S. HRG. 113–874 

HEARING ON THE ASSAULT 

WEAPONS BAN OF 2013 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

February 27, 2013 

Serial No. J–113–5 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 
HEARING ON THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN OF 2013 
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

25–650 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 113–874 

HEARING ON THE ASSAULT 

WEAPONS BAN OF 2013 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

February 27, 2013 

Serial No. J–113–5 

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 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

FEBRUARY 27, 2013, 10:06 A.M. 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of California ................. 1 

Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ............................ 4 

WITNESSES 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 59 

Adams, Hon. Sandy, a former Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida ............................................................................................................... 44 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 156 

Begg, William V., III, M.D., Director, Emergency Medical Services, Western 

Connecticut Health Network, Newtown, Connecticut ....................................... 37 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 75 

Flynn, Edward A., Chief, Milwaukee Police Department, Milwaukee, 

Wisconsin .............................................................................................................. 8 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 66 

Hardy, David T., Attorney, Law Offices of David Hardy, Tucson, Arizona ........ 42 

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

Heslin, Neil, Newtown, Connecticut ...................................................................... 35 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 70 

Johnson, Nicholas J., Professor of Law, Fordham University, School of Law, 

New York, New York ........................................................................................... 40 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 86 

appendix ............................................................................................................ 93 

Nutter, Hon. Michael A., Mayor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and President, 

The U.S. Conference of Mayors, Washington, DC ............................................. 45 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 162 

Walsh, John F., U.S. Attorney, District of Colorado, U.S. Department of 

Justice, Denver, Colorado .................................................................................... 7 

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

QUESTIONS 

Questions submitted to Hon. Sandy Adams by Senator Grassley ....................... 167 

Questions submitted to Chief Edward A. Flynn by Senator Grassley ................ 169 

Questions submitted to David T. Hardy by Senator Grassley ............................. 172 

Questions submitted to Professor Nicholas J. Johnson by Senator Grassley ..... 173 

ANSWERS 

Responses of Hon. Sandy Adams to questions submitted by Senator Grassley . 174 

Responses of Chief Edward A. Flynn to questions submitted by Senator 

Grassley ................................................................................................................ 179 

Responses of David T. Hardy to questions submitted by Senator Grassley ....... 185 

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

to the written questions, the Committee had not received any communication from Professor Nicholas J. Johnson.] 
Page

IV 

MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Alliance for Business Leadership, The, Boston, Massachusetts, December 20, 

2012, letter ............................................................................................................ 217 

American Academy of Nursing (AAN), Washington, DC, January 30, 2013, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 220 

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Elk Grove Village, Illinois, January 17, 

2013, letter ............................................................................................................ 222 

American Bar Association (ABA), Chicago, Illinois, January 17, 2013, letter ... 212 

American College of Surgeons (ACS), Washington, DC, February 25, 2013, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 224 

American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), Washington, 

DC, January 23, 2013, letter ............................................................................... 226 

American Federation of Teachers (AFT), Washington, DC, ‘‘Newtown: A Call 

for Ideas,’’ statement ............................................................................................ 214 

American Medical Association (AMA), Chicago, Illinois, January 29, 2013, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 219 

American Public Health Association (APHA), Washington, DC, January 24, 

2013, letter ............................................................................................................ 227 

AZPASS, Arizona People Acting for a Safer Society, Phoenix, Arizona, letter .. 228 

Barbour, Bill, North Haven, Connecticut, statement—Redacted ........................ 232 

Black American Political Association of California (BAPAC), Los Angeles, 

California, December 17, 2012, letter ................................................................. 230 

Blackwell, J. Kenneth, former Mayor of Cincinnati and Ohio Secretary of 

State, statement ................................................................................................... 336 

Caffrey, Rebecca, Ph.D., M.B.A., February 27, 2013, letter ................................. 209 

California Medical Association (CMA), Sacramento, California, 2013 talking 

points ..................................................................................................................... 239

California Teachers Association (CTA), Burlingame, California, February 4, 

2013, letter ............................................................................................................ 235 

Center for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE), Washington, DC, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 348 

Child Welfare League of America (CWLA), Washington, DC, statement ........... 242 

Cities of Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento, San Diego, San 

Francisco, San Jose, and Santa Ana, California, January 23, 2013, letter ..... 264 

City of Beverly Hills, California, January 11, 2013, letter .................................. 231 

City of Boston, City Council, Boston, Massachusetts, statement ........................ 233 

City of Encinitas, California, Hon. Teresa Arballo Barth, Mayor, January 31, 

2013, letter and resolution .................................................................................. 244 

City of Los Angeles, California, Hon. Antonio R. Villaraigosa, Mayor, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 333 

City of Orange Cove, California, Hon. Gabriel Jimenez, Mayor, January 28, 

2013, letter ............................................................................................................ 260 

City of Petaluma, California, Hon. David Glass, Mayor, January 17, 2013, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 270 

City of Santa Rosa, Hon. Scott P. Bartley, Mayor, California, January 29, 

2013, letter ............................................................................................................ 304 

Clement, Alexandra, Newtown, Connecticut, February 27, 2013, letter ............ 191 

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), Washington, DC, statement ................ 320 

County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, Los Angeles, California, 

January 10, 2013, letter .................................................................................... 269 

Cunningham, Kelly, Ohio resident, February 26, 2013, letter ............................ 241 

D’Agostino, Paul and Noelle, Newtown, Connecticut, March 6, 2013, letter ...... 243 

Dargon, Michelle, Newtown, Connecticut, February 27, 2013, letter ................. 203 

Dolzall, Christina, Newtown, Connecticut, February 27, 2013, letter ................ 192 

Einstein, Rev. Dr. Gay Lee, et al., Charlottesville, Virginia, statement ............. 195 

Faiths United to Prevent Gun Violence, Washington, DC, statement ................ 252 

Frandsen, Ronald J., ‘‘Enforcement of the Brady Act, 2010: Federal and 

State Investigations and Prosecutions of Firearm Applicants Denied by 

a NICS Check in 2010,’’ research report ............................................................ 350 

Fryer, Lisa M., M.S. SLP-CCC, Ridgefield, Connecticut, statement ................... 199 

Gibson, Hon. Bruce, Supervisor, District Two, San Luis Obispo County, 

California, January 29, 2013, letter ................................................................... 301 

Glover, Sylvia, March 6, 2013, letter ..................................................................... 261 

Grandmothers for Peace International, Elk Grove, California, December 17, 

2012, letter ............................................................................................................ 262 

Hill, Abby, C.P.D.T., Newtown, Connecticut, February 27, 2013, letter ............. 189 
Page

V 

Hoosiers Concerned About Gun Violence, Indianapolis, Indiana, January 30, 

2013, letter ............................................................................................................ 263 

International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators et al., 

list .......................................................................................................................... 247 

Ku, Michelle Embree, Newtown, Connecticut, February 27, 2013, letter ........... 204 

Lansdowne, William M., Chief of Police, San Diego, California, January 17, 

2013, letter ............................................................................................................ 300 

Los Angeles Community College District Board of Trustees, Los Angeles, 

California, February 5, 2013, letter .................................................................... 266 

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

Assault Weapons Ban,’’ statement ...................................................................... 271 

McDade, Gina, statement ....................................................................................... 281 

McNabb, Lu Ann Maciulla, March 6, 2013, letter ................................................ 200 

Million Mom March, Martina Leinz, Virginia State President, March 5, 2013, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 201 

MomsRising, MomsRising.org, statement .............................................................. 282 

Mothers United for Reform Now (MOURN), Northern Virginia, statement— 

Redacted ................................................................................................................ 297 

Murphy, Samantha, Roswell, Georgia, letter ........................................................ 285 

Murray, Po, Sandy Hook, Connecticut, February 27, 2013, letter ...................... 207 

National Association of Social Workers (NASW), Washington, DC, January 17, 

2013, letter ............................................................................................................ 286 

National Parent Teacher Association (PTA), Alexandria, Virginia, statement .. 295 

National Parks Conservation Association, Washington, DC, January 24, 2013, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 287 

National Education Association (NEA), Washington, DC, January 23, 2013, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 288 

National Physicians Alliance (NPA), Washington, DC, statement ...................... 289 

Newbrough, Jenny, Raleigh, North Carolina, February 27, 2013, letter ............ 196 

Newtown Action Alliance, February 27, 2013, letter ............................................ 194 

Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence (OCAGV), Toledo, Ohio, January 25, 

2013, letter ............................................................................................................ 291 

Pacchiana, Miranda, Newtown, Connecticut, February 27, 2013, letter ............ 206 

Pathways Faith Community, Walnut Creek, California, January 29, 2013, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 292 

Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), Washington, DC, March 4, 2013, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 293 

Precision Remotes LLC, Richmond, California, statement .................................. 294 

Prince William County Alliance to End Gun Violence, statement ...................... 236 

Pokwatka, Aimee, Sandy Hook, Connecticut, February 27, 2013, letter ............ 190 

Richardson, Barbara, Sandy Hook, Connecticut, statement ................................ 296 

Save the Children Action Network, Inc., Washington, DC, February 8, 2013, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 306 

Society for Advancement of Violence and Injury Research (SAVIR), 

Washington, DC, statement ................................................................................ 307 

Stone, Geoffrey R., et al., ‘‘The Second Amendment,’’ statement ........................ 342 

Tromater, Jim, March 6, 2013, letter ..................................................................... 197 

20 Children, January 19, 2013, letter .................................................................... 211 

United States Conference of Mayors, The, Washington, DC, January 28, 2013, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 325 

United States Conference of Mayors, The, Washington, DC, ‘‘The Sandy Hook 

Principles,’’ statement .......................................................................................... 302 

United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives, ‘‘Firearms Transaction Record Part I—Over-the-Counter,’’ 

form ....................................................................................................................... 335

Ventura County Board of Supervisors, Ventura County, California, January 10, 

2013, letter ............................................................................................................ 331 

Ventura County Board of Supervisors, Ventura County, California, resolution 332 

Violence Policy Center (VPC), ‘‘Assault Weapons and High-Capacity 

Ammunition Magazines,’’ Washington, DC, statement ..................................... 308 

Washington Office on Latin America, Washington, DC, statement .................... 334 

Young, Rob, California police officer,‘‘The Fallacy of Gun Free School Zones,’’ 

statement .............................................................................................................. 338 
Page

VI 

ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION 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 ..................................................................... 368 

Nutter, Hon. Michael A., Mayor of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and President, 

The U.S. Conference of Mayors, Proposal for the Creation of the National 

Commission on Domestic Terrorism, Violence and Crime in America, 

proposal: 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Proposal%20for% 

20the%20Creation%20of%20the%20National%20Commission%20on% 

20Domestic%20Terrorism,%20Violence%20and%20Crime%20in% 

20America.pdf ............................................................................................... 368 
(1) 

THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN OF 2013 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2013 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., 

in Room SH–216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne 

Feinstein, presiding. 

Present: Senators Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin, Whitehouse, 

Klobuchar, Franken, Blumenthal, Grassley, Graham, Cornyn, Lee, 

and Cruz. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I am going to call this hearing to order, and 

I want to begin by welcoming our witnesses and also people who 

are interested in this subject who have taken the time to be here. 

It is very much appreciated. 

The process will be this: I will make a statement. The distinguished Ranking Member, Senator Grassley, will make a statement. We will then go to our first two governmental witnesses and, 

secondly, the second panel. 

We will ask witnesses to confine their remarks as much as they 

can to 5 minutes or so, and on the Committee we will follow the 

early-bird rule, which is first come, we will call on them first to ask 

questions afterwards in 5-minute rounds. So I will begin with my 

statement. 

On December 14th, 20 sets of parents received a call no parent 

ever wants to receive: that they would never see their son or 

daughter again. Earlier that day, a deranged killer, wielding an assault weapon and armed with a high-capacity ammunition magazine, shot his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown 

and unleashed a rapid hail of bullets, killing 20 young children, 

mostly 6-year-olds, and six brave administrators in just a handful 

of minutes that it took for law enforcement to respond to the scene. 

That horrific event shocked our Nation to its roots, and the pictures of these little victims brought tears to the eyes of millions of 

Americans. 

We are holding today’s hearing because the massacre in Newtown was, sadly, not an anomaly. From the 1966 shooting rampage 

at the University of Texas to the Newtown massacre, we have witnessed an increasing number of these mass killings. Since 1982, 

there have been at least 62 mass shootings across the United 

States, and they have been accelerating in recent years. Twenty- 
2 

five of these shootings have occurred since 2006, and seven took 

place in 2012. 

The one common threat running through these mass shootings in 

recent years, from Aurora, Colorado, to Tucson, Arizona, to 

Blacksburg, Virginia, is that the gunmen used a military-style, 

semiautomatic assault weapon or a large-capacity ammunition 

magazine to commit unspeakable terror. 

We have with us today victims of the shootings in Newtown, Aurora, and Virginia Tech. Would all the victims of gun violence in 

this room please stand for a brief moment? 

Thank you very much. We appreciate it. 

We will also have with us law enforcement officers from around 

the country who have traveled here to support our efforts to ban 

these military-style assault weapons, including the chiefs of police 

of Tempe, Arizona; North Ridge, California; Vail, Colorado; AthensClarke County, Georgia; Algonquin, Illinois; Wesley, Massachusetts; Baltimore County, Maryland; Norman and Spencer in Oklahoma; Tualatin, Oregon; Waverly, Pennsylvania; Petersburg, Virginia; the universities of Central Florida, of Washington, of Wisconsin-Madison, and of Dickinson and McDaniel Colleges; and the 

leaders of the State police in New York and Rhode Island. 

Would these and other law enforcement officers here today 

please stand and be recognized? 

Thank you very much. 

We cannot allow the carnage I have described to continue without taking action on what is a serious matter of public policy, and 

that is why I have joined with many of my colleagues, some on this 

Committee—Senators Schumer, Durbin, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, 

Franken, Blumenthal, and Hirono, as well as many others off the 

Committee—to introduce legislation to prohibit the sale, transfer, 

manufacture, and importation of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. 

As the Members of this Committee know, we enacted a ban on 

assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, which I authored in 

the Senate and Senator Schumer sponsored in the House, in 1994. 

Unfortunately, that law had a 10-year sunset, and Congress failed 

to renew it when it expired in 2004. 

Since the ban expired, over 350 people have been killed with assault weapons. Over 450 have been wounded. And the weapons are 

even more lethal today than they were in 2004. Let me give you 

an example, and you can watch this on the screen. 

You can buy what is called a ‘‘bump fire stock’’ legally, which you 

insert into an AR–15 or other assault rifles. This, as I said, is legal. 

It is not cosmetic, and it allows a semiautomatic firearm to be fired 

as quickly as a fully automatic shotgun—excuse me, machine gun, 

which has been banned for decades. I would like to quickly show 

this weapon firing, with the slide in it. 

[Video playing.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. You see this bump fire slide working as it 

mimics a fully automatic weapon. So it has got the versatility of 

low fire rates plus those very high fire rates. And that is legal 

today. 

Since the Newtown massacre, several States, including California—how long is it? That is it? 
3 

Since the Newtown massacre, several States, including California, Delaware, Maryland, and New York, have shown leadership 

in moving to ban assault weapons or strengthen existing bans. 

Even so, the need for a Federal ban has never been greater. 

For instance, California law enforcement tells me that our State’s 

assault weapons ban has been effective in reducing the availability 

of these deadly weapons. But some criminals continue to acquire 

the guns from neighboring States, like Arizona, where they are unregulated. And as Senator Durbin stated at the last hearing, and 

I quote, ‘‘In the last 20 years, 9 percent of the crime guns in the 

city of Chicago could be traced to the State of Mississippi.’’ It is 

clear that we need a national solution. 

Let me describe briefly the key features of this new legislation, 

the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. The bill bans the sale, transfer, 

importation, and manufacture of 157 specifically named semiautomatic assault weapons. It bans any other assault weapon which is 

defined as semiautomatic, that can accept a detachable magazine, 

and has one military characteristic, such as a pistol grip, barrel 

shroud, or folding stock. These features were developed for military 

weapons to make them more effective and efficient at killing people 

in close combat situations. 

The bill prohibits large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than ten rounds. This is a crucial part of 

this legislation. These large magazines and drums make a gun especially dangerous because they allow a shooter to fire 15, 30, even 

100 rounds or more without having to pause to reload. 

In many instances, like the tragic shooting of our colleague, Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, in Tucson, Arizona, it is only when 

the shooter has to change magazines that police or others have the 

chance to take that shooter down. 

The bill also protects the rights of legitimate gun owners. It will 

not affect hunting or sporting firearms. Instead, the bill protects legitimate hunters by specifically excluding over 2,000 specifically 

named by make and model firearms used for hunting or sporting 

purposes. 

Second, the bill will not take away any weapons that anybody 

owns today. Anyone who says otherwise is simply trying to deceive 

you. Instead, the bill grandfathers weapons legally possessed on 

the date of enactment. 

Finally, while the bill permits the continued possession of highcapacity ammunition magazines that are legally possessed at the 

day of enactment, it would ban the future sale or transfer of these 

magazines, including the manufacture, importation, or possession. 

Let me address for a moment the charge that assault weapons 

bans such as this are unconstitutional. The original Federal assault 

weapons ban was challenged repeatedly in Federal court on every 

grounds the opponents could come up with, including the Second 

Amendment, the Ninth Amendment, the Commerce Clause, the 

Due Process Clause, Equal Protection, and being a bill of attainder. 

Each and every time these challenges were rejected and the ban 

was upheld, including by the Fourth, Sixth, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits. 

As we all know, the Supreme Court subsequently recognized the 

individual right to gun ownership in District of Columbia v. Heller. 
4 

However, that decision clearly stated, and I quote, ‘‘The right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.’’ Justice Scalia, 

the author of that opinion, wrote that, ‘‘Dangerous and unusual 

weapons could be prohibited.’’ 

Following Heller, State assault weapons bans in California and 

the District of Columbia have been upheld as consistent with the 

Second Amendment in People v. James and Heller v. District of Columbia, known as ‘‘Heller II.’’ 

The Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 has received the endorsement 

of major law enforcement organizations, including the International 

Association of Chiefs of Police and the Major Cities Chiefs of Police. 

I am also very pleased that this legislation is endorsed by the Conference of Mayors, Mayors for Gun Control, and religious, governmental, civic, and other groups of officials. So, without objection, I 

will place the list of endorsements into the record. 

[The information appears as submissions for the record.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I now yield to the distinguished Ranking 

Member, Senator Grassley, for his opening remarks. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. I ask the Committee’s approval of one insert 

I will have during my remarks. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So ordered. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Madam Chairwoman, thank you for holding 

today’s hearing. The tragedy at Newtown has caused all of us to 

ask what has happened in our society to bring about that tragedy 

and a lot of other like tragedies. 

We are all shocked and horrified by the murder of innocent children, and we obviously sympathize with the victims and their families. And for one of our witnesses today, Mr. Heslin, I want to express my personal deep sympathy for your loss and that of your 

neighbors and the sharing of pain. 

We do not want anything like this to happen again. We are determined to take effective constitutional action to prevent future 

catastrophes. And we can make the world safer—safer for people 

on the streets, safer for children in schools. 

Society in recent decades has become less civil. Violent video 

games have encouraged the killing of innocent people for sport. 

