate it very 

much. 

Mr. HEAPHY. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman DURBIN. We may have some follow-up questions sent 

to you. I hope you can respond in a prompt manner. 

Mr. HEAPHY. We will. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you. 

Chairman DURBIN. I would like to ask the second panel to please 

come to the table, and while they are on the way, first, I ask to 

put in the record a letter from the Charlottesville, Virginia, police 

chief about the productive working relationship with our witness in 

the first panel, Mr. Heaphy. Without objection, it will be entered 

into the record. 

[The letter appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. For those who are wondering why Senators 

are moving back and forth here, some have other Subcommittee 

meetings that they are attending. In addition, on the floor of the 

Senate, starting at 11:30 we have votes on the Violence Against 

Women Act. There will be several amendments, and so we are 

going to do our best to get the testimony of this panel here. I hope 

we are not interrupted or stopped, but that would be the only reason. We just have floor business that has to be taken care of before 

we can proceed. 

I am going to ask the witnesses at the table, now that they have 

all sat down, to stand up, if they will. It is the custom of the Committee to administer the following oath. Raise your right hand, 

please? Do you affirm that the testimony you are about to give before the Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 

but the truth, so help you God? 

Professor TRIBE. I do. 

Ms. WORTHAM. I do. 

Ms. HUPP. I do. 

Mr. COOPER. I do. 

Professor WEBSTER. I do. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you. 

Let the record indicate that the witnesses have answered in the 

affirmative. 

Chairman DURBIN. I am going to read a brief background of each 

of the witnesses and then call on them. 

Our first witness is going to be Professor Laurence Tribe, a wellknown friend of this Committee. He is the Carl Loeb University 

Professor and Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law 

School, where he has taught since 1968. He has argued 35 cases 

before the U.S. Supreme Court. He has written over 100 books and 

articles, including a treatise, ‘‘American Constitutional Law.’’ He 

has received his undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard, 

clerked for the California Supreme Court Justice Matthew Tobriner 

and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart. And I am going 
26 

to give him the floor after I introduce the other witnesses so that 

each one of them is known before they speak. 

Our next witness after Professor Tribe is Sandra Wortham. Mrs. 

Wortham is testifying in her personal capacity today. She works as 

deputy director of the Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy Office 

of the Chicago Police Department. She is responsible for the department’s domestic violence-related training, outreach, and services. She worked as a court-appointed attorney with the Circuit 

Court of Cook County, representing indigent clients in contested 

adoption litigation. She received her undergraduate degree from 

Howard University and her J.D. from Chicago Kent College of Law. 

Thank you for being here. 

Our next witness will be Suzanna Hupp. Suzanna is the associate commissioner for Veterans Services for the State of Texas. 

She previously served as a member of the Texas House of Representatives from 1997 to 2007. She is the author of ‘‘From Luby’s 

to the Legislature: One Woman’s Fight Against Gun Control.’’ She 

attended the University of Texas at El Paso and Texas Chiropractic 

College, graduating with a degree in chiropractic medicine. Ms. 

Hupp, thank you for being here. 

Our next witness will be Charles Cooper. He is the chairman of 

the Washington law firm of Cooper and Kirk, previously served as 

Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel under 

President Reagan, also worked in the Justice Department’s Civil 

Rights Division and in private practice. He received his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Alabama, clerked 

for Judge Paul Roney of the Fifth Circuit and Justice William 

Rehnquist of the U.S. Supreme Court. 

And our final witness will be Professor Daniel Webster, certainly 

a suitable name for a Senate witness. He is professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public 

Health, serves as the director of the Center for Gun Violence Policy 

and Research. He has published over 70 articles in scientific journals, most of which focused on the prevention of gun violence, 

youth violence, or intimate partner violence. He earned his bachelor’s degree from the University of Northern Colorado, his master’s in public health from the University of Michigan, and his doctorate from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. 

I see we are having a changing of the guard from the first panel 

audience here, and I hope that they can leave in a quiet manner, 

as they are, and we will proceed with the testimony. 

Professor Tribe, I know that you have made a great personal sacrifice to be here with us today, and I appreciate it very, very much. 

The floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF LAURENCE H. TRIBE, CARL M. LOEB UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, CAMBRIDGE, 

MASSACHUSETTS 

Professor TRIBE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Nothing like the sacrifice that many of the people that you have invited have made, the 

victims of violence. 

Chairman Durbin and Members of the Committee, I am honored 

by your invitation that I testify on an issue of such vital national 

importance. And it is especially humbling to be here in the pres-
27 

ence of so many victims of senseless gun violence, and many others 

who have lost loved ones in a hail of bullets that should never have 

been fired. 

When we recall the horror that 20 first-grade children had been 

slaughtered in Sandy Hook Elementary School, we have to remember that every 4 days nearly 20 more children and more than 100 

adults die in gun homicides around this country. We may not know 

their names or see their faces, but they were not anonymous or 

nameless or invisible to those who loved them and will never hold 

them in their arms again. 

The question before this Subcommittee is whether sensible measures to reduce rampant gun violence, not necessarily to stop it— 

we will never do that—but to reduce it—the violence that cuts 

short all these lives—is beyond our reach because of the Second 

Amendment, and my answer to that is an emphatic no. 

Until the 1990s, nearly every constitutional expert, including 

Chief Justice Warren Burger and Judge Robert Bork, treated the 

Second Amendment as irrelevant to any personal right to keep or 

bear arms on the theory that the amendment concerned only each 

State’s well-regulated militia. But by the end of the last century, 

a different understanding had emerged, one focusing on individual 

self-defense independent of the militia. I supported the emergence 

of that new understanding, and the Supreme Court made it the law 

of the land in the Heller and McDonald decisions in 2008 and 2010. 

That pair of decisions demolishes the slippery slope theory of 

those who oppose basically all firearms regulation on the view that 

once we permit any new firearms regulation at all, we will be inviting the Government step by step to come ever closer to disarming 

the people, leaving only the police and military with firearms. 

With Heller and McDonald securely on the books, the Supreme 

Court, in its own words, took certain policy choices off the table 

and thereby cleared the path for reasonable regulations to be enacted without fear that those policy choices would either open the 

door to unlimited Government control or be imperiled by exaggerated interpretations of the Second Amendment. As Justice Alito 

put it in McDonald, ‘‘There is no longer any basis for such doomsday proclamations.’’ 

Justice Scalia, speaking for the Court in Heller, said it at the end 

of his opinion: ‘‘Under our interpretation, the Constitution leaves 

open a variety of regulatory tools for combating the problem of gun 

violence in this country.’’ 

Now, the Court was explicit in saying what some of those tools 

include. They include—and each time I am quoting from the 

Court—‘‘conditions and qualifications on the transfer of firearms to 

keep them out of dangerous hands, including felons and the mentally ill.’’ They include ‘‘longstanding regulatory measures to keep 

firearms out of particularly sensitive places.’’ They include complete bans of firearms that are ‘‘not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns,’’ 

and of firearms that are ‘‘especially dangerous or unusual, such as 

M–16 rifles and the like.’’ That was a list that the Court explicitly 

said was not meant to be exhaustive. 

They include other regulations designed to protect public safety 

without cutting into the core right that the Second Amendment 
28 

protects, the right of self-defense in the home. Those legitimate 

other regulations certainly encompass bans on illegal straw purchasers and gun trafficking, both of which can totally frustrate any 

system of background checks or gun registration. And the kinds of 

regulations that do not trigger close scrutiny under the Second 

Amendment obviously include universal background checks or registration systems for the simple reason that systems with loopholes 

and less than universal coverage are calculated to be evaded by the 

very people who have no right to bear arms under the Second 

Amendment, people we cannot safely entrust with lethal weapons. 

Finally, those other obviously valid regulations, ones that do not 

trip the Second Amendment’s trigger, have to include bans on highcapacity magazines and especially lethal weapons that someone 

can keep firing for ten rounds or even more without reloading. 

Banning those weapons gives people a chance to escape and gives 

the police a chance to interrupt the slaughter. 

The category of valid regulations under Heller, in my view, also 

covers bans on weapons designed for assault or military use rather 

than for lawful civilian uses. And the Court did not merely say that 

such regulations would ultimately survive Second Amendment 

scrutiny. It said that Heller would not even ‘‘cast a shadow of doubt 

on such measures should they be considered in the future.’’ 

Now, we should have no illusions that adopting measures like 

these nationally will completely solve the epidemic of gun violence 

in America. More will be needed. We clearly need to address mental health issues as well as other potential contributors to gun violence, such as violent video games, films that glorify murder and 

mayhem and other aspects of our violent culture. But if we do 

nothing until we can do everything, we will all have the blood of 

innocent human beings on our hands and will besmirch the Constitution in the process. 

