U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

22–473 PDF 2005

UNDER FIRE: DOES THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA’S

GUN BAN HELP OR HURT THE FIGHT AGAINST

CRIME?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 28, 2005

Serial No. 109–40

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Staff Director

DAVID MARIN, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on June 28, 2005 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Lott, John R., Jr., Ph.D., resident scholar, American Enterprise Institute;

Robert A. Levy, senior fellow in COnstitutional Studies, the CATO

Institute; Robert Peck, president, Greater Washington Board of Trade;

Pastor H. Lionel Edmonds, co-Chair, Washington Interfaith Network;

Sandra Seegars, District of Columbia resident; Tyrone Parker, executive director, Alliance of Concerned Men; and Francine Lowe, District

of Columbia resident ..................................................................................... 77

Edmonds, Pastor H. Lionel ....................................................................... 109

Levy, Robert A. .......................................................................................... 92

Lott, John R., Jr., Ph.D. ............................................................................ 77

Lowe, Francine .......................................................................................... 133

Parker, Tyrone ........................................................................................... 129

Peck, Robert ............................................................................................... 105

Seegars, Sandra ......................................................................................... 111

Williams, Anthony, Mayor, the District of Columbia; and Charles H.

Ramsey, chief of police, Metropolitan Police Department ......................... 41

Ramsey, Charles H. ................................................................................... 47

Williams, Anthony ..................................................................................... 41

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Missouri, prepared statement of .................................................................. 30

Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland, prepared statement of ............................................................ 25

Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Virginia, prepared statement of ................................................................... 3

Edmonds, Pastor H. Lionel, co-Chair, Washington Interfaith Network,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 110

Levy, Robert A., senior fellow in COnstitutional Studies, the CATO Institute, prepared statement of .......................................................................... 94

Lott, John R., Jr., Ph.D., resident scholar, American Enterprise Institute,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 81

Lowe, Francine, District of Columbia resident, prepared statement of ....... 134

McHenry, Hon. Patrick T., a Representative in Congress from the State

of North Carolina, prepared statement of ................................................... 12

Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, a Delegate in Congress from the District

of Columbia:

Information concerning fatal shootings ................................................... 57

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8

Parker, Tyrone, executive director, Alliance of Concerned Men, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 131

Peck, Robert, president, Greater Washington Board of Trade, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 107

Porter, Hon. Jon C., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Nevada, prepared statement of .................................................................... 151

Ramsey, Charles H., chief of police, Metropolitan Police Department,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 50

Ruppersberger, Hon. C.A. Dutch, a Representative in Congress from the

State of Maryland, prepared statement of .................................................. 35

Seegars, Sandra, District of Columbia resident, prepared statement of ..... 114

Watson, Hon. Diane E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California, prepared statement of ........................................................... 152

Page

IV

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by—Continued

Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California, prepared statement of ........................................................... 15

Westmoreland, Hon. Lynn A., a Representative in Congress from the

State of Georgia, prepared statement of ..................................................... 39

Williams, Anthony, Mayor, the District of Columbia, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 44

(1)

UNDER FIRE: DOES THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA’S GUN BAN HELP OR HURT THE

FIGHT AGAINST CRIME?

TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Davis (chairman

of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Davis of Virginia, Burton, Cannon, Duncan, Marchant,

Westmoreland, McHenry, Dent, Waxman, Cummings, Kucinich,

Clay, Watson, Van Hollen, Ruppersberger, and Norton.

Staff present: Melissa Wojciak, staff director; David Marin, deputy staff director/communications director; Keith Ausbrook, chief

counsel; Rob White, press secretary; Drew Crockett, deputy director

of communications; Shalley Kim, professional staff member; Teresa

Austin, chief clerk; Sarah D’Orsie, deputy clerk; Leneal Scott, computer systems manager; Phil Barnett, minority staff director/chief

counsel; Karen Lightfoot, minority communications director/senior

policy advisor; Rosalind Parker, minority counsel; David Rapallo,

minority chief investigative counsel; Earley Green, minority chief

clerk; Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk; and Chris Traci, minority research assistant.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The committee will come to order. I want

to thank everybody for joining us today, as the Committee on Government Reform takes a look at the District of Columbia law banning handguns and most automatic weapons.

In 1976, 3 years after Congress passed the Home Rule Act, the

District of Columbia Council passed the Firearms Control Regulations Act, a law prohibiting the possession of unregistered firearms

and banning the registration of all handguns, automatic firearms,

and high-capacity semi-automatic firearms. The District’s ban on

handguns makes it illegal for anyone to own a handgun unless he

or she is a police officer who has owned a gun registered prior to

1976. Sales of firearms are similarly restricted. This makes the

District’s gun laws among the strictest of any jurisdiction in the

Nation.

Various lawsuits have been filed in recent years questioning the

Constitutionality of the D.C. gun law under the second amendment. The courts have upheld the ban, finding it is within the District’s power to regulate firearms. Meanwhile, legislation has been

2

introduced in both the House and Senate to overturn the District’s

gun ban.

I am a strong supporter of Home Rule. For our system of federalism and democracy to work, States and localities need to be able

to make their own decisions, even if some of us think they are bad

ones. I believe the citizens of the District, like residents of any city

across the Nation, are best served when their locality’s elected representatives are free to decide how to manage the city’s affairs.

After all, the District is certainly not the only city in America with

a ban on handguns. New York has a restrictive handgun law; so

does Chicago; so do smaller towns such as Morton Grove, Wilmette,

Evanston, and Oak Park, all in Illinois.

I believe there is room in the Congress for debate on the merits

of some of the Nation’s gun laws, but I also believe the appropriate

place for debate on the District’s gun laws is in the chambers of

the District of Columbia City Council.

Congress, as outlined in the Constitution, does retain final say

over the city’s legislative decision. But that is a power we should,

and do, use only rarely. I also believe the District would be better

off if my colleague Eleanor Holmes Norton would cast votes on the

floor of the House of Representatives. We are, of course, working

to build support for legislation to fix that, but that is a topic for

another hearing—July 15th, for those taking notes.

I personally believe that Federal legislation seeking to overturn

D.C.’s gun laws are an unnecessary and potentially dangerous assault on Home Rule. I personally believe the net result could be a

less safe capital city. But this committee’s agenda is not about my

personal beliefs. The issues raised in this debate demand our time

and demand our attention. The safety of D.C. residents demands

it.

Today’s hearing features a compelling array of witnesses who

have differing opinions on the District’s gun ban. I called this hearing because the District’s gun ban not only raises Constitutional

concerns among some observers, but it is worth a look to see if the

ban is working as intended. Does the ban effectively keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals? Would repealing it

lead to a spike in violent crime and homicides? Or, as one of today’s

witnesses argued, would more guns equal less crime?

We are pleased to once again be joined by Mayor Tony Williams

of the District of Columbia and the city’s Police Chief Charles

Ramsey to hear the city’s perspective on the current gun laws. In

addition, the committee is fortunate to be joined by an array of witnesses, including residents of the District of Columbia and representatives from both national think tanks and community organizations from all sides of the issue, and we appreciate an informative discussion on this.

Congress has acted on this in the past without any kind of hearings or anything, and we felt this was appropriate to move forward

today to try to build a record so we can get the city on record and

we can get proponents and opponents, both sides, to be able to

state their case for the public record.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:]

3

4

5

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I would now recognize the distinguished

delegate for the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I thank

you especially for this hearing that is of great importance to D.C.

elected officials and residents. I particularly appreciate the collegial

conversation between you and me, Mr. Chairman, which resulted

in today’s hearing and your working with me to select and secure

today’s witnesses.

The current effort to repeal D.C.’s gun safety laws is the second

consecutive attack on gun safety and on Home Rule in as many

years, and the fourth attack on our gun laws since I have been a

Member of Congress, thanks to the National Rifle Association.

I want to begin by making an important announcement. National

organizations can and do get changes in D.C. laws, but not by coming to Congress. To its credit, Congress, in almost 30 years of

Home Rule, has overturned D.C. law only very rarely. Our local

laws can be changed the way yours are: by showing the minimum

respect our elected officials deserve of lobbying the appropriate

body.

If I may, I want to note that what is truly amazing about the

gun safety repeal bill is that any Member of Congress would desire

to introduce gun and pawn shops here, which could then sell assault weapons like AK–47s in the capital of the United States in

the post-September 11th era, while we still have checkpoints in our

streets stopping people to see if they are terrorists.

Who will take responsibility for a bill that would allow legal ownership of an M–16 by a person who might later go to the roof of

an office or an apartment building and take aim at Federal targets,

visitors, and officials? Any security professional will tell you that

official Washington has as much to fear from the radical repeal in

this bill as residents of the District of Columbia.

My only regret about a hearing on repeal is that any elected official or any police chief of any local jurisdiction in our country today

would have to suffer the indignity of appearing before the U.S.

Congress on a matter of profound local concern. The most fundamental guiding democratic principle of the founders of our country was local control, first from England and then, because they

were deeply principled, they denied to the national government

that they themselves created any control of the laws of local jurisdictions.

The entire reason for our founding revolution was that democracy demanded accountability running from the electorate to those

whom they elected. The framers deeply believed that democracy required that citizens must be able to judge their elected officials by

keeping or removing them.

No sponsor of this bill could be removed or rewarded by the voters of the District of Columbia, leaving more than half a million

American citizens stranded and estranged from democracy in their

own country. The ignorant claptrap from those who have not bothered to immerse themselves in American history that somehow the

root principle of local control and accountability that gave birth to

the Nation was not meant to apply to citizens living in our Nation’s

Capital is a slander on the founders of our country.

6

Even worse, the claim that democracy applies everywhere else in

our country, but not to the capital of our country, demeans more

than half a million American citizens who live in the District of Columbia by explicitly classifying them as second-class Americans.

Nevertheless, I appreciate that Mayor Tony Williams and Police

Chief Charles Ramsey have come to testify as lead witnesses, and

I thank today’s other witnesses for their testimony as well. I hope

it gives Mayor Williams some comfort in coming here to have a

unanimous City Council and a virtually unanimous city behind him

as well.

There are two important aspects to this hearing. The first is who

has the right and the qualifications to decide the gun safety repeal

issue. The second issue is the District’s reasons for maintaining

strict gun laws in this city.

Let us assume for a moment that the District is wrong in enacting strict gun safety laws. When Congress passed the Home Rule

Act, it gave the District the right to make this decision, right or

wrong, a matter that should close this case, particularly today,

when Congress is demanding democracy worldwide.

Even if the District is wrong, can the case seriously be made in

America today that correcting what is wrong lies with this body,

whose members cannot be held accountable for the consequences of

repeal, will not be hammered for increases in gun violence, and will

not attend a single funeral? The assertion that in undemocratically

repealing our gun safety laws Congress would be doing its Constitutional duty would get us laughed off of the world stage, particularly today, when the spread of democracy worldwide is declared national policy.

Since, in looking to the Constitution, Congress placed this matter

in the hand of District officials and residents, we are left only with

the second amendment, except that no local or Federal court, in 30

years of considering this Constitutional issue, has ever found that

D.C.’s gun safety laws violate the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Thus, sponsors and co-sponsors and proponents alike are driven

back to desiring boldly to override the democratically enacted laws

of a local jurisdiction in the United States of America today. I invite the co-sponsors to try their hand at defending the undemocratic repeal of our gun safety laws while rising to object when

other nations ask for a pass on democracy.

No Member of Congress has the right to usurp our right to protect ourselves and our kids by introducing more guns that could

take the gun violence already here the next step to a free-fire zone.

No Member of Congress has the right to encourage guns in homes,

when the overwhelming evidence from all the national data shows

that guns in homes rarely are used to thwart intruders, and are

almost always used to kill those closest to us and in suicides.

No Member of Congress has the right to the odious provision this

bill carries that bars the Mayor and the council from taking any

action, even to an—and I am here quoting—‘‘discourage the private

ownership’’—discourage, my friends, the private ownership—or

‘‘use’’—use—‘‘of firearms.’’ No Member of Congress has a rebuttal

to the hard data that shows that one in five police officers is killed

by an assault weapon in our country today, weapons that this bill

7

sanctions to be sold in the Nation’s Capital. And no Member can

contest the tragic fact that more teens are killed by gunfire than

by all diseases combined.

The most bankrupt rationale offered for this outrageous interference with our local laws is the existing gun violence in the District of Columbia. Let us hear the proponents and the co-sponsors

argue with a straight face that allowing guns in people’s homes

would reduce, rather than increase, the gun violence here. District

officials and residents deserve credit and they deserve our appreciation for the significant reduction in gun killings and in crime

that they have achieved, and particularly for the sharp reduction

in the number of children killed this year by gunfire.