These ought to be of deep concern. 

Mental health services are not always up to par. Some States are 

not adequately supplying records of prohibited persons to the FBI 

instant check system. 

We have heard testimony that the records of hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people in Arizona, people who are not legally 

allowed to own weapons, have not been provided for inclusion in 

that database. 

A search of an incomplete database that fails to conform to existing law does not provide all the safety that the American people 

have a right to expect. Existing prohibitions on gun possessions are 

not enforced as much as they should be. So there is much that can 

be done to enhance safety now that is not being done. 

I respect Senator Feinstein’s views on this issue. I know that 

your views are very sincere, and the interest that you have in ban-
5 

ning assault weapons is a very consistent position you have taken 

over the last 20 years. 

I happen to have a different view. S. 150 bans guns based solely 

on their appearance. Some of those cosmetic features are useful for 

self-defense. Others have nothing to do with the functioning of the 

weapons. As a result, the bill would ban some guns that are less 

powerful, dangerous, and that inflict less severe wounds than others that are exempt. 

Such arbitrary distinctions and the fact that these weapons are 

commonly used for self-defense raise constitutional questions under 

the Second Amendment. The same questions of self-defense arise 

concerning magazines that enable firing more than 10 rounds. 

There are occasions when people think Congress should pass a 

new law. The idea is a particular fix has not been tried before, and 

supporters might think that they have a solution to a problem. 

This is not the case with the assault weapons ban. Congress 

passed such a law in 1994. It was on the books for 10 years. At 

the end of those 10 years, in 2004, University of Pennsylvania researchers under contract to the Justice Department’s National Institute of Justice concluded that they ‘‘cannot clearly credit the ban 

with any of the Nation’s recent drop in gun violence.’’ 

A study of the Centers for Disease Control and the National Research Council also could not demonstrate the effectiveness of the 

ban. 

And just last month, the Deputy Director of the National Institute of Justice wrote that, ‘‘A complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides.’’ 

By the way, this same National Institute of Justice official wrote 

in the same document that because theft and straw purchasers are 

the largest source of crime guns, universal background checks 

would likely shift offenders even more to theft and straw purchases. And he concluded that an effective universal background 

check system depends on ‘‘requiring gun registration.’’ 

The assault weapons ban did not prevent the earlier school 

shooting at Columbine, and I am going to put in the record, as I 

just indicated, an article by Officer Rob Young, ‘‘The Fallacy of 

Gun-Free School Zones.’’ Officer Young as a child survived a school 

shooting in Stockton, California, in which five young students were 

shot and 26 were injured. He sets out in this article his reasoning 

for opposing gun bans as a victim himself. 

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

Senator GRASSLEY. When something has been tried and found 

not to work, we should try different approaches rather than re-enacting that which has not done the job. 

There are vast numbers of gun control laws in our country. 

Criminals do not obey them, but law-abiding citizens do. That tilts 

the scale in favor of criminals who use guns. If gun control laws 

were effective in reducing crime, they would have produced lower 

crime rates by now. 

We should be skeptical about giving the Justice Department 

more gun laws to enforce when the Department is poorly enforcing 

existing laws. The Department’s own data show that under the 

Obama administration, Federal weapons prosecutions have fallen 

to the lowest level in over a decade. In fact, the U.S. Attorney’s Of-
6 

fice for the Northern District of Illinois brought among the lowest 

level of firearms prosecutions despite the surge of gun crimes in 

Chicago. Only 25 Federal firearms cases were brought to that office 

in 2011. 

Nationally, only 1 percent of the people, 62 out of 4,732, who 

were denied guns based on background checks were prosecuted for 

illegally attempting to acquire firearms. That is much too low of a 

rate. 

So let us see what can be done and accomplished by enforcing 

laws on the books before adding new ones of questionable effectiveness. We will legislate in this area, but I think we are going to legislate in an area that deals with the issue of reporting to the database people that are not in there now and by straw purchasing and 

trafficking in firearms and to make sure that we deal with the 

mental health issues that are involved with these tragedies that we 

are talking about today, and a lot of other tragedies that have happened. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator. I appreciate 

it. 

Would the witnesses please stand? If you would affirm the oath 

as I complete its reading. 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. WALSH. I do. 

Chief FLYNN. I do. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. I will introduce the 

two witnesses on this panel. 

The first is United States Attorney John Walsh. He has served 

as United States Attorney for Colorado since August of 2010 after 

he was unanimously confirmed by the Senate. As United States Attorney, he was responsible for supervising and coordinating the 

Federal investigation of the mass shooting at a movie theater in 

Aurora, Colorado. Since becoming U.S. Attorney, Mr. Walsh was— 

before becoming United States Attorney, Mr. Walsh was a member 

of the law firm Hill and Robbins and a partner in the law firm Holland and Hart. Earlier in his career, he served as chief of the Major 

Frauds Section of the United States Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles, supervising 35 Assistant U.S. Attorneys prosecuting white-collar offenses. 

I will also introduce at this time Chief Edward Flynn. Chief 

Flynn has a long career of leadership in public safety. He has been 

the chief of the Milwaukee Police Department since 2008 where he 

commands an agency of 2,000 sworn officers and 700 civilians. Previously, he served as Secretary of Public Safety in Massachusetts 

under Governor Mitt Romney, overseeing the Massachusetts State 

Police, the Department of Corrections, and Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency. He has also served as chief of police 

in Springfield, Braintree, and Chelsea, Massachusetts, and in Arlington, Virginia. Flynn is a member of the Police Executive Research Forum, serves on the executive committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and is a member of Harvard Kennedy School Executive Session on Policing, among other 

positions. 
7 

If the two of you will go ahead, please, and the degree to which 

you can keep the remarks to 5 minutes so there is an opportunity 

for questioning would be appreciated. 

Could you activate your mic? There is a button right there, and 

pull it up as close as you can. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN F. WALSH, U.S. ATTORNEY, DISTRICT 

OF COLORADO, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DENVER, 

COLORADO 

Mr. WALSH. Thank you. Thank you. 

Madam Chairman, Members of the Judiciary Committee, it is a 

privilege to present the views of the Department of Justice on the 

need to protect the American public by limiting access to dangerous 

military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. 

Reasonable limitations on these weapons are supported by a majority of Americans, and now more than ever. Although the Department does not yet have a position on any particular legislative proposal in this area, we are confident that the ban can be implemented in a way that protects the public without interfering with 

the constitutional rights of law-abiding American citizens. 

On behalf of the Department of Justice, I want to thank you, 

Senator Feinstein, for your tireless efforts over the years to enact 

legislation to address the plague of gun violence in our country. 

Now, Colorado has a history steeped in frontier traditions of gun 

ownership and respect for the Second Amendment. But at the same 

time, Coloradans have witnessed gun tragedies on a scale that 

frankly we could never have imagined. Coloradans have been profoundly shaken by the senseless mass shootings at Columbine in 

1999 and the most recent Aurora theater shooting in 2012, as well 

as the chilling events in Tucson, Newtown, and in other communities all around the United States. These events remind us that 

individuals who are intent on inflicting mass casualties have ready 

access to the tools that they need to inflict maximum damage in 

a matter of moments, even seconds. 

Military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that 

hold 20, 30, or, in the case of the Aurora shooting, 100 rounds of 

ammunition are both lawful at the Federal level and widely available. These weapons are not necessary for sporting or self-defense 

purposes and are properly subject to regulation, reasonable regulation, under the Second Amendment. 

As a long-time Federal prosecutor and now sitting U.S. Attorney, 

I share the view of most law enforcement professionals that shutting off the flow of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines is a top public safety priority. Of course, it has to 

be coupled with other sensible measures as well: continued aggressive enforcement of the existing firearms laws, new laws to prohibit 

particularly firearms trafficking, and to require universal background checks on private firearms transfers, and enhanced background checks to identify people who are properly prohibited from 

possessing weapons, such as people with mental illnesses or those 

with felony or domestic violence convictions. 

The types of weapons that the Department believes should be 

banned include firearms that were originally designed to be military implements, crafted to be as effective as possible in killing 
8 

human beings. The power, rate of fire, and the efficiency of these 

firearms is the reason that they have become weapons of choice for 

mass shooters, criminal gangs, and drug-trafficking organizations. 

We also must eliminate or limit the ability of shooters to inflict 

massive numbers of fatalities in a matter of minutes through the 

use of high-capacity magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. 

A high-capacity magazine can turn any weapon into a tool of mass 

violence, even a handgun. In fact, the mass shootings at Virginia 

Tech; at Tucson, Arizona; Oak Creek, Wisconsin; and at Fort Hood, 

Texas, all involved handguns using magazines with more than 10 

rounds. 

High-capacity magazines are not required for defending one’s 

home. They are not required for hunting or sport shooting. Their 

purpose is to enable shooters to inflict maximum damage on 

human beings. Frankly, forcing such a person to stop and reload 

can save lives, as was the case in Tucson, Arizona, when a 30- 

round magazine ran out and the shooter had to reload, whereupon 

he was tackled. 

As the United States Attorney for Colorado, I go to bed every 

night in these months since July 2012 wondering whether I will be 

awakened by another pre-dawn call like the one I received on July 

20th of last year, which notified me of the horrifying mass shooting 

in Aurora; or whether I will receive calls like those I have since received from other U.S. Attorneys around the country confronting 

the same sort of horror in their own home State. 

I am proud to serve as the United States Attorney for Colorado, 

the State I grew up in. Colorado is a State that proudly honors 

American traditions, very much including the ownership and use of 

firearms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution. I share those values. But I also share the view of most law 

enforcement professionals and ordinary Americans that reasonable 

proposals to restrict the manufacture, importation, and sale of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are needed 

to protect the American people. 

I urge this Committee to act. Thank you very much. 

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

for the record.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Walsh. 

Chief Flynn. 

STATEMENT OF EDWARD A. FLYNN, CHIEF, MILWAUKEE 

POLICE DEPARTMENT, MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN 

Chief FLYNN. Members of this Committee, thank you very much 

for the opportunity to testify to you today. 

The Police Executive Research Forum, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Major Cities Chiefs Association all 

have legislative proposals regarding firearms violence generally 

and assault weapons specifically. As an active member of each of 

these organizations, I support the collective wisdom of the chief law 

enforcement executives in the country. 

I have been a police officer for over 40 years, starting as a patrolman in Jersey City. I have had the opportunity to lead law enforcement agencies in three States for the past 25 years. Among the 

most difficult challenges I continue to face is the firearms violence 
9 

that occurs in our neighborhoods, exacerbated by the use of highcapacity magazines and assault weapons. 

Assault weapons are not built for sportsmen. Assault weapons 

are built to inflict violence against humans. Their military characteristics are not simply cosmetic in nature. These weapons are designed for combat. They are designed to quickly, easily, and efficiently cause lethal wounds to human beings. 

In 2012, Milwaukee police officers investigated 435 non-fatal 

shootings. We confirmed that rifles were used in 185 crimes in the 

last year. And since 2010, we have recovered 159 assault rifles 

from the streets of Milwaukee. 

In 2011, firearms were the number one cause of death for police 

officers killed in the line of duty. In less than 3 years, seven of my 

officers were shot with assault rifles and/or semiautomatic pistols. 

In addition to law enforcement officers, numerous innocent Milwaukee citizens were injured or killed by assault weapons and 

high-capacity firearms. 

While the mass murders we hear about are horrifying enough, 

we must recognize that our Nation’s cities are enduring a slow-motion mass murder every single year. 

On July 4, 2008, in the city of Milwaukee, three suspects fired 

from gangways into a crowd of 100 people. Two of the suspects 

fired 27 shots from high-caliber assault rifles, leaving four innocent 

people dead in the street. 

On July 7, 2010, a 12-year-old child was playing in front of her 

house when a mass gunman approached and fired ten shots from 

a semiautomatic pistol at the residence, striking the child three 

times. 

And on New Year’s Eve, just a few weeks ago, criminals fired 

five high-caliber rounds into a duplex. The rounds penetrated interior walls, furniture, and a 7-year-old child. Five children between 

the ages of 3 months and 9 years were in the building. 

The notion that innocent, law-abiding citizens will use an assault 

weapon or high-capacity firearm to protect themselves is not our 

experience. We know that the victims and suspects in homicides in 

Milwaukee are typically career criminals. Ninety-seven percent of 

our suspects and 82 percent of our victims have criminal histories. 

Furthermore, our experience indicates that the vast majority of our 

home invasion victims are drug dealers. They do not need semiautomatic rifles to protect themselves. 

Now, the Second Amendment, like every constitutional right, is 

subject to reasonable restrictions and regulation. In 2008, the Supreme Court rules the Second Amendment protects an individual’s 

right to possess a firearm, but noted that, like most rights, the 

right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. 

Now, our system of rights is designed to protect and preserve individual rights and the rights of communities. This is not an impossible feat. These are not mutually exclusive rights. We have an obligation to protect both. 

This bill does not take guns out of the hands of Americans. It 

does not strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights. In 

fact, if we want to be intellectually honest, the issues raised here 

have more to do with commerce than they do with the Second 

Amendment. 
10 

A lot of people make a lot of money selling firearms and ammunition. Now, this is not inherently a bad thing, but it can tempt us 

to search for and grasp onto false logic. 

The bill being discussed here today places reasonable restrictions 

on future sales of certain types of firearms and magazines. It recognizes the distinction between hunting rifles and assault weapons. 

It allows for the sale or transfer of grandfathered weapons after a 

common-sense background check is completed. It promotes public 

safety. It protects the Second Amendment. It prevents the preventable. 

It is time for Congress to pick a side. This time I hope it is law 

enforcement’s. 

[The prepared statement of Chief Flynn appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Chief. 

For questions, I will have one question and then move on, and 

this question is on Columbine, and I would like to ask it of the 

United States Attorney present here today. 

Two students were murdered, Mr. Walsh, as you know—excuse 

me. Two students murdered 13 people and injured 21. The gunmen 

used a TEC–9 assault pistol and several large-capacity magazines, 

all of which would be banned by this legislation. 

The National Rifle Association has said the solution is to have 

armed security guards at every school. As you may know, there 

were two armed deputy sheriffs at Columbine. Did they succeed in 

stopping the tragedy? Did they try? And what happened? 

Mr. WALSH. Senator, with respect to Columbine, if I may, obviously the armed guards who were present that day were not able 

to prevent the terrible tragedy that took place. I would note that 

the President’s proposal, his package of important gun control and 

gun violence control initiatives, does include a portion that gives 

local school boards the option, and hopefully the funding, to have 

community resource officers present in the schools. That is something that individual schools may choose. 

However, I think it is fair to say that our experience has been 

that the presence of armed guards in schools is not sufficient to 

prevent the kind of horrors that we have seen particularly in the 

last year. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

Chief, would you comment on that as well, please? 

Chief FLYNN. Well, I think certainly having armed security 

present in any environment offers the potential for protection. But 

there are no guarantees, and the great challenge certainly for cities 

like Milwaukee—we are the fourth poorest city in the country. We 

have a hard enough time keeping the police department at the 

strength it is in. I do not know who is going to pay for all of these 

armed guards. You know, perhaps somebody will come up with a 

grant program to do it. But it is an extraordinary cost, and it is 

no guarantee. 

The fact of the matter is I have got officers out on the streets 

of that city every day trying to prevent violence. If they are around 

the wrong corner, it can break out. If they are distracted or doing 

something else, it can break out. If I have got an armed guard in 

a school breaking up a fistfight between two sophomores, he may 
11 

not be at his post. Certainly, you know, every piece of security we 

engage in can be helpful, but it is foolish to think that only security 

is what we need. 

The great challenge here is can we prevent these tragedies. Having an armed guard is a way of fighting off a potential assault. But 

it is not an act of prevention. An act of prevention is making it difficult for people to outgun the police. An act of prevention is making it difficult for people to take military-style assault weapons into 

schools. That should not be easy. It is too easy now. All right? Any 

amount of armed guards in that school still might be, you know, 

outgunned by a committed offender armed with an assault rifle. 

So, you know, there is no single solution to any complicated problem. Security is part of a solution. But if we ignore doing something about the weapons and implements that enable people to 

slaughter folks 20 at a time, then we are not dealing with the root 

of the problem. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Chief. 

Senator Grassley. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you very much, each of you, for your 

testimony. I am going to start with Mr. Walsh. 

The last U.S. Attorney to testify before the Constitution Subcommittee, Mr. Heaphy, stated that the Department supported assault weapon legislation ‘‘and will work hard to ensure that whatever comes out, if one comes out, is unconstitutional.’’ 

The Committee is set to mark up a bill tomorrow. What has the 

Department done in the interim to work with Senator Feinstein to 

ensure that legislation is constitutional? And has the Department 

conducted any formal review of the constitutionality of the bill? 

Mr. WALSH. Senator, if I could start off—thank you for the question. If I may start off by just saying that the Department strongly 

supports the goals of Senator Feinstein’s bill to enact an assault 

weapons ban as well as a ban on high-capacity magazines, and that 

we are confident that both an assault weapons ban and a high-capacity magazine ban can be crafted that is effective and also complies with the Second Amendment. 

As I sit here today, I know that there have been communications 

back and forth with staff. We have certainly within the Department technical firearms experts who can assist in working through 

the provisions. But I am not aware of a formal opinion, for example, as to the constitutionality of the proposal that is before the 

Committee at the present time. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Okay. A second question to you. When Mr. 

Heaphy testified before the Subcommittee, he stated that he was 

‘‘not familiar enough with the Heller opinion to really give you an 

opinion on’’ what level of scrutiny is to be applied to address 

whether an assault weapon ban is constitutional. So I hope you are 

more prepared than he was. So unlike Mr. Heaphy, have you actually read Heller? Can you tell us what level of constitutional scrutiny that the most important Supreme Court decision would apply 

to an assault weapon ban? 

Mr. WALSH. First of all, Senator, I have read the Heller opinion. 

I want to be careful in indicating, as I did a moment ago, that the 

Department has not issued a formal opinion specifically on the con-
12 

stitutionality of the particular legislation that is before the Committee. 

Having said that, I think the important thing to keep in mind 

and for the Committee to be keeping in mind with respect to the 

constitutionality of an assault weapons ban is the three-part 

threshold that Justice Scalia in the Heller opinion articulated: 

whether a weapon is in common use at the time the legislation is 

introduced; whether the weapon is a dangerous and unusual weapon of the kind that has traditionally been regulated and accepted; 

and then, finally, whether or not the legislation under consideration in some manner impacts what is really the core of the Second 

Amendment right, and that is the self-defense right. 

If you look at each of those three different thresholds, so to 

speak, I think it is fair to say—and I know that the administration 

is confident—that an assault weapons ban can be crafted that successfully and appropriately protects American citizens’ Second 

Amendment right. That is something that I am certain that we will 

continue to work with the Committee and with Senator Feinstein 

in the course of this, and I have great confidence that we can come 

up with effective bans that do not infringe on those rights. 

Senator GRASSLEY. But to this point, you do not know whether 

the legislation meets that test? 

Mr. WALSH. I think we are confident that the legislation is headed in the right direction and that we are able—that we will be able 

to craft specific legislation that does comply. And I will tell you 

that I am certain that the President would not sign a bill that he 

did not believe was in accordance with the Second Amendment. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Is an AR–15 in common use? And there are 

over 4 million of them in use today. 