Just in closing, let me say that our Constitution, as many have 

wisely observed, does not make the perfect the enemy of the good. 

And whatever else it is, it is not a suicide pact—a suicide pact that 

condemns us to paralysis in the face of a national crisis of domestic 

bloodshed. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Professor Tribe appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Professor Tribe, thank you. 

Sandra Wortham. 

STATEMENT OF SANDRA J. WORTHAM, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 

Ms. WORTHAM. Good morning. 

Chairman DURBIN. If you would push the button. 

Ms. WORTHAM. There we go. Good morning, Chairman Durbin, 

Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak 

today. It is really an honor. 

We have discussed a lot about law this morning, and I am an attorney. I love the law. I respect it. I think it is great. But I would 

like to talk a little bit about life and the human impact that this 

issue has on me, my family, and the families we have here today. 

So to do that, I would like to take us back to May 19, 2010. 
29 

On May 19th, I had a good day. I was having a good day. I went 

to line-dancing class with my mother. We did it every Wednesday 

that spring. As you can imagine, that was quite entertaining. When 

we got home, a friend asked me to go scout birthday party locations 

with her. It was the big 2–5, so I of course said yes. We went out 

and we had a good time. 

On my way home, I got a call from my mother, which was not 

unusual because we speak a thousand times a day. We still do. But 

this call was different. She was crying this time, and she said, 

‘‘Sandy, come home.’’ And she continued to cry, and she said, ‘‘They 

tried to rob him.’’ So the ‘‘him’’ she was speaking of was my older 

brother, Thomas E. Wortham IV. 

Thomas and I were raised in a great family, full of character but 

great. Our parents taught us we could do everything, be everything, the world was ours. But they also taught us that we had a 

responsibility to our community and to people who did not have the 

opportunities that we had, and that is how Thomas lived his life. 

He dedicated his professional life to service. He served two tours 

of duty in Iraq with our National Guard, and he was also a Chicago 

police officer, protecting the South Side of Chicago, where we lived. 

Earlier that week, Thomas had traveled here to Washington, DC, 

to participate in activities for National Police Week honoring our 

fallen law enforcement officers and then traveled to New York City 

to run in a race in honor of Alex Valadez, a Chicago police officer 

who had been killed in the line of duty the year before. So on that 

evening of May 19th, Thomas had gone to our parents house when 

I left to show them pictures of Police Week activities. So he finished, they ate dinner, and he went to leave. And as he went to 

leave, my father went with him to the door to watch him out. 

Now, I was not there, obviously, but according to reports, this is 

what happened. Two men approached Thomas as he went to get on 

his motorcycle, pulled a gun on him, and tried to take his motorcycle. Now, Thomas was a police officer, so he was armed, told 

them he was a police officer. My dad, standing at the porch, saw 

this happening. My dad was also armed. He had a gun in the 

house. He went in the house to get the gun. He came back out. So 

there was an exchange of gunfire between the offenders, my brother, and my father. 

Now, when I got the call from my mother, I had no idea how bad 

this was. No idea. I just knew she was crying, but she is a crier 

sometimes, so I just knew I needed to get home. But shortly after 

I got the call, I looked ahead of me, and traffic was stopped. The 

police had blocked off all the streets on the way to our house. So 

I got out and started to run. I just said, ‘‘Well, let me just run 

home and see what is going on.’’ And as I ran, an ambulance 

passed me. And still, you know, in my mind, I had no idea this had 

anything to do with Thomas because I had no idea how bad it was. 

But I am running down the street, and in retrospect, it was like 

a movie, because it is like slow motion. So an ambulance passes 

me. But I know now that Thomas was in the ambulance because 

he had been shot, and that is why all the streets were blocked off. 

So I go to the house. They rush us to the hospital. We get there. 

We waited. We prayed a lot. We waited. But Thomas died. 
30 

Strangely, the week before—or a couple weeks before Thomas 

died, he did an interview with the Chicago Tribune because there 

had been two shootings across the street from our house just in the 

couple of months before that, and he was the president of the Park 

Advisory Council. And in the interview—I will read the direct 

quote—he said, ‘‘When people think of the South Side of Chicago, 

they think violence.’’ And he went on to say, ‘‘We are going to fix 

it so it does not happen again.’’ 

So Thomas is dead, obviously, but I am here today and my parents are here today, I think all of these families, we are here today 

because we still believe that we can fix it. So as I understand it, 

this hearing has been called to discuss the ways we can respect the 

Second Amendment and protect our communities. And I have to be 

very honest—and I am so sorry that some of the people left because 

I was very—I am just confused as to where we are having disagreement about this. Like I said, I understand the law, I respect our 

Constitution, but to me this is not about taking away the lawful 

right to own guns. We are not anti-gun people. My family is not 

an anti-gun family. My brother and father were Chicago police officers and carried guns most of the time. That is how I was raised. 

But they were trained, and they were law-abiding citizens. I value 

and respect the rights that are provided by our Constitution. However, I find it very hard to believe that our founders intended those 

rights to go so unreasonably unchecked. 

It is not about the right to take away—it is not about the right 

to lawfully own guns. This is about trying our best to keep guns 

out of the hands of the people like people who killed my brother. 

They did not walk into a gun store and buy a handgun, because 

if all the reports are right, they would not have been able to do so. 

They got their gun the same way that many ill-intentioned people 

receive guns in this country—they bought it on the street. 

It is also a reality that their gun did not arrive in Chicago on 

its own. Again, according to reports, it was trafficked from a pawn 

shop in Mississippi. And, Chairman, you spoke about this earlier. 

According to news reports, a gun trafficker went to Mississippi, 

used straw purchasers to buy multiple handguns from that shop, 

and then brought those guns to Chicago to sell to gang members. 

And you spoke very well about this earlier, and that is a huge 

problem that we are talking about. And for me, as someone who 

has been personally affected by this, I cannot accept that we cannot 

do better than that. I cannot accept that we cannot fix that problem. If we know, as everybody here does, that many, many criminals obtain their guns through street purchases easily, then I feel 

like we have a responsibility to address that problem, and we have 

an opportunity through this body to do that. The only people who 

should be disturbed by common-sense gun laws are people who 

should not have guns in the first place. Okay? Law-abiding citizens 

should not be disturbed by the proposals here today. 

So when we speak about the Constitution and all the rights afforded by the Constitution, I think we would also be well served 

to remember the words of another important document in our country’s history. So we talked earlier about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Well, those things were taken away from Thomas 
31 

when he was 30, and quite frankly, our rights to those things have 

been affected by this situation. 

So we talk about lawful gun ownership. 

My brother owned a gun. My father owned a gun. But the fact 

that they were armed that night did not prevent Thomas’ murder. 

So we need to do more to keep guns out of the wrong hands in the 

first place. And I do not think that makes us anti-gun people. I 

think it makes us pro-law-abiding citizens who want to live life 

without the constant fear of this violence as a result of guns. 

I am not here to say that any one law would have changed what 

happened to Thomas, but I am here to say I think we can do better. 

This is not about me, Thomas, my family, or any one family in 

general. This is about our country, and we have a system to effect 

change, to do something about this, and I think it is time that we 

do that. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wortham appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Ms. Wortham, thank you for your testimony, 

and I still remember your brother’s service and the comments that 

were made by some of his friends in the National Guard and others 

in law enforcement. He was an amazing individual, and it is sad 

that we have lost him. But I am sure that he is looking down and 

smiling at his mom and dad and sister standing up for him today. 

Ms. WORTHAM. Well, thank you. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you so much. 

Ms. Hupp. 

STATEMENT OF SUZANNA HUPP, LAMPASAS, TEXAS 

Ms. HUPP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members. I am speaking 

for myself today and not in any official capacity. 

I wanted to mention right off the bat that when you opened the 

proceedings here, you asked all of the victims of gun violence to 

stand, and I hesitated. But, honestly, I do not view myself as a victim of gun violence. I view myself as a victim of a maniac who happened to use a gun as a tool. And I view myself as a victim of the 

legislators that we had at the time that left me defenseless. So that 

is why I hesitated. 

I did not grow up in a house with guns. I am not a hunter. But 

when I was 21 and I moved out on my own, I was given a gun by 

a friend and taught how to use it. And then I had a patient when 

I was in the city of Houston who was the district attorney—an assistant district attorney in Houston, and he actually convinced me 

to carry the gun, which at that time was illegal in the State of 

Texas. He said, ‘‘Suzie, you do not see this stuff. I do. You need to 

carry your weapon, and nobody is going to mess with you.’’ 