Our residents and officials deserve better than congressional action that would inevitably frustrate their hard work and drive up

these killings. Nine year-old Dante Manning, shot and killed in

Northwest in April, and 1 year-old Miani Gooding, shot and killed

in Southeast in January, deserve better than to have the memory

of their young lives besmirched by the repeal of the District’s gun

safety laws in the very year in which they died by gunfire. Promising 15 year-old Myesha Lowe, shot and killed as a bystander while

eating fast food a year ago, whose mother, Francine Lowe, is here

to testify today, deserves better too.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton follows:]

8

9

10

11

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. McHenry.

Mr. MCHENRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing today, and I appreciate your leadership of the Government Reform Committee.

Protecting the second amendment rights our Constitution provides for is essential to the freedoms of this country. I strongly support the rights of all citizens to lawfully purchase, use, keep personal firearms. Gun control laws simply penalize lawful gun owners who use their firearms for recreational hunting and self-defense

purposes. The best way to reduce illegal gun violence and crime is

through strict enforcement of current laws and stiffer penalties for

criminals.

As a member of the NRA and a co-sponsor of Chairman Souder’s

bill, H.R. 1288, the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act,

I believe it is important to draw attention to this issue. Restricting

lawful residents’ use of guns in the District of Columbia is not

what our Constitution intended.

According to the FBI and D.C. Metropolitan Police, the homicide

rate has soured in the District of Columbia since the city banned

handguns in 1976. Before the ban, the homicide rate was declining.

But by 1991 alone it had risen by more than 200 percent. This is

in stark contrast to the overall national rate, which rose only 12

percent. This indicates that the ban has hurt those living in the

District of Columbia and our visitors to our Nation’s Capital. At

this time, the District of Columbia is only three homicides—three

homicides—away from the same number as we had last year,

which illuminates that this gun ban is not preventing violent

crime.

I would like to welcome our witnesses today. I certainly appreciate you being here to testify, appreciate your expertise on this

issue, and look forward to hearing from each of you on this panel,

this first panel as well as the second panel. But I think we need

to look at new ways to take on this issue. It is not just simply

about the residents of the District of Columbia; it is about our visitors from around the country. It is about my constituents who come

to visit the Nation’s Capital.

Indeed, it is about Americans from all States; it is our folks from

around the country and around the world that come to our great

National Capital. And it is a disgrace that we have such a high

homicide rate and such violent crime occurring here in our Nation’s

Capital. Yet, we disarm those lawful citizens that should be able

to lawfully keep firearms, and allow felons, who are continuing to

commit crimes, keep firearms that they are obviously using to commit homicides.

So I look forward to hearing the testimony of the Mayor and the

police chief here today; I look forward to our future panel as well

to actually illuminate the facts of this issue.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing us the opportunity to be

here today, and thank you for your leadership.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Patrick T. McHenry follows:]

12

13

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Waxman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing

today, which is cynically titled the District of Columbia Personal

Protection Act. And I commend you for working with Congresswoman Norton to put this important hearing together. And I especially want to commend Congresswoman Norton for her determined

leadership on this and so many other issues that matter to the

residents of the District.

Contrary to the bill’s title, the legislation we are considering

won’t enhance personal protection; it will imperil it. This is an astounding piece of legislation because it is so objectionable on so

many levels. First, on process. We are having a hearing on this

proposal today, 9 months after the bill passed the House. This isn’t

Chairman Davis’ fault; the bill was run through last year over his

objection. But passing a bill on the floor and then having a hearing

inverts the legislative process.

On federalism or Home Rule grounds, the bill is a travesty. This

bill was not requested by the District, is not wanted by the District,

and is vehemently opposed by the District. This bill isn’t even

about the District; it is about the NRA and its right-wing supporters in Congress foisting a misguided proposal on U.S. citizens who

don’t even have a vote in the Congress.

The bill is deficient on Constitutional grounds. The bill says ‘‘The

second amendment protects the rights of individuals to keep and

bear arms.’’ That is just wrong. It doesn’t, even though the NRA

desperately wants to ignore the Supreme Court’s rulings and rewrite the Constitution.

The bill is also objectionable on law enforcement grounds. It allows not just handguns and rifles, but semi-automatic assault

weapons. It compounds this danger by eliminating any form of registration, and it is riddled with gaping loopholes that undermine

police efforts to curb gun violence. Here is an example. It would

allow people to carry assault weapons for ‘‘informal target practice.’’ How exactly would the District police enforce that?

And here is another one. It is fine, under this bill, to carry assault weapons as long as you are on your way to a dog obedience

training class.

The most significant problem with this bill, however, is that it

will directly endanger national security. I would like to show the

committee members a picture. This is an actual size photo of a Barrett M82A1 50-caliber semi-automatic sniper rifle. These are what

our military troops are using today to take out enemy positions in

Iraq and Afghanistan. The military uses these weapons to destroy

armored personnel carriers and blow up enemy bunkers from a

mile away. The Marine Scout Sniper School at Quantico trains

military snipers with these weapons.

Here is another picture. This is a photo of an airplane cockpit

window that was blown out by a 50-caliber sniper rifle. This photo

was on the gun manufacturer’s Web page, touting its destructive

force.

If this bill passes, District residents could assemble these weapons, fully load them, rest them on windowsills along Pennsylvania

Avenue during an inauguration. Every single hot dog, ice cream, or

14

t-shirt vendor that lines District streets along the mall on the 4th

of July could be stocked with fully loaded AK–47s. Under this bill,

all of these actions would be totally legal. Why would anyone in

their right mind want to allow these weapons onto the streets of

the District of Columbia?

In short, this is a misguided, destructive, and ludicrous piece of

legislation. If people are visiting the District of Columbia, they

ought to leave their firearms back home. If the law of the District

says they don’t want them in this jurisdiction, then visitors ought

to abide by the law, just as visitors to Los Angeles would have to

abide by our law, if duly passed by the authorities running the city

of Los Angeles.

Why should it be any different for the District of Columbia? Why

should people in this district be subjected to sniper rifles, guns, assault weapons, anything that anybody wants to have available to

them? And to say that the murder rate in this area is due to the

fact that there is a gun ban is absolutely absurd.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that you are holding this hearing,

and it takes some courage for you to do it, because the Republican

leadership of the House has been in the pocket of the NRA for

some time now, and that is why the House of Representatives

rammed through a proposal to overturn the law in the District of

Columbia. I hope it doesn’t happen in the Senate; I hope it doesn’t

happen again in the House.

But at least we are holding a hearing, unfortunately, after the

House has already taken such an extreme step as to overturn the

law in the District of Columbia. And to have now before us a proposal which is misguided and called the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act is a complete misnomer and an outrage.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman follows:]

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you. I think about 50 Democrats

voted for that too, just for the record.

Any other Members want to make opening statements before we

move on to our panel? I want to get to the panel. Mr. Cummings,

followed by Mr. Clay, and then Mr. Kucinich.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I too want to hear from the

panel, but I tell you, after I heard one of my colleagues on the

other side, I just have to say something.

It is ridiculous to say that, when you have a situation where you

already have a violence problem, to allow more guns into an area

simply does not make sense. And I come from a district, the 7th

Congressional District of Maryland, and Baltimore is in the center

of my district, and we have one of the highest murder rates in the

country. And I can tell you we just had a gun buy-back, and to my

good friend Mr. McHenry, I can tell you we ran out of money after

about a day, because there were so many guns out there.

I think that we have to do—and I applaud Ms. Norton, too, for

what she has done with regard to all of this, and you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, but I think we have to use some

common sense here. I know what it feels like to come home at 1

a.m., and have two sawed-off shotguns aiming at my head. I know

the feeling. And I know what it is like to go to the funerals. It is

not a very good feeling. I also know what it is like to go to the funeral of police officers.

And we have police officers that are reminding us that it is a

thin blue line. Well, we also have Members of this Congress that

go to those police officers’ funerals, and we mourn. But the very officers that come and say help us protect you and give us what we

need, the laws we need so that we can create that atmosphere of

safety, suddenly we turn to the NRA and say what is your advice,

and they say more guns, more guns, more guns. It only leads to

more problems.

In my district they say I am the No. 1 target of the NRA. Well,

I have to tell you that is a badge of honor in my district. And I

think that we in this country have to have a common sense approach. Folks talk about the safety of the District and visitors coming here. Just a few weeks ago we saw Congressmen and staff run

from these office buildings, trying to find a place of safety. But the

fact still remains that if we allow guns to just flow in this district

like water down a stream, then the only thing that we are creating

is a much more dangerous atmosphere.

Last, but not least, let me say this. In the middle of my district,

in Baltimore, which is only an hour ride away from here, there was

an incident the other day—and I just read very briefly, Mr. Chairman, from the Baltimore Sun June 28, 2005: ‘‘Lost inside an adult

t-shirt, a 13-year-old boy stood before a juvenile court judge yesterday and became the city’s youngest murder suspect this year. The

child is accused of being among a group of kids who had thrown

an empty wine bottle at the victim Saturday morning, hitting the

man in the foot. The victim protested, and at least a half an hour

later police say the youngster covered his face with a bandanna,

took a gun from a friend, and shot the victim several times. Police

say the Pimlico Middle School pupil, who stands less than 5 feet

tall, then shot in the back a second man who tried to drag the first

24

victim to safety.’’ One of them died, by the way. One of these victims died.

My point is simply this: that I don’t know where that gun came

from, but anybody who has done the research on guns knows that

guns that are in a home—and I am sure there will be testifying on

this—you have a much greater chance of that gun being used by

somebody in that house, or perhaps stolen, and that gun being

used in a crime of passion or a crime which involves somebody that

they know than it is to be used to protect themselves from an intruder. That is a fact, and those statistics have stood the test of

time.

So it is that we gather here, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you

again, but I say that we go forward with some sensitivity and some

understanding. This is not a world about the NRA. This is a country that is about laws. This is a country about a thin blue line. And

it is a very thin blue line, and we must do everything in our power

to uplift them so that they can protect us.

With that, I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings follows:]

25

26

27

28

29

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

Mr. Clay.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank Ranking Member Waxman for holding today’s hearing on the District’s gun laws.

In response to my colleague from Baltimore, I too want to say

that I must be in good company being one of the most wanted of

the NRA in Missouri, too. So I am in good stead with Mr.

Cummings.

Let me say that this hearing comes at a time when the total

number of homicides in Washington has fallen to the lowest level

in 18 years. Repealing the D.C. gun ban would be a step in the

wrong direction. Judges in two cases challenging the District’s gun

laws have ruled that these laws are Constitutional. Although this

ruling is being appealed, it is an issue for the courts to decide, and

not this Congress.

Pending legislation to repeal the District’s gun laws would allow

this Congress to arrogantly deny the District’s right to enact its

own laws. Opposition from District officials remains unanimous

and consistent. It is unjust that my colleague, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, who represents the District of Columbia,

could not vote on behalf of the wishes of her constituents when the

last Congress voted to repeal the District’s firearm laws.

Today’s hearing serves as glaring reminder that Congress must

grant equal voting rights for the citizens of the District of Columbia so that its residents will have voting representation in Congress. The Federal Government continues to direct billions of taxpayer dollars to make our Nation’s Capital safer for residents, commuters, tourists, public officials, and law enforcement professionals

dedicated to public safety. It would be hypocritical of Congress to

undermine the District’s gun safety laws.

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, again, and I yield back my time.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay follows:]

30

31

32

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

Mr. Kucinich.

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the Chair and the ranking member for

holding this hearing, and welcome his Honor, the Mayor, and the

chief to this Committee.

There are a number of different issues involved here. The first

issue that needs to be addressed immediately is the issue of Home

Rule. Do the people of Washington, DC, through their elected representatives, have the right to make laws to protect and provide for

the safety of their community? I think there can be no other answer to that than the answer yes.

Now, as a former Mayor of the city of Cleveland, I understand

full well the concerns of the Mayor of the city of Washington, DC,

because the Mayor of the city of Washington, DC, and the members

of the Council are forever being haunted with having to visit the

families of victims of violent crimes. It goes with the territory. It

also goes with the territory of the police officers.

This isn’t theoretical. It is not some Constitutional debate that

is arcane. There are people dying on the streets of our cities because of the proliferation of the handguns. It is just a fact. Now,

my travels across this Nation, your Honor, I had the opportunity

to meet with—in one community in particular, which I won’t

name—to meet with the families—mothers, mainly, and some

brothers and sisters—of children who were casualties of the warfare that goes on in America’s cities, and I saw hundreds of pictures spread out over a card table in a high school gym, and I saw

various displays of pictures which kind of told the lives of young

people.