Mr. WALSH. Well, certainly there are quite a few AR–15s in use 

today. There is no question about that. 

On the flip side if you take a look at the percentage of AR–15s 

out of the total number of guns owned by Americans, I think you 

could have a discussion about whether or not an AR–15 is really 

a common weapon these days. So that is an issue that I think will 

have to be discussed down the road. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Well, then, let us look at the AR–15 from another standpoint. Is it dangerous and unusual? 

Mr. WALSH. Well, I think it is certainly dangerous, and I think 

that the point of today’s hearing and really the thrust and concern 

of the Department’s position on this subject is that an AR–15 is a 

very dangerous weapon. 

Senator GRASSLEY. On another point dealing with level of scrutiny, how about that level of scrutiny that would apply to a limitation on magazine capacity? 

Mr. WALSH. Well, the same issue arises, the same three-part 

test. If I could focus on the dangerous and unusual component first, 

when you see magazines of the size that we have seen in so many 

mass shootings—and I will just use the one that is closest to my 

experience, unfortunately, which is the 100-round magazine that 

was used in Aurora in July of 2012. It is difficult to see how anyone 

could conclude that that is not a dangerous device when coupled, 

in particular when coupled with an assault weapon like an AR–15. 

Regrettably, what we saw in Aurora—and I want to be careful 
13 

about this and only speak to what is in the public record because 

there is a pending criminal prosecution. What we saw in Aurora 

was that in the very short period of time in which the shooter was 

shooting, 12 people died. Of those 12 people, 10 died from wounds 

inflicted by the assault weapon. One died as a result of shotgun 

wounds, and one was hit by both. 

The dangerousness of a high-capacity clip, a 100-round clip, I 

think is hard to deny. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Durbin. 

Senator DURBIN. Thanks, Madam Chairman. Let me start my 

statement and question by thanking you. You have been under a 

lot of heat for your leadership on this issue for a long, long time, 

and the fact that we have endured so many tragedies—Newtown 

being the most recent—is an indication that your early inclination 

toward restricting and regulating the use of these weapons was 

certainly necessary to keep America safe. I am glad you have continued in that effort. 

Let me address, Mr. Walsh, for a moment some questions from 

Senator Grassley because we did have a hearing before the Constitution Subcommittee. It is clear in the Heller decision and Heller 

II that what the Court found to be the core purpose, core lawful 

purpose of the Second Amendment was individual self-defense. So 

restrictions in Heller II on high-capacity magazines and assault 

weapons, the court of appeals held, do not effectively disarm individuals or substantially affect their ability to defend themselves. 

The Second Amendment, like the First Amendment, does not 

prevent lawmakers from enacting reasonable regulations that do 

not seriously interfere with the core right guaranteed by the Constitution. 

So it comes to this point, Mr. Walsh: That man stood in that theater in Aurora, Colorado, with a magazine with a capacity of 100 

rounds, using this assault-style weapon to try to kill as many people as possible. Fortunately, it jammed, as I understand it, which 

stopped him from his evil purpose, at least in its entirety. 

So I guess the question which Senator Grassley raises is whether 

or not there is a constitutionally protected right under the Second 

Amendment for someone to own and use a gun with that capacity 

to kill. What is your conclusion? 

Mr. WALSH. Well, Senator, if I may, I think one of the things 

that the Department has been very careful about in crafting proposals on this subject is to ensure that we are taking into account 

really the seminal decisions in Heller and McDonald by the Supreme Court, finding that the Second Amendment is, in fact, an individual right. 

But in addressing those two cases and looking at the scope of the 

protections afforded by the Second Amendment, there clearly is 

room for reasonable regulation, particularly of dangerous and unusual weapons. And I think it is fair to say that the Department 

believes strongly that limitations on high-capacity magazines, anything—the Department’s position is anything over 10 rounds, 

would be constitutional based on that analysis. 
14 

Senator DURBIN. So let me ask you the second part of this. We 

have gone through tragedy after tragedy in the city of Chicago with 

gun violence, and I have met with so many families—I mean, I cannot tell you how many—who have lost innocent children to gun violence, the Hadiya Pendleton family being the most recent. But 

there have been some sense it just continues, and it really troubles 

me—in fact, it angers me—when these are dismissed as a failure 

of law enforcement. 

The argument has been made even in this hearing: There are 

adequate laws on the books. Well, why do you not just enforce the 

laws? These things would not happen. 

Take, for example, the issue of straw purchasing. How many 

Federal prosecutions there were of alleged straw purchasers really 

misses the point. How many prosecutions were there, both State, 

local, and Federal? And it turns out that in many instances Federal 

prosecutors are turning to State prosecutors and saying you have 

a better chance to convict at a State level with a more meaningful 

penalty. 

So let me bring that right home to you, to the U.S. Attorney’s 

Office. When you are faced with a potential prosecution for obvious 

straw purchasers, what calculations go through your mind about 

whether to pursue that prosecution? 

Mr. WALSH. Well, Senator, if I may, I would like to emphasize 

something that you commented on a moment ago, and that is, our 

work has to be in close cooperation with State and local police and 

State and local prosecutors as well. We really need to work as a 

team. We have to come at the gun violence problem as a combined 

group, and that gives us opportunities in many circumstances to 

choose, in cooperation with a State district attorney and a U.S. Attorney, to decide where the charges are best brought and where the 

highest likelihood of a conviction and a meaningful sentence may 

be found. 

So, for example, in the spring of 2011, in Aurora, by coincidence, 

there was a spate of officer-involved shootings, and there was great 

concern in Colorado and in the Denver metropolitan area that we 

were about to embark on a summer of violence, so to speak. So in 

conjunction with Chief Oates of Aurora, Chief White in Denver, 

and other chiefs in the metropolitan area, we convened a group of 

law enforcement, State and Federal law enforcement folks, ATF included, and did a summer initiative aimed at aggressively and 

proactively reaching out and arresting felons and other criminals 

who were either attempting to get guns or actually buying them. 

At the end of that effort over the course of a summer, there were 

a total of 85 criminal prosecutions and convictions, and they were 

a mix. The majority were Federal prosecutions, but there were a 

substantial number that we took stateside, so to speak, because 

that was the most effective way to approach the case in a particular area. 

So to go to your question about trafficking, part of the difficulty 

that we have and part of the reason that we have asked the Committee to consider and the President has proposed a stronger guntrafficking law is that currently we are basically trying to prosecute those cases under a false statement theory. It is 18 U.S. Code 

922(a)(6). Those cases are difficult, and many times a judge or a 
15 

jury may see that kind of a prosecution as more of a paperwork violation rather than something that really implicates public safety. 

Unfortunately, for those reasons, we need to assess—and the line 

prosecutors, the career prosecutors who are making these decisions, 

often say, ‘‘We need to find some other way to take this particular 

bad actor off the street.’’ 

Senator DURBIN. Let me just say—in conclusion, Madam Chair— 

yours is the second testimony under oath within the last several 

weeks that has said exactly the same thing, that this is a shared 

responsibility of prosecution. And I wish those who were criticizing 

what is going on in many States and jurisdictions across the country would at least take notice of the fact that there are prosecution 

efforts underway that are not assisted by the fact that many of our 

laws at the Federal level are just too weak when it comes to this 

subject. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Senator Durbin. 

Senator Graham. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I appreciate you having this hearing. 

The President urged the Congress to vote on matters like this, 

and I could not agree more. I think we should take legislation like 

this up and get on record and make our respective cases. And there 

is no doubt that Senator Feinstein has longly held views on this 

and very sincere. And to the victims of all these shootings, I do not 

know what to say other than I am sorry, and we will have a discussion about this topic in light of the world as it is rather than the 

world we would like it to be. 

How many crimes are committed with rifles in terms of homicide 

in the United States? What percentage of all homicides are committed by rifles? Do either one of you know? 

Mr. WALSH. Senator, I know that it is a small fraction of—— 

Senator GRAHAM. In 2011, it was 2.5 percent of U.S. homicides 

were committed by a rifle of any type. Twice as many people were 

killed with bare hands. 

Now, how many prosecutions have you taken upon yourself or 

how many prosecutions have you taken up for failing a background 

check since you have been U.S. Attorney? 

Mr. WALSH. Senator, off the top of my head, I am not aware of 

any that we have done in the District of Colorado. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. Well, what I want to do is put into the 

record the Federal background check form that says up top you are 

subject to prosecution if you provide false information. 

How many cases have you referred to State prosecutions? 

Mr. WALSH. On that particular—— 

Senator GRAHAM. For failing a background check. 

Mr. WALSH. Senator, I do not have a specific number on that, but 

if I may, I do think it is important to recognize where our focus 

is. Our focus is on prosecuting criminal—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Because, clearly, your focus is not on prosecuting people who fail background checks. Would you agree with 

that? 

Mr. WALSH. Our focus is on—— 
16 

Senator GRAHAM. If you have not done any, how could you not 

disagree with that? 

Mr. WALSH. I do not disagree with it, Senator. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. 

Mr. WALSH. Our focus is on—— 

Senator GRAHAM. And the point is if we are going to expand 

background checks, it looks to me like we ought to start enforcing 

the law that is on the books, because when almost 80,000 people 

fail a background check and 44 people are prosecuted, what kind 

of deterrent is that? I mean, the law obviously is not seen as that 

important. If it is such an important issue, why are we not prosecuting people who fail a background check? And there are 15 

questions there. They are not hard to understand if you are filling 

out the form. 

So I am a bit frustrated that we say one thing, how important 

it is, but in the real world we absolutely do nothing to enforce the 

laws on the books. 

Now, let us talk—— 

Chief FLYNN. Just for the record, from my point of view, Senator, 

the purpose of the background check—— 

Senator GRAHAM. How many cases have you made? How many 

cases—— 

Chief FLYNN. You know what? It does not matter. It is a paper 

thing. I want to—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Well—— 

Chief FLYNN. I want to stop 76—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Can I ask the questions? 

Chief FLYNN. I want to finish the answer. 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, no. I—— 

Chief FLYNN. I want to stop 76,000 people from buying guns illegally. That is what a background check does. 

Senator GRAHAM. How many AR–15s are legally—— 

Chief FLYNN. If you think we are going to do paperwork prosecutions—— 

Senator GRAHAM [continuing]. Owned—— 

[Applause.] 

Chief FLYNN. You are—— 

[Applause.] 

Senator GRAHAM. How many—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. All right. If you—— 

Senator GRAHAM. How many cases have—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Senator, Senator, if you would withhold just 

for a moment. 

Senator GRAHAM. Yes. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Please. 

Senator GRAHAM. That is fine. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. No expressions one way or another, and let 

us keep this civil. Senator Graham and I just got recognized for civility, so I know he will keep it civil. 

Senator GRAHAM. But being civil and being firm in your convictions are not inconsistent, are they? I admire what you do. I think 

every cop deserves everything that comes their way and then some, 

because it is a dangerous job. Has your budget gone down in the 

last year? 
17 

Chief FLYNN. It has been level funded by the city at great expense with great difficulty. 

Senator GRAHAM. In the next decade, do you expect more or less 

money given the budget situation? 

Chief FLYNN. Probably less. 

Senator GRAHAM. Yes, I think that is just a reality. So I want 

Americans to know that what this police chief is facing almost 

every other police chief is facing, less money, so you may have to 

defend yourself. 

But back to the question. How many cases have you made for 

somebody violating a background check? 

Chief FLYNN. We do not make those cases, Senator. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. All right. 

Chief FLYNN. We have priorities. 

Senator GRAHAM. Have you ever—— 

Chief FLYNN. We make gun cases. We make 2,000 gun cases a 

year, Senator. 

Senator GRAHAM. How many—— 

Chief FLYNN. That is our priority. We are not in a paper chase. 

Senator GRAHAM. How many cases—— 

Chief FLYNN. We are trying to prevent the wrong people buying 

guns. That is why we do background checks. If you think I am 

going to do a paper chase, then you think I am going to misuse my 

resources. 

Senator GRAHAM. I am just trying to ask you a question about 

how the law works today. He has made no cases. You have made 

no cases because you say it is really not within your bailiwick. How 

many cases have you had turned over from the U.S. Attorney to 

prosecute at the State level that you know of? 

Chief FLYNN. We all know the answer to these questions, Senator. They are self-answering. We do not chase paper. We chase 

armed criminals. 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, I guess the point is, if we do not want 

the wrong people to own guns, which we all agree, then the one 

way to do that is to take the system that is supposed to distinguish 

between the person who should and should not and enforce it. I 

own an AR–15. I passed the background check. Is it not really 

about who has the gun sometimes more than the gun itself? And 

I guess the point I am trying to make, if there are 4 million AR– 

15s in this country owned by people like me, I think the argument 

would be that it is in common use. And you may not understand 

why I want to own an AR–15, and I may not understand what 

movies you want to watch. But we are talking about trying to solve 

a problem that has as its central core that the people who are committing these crimes should never have any gun or one bullet. That 

is what we all agree on. And the best way to prevent crazy people, 

mentally unstable people from getting a weapon is to identify them 

somehow before they murder somebody, they steal it, or they try 

to buy one. 

Now, I will end on this note. In South Carolina—I have got parents from Ashley Hall here, that a lady went into Ashley Hall with 

a .22 automatic pistol, semiautomatic pistol—and thank God the 

gun did not function—who passed a background check at the Federal level, who was adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity of 
18 

trying to kill the President of the United States. So before I am 

told by my colleagues on the other side and the two witnesses we 

need to change our laws, I would argue that the law is fundamentally broken when almost no one gets prosecuted. And if you can 

pass a background check having been adjudicated mentally insane 

by a Federal court, I think the place we should start is fixing the 

laws we have rather than expanding them and creating a false 

sense of security. 

Thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Senator Graham. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you 

very much for your longstanding and passionate commitment on 

this issue, a passionate commitment that is very well founded in 

your own experience. 

I would supplement what my friend Senator Graham said by 

suggesting that we can both clean up and improve the enforcement 

of the existing laws and expand background checks and take the 

necessary steps to make sure that truly dangerous and unusual 

weapons stay out of the hands of those who intend to do terrible 

harm to their fellow citizens. 

And in the context of that, this is our second hearing on this subject, and in the last hearing, an array of witnesses from both sides 

appeared, and I was struck that one of the Republican witnesses 

who was testifying contrary to gun legislation conceded that these 

large-capacity magazines do not fall within the Heller description. 

And so I think we are on very safe ground constitutionally addressing the high-capacity magazines. 

I think it is important that people understand what a difference 

it makes when somebody undertakes to commit one of these terrible crimes and they have the additional capacity for evil and for 

harm as a result of the additional capacity in those magazines. 

Now, Mr. Walsh, you have obviously looked very closely at the 

facts of what took place in Aurora. I suspect you have also looked 

at the facts of some of the cases that did not occur in your jurisdiction. 

To the extent that you can do so, while staying within the public 

record and not getting into grand jury Rule 6(e) or other information that is not public yet, could you describe for us the events that 

took place in that movie theater in Aurora and in light of the highcapacity magazine that the shooter had and what you think might 

have been different had that weapon not existed in your case? And 

if you have information to share about other cases, if you could discuss them as well. 

Mr. WALSH. Senator, I want to touch on three different instances 

of mass shooting where I think a high-capacity magazine had tragic consequences. I do need to be careful in discussing the Aurora 

theater shooting, and so I am going to be very specific. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We understand that. You have restrictions 

that arise with your duties, and I appreciate that. 

Mr. WALSH. In the Aurora theater shooting, a matter of public 

record is that the shooting that resulted in 12 dead and 58 wounded took place within the scope of 90 seconds. The fact that there 
19 

were high-capacity magazines in play during that time was obviously material. 

In the Newtown shooting, the information I have is that all of 

the shooting took place in less than 4 minutes. Again, in that case, 

high-capacity magazines were used. 

In the Tucson, Arizona, shooting of 2 years ago, or 2 years and 

some, there were high-capacity magazines, and it was after a 30- 

round magazine was expended by the shooter that really, frankly, 

heroic bystanders were able to tackle him and stop the shooting. 

You have to wonder if he had only had a 10-round clip whether 

lives would have been saved. There is certainly evidence in that situation to suggest lives would have been saved. 

These events happened very quickly. There is no way that we are 

going to prevent people from engaging in these sorts of attacks 

completely. We do not have a crystal ball that enables us to see 

into the mind of an individual who might be bent on this kind of 

horror. 

What we can do and what I think this legislation helps us do by 

limiting and banning high-capacity magazines is we can limit the 

damage and the tragedy and the horrific casualties that those people cause when they undertake these sorts of actions. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And my final question: When you consider 

the amount of damage that was done in these very, very narrow 

time frames—90 seconds or 4 minutes—how realistic do you believe 

that adding armed guards to schools is at responding to and intervening in such a sudden and deadly attack? 

Mr. WALSH. Senator, I do not want to rule out the potential 

value that a particular local school board might put on having an 

armed guard. There are certainly situations where you can imagine 

it being of assistance. It is hard to see, though, that armed guards 

are going to solve this problem if they are confronting someone 

with the sort of armaments that so tragically we saw both in Aurora and also in Newtown. And it is worth mentioning, too, the 

schools are maybe the most horrible example of where mass shootings take place, but they are not the only places. And unless we 

are going to have armed guards in every—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. As we know all too well. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. WALSH. Thank you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Let me just read the list. According to our rules—I was just debating them with the staff—it is Senators Cornyn, Klobuchar, 

Cruz, Franken, Lee, and Blumenthal. And I know Senator 

Blumenthal was actually the first in the room, but the staff is telling me that that is not early bird. Early bird is you have to be here 

at the same time the testimony begins. So I make that apology to 

you. I am aware—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. No apology necessary, Madam Chairman. 

I am here for the duration. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Good. Thank you. 

Senator Cornyn, you are up next. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you to 

the witnesses. And I know the families who have been affected by 
20 

gun violence have our sympathy and our desire to find some way 

to ameliorate or mitigate violence in our society. But I think we are 

actually interested in what would work. 

First of all, Mr. Walsh, we appreciate your service as U.S. Attorney, and you are here today speaking on behalf of the Department 

of Justice. 

Mr. WALSH. That is correct. 

Senator CORNYN. Would you define what an assault weapon is? 

Mr. WALSH. From the point of view of the Department, I think 

there are a couple of critical considerations. I realize, of course, 

that the legislation includes a very elaborate definition of particular aspects of assault weapons which would qualify them for an 

assault weapons ban, and I do not mean to comment on those specifically. I do want to focus on some of the attributes that I think 

are most important and make these weapons so dangerous. 

First of all, frequently we are talking about a weapon—or generally we are talking about a weapon that is a rifle and, therefore, 

has a high muzzle velocity capable of doing an enormous amount 

of damage when the round hits a victim. 

Secondly, they are capable of very high rates of fire. 

And, third, they are also capable of accepting a very high capacity magazine. 

There are other features, obviously, that I know are covered in 

the bill, for example, a pistol grip, a threaded barrel. I believe, in 

fact, a grenade launcher attachment is included. Those are all 

things that are not merely cosmetic but, in fact, have some effect 

on the lethality of a weapon. But the three points that I just made 

to you as to the things that really make these weapons the most 

dangerous are I think where the Department’s concerns lie. 