Several years later, in 1991, my parents and I went to have 

lunch at a local cafeteria with a friend of mine who was managing 

the cafeteria that day. We had finished eating when all of a sudden 

this guy drove up a pick-up truck through the floor-to-ceiling window and came crashing in and ended up maybe 15 feet from me. 

Of course, we thought it was an accident, and I rose up and began 

to go help the people that he had knocked over. But then we heard 
32 

gunshots. And my father and I immediately got down on the floor. 

We turned the table up in front of us. My mom got down behind 

us. And the shooting continued. 

Now, at that time, in 1991, you know, we were not seeing these 

mass shootings that we are seeing now, so I was waiting for him 

to say something like, ‘‘All right. Everybody put your wallets up on 

the tables,’’ or, you know, I thought maybe it was a hit. Maybe 

there was somebody important in there. But the shooting continued. 

I am going to tell you, it took a good 45 seconds, which is an eternity, to realize that the guy was simply going to walk around, take 

aim, pull the trigger, go to the next person, take aim, pull the trigger. He was executing people. 

When I did realize it, I thought, ‘‘I have got him. I have got this 

guy.’’ I reached for my purse that was on the floor next to me, realized I had a perfect place to prop my arm. He was up, everybody 

else in the restaurant was down. And then I realized that a few 

months earlier I had made the stupidest decision of my life. I had 

begun leaving my gun out in my car because I did what most normal people would do. I wanted to be a law-abiding citizen. I did not 

want to get caught with a gun and maybe lose my license to practice. I remember looking around and thinking, ‘‘Well, great. What 

do I do now? Throw a salt shaker at him?’’ 

At that point my dad took my attention, and he started to raise 

up. He said, ‘‘I have got to do something. I have got to do something. He is going to kill everybody in here.’’ And I tried to hold 

him down by the shirt collar. But when he saw what he thought 

was a chance, he went at the guy. You have to understand, though, 

a man with a gun in a crowded room has complete control. My dad 

covered maybe half the distance, and the guy just turned and shot 

him in the chest. My dad went down in the aisle maybe 7 or 8 feet 

from me, and he was still alive and still conscious, but as dreadful 

as this may sound, I saw the wound and I basically wrote him off 

at that point. 

The good news is that it made the gunman change directions 

slightly. Instead of coming directly toward me, he went off to my 

left. And at that point, somebody way at the back of the restaurant 

broke out another window. And I remember hearing that crash and 

thinking, ‘‘My God, here comes another one.’’ But instead I saw 

people getting out that way. So I looked up over the top of the 

table. When the gunman had his back to me, I stood up, I grabbed 

my mother by the shirt collar, I said, ‘‘Come on, come on, we got 

to run. We got to get out of here.’’ And my feet grew wings. 

I made it out that back window, ran into my manager friend that 

was coming out a side door, and he said, ‘‘Thank God you are all 

right.’’ And I said, ‘‘Yes, but dad has been hit and it is really bad.’’ 

And I turned to say something to my mother and realized that she 

had not followed me out. 

Now, to wrap the story up, the police officers—several of them 

were patients of mine—told me a few days later—they filled in the 

gaps. They said that they were actually one building away in a conference, and in an odd twist of gun control fate, the hotel where 

they were having their conference, the manager there did not want 

them to be wearing their guns and potentially offending any of her 
33 

clients or customers. So she had asked them to leave their guns in 

their cars. So precious minutes were lost while they retrieved their 

guns from their locked cars. They said that when they got over 

there and worked their way in through the broken window behind 

the pick-up truck, they did not know who the gunman was. There 

were bodies everywhere. But they said they did see a woman out 

in the aisle, on her knees, cradling a mortally wounded man. They 

said they watched as the 30-something-year-old man walked up to 

her. They said she looked up at him, he put a gun to her head, she 

looked down at her husband, and he pulled the trigger. That is how 

they knew who the gunman was. They said all they had to do was 

fire a shot into the ceiling, and this guy immediately rabbitted to 

a back bathroom alcove area. He exchanged a little gunfire with 

them and then put a bullet in his own head. 

Twenty-three people were killed that day, including my parents. 

It did not occur to me at the time, but mom was not going anywhere without dad. They had just had their 47th wedding anniversary. 

So you may think that I was angry at the guy that did it. But 

the truth is, that is like being mad at a rabid dog. You do not be 

mad at a rabid dog. You take it behind the barn and you kill it, 

but you do not be mad at it. But I have got to tell you, I was mad 

as heck at my legislators because I honestly believed that they had 

legislated me out of the right to protect myself and my family. And 

I would much rather be sitting in jail right now with a felony offense on my head and have my parents alive to know their grandchildren. 

With that, I thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hupp appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you very much. 

We have 6 minutes left on this roll call, so, Mr. Cooper, I am 

going to recognize you. And I cannot believe a Senator is going to 

ask Daniel Webster to wait, but if you do not mind, Mr. Cooper, 

if you will testify, we will take a recess and then return soon. We 

have three votes, so it may be half an hour to 40 minutes. I am 

sorry. And maybe it is sooner. 

Mr. Cooper. 

Mr. COOPER. You would like for me to go ahead? 

Chairman DURBIN. Please. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES J. COOPER, PARTNER, 

COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. COOPER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members 

of the Subcommittee. I am very honored to be here today to discuss 

this important subject matter and to share my thoughts with you. 

I am especially humbled to hear the testimony, the emotional testimony that we have had from the victims of senseless violence, and 

it makes it difficult to return to dry legal subject matters, but that 

is my task. 

The Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Heller and McDonald 

provide authoritative guidance for interpreting and applying the 

Second Amendment. So it is important first to identify the pertinent principles established by those decisions. 
34 

First, the Second Amendment protects an individual right that 

belongs to all Americans. Indeed, the Court repeatedly emphasized 

in both Heller and McDonald that the inherent and pre-existing 

right to self-defense is the core and the central component of the 

Second Amendment right itself. 

Second, the fundamental Second Amendment right to arms is entitled to no less respect than other fundamental rights protected by 

the Bill of Rights. As the Court emphasized in McDonald, it is not 

to be treated as a second-class right or singled out for special—and 

specially unfavorably—treatment. 

Third, the Second Amendment is enshrined—and these are the 

Court’s words—‘‘enshrined with the scope [it was] understood to 

have when the people adopted [it], whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.’’ 

Now, this passage from Heller is an express admonition that all 

government officials, including Members of this body, of course, are 

oath-bound to respect and obey the command of the Second Amendment as it was understood in 1791. 

Fourth, and relatedly, the line between permissible and impermissible arms regulations is not to be established by balancing the 

core individual right protected by the Second Amendment against 

purportedly competing government interests. This balance has already been struck, for the Second Amendment, as the Court put it, 

‘‘is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people.’’ 

With these principles in mind, let us recall the text of the Second 

Amendment. It provides that ‘‘the right of the people to keep and 

bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’’ The amendment is thus one of 

the very few enumerated constitutional provisions that specifically 

protects the possession and use of a particular kind of personal 

property—‘‘arms.’’ It follows that there are certain arms that lawabiding, responsible adult citizens have an absolute, inviolable 

right to acquire, possess, and use. Indeed, the Heller Court made 

clear that the Second Amendment’s ‘‘core protection’’ is no less absolute than the First Amendment’s protection of the expression of 

unpopular opinions. This is what it said: ‘‘The Second Amendment 

is no different’’ from the First Amendment. ‘‘And whatever else it 

leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.’’ 

Now, let me repeat that. The amendment ‘‘elevates above all 

other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use 

arms in defense of hearth and home.’’ The Government, in other 

words, may no more prevent a law-abiding, responsible citizen from 

keeping an operable firearm in his bedside table drawer than it 

may prevent him from keeping a copy of the collected works of 

Shakespeare or his Bible or his Koran in that drawer. 

The key question, then, is what arms are protected by the Second 

Amendment. Heller and McDonald answer that question. Those 

weapons that are, in the Court’s words, ‘‘of the kind in common use 

. . . for lawful purposes like self-defense. Conversely, ‘‘the Second 

Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed 

by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.’’ 