And it is really remarkable when you think about it, about the

carnage that goes on in America’s cities. And we have all this attention in this country on a so-called war on terror, when there are

people living with terror in their own neighborhoods because of the

proliferation of handguns. And you are trying to tell the people of

Washington, DC, they can’t control their own destiny in this regard?

I read too many stories—and everyone here knows what I am

talking about—too many stories about the brilliant careers of

young people in school who have overcome all kinds of odds in the

inner city, who were the pride of their mothers and fathers, and

all of a sudden cut down by handguns. Anyone here who reads has

read those stories. You only need to pick up the metro section of

any major newspaper in this country to see those stories.

We are acting as if there is not a problem here. We are acting

as if a community doesn’t have the right to protect its own interests and the safety of its own people. When I was Mayor of the city

of Cleveland, I took an oath to uphold the safety of the city of

Cleveland, the same oath that every public official takes.

Mr. Mayor and to the police officers and the people who are here

from Washington, DC, you should know that there are people in

Congress who understand what you have to deal with on a daily

basis. You should know that there are people who understand what

it is like to grow up in a city, to love a city, to want to live in a

city, and, at the same time, to have to contend with the day-to-day

challenges in a city. I thank you for your perseverance, and I

33

pledge to you there are many Members of Congress who are on

your side who are going to work to support not only Home Rule,

but work to support your right to be safe. Thank you.

I yield back.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Are there any other Members who wish to make opening statements? Yes, Mr. Ruppersberger.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, a very important issue, a

very important subject matter we must deal with. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman and Ranking Member Waxman, for this hearing.

It is imperative that our Nation’s Capital should be the model for

the rest of our Nation. However, it faces the same problem as many

of our urban areas must deal with on a daily basis, the problems

of violence and also gun violence.

Last year, Congress considered legislation repealing the District

of Columbia gun ban, and what I believe in a Constitutional right

to bear arms, I also believe the Constitution charges lawmakers

with the explicit responsibility of protecting our citizens. We are

here today because legislation has been introduced that would

again attempt to repeal the longstanding gun ban.

I believe this is an issue of balance. While there are many valid

arguments for reconsidering the gun ban, Congress must also consider what would take its place. Simply deregulating gun ownership could create a lawless environment and breed more violence.

Instead, the question for us should be what laws would govern the

District of Columbia’s gun ownership if the current ban were repealed.

It truly disturbs me when there are more people in jail than college. I don’t believe that people should live in fear because we have

firearms in the wrong hands. And that is the issue: in the wrong

hands. We in Congress share the same mission as the community

and the Metropolitan Police Department: to prevent crime and the

fear of crime as we work with others to build safe and healthy

neighborhoods throughout this Nation. Preventing crime through

problem-solving, partnerships among communities, police and other

city agencies is one solution to this growing problem. But our main

concern is the accountability of this violence. How are we helping

the citizens of the District of Columbia be accountable for firearms

being in the wrong hands?

Getting involved to try to stop firearms is an area where we all

can debate back and forth all day. Working to prevent crime is one

of our No. 1 priorities. And I don’t mean just catching the criminals, but looking at the whole picture as to how the individual even

got in this situation from the beginning, especially juveniles.

Congressman Cummings talked about an incident in Baltimore

yesterday where a 13 year-old child shot someone in the head and

then his mother came to court with him, and on her hat she had

‘‘Stop Snitching.’’ That is one of the major issues that we have to

look at, just other than guns.

Now, today I hope we can gain new understanding of the effects

of the current gun ban, as well as the impact it is having on the

fight against crime. Making our neighborhoods and our cities a

great place to live, work, and visit is a concern that will drive us

34

all to hopefully make the right decision. I look forward to hearing

the testimony.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Hon. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger follows:]

35

36

37

38

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

Mr. Westmoreland.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the

committee looking at such an important issue as gun restrictions

in our Nation’s Capital, and glad to have the witnesses joining us

today.

One thing I believe we will hear from the witnesses today is that

guns deter crime. As I have witnessed in my home State of Georgia, citizens who possess their own guns are able to effectively use

them in self-defense, while ensuring that others are not hurt. The

legislation before us today does not open the District’s gun laws as

wide as in Georgia, but makes an excellent step forward in protecting a fundamental right of American citizens: the right to keep and

bear arms, and using those arms in self-defense.

The right is guaranteed in the second amendment and is not, as

some courts claim, a right reserved only to State militias. The right

of the citizens to be armed protects our fundamental liberties, as

our founding fathers recognized. I look forward to hearing from the

scholars today on this subject as well.

It also makes sense that criminals are far less likely to break

into homes if they know there is a chance that people inside could

be armed. Citizens use their weapons in self-defense hundreds, if

not thousands, of times a year, and preventing residents of D.C.

from enjoying that protection simply does not make sense to me,

and I hope not to others on this committee. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on both sides during this hearing and seeing what their debate and their excuse for this bill is.

And, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for holding this

hearing.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Lynn A. Westmoreland follows:]

39

40

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Van Hollen.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to

thank Congresswoman Norton for requesting this hearing and you

for holding it, Mr. Chairman, and I will be very brief.

The fundamental question here, it seems to me, is who decides?

You can hear people on one side of the aisle make the argument

that more guns are going to make people more safe. However you

want to make that argument, that is your right to do it. And you

have people making the argument that we need reasonable restrictions on handguns and that will make people more safe. The question here is who is the right decisionmaker. Are they Members of

Congress from other States, or are they the people of the District

of Columbia, through their elected representatives?

Nobody here is going to the State of Georgia or to California, or

any other State and saying we know better than your local legislators, we know better than your State legislature. And, yet, the authors of this bill are doing exactly that to the people of the District

of Columbia. The arrogance of saying we know better as to what

is in your interest. We understand your public safety interest better than you do. We don’t say that to the people anywhere else in

this country, and yet that is what Members of Congress here are

trying to do, is impose their views on the District of Columbia.

It seems to me that in the interest of democracy, we should leave

it to the people of the District of Columbia to elect their representatives, who use their best judgment as to what is best for the people.

And if the people don’t like the decisions they make, that is what

elections are all about; they can turn them out at election time. But

I don’t think that people who represent folks from thousands of

miles away should be making the decisions that should be made by

the people of the District of Columbia.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. I think we are now

going to hear from the elected officials of the District of Columbia,

the two-term Mayor, Tony Williams, and Police Chief Charles

Ramsey.

As you know, we swear our witnesses in before you testify, so if

you would just rise and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I can’t thank you enough for being with

us here today. Mayor Williams, we will start with you. Try to keep

it to 5 minutes, if you can, but this is an important issue, and some

of the Members have gone over 5 minutes, so take as long as you

need to to make sure you get your points across. But your entire

statement is in the record.

And the same with you, Chief Ramsey. We appreciate very much

your being here.

41

STATEMENTS OF ANTHONY WILLIAMS, MAYOR, THE DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA; AND CHARLES H. RAMSEY, CHIEF OF POLICE,

METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY WILLIAMS

Mayor WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My full testimony

has been submitted for the record, but I want to thank you and

Congresswoman Norton, the ranking member, and all the distinguished members of the committee for the opportunity to testify

today on the gun control laws in the District of Columbia.

And I want you to know that I am pleased that our chief of police, Charles Ramsey, is here with me today. He has led the effort

to reorganize, reconstitute our Police Department and has led the

effort to bring substantial reductions in crime over the last 2 years

in our city, and that effort continues. And he is going to provide

greater detail about how our gun control laws help prevent and

combat crime.

What I want to focus on today is the focus of Congresswoman

Norton’s remarks, your remarks, Mr. Chairman, and Congressman

Van Hollen’s, and that is the critical importance of our gun control

laws as a matter of our local democratic processes and the limited

Home Rule that we enjoy.

As Mayor of the District of Columbia, it is my responsibility to

do what I think is best to provide for the public safety of my citizens. That is my trust. Any attempt at the Federal level to pass

a law or otherwise replace my judgment and our City Council’s

judgment with that of officials elected elsewhere I believe honestly

and very sincerely is an indignity to the democratic process and to

our citizens. It really represents student government more than

self government.

This legislation, in fact, is a slap in the face to me and to the

people who live in my city. People who live in Texas should be respected, but should no more impose their values on the people of

the District than the people who live in one of my neighborhoods

should impose their values on the people of Houston or Dallas or

Fort Worth.

I am also really offended by this effort because of the hard work

I have invested in returning my city to fiscal soundness, to economic viability, to operational responsiveness. Together we have

worked to end the reign of the Control Board; together I have

worked with the Federal Government and with the Congress diligently, hand in hand, to foster greater autonomy for my city, with

an eventual goal of full voting representation in Congress. And I

have to tell you a congressionally driven gun repeal takes us exactly in the wrong direction.

The District of Columbia has been governed by, in modern times,

an elected Mayor and 13 elected council members, since 1975. During the Council’s first legislative session in 1976, the District

passed legislation that restricted the possession, use, transfer of

handguns and semi-automatic weapons.

I support our gun control laws because, in my view—which is

also the view of the overwhelming majority of my citizens—any increase in the number of guns in the District we believe will increase the likelihood that crimes will be committed with those

42

guns. We have made significant progress in reducing crime, although we still have a substantial amount to do.

The residents of the District I know, we all know all too well the

human costs exacted by guns and violence. Seventy-nine percent of

all homicides in the District last year were committed with guns,

all of which were probably brought into the city illegally. Because

of the porous nature of our borders, we can never rely on laws

alone to keep guns out of our city, but these laws I believe are important local tools to help combat crime.

Now, the District is far safer than it was a decade ago. In 1995,

which was not even the peak of the 1990’s crime wave, more than

68,000 serious crimes were committed in our city. Last year, fewer

than half that number was committed. Significantly long-term efforts—such as increasing the number of sworn officers to 3,800, restructuring our patrol service areas, strengthening our investigative capacity, improving 911 response times—have contributed to

these great strides in public safety.

The Police Department is also taking aggressive action in the

short term to reduce homicides and other crimes in the city.

Though crime decreased 18 percent last year, arrests actually increased 14 percent. Project Safe Neighborhoods—in which, incidentally, we are working hand-in-hand with Federal law enforcement—is helping to stop the cycle of gun violence in the city. The

Metropolitan Police Department is working with Federal law enforcement agencies and the courts to target and apprehend members of the most violent gangs in the city, and we are using the example of their prosecution and incarceration to deter other groups

from resorting to similar violence.

I have to tell you it is inconceivable that Congress would encourage more people in D.C. to pick up a gun just when we are successfully working with the Federal Government to convince others to

put down their guns.

Now, I awake every morning aware of my enormous responsibilities as Mayor to the nearly 600,000 residents of our Nation’s Capital, certainly the people who work here and the visitors here. I am

humbled by the honor bestowed on me as a trustee of the Nation’s

Capital. Being Mayor is a wonderful job.

But it is a difficult job, because I have the duties of a Mayor, I

have the duties of a county manager and of a Governor. My city

is host to the seat of the Federal Government, the largest diplomatic community in the world, more than 20 million visitors each

year. The District Council, when I govern this city, through partnerships that we believe very importantly must span ideologies, political parties, geography, and every other thing we need to span,

this is essentially especially true in the area of public safety.

I have traveled to every area of my city to hear first-hand from

my citizens about their concerns and to enlist them in our crusade

against crime. I have aligned my entire city budget to what I call

‘‘lift all communities,’’ starting with those that are mostly left behind, in our city’s renaissance. Every one of these communities is

struggling with a crime problem that I have identified. The city has

responded with a successful Hot Spots Initiative that has produced—by focusing all of our government and non-profit efforts in

these communities—a 32 percent reduction in violent crime and a

43

25 percent reduction in overall crime in these violence-prone communities.

It has been mentioned that we are only 3 homicides below last

year. That is true, and I don’t relish that; I would like it to be

lower. But that number last year was a 20-year low. So we are

moving in the right direction, and I believe that the additional

measures we are taking, such as a comprehensive crime bill that

I have sent to our District Council, which would substantially

toughen our penalties, will take us in the right direction to reduce

crime.

I talk about my partnership with the Federal Government. You

know, I support and I participate in the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, which is an intergovernmental body. Members of

my administration are open to every aspect of dialog—and I think

everyone knows this—every aspect of dialog with our Federal partners.