Senator CORNYN. And you are aware of the fact that under this 

legislation, were it to pass, none of the current so-called assault 

weapons that are in people’s possession would be affected, correct? 

Mr. WALSH. That is correct. There is no confiscation of weapons 

or anything of that sort contemplated by anyone. 

Senator CORNYN. Do you have any idea how many there are in 

the possession of law-abiding Americans? 

Mr. WALSH. I have seen various estimates. The number that was 

being discussed in this hearing earlier today was 4 million. I have 

seen 3.5 million, in that range. 

Senator CORNYN. So there would be 3.5 or 4 million of these 

weapons that would be prohibited prospectively under this legislation that would still be in the possession of American citizens? 

Mr. WALSH. That is correct, Senator. Now, you know, the fact 

that we cannot completely address this issue immediately does not 

mean that over time a ban on new weapons coming into the stream 

of commerce is not going to have the effect of improving the safety 

of the American people. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, I know there is a lot of debate within the 

Department of Justice whether the previous assault weapons ban 

had any impact whatsoever. As a matter of fact, there are some— 

I will just quote from part of the 1997 DOJ study. It said, ‘‘The evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any 

meaningful effect, i.e., that the effect was different from zero.’’ 
21 

So if we are actually interested in what is going to solve the 

problem of gun violence in America, I think we would want to do 

something that was not tokenism or symbolic. We would want to 

try to figure out how to actually solve the problem, if we can. 

Could you identify any of the recent tragedies that we have seen, 

whether it is Aurora or Tucson or Newtown, where those tragedies 

would have been averted if this legislation had been in effect? 

Mr. WALSH. Senator, I cannot tell you that they would have been 

100 percent totally averted. I can tell you with some confidence 

that the casualty levels would have been lower if the perpetrators 

did not have the kind of high-capacity magazines that they possessed and the kind of assault weapons that in a number of these 

cases were used. 

But if I may go back to your earlier point, Senator, on the question really of the effectiveness of the 1994 assault weapons ban, 

part of the difficulty there is that the ban has not been adequately 

studied, and I think the conclusions that you were referring to, 

which I think accurately depict some of the more recent conclusions, are as a result of not having the data necessary to fully analyze the results. 

There were a couple things that came out that I think are very 

important and which would strongly support a new assault weapons ban. One is—— 

Senator CORNYN. My time is just about out. If you will permit 

me—— 

Mr. WALSH. I apologize. 

Senator CORNYN. And hopefully we will continue the conversation. 

Mr. WALSH. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator CORNYN. So here is the quandary that I find myself in. 

The Department of Justice’s record of actually enforcing current 

gun laws, you will forgive my saying, is abysmal. For example, people who lie on background checks are not being investigated or 

prosecuted with any sort of uniformity or reliability. As a matter 

of fact, out of 76,000 denied background checks the FBI referred to 

the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, a verdict or plea was 

reached in 13 cases. Then the 2008 law that Congress passed, 

which encouraged the States to send to the Federal Government 

adjudicated mentally ill persons that could be included on the background check, that has been a very spotty record of compliance by 

the States. So we have people who have been adjudicated mentally 

ill who will not show up on a background check because that 2008 

law has not been adequately enforced. 

And then there is this, and then I will quit, Madam Chair: We 

see a number of States, like Connecticut, for example, that have 

much more restrictive gun laws where some of these tragedies have 

occurred, and they have not stopped it. And you even have countries like Mexico where you have had 60,000 people killed as a result of drug cartel activity. In other words, criminals are not 

stopped by restrictions on law-abiding citizens. And it is just not 

clear to me that passing more laws that will not be enforced enthusiastically by the Department—and you look at the studies that 

have been done on the previous assault weapons ban, and no evidence that it actually had any impact whatsoever. You say it needs 
22 

more study, and that is fine. I would be interested in what the 

study reveals. But just call me skeptical that passing this assault 

weapon ban would have any real impact given the fact that criminals are going to continue to get guns and the lack of enforcement 

by the Department. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. You have been very indulgent. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Mr. WALSH. Madam Chairman, may I respond? I know that time 

is up. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes, you certainly may. 

Mr. WALSH. In response to your points, Senator, I have just a 

couple of, I think, really important things that need to be said here 

today. 

First of all, I could not disagree more strongly that the Department of Justice is not aggressively enforcing existing firearms laws. 

We spend an enormous amount of time, effort, energy, talent, skill, 

and, frankly, sleepless nights enforcing those laws. 

If you take a look at 2012, the total number of criminal prosecutions brought by the Department of Justice was in the vicinity of 

85,000. Of those, 12,000, one in seven, involved firearms charges. 

In Colorado, a couple weeks ago we did an assessment, a similar 

assessment for 2012, and in Colorado, close to one in five of the 

criminal prosecutions that we bring are cases involving firearms 

charges. 

Now, what are those cases? Those cases are those in which a 

criminal actually has and uses a firearm. We have limited resources. I know everyone in this room understands that the Federal Government, just like State and local authorities, has limited 

resources to address these things. 

As a prosecutor, and as the prosecutors in my offices consider 

cases, we go for the worst of the worst. And the worst of the worst 

cases are the ones in which a bad guy has actually got a gun. That 

is where we focus our attention. 

Now, I acknowledge that paperwork violations, lying on forms, 

are also Federal crimes. But part of the thing that I think all of 

us need to keep in mind is the fact that 80,000 or 76,000 people 

in 2012 were rejected as part of the firearms check and not able 

to buy a firearm, that in and of itself is a victory. That system is 

working. 

If you go back to when the Brady law firearms check first came 

into effect in 1998, I believe, there have been over 1.5 million potential purchases rejected because a person is prohibited, either by 

a prior felony or other problems. That is a record of success. We 

should be proud of that. But there is also no way that the Department of Justice could have prosecuted all 1.5 million people who 

were rejected over that 15-year purpose. 

My point, Senator, is this: I am an enforcement guy. I care about 

enforcement. I completely agree with you that we need to be enforcing the existing firearms laws effectively, aggressively, and in a 

way that protects the public. But I can tell you, when I think about 

the people in my office who work weekends and nights, send me 

e-mails at 2 and 3 o’clock in the morning because they are working 

so hard to enforce these laws, I just have to tell you I disagree with 

you. These are line folks, they are career folks. They are not people 
23 

who are driven by any of the politics that go on. They care deeply 

about their—— 

Senator CORNYN. Madam Chairman, if I can just say, I applaud 

you, Mr. Walsh, for your commitment to law enforcement. I used 

to be in your line of work, and I admire people who put their lives 

at risk every day to either enforce our laws or investigate crimes 

and prosecute those to the fullest extent of the law. 

But I do not believe—well, let me just ask, Madam Chairman, if 

I can ask that the record that I was referring to of the Department 

of Justice’s record of enforcement for weapons prosecutions and 

background checks prosecutions could be made part of the record, 

please. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So ordered. 

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

Senator CORNYN. Thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Thank you, both witnesses, for your work in law enforcement. Our 

neighboring State of Wisconsin, Chief Flynn, and also in Colorado, 

I think all three of our States share a common belief that hunting 

and recreation is an important part of the culture of life in our 

States. It is certainly important in Minnesota. 

I have supported the Heller decision and was on the amicus brief 

for the McDonald decision, but I thought you, Chief Flynn, did a 

good job of explaining how still those decisions—and you, Mr. 

Walsh, those decisions anticipated that there are reasonable rules 

and regulations. And it is our job, working with you, to figure out 

what those are. And I think that is what this hearing is about. 

The first thing that I think there is some agreement on is that 

felons should not have guns, and you had a good discussion there 

with Senator Cornyn, so I am not going to go into that. As a former 

prosecutor, that was one of my top priorities, to enforce those laws, 

to work with the U.S. Attorney’s Office. 

A second one that is emerging is the problem with the background checks. I think most gun owners even agree that we should 

have some kind of background checks. 

One of the problems right now is the private sale loophole. The 

data from the FBI show that the number of women killed with a 

firearm by an intimate partner is 34 percent lower in States that 

have closed the private sale loophole than in States that do not regulate such sales. 

Do you think that this would be helpful, Mr. Walsh, in domestic 

abuse cases to close that loophole? 

Mr. WALSH. Senator, thank you for the question. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Your mic is off. Thank you. 

Mr. WALSH. Sorry. Senator, thank you for the question. You 

know, one of the most effective and important elements of existing 

Federal law is a provision that prohibits people with domestic violence misdemeanor as well as felony convictions from owning a 

weapon, and the reason for that is the statistics show that in cases 

of particularly habitual domestic violence, the presence of a gun in 

the home can be deadly. And too many of those cases result in the 

death of the abused spouse or the abused intimate partner. 
24 

One of the areas where we need to have an invigorated existing 

database and then an expanded database to cover all sorts of private transactions is exactly that area, because right now all too 

often those misdemeanor offenses may or may not show up accurately in the database, depending on how a State is reporting them, 

and we need to tighten that up in many instances. 

We also need to make really strong efforts to ensure that particularly habitual domestic violence offenders are not able to obtain a 

gun from a friend or through a straw purchase or things of that 

sort, and that is why tightening up and extending the background 

check to cover private transactions could be of great assistance. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Another area I think most people would 

agree on would be the trafficking issues, and I will submit some 

questions on that for the record. But there is difficulty for law enforcement to investigate and prosecute those who traffic firearms, 

and I think most people would agree that is an area where it would 

be reasonable to make some regulations. 

We have the issue of the mental health records and some of the 

juvenile issues. We actually in Minnesota had a guy that killed his 

parents, got out—this just happened last year—and they found him 

with a bunch of weapons because there was an error in how the 

background checks were made and what was in the records and 

those kinds of things. And he had actual notes about Newtown 

when they found him with those guns. And so I just believe that 

more work can be done there, and there should be public support 

for that. 

My last question would be of you, Chief Flynn. We have heard 

a lot of statistics thrown around about the effectiveness of the assault weapon ban. You have been in law enforcement for 40 years. 

What was your personal experience? And did you observe a change 

when the law was first enacted in 1994 when it sunsetted in 2004? 

Chief FLYNN. Well, thank you, Senator, for the question. Listen, 

you know, back in the years when I was in graduate school, I had 

to endure research and statistics classes. They made my hair hurt. 

But I did learn a thing or two, and one of the things I learned was 

the difference between correlation and causation. And what we 

have is a study in 2007 that studied the Brady bill. It clearly identified correlations. It could not identify causations. Why? Because 

it was written by Ph.D.s, and Ph.D.s can never decide anything. 

The fact of the matter is, during the life of the Brady bill, the 

number of assault weapons used in violent crimes declined by twothirds. Now, we did not do a control study. We did not do a study 

where we gave out AK–47s and then compared and contrasted with 

a State in which nobody had an AK–47. Then we would know. Instead, we took a leap of faith. We made this assumption, bold as 

it was, that keeping high-capacity firearms and military-style 

weaponry out of the hands of criminals might reduce violence. And 

violence was reduced. 

Now, the police did a lot of things. We changed our strategies. 

We embraced community-oriented policing. We embraced accountability systems such as ComStat. We worked very hard. We worked 

closely with the D.A.s. We worked closely with the community. We 

put a lot of guys in jail. And we started recovering fewer assault 

rifles. 
25 

But can I show a causation? No. Is there a correlation? Yes. And 

so it all depends how you want to spin the data, and that is a cottage industry all by itself. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Chief Flynn. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator Cruz. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would like to 

begin by thanking the victims of violence who have come here and 

the members of law enforcement. I would like to thank the members of law enforcement for your service on the front lines. And to 

the victims of violence, I express the deepest sympathies that law 

enforcement was not able to prevent the horrific crimes you suffered. 

Mr. Heslin, I have two little girls. I cannot imagine the suffering 

you are experiencing now. I have spent much of my adult life in 

law enforcement working to deter violent criminals and to ensure 

that those who commit horrific crimes of violence face the very 

strictest of punishments. And I am sorry for each of the victims 

here today who lost loved ones that the system did not work to protect your loved ones and prevent the loss of life. 

This is an issue that touches on a lot of emotions, and I would 

suggest an approach that, in my view, should guide the Senate’s 

treatment of it, which is an approach that we should target our efforts to violent criminals, to those who commit horrific crimes of violence, and we should not target our efforts to needlessly restricting the constitutional liberties of law-abiding citizens. 

In the area of gun control, I think there are a variety of proposals that are discussed. Some, in my judgment, the evidence 

demonstrates, are cosmetic and they allow politicians to say we are 

acting, but the evidence does not support that they have any efficacy. Others I think present a real threat of intruding on the liberties of law-abiding citizens. 

I want to start, Mr. Walsh, with respect to the assault weapons 

ban, and in earlier questioning you said that there had been not 

enough study on the assault weapons ban. Of course, a very similar 

law was in effect for roughly a decade. And the Department of Justice has funded at least three studies of whether that bill had any 

positive effect. In 1999, the DOJ study concluded that the assault 

weapons ban ‘‘failed to reduce the average number of victims per 

gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.’’ 

In 2004, the National Institute for Justice concluded that the assault weapons produced ‘‘no discernible reduction in the lethality 

and injuriousness of gun violence.’’ 

And then in 1997, the study that was already discussed likewise 

concluded that there was no evidence to say any meaningful effect 

different from zero. 

Are you aware of any compelling empirical data to the contrary? 

We have got three studies funded by the Department of Justice 

that concluded the prior ban had no effect. Are you aware of empirical data to the contrary? 

Mr. WALSH. Senator, let me say two things in response, and I 

think it is an important question to ask. 

First of all, my understanding of what those studies said is that 

the statistical analysis was inadequate to establish an effect, not 
26 

that it had statistically established no effect. It is a fine point, but 

it is an important one, because Dr. Koper, who led the studies in 

each of those instances, most recently came out with a January 

2013 sort of update description of his studies and thoughts for the 

future, and in that indicated that he thought that an argument 

could be made that over time, if the assault weapon ban had continued past 10 years and had been continued to be coupled with a 

high-capacity magazine ban, that the combination of those two 

things might have had as much as a 5-percent effect. 

Senator CRUZ. If I understand your answer correctly, you did not 

point to any empirical data that demonstrate that it had any effect 

whatsoever on violent crime. Is that correct? 

Mr. WALSH. Not conclusive evidence that it had an effect on the 

overall—— 

Senator CRUZ. Inconclusive, I mean, any empirical data? 

Mr. WALSH. Well, I think that the empirical data that Dr. Koper 

has referred to, you could say—he said he believed that there was 

certainly a suggestion that on the margin there was an impact. But 

it was not necessarily statistically significant that he could tell 

from his work. 

Now, having said that, there are two areas—there are two areas 

that I think are important to keep in mind statistically, if I can 

risk that. One is that there is certainly good evidence that assault 

weapons are used disproportionately in attacks with multiple victims and victims with multiple wounds. And then, secondly, there 

is also good evidence to suggest that assault weapons are used disproportionately on attacks on law enforcement officers. And I think 

those two points, perhaps even standing alone, would justify that 

we proceed with an assault weapons ban. 

Senator CRUZ. Mr. Walsh, there was earlier discussion about 

causation and correlation. 

Mr. WALSH. That is correct. 

Senator CRUZ. According to the BJS, from 1993 to 2001, which 

roughly corresponds with the assault weapons ban—not perfectly 

but roughly—there were an average of 611 homicides per year with 

rifles while the assault weapons ban was in effect. In 2010, the 

number of homicides with rifles was 358, a little more than half as 

much. In 2011, it was 323. That is without the assault weapons 

ban in place. 

Would you agree that that data does not suggest that the assault 

weapons ban had any significant efficacy in reducing violent crime? 

Mr. WALSH. Well, I think that if we go back and look at the studies, the conclusion of Dr. Koper and his colleagues was that there 

were multiple factors playing into that. Fortunately, over that 

same period of time, we were seeing overall a reduction in violent 

crime in the United States, which also impacted it. 

So the simple answer is I do not have a statistical response for 

you. I am not an expert in that area. I think it is fair to say that 

the evidence of effectiveness of the original assault weapons ban 

was mixed, but there were some areas in that, as I have already 

mentioned, where the Department of Justice believes there was a 

positive effect in reducing the total number of victims, and if the 

ban were extended and not made to sunset after 10 years, that 

over time we could see an improvement in public safety. 
27 

Senator CRUZ. My time has expired, but I hope as the hearing 

proceeds we can discuss how the Department of Justice and law 

enforcement can target violent criminals directly rather than either 

legislation that the data suggests would have no material effect or 

legislation that would strip law-abiding citizens. Instead, I would 

suggest we should be targeting violent criminals because that is 

how we actually will protect people’s lives, which is everyone’s objective here. 

Thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Senator Cruz. 

Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank 

you for your leadership on this difficult and enormously emotional 

issue on every side. 

I have been doing a lot of thinking and a lot of soul searching 

the last several months. I have spent a lot of time traveling around 

Minnesota, talking with my constituents about this issue. And 

what I am hearing is that people want us to take action to reduce 

gun violence and to make our communities safer, but they want us 

to do it in a way that honors the Second Amendment and respects 

Minnesota’s culture of responsible gun ownership. So there is a balance to be struck here. 

I have focused on mental health issues while continually underscoring how important it is not to stigmatize mental illness. The 

vast majority of people who are mentally ill are no more violent 

than the general population. But if we are going to make mental 

health a part of this, let us make it more than just a talking point. 

Let us really do something to improve the treatment and the access 

to treatment for children and for adults. 

But today we are talking about assault weapons. To prepare for 

this hearing, I went back and read the record from the last two 

hearings. One of the arguments we have heard is that assault 

weapons and large-capacity magazines are needed for self-defense. 

A witness at our first hearing gave us a list of more than 20 instances in which guns were used in self-defense. But I have not 

seen any evidence that any of those cases involved an assault 

weapon or a large-capacity magazine. 

Rather than presenting real cases as evidence for the record that 

these weapons are needed for self-defense, witnesses and members 

of this Committee have asked us to imagine hypothetical situations 

where someone needs an assault weapon or more than 10 rounds 

for self-defense against multiple attackers. 

Now, sure, I can imagine those hypothetical cases, but I am not 

sure what value that holds. But I do not have to imagine someone 

using a 30-round magazine, or several, to kill 20 children, because 

that happened. 

I do not have to imagine a deranged man using a 100-round clip 

to kill 12 people at a movie theater. That happened in Aurora. 

I do not have to imagine a madman firing 33 rounds uninterrupted at a grocery store parking lot, killing six people, including 

a little girl, and wounding 13 others, including a Member of Congress, because that happened. It happened in Tucson. 
28 

And I do not have to imagine a madman with an extended clip 

slaughtering six people at a sign factory, because that happened in 

Minneapolis. 

As a Senator, I have a responsibility to make informed decisions. 

We owe it to all Americans to address this complex and emotional 

issue with a healthy regard for reality and fidelity to the truth. 

So if we ban assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, will 

we save lives? That is the real question. It is not an easy one. And 

we have been discussing this data. 

In previous hearings, we were actually told that a 1997 independent study commissioned by the Clinton Justice Department, 

one that was just discussed, we were told that it proved that the 

last assault weapons ban had no effect on crime, that it proved it. 