Now, applying that ‘‘common use’’ test, Heller flatly and categorically struck down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban because 
35 

it amounted to a ‘‘prohibition of an entire class of ‘arms’ ’’—I am 

quoting—‘‘that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for 

[the] lawful purpose [of self-defense].’’ The constitutionality of the 

pending proposals to ban certain ‘‘arms’’ thus turns on whether the 

banned semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols are of the kind 

that are in common use for lawful purposes in this Nation. And 

even as Professor Tribe concedes, standard magazines holding more 

than ten rounds and the firearms outfitted for them are by any 

reasonable measure in quite common use in the United States. Because S. 150 outlaws firearms and standard magazines that are of 

the kind in common use for lawful purposes, it is unconstitutional. 

But even if one were to apply a balancing test, S. 150s ban on automatic assault firearms and standard magazines could not pass 

even intermediate scrutiny. 

And, Mr. Chairman, my time is up, and hopefully I will be able 

to address these points further in the questions and answers. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cooper appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thanks, Mr. Cooper, and thanks for your patience and understanding, particularly Professor Webster. 

We are going to stand in recess. I will return as quickly as I can. 

[Whereupon, at 11:48 p.m., the Committee recessed.] 

[Whereupon, at 12:27 p.m., the Committee reconvened.] 

Chairman DURBIN. This hearing of the Constitution Subcommittee will reconvene. I thank you for your patience. We had 

several votes on the floor, now breaking for lunch, but we are going 

to keep working. 

Professor Webster, thanks for your patience, and please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL W. WEBSTER, PROFESSOR AND 

DIRECTOR, JOHNS HOPKINS CENTER FOR GUN POLICY AND 

RESEARCH, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 

Professor WEBSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

the opportunity to testify before you today. 

In 2010, guns were used in more than 31,000 deaths, 11,000 of 

which were homicides. Guns were also used in over 300,000 nonfatal crimes. The social cost of gun violence that year was estimated to be $174 billion, $12 billion of which was directly absorbed 

by taxpayers. 

Last month, I and more than 20 other leading researchers and 

gun policy experts gathered at Johns Hopkins to share our research at a summit on reducing gun violence in America. I refer 

to the Committee the full findings from the summit that were just 

published in a book that I edited with Jon Vernick. This group developed consensus policy recommendations that we believe would 

reduce gun violence, including the following: establishment of a 

universal background check system, strengthening laws to reduce 

firearms trafficking, expanding incentives for States to provide information about disqualifying mental health conditions to the NICS 

system, banning the future sale and possession of assault weapons 

and large-capacity ammunition magazines. These policies enjoy 

broad public support and, according to Professor Tribe and con-
36 

stitutional experts from across the ideological spectrum, would not 

violate constitutional rights. 

I would like to summarize the evidence that refutes common arguments against these proposals. 

The first is that our Nation’s high rate of homicide has nothing 

to do with gun availability. Yet when we compare the United 

States with other high-income countries, our rate of homicide is 7 

times higher because our rate of homicides with guns is 20 times 

higher. This gross disparity cannot be attributed to the U.S. being 

more violent or crime-ridden generally because our rates of nonfatal crime and adolescent fighting are average among high-income 

countries. Much of the difference is likely due to the weaknesses 

in our laws that allow dangerous people to have guns. 

Another claim is that gun control laws do not work because 

criminals will not obey them and will always find a way to get a 

gun through theft or the illegal market. This faulty logic could be 

used to argue against the need for any type of law because 

lawbreakers do not obey laws. The truth is that laws such as background check requirements for all gun sales and other laws to combat gun trafficking help law enforcement to keep guns from prohibited individuals. 

Opponents of gun control point to criminals’ obtaining guns from 

the underground market as proof that regulations are pointless. 

But the weaknesses in current Federal firearms laws are the very 

reason that criminals are able to obtain firearms from those underground sources. Data from a national study of State prison inmates 

indicates that about 80 percent of gun offenders acquired their 

handguns in transactions with unlicensed private sellers, a category of transactions that current Federal law exempts from background checks. Only 10 percent of gun offenders report that they 

stole the guns that they used in crime. 

This argument from opponents of stronger gun laws also implies 

that criminals have no difficulty in obtaining guns. This is also inconsistent with the facts. If guns are so easy for criminals to get, 

why is it that only 29 percent of robberies reported in the National 

Crime Victimization Survey did the robber use a gun? 

Several studies which I have conducted have shown that laws 

that increase gun seller and purchaser accountability, including 

universal background checks, lead to fewer guns being diverted to 

criminals. Missouri’s repeal of its permit licensing law for handgun 

sales in August 2007 provides an example of the value of such 

laws. Missouri’s law had required prospective handgun purchasers, 

whether they were purchasing a handgun from a licensed gun dealer or a private seller, to pass a background check to obtain a permit. We found that the diversion of guns to criminals shortly after 

the retail sale abruptly doubled and the gun homicide rate increased by 25 percent after Missouri repealed its law. During this 

same time period, gun homicide rates nationally dropped 10 percent. 

In our new book, researchers reported several examples in which 

State laws prohibiting perpetrators of domestic violence, violent 

misdemeanants, and the severely mentally ill from possessing firearms did indeed reduce violence. Such laws would be even more effective if gaps and weaknesses in Federal laws were addressed. 
37 

Opponents claim that we do not need to pass new gun laws. We 

just need to enforce the current ones. The problem, of course, with 

this argument is that Federal gun laws are currently written in 

ways that make it very difficult to hold firearm sellers accountable, 

as was described earlier in previous testimony. There is no statute 

defining or outlawing straw purchases or gun trafficking. Standards of evidence are high and penalties are weak relative to the seriousness of the crime of supplying criminals with firearms. 

The Tiahrt amendments protect licensed gun dealers who sell 

many guns that are subsequently recovered from criminals by restricting the use of crime gun trace data. I have published research 

showing how this law increases the diversion of guns to criminals 

from suspect gun dealers. 

Opponents also claim that requiring background checks for all 

gun sales is too great of a burden on gun purchasers to justify. We 

just completed a large national survey in which we found that 84 

percent of gun owners and 74 percent of NRA members reported 

that they supported laws requiring a background check for all gun 

sales. 

In the 14 States that currently require background checks for all 

handgun sales, including private sales, 89 percent, nearly 9 out of 

10 gun owners supported universal background checks. Apparently, 

the overwhelming majority of gun owners consider any inconvenience associated with a pre-gun-sale background check to be acceptable because they want to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous 

people. 

It has been claimed that the only thing that can stop a bad guy 

with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. This call to arms suggests 

that the best way to reduce violence is to allow and even encourage 

legal gun owners to carry loaded guns in public places. The best 

evidence indicates that so-called right to carry laws do not reduce 

violent crime and may actually increase aggravated assaults. Calls 

to do away with restrictions on concealed gun carrying suggest everyone who can legally own a gun is a good guy or gal. But research on people who are incarcerated for crimes committed with 

guns in States where the conditions for legal gun ownership mirror 

the Federal standards, 60 percent of those gun offenders were legally qualified to possess a gun just prior to committing the crime 

with a gun that led to their incarceration. Many had prior convictions for crimes involving violence, guns, drugs, or alcohol abuse. 

Finally, some say that banning the sale of assault weapons and 

large-capacity magazines would not enhance public safety. Assault 

weapons and guns with large-capacity ammunition feeding devices 

are overrepresented in mass shootings, and these mass shootings 

involving assault weapons typically involve more victims per incident than mass shootings with other weapons. Although mass 

shootings or shootings in which an assailant fires more than 10 

rounds are relatively uncommon, their victims and family members 

of victims of mass shootings here today who would not have experienced the pain and loss of gun violence if their assailants had not 

been able to legally purchase assault weapons and large-capacity 

magazines. 

[The prepared statement of Professor Webster appears as a submission for the record.] 
38 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Cooper, let me address initially the Heller decision as you 

saw it and the subsequent decisions, and I am going to ask Professor Tribe to respond or comment. It strikes me that what Heller 

said is the absolute prohibition of gun ownership is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. What I hear you argue on the 

other side—and you even used the provocative word ‘‘absolute’’ in 

your testimony—is that there is an absolute right of individuals to 

own certain arms, common arms. 

I am wondering how you square that with the language of Heller 

where Justice Scalia went on to specify all of the regulations that 

he would find permissible, and he said this is not an exhaustive 

list, but he went through a list of regulations that would limit the 

right to own arms, certainly inferring they are not—ownership and 

use is not absolute. He included weapons not typically possessed by 

law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the 

carrying of firearms in sensitive places, laws imposing conditions 

and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms, laws prohibiting 

the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons, laws regulating 

the storage of firearms to prevent accidents. 