But my point is that there are many ways for the Federal Government to work with local officials. Our public safety agenda must

be, and is, community-based and ought to be supported by Congress, not undermined. You have my cooperation. You have my respect. You have my ear. In turn, the citizens of Washington, DC,

do not need disrespect or second-guessing. And I say that very respectfully.

We ask that the Federal Government support the efforts I have

outlined to reduce crime in our city, especially our prerogative: locally based on a democratic basis to enact local gun control laws

that provide for the public safety of the citizens of the District.

The long and short of it is that the citizens of the District of Columbia want nothing more than other American citizens would demand and get, and that is the right to make their own decisions

about their own public safety.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for

the opportunity to testify to you today. As always, I am available

to answer any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mayor Williams follows:]

44

45

46

47

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Mayor, thank you and thanks for the

job you are doing for the city.

Chief Ramsey.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES H. RAMSEY

Chief RAMSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Norton, other members of the committee, staff, and guests. Thank you

for the opportunity to present this testimony concerning the District of Columbia’s handgun laws. I appear before you today not

just as the chief of the Metropolitan Police Department, but also

as a D.C. resident, as a father of a teenage son, and as a 36-year

veteran of the law enforcement profession. It is in all these capacities that I express my strongest possible support for the District’s

current law restricting possession of handguns and encourage Congress not to overturn or weaken our laws in any way.

Before discussing the situation here in D.C., I do want to point

out that the District of Columbia is hardly the only big city in the

United States to have a strong handgun control law. Prior to coming to the District in 1988, I spent close to three decades in the

Chicago Police Department, which has a local law on handguns

that is very similar to the District’s. Chicago residents and their

duly elected representatives have chosen to restrict the ownership

of handguns, and D.C. should be afforded the same rights.

Politically, I understand why some Members of Congress consider the District’s law to be ‘‘fair game,’’ even if those same Members would never contemplate similar attempts to undo laws elsewhere. But from a public safety standpoint, the reasons to enact

and maintain strong and sensible handgun laws are as compelling

in D.C. as they are in Chicago, New York, and other cities across

the Nation. Our residents and our locally elected leaders have all

come to the same conclusion: restricting the same and possession

of handguns makes our community safer.

What impact would the repeal of D.C.’s gun laws have on our

city? From my perspective, the answer to that question is straightforward and it is scary. Repealing our gun laws would mean substantially more handguns in the District of Columbia, and more

handguns would mean more gun crimes, more gun violence, and

more homicides, as well as more accidental shootings and suicides.

More guns will also mean a greater threat to our police officers.

Even with our strong gun laws, the District already struggles

with the problem of gun violence. Last year, 79 percent of the

homicides in D.C. were committed with firearms. This includes 18

youth or young adults—the youngest just 7 years old—killed with

a firearm last year. Moreover, almost 50 percent of our robberies

and 20 percent of our aggravated assaults are committed with a

firearm. Introducing even more firearms into our city would undoubtedly cause these figures to rise.

This is especially true in the area of homicide. Our figures show

that homicides in D.C. are frequently motivated by arguments and

retaliation. Together with domestic violence, these motives account

for half of all the homicides in the District. These types of homicides are seldom premeditated offenses, but rather spur-of-the-moment ‘‘crimes of passion.’’ When a handgun is readily available in

48

a home or on someone’s person, the changes of these encounters

turning lethal increase significantly.

Repealing our gun laws would mean more guns being more readily available to more people. And with handguns more readily

available, I am concerned that more people would be inclined to

use those handguns to settle arguments or domestic disputes, or to

retaliate against someone else. I am convinced that these types of

incidents, along with the increased likelihood of more accidental

shootings and suicide, would far outnumber any instances in which

a handgun in a home might be used as protection.

Repealing D.C.’s gun laws at any time would be counterproductive to our public safety goals. But repealing our laws now

would be particularly devastating. While D.C. continues to face

challenges with murder and other violent crimes, we have made

tremendous progress in the last few years in bringing down our

violent crime rate. Last year, D.C. recorded fewer than 200 homicides for the first time since 1986. Overall crime declined by nearly

9 percent in 2003, and by another 18 percent in 2004. So far this

year, crime is down by another 14 percent, according to preliminary data.

The bottom line: crime in D.C. is moving in the right direction

and our neighborhoods are safer than they have been in many

years. Now is definitely not the time to put this very encouraging

trend at risk by introducing more firearms and greater potential

for violence into our city.

In fact, part of the reason for our success in reducing crime has

been our ability to take more firearms off the streets. So far this

year, 1,200 firearms have been recovered, an increase of about 15

percent from 2004. And in 2004 our firearm recoveries topped 2,000

for the first time in several years. We have put a high priority on

removing illegal firearms, and our efforts are paying off.

In 2004, of the almost 1,600 registration checks for recovered

firearms preformed by MPD, only 16 of the firearms, or 1 percent,

were registered in the District. Of course, the vast, vast majority

of the weapons we recover originate from jurisdictions outside the

District. Last year, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives performed trace checks on over 1,500 firearms recovered

by MPD that were linked to crimes. Of these, 736 firearms were

successfully traced. Six out or 10 firearms were from Maryland and

Virginia. The next highest source States were North Carolina,

Georgia, West Virginia, and South Carolina.

So we are continuing to face a serious problem with firearms

being brought illegally into the District from other jurisdictions.

Unfortunately, that problem is not likely to go away anytime soon.

But we certainly should not compound this situation by weakening

D.C.’s gun laws and making firearms even more prevalent in our

city.

Another reason we have been able to reduce crime in the District

of Columbia is through our partnerships with other agencies and

community-based organizations. On the enforcement end, we work

closely with the ATF and other Federal agencies on tracing firearms and trying to link them to unsolved crimes. We are also working cooperatively with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the DEA, ATF,

and others on the Project Safe Neighborhoods Initiative, which is

49

targeting the most violent criminals in some of our historically violent neighborhoods, such as Sursum Corda and Barry Farm.

Coordination with the community to combat gun violence is another priority. In just the past 2 weeks, we have joined forces with

the East of the River Clergy-Police-Community Partnership; ROOT,

which stands for Reaching Out to Others Together; No Murders

DC; and other community-based organizations on a number of antiviolence initiatives, especially initiatives that target young people

during the summer months.

The Metropolitan Police Department is very proud of our record

in reducing crime and violence in D.C. But we also recognize that

we still have a lot of work to do and that, to be successful, we must

coordinate our efforts with other agencies and organizations both

inside the criminal justice system and in the community.

To be successful, we also need strong and sensible laws to protect

not only our residents, but also our police officers, as last week’s

tragic shooting death of an officer in Prince George’s County illustrates. The District’s ban on most handgun possession is an essential element in our overall crime reduction strategy. This law was

enacted with the overwhelming support of D.C. voters three decades ago, and the law continues to enjoy widespread support

among our residents and our police officers today.

Repealing or weakening this law will not make our residents and

our neighborhoods any safer. Such a move would actually endanger

both our residents and the hard-working, dedicated police officers

who already put their lives on the line to safeguard our Nation’s

Capital. For the sake of our residents and the safety of our police

officers, we need to retain the District’s strong and sensible law on

handguns.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Chief Ramsey follows:]

50

51

52

53

54

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. I am going to start

the first 5 minutes with Mr. Burton, who wasn’t here for an opening.

Mr. Burton, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate that.

You know, when I first got off the plane and became a Congressman, I got in a cab with a cabdriver, Mr. Mayor and Chief, and

I asked the cab driver, I said, what is the situation like here in

Washington? He said, well, the crime problem is pretty bad. I said,

well, you know, I have a permit to carry a weapon back in Indiana.

Maybe I should get one here. He said, oh, you can’t get a permit

to carry a gun in D.C. I said, oh, is that right? He said, yeah. He

said, the only people who have guns in D.C. are the criminals and

the police. And he reached under the front seat of his cab, pulled

out a .38 and said, but if you want one, I can get one for you in

about 15 minutes.

That is a factual story.

I had a young lady that worked for me, she lived about three

blocks from the Capitol. A guy shinnied up the drainpipe and came

in through a window that was open on the third floor about this

much. He attacked her with a 4-inch knife, stabbed her about four

or five times. She had to beat him off with a pan; she couldn’t have

mace or a gun or anything in her place. And she survived and, fortunately, she got away. But the problem was she had no way to defend herself.

You know, I want to give you some statistical data. In all 50

States people have the right to keep a weapon in their home, but

they don’t in D.C. Now, I don’t know what your latest statistics are,

but by 1991, D.C.’s homicide rate had risen more than 200 percent.

By comparison, the U.S. homicide rate had risen by only 12 percent. As of 2002, D.C.’s homicide rate is almost double the rate

than when its handgun ban took effect. As of 2002, it is almost five

times higher than the national average.

According to DOJ’s crime statistics, 2002 saw D.C. once again

earn its infamous distinction as the murder capital of America, and

it was the 14th time in 15 years that it got that dubious distinction. The gun control capital of the America, D.C., is almost the

violent crime and murder capital of the country, the place in this

country that comes the closest to having this kind of gun law that

gun advocates would want in D.C.—and I think the results speak

for themselves.

As long as law-abiding citizens cannot protect themselves from

somebody breaking into their home with a gun, then the criminal

has the advantage. I won’t live in D.C. I live in Virginia, and have

a gun permit in Virginia because I want to protect myself. And I

would urge you to look at the crime statistics over there in Virginia

and in Indiana, and I bet you will find that the statistics show that

people are safer there than they are in D.C. because they can protect themselves.

If a criminal knows you cannot defend yourself except with a

pan, like my secretary did, then he has no deterrent to break into

your house with a gun and to attack you. It is insane, in my opinion, it is insane for a law-abiding citizen not to be able to protect

55

themselves against somebody in the murder capital of the United

States by having a weapon in their home to protect themselves.

Now I want to read to you what the current law is here, because

I think people need to know this; it is very, very important. Just

1 second. Bear with me.

Well, you have to disassemble a gun, you can’t have it in your

house.

Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.

OK, registrants must keep any firearm in their possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless the firearm is kept at their place of business or used

for lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia.

Sales of firearms are similarly restricted. In addition, the possession of ammunition is restricted. The minimum punishment for violation of these restrictions is $1,000 and 1 year imprisonment. The

maximum fine is $10,000 and imprisonment for up to 10 years.

I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman—and I appreciate very much

your yielding to me—I am against violent crime. I am against

criminals who use guns in the commission of a felony. But I cannot,

for the life of me, figure out why a law-abiding citizen in a city like

Washington, DC, that has the highest crime rate in the country 14

out of the last 15 years, cannot have a weapon in their own home

to protect themselves. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

And Members of the Congress of the United States have been

mugged, been beaten up, and gun-whipped. One of my staff people

was gun-whipped by a guy not too long ago and robbed on the

streets of Washington. Bob Michael, when he was the minority

leader, was beaten up outside his garage and they took whatever

he had on him at that time, and they had no way to defend themselves.

We had a prominent writer here in Washington, DC, who has

come out openly against owning a gun and having it in their home.

Somebody tried to break in his home and he had a gun in violation

of the law. That was in the paper not too long ago.

I think it is extremely important that we make sure the people

of this city are protected, just like the people in every other part

of the country, and that their right to own and bear arms to protect

themselves and their families should not and will not be infringed

upon by this city.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Burton.

Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. First of all, these witnesses didn’t get the chance

to respond because after the questions were asked——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Well, if you would like to respond to that,

we won’t go into Ms. Norton’s time; we will start that again.

Mayor WILLIAMS. Well, I will just respond to the notion that we

are the only citizens in the country with ‘‘restrictive gun laws.’’

That is not true. There are restrictive gun laws in cities across the

country. The difference is, again, apparently they have the ability

to set these laws and keep them in place, and we don’t.

And then on the statistics, I just think we are using particular

statistics to make a point, and not the most current statistics. I

would ask the Chief to speak to that.

56

Chief RAMSEY. Yes. Earlier it was mentioned that the year the

handgun ban was passed, in 1976, we had 188 murders. And that

is true. Last year we had 198. That is an increase of 10 over that

year. So certainly you can look at numbers. And it is not that we

haven’t had years where we have had tremendous spikes. We have

also had 2 years when we were below that; we had 175 in 1984 and

148 in 1985. So statistics can be used any way they can, any way

you want them to be used.

I am from the Midwest, and I would love to compare my crime

stats with Gary, IN. I don’t know about the rest of Indiana, but I

think that Gary is a place that has more than enough problems on

its own. So when it comes to taking a look at crime statistics and

crime numbers, we have a ways to go, and we are working very aggressively. But we have made tremendous progress, tremendous

strides in lowering the amount of crime in the District of Columbia,

and I feel that adding more guns on the street is only going to

cause problems.