Mr. Walsh, your testimony addresses that study as well as a subsequent DOJ study that was published in 2004. Do those studies 

prove, as we have been told, that the assault weapons ban was ineffective? Or do they show something else? 

Mr. WALSH. Senator, if I may begin with the earlier 1990s study, 

actually the initial conclusion in that study is that there was potentially up to a 6.7-percent reduction in gun murders as a result of 

the assault weapon ban and the high-capacity magazine ban. 

In subsequent analysis of that, the authors concluded that they 

were not certain that that was a statistically significant correlation. In other words, they were trying to be thoughtful and very 

precise about the amount of evidence that they had. 

Senator FRANKEN. This was done only on one year’s data, because it was in 1997, but they said, ‘‘Our best estimate is that the 

ban contributed to a 6.7-percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995 beyond what would have been expected in 

view of ongoing crime, demographic, and economic trends.’’ That is 

a quote, and sometimes you can cherrypick quotes. I think this is 

very important. Because you cannot prove that something is statistically valid, that does not prove that it did not happen. And, in 

fact, unless you cherrypick sentences from this—you can cherrypick 

others. 

So an honest reading is not that this proved this did not have 

efficacy. It did not prove that at all, did it? 

Mr. WALSH. No, it did not. And, Senator, if I could add two other 

points that I think are relevant to this discussion, since the assault 

weapons ban expired in 2004, a study by the Police Executive Research Forum in 2010 found that 37 percent of police departments 

reported an increase in criminals’ use of assault weapons again 

since the time of the ban expiring, and as well as a 38-percent increase in the use of those weapons also using high-capacity magazines—in other words, those with more than 10 rounds. 

So there certainly is evidence subsequent to that that the prevalence of these weapons and their use in crime is rising, which is, 

I think, something that we should be concerned about as well. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. I yield back. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Senator Franken. 

Senator Lee. 

Senator LEE. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and 

thanks to both of you for being here with us today and for your 

service to our country. I appreciate what you do. 
29 

You know, we have all been horrified by acts of mass violence, 

including and especially those that have occurred in recent memory. I do not think there is a person here in this room, I do not 

think there is anyone watching on television these proceedings who 

does not want to find a way to end or at least diminish incidents 

of gun violence. 

Obviously, there are a number of factors at play in our society 

and in our culture that have created an environment in which gun 

violence has regrettably persisted. But I worry at times that if we 

rush too quickly into enacting gun ownership restrictions, that 

could cause some problems: 

First, because it could give the American people some basis for 

concluding that Congress can somehow put an end to this just by 

legislating. Experience in this area and in others has taught us 

that we cannot fix all of society’s ills through legislation, and there 

has been some suggestion made today, some indication by the evidence, that there is at least a mixed record, there is at least an absence of certain proof as to the efficacy of gun ownership laws in 

the past. 

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I worry about what 

some of the gun control measures that we have been discussing 

might do to the rights of law-abiding citizens. We have in society 

some people who will obey the law regardless of what the law says, 

and that is good. We have some people who are likely to disregard 

the law, regardless of what it says. Fortunately, in our society 

those in the former category have tended to predominate, and that 

is what allows us to have a society that generally lives according 

to the rule of law. 

But we always have to be on the lookout for the law-abiding, because whenever we enact laws, it is those people whose liberty is 

diminished. It is those people whose options are constrained by 

what we do here. And so I focus a lot on those people. And this 

hearing provides us with an opportunity to discuss whether and to 

what extent the proposed Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 will help 

alleviate gun violence without diminishing the rights of those people. 

So, Mr. Walsh, I would like to talk to you about this a little bit. 

In your written testimony, you state that magazines with more 

than 10 rounds are not necessary for self-defense because the majority of such shootings occur at close range. Am I understanding 

your written testimony correctly in that regard? 

Mr. WALSH. Certainly that is included in the testimony, Senator. 

Senator LEE. So let us assume that you are correct that the majority of self-defense shootings do occur at close range. What might 

this mean for those minority of instances in which law-abiding citizens might use a gun in self-defense in longer-range situations? 

Can we ignore the impact that any laws we adopt might have on 

persons who need more than 10 rounds to legitimately and lawfully 

defend themselves and their families or the needs of those people 

who might need a longer-range approach to self-defense? 

Mr. WALSH. Senator, I think it is a good question, because obviously self-defense is the core of the Second Amendment protection, 

and we all acknowledge that and want to honor it. Having said 

that, I have a couple of thoughts. 
30 

One, part of the reason that most self-defense incidents occur at 

close range is that when you have an assailant who is at longer 

range, a potential victim has other options. In other words, you can 

leave the scene, you can call in for assistance and things of that 

sort, and the immediacy of the situation is not as dangerous. And 

I would defer to the police chief sitting by my side on the details 

of that. So that is point number one, that I think it is important 

to keep in mind there is a reason why the close-range incidents are 

far more common. 

Secondly, the evidence that I have seen suggests that the vast 

majority of self-defense incidents involve one or two shots being 

fired, if any, one or two shots being necessary. 

I will tell you that, in my personal experience as an Assistant 

U.S. Attorney and now as a United States Attorney, I am not 

aware of any specific self-defense incident in which a potential victim to defend him- or herself needed to fire more than 10 shots. 

Now, hypothetically, I agree with you there could be a circumstance under which that took place, and in that scenario, I 

agree with you there is that potential marginal effect on that person’s ability to defend themselves. I am just not aware of those instances actually happening. 

Senator LEE. Okay, and I appreciate that. I do think that—and 

I see my time is running out. Let me just point out really quickly 

that there was a 1995 study on the use of guns in self-defense. And 

I understand that study concluded that in almost half of the instances in which a victim was attacked and thereafter used a gun 

in self-defense, there were at least two attackers, and that in nearly 25 percent of those situations, there were three or more 

attackers. So even at close range, would it not be helpful, if not 

critical, in those instances—which, granted, may well be a minority 

of the instances—would that not be helpful to have an ammunition 

magazine that had more than 10 rounds? 

Mr. WALSH. Senator, if I—I am not sure I am familiar with the 

study you are referring to, but I do know there were statistics that 

were going around that related not to armed assaults—in other 

words, assaults with firearms—but assaults by assailants that 

were not all armed. And I would need to discuss that, need to have 

a chance to look at that. 

But to answer your question directly, the fact is that if someone 

were confronted with three assailants armed with firearms, I suppose there is a hypothetical scenario under which having more 

than 10 rounds in a magazine would be of some marginal assistance. But, again, as I say, I am not aware of any such instance actually happening where someone has required more than 10 shots. 

Senator LEE. Okay. Thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator Lee. 

I would really like to thank the two panelists. I did not use all 

my time in the questions, and I want to make three brief points. 

The intent of the bill in 1994 to 2004 was to dry up supply over 

time. The sunset had to be added. We came through the Senate 

with a bare margin, 51 votes on a motion to table. The sunset was 

critical to getting those votes. 

Point two, gun manufacturers took the two characteristics test 

and crafted weapons to get around it, i.e., the thumbhole stock. 
31 

And the third point is that this is really an important issue of 

public policy, and these weapons can also, by virtue of their construction, be held at the hip and spray-fired without aiming, and 

that makes them just lethal, with the increased velocity, as you 

pointed out, in a rifle. 

Chief Flynn, you are really a cop’s cop. I really appreciate your 

frankness. I thank you for being here. The cities you served are 

very lucky. 

And, Mr. Prosecutor, you have fantastic retention. I really thank 

you for your service to our country. 

Oh, Senator Blumenthal, take some extra time. I am so sorry. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Madam Chairman, thank you. I know that 

in the Senate, freshmen Senators are supposed to be seen and not 

heard. But I am happy to be heard today. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. You got it. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I want to begin by thanking you, Madam 

Chairman, for your courage over many years, your consistent advocacy for this assault weapon ban. You have been so stalwart and 

strong. And the simple blunt fact is that this issue was thought to 

be politically untouchable 2 months ago. We would not be here 

today without the horrific Newtown tragedy. 

I want to begin by asking my fellow citizens of Connecticut, most 

particularly the members of the Newtown community, Sandy Hook 

Promise, the Newtown Action Alliance, as well as the families who 

had victims to please stand so that we can thank you publicly for 

your courage and your strength in this extraordinary historic moment. Thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Let us give them a round of applause. 

[Applause.] 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I want to thank my colleague—my colleague Chris Murphy was here earlier. He had another hearing so 

he had to leave, but he has been a very active member of this 

team. You know, there was extraordinary evil in Newtown on December 14th of last year. But there was also extraordinary heroism, and part of it was, in fact, the law enforcement officers who 

went to the school, charged into the building, and thereby prevented even more deaths because the shooter turned the gun on 

himself when he knew that police were on the scene. 

So I want to begin by thanking our law enforcement officers who 

are on the front lines every day. We have two of our most distinguished in the country. Thank you for being here, U.S. Attorney 

Walsh and Chief Flynn, and for your eloquent and powerful testimony that. 

And it was also the courage and strengthen of the Newtown community that has rallied together and taken an active advocacy position in favor of these kinds of measures. 

And the statisticians and the Ph.D.s and the lawyers may debate 

the numbers, but the second simple blunt fact is that some or all 

of those 20 beautiful children and 6 great educators would be alive 

today if assault weapons has been banned along with high-capacity 

magazines. And some of the victims in Tucson would be alive 

today, including 9-year-old Christina-Taylor, as Captain Mark 
32 

Kelly testified so powerfully just a short time ago in the place 

where you are sitting now. 

The fact is that we need a comprehensive strategy. Nobody here 

is saying that an assault weapon ban or prohibition on high-capacity magazines will end gun violence, but we are choosing to light 

a candle rather than curse the darkness. And the fact is, Chief 

Flynn, I would agree with you totally that what we see in our Nation is mass murder committed as a result of gun violence. I differ 

only to say that it is not slow motion. In fact, it is escalating. It 

is rapid-fire mass murder. Nineteen hundred people have been 

killed since Newtown as a result of gun violence. 

And so I want to begin by asking you, Chief Flynn—and I think 

you have alluded to it—what is it that leads you to feel the men 

and women on your force are outgunned by these assault weapons? 

Chief FLYNN. For the first 20 years of my police career, I carried 

a six-shooter, and that was plenty. That was the standard weapon 

for American law enforcement for over 100 years. And in the last 

20 years, we have been in an arms race. I only the year before last 

had to start arming my officers with assault weapons in the cruisers to start to protect themselves. That is not where we were preBrady. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And, in fact, their body armor will not 

protect them against assault weapons at close range, will it? 

Chief FLYNN. No. We have to constantly upgrade the body armor 

and offer them the opportunity to wear metal plates. You know, 

our challenge—if I may take one moment, I had the opportunity 

of—on September 11, 2001, I was the police chief in Arlington, Virginia. That is where the Pentagon was. And what I learned that 

day, that if this country takes 3,000 innocent victims, it takes 

major steps to alter itself. And nobody has boarded an airplane the 

same way since. That weapon of mass murder is no longer used in 

this country because we have taken steps to keep it out of the 

hands of those who would kill us. 

Now, I have wondered frequently in the last decade how many 

people have to get murdered in a mass murder for it to be enough. 

I have been wrong time after time after time. But I am a grandpa, 

I have got little kids at home. Is 20 babies enough to say these implements should not be so easily distributed? That is what we are 

asking for. When was that gun bought? 

[Applause.] 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I know that the Chairwoman will perhaps 

indulge me one more question. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I will. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. You know, I am a law enforcement guy, 

too. I was a State law enforcement person and had your job, United 

States Attorney Walsh, in Connecticut some years ago. And I want 

to say nobody in law enforcement ever thinks we are doing enough. 

Nobody ever says, ‘‘Well, we can go home and stop trying to do better.’’ 

So as much as we may agree with you that the United States Department of Justice and local and State police forces are trying to 

enforce these laws as aggressively as possible, I think you need 

more resources and you need criminal background checks so that 

you can know, as Senator Graham and Senator Cruz said, how to 
33 

keep these weapons, all weapons, out of the hands of people who 

should not have them—criminals, domestic abusers, the severely 

mentally ill. 

Would you agree that the criminal background check expansion 

to private sales as well as possibly ammunition sales are a way to 

enforce the existing laws—they are on the books right now, that 

can be enforced better so that you know before those weapons are 

purchased, along with trafficking prohibitions, that we can keep 

those guns out of the hands of people who should not have them? 

Chief FLYNN. The majority of my illegal firearms are bought legally, not stolen. They are either bought through straw purchasers 

or they are bought outside of the regular licensed firearms dealers. 

Six of my officers were shot with guns that were legally bought 

from the same firearms dealer. That is intolerable. So, obviously, 

the purpose of background checks is to keep guns out of the hands 

of criminals, not to create, you know, millions of additional prosecutions. 

The point is those checks work, and if we can extend them to the 

gun shows, we can keep guns out of the hands of criminals as well 

as the criminally insane. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And perhaps we can stop them from buying ammunition after they have those guns. Would you agree? 

Chief FLYNN. Certainly. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

Would you agree, United States Attorney Walsh? 

Mr. WALSH. Absolutely, Senator. I think those are critical steps 

that will help us, frankly, keep the American people safer. 

In addition, I would note that after Columbine, the State of Colorado tightened up its own background check to close the so-called 

gun show loophole and also really to invigorate the extent to which 

records on mental illness came into the system, and that has 

proved to be effective. Of course, it cannot stop everything, as we 

saw last July in Aurora. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator, and, again, 

I apologize. 

This completes the panel—oh, excuse me. Senator, you had one 

question? 

Senator GRASSLEY. One question for Mr. Walsh, to learn from the 

experiences in your State. On September 21, 2011, the ATF issued 

an open letter to all Federal firearms licensees regarding transfer 

of firearms and ammunition to individuals authorized by State law 

to use marijuana for medicinal purposes. This open letter states 

that users of medical marijuana, even if authorized by State law, 

are prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition under 18 

U.S.C. 922(g)(3) because they are considered unlawful users of controlled substances under Federal law. And then because your State 

recently passed Amendment 64, I come to this question—or three 

questions, but really dealing with just that subject. So I will give 

you all three. 

Will you prosecute individuals who use marijuana in Colorado 

and possess firearms and ammunition as a violation of Section 922? 

Why or why not? 
34 

And, lastly, as the top Federal law enforcement officer in Colorado, you are charged with enforcing Federal law. Have you prosecuted anyone for violating Section 922 based solely upon medical 

marijuana use? 

Mr. WALSH. Senator, with respect to the first question as to 

whether or not we would prosecute people involved with medical 

marijuana for possessing firearms, the answer is yes, we have. In 

fact, we have a case out of Boulder County in which an individual 

was actually engaged in a grow of marijuana and possessed a variety of weapons, including some very nasty things called ‘‘street 

sweepers,’’ and we prosecuted that individual. 

With respect to whether we would end up prosecuting individuals 

solely because they had a firearm and were a user of medical marijuana, a medical marijuana card, I think we would have to look at 

those cases individually before we made any decision to determine 

whether that was the right allocation of our resources. I say that 

in part because the guidance we have received from the Department is that, generally speaking, it is not the best use of our limited Federal resources to go after individual patients who may be 

using medical marijuana. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you very much for your answer. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. I would excuse this 

panel, and thank you very much. 

I would ask the next panel to please come forward. Senator 

Blumenthal will introduce the first two witnesses. 

Please take your seats. We would like to begin. Senator 

Blumenthal, at your pleasure. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and again my thanks for having two of our witnesses from 

Connecticut: Dr. Begg and Neil Heslin. I do not know, Madam 

Chairman, whether you want to administer the oath. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I will. In the interest of time, I was going 

to—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I would be happy to introduce them before, if you would like. Whatever you would like. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. All right. If the witnesses would stand and 

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? 

Mr. HESLIN. I do. 

Dr. BEGG. I do. 

Professor JOHNSON. I do. 

Mr. HARDY. I do. 

Ms. ADAMS. I do. 

Mayor NUTTER. I do. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. Please be seated. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you both for being here, Mr. Heslin 

and Dr. Begg. I am honored to introduce you to this Committee. 

When I went to the Sandy Hook fire house on the day of the 

shooting within hours of its occurrence, I went as a public official, 

but what I saw was through the eyes of a parent. And I saw the 

aftermath and impact of unspeakable and unimaginable horror and 

evil. But there was also a lot of heroism that day, not the least 

from gentlemen like yourself and their families who were there— 
35 

in your case, Dr. Begg, to help save lives; and in your case, Mr. 

Heslin, eventually to learn about the loss of your son. 

To introduce you first, Mr. Heslin, I know on December 14th you 

lost your son, Jesse, who was 6 years old and who attended the 

Sandy Hook Elementary School. I know that you would not want 

to be here right now. But I know also, as you have told me, and 

Dr. Begg has, from the beginning of this tragedy and as recently 

as Sunday night and yesterday, that you want to be here to try to 

make sure that Newtown never happens again. And I am grateful, 

and I know the Committee is, for your being here. We have much 

to thank you for, Neil, for being here today. Your courage is an inspiration to me and I hope will be an inspiration to this Committee. 

Dr. Begg, I know you were born and raised in Connecticut, and 

you decided to go into medicine after your father passed away following a medical mistake. While studying at Johns Hopkins Hospital, you were voted the top resident, I understand, for community 

emergency room doctors, and during your residency there at Johns 

Hopkins, you also did a clerkship at the nationally recognized 

Maryland Shock Trauma Institute. And then you went to work at 

Fort Drum to oversee 800 doctors and 200 physician assistants at 

the Danbury Hospital, and you are currently president of the medical staff at Danbury Hospital. I know you were in Newtown that 

day at the Danbury Hospital where you were the ER physician on 

duty when some of the Sandy Hook children were brought to the 

hospital and to the emergency room. I thank you for your efforts 

on that tragic day and for testifying today. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. 

Mr. Heslin, welcome. We are very honored to hear your comments. 

STATEMENT OF NEIL HESLIN, NEWTOWN, CONNECTICUT 

Mr. HESLIN. My name is Neil Heslin. I am Jesse Lewis’ dad. 

Jesse was brutally murdered at Sandy Hook School on December 

14th, 20 minutes after I dropped him off. 

This picture is a picture that was taken when Jesse was 6 

months old. It was our first Christmas together. 

That picture over there is a picture last Daddy’s Day, 6 months 

before his death. 

That picture up here is his class picture from last year. That picture was on the Port Jefferson Ferry. 

Jesse was the love of my life. He was the only family I had left. 

It is hard for me to be here today talking about my deceased son, 

but I have to. I am his voice. I am not here for the sympathy and 

a pat on the back, as many people stated in the town of Newtown. 

I am here to speak up for my son. 

There are many changes that have to happen to make a change 

effective: mental health issues, better background checks, bans on 

these weapons, bans on high-capacity magazines. They all have to 

come together, and they all have to work effectively. It has to be 

done simply. Common sense tells you that. 

I watched that video this morning. That is a dangerous weapon, 

and anybody that can deny or argue that is not being honest. 
36 

Jesse was 61⁄2 years old. His birthday was June 30th. In 2006 he 

was born. It was the happiest day of my life. The saddest day of 

my life was December 14th. It was the worst day of my life. 

I waited in that fire house until 1 o’clock in the morning from 

12:30 until I knew Jesse was confirmed dead. 