If you concede even one of those things, then to say that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is absolute just kind of falls on 

its face. How long has it been since we have had restrictions on the 

ownership of machine guns under the Federal law? It has been 

quite a few years, if I am not mistaken. It may go back to the era 

of the 1930s, if I am not wrong about that. 

So how do you reconcile that? How can you say this is an absolute right in light Justice Scalia’s statement? 

Mr. COOPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question because I want to hasten to clear up confusion about my use of that 

term. It is not my position that the Second Amendment is unlimited. It never has been, and it certainly could not be after Heller 

makes clear that the kinds of limitations on the Second Amendment right that you have just articulated accurately from the decision itself are historically bound limitations and permissible restrictions that governments can place upon gun ownership and gun 

use. 

What I tried to be careful to say, though, is that at its core—and 

this I believe that Heller does make clear. At its core, that is—and 

regardless of what one may argue is the core of the Second Amendment, it is clear from Heller that it is the use of arms—‘‘arms’’ as 

that term is used in the Second Amendment itself—for self-defense 

within the home, the place where it is most acute, as the Court 

said, for the use of arms to be available. 

It is not my position that any arms are protected by the Second 

Amendment. You have just mentioned M–16s. I do not think that 

an individual has, a law-abiding individual has a right to an M– 

16, even in his home. But it is my view that there are—that within 

the universe of arms, there are certain arms that are absolutely 

protected. And you cannot completely disarm an individual in his 

home. Heller, if it stands for nothing else, it stands for that. 
39 

And so the question before the Committee, before you, Mr. Chairman, and the others, is: What are those protected arms? Where 

does that line fall? 

Chairman DURBIN. Okay—— 

Mr. COOPER. And it certainly falls at M–16s. 

Chairman DURBIN. I am going to let the professor respond here 

to this argument that we are talking about the instrument, the 

weapon, as opposed to many other things. Tell me your reaction to 

this. 

Professor TRIBE. Well, Mr. Chairman—— 

Chairman DURBIN. You need to turn your—thank you. 

Professor TRIBE. Thank you. Much as I like and respect my 

friend Chuck Cooper, I just do not think he answered your question. The Supreme Court did not suggest in Heller or McDonald or 

in any other case that uniquely within the Constitution the Second 

Amendment protects a certain fixed set of objects, that somehow 

magically the M–16 machine gun floats from our 1791 history as 

out of the range of protection. It is a much more nuanced inquiry. 

It is an inquiry into how common the weapon is. It is an inquiry 

into how essential it is to self-defense. And it is an inquiry into 

how unusually dangerous it is. 

Now, the suggestion that I get from Mr. Cooper’s written statement in which he had more of a chance to elaborate is basically 

that a regulation of guns is allowed only if that regulation fits 

within a kind of specific historical pedigree, and somehow he gets 

that pedigree I am not sure quite where—from the 1930s, from the 

1790s. But history has never been the sole determinant of the 

meaning of any constitutional provision, for Justice Scalia or for 

any other member of the Court. It certainly is not for the First 

Amendment. It is not for the Contract Clause. And more than any 

other constitutional provision, the objects addressed by the Second 

Amendment inherently evolve with technology. Guns today are exceptionally different from guns even a hundred years ago, let alone 

guns at the time of the framing. And in light of the Second Amendment’s peculiarly close relationship with technology, it would make 

even less sense to be bound solely by history. 

In his prepared statement, Mr. Cooper quoted from, I think it 

was, Chicago v. McDonald where the Court said that the Second 

Amendment is like the other amendments. It is subject to a consideration of competing constitutional claims, like claims to life, liberty, security, and—here is the language—‘‘it is not to be singled 

out for special treatment.’’ 

And what I think Mr. Cooper is doing is the very thing that the 

Supreme Court said is not to be done. He is elevating the Second 

Amendment above all of the other values. Of course, the Court does 

not think that the Second Amendment should be subject to re-evaluation and rejiggering and rebalancing just because we live in the 

21st century. But he, as all of the examples that you I think carefully enumerated, is clearly open to the idea that a whole range of 

regulations designed not to strip people of their right of self-defense 

but to balance that right, to accommodate that right to the severe 

dangers that we have seen these weapons provide, that that is permissible. 
40 

Chairman DURBIN. So if I can, if Senator Cruz would allow, I 

want to ask one more question and then turn over to him. Two 

weeks ago when we had this hearing, I asked the head of the NRA, 

Mr. LaPierre—I gave him an illustration of something that had 

happened to me as a politician back in Illinois. When I sat down 

with people who feel—members of his organization who feel very 

strongly about the Second Amendment and told them my views, 

they said, ‘‘You do not get it. You just do not understand it. It is 

not about sporting, hunting. It is not even about defending my 

home or self-defense. It is about my right to bear arms so that I 

am adequately armed if the Government turns on me, so that I can 

suppress tyranny if someone should turn on me.’’ 

And I asked Mr. LaPierre, is that the standard? I expected him 

to say no, but he did not. He said, ‘‘In the historic context of the 

Second Amendment, that is what it was about. This was a brandnew Nation. They had just thrown off the tyranny of England, and 

they wanted to preserve,’’ in Mr. LaPierre’s words, ‘‘the right to 

bear arms to protect those basic freedoms as individuals.’’ 

Now what we are finding is something interesting growing out 

of this mind-set. It is a form of nullification which we are seeing 

evidence of. In my home State of Illinois, there are sheriffs, duly 

elected sheriffs of counties who have publicly stated that they will 

not enforce any Federal laws restricting the Second Amendment. 

They have taken on the name of ‘‘Oath Keepers.’’ I have some of 

their literature in front of me. 

I would like for you to comment on the history of the Second 

Amendment and this view of the right of an individual to defend 

himself, herself, against a Government that may be tyrannical. Is 

that built into the Second Amendment? 

Professor TRIBE. Well, Justice Scalia, in a very erudite, historical 

discussion in Heller, talked about how part of the historic origin of 

the need to codify the Second Amendment was exactly the sense 

that shortly after the Revolution and when we were still a forming 

Nation, when we really did not have a Government under a rule 

of law that had conformed itself to a new Constitution, that that 

was one of the elements. But he makes it clear that to make the 

Second Amendment serve that purpose today, we would have to let 

every individual have his own rocket launcher, his own tank. I 

mean, if the Government of the United States were ever to turn on 

any of us as individuals, it would not be enough to have a handgun 

or even a semiautomatic weapon. 

So, clearly, the purpose has now become one of self-defense 

against marauders, against criminals, against errant individual police officers, but not against the entire Government. 

And you mentioned nullification and the Oath Keepers. We have 

had a history of claims by States that they could nullify the operation within their own jurisdiction of Federal laws that they did 

not agree with. It was a bloody history. It was settled, I think, by 

the Civil War, if I remember my history correctly, and it is not a 

history that I would want to relive. 

The Oath Keepers, like anybody else, are entirely free to agitate, 

litigate, argue for their own view of the law, but as Justice Scalia 

said in 1990, ‘‘. . . democratic government must be preferred to a 

system in which each conscience is a law unto itself . . .’’ And the 
41 

Supreme Court of the United States said in 1960 that nullification 

and ‘‘interposition is not a constitutional doctrine. If taken seriously, it is illegal defiance of constitutional authority.’’ 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you. 

Senator Cruz. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 

all of the witnesses for your time and preparation and being here. 

I apologize that with votes on the floor of the Senate and also other 

Committee hearings that not all of us were able to be here for this 

very learned testimony. 

I would like to give particular thanks to Ms. Hupp, a constituent 

from the State of Texas, whose testimony I think was moving and 

powerful, and your personal life experience I think is very important for this debate. And I would urge anyone interested in assessing what the proper standard is for protecting our right to keep 

and bear arms to watch Ms. Hupp’s testimony, to see her personal 

experience of the importance of the right to keep and bear arms to 

protect ourselves and to protect our family. 

I would also note, in the interest of full disclosure, that as a law 

student I took constitutional law from Professor Tribe, and that my 

very first employer in private practice was Chuck Cooper. And with 

both of you on each end of this table, I would simply say you are 

both held harmless. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CRUZ. Should I make any mistakes of constitutional law, 

I will take the brunt of all of that myself rather than attributing 

any blame to either one of you. 

Mr. Cooper, a lot of discussion today has been had that the Second Amendment allows what is described as reasonable, commonsense regulations. And ‘‘reasonableness’’ is a term that encompasses a lot. 