My officers have to confront gunmen on a regular basis. This

weekend alone we took 17 guns off the street. Friday we got an

AK–47 off a 15-year-old boy. Now, I don’t know how many folks you

have confronted, sir, in the alley at night with a gun on them that

was intent on doing harm, but my people have to do it every single

day. And adding more guns into the mix is not a good thing; it is

going to get one of them killed, and I would hate to see that.

So I would appreciate it—I am just telling you, sir, and I realize

that we disagree. I realize we disagree, but to me it is a matter

of safety, it is a matter of what is best for the people of our city.

And that is all we are asking for here, is to get the same respect

as everyone else.

Not being from the District, I never realized that this sort of

thing went on. I just never realized. But I do now. And I am here

to tell you that the people that we elect, that I helped elect ought

to be the ones to make that decision. The men and women of the

Metropolitan Police Department have put on that uniform, put on

a bulletproof vest, and get out there and police our streets every

day ought to have a say in what they are confronted with out there

on the street. And we are going to open the floodgates and we are

going to have nothing but problems, and it is going to be my people

suffering as a result of it.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. Thank you both for your testimony. It is important to hear you because you are the experts on

this subject, and we are trying to learn here today.

Mr. Chairman, I note for the record that last year there were 157

homicides, all homicides in D.C. We are at 63 this year, on record,

therefore, to reduce that. Last year, tragically, there were 18 juvenile homicides. To date, tragically, four, but only four.

So I want to begin by congratulating you on a very significant

reduction over even this year and ask unanimous consent that

these figures be put in the record, Mr .Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Without objection, so ordered.

[The information referred to follows:]

57

58

Ms. NORTON. Could I ask both of you? Council has a bill pending

here. I am going on the floor tomorrow to try to get our appropriation out of here, your money, not a cent of it money from the U.S.

Congress. It will contain money in there for police and money in

there for economic development. So I would like to ask you both

what effect having guns, yes, in homes, but having more guns in

the District of Columbia will have on two notions: one, the police

workload, and two, the economic development that we see going on

all around the city.

Mayor WILLIAMS. Well, our effort generally, Congresswoman

Norton—and I will let the Chief speak to the police department

particularly—but our effort overall has been to address the needs

of our neighborhoods, stabilize those neighborhoods, harness all the

resources of our government to attack problems in those neighborhoods. First step, get the agencies on their feet. Second step, harness all the efforts of our agencies around general problems within

the wards.

One problem we have made a lot of progress is cleanup and stabilization of abandoned housing. Another area we have made a lot

of progress with another agency is improving substantially response to 911. We then took that a step further and combined with

redeploying our police and better patrol service areas, focused on

hot spots in the city. And what drove down our crime over the last

2 years was our intensive focus on these hot spots, driving down

crimes 30 to 35 percent.

Our next step, as you heard in the state of the District, was to

build what we are calling new communities, mixed income communities with hope and opportunity for all the citizens in those communities, again, to pacify and stabilize these communities. I stress

these words: pacify, stabilize these communities; revitalize these

communities.

Bringing guns on the street—and the Chief is right, I believe

guns unleashed, if you will—or allowed, I guess to be more polite—

under this bill are not going to be used primarily by citizens protecting their homes, they are going to end up in the streets and the

alleys, and our police are going to have to face them.

Chief RAMSEY. Ms. Norton, the addition of guns or the availability of guns, I don’t see how it is going to help our situation here

in the District of Columbia in terms of our fight against crime. I

just don’t see how that can happen.

Ms. NORTON. In terms of your own workload and the number of

police, what is your view about having more guns in the District,

in people’s homes?

Chief RAMSEY. Well, we are going to have burglary, unfortunately, it will continue to be problem. I take the opposite view, that

a person would not refrain from breaking in a house that they

know they have a gun; they will wait until the opportunity to

present themselves to break into the house that has a gun, because

they can take the gun and they can sell it on the street or use it

themselves.

There is no one thing that we can come up with that is going to

be the end-all strategy of fighting crime, but I think we have to do

what is sensible and what is reasonable. And reducing the amount

59

of guns that are available is certainly a sensible and reasonable approach.

I was watching an old movie a couple of nights ago, Tombstone,

a Wyatt Earp thing. They were standing on the edge of town collecting guns from people in 1881, keeping them from bringing them

into Tombstone. I mean, it was a sensible, reasonable thing for

them to do. I had to kind of chuckle when I saw that because, you

know, here we are today, a century or so later, still trying to stand

at the borders and saying, hey, you need to leave your gun somewhere else; you don’t need to come to town with your gun. I don’t

think that is all that unreasonable, especially when the average

person that comes into this building—it is easier to get into the airport than it is to get into this building with all the screening for

weapons and guns and so forth.

I mean, not everyone has the luxury in our neighborhoods, unfortunately, of having a situation where they have that up-front

screening of individuals to make sure that anyone who is in possession of a firearm is decent, law-abiding, and authorized to do so.

They have to live day in, day out in circumstances that can put

their lives at risk. We do the best we can, but adding more guns

to the mix I don’t think is a solution, not for the District of Columbia. It may be for someplace else, but not for D.C.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Chief, Ms. Norton’s time is up. The Members have three votes to go over and cast, and if you can stay for

questions, I am going to allow Ms. Norton to continue questions,

and then recess the meeting. If you and the Mayor can stay, it

would be important. This is important. I think you made news,

bringing out Wyatt Earp as an advocate for the D.C. gun ban

today. But I am going to allow Ms. Norton to continue. Members

will resume questioning when we get back. And I appreciate your

being able to continue with this.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The chairman has given

me the gavel. It shows you he trusts me. He ought not be so sure

about that when it comes to the gavel.

I do have a few more questions. I would like to speak to the

Chief. In another role he has had since September 11th. I used to

talk to you only occasionally, Chief Ramsey, because these matters

are not in my jurisdiction; the jurisdiction is of the Mayor and your

jurisdiction. But I have had a lot of contact with you since September 11th because of the security measures around the Capitol.

There has been a lot of discussion about these bills in the abstract, and I go back to my roots as a law professor. I continue to

teach a course at Georgetown, so I have to go back to the hypothetical. If you read this bill, you could have something that no one

has ever seen in the District: gun shops and, if you were licensed,

pawn shops where people could deal guns across the counter. We

could have them on Capitol Hill, we could have them in Georgetown, you could have them across the river, because this bill keeps

the District of Columbia from doing anything that would discourage the possession of firearms. So there is no way to read that except there is nothing you can do; Home Rule hands are tied.

D.C. couldn’t require, for example, background checks. If somebody wanted to have gun shows in the District of Columbia, you

could have gun shows, because the Mayor and the council can do

60

nothing to discourage—here is what the statute says—the possession and ownership of guns.

I am trying now to lay out some of what could happen and what

you have to prepare to have happened.

You might, for example, think, well, let us pass an ordinance at

least, some kind of law that says, OK, you can have them everywhere, but you can’t have them in bars or you can’t have them in

churches or restaurants or in schools. Of course, I think that would

violate the explicit language here. Because you can’t ‘‘discourage’’

the possession of guns anywhere in the District of Columbia.

Now, let us leave aside District residents and their safety for a

moment. Would you speak to me as a security official who is a part

of the Federal team to keep the Nation’s Capital secure from terrorism?

Chief RAMSEY. Yes. Guns can very easily fall into the wrong

hands. There is no question about that. We see it with street

gangs, where they go out and they use people to legally purchase

guns, and then they transfer those guns to gang members and others. There is no way that once you open those floodgates, you can

really control it.

In a city like the District of Columbia, which has more than its

own security risks just by the fact that it is the capital of the

United States, high-risk protectees that constantly visit here, it is

a full-time job guaranteeing the safety, or at least trying to ensure

the safety of those people, as well as the residents of the District

of Columbia.

Again, adding more guns, I don’t think there is a security officer

anywhere, a responsible security officer, that would say the way to

enhance security is to increase the number of guns. To me, there

is no logic there, at all. I think that it is going to pose a tremendous burden on those Federal agencies, like the Secret Service, that

have responsibility for the protection of the President. It certainly

will put a huge burden on my department. And one of the first

things I will do is ask for more manpower, because I know I am

going to need it, because it is going to start and it is going to start

fast.

And it is going to spill over into Virginia and Maryland, because

anything that happens in D.C. spills into Maryland and Virginia,

and vice versa. Gang problems, drug problems, whatever it might

be, in that small area there within the National Capital region, we

all impact one another to a degree that you can’t just do it in isolation. So it is going to have a tremendous negative impact on all of

us in law enforcement, period.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. I just think that is one aspect of this

bill that isn’t even considered. They consider, you know, just hammer the District and you will be fine, and the changes since September 11th aren’t discussed.

The argument is made that this is a bill for law-abiding citizens,

in homes, people’s homes, they should be able to keep it in their

homes; this is not a bill that would allow felons to have guns.

Would you speak to the notion of keeping guns in homes? And

which homes you think, in the District, would be likely to have

those guns and what you think would happen as a result of those

guns in those homes in the District?

61

Chief RAMSEY. Well, I don’t know who would be most likely, but

I can assume that people in more crime-ridden areas of the city

would tend to be the ones that think they need this for their own

protection. However, they are the ones that are most likely to be

burglarized. Mistakes can be made and accidental shootings take

place all the time; children finding guns and accidentally shooting

another sibling. There have been instances where parents heard a

sound, didn’t know who it was, wound up shooting one of their own

kids or a loved one that they think is a burglar and turns out not

to be.

And bullets have no eyes. The one part of this argument that

kind of goes without too much comment, if you have two people,

both legally in possession of a handgun, they decide to exchange

gunfire, you know, most people don’t hit what they are shooting at

under those circumstances. Those bullets keep going, and they keep

going until they strike something, and that something could be another Chelsea Cromartie, like we had happen over in Southeast

last year, an 8-year-old girl shot in the head, sitting in her own living room watching television. Dante Manning, just this year, that

got shot on 13th and Euclid Street, because whoever was being

shot at they missed and they hit this child.

So having guns, firing guns in an urban area is just a mixture

for disaster. Absolutely no good can come of it. Having guns in

homes, again, is just something else. Burglars take what they can

sell. Handguns bring a good price on the black market, and a handgun would be one of the first things that a person would take if

they break into a house.

Ms. NORTON. You can’t have a gun in the District of Columbia,

apparently, legally, so where do they get the guns from?

Chief RAMSEY. We trace our guns, the ATF traces our guns. The

two source States that come up most frequently are Maryland and

Virginia. Six out of 10 guns that we recover come from one of those

two States. That is followed by North Carolina, Georgia, West Virginia, and South Carolina. Pennsylvania was in there. We haven’t

gotten as many out of Pennsylvania recently as we had in years

past. But those are the cities where most of the guns that come

into the District, that is the source of the firearm, from those two

jurisdictions closest to us.

Ms. NORTON. So, at the very least, then, the District of Columbia

makes it more difficult to get a gun because you have to either go

across the line or go into the street to illegally get a gun. You can’t

get it, become a criminal after you get it, and then deal with it that

way.

Chief RAMSEY. Yes, ma’am. I realize that, you know, again, nothing is foolproof. We certainly don’t claim that having a gun law

means that there is no gun violence that can possibly happen in

your jurisdiction. But there is no point in making it easier by making guns more available, by putting it in the hands of those that

will misuse it.

We also get about 3,000 offenders back a year from our various

penal institutions around the country. Again, we have a lot of

issues that we need to deal with in the District of Columbia. Most

of them go on to not re-offend, but some do re-offend. So we have

a lot of people that we just need to just make sure that guns don’t

62

fall into the wrong hands. We have a growing problem with juvenile violence.

You mentioned that earlier in your testimony, the number of

homicides we had, car thefts, things of that nature. Last year we

arrested 17 percent more juveniles than we did the year before. So

juvenile violence is a problem, and they are younger and younger,

and they are getting very sophisticated weapons. I mentioned just

last Friday a 15-year-old boy with an AK–47 in his possession. I

mean, that is the kind of thing that our officers are facing out

there on the street, and we just don’t need to make it easier.

This is not the time to go backward. We are making very good

progress in our fight against crime, and I would just hate to see

this happen, because it is going to have a negative impact.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much.