Senator Blumenthal was there, Governor Malloy, the other Congressmen from Connecticut, along with the police and the first responders. I have a bond with them that will last a lifetime. 

No person should have to go through what myself or any of the 

other victims’ families had to deal with and go through and what 

the town of Newtown had to go through and is dealing with. 

The morning of December 14th, we stopped at Misty Vale Deli. 

He got his favorite sandwich—sausage, egg, and cheese on a hard 

roll. And he ordered me one. He would always do that. I would get 

a coffee. Jesse would get what he called a coffee, but it was a hot 

chocolate. 

We proceeded to the school. It was 9:04 when I dropped Jesse off 

by the school clock. Jesse gave me a hug and a kiss at that time 

and said, ‘‘Good-bye. I love you.’’ He stopped and he said, ‘‘I love 

Mom, too.’’ That was the last I saw Jesse as he ducked around the 

corner. 

Prior to that, when he was getting out of the truck, he hugged 

me and held me. I can still feel that hug and the pat on the back. 

He said, ‘‘Everything’s going to be okay, Dad. It is all going to be 

okay.’’ 

And it was not okay. 

I have to go home at night to an empty house without my son. 

It is something that never should have happened in an elementary 

school. People argue about the Second Amendment. Well, the Second Amendment says ‘‘a well regulated militia,’’ to bear arms, safe 

and free, freedom of state. It has not been well regulated, and it 

is not being well regulated. 

This bill that Senator Feinstein has proposed I read over. It is 

not about taking the weapons from the owners of them. It is putting a ban on the manufacturing and curbing the sale of them. It 

is not hurting the sportsmen. It is not hurting the gun owners now. 

I fully support the Second Amendment, and I fully support the 

sportsmen and the hunters. I grew up with firearms. I started 

skeet shooting with my father when I was 8 years old competitively. In my younger teen years, I was State champion. I achieved 

the level of marksmanship with rifles. I have a broad knowledge 

of weapons, including military weapons. I do not participate in 

shooting or hunting anymore. Times have changed in my life, and 

I had a young boy I devoted my life to. 

Ironically, the same day as Jesse passed away, 5 days before that 

my mother passed away. 

Jesse had an interest in the military. Jesse had an interest in 

guns, asked a lot of questions about them. Strange enough, the 

night before he perished, we were at Big Y. He was looking at a 

survival magazine or a gun magazine. In that magazine there were 

three weapons on one page. One was a Bushmaster, one was a 

Glock, and one was a Sig handgun. I had to go back the following 

day to look at that. But I quickly looked at it that night. It was 

an assault rifle and the two handguns. 
37 

He asked me about those weapons, and I explained them to him, 

what they were used for and their capability. The 223, it was a 

high-velocity, long-range cartridge. It was used by the military. 

And his response was, ‘‘Is it a weapon or gun that is used to kill 

people?’’ And I said, ‘‘Yes, Jesse, that is what it is used for.’’ 

Jesse had a BB gun. I got it for him for Christmas a year ago. 

I taught him gun safety. I looked over his back. And he was proficient with it, and he knew all the gun safety precautions. He 

could recite them to you the same way as I could when I was his 

age. 

It just breaks my heart that something like that could happen 

in this country and in an elementary school. I walked past the Capitol this morning, the Capitol Police 3 feet from me when I walked 

by them. What is he holding? An assault weapon protecting our 

Nation’s capital, protecting us today. And a weapon with similarity 

to that being a Bushmaster was brought into an elementary school 

in Sandy Hook, Connecticut, and killed 20 students and 6 educators. 

I just cannot believe that that could happen. Those weapons were 

used on the battlefields of Vietnam. They were used in the Persian 

Gulf; they were used in Afghanistan and Iraq. The sole purpose is 

to put a lot of lead on the battlefield quickly. That is what they 

could do, and that was proof right there, that video this morning. 

They have the capability to be held and used to produce rapid fire. 

I asked the question a month ago what purpose those served in 

civilians’ hands or on the street. I have not received an answer yet, 

but they did blurt the Second Amendment. It was not about the 

Second Amendment. I defend the Second Amendment. And I want 

to see that upheld and regulated, and it has not been. 

When that was written almost 300 years ago, we did not have 

these weapons we have today, and the technology. They has muskets and cannons. I think it was in 1934 when the ban was put 

on machine guns, and the regulation. We have not had a mass killing with a machine gun since. I feel these so-called assault weapons that have certain characteristics should fall in that category 

and be banned. 

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

for the record.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Heslin. Thank you very 

much. 

Dr. Begg. And then I will introduce the remaining four witnesses. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM V. BEGG, III, M.D., DIRECTOR, 

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, WESTERN CONNECTICUT 

HEALTH NETWORK, NEWTOWN, CONNECTICUT 

Dr. BEGG. Chairman Feinstein, Senator Grassley, Senator 

Blumenthal, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak and testify. My name is Bill Begg. I am a boardcertified emergency room doctor, and I trained at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. 

What is my inspiration for coming today? Well, I am the parent 

of three Newtown students. I am a grammar school track coach in 

Newtown. I am with a couple grassroots organizations, including 
38 

the United Physicians of Newtown and the Newtown Action Alliance. Our group of physicians is over 100 doctors from Newtown 

that all are on the same platform. Some are Republican, some are 

Democrat, but we all have the same platform about limiting assault rifles and gun violence. 

I am the EMS medical director for Newtown that was in direct 

contact with all my providers in the field that day. I am a friend 

of some of the families that lost loved ones, and I was an ER doc 

that was on shift on December 14th. 

So what is my goal? What is my goal in the next 5 minutes? My 

goal is to somehow convince you, Senators, that banning assault rifles and real gun control measures that you will hopefully enact 

will make a difference. Research since 1996 has been severely limited. I had to go overseas to look at some real data, some empirical 

data to see what the real answers are. 

In Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996, a 43-year-old shooter got off 109 

rounds. He killed 16 little children and teacher, and he injured another 27 kids and 4 more teachers. 

In Australia, in the same year, a 28-year-old with an AR–15 assault rifle killed 35 people and injured another 23. 

The damage caused by an assault rifle compared to a regular gun 

is horrific, and many of those folks do not even show up in my ER 

because their injuries are so bad, there is nothing salvageable. 

They do not even make it to my ER. At the end I have a video to 

show you. 

What did those legislators do across the world, in Australia and 

the United Kingdom? They enacted real gun legislation. They 

banned assault weapons. Did the legislation work right away? No, 

actually it did not work right away. It did not. But where do they 

stand today in 2010? As far as mass murders go, in the U.S. we 

have had over 20 mass murders. In the United Kingdom, one. In 

Australia, zero. 

Before 1996, in Australia, there were a dozen mass murders in 

the previous 20 years. And as far as gun deaths and empirical 

data, we have had over 30,000 deaths each year in our country. In 

Australia and the United Kingdom, as of 2010, with their gun legislation and the banning of assault weapons, they have each less 

than 300 deaths a year. That is 1 percent. Gun legislation and banning assault rifles, it takes a lot to come to fruition, but it works. 

If you actually own a gun in your home because you think it is 

going to make you safer, let me give you some real stats. 

There is something called femicide, ladies getting killed. Women 

are 5 times more likely to be killed by their spouse if there is a 

gun in the house. That is a real study. 

I am sorry for being loud, but this is emotional for me. 

If you want a gun in the house, you are 5 times as likely to die 

of suicide. And if you own a gun, you are 20 times as likely to die 

from unintentional gun death. Countries that ban assault rifles 

and have gun control measures do lower the chance of gun death 

for their citizens. 

In summary, what I am asking you to consider is a ban on military-style assault weapons; a ban on high-capacity magazines, especially if they have more than 10 bullets; a ban on semiautomatic 

rifles; require background checks for all gun purchases; and please, 
39 

please, could we do some real gun research in this country? In this 

country. 

What galls me is those who say let us really focus on mental 

health are the same ones who are saying, well, we need to have 

a conservative approach and balance the budget and cut programs. 

What are the first programs that are cut? Mental health. 

So what I am asking you to do is not even—not even add programs. I am asking you to just not even cut the mental health programs that are out there already. Allow me as a medical doctor, 

when I see a patient and I talk to them about the risks of excessive 

alcohol or tobacco use or safe sex, morbid obesity, seat belts, 

texting and driving, can I please talk to them about the risk of gun 

violence? Please? 

There is a public service announcement right now that says you 

are 23 times more likely to die if you are texting and driving. Why 

can I not have a public service announcement saying the same relative to assault rifles and gun ownership? 

I am not against the Second Amendment. If you go through the 

proper channels, I do respect your ability to own a gun. But not 

an assault rifle. 

I want to recognize the valiant efforts of the first responders 

from the greater Newtown area. Thank you for your service. 

And to the families whose loved ones actually made it to the ER, 

we all tried our best. 

To you lawmakers, my mom and my dad were both Connecticut 

State representatives, and I said to my mom, I said, ‘‘Mom, why 

don’t you think when it is so common sense, why don’t you think 

they will change?’’ And she said, ‘‘Well, you know, they have their 

party lines, and they have their lobbyists, and they may not be senior.’’ And I said, ‘‘Well, do you think this one time they will actually 

do us right?’’ And she said, ‘‘Yeah, I think so. I think this time they 

will.’’ 

People say that the overall number of assault weapon deaths is 

relatively small, but you know what? Please do not tell that to the 

people of Tucson or Aurora or Columbine or Virginia Tech, and do 

not tell that to the people in Newtown. 

[Applause.] 

Dr. BEGG. This is a tipping point. This is a tipping point, and 

this is a public health issue. Please make the right decision. 

Thank you for your time, and if there is extra time, there is a 

small video on the difference between injuries—there is on the difference between a gunshot with a handgun and an assault rifle. 

But thank you for your time otherwise. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Begg appears as a submission for 

the record.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Doctor. 

I will now introduce the following four witnesses: 

Nicholas J. Johnson is a law professor at Fordham. He has held 

that position since 1993. He has published articles on the subject 

of firearms regulations and environmental law. Prior to Fordham, 

he practiced law as an associate with Morgan, Lewis and Bockius, 

served as vice president and co-owner of Westar Environmental 

Corporation, and was Of Counsel for Kirkpatrick and Lockhart. He 
40 

taught at two colleges as a professor of legal studies. He is the author of two books on gun ownership. 

I will introduce David Hardy. He is an attorney in private practice in Tucson. He has litigated and authored friend-of-the-court 

briefs in several firearms-related cases. He spent 10 years as a career attorney with the Office of Solicitor for the United States Department of the Interior, where he represented the United States 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Prior to his service in the Government, 

he was assistant general counsel for the National Rifle Association. 

Sandy Adams is a Representative elected in 2010 to represent 

Florida’s 24th District as a United States Representative, where 

she served for a term of 2 years. Previously, she worked in the 

Florida State House of Representatives for 4 years and had served 

over 17 years with the Orange County Sheriff’s Office as a deputy 

sheriff and investigator. 

And, finally, Mayor Michael Nutter. He is the mayor of Philadelphia and the president of the United States Conference of Mayors. 

As the leader of the official nonpartisan organization of cities with 

populations of 30,000 or more, Mayor Nutter speaks on behalf of 

1,300 mayors nationwide. Before he was elected mayor of Philadelphia in 2008, he spent 15 years on the Philadelphia City Council. 

We will begin with you, Mr. Johnson. Welcome. Do you want to 

activate your mic? Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF NICHOLAS J. JOHNSON, PROFESSOR OF LAW, 

FORDHAM UNIVERSITY, SCHOOL OF LAW, NEW YORK, 

NEW YORK 

Professor JOHNSON. Thanks for inviting me. 

First I should say that sitting through the last two pieces of testimony, I will just affirm the instinct that when one listens to the 

victims of events like this, the impulse is to basically give them 

anything they want, and I understand that impulse. And I guess 

what I would say to people who support the bill, which I have 

critiqued here, is that mine is a counsel of despair, unfortunately. 

My testimony is drawn from an extensive analysis of this question that I published in 2009. My core point here is that the classifications established by Senate bill 150 are unsustainable under 

the lowest level of constitutional review, that they fail to meet even 

the rudimentary rational basis requirements. 

To sustain the category of guns that the bill claims are exceptional and must be banned, we must compare that category to the 

baseline of guns that are deemed unexceptional, many of which are 

included in the bill. The characteristics that define the prohibited 

class are all objectively measureable, and by those objective measures, the classification I think is unsustainable, and I have detailed 

this in Appendix A, which includes the article that I mentioned. 

The primary characteristic that drives the prohibited category is 

multi-shot capability. The AR–15, which we have talked about in 

detail, with its common 30-round magazine will fire thirty .22-caliber, typically 55-grain projectiles, one with each pull of the trigger. 

Now compare guns that are in the non-prohibited class. Take the 

common repeating shotgun, either pump or semiautomatic. Hundreds of guns of this type are on the bill’s list of prohibited firearms. There are tens of millions of guns of this type in the civilian 
41 

inventory. In 12 gauge configuration, with a 3-inch, 00 buckshot 

load, any of these guns will fire fifteen .33-caliber, typically 60- 

grain projectiles with a single pull of the trigger. There are a variety of other loadings that will push this calculation upward or 

downward, but this example makes the point. 

Additionally, this broad category of repeating shotguns can be 

continuously reloaded without disabling the gun. That is an attribute that the prohibited class does not exhibit. So the downtime, 

while the shooter changes magazines, that has been offered as a 

justification for the bill’s 10-round magazine limit is actually circumvented by this class of shotguns that are on the non-prohibited 

list. 

Another claim that supposedly distinguishes the prohibited class 

of guns is that they are equipped with pistol grips or barrel 

shrouds, and those things it is claimed, contribute to un-aimed, 

spray firing, or firing a cloud of projectiles without aiming. This actually better describes shotgun technology. The shotgun actually 

does fire a cloud of projectiles that spreads as it moves down range. 

Now, these basic points are confirmed by the United States Army 

assessment of whether the shotgun in battle is consistent with the 

laws of war. A version of this analysis appears in a 1997 article 

published in the Army Lawyer. Some excerpts I have included in 

my testimony. 

The Army assessment relies centrally on an early analysis by 

Brigadier General Samuel T. Ansell, whose evaluation continues to 

form the position of the United States as to the legality of the shotgun in combat. General Ansell’s critique was prepared actually in 

response to a formal complaint by the Germany Government in 

World War I, charging that the Model 1897 pump shotgun, then in 

use by U.S. troops, was so destructive that it violated the laws of 

war. General Ansell’s response was this: 

‘‘The shotgun . . . finds its class or analogy as to purpose and effect, in many modern weapons. The dispersion of the shotgun pellets is adapted to the necessary purpose of putting out of action one 

or more of the charging enemy with each shot of the gun; and in 

this respect it is exactly analogous to shrapnel shells . . . or a machine gun discharging a spray of bullets. 

The 1997 assessment goes on to describe a British analysis of the 

combat shotgun which reports that ‘‘To a range of 30 yards, the 

probability of hitting a man-sized target with a shotgun was superior to all other weapons.’’ On this measure it is superior to the assault rifle—and this is the assault rifle as technically described 

that is fully automatic firing, an intermediate cartridge, and superior to the submachine gun firing a five-round burst. 

When gauged against these objectively measurable characteristics, the rhetoric that defines the prohibited class in Senate bill 150 

not only inaccurately describes the class, but more accurately describes guns that Senate bill 150 classifies as less dangerous and 

places on a companion list of good guns. That renders the bill, I 

am afraid, incoherent, and that renders the bill unable to pass rudimentary rational basis analysis. 

My detailed testimony goes into far more depth with regard to 

other characteristics of this type. 
42 

My overall assessment here is this: Guns are dangerous. All of 

them are dangerous. As a class, they are exceptionally deadly, particularly when deployed against unarmed and defenseless people. 

And on that score, I fear that the conversation we have been having about this particular type of gun is a distraction from the 

broader issues. 

[The prepared statement of Professor Johnson appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. Hardy. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID T. HARDY, ATTORNEY, 

LAW OFFICES OF DAVID HARDY, TUCSON, ARIZONA 

Mr. HARDY. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Members of the 

Committee. 

I think Professor Johnson has ably demonstrated that S. 150 

cannot pass rational basis scrutiny because it simply arbitrarily 

discriminates among different things. 

I would point out in addition that S. 150 would mark the most 

extensive gun ban in the history of this Republic. The 1994 ban 

listed 19 brands of firearms that could not be made. S. 150 lists 

over 150. 

The 1994 ban banned firearms with a pistol grip that protruded 

below the rest of the firearm. S. 150 simply bans any gun with a 

pistol grip. And I would point out that virtually every—the only 

reason I cannot say ‘‘every’’ is because I have not examined every 

one—but every rifle and shotgun, semiautomatic made today has 

a pistol grip. It is not a separate pistol grip. It is just the area that 

your hand fits around makes it more comfortable to fire. So essentially this would ban any semiautomatic long arm that has a replaceable magazine. 

The categories seem to be focused mostly on style, as they say, 

‘‘military style,’’ but the fact of the matter is no one would go to 

war with a semiautomatic AR–15 shooting one shot per trigger 

pull. They would go to war with an M–16 that fires fully automatic 

and three-round bursts. 

The price of the creation of the assault rifle, which is fully automatic, the price for it was that they had to drop the power of the 

cartridge by 50 percent because you cannot fire a full-powered military round at full automatic without getting the heck beaten out 

of you by recoil. So in the case of the AR–15, we dropped the power 

of the military rifle from 2,400 foot pounds of energy to slightly 

over 1,200, a 50-percent decline, which is average for that type of 

thing. When you go back to semiautomatic, turn it into a semiautomatic, what you have is simply a firearm of half military power. 

Then if we look at the various ban features, apart from the halving of the power, there is the pistol grip. There have been statements I have heard that the pistol grip is somehow meant to promote unaimed fire from the hip. That only happens in Rambo movies. The military would not be issuing firearms to people that are 

conducive to being fired from the hip without aiming because essentially you cannot hit anything in that mode. And if you stopped 

to think about the angle of the pistol grip, it would actually make 
43 

it harder to fire from the hip than from the shoulder, because military does not want you firing from the hip. 

The threaded barrel, I cannot see any connection between a 

threaded barrel and use in criminal conduct. What could it be? If 

we talk flash suppressors, I can tell you I have personally verified 

with an AR–15 in a darkened range that there is no flash, even if 

you take the flash suppressor off. That is mainly for M–4s and M– 

16s where you are firing full automatic, you get the barrel nice and 

hot, and then you can see a flash. 

I would agree with Dr. Begg on one issue, which I promised my 

friend Clayton Cramer to raise. Clayton has written a book on the 

deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill and essentially what a disaster it has been for this country. He cites studies indicating that 

about a thousand homicides a year are committed by people who 

have been diagnosed mentally ill and gone off their meds. I would 

agree with Dr. Begg, therefore, that we have to treat the mentally 

ill, especially the dangerous ones, get them off the street where 

they can be treated, and that we are not doing a fraction enough 

of this at the moment. We can either try to get the violent mentally 

ill out of commission, or we can try to create a world in which it 

is safe to have violent mentally ill people on the street. I suggest 

the latter is simply impossible a task. 