I would like to understand the scope of the argument that was 

made by Washington, DC, and Chicago in the Heller case and the 

McDonald case. As I understand it, both Washington, DC, and Chicago, with the support of the great many groups who are now calling for gun control regulation, made the argument that the Second 

Amendment right to keep and bear arms does not protect any individual whatsoever. And if I understand that correctly, that would 

mean, under their interpretation, that this Congress could pass a 

law that says it is a Federal offense, it is a crime for any American 

to own any firearm whatsoever—pistol, shotgun, rifle—any firearm 

is hereby criminalized. 

Am I correct that the position that was advocated in those cases 

is just that radical? 

Mr. COOPER. It was just that sweeping, Senator Cruz. The claim 

made by the cities in those cases was that the Second Amendment 

protects only a collective right, a right relevant only with respect 

to the organized militia. It was rejected by the Supreme Court, and 

that rejection reiterated and reaffirmed in McDonald, it rejected 

initially in Heller. The Court said—Mr. Chairman, this refers back to your earlier 

question. The Court was quite clear that concerns by the Founders 

and the framing generation about tyranny and the notion that a 

standing army could disarm the populace, disarm the people, was 
42 

at the root of the codification in the Bill of Rights of the Second 

Amendment. 

It was not the core concern, however, of that founding generation 

and of the people at the time. The core concern, the central component, according to the majority in Heller, was self-defense. And it 

also recognized the lawful purpose of hunting. So people had an individual, fundamental right, Senator Cruz, to keep and bear arms 

for those lawful purposes, the core of which—and I have earlier 

characterized it as absolute, and I reiterate that—the core of which 

was to keep an operable firearm in the home for the purpose of 

self-defense. 

Senator CRUZ. And, Mr. Cooper, am I correct, the first argument 

in those cases was that it was not an individual right at all? 

Mr. COOPER. Yes. 

Senator CRUZ. Or that it was not incorporated against the States 

in McDonald? 

Mr. COOPER. Just a collective right. 

Senator CRUZ. But the second argument was that even if it was, 

that a total ban on firearms, as Washington, DC, and Chicago had, 

constituted reasonable, common-sense gun control, even if it did 

protect your right? In other words, it was a right that could be legislated entirely out of existence? 

Mr. COOPER. That is—a right that could include a sweeping and 

comprehensive ban on the possession of an operable firearm in the 

home. 

Senator CRUZ. Now, Professor Tribe, many have made reference 

to Justice Scalia’s opinion in Heller that recognized that there are 

some limits on the Second Amendment. Am I correct, though, that 

Heller actually went further than that and enumerated some specific examples: namely, a ban on felons possession firearms Heller 

said was permissible under the Second Amendment; a ban on what 

Heller characterized as ‘‘dangerous and unusual weapons,’’ such as 

M–16 machine guns, satisfied the Second Amendment. Heller did 

not once suggest that the sort of restrictions here—in terms of 

when it was enumerating examples of restrictions, the sort of restrictions currently being considered by the Senate, Heller did not 

say those would be permissible, did it? 

Professor TRIBE. Well, it certainly, Senator Cruz, did not have 

these in front of it. But it said in Footnote 26 that the examples 

it gave were only examples. And if there is any regulation that 

could survive Second Amendment scrutiny, it is the kind of regulation that is being considered, namely—— 

Senator CRUZ. Well, but it did say that what was critical was 

whether the particular weapons were in common use at the time. 

Is that correct? 

Professor TRIBE. That is not, with all respect, Senator Cruz, 

quite correct. It said that if they are not in common use at the 

time, as the handgun had been, then they are out of contention for 

Second Amendment protection. But being in common use at the 

time did not in itself guarantee that they were within the core. 

Otherwise, if you flood the market with machine guns, with M–16s, 

so that they are suddenly in common use, then they would get the 

kind of protection the Court said they did not have. 
43 

Senator CRUZ. Although M–16s currently are functionally illegal 

for the public to enjoy, fully automatic machine guns—— 

Professor TRIBE. That is right. But if you flood the market, it 

would no longer be constitutional to outlaw them if it were true 

that just being in common use was enough. That is why the Court 

had three criteria. 

Senator CRUZ. But they are not in common use right now, are 

they? 

Professor TRIBE. They are not. But the Court said—— 

Senator CRUZ. Okay. And a final question because my time has 

expired. With the Chairman’s indulgence, I would like to ask a 

final question of Ms. Hupp, which is: If you look at the Nation of 

Australia, which in 1997 banned guns, Australia saw from 1995 to 

2007 sexual assaults and rape increase 29.9 percent and violent 

crime increased 42.2 percent, largely after they had banned guns 

altogether. 

In contrast, the United States during that same time saw violent 

crime decrease 31.8 percent and rape decrease 19.2 percent. 

To my mind, that data suggests that allowing law-abiding citizens to arm themselves, and in particular protecting the right of 

women to protect themselves, is an important safeguard against 

violent offenses. 

Are you aware of any data or any argument to the contrary that 

stripping women of the right to defend themselves does not make 

them more vulnerable to violent predators? 

Ms. HUPP. Well, you are asking me to provide, I believe, some 

statistical evidence that I do not have with me. Common sense, I 

believe—we have talked about common-sense gun laws, and saying 

something is common sense does not necessarily make it so. But 

common sense tells me that if my aged grandmother in a wheelchair is approached by three thugs with baseball bats wanting her 

Social Security check, if she pulls out a revolver, now all of a sudden she is on equal footing. 

If I may, I would like to offer a couple of things that I believe 

could be done to help eradicate these mass shootings that seem to 

be so prevalent in the last couple of decades. One thing is that we 

could—that you all could encourage States to get rid of gun-free 

zones, because is it not fascinating that nearly all of these mass 

shootings that we have seen have occurred in gun-free zones, 

places where there are so many people that are like fish in a barrel? These mass shootings do not occur at the dreaded gun show. 

They do not occur at NRA conventions or skeet and trap shoots. 

They occur where madmen want to go and be able to shoot people 

who are defenseless. Murder and crimes of passion have been occurring in this world since the dawn of man, and nothing—nothing—that your Committee can do will change that, unfortunately. 

The second thing I would strongly recommend is I would encourage—or I would ask you all to encourage the media, not legislate 

but encourage the media to quit using the murderers’ names. These 

people typically come from a background of bullying or feeling as 

if they are worthless and have no ability to change their lives, so 

they know there is an aspect of glory to these mass murders. They 

know they are going to go down in the history books. And if you 

can ask the media to stop using their names after that first day— 
44 

and, second, if the person actually does not put a bullet in their 

own head or they are not killed in the process, when they go to 

trial, fuzz out their faces. Stop encouraging their infamy. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you very much, Ms. Hupp, and my time 

has expired. 

Chairman DURBIN. Senator Graham. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you all. In the last round of questioning, 

I asked a question of our first witness: What percentage of people 

who fail a background check actually get prosecuted? And I should 

have asked actually get convicted, because it is even less. So you 

can check our math, but he said there were about 80,000 background checks, and some of them are false positives, a small number, so that would definitely affect the numbers, but not a whole 

lot. There were 44 people prosecuted. I do not know exactly how 

many were convicted. But in 2010, there were 76,142 FBI denials 

referred to ATF. There were 62 charges referred for prosecution, 

and 13 resulted in a guilty plea. But when you do the math, it is 

0.000055 of a percent, and that gets to be where I really cannot put 

my arms around it. 

So the point I guess I am trying to make to the Committee and 

the public at large, if you expand background checks and no one 

ever suffers the consequences of lying or making a straw purchase, 

I do not think it is going to do much good. 

Professor Tribe, do you agree with the concept that people, to 

obey the law, they have to fear that there will be a consequence 

if they break it? 

Professor TRIBE. I certainly do, and I think that the fear of a 

really serious consequence rather than a slap on the wrist would 

make a difference. But the key point, to me, is that when you have 

so many loopholes so that somebody who thinks he is going to 

flunk a background check unless he lies goes to a gun show or buys 

on the Internet, of course, the system of background checks is not 

going to work. It works only better—it works better the more universal you make it. 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, would you agree that criminals universally will try to get a gun outside the law? 

Professor TRIBE. And they will try to violate the law in every 

way. I agree. 

Senator GRAHAM. Absolutely. So it is never really universal. It is 

really about law-abiding citizens, what we expect of them. And I 

guess my point is this number to me is startling. I think if you are 

looking for some common ground, Mr. Cooper, it seems to me this 

would be a good place to start. Try to find, if it is a resource problem, let us dedicate some money. If it is an attitude problem, let 

us adjust attitudes. But in all honesty, to the panel, I do not think 

any expansion of background checks is going to be a deterrent until 

somebody in a real way suffers the consequences under the current 

system. 