Final question for you, Mr. Mayor. In your role as President of

the League of Cities, you must have some familiarity with the way

in which other cities view gun laws of the kind we have, the role

of the League of Cities itself with this kind of legislation. I wonder

if you could somehow compare where we are with other cities

across the United States and with where the League of Cities—

which has big cities and little cities alike—where the League of

Cities would stand on a bill like ours.

Mayor WILLIAMS. Well, Congresswoman Norton, I couldn’t speak

for the League in terms of taking a position on this. I know that

the League of Cities and U.S. Conference of Mayors supported the

strong anti-crime measures that were taken in the Clinton administration. I am not sure about this particular bill, but I can tell you

this——

Ms. NORTON. You mean things like the assault weapon bill.

Mayor WILLIAMS. Oh, the assault weapons I am sure that, by

and large, cities are——

Ms. NORTON. And you are aware that Congress has failed to

renew the assault weapon law? So we have a situation where now

you can sell assault weapons in this city and elsewhere.

Mayor WILLIAMS. And cities in general that are opposed, obviously, to that, would support strong measures. I think you could

find that, by and large, your larger cities would have stronger gun

control measures, as does the District of Columbia, and your smaller rural towns and communities would have different arrangements, in other words, more liberal measures to allow gun ownership.

But I think the point that you have made and the point that I

am making and the Chief is making and other members have made

is that this really ought to be a local prerogative, especially where,

in my mind, I can give you examples of cities that have tough gun

control laws that have had increases in crime. I can give you examples of cities that have tough gun control laws that have had decreases in crime.

I don’t think you can make a direct linkage to gun control laws

adding to an increase in crime. I think you can make a strong case,

as we are making here, that if you relax these laws in an environment where one of your No. 1 problems is gun violence, adding

more guns to the mix just, to us, is completely counter-intuitive,

and I think most cities would tell you that.

63

Ms. NORTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Mayor. On behalf of the chairman and other members of the committee, I want to thank both of

you for coming forward. There has been a lot of cheap talk about

gun repeal and about crime in the District of Columbia, almost always at least for national exposure by people who have no expert

background, as both of you have, and your testimony has been very

valuable today.

Thank you very much. The hearing will be recessed until after

the vote, by those who can vote.

[Recess.]

Mr. MCHENRY [presiding]. The committee will come back to

order.

I certainly appreciate, Mayor and police chief, your waiting during our series of votes. Members will be returning, but as I know

you have a very busy schedule, the chairman is actually on the

floor at this moment trying to work an amendment, so he will be

here shortly. He does have questions for you all, so if you would

be good enough to stick around for those, we would certainly appreciate it.

At this time, I wanted to first start kindly with the chief of police. Chief Ramsey, was the Metro difficult getting over here today?

Chief RAMSEY. Well, we could work a little bit on the scheduling.

Mr. MCHENRY. I have seen that the thefts have gone down in

D.C. It actually illuminates a point of progress you have made. Actually, I was here in 2000 and 2001, and I believe at that time your

leadership during the WTO protests was quite heralded, and the

issues and difficulties you dealt with there.

Chief RAMSEY. Thank you.

Mr. MCHENRY. So we appreciate your leadership.

I do think there has been progress made in Washington, DC.

When I lived up here and worked up here as a staffer in 2000 and

2001, before my service in Congress, my house was broken into, my

townhouse was broken into living in Southeast. And it was quite

interesting to me that we are living in the Nation’s Capital, yet we

have a crime problem. And certainly it is a problem not uncommon

across the United States. But what we are trying to do today is

look at solutions for this.

There is a basic question that I have. Chief Ramsey, aren’t guns

illegal in Washington, DC, now?

Chief RAMSEY. Well, we have a restriction on the registration of

handguns. There are some rifles that are able to be properly registered, shotguns with a barrel length of a certain amount—not,

certainly, sawed-offs. That is not part of the ban; the ban is against

the handguns.

Mr. MCHENRY. Just handguns. Now, in terms of crimes committed with handguns, do you have any statistics on that?

Chief RAMSEY. About 75 percent of the homicides, robberies, assaults with a dangerous weapon are committed with the use of a

handgun.

Mr. MCHENRY. Seventy-five percent.

Chief RAMSEY. About 75 percent of the violent crime.

Mr. MCHENRY. And so the question is aren’t they illegal?

Chief RAMSEY. Yes, sir. And individuals are charged with those

offenses when they are arrested.

64

Mr. MCHENRY. So the handgun ban isn’t working?

Chief RAMSEY. Well, sir, I am not intimately familiar with laws

across the United States, but I believe murder is illegal, rape is illegal, robbery is illegal. I can’t think of a city in the United States

that doesn’t have those same problems. So laws are designed to

keep decent law-abiding citizens safe, but there are always those

that will break those laws, which is why I have a job and thousands of others like me have a job in this, to get those people off

the street and do the best we can to try to control it. But it is not

absolute.

Mr. MCHENRY. It is not absolute. Therefore, a ban on handguns

only prevents those law-abiding citizens from not having a handgun. Isn’t that correct? If you are a law-abiding citizen and you uphold the law, you generally would not break the law by carrying

a handgun in places where it is banned.

Chief RAMSEY. Well, unfortunately, there is not a ban and the

rest of the country doesn’t follow D.C.’s lead in having strict gun

control laws. That is a very unfortunate circumstance. And because

of that we do have guns that make their way into the city. If we

had a stronger stand across this country about handguns, then I

think you would see the benefits of that throughout this country

in terms of a lowering of violent crime, particularly those crimes

committed with handguns. But because of the unevenness of the

laws as they exist now, it makes it very difficult.

Mr. MCHENRY. It makes it difficult. So the question I have to you

is, generally speaking, with your history in law enforcement, I

would probably say that those that have an advantage, criminals

that have an advantage over the people they steal from, for instance, assault, batter, murder, they typically have an advantage

of some sort, whether it is not just criminal intent, but perhaps the

weapon they have and they use versus the people they are stealing

from. Isn’t that the case you have seen?

Chief RAMSEY. Well, if a person is armed and another one is unarmed, then obviously the person that has the gun would have an

advantage.

Mr. MCHENRY. Therefore, if you level the playing field, for instance, if I broke into your home—and, as a police officer, you are

entitled to carry a gun in Washington, DC, and I suspect that you

would have a weapon in your home. If I broke in and I had a handgun, and I pulled a handgun and brandished it at you and said,

give me your money, and you pulled out a handgun and said, no,

not so fast, do you think there is a detente there? Wouldn’t you say

that would prevent me from stealing from you and assaulting you

and stealing from your home?

Chief RAMSEY. Well, this is an interesting discussion that we are

having here, I guess, and I think I kind of understand where you

might be coming from. But if you had a gun on me and I didn’t

have mine with me, I would give you my money, quite frankly, seeing as how you had that kind of advantage.

Mr. MCHENRY. Well, I would hope——

Chief RAMSEY. I have been in a situation like that before, quite

frankly.

Mr. MCHENRY. And tens of thousands of people in Washington,

DC, do that.

65

Chief RAMSEY. But let us get down to the meat of I think where

you might be trying to go with this, sir. If you have two people with

guns and they decide that one is going to rob the other one and

the other one says no, and they get into an exchange of gunfire,

in most instances, including with highly trained police officers, they

don’t hit what they are aiming at. Those bullets don’t stop; they

keep traveling until they hit something.

Now, in the case of Dante Manning, he happened to be a 13 yearold boy standing in the street in front of his house, 13th and Euclid, that got hit in the head and is dead. Last year, 8 year-old

Chelsea Cromartie shot, while sitting in her home watching television, by a stray bullet.

There are consequences way beyond the scenario that you are

laying out that causes a public safety threat, sir.

Mr. MCHENRY. But all those folks that use those weapons were

breaking the law. Am I correct?

Chief RAMSEY. Sir——

Mr. MCHENRY. Absolutely yes. So the conclusion of this is do you

steal from the strong? No, you steal from the weak. Do you assault

those that are mighty? No, you assault those that are meek. And

if you level the playing field, if you level the playing field—you

used the reference that your police officers encounter folks in a

dark alley with a weapon.

You know what the advantage, though, that your officers have?

It is that they have a weapon too. And they level the playing field.

And you know what? It is shown statistically across the country

that simply brandishing a handgun by a law-abiding citizen can

prevent a crime. Brandishing a handgun, if I broke into your

house, would maybe, possibly make me leave your premises. In

fact, probably run.

Chief RAMSEY. Mr. McHenry, I appreciate all this, and, you

know, you mentioned the officers have an advantage. I think if you

talk to the family of 110 of my officers whose badges are hanging

on that wall right now in my training academy that got killed in

the line of duty, they didn’t have much of an advantage. And I

don’t think that Officer Gauguin had much of an advantage last

week when he was gunned down in Prince George’s County.

And you keep using a very curious term of leveling the playing

field. It seems to me like the only thing you are doing is playing

with the lives of the people of the District of Columbia. And that,

sir, is a game that I don’t happen to want to participate in. We

have laws in place. Those laws were put in place by the people who

were elected to represent us as residents of the District of Columbia. And most—not all, but most folks would prefer they just be left

alone, myself included.

And as far as my police officers go, and the kinds of dangers they

confront on a daily basis, it is bad enough out there now. We don’t

need any more. Most homicides, the majority of homicides in the

District of Columbia—and this has been true historically, as far

back as I have gone—the main motives are argument and retaliation.

When people are in the heat of passion, when they are angry, if

they have a weapon, they will use it. If they get into a fistfight,

someone is going to win, someone is going to lose. The loser is likeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:22 Aug 26, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\22473.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
66

ly to pull that handgun. We are going to have tragedies. We are

going to have problems beyond what we have now. And this just

isn’t the time to do it.

Mr. MCHENRY. But our discussion, up until you threw out some

very emotional things—and I certainly want to give our officers on

the streets everything they need. But the question I have is for

those that are victims of crime. And in Washington, DC, we all

admit we do have a crime problem. So I am looking at ways to actually solve this problem. As someone who lives in Washington,

DC, a greater portion of the year, I want to have security in my

own apartment here on Capitol Hill, just blocks from the Capitol.

Chief RAMSEY. Well, sir, I understand all those arguments, and

I guess that part of the plan is probably to loosen some of the security around the buildings here, which, again, it is harder to get into

the airport than it is to get into this building when it comes to

checking people for weapons. And I don’t hear anybody saying that

we ought to allow handguns in here.

You mentioned earlier in your opening statement that your folks

from your jurisdiction who want to come and visit D.C. want to

carry their guns. Can they bring it with them when they come to

see you in your office? You want to put it on us and put it on our

backs. Yet, there are two Capital policemen for every single Member of Congress. The rest of us don’t have those odds. So all we are

asking is that we work together collectively to put in place the

kinds of laws—which we already happen to have one, by the way—

which will help us protect our people.

Mr. MCHENRY. What am I going to do with——

Chief RAMSEY. You want to help my police officers? Help us by

not passing this law. That is how you can help my policemen.

Mr. MCHENRY. You know what you can do to help me in my life?

Is allow me to carry a handgun so when somebody breaks into my

house at 3 a.m., and wants to beat me up and take everything from

me, and maybe possibly kill me and shoot me, if I just simply brandish a weapon and I am able to level the playing field, then I am

going to have a chance of survival before I have to wait 30 minutes

for your folks to come out there, if I have the ability to communicate with you all and call 911 to get a response.

So I will tell you, sir, that our motivation is to allow protection

of individuals, not to spread more handguns. What we are trying

to do is allow law-abiding citizens the same opportunity that these

folks, these crooks, these criminals, these murders that are out on

the streets have because they are willing to break the law. As a

law-abiding citizen, we are trying to give that same opportunity

and level the playing field.

Chief RAMSEY. Well, I am very appreciative of how motivated you

are to do this, sir. I am just simply saying I am equally motivated

not to let you do it. I think that it is really not in our best interest

here in the District of Columbia—perhaps in other jurisdictions,

but not in ours—to have the current handgun law in any way tampered with.

I think it is a good law, I think it is a solid law, I think it is

good for the citizens of the District of Columbia. And if they choose

to change it, then it should be their right and their decision to

change it. And I think that is basically what we are saying here.

67

Mr. MCHENRY. Well, thank you for the exchange. I certainly appreciate it. Appreciate your testifying.

Chief RAMSEY. Thank you.

Mr. MCHENRY. At this point I would like to recognize Congresswoman Watson, if you have questions.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank our chief of police and our Honorable Mayor for

being here. Those of you who are on the streets every day realize

what the problem is, and the problem is guns in the hands of the

irresponsible. But I would never want a shootout at the O.K. Corral, and that is exactly what it would be if we liberalize the gun

laws here.