I think that one of the arbitrary features of S. 150 is illustrated 

by a comparison of two firearms—the AR–15 and the Mini 14. Both 

shoot the same cartridge, the 223. Both take 20- to 30-round magazines. Both shoot at the same rate of fire, one shot per trigger pull. 

Both weigh about the same and are about the same length. The 

AR–15 is classed under the bill as one of the prohibited forms of 

firearm. The Mini 14 is listed specifically under the sections which 

exempt it from any possible ban. Yet the two firearms are functionally identical. The only difference is one of them has a wooden 

stock and the other has a plastic one. 

I think, as Professor Johnson pointed out, to pass any heightened 

level of scrutiny, there has to be a relationship between the statute—a provable relationship between the statute and an important 

social goal, and it must not unnecessarily impact lawful exercises 

of rights. I think we can see that S. 150’s categories have no relationship to criminal use and that they exempt or control firearms 

of exactly the same type. 

I would point out one last thing, insofar as burdening rights. 

There was only one Adam Lanza. There was only one Seung-Hui 

Cho. But S. 150 attempts to deal with their cases, their violent 

cases, by regulating the other 300 million Americans’ conduct of 

their—exercise of their constitutional rights. S. 150’s arbitrary 

standards fail any test for constitutionality and, for that matter, for 

wise social policy. 

Thank you. 

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

for the record.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Hardy. 

Representative Adams, welcome. 
44 

STATEMENT OF HON. SANDY ADAMS, A FORMER REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, Madam Chair. And before I begin, I 

would like to state that my thoughts and prayers go out to the families, first responders, and the community of Newtown. 

I am here as a mother, grandmother, former deputy sheriff, and 

former legislator. This issue is not political to me, but it is personal. 

I spent over 17 years as a law enforcement officer in Orange 

County, Florida, during which time I had the unfortunate experience of looking down the barrel of a rifle with the assailant’s finger 

on the trigger knowing that if that trigger were pulled, I would not 

be here today. I have also experienced the fear that grasps you 

when the laser sight from a 9mm Desert Eagle puts a dot on you. 

I tell you this so that you know that my comments here today 

are not based on any political motivation but on my personal beliefs and experiences. 

As someone with a law enforcement background, I naturally consider whether a legislative proposal made under the banner of public safety would truly contribute to that worthy objective. 

Concerning the proposal to ban a wide variety of semiautomatic 

rifles, shotguns and handguns, and ammunition magazines that 

hold 11 or more rounds, I think it is an easy question to answer. 

When Congress approved the 1994 ban, it required that a study 

of the ban’s effectiveness be conducted. That study found that ‘‘the 

banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than 

a modest fraction of all gun murders.’’ 

Several years later, a follow-up study found that assault weapons 

were used in a particularly small percentage of gun crimes and 

that assailants fire less than four shots on average, a number well 

within the 10-round magazine limit imposed by the ban. 

Given the outcome of these studies and the fact that the Nation’s 

murder rate, which was already in decline prior to the 1994 ban, 

continues to decrease. Legislation that seeks to ban semiautomatic 

firearms and restrict magazine capacity will not address the root 

causes of America’s violent crime problem or greatly contribute to 

public safety because it is not the lack of laws that is a problem. 

It is the lack of enforcement of existing laws. 

Ten years ago, I ran for office because I watched as elected officials passed feel-good legislation without any regard for implementation and enforcement of such laws. As a law enforcement officer, 

I saw firsthand how difficult it was to convince State and Federal 

agencies to prosecute criminals for illegal gun possession or other 

crimes. The attitude of many of the prosecutors that I worked with 

was that these type of crimes were nuisance cases that were a 

drain on their resources. If we do not prosecute those who try to 

purchase firearms illegally or possess firearms illegally, then what 

good does it do to pass more laws? 

In addition to enforcing already existing laws for prosecution, we 

must get a handle on how to keep firearms out of the hands of the 

mentally ill—a problem that my State of Florida has proactively 

addressed over the past 7 years. 

In 2006, as a member of the Florida House of Representatives, 

I sponsored House Bill 151, which required the State to create and 
45 

maintain a database of persons adjudicated mentally defective or 

committed to mental institutions. The bill also required authorized 

law enforcement to disclose the collected data to Federal Governmental agencies and other States for use exclusively in determining 

the lawfulness of a firearm sale or transfer. 

Two years later, another bill I sponsored expanded the use of the 

mental health database so that law enforcement could also check 

residents applying for concealed-carry permits and firearm licenses, 

and expanded the definition of ‘‘adjudicated mentally defective’’ to 

include those involuntarily committed to outpatient mental health 

treatment centers. 

Both of these bills are excellent examples of laws that improve 

public safety by keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally 

ill without endangering the freedoms of law-abiding gun owners. 

We are at a turning point now. You have an opportunity to do 

what is right, and that may not be the easiest route. It is not time 

for feel-good legislation so you can say you did something, but it 

is time for a true discussion on the culture of violence and how to 

prevent more violent crime. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Adams appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

And our wrap-up speaker, the distinguished president of the 

Conference of Mayors, Mayor Michael Nutter of Philadelphia. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL A. NUTTER, MAYOR, 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, AND PRESIDENT, THE 

U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mayor NUTTER. Senator Feinstein, all the Members of this Committee, I am Michael A. Nutter, mayor of the city of Philadelphia 

and president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. I am honored to 

have the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the 

Nation’s mayors to discuss the importance of passing the Assault 

Weapons Ban of 2013. While we support several bills being considered by this Committee, we have made passage of the Assault 

Weapons Ban of 2013 our top priority. 

Gun violence also has been personal for you, Senator Feinstein, 

and it has certainly been personal for me. The first police officer 

my city lost after I became mayor in 2008 was killed by an AK– 

47 or SK–47-type assault weapon when he responded to a bank 

robbery in a supermarket on a Saturday morning. I will never forget that day. A 12-year veteran of the Philadelphia Police Department, Sergeant Stephen Liczbinski was 39 years old. He left a wife 

and three children. Neither our police officers nor our citizens, and 

especially our children, should be confronted with these weapons 

on the streets of our cities, in our schools, in our movie theaters, 

in our shopping malls, in our places of worship, or in other civilian 

settings. 

Gun violence has certainly also been intensely personal for Mr. 

Neil Heslin, who is sharing this table with us today. And on a personal note, let me point out it is my own personal feeling that some 

of the statements made today have certainly been dispassionately 
46 

disrespectful to Jesse and all others at Newtown and many other 

cities across this country. 

[Applause.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Please. 

Mayor NUTTER. Mr. Heslin has been visited by every parent’s 

nightmare. I am a father of two children. But with his help we can 

hope to secure legislation that will spare other parents of other 

young children from the unimaginable pain of life lost to a weapon 

designed for mass killing. 

The December 14th tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School 

which killed 20 young children and 6 educators in Newtown remains incomprehensible to all of us. Too many times during the 

last year, mayors have expressed shock at mass shootings. Even 

more frequently, many of us most cope with the gun violence that 

occurs on the streets of our cities daily. Citizens have been killed 

on Philadelphia streets by handguns with high-capacity magazines 

as well as rifles and shotguns. 

To me, and to America’s mayors, these are weapons of mass destruction, and they are destroying our communities, our streets, 

our citizens, and our families. 

The U.S. Conference of Mayors has been calling for sensible gun 

safety laws to protect the public for more than 40 years. Our call 

for a ban on assault weapons dates back to 1991. Mayors and police chiefs from cities of all sizes have worked together in this effort 

for many years. 

We have done that because of the tremendous toll gun violence 

takes on the American people day in and day out. Every day in the 

United States of America, 282 people are shot, 86 of them die, including 32 who are murdered. 

Every day—every day—50 children and teens are shot, and 8 of 

them die, including 5 who are murdered. 

Gun violence disproportionately affects urban areas. Our Nation’s 50 largest metro areas have 62 center cities, and those cities 

account for 15 percent of the population, but 39 percent of gun-related murders and 23 percent of total homicides. 

Philadelphia, like many major cities, has struggled to control gun 

violence for years. However, despite our recent success at employing more effective policing techniques, deaths due to gun violence 

have not fallen. Let me use one set of statistics to illustrate this 

point. 

Last year, in Philadelphia, the number of shooting victims was 

1,282. This is actually down considerably from the year before and 

was the lowest number since we began tracking shooting victims 

in the year 2000. However, the number of homicide victims was up 

slightly—331, seven more than in 2011. How are these two statistics possible? The answer is that the homicide victims have more 

bullets killing them. Or, to put it another way, there are more 

rounds being fired and more intentional head shots. Victims are 

bleeding out because when you are hit with 8, 10, 12, or 15 shots, 

even if you do not hit a major artery, you will just bleed out in the 

streets or by the time you get to the hospital. So despite better policing, when someone is shot in Philadelphia or may other cities, 

sometimes they much more likely to die from the volume of rounds 

that hit them than anything else. 
47 

I would note that Pennsylvania does not have stringent gun regulations. When the city of Philadelphia adopted strict gun laws a 

few years ago, Our State Supreme Court struck some of those laws 

down. That is why we need Federal legislation. Cities alone cannot 

reduce gun violence. We are doing everything we can, but we are 

still losing the battle in many instances thanks to the proliferation 

of guns in our Nation. 

Philadelphia’s story is not unique. Mayors everywhere struggle 

with gun violence, using scarce city resources to fight it—resources 

that we should be using to educate our children, create jobs for our 

residents, and revitalize our cities. 

I have with me this morning a letter originally sent just 3 days 

after the Newtown tragedy occurred and now signed by 212 mayors 

which calls on the President and Congress to take immediate action and make reasonable changes to our gun laws and regulations. 

Listed first among our recommended changes is the enactment of 

legislation to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. I 

ask that you include that letter in the record of this hearing. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So ordered. 

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

Mayor NUTTER. Let me conclude, Madam Chair. Mayors consider 

protecting the citizens of our cities our highest responsibility. We 

know that keeping our cities and our citizens safe requires more 

than passing sensible gun laws, including the assault weapons ban, 

but we also know that we cannot keep our cities safe unless we 

pass such laws. Your Assault Weapons Ban bill is common-sense 

legislation which will help us to reduce the number of people, including police officers, who are shot and killed in our cities and 

throughout our Nation. This legislation deserves a vote. This legislation deserves to be passed, by this Committee, by the Senate, and 

by the House so that President Obama can sign it into law. 

I know it will take an act of political courage for many Members 

of Congress to support the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, but the 

time for such political courage is now. How many more children, 

how many more police officers do we have to lose for our elected 

representatives to do the right thing? Please take action now on behalf of the most important special interest group in America—all 

Americans. 

Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

[The prepared statement of Mayor Nutter appears as a submission for the record.] 

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

Mayor. It is very much appreciated. 

Mayor NUTTER. Thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Dr. Begg, I would like to ask you this question: Did you actually treat Sandy Hook victims? 

Dr. BEGG. Yes. I was in the ER that day when the victims came 

in. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Can you describe the kinds of wounds and 

the number of bullets in these small bodies? 

Dr. BEGG. There is privacy rules in HIPAA that prevent me from 

actually detailing the type of wounds. But most of the victims actually did not come in. When we have such horrific injuries to little 
48 

bodies, that is what happens. They do not even make it to the hospital. The coroner from the State of Connecticut, when he did his 

review—and this is public knowledge—stated that each body had 

3 to 11 bullets. When a child has 3 to 11 bullets in him and it is 

an assault-type bullet that explodes inside the body, it does not go 

through a straight line, it goes in and then it opens up, that is not 

a survivable injury. 

So with respect to the families who lost loved ones and had them 

come into the emergency room and for HIPAA rules, I cannot describe the specifics. But hopefully I have at least painted a picture 

of what went on. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

Did you have something that you wanted to show us? 

Dr. BEGG. There is a very brief video, about 1 minute, and the 

point of the video is to highlight the difference between a bullet 

that goes into a body that is from a .22—and I am not a ballistic 

expert, but just like basically a handgun versus an assault weapon, 

and it just highlights the difference in damage inside of a person’s 

body. So if we may. 

[Videotape shown.] 

Dr. BEGG. So, just briefly, the point, the first portion of the video 

represents like a .22 or a handgun, and so the bullet goes in on a 

straight-line track; whereas, the second video attempts to represent 

what—did represent what happens with an assault rifle-type bullet 

that goes in and basically explodes inside the body, the point is trying to cause more damage. In the military setting, in war, I guess 

that is the type of goal you have, but to have this in the civilian 

population is just—I just do not understand. So that is the point 

of the video. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. I appreciate 

it. 

Senator Graham. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you, Doctor. I definitely get where you 

are coming from. You see a lot of things that most people never 

see. 

Mayor, what percentage of violent deaths involving a firearm in 

your city are a result of handguns versus rifles? Do you know? 

Mayor NUTTER. Thank you, Senator. In 2012, unfortunately, we 

had 331 murders in the city of Philadelphia, and pretty consistently over the last 10 years or so, murder has been committed with 

a gun or other handgun or rifle-type of weapon. Usually anywhere 

from 82 to 85 percent of the murders in Philadelphia are committed with a gun. 

Senator GRAHAM. But you do not know—just nationally, according to the 2011 numbers, 2.5 percent of homicides were committed 

with some form of a rifle. Do you think that is vastly different in 

Philadelphia? And I know you do not—— 

Mayor NUTTER. Well, I do have some numbers, Senator. I think 

the thing—so I am not going to talk about the national picture. 

Senator GRAHAM. Yes, sir. 

Mayor NUTTER. Of 331 murders in Philadelphia last year, 282 

were committed with a handgun, 2 with a shotgun. This year we 

have had 31 murders, which is actually 37 percent down year-todate compared to last year, 25 with handguns, 2 with a shotgun, 
49 

including, unfortunately, yesterday morning Jennifer Fitzpatrick, 

37 years old, a mother of four, was killed by her ex-boyfriend in 

front of her 4-year-old with a 12 gauge shotgun after chasing her 

down the street and shooting repeatedly after her. 

So gun violence certainly in Philadelphia and many of our major 

cities across the United States of America, I would only suggest, 

Senator, handgun, rifle, shotgun, dead is dead, and that is what 

being experienced in our cities all across America. 

Senator GRAHAM. I could not agree with you more, but the reason we have hearings like this is to try to paint the picture for 

America of the problem we are trying to solve. 

Mayor NUTTER. Right. 

Senator GRAHAM. And I do not know what percentage of deaths 

are caused by rifles in Philadelphia, but I know nationally it is 2.5 

percent. 

Mr. Hardy, you have done some research on American ownership 

of the AR–15. Is that correct? 

Mr. HARDY. Yes, sir. 

Senator GRAHAM. Under the Heller definition, do you think it 

would be a commonly used or a weapon in common use at the 

time? 

Mr. HARDY. Senator, I believe it would clearly be a weapon in 

common use at the time. The first bit of research I included was 

that approximately 22 percent of all American rifle production at 

the moment is devoted to the AR–15 platform—excuse me, that is 

the minimum—those are companies that only make AR–15s. Then 

you have got the other companies that make that plus some other 

arms. 

Senator GRAHAM. Now, back to the background check, Chief 

Flynn I think had a very interesting observation, that he is not 

into chasing paper. And I guess my point is, if you have 76,000 people fail a background check and only 13 people plead guilty, I am 

not so sure we are sending the right signal to our citizens at large 

that we are really serious about you trying to get a gun illegally 

when you only have 13 guilty pleas out of 76,000. And here is a 

stunning number, Madam Chairman. Nineteen percent of the people who failed a background check were fugitives from justice. I 

mean, that is 13,862 people apparently in 2012 failed a background 

check because they were a fugitive from justice, and my point is 

that if we are only—we should be going after those folks. No matter how you feel about guns, we should be going after those folks. 

From a background check point of view, this legislation, Mr. 

Hardy, as you understand it, would it require a background check 

if I sold the gun to my neighbor? 

Mr. HARDY. I do not know that this bill specifically relates to 

that, but the proposals I have seen would say yes, you would be 

required to go through a dealer. 

Senator GRAHAM. All right. Now, Ms. Adams, about self-defense, 

are you familiar with a case in Atlanta—I think it happened probably a month or two ago—where a person, a man, entered the 

house with a crowbar, had just gotten out of jail, the mother was 

at home with two twin daughters, I think, she took the daughters 

up to the second floor and hid in a closet, the intruder followed up 

and opened the closet door, she had a six-shot revolver, she was on 
50 

the phone with her husband, she emptied the gun, hit him five or 

six times, and he was able to get in his car and drive away. In a 

situation like that, would you object to the mother having a 20- 

round clip? 

Ms. ADAMS. No. And I am familiar with it. I heard about it. Like 

many mothers and grandmothers, and as a law enforcement officer, 

the question I had was if he followed them upstairs, sought them 

out when he had full access to any valuables downstairs, what was 

his intent? 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, we will never know what he was up to 

because it ended in a way where the family was safe, and we all 

agree that no one who is mentally unstable or criminal should have 

one bullet with any gun. And the whole point here is to try make 

sure that we balance keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong 

people without—also recognizing the Second Amendment. 

I would suggest that in some situations six bullets is not enough 

for a person defending their family and one bullet in the hands of 

the wrong person is way too many, and that is what we are trying 

to accommodate here. 

Now, one last thing, and I will try to wrap this up. There is a 

debate about self-defense, Mr. Hardy. If you had a lawless situation, let us say there is a natural disaster somewhere—unfortunately, these things happen. There are three homes: there is a 

home without a gun, there is a home with a shotgun, and a home 

with an AR–15. If there is a gang roaming around the neighborhood, what home do you think is best protected in a situation like 

that? 

Mr. HARDY. I would say in that situation, Senator, the AR–15, 

the one with the AR–15. But you do not even have to go to a hypothetical. I have been in a situation where you needed—anywhere 

along the border. I live about 60 miles from the Mexican border. 

I was within 5 miles of the border with a rancher working on a 

court case. The rancher had a pistol, his wife had a pistol, I had 

a pistol, and they had an AR–15 in the car, and I felt distinctly 

underarmed. I mean, we only had one. If you encounter a drug cartel gang coming through, you are going to need more than that. 

Senator GRAHAM. And I would just end this by saying that Vice 

President Biden has made the case—and I think he is very sincere—to his wife that if you live in a wooded area, you have got 

a double-barrel shotgun, to ward off the bad guys go outside and 

fire a couple shots. And he also made the case to a gentleman from 

California that if there is a natural disaster, the shotgun is the 

preferred weapon over the AR–15 for self-defense. And I would just 

say that reasonable people can disagree on that. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Senator. 

We must give up this room at 1:30, and we have three additional 

Senators who would very much like to ask questions. So I would 

like to try to keep the timeline. 

Senator Durbin. 

Senator DURBIN. Thanks, Madam Chairman. I have listened to 

the arguments on the other side at several hearings, and we heard 

them articulated specifically by one of the other Senators in the 

earlier panel. And he said, ‘‘Let us not rush into this too quickly.’’ 
51 

Two years ago, a member of the United States House of Representatives, one of our own, was shot point-blank in the face in 

Tucson, Arizona. We did not even hold a hearing on that. ‘‘Do not 

rush into this too quickly.’’ 

When you look at what is happening in city after city across the 

United States, we are not rushing into this too quickly. We are 

coming in too late for a lot of these victims. So I disregard that immediately. 