So when you say people fall through the cracks, I would say 

there is a hole a mile wide in the current system—I mean, it is just 

a flood gate—that your chance of being prosecuted for violating a 

background check or providing false information is probably a lot 

less than being struck by lightning or hit by a meteor. So I do not 

know what those numbers are, but I would say let us focus on that. 
45 

Now, Dr. Tribe, when it comes to defining the constitutional parameters of what you can do up here to regulate gun ownership, 

one is common usage. There were two other—— 

Professor TRIBE. Right. The two others, Senator Graham—thank 

you for giving me a chance to get to them—were the degree of unusual dangerousness, and that was not simply another way of saying common use; that is, of course, all guns are dangerous or they 

would be useless. But a gun that can spray bullets without being 

reloaded is more dangerous. And the third criteria was how vital 

it is to self-defense. 

Now, none of those things can be answered in a kind of easy, 

black-and-white way, because in a sense the more dangerous a gun 

is, the more useful it also is for self-defense. 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, that is a good point, and I guess that is 

what I am trying to tell the public. 

Could you put our chart up about the different guns? Do we have 

it? 

Ms. Hupp, I think we all agree that any weapon—one bullet in 

the hands of a mentally unstable person is one too many. Do you 

all agree with that concept? Any gun should be denied someone 

who is mentally unstable? 

Ms. HUPP. Yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay, and I think everybody would. And we do 

not want felons, because that is already the existing law. 

Now, a circumstance you have described very eloquently, the circumstance you found yourself in, Ms. Hupp, but there is a case in 

Atlanta recently, Dr. Tribe, of a lady who was defending her home 

against a home invader. She was home with twin daughters, 9 

years old. She ran up to the closet, hid in the closet. She was on 

the phone to her husband. The guy followed up the steps, broke 

into the closet. She had a six-shot revolver. She emptied the gun, 

hit him five of six times—it was a .38 revolver—and he was still 

able to get up and drive away. Now, I have been told that one-third 

of all attacks involve more than two people. 

So is it unfair for Congress to say that in the hands of a mother 

defending her children against a home invader, six rounds may not 

be enough, ten rounds may not be enough? In that situation I wish 

she would have had 15 or more because six rounds were not able 

to do the job. Does that make sense to you how I could think that 

way? 

Professor TRIBE. Well, it makes a certain kind of sense, Senator 

Graham, but it is an argument that has no limit, because if she 

had a machine gun, she might have been even safer, or, you know, 

if she had a hand grenade, better still, blow them all out of the 

water. 

Senator GRAHAM. But here is where democracy works. I do not 

want her to have a machine gun or a hand grenade. I just do not 

want her to be limited to ten bullets when the real world—everything is a balance. She may need more than ten. And the mentally 

unstable person does not need more than one. 

Now, the second series of weapons, after natural disasters you 

have had mobs roam around areas that are lawless. Basically there 

is no power or the police cannot get there. Katrina, Sandy, Haiti, 

you name it. But you have got three homes: one home, the home-
46 

owner has no gun; the second home has a shotgun; the third home, 

they have an AR–15. Mr. Cooper, what home do you think would 

be best protected? 

Mr. COOPER. I would rather be in the home that has the AR–15, 

Senator Graham. But a shotgun would come in very handy as well. 

And I think that your comments about the Atlanta episode really 

bring into very sharp focus why this magazine ban is so misguided 

in addition to being unconstitutional. 

Senator GRAHAM. There are over 4 million high-capacity magazines out on the market, right? 

Mr. COOPER. There are, and—— 

Senator GRAHAM. And criminals are likely to get them no matter 

what we do up here. 

Mr. COOPER. They will undoubtedly get them. 

Senator GRAHAM. And the only person that could be really affected is the law-abiding person who could be limited. Does that 

make sense? 

Mr. COOPER. Absolutely. 

Senator GRAHAM. Now, we can have great disagreements about 

how far the Second Amendment goes, and there are limits, just like 

freedom of speech. So I just hope the Committee will understand 

a good place to start, Mr. Chairman, is taking the laws we have 

and bring about a sense of you better not violate that law because 

something bad will happen to you. And when you are at 55 of one/ 

one hundred thousandths in prosecution, we got a ways to go. 

Thank you all. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thanks, Senator Graham. I appreciate you 

coming back. I know this has been tough on our schedule and 

tough on your schedule, but thank you for being part of this important hearing. 

Ms. Hupp, your story about your parents is heartbreaking and 

touching, really. I agree with Senator Cruz. It is something that everyone should hear, even those who were not here today. I would 

like to ask you a couple questions about some things that you have 

said. 

You stated—again, what you said before—that nearly all mass 

shootings in recent years have occurred in gun-free zones. The 

Mayors Against Illegal Guns did an analysis of every reported 

mass shooting, defined by the FBI as involving four or more people 

being killed, between January 2009 and January of this year. Of 

the 43 mass shootings by FBI definition, 14 of those mass shootings—about a third—took place in public places that were considered gun-free zones—one-third, gun-free zones. The rest took place 

in private homes or public places where concealed-carry was permitted. 

In light of this analysis, do you still stand by your statement that 

‘‘nearly all mass shootings in recent years have occurred in gunfree zones’’ ? 

Ms. HUPP. Yes, I would, and the reason I say that is because I 

would like to know what the numbers are—you mentioned that 

they said four or more they are calling a mass shooting? 

Chairman DURBIN. By FBI definition. 

Ms. HUPP. But certainly the ones that you and I hear about 

when we turn on the news are more like ten or more or six or 
47 

seven or more. And in all of those cases that I can think of, they 

have occurred in places where guns were not allowed. And I believe 

that the four or five category that you are talking about, that has 

a different intent behind it. You mentioned that they were typically 

in homes? 

Chairman DURBIN. No. It said the rest took place in private 

homes or public places where concealed-carry was permitted. 

Ms. HUPP. Okay. In a private home situation, I am assuming 

that most of those are going to be cases where you have some family member who has gone berserk, and I believe it is a different 

scenario. The one thing that I can assure you is that having a gun 

is not going to prevent somebody from coming in and shooting their 

estranged wife and the person sitting next to them. It is not. 

Chairman DURBIN. So let me ask you this question—— 

Ms. HUPP. But it will prevent the high body bag count. 

Chairman DURBIN. Illinois has the distinction, my home State, of 

the last State in the Union without a concealed-carry law. They are 

currently debating it in the General Assembly. And there are a lot 

of choices to make in terms of concealed-carry. 

The Violence Policy Center reported that since May 2007 there 

have been at least 499 people, including 14 law enforcement officers, shot and killed either by concealed-carry permit holders or by 

gunmen in the four States where there is no permit at all required. 

These shootings include incidents such as: 

June 6, 2010, the murder of four women in Hialeah, Florida, by 

a man who had reportedly served time in a Cuban prison but had 

a concealed-carry permit under Florida law; 

The April 4, 2009, killing of three Pennsylvania police officers by 

a white supremacist who had a concealed-carry permit even though 

a former girlfriend had a protection order against him; 

And July 23, 2011, the murder of five people at a roller rink in 

Grand Prairie, Texas, your home State, by a gunman who was a 

reported domestic abuser and was carrying a concealed weapon legally under Texas law. 

So I would just like to ask you this question: What standards can 

we, should we apply to concealed-carry permit holders to avoid 

abuses such as these? 

Ms. HUPP. That is a weighty question. When you were referring 

to the roller rink, I thought of our local roller rink, and the owner 

actually requires that all of his employees carry to prevent just 

that scenario. 

I will have to revert back to what I said earlier. A gun is not a 

guarantee. It just changes the odds. And it is a tool that can be 

used to kill a family or a tool that can be used to protect a family, 

but it seems to me that you all are focusing on the tool. If I were 

to take—and I hate to say this out loud, honestly, because I have 

children in a public school. But is there any doubt in anyone’s mind 

that the maniac that went into the Sandy Hook Elementary could 

not have murdered as many children if he had carried a samurai 

sword? 

My contention is that guns are very effective tools and in the 

right hands can prevent some dreadful things. 

Chairman DURBIN. So, Ms. Wortham, your experience with your 

brother, a law enforcement officer who was armed, your father 
48 

nearby with a gun, and, sadly, despite that, your brother lost his 

life. You have heard this argument now on both sides. Where do 

you come down on this? How do you—I mean, as reflect on this—— 

Ms. WORTHAM. Right. So perspective is everything, and I think 

Ms. Hupp’s story is horrible. I was telling her at the break that I 

read it and I was traumatized. But I think that what we know, as 

I said in my statement, is they were both armed, and Thomas is 

dead. And it is true. It betters your odds sometimes. But I also 

think that we are kind of not focused on the big picture here, and 

I think that is what kind of concerns me. 