How do we know who the innocent people are? Because a youth

is innocent until he pulls that gun. I am dealing with that right

now in my district, South Central Los Angeles, and I have an illegal gun shop that has been operating for 15 years, and I went to

ATF and I went to Customs, and we can’t get them to close down,

and they have violated every law.

So the people with the power get the guns, and the powerless become the victims. And I would not solve the problem of violence in

this city where we work by letting everyone have a gun. You know,

children find those guns. I know in my district they find them all

the time. Kill their playmates, kill themselves. I see adults passing

the guns on to children and having them fire that shot. The gangs

started in my district. So I live with this problem every day. And

the solution to gun violence on the streets is not allowing everyone

who walks through the door to have a gun.

So my question to you, Chief Ramsey, is how do we, how would

you—and I hope this law goes nowhere, and I am very sympathetic

to the statement that let us make that decision, because I did put

an amendment in this bill that we had fighting drugs and so on

to let the local elected officials help determine what is a high violence area, because we live there and we represent these. And I

was born in my district.

Under the Constitution there are people who have a right, if

there is a militia, to carry a rifle. How would you balance that

right and keeping guns away from irresponsible people? Can you

deal with that?

Chief RAMSEY. Well, I wish I had the answer to that, ma’am. Unfortunately, I don’t. I personally think that if you commit a crime

with a handgun, I would like to see you get 10 years just for doing

it with a gun, separate from whatever gun it is; robbery, rape,

whatever it might be. You do 10 just for having a gun and using

the gun that way, as opposed to anything else. But that is not the

way it really works. So there is not a whole lot of disincentive for

people not to use guns to commit crimes, and that is because of

some of the laws that we have that, quite frankly, I think are a

little weak when it comes to violence committed with the use of a

handgun.

I don’t think you solve that problem by introducing more guns.

I think you deal with the criminal element in the harshest way you

can in terms of letting them know and sending a clear message

that if you commit a crime and you use a handgun, where you can

potentially take somebody’s life, then there is a very, very stiff

68

price to pay. Maybe then we will start to see less and less of it.

Maybe then this kind of debate can take place, where we don’t find

ourselves in the midst of the kinds of problems and issues that we

have now, where there is no disincentive for people who do that.

When you look at the amount of violence that is being committed

out here, younger and younger people—and if we have a law where

you can buy guns—let us say 18 year-olds are able to buy guns.

Can you imagine 18, 19 year-old boys being stopped in many of our

neighborhoods with a gun by a police officer? And you think nothing is going to happen? I mean, we are going to have some serious

consequences here.

And this could be a good kid, perfect kid, but at night, in a dark

alley, two, three guys in a car, it is a felony stop—at least you

think it is a felony stop. I mean, those are the kinds of things that

we confront every day. And by just having more guns available, it

just doesn’t make the situation any better.

In my department, our officers have to go through firearms training twice a year, 8 hour segments. Twice a year every year. They

have to qualify not only with marksmanship, but also in their judgment in when to use deadly force. Now, we are talking about selling guns over the counter to people who get no training, get no supervision; there are no rules, there is no nothing. I mean, there are

people who right now think they can kill an auto thief. Because

somebody is stealing their car, they have the right to shoot them.

And I am here to tell you that in most States you can’t.

So those are the kinds of things that you are going to have, in

addition to the other problems, the inappropriate application of the

use of deadly force by private citizens, because they thought they

were threatened. We have very, very strict guidelines in policing.

We have police officers that get indicted, that get sent to jail for

inappropriately using force. All kinds of regulations. Everybody in

the world is looking at us. Who is going to be looking at Joe Blow

Citizen who inappropriately uses deadly force because in their

mind they thought they were justified, and yet they took a life?

And there is nothing more serious than taking somebody’s life, and

you better be right when you do it.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you.

Mayor Williams, I think a lot of the criticism relative to the violence in this city is warranted, because it is a very violent city.

Where do the guns come from?

Mayor WILLIAMS. Congresswoman, again, thank you for your

leadership where I grew up, in LA. You do a wonderful job, and

I really appreciate it. And when you talk about those neighborhoods in South Central, I know those neighborhoods. I still have

many family members there. And I know you are fighting valiantly

to lift those communities.

We are still a violent city, although, as you know, and as Congresswoman Norton has submitted for the record, crime has gone

down substantially over the last 2 years. And we aim to bring it

down even further this year and are on track to do that. But it is

a violent city. And as the Chief reported—and he had a documented list of this, which I think we have also submitted for the

record—Maryland, Virginia lead the categories—and he had a list

of other areas. The fact is we have laws here, but we are in the

69

midst of a very porous metropolitan area, so our laws only have

limited effect where guns are readily available elsewhere.

But I would join with the Chief and say that where you have applied a law and there is, admittedly, in some cases wanton disregard for that law, the answer isn’t to remove the law; the answer

is to add to your arsenal the tools to see that the law is enforced.

So, for example, in our city—and I would argue in many cities

across the country—there are still too many assaults. There still is

too much sexual violence. There still is too much violence of all

kinds. But we don’t say, well, because so many people are violating

the law, let us just remove the law. No. We add to our arsenal the

tools to see that law has greater and greater effect. And I think

that applies to the use of guns.

Mr. MCHENRY. The gentlelady’s time has expired.

Congressman Westmoreland, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mayor, I think in your opening statement you talked about

the guns—I believe there was about 1,200 or 1,500 guns that you

all confiscated last year, is that correct? You said that they were

probably——

Mayor WILLIAMS. 2,000, sir.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I am sorry?

Mayor WILLIAMS. 2,000, sir, the Chief reports.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. OK. You said they were probably brought

in illegally. Wouldn’t you say that every one of them was absolutely

brought in illegally if they were brought in?

Mayor WILLIAMS. If they were brought in, out of the 1,500 that

we actually traced last year—we took in 2,000, but we traced 1,500.

All but 16 were illegal. There were 16 that we got that had been

registered prior to the 1976 ban.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. But they were legal in the States that they

came from, they were just here illegally?

Mayor WILLIAMS. Some were legal in the States they came from;

some had been stolen; some they had lost track of who purchased

it last, because it had gone through so many hands. But there were

some that had been legally purchased, but the majority of them no

longer belonged to the individual who made the original purchase.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Mayor, I know there has been some

concerns today about Home Rule. Do you believe that Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the explicit power to

enact or regulate legislation in the District of Columbia?

Mayor WILLIAMS. I think technically it has that power. But I

think that my own personal view is that was a defect in the creation of the Constitution. As Mayor of this city, I have read God

knows how many books now on the history of this city, and it isn’t

as if a lot of thought was given to that particular provision; it was

put in place to solve an immediate problem, and almost immediately everybody involved understood that they had created a

problem, and they indeed had.

I am the fourth modern Mayor of the District of Columbia, but,

indeed, we had a number of Mayors and councils from the very creation of this city and from the very beginning that complained

about this provision. So everybody knew—like the whole issue of

union, the whole issue of slavery, the whole issue of emancipation

70

and voting rights, all these issues—that this was a problem that

we would get to later, and we still haven’t gotten to it. I think it

is a fundamental issue here.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. But you agree that is what the Constitution

of the United States says, that Congress has the explicit power to

do that. Do you not agree with that?

Mayor WILLIAMS. Legally, but not morally. I think it is wrong.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. OK.

Mayor WILLIAMS. I really do, respectfully.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Chief, let me ask you a question. Do you all

do Neighborhood Watches in the District?

Chief RAMSEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Let us say you were at a Neighborhood

Watch meeting with some neighbors and someone gave you the scenario of coming in and finding their family held hostage by someone with a weapon, or let us say someone came in and found someone pistol-whipping his wife. If you were at a Neighborhood Watch,

what would you instruct that neighbor or that homeowner to do

when he walked into a situation like that?

Chief RAMSEY. I would instruct him to call us. If they are not in

harm’s way, I would instruct them to call 911 as quickly as possible. Obviously, in a case of someone being pistol-whipped, if it

was a spouse or something like that, you would try to take some

action on your own in order to try to stop that from occurring, and

that would be human nature. But odds are there would probably

be two victims, as opposed to one. But they should contact the police immediately, if that is possible.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I believe that you all probably haven’t had

the best 911 response time in the country.

Let me ask you another question. You are around criminals all

the time, and I am sure you ask them questions and interview

them as to crimes they have committed. So let us put your criminal

mind on for a minute or one that you could associate with a criminal. If you were living on the border between Maryland and D.C.

and you had a drug problem, or if you were in need of money or

something that you could sell for money, and you had a weapon

and you were going to make a decision on who to rob, would you

rob somebody in Maryland that had an opportunity to have a weapon, or would you go to D.C., where you knew the victim was going

to be unarmed?

Chief RAMSEY. Well, I can use a real-life example. I think Prince

George’s County has more robberies right now than we do in the

District, so I guess that particular——

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Well, that is not my question.

Chief RAMSEY. That is your question. You said Maryland or the

District.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I am saying if you were a criminal—I am

asking you a question. If you had to make a conscious decision, if

you were going to commit a crime, would you rather try to commit

the crime against someone who might be armed or against someone

that you knew would be breaking the law to be armed?

Chief RAMSEY. First of all, sir, I am not a criminal and I don’t

think like a criminal. So that is No. 1. So I can’t answer your question. I have no idea what is going through their mind.

71

Mr. WESTMORELAND. OK. Let us just——

Chief RAMSEY. No, sir. And you took an unfair shot at us and the

hard-working men and women of the Metropolitan Police Department about response times. Our people have done a remarkable job

over the last 3 years. We have enjoyed a 9 percent decrease in

2003, 18 percent last year, and so far 14 percent this year. We are

not perfect, but we don’t deserve that. We don’t deserve it at all.

We have people that lay their lives on the line every day answering

calls for service. We run toward danger that most people would be

running away from. And I am very proud of them, and they don’t

deserve that, sir. I am sorry.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Well, sir, listen. I have police officers in

Georgia every day that stop cars where the people can have guns.

So, to me, they are braver stopping the ones that can have a gun

than somebody without it. But I think you have answered my question about which would be the easiest prey.

But let me say this. You said you had recovered, I think, 2,000

firearms?

Chief RAMSEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. And I believe Mr. Burton read the penalty,

that the penalty was a minimum of $1,000 and 1 year in jail or the

maximum of $10,000 and 10 years in jail. Could you tell me approximately what percentage of those paid the $1,000 or served the

1-year in jail, or what percentage of them paid the $10,000 and

they are serving now or could serve up to 10 years in jail?

Chief RAMSEY. That information would have to come from the

U.S. Attorney’s Office or the courts. I don’t have that available to

me off-hand.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Is that some information that you could

get?

Chief RAMSEY. I could certainly make them aware of your request, sir, and see whether or not they could look that up.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. And isn’t it true that the last statistics I

have for the population, this is estimate population for the murders, as verified by the FBI is 2003. New York has a population

of 8,085,742. They had 597 murders, or 7.38 murders per 100,000

people. Washington, DC, has a population of 563,384, had 248 murders, or approximately 44.02 murders per 100,000 people. How

many of those murders do you know that you all solved?

Mr. MCHENRY. The gentleman’s time has expired, so if the Chief

would——

Chief RAMSEY. Our clearance rate over the last—and I think you

are referring to 2003 statistics. Our clearance rate in 2003 was

about 56 percent, if I am not mistaken, right in that area. I would

have to look it up in order to be able to give you the precise number.

And it is interesting you use New York. They do have good gun

laws in New York.

Mr. MCHENRY. At this time, Congressman Duncan from Tennessee is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I

know that we need to get on to the next panel, so I will try to be

very brief. I am curious about one thing. There have been instances

in the past or over the last many years where D.C. residents have

72

shot criminals in their homes, and I wonder do you know if any or

how many of those have been prosecuted because those guns have

been illegal? I was told that none of those people have been prosecuted in all those years. Is that correct?

Chief RAMSEY. I would have to do some research, Congressman,

because I am not aware of any inordinate number of instances

where we have had people shooting others inside their home in protection of themselves. I am sure that it is possible that could have

happened. I would have to check to find out how many justifiable

homicides we had in any given year.

And we do average anywhere from three to four justifiable homicides a year. Most of those are police shootings, however. So I

would have to check to find out how many citizen homicides—because it still counts as a homicide, it just doesn’t count as a criminal homicide—we had in any given year, and I would be glad to

get that information to you.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, let me ask you this. I spent 71⁄2 years as a

criminal court judge in Tennessee trying the felony criminal cases,

and I had, I can tell you this, almost unanimous support from my

local law enforcement people. And you do have things going in the

right direction, I will give you credit for that.