The second and third point made by some arguing against this 

effort, laws are not going to solve all the problems, and many people will just disregard whatever we do. Well, I think we all can see 

that no law is going to solve all the problems, and we realize even 

today people are speeding on highways despite laws saying they 

should not. Does that mean we do not try, we do not make an effort 

at this? 

But the thing that bothered me the most was the argument is 

we have to take care and be careful to protect the rights of lawabiding citizens. To protect the rights of law-abiding citizens. 

Mr. Heslin, I walked into the room here when that video was on, 

and there were people up there using AR–15s, spraying targets 

with bullets. And flashed on the screen right after one of them was 

the word ‘‘Fun.’’ And I thought about that. And I thought about 

your rights and Jesse’s rights as a law-abiding citizen to be safe, 

to be safe in a schoolroom in Newtown, Connecticut. 

What about the rights of the law-abiding citizens who wear uniforms every day, the men and women in law enforcement who get 

up and put their lives on the line for us? What about their rights? 

Do they not have rights at least equal to these rights under the 

Second Amendment? I think that is what Heller said. Heller said 

this is not an absolute right. And, sadly, Professor Johnson, I have 

been through law schools a long, long time ago, and law professors 

can really kind of dance around the top of a head of a pin. But 

when I listened to you and Mr. Hardy describe the Second Amendment, it is a suicide pact, because by your definition what has become common in America is unacceptable in a civilized country. 

[Applause.] 

Senator DURBIN. What has become common in—— 

Professor JOHNSON. I made a very different point, Senator. 

Senator DURBIN. I will tell you what, the point I want to make 

is this: If it is common in America to have a military assault weapon with a 100-round magazine, if that is common for self-defense 

in America, God save this country. 

Professor JOHNSON. I made a point about irrational classifications. 

[Applause.] 

Professor JOHNSON. Senator, could I respond? 

Senator DURBIN. Please do. 

Professor JOHNSON. My point was actually that this legislation 

will make things worse on the measure of people who support it; 

that is, it cannot be sustained ultimately. The Supreme Court will 

look at these classifications and—— 

Senator DURBIN. So let us read what the Supreme Court said. 

Let us read what they said, Professor—— 

Professor JOHNSON. Can I finish? 
52 

Senator DURBIN. Let us read exactly what they said. They said 

that we—the Court held in Heller that the Second Amendment preserves access to firearms in common use and not dangerous or unusual—— 

Professor JOHNSON. And that last piece is exactly my point. 

Senator DURBIN [continuing]. Or the purpose of self-defense—— 

Professor JOHNSON. If it turns out that you—— 

Senator DURBIN. Excuse me, sir. Are you arguing that the AR– 

15 that we just saw demonstrated there is a common weapon, not 

dangerous or unusual, used for the purpose of self-defense? Is that 

your argument? 

Professor JOHNSON. That is not my argument, actually, and—— 

Senator DURBIN. Well, then, I can just tell you, you have been 

excluded by Heller. Please respond. 

Professor JOHNSON. The point of this analysis—and I conducted 

this in 2009, before this issue arose—was that there is a necessity 

for creating a category of exceptionalism. If you claim that the AR– 

15 is exceptional, you have to show that its characteristics are not 

duplicated by items or guns that are in your other category of allowed weapons. And my point about the shotgun was that all of the 

claims that are made about the exceptional capacities of the AR– 

15 are better illustrated, better demonstrated actually by the shotgun. And if you go before the Supreme Court with that, what you 

will have ultimately is a piece of legislation that really just generates more demand for the very type of gun that you are trying 

to ban—— 

Senator DURBIN. Professor—— 

Professor JOHNSON. And ultimately you are going to have the 

same failure—— 

Senator DURBIN. Professor, I am sorry to cut you off. 

Professor JOHNSON. That you had in 1994. 

Senator DURBIN. My time is running out, and I know lawyers 

and Senators can speak at length. And I would just say this in conclusion: I believe this Chairman has made a good-faith effort. If you 

take a look at the number of weapons that are an exception to her 

categories here, there is no law-abiding sportsman or hunter or 

person who wants a gun for self-defense who will be left unarmed 

under the Second Amendment in Illinois or any place in the United 

States. 

Professor JOHNSON. Those guns are actually more deadly than 

the AR–15—— 

Senator DURBIN. Excuse me, sir. Excuse me—— 

Professor JOHNSON. That is the point. 

Senator DURBIN. The point I am making here is there is ample 

opportunity for applying the Second Amendment, and the Heller 

Court said we can be reasonable in drawing these standards. 

And the last point I will make, Representative Adams, this is not 

‘‘feel-good legislation.’’ I am sorry you used that phrase in your 

statement and testimony. I do not feel good about being here today. 

Mr. Heslin does not feel good about being here today. We are trying 

to make this country safe, and we are giving our—— 

[Applause.] 

Senator DURBIN [continuing]. Best efforts to—— 
53 

Ms. ADAMS. Senator, I understand, as someone who has a husband on the wall at Judiciary Square. But I also understand that 

the criminals by their very definition do not obey the law. So when 

you take away the guns that people have to protect themselves, 

law-abiding citizens are left unarmed. 

Senator DURBIN. I am sure you will now support a universal 

background check to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals, 

will you not? 

Ms. ADAMS. No, sir, because that is a flawed system also. If you 

want to fix that system first, I would love to have an opportunity 

to discuss that with you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I want to 

thank all the witnesses for being here today. 

Mr. Heslin, we met a few weeks ago. I want to thank you for 

being here, for sharing your story. I read your testimony. Jesse 

sounds like a remarkable—he was a remarkable young boy. I read 

in your written testimony that the last words he said were, ‘‘Run’’ 

or ‘‘Run now.’’ The witnesses are disputing whether he said, ‘‘Run’’ 

or ‘‘Run now,’’ and that he was shot—— 

Mr. HESLIN. Jesse was shot two times in the head. One bullet 

grazed his temple, the side of his head. That was not the fatal shot. 

Jesse was one of five students in his class that was killed, and the 

two—the teacher and the teacher’s assistant. Ten of those students 

survived the protection of Vicki Soto, her actions, and it was stated 

by several of the surviving students that Jesse yelled, ‘‘Run. Run 

now.’’ 

Senator FRANKEN. And it was not in his back. He was coming to 

stop—— 

Mr. HESLIN. Jesse’s fatal shot was in his forehead. It went in 

right at his hairline, exited directly behind that. Jesse looked that 

coward Adam Lanza in the eyes, saw his face, and he looked at the 

end of that barrel. Jesse did not run. Jesse did not turn his back. 

That was the fatal shot that killed Jesse. 

Senator FRANKEN. I just want to thank you for your courage to 

be here in spite of how painful it is, and I know that all Minnesotans have you and your family and all the families that are here 

in their prayers and in their thoughts. We are just trying here to 

do what we can do to save lives. 

We have heard—and we just heard it again; I talked about this 

in my opening statement—about these hypotheticals, imagine this, 

imagine that. Thus far, in the record, I have not seen one example 

of where an AR–15 is used for self-defense. 

Now, I have been asked to imagine it. I have been asked to imagine hypothetical situations, and I can. But I have not heard one example on the record. This is our third hearing. So what we really 

are trying to deal with here is reality, what is real. 

And, Mayor Nutter, you are a mayor. As I understand it, police 

are more often targeted by assault weapons and are the victims of 

assault weapons than other people. What is the reality? 

Mayor NUTTER. Senator, thank you. First of all, this idea that 

these weapons are for self-defense, based on our experience, is completely absurd. They are self-offensive weapons. That is what you 

use them for, because you are on offense. There are certainly in-
54 

stances and there will be the unusual situation that someone can 

pull out from wherever they want to pull it out from, and certainly 

2 weeks ago, a guy came in to rob a store. The owner was in the 

back. The guy pointed a gun at his wife. He pulled off a round, and 

the owner shot the individual with his gun. He did not have an 

AR–15. He had whatever kind of weapon he had, but it was not 

one of those. 

And from time to time, these kinds of things happen. But what 

we see on the streets, when Sergeant Stephen Liczbinski was shot 

with that assault-type weapon, it almost cut him in half. His fellow 

officers had to drag him and place him in a car and rush him to 

the hospital. I was in that hospital with his family, holding his 

wife, talking to his kids, and saying to them, ‘‘I am sorry.’’ He did 

not make it. 

Moses Walker, another Philadelphia police officer, just finished 

his tour of duty, 6 o’clock or so in the morning. 

This is an armed, trained Philadelphia officer. But two guys got 

a jump on him and shot him with an automatic weapon. I had to 

talk to his mother about that. 

Patrick McDonald, shot multiple times with a weapon, with the 

person standing over him. Fortunately, a Philadelphia police officer 

responding to that call dealt with that individual, after having 

been shot in the hip by that person, knocked down, and jumped 

back up to deal with that criminal. 

That is what goes on. That is the reality. This is not theory. This 

is not a class. This is not a case study. People die. That is what 

happens. I go to every one of those hospital scenes. I have got 

mothers without their sons who serve us, wives without their husbands. That is the reality of what is going on. And no one—and I 

have been to a few hearings myself, Senator. No one has ever been 

able to explain why a civilian should have a military-style assault 

weapon for anything other than the military or law enforcement. 

I have never heard a legitimate explanation. 

[Applause.] 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. 

Mayor NUTTER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Senator Franken. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Madam Chair. My thanks to 

all the witnesses who are here today for your testimony. 

Dr. Begg, my objective and I believe the objective of many of my 

colleagues here today is to show that your mom is right. This time 

is different. This time we will do something. And the reason it is 

different is that Newtown changed America. It changed me. I know 

it changed you and others who are here today and many of my colleagues. So I want to thank you for being here. 

And, Mayor Nutter, no city can do it alone. No city can stop gun 

violence alone because our city borders are porous to illegal trafficking, and our State borders are as well. And that is why Senator 

Durbin and I and others have led the effort to stop illegal trafficking because a national standard and national protection are absolutely required. 

Mayor NUTTER. Thank you, Senator. 
55 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Let me just say to all of you, you know, 

there has been a lot of debate here about statistics and numbers. 

The simple fact is we do not have enough research on gun violence 

in this country, and part of the reason is that opponents of gun violence protection have placed restrictive constraints on the research 

that can be done by Federal agencies in collecting and analyzing 

research about gun violence. Research that could be done by the 

CDC and the NIH has been barred by restrictions placed by the 

Congress of the United States. 

So let me ask every member here: Do any of you feel that we 

have enough research that we should not do any more on the issue 

of gun violence? Dr. Begg. I am asking whether anybody disagrees 

that we need more research. 

Dr. BEGG. I agree we need more research. This is a public health 

issue. Thirty thousand people a year die. We give resources to— 

there are four—the top four reasons you are going to die: either 

heart attack, stroke, cancer, or trauma. And folks who have cancer 

and stroke and heart attack, there is a lot of research. But there 

is not the research—there are just anecdotes. But the data that is 

out there is clear that if you own a gun, you are 5 times as likely 

to die from suicide, or a lady, you are 5 times as likely to have your 

partner kill you. So we need more research rather than anecdotes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Professor Johnson, you know, I have argued some cases in the United States Supreme Court, in fact, defending State statutes in our State Supreme Court. I defended our 

assault weapon ban in Connecticut, and won. It was upheld. The 

vast majority—in fact, I do not know of any court differing with the 

rulings made by Federal courts on the assault weapon ban that existed before 2004—upheld it. Do you know of any decision by a 

United States district court that strikes down an assault weapon 

ban? 

Professor JOHNSON. To make a distinction between the pre-Heller 

world and now, so—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, let me just ask the first question. Do 

you know of any decision striking it down? Do you know of a letter 

that was written by 50 constitutional law professors, including libertarian and conservative intellectuals like Robert Epstein, Eric 

Posner, Charles Freed, from the top law schools of the country, 

that say that restrictions on the manufacture and sale, and I am 

quoting—and I ask that this letter be put in the record, Madam 

Chairman. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So ordered. 

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

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Restrictions on the manufacture and sale 

of high-capacity ammunition magazines and assault weapons are 

also consistent with the Second Amendment. Are you aware of that 

letter? 

Professor JOHNSON. I am aware of that letter, and I know many 

of the folks on that list, but I would venture that most of the people 

on that list have not spent more than a couple of hours thinking 

about this issue. I have spent—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, I am sure they would differ. 

Professor JOHNSON. I have spent decades on this, and the assessment that I presented—— 
56 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I understand you have spent decades—— 

Professor JOHNSON. In 2009—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Let me just ask another question—— 

Professor JOHNSON. Is one that I would urge you to read. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I am sure they would differ on the amount 

of time they spent thinking about this issue before they signed the 

letter and—— 

Professor JOHNSON. Most of them have not published on the 

issue. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Okay. Well, I will let you settle the issue 

of their credentials academically and—— 

Professor JOHNSON. It is not about their credentials. It is about 

whether they have thought this through. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Okay. You know, with all due respect, 

Professor, in the arguments I have done before the United States 

Supreme Court defending State statutes and sometimes the action 

of State officials, the first two propositions out of my mouth were, 

number one, the courts have a responsibility to deem constitutional, to presume constitutional valid acts of the legislature; and, 

number two, legislatures are not required to solve all of the problem it wants. They can take incremental steps towards solving the 

problem. And I would submit very respectfully that the rational 

basis test, that is, whether an assault weapon ban and a prohibition on high-capacity magazines is rationally related to the end of 

preventing gun violence is sufficiently established by the testimony 

we have had here today, and that a decision by a court striking 

down the statute that has been proposed would be deemed constitutionally incoherent. 

You have used that word ‘‘incoherent’’—— 

Professor JOHNSON. Could I just respond? 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, you will be given an opportunity to 

respond, but normally in hearings we allow everybody to finish. 

Professor JOHNSON. I am sorry. Excuse me. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Then you will have a chance. 

You have used the word ‘‘incoherent’’ to describe the legislation 

that has been proposed here. I think that is, number one, disrespectful to the Committee; but, number two, I think it is just 

plain wrong. But, number three, if you have suggestions for how 

to improve it—and this goes for any of the members of this panel— 

certainly we would welcome them because our ultimate objective, 

which I hope you share, is to help save lives, the kind of carnage 

that has been described so eloquently by Mayor Nutter and Chief 

Flynn and United States Attorney John Walsh, not to mention by 

Neil Heslin and Dr. Begg based on their person experience. And as 

many articles as you and Attorney Hardy may have written, I do 

not think you have had the personal experience firsthand of seeing 

how dangerous—that is the word used by our United States Supreme Court in Heller—how dangerous these weapons are. And my 

hope is that perhaps you will be more supportive, because I think 

America is on our side on this issue because America knows this 

time is different. 

Professor JOHNSON. Could I respond? 

[Applause.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes, you may. 
57 

Professor JOHNSON. Senator, first, we are not on different sides. 

The thing that bothers me most about the debate is that it turns 

us against one another. We are all trying to figure out how best 

to be safe. My explicit testimony referenced the Army Joint Service 

Combat Shotgun Program Report, and my point was, with respect 

to the incoherence, that the claims that were being made by the 

Committee and others that justified the prohibited category were 

better descriptions of guns in the non-prohibited category, and the 

Joint Service Combat Shotgun Program Report shows that. 

That is the incoherence that I am describing, and that kind of 

incoherence, that is, a classification whose justifications will not 

hold up, is the point of the rational basis review issue that I mentioned. 

The other thing to point out about the Heller decision is that it 

requires something far more than simply rational basis; that is, it 

is not an automatic deference to whatever the legislature does, because now what we are talking about is a constitutional right. So 

what we end up with ultimately is the Supreme Court potentially 

looking or some court looking at this question, making a determination about whether these distinctions, whether the classifications between the AR–15, et cetera, and all of the things that are 

on the good-gun list, whether those classifications are rational. And 

if the Court ends up saying, no, they are not, then what you will 

have is a piece of legislation that has accelerated in a dramatic way 

the purchases and the number and inventory of the very guns that 

you are trying to eliminate. And that seems to me to be a kind of 

unintended consequence that people should have an appreciation 

for. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. If I may—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I recognize 

that we will be evicted from this room, but I am sure that we will 

continue this conversation, and I hope it is continued constructively 

with that comment and helping to prevent gun violence and the 

kind of massacre that we saw in Newtown. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator Franken, thank you for staying throughout this. 

I want to just say a couple of things. I drafted or my staff drafted 

the earlier legislation in 1993, I guess we did it in 1994 to 2004. 

I believe it did make a difference. I believe it did just begin to dry 

up the supply. I think it will be judged—this piece of legislation— 

constitutional. The prior piece of legislation went through the 

Fourth Circuit, the Sixth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, and the D.C. 

Circuit, and it was sustained everywhere. 

So even with Heller, I see no really regular use of an AR–15, a 

common use in society. It may be a small group of people that use 

it for target practice or, God forbid, if they use it for hunting, they 

are not much of a hunter. But the irreparable damage that is done 

to bodies from this weapon and other high-velocity rifles that tears 

people’s bodies apart I do not know why as a matter of public policy we cannot say they do not belong. 

Is this legislation perfect? No. Would I welcome help? When I did 

this in 1993 and 1994, I said to the NRA, ‘‘If you have suggestions, 
58 

give them to us.’’ Nothing. I would say that again. If you have suggestions how to improve this, give us the suggestions. 

I believe that the American people are for, as a matter of public 

policy, saying that weapons designed for war do not belong on the 

streets of our cities. 

To Mayor Nutter, I became mayor a long time ago, in 1978. 

When I became mayor, the common carry for a police officer was 

a .38 revolver. 

Mayor NUTTER. Right. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And it was ratcheted up and ratcheted up. 

Mayor NUTTER. Yes. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And then one day in Los Angeles, the police 

were outgunned in a robbery. They had to break into a gun store 

to get guns that were sufficient to meet the test. 

Mayor NUTTER. Right. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So it has been the ratcheting up of weapons—— 

Mayor NUTTER. It keeps going up. 

Senator FEINSTEIN [continuing]. That go through society and 

have an unparalleled impact. Sandy Hook is an example of the unparalleled impact—to families, to children, to teachers, to young 

women who are out there defending their students. It is hard for 

me to understand how anybody can defend that, candidly. 

And I just want to say, the courage that it took for people from 

Sandy Hook to be here today, I want to say thank you. And, Neil 

Heslin, I want to say thank you to you. With a little bit of help 

from the people of America, we might even be able to pass that. 

It is an uphill job all the way, but I believe we are right, you believe we are right, and we will continue to fight. 

So I thank all of you for being here. It is very much appreciated. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Applause.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I will leave the record open for statements, 

and the two letters from Senator Grassley will be entered into the 

record. 

[The letters appear as submissions for the record.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 1:28 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 
(59) 

A P P E N D I X 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
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 

RESPONSES OF HON. SANDY ADAMS TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR GRASSLEY
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 

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: 

Nutter, Hon. Michael A., Mayor of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and President, 

The U.S. Conference of Mayors, Proposal for the Creation of the National 

Commission on Domestic Terrorism, Violence and Crime in America, proposal: 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Proposal%20for%20the% 

20Creation%20of%20the%20National%20Commission%20on%20Domestic% 

20Terrorism,%20Violence%20and%20Crime%20in%20America.pdf. 

Æ