It is not about disarming law-abiding people. We are talking 

about doing our best to keep the guns away from people who 

should never have them in the first place, right? So I feel like we 

are going off track a lot here with the focus on people should have 

guns, people should have guns. I do not think anyone is saying that 

there should not be a right to bear arms. I do not think anyone is 

saying that here. I think what we are saying is that the second 

amendment does not prevent us, you, the law-making body here, 

from looking at ways that we know we can try and reduce the 

amount of people who should not have guns from having them so 

that the situations like Ms. Hupp’s, like ours, like all the families 

who are here this weekend, we will not see them as much. And I 

think that is what we should talk about more than saying, oh, well, 

yes, guns are helpful sometimes, they sure are, but—— 

Chairman DURBIN. So in your case that I have read about and 

you told quite a bit about, there are still some elements that I 

would like to put in the record. None of the four suspects who were 

involved in your brother’s murder was eligible to buy a handgun 

from a licensed gun seller. Three of the suspects were under the 

legal age to buy a handgun, and the fourth had served 6 years in 

prison on a drug charge. As far as we know, these suspects did not 

even try to buy a handgun from a licensed seller. That is just a 

conclusion we reached. They bought a trafficked gun from a private 

seller on the streets. 

So, in general, do you think that ineligible buyers are deterred 

from trying to get guns from licensed gun dealers because of the 

fact that they are going to face a background check? 

Ms. WORTHAM. I think that is definitely helpful, yes. I mean, I 

think they go the way that they know they will not have to be subjected to that, so yes. 

Chairman DURBIN. Even getting back to Senator Graham’s prosecution numbers—and we started the hearing talking about these 

are paperwork crimes and often do not carry strong penalties and 

the prosecutor has limited resources to apply to enforcing the law 

and so forth—I think it is fairly obvious and rational to believe 

some of these gang bangers are never going to walk into a gun 

dealer. 

Ms. WORTHAM. Right, and I think that the part—all due respect 

to Senator Graham—that we miss with the chart was that, yes, 

maybe the prosecution of those who are flagged as not eligible for 

guns is not what we would like it to be. But we miss the fact that 

they were flagged as not eligible for guns. So the tool is still an effective deterrent, and that part is not displayed in the chart with 
49 

the numbers of the maybe not so great prosecution numbers. So I 

think we miss that in depicting the numbers that way. 

Chairman DURBIN. Professor Webster, one of the things I find interesting is kind of the hands-off attitude that Congress takes 

when it comes to many of these gun issues. To think of the number 

of Americans who die from violent gun crime and the like and the 

fact that we have expressly prohibited certain agencies of Government from doing any research into gun violence and how to reduce 

it, we do not think twice about calling for research in reducing 

epidemics and reducing the incidence of disease. 

Can you talk from a public health perspective about the problem 

of gunshot deaths in our country and what you think we need to 

do to address it? 

Professor WEBSTER. Sure. As I indicated in my testimony, I think 

from a policy standpoint, really the most important thing is that 

we currently make it way too easy for criminals to get guns, and 

there are some common-sense ways to address that. We need comprehensive background checks. We are never going to be effective 

without that. 

As is indicated by the numbers, it is difficult to prosecute them, 

and that is, frankly, by design. The laws are written in a way to 

minimize accountability for those who are buying and selling firearms. I think that is very wrong-headed. 

I have several studies that I have conducted that show very consisted evidence that States that have greater measures to hold firearms sellers and purchasers accountable have substantially less diversion of guns to criminals. They also happen to enjoy some of the 

lowest rates of firearm mortality among the 50 States. 

So I think there are things that we can do, again, that focus on 

really what most of us agree upon. None of us want dangerous people to have guns, yet Congress has currently given us a set of laws 

that make it very difficult for law enforcement to do what we want 

them to do, which is keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you, Professor Webster, and I want to 

thank the panel for your patience and forbearance as we raced 

around doing our roll calls. 

The record will be open for a few days—Professor Tribe, you 

know this; you are a regular—and there may be some questions 

sent your way, and I hope, if you can, that you will respond 

promptly. 

There is a lot of interest in this subject and in today’s hearing. 

More than 120 individuals and organizations submitted written 

testimony. I am supposed to be handed a prop now and show you 

the big stack of them, but I am going to skip that. And, without 

objection, I am going to ask that these statements be placed in the 

record. 

[The information referred to appears as a submission for the 

record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. We are going to keep the record open for a 

week. Written questions for the witnesses may be submitted, as I 

mentioned earlier. And if there is no further business to come before the panel, I am going to ask that this hearing stand adjourned. 

Thank you. 
50 

[Whereupon, at 1:17 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 
(51) 

A P P E N D I X 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 
262 
263 
264 
265 
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 
271 
272 
273 
274 
275 
276 
277 
278 
279 
280 
281 
282 
283 
284 
285 
286 
287 
288 
289 
290 
291 
292 
293 
294 
295 
296 
297 
298 
299 
300 
301 
302 
303 
304 
305 
306 
307 
308 
309 
310 
311 
312 
313 
314 
315 
316 
317 
318 
319 
320 
321 
322 
323 
324 
325 
326 
327 
328 
329 
330 
331 
332 
333 
334 
335 
336 
337 
338 
339 
340 
341 
342 
343 
344 
345 
346 
347 
348 
349 
350 
351 
352 
353 
354 
355 
356 
357 
358 
359 
360 
361 
362 
363 
364 
365 
366 
367 
368 
369 
370 
371 
372 
373 
374 
375 
376 
377 
378 
379 
380 
381 
382 
383 
384 
385 
386 
387 
388 
389 
390 
391 
392 
393 
394 
395 
396 
397 
398 
399 
400 
401 
402 
403 
404 
405 
406 
407 
408 
409 
410 
411 
412 
413 
414 
415 
416 
417 
418 
419 
420 
421 
422 
423 
424 
425 
426 
427 
428 
429 
430 
431 
432 
433 
434 
435 
436 
437 
438 
439 
440 
441 
442 
443 
444 
445 
446 
447 
448 
449 
450 
451 
452 
453 
454 
455 
456 
457 
458 
459 
460 
461 
462 
463 
464 
465 
466 
467 
468 
469 
470 
471 
472 
473 
474 
475 
476 
477 
478 
479 
480 
481 
482 
483 
484 
485 
486 
487 
488 
489 
490 
491 
492 
493 
494 
495 
496 
497 
498 
499 
500 
501 
502 
503 
504 
505 
506 
507 
508 
509 
510 
511 
512 
513 
514 
515 
516 
517 
518 
519 
520 
521 
522 
523 
524 
525 
526 
527 
528 
529 
530 
531 
532 
533 
534 
535 
536 
537 
538 
539 
540 
541 
542 
543 
544 
545 
546 
547 
548 
549 
550 
551 
552 

ARTICLES, LETTERS, AND STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CRUZ
553 
554 
555 
556 
557 
558 
559 
560 
561 
562 
563 
564 
565 
566 
567 
568 
569 
570 
571 
572 
573 
574 
575 
576 
577 
578 
579 
580 
581 
582 
583 
584 
585 
586 
587 
588 
589 
590 
591 
592 
593 
594 
595 
596 
597 
598 
599 
600 
601 
602 
603 
604 
605 
606 
607 
608 
609 
610 
611 
612 
613 
614 
615 
616 
617 
618 
619 
620 
621 
622 
623 
624 
625 
626 
627 
628 
629 
630 
631 
632 
633 
634 
635 
636 
637 
638 
639 
640 
641 
642 
643 
644 
645 
646 
647 
648 
649 
650 
651 
652 
653 
654 

ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

A list of material and links can be found below for Submissions for the Record not 

printed due to voluminous nature, previously printed by an agency of the Federal 

Government, or other criteria determined by the Committee: 

Cramer, Clayton, Professor, ‘‘Reforming Colorado Mental Health Law,’’ issue 

paper: 

http://www.claytoncramer.com/scholarly/ColoradoMentalHealthReform1.pdf. 

Pratt, Erich, and Michael Hammond, Gun Owners of America, ‘‘Current Gun 

Control Proposals Will Endanger the Rights of Law-Abiding Americans,’’ 

statement: 

http://gunowners.org/congress02122013.htm. 

Reynolds, Glenn Harlan, Professor, ‘‘Second Amendment Penumbras: Some 

Preliminary Observations,’’ research paper: 

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstractlid=2002132. 

Æ