On the other hand, I will say that, unfortunately, we have over

2 million people now in the prisons and jails of this country, and

a lot of that is that we have started locking up for much longer

sentences the violent criminals and the criminals who have used

guns. It is a shame that we have that many people locked up, but

it was necessary to do it. And what that has done, that has brought

down the crime rate in almost every city in this country. So that

same trend line has taken place in almost all the cities.

Yet, a witness in the second panel will say this: over the last 5

years, the District, never far out of the running, had, in three of

those years, the highest murder rate among cities over 500,000.

The other 2 years the city ranked second and third. It seems clear

that D.C. residents need more protection than they are receiving.

Nor has there been any success in Chicago, the only major city to

have roughly similar laws, and a city that has consistently had the

highest murder rate of the 10 largest U.S. cities.

What do you say to that?

Chief RAMSEY. Sir, I guess, you know, I mean, statistics can say

whatever you would like them to say. And if all that is true, fine.

I don’t think the solution is in putting more guns on the street. I

just don’t. I mean, I have been a policeman for 36 years, and I have

been in many situations and, believe me, I just do not think that

we need more guns on the street. I just don’t believe that.

We have worked very hard to get our murder rate down. Granted, our past has not been all that great. But we are moving in the

right direction. As I said before, we are at about a 20-year low now,

and we are even under that so far this year. And we are going to

continue to aggressively fight crime in our city. It is not perfect. It

is not going to get down to zero, maybe, but we are doing everything we possibly can.

But introducing more guns on the street, there is going to be a

lot of these guns that are going to be used inappropriately by people who would not otherwise be committing crimes, but during road

73

rage, domestic disputes, or other types of situations they find themselves in. That handgun being available, I am afraid we are going

to have some tragedies. I hate to see it.

Mr. DUNCAN. All I can say is a better job is going to have to be

done, because this city has more police officers than any city in the

entire world by far, when you add in the D.C. police force, the Capital Police force, the Park Police, all these other institutions that

have all these police forces. You have all these Federal law enforcement officers all over the place here. It is an astounding number

of law enforcement officials. And to have these kinds of statistics

is just almost beyond comprehensive, when you consider the number of law enforcement personnel in this city.

And I think you can talk about statistics, but every place in this

country where they have fewer or more lenient gun laws, the crime

rates are at the lowest; and where you have the toughest or strictest gun laws, the crime rates are at the highest. And you look at

Virginia and Maryland and these surrounding places where you

say these guns are coming from, but they have more lenient gun

laws and, yet, their crime rates, murder rates, and all these other

violent crime rates and use of guns, they are so much lower. It just

makes you shake your head in amazement at what is going on

here.

So I certainly don’t have all the answers, but somebody ought to

be ashamed on all this that is going on in this city.

Chief RAMSEY. Well, Congressman, I would like to say that it is

true we have a lot of police departments that operate in the District of Columbia. There is only one that answers 911 calls, and

that is the Metropolitan Police Department, and there are 3,800 of

us. The Capitol Police protect the Capitol, and you have about two

cops for every Congressman up here on the Hill, so it is a very safe

place. We have the Federal protective FBI, Secret Service. They all

have their own responsibilities, and those responsibilities do not include regular routine patrol and answering 911 calls for service.

That falls on the Metropolitan Police Department.

And, in addition to that, we also have the responsibility of assisting those Federal agencies in providing protection for the President, the Vice President, visiting dignitaries, and all these different

security alerts that take place, protests that take place in the District of Columbia, not against the local government, but against the

Federal Government, but we are charged with the responsibility of

maintaining order.

So there are a lot of responsibilities inherent in being a member

of the Metropolitan Police Department that other jurisdictions have

no clue as to what all it entails. And I think our people do an outstanding job. They have nothing to be ashamed of.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, all I can say is this. I live in an area where

there is heavy tourism, and we have millions of people coming to

our area and through that area, and we have about one-eighth or

one-ninth the number of police officers per population. So it looks

like to me like something better and more is going to have to be

done.

Mr. MCHENRY. The gentleman’s time has expired.

At this point we will allow Delegate Norton to have a final set

of questions.

74

Ms. NORTON. Very few questions.

And I know the Mayor and the police chief are always under

pressure to bring crime down, and I do want to congratulate you

that you are at a 20-year low in crime and in homicides in the District of Columbia. You deserve great credit for that. And you have

a lot of pressure from our own residents—you don’t need any from

anybody up here—because they are the ones that have to live with

it. And I think the record needs to show that the rate has gone

down very substantially.

I do appreciate the members who have offered statistics on the

number of homicides in the District of Columbia, because they have

made the very best argument for why we should not introduce

more guns into this city.

I would just like to clear up one thing. There was a question that

asked you, Chief Ramsey, about guns you have taken off the

streets, and asked you how many of these people had to pay a

$1,000 fine and got the 1-year in jail for possession of firearms. Is

it not the case that most of the guns that you take from people on

the streets are taken from criminals and felons, who would not be

charged, usually, simply with possession, but would have much

heavier charges because they shouldn’t have had the guns in the

first place?

Chief RAMSEY. That is true, ma’am, and that is a good point. A

lot of times the U.S. Attorney’s Office or the AG will not move forward with those charges because they have more serious charges

placed against the individual, and those gun charges tend not to

be placed. There are some instances where they are. I don’t know,

off the top of my head, how often that occurs, but because in most

instances they are charged with other crimes, they are not charged

with those particular crimes.

Ms. NORTON. The Congress is full of folks who like to talk about

handling guns and just being ready for people who might break in.

I would hate to have any of them actually tested one night to see

if they really were ready when somebody broke in.

But I really would like to just straighten this matter of leveling

the playing field out, about who is most likely to have the advantage, a gun experienced in breaking in and handling a gun in holdups, or a homeowner who is caught unaware if somebody breaks

into his or her home. I mean, let us discuss the real level playing

field here. Is the citizen likely to have a level playing field if she

or he is up against an experienced criminal?

Mayor WILLIAMS. I would like to let the Chief speak to the dynamics of the situation, but I just want the record to reflect what

the Chief reported but I think went unrecognized, and that is I applaud my friend and colleague, Jack Johnson, and what he and the

chief are trying to do out there in Prince George’s County, but the

fact is Prince George’s County and Maryland have more lenient

gun laws than the District, and crime has been going up out there,

as opposed to the District.

So if you take the philosophy that more lenient gun laws and

this more level playing field is going to result in a reduction of

crime, it is not proving true in just that one comparison—and I

could give you others—statistically.

75

Chief RAMSEY. And, ma’am, I don’t know who has an advantage

in that particular situation. But I do know who has a disadvantage,

and those are the people who are standing around the two guys

with the guns, because they are the ones that are more likely to

get shot than the people that they are shooting at. And that is just

from experience. That is just what normally happens, is that the

people who have nothing to do with it at all wind up catching a

round and wind up getting seriously injured or killed as a result

of it.

So each situation is different. You know, getting to a gun, being

able to locate it, being able to fire, knowing when the use of deadly

force is appropriate. And I think that is a key issue here. Again,

police officers go through hours and hours and hours of training in

the use of deadly force and the handling of a firearm. We sell weapons to citizens and there are no rules of engagement.

So that is just something that has to be seriously considered

should something like this wind up taking place, is that you can’t

just lift the ban and just leave it open for us to try to figure out

what to do. There are a lot of serious consequences to this if it

should go through.

Ms. NORTON. Important point.

Chief, I know that in all the crime town meetings in the city I

have been to, police say give it up, give up your money. I mean,

if somebody is pointing a gun at you, it is hard for me to believe

that a police officer would say shoot it out and may the best man

win.

Chief RAMSEY. Well, there are studies, ma’am, that show that the

person who has a gun drawn on you has an advantage. There is

something called lag time, the time it takes for you to be able to

actually respond, should you be in a situation like that. It depends

on the frame of mind of everybody involved. There are so many factors.

But it really, I think, is beside the point in a sense that the real

people that are at a disadvantage are the children playing in a

schoolyard, people sitting on their front porch, other people that

are out. You know, we are trained not to fire if the background

isn’t clear, meaning that if that bullet should miss the target, what

is behind it, because, again, you could unintentionally shoot and seriously injure or kill someone else. All those things go into the

training of a police officer.

And I think that when we find ourselves in a situation where we

have gone back to that old movie I talked about before with Wyatt

Earp, with everybody being armed—which, by the way, there is another section of that movie that says their murder rate was actually higher than that of New York City in its hay-day—you know,

we go right backward to that. And I just think that a lot of innocent people are going to wind up suffering. There are unintended

consequences from this action. No one is intentionally trying to do

this, but there are serious unintended consequences to lifting our

gun ban.

Ms. NORTON. One last note.

Mayor WILLIAMS. And I would add, Congresswoman Norton, I

think there are unintended consequences to what I think is just a

breathtaking usurpation of what limited Home Rule we have. I

76

think we need to decide, do we want the District officials to run

the District government or someone else? For someone who has

worked as aggressively as I have with the Federal Government to

try to bring the District forward, and suffered, as you know, all the

brick bats and criticisms of my constituents and colleagues and

media cognoscenti about being too lenient, to have to turn around

now and go back to my people and say the reward for good behavior and everything that we have done is to undermine something

so fundamental to democratic free will, to me is just tragic. It is

horrible. I can’t over-emphasize that.

Ms. NORTON. And in a real sense that says it all.

Mr. Mayor and Chief Ramsey, let me just ask you this final question. You have town meetings around the city all the time. Police

go to Mayor’s town meetings; you each have your own town meetings. When you go to these town meetings, is there any sentiment

in the District of Columbia for weakening our gun safety laws?

What do you pick up from people who talk to you about guns?

Chief RAMSEY. Ma’am, I have not heard any meeting—I can’t say

anyone; there are certainly those proponents that would like to see

the ban lifted, I would imagine. In fact, I know there is one that

will testify, at least a couple that will testify a little later on. But

for the most part people do not even discuss it, and if they do, they

talk about gun violence and our need to get more guns off the

street; and why don’t we do gun buy-backs and why don’t we do

this and why don’t we do that. The focus is always on what can

we do to get more guns off the street.

Reverend Young, earlier this year, started something where he

started a gun buy-back program. And like the gentleman mentioned who said that they had it in his community and they ran

out of money, well, Reverend Young ran out of money too. Reverend Young is the minister that presided over Princess Hansen’s

funeral and a couple other funerals of young people in the District.

Again, the emphasis and the focus is on how can we get these

guns out of the hands of people, as opposed to anything else, for

the most part.

Mayor WILLIAMS. I would agree with that, Congresswoman. In

hundreds and thousands now of questions at community meetings

and thousands of e-mails, I have not detected a significant concern

about this issue. I would just echo what the Chief has said. It is

to bring more enforcement, not less, to the gun laws.

Ms. NORTON. Well, I want to thank both of you, because for the

Mayor and the police chief to spend this kind of time outside of

their jurisdiction actually, I think, says all we need to know about

the importance of this issue to you.

And I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the leeway you have

given all of us to ask questions.

Chief RAMSEY. Thank you, ma’am.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MCHENRY. Thank you, Delegate Norton.

At this time this panel is dismissed. I certainly appreciate you

dealing with our lovely congressional schedule. Unfortunately,

Chairman Davis was not able to come back. I know he did want

to have a conversation with you all. Thank you all for testifying.

At this time we will recess for 2 minutes.

77

[Recess.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS [presiding]. Please rise with me and raise

your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. We will start with Dr. John Lott, the resident scholar from the American Enterprise Institute; followed by

Robert Levy, senior fellow in Constitutional studies at the Cato Institute; Robert Peck, president of the Greater Washington Board of

Trade; Pastor Lionel Edmonds, Co-Chair of the Washington Interfaith Network; Sandra Seegars, a District of Columbia resident; Tyrone Parker, executive director, Alliance of Concerned Men; and

Francine Lowe, District of Columbia resident.

Mr. Levy, would you just raise your right hand right there?

[Witness sworn.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. We are going to start with Mr. Lott and

move straight on down. Your entire statements are in the record,

so you don’t have to take the full 5 minutes.

Mr. Lott, thanks for being with us.

STATEMENTS OF JOHN R. LOTT, JR., PH.D., RESIDENT SCHOLAR, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE; ROBERT A. LEVY,

SENIOR FELLOW IN CONSTITUTIONAL STUDIES, THE CATO

INSTITUTE; ROBERT PECK, PRESIDENT, GREATER WASHINGTON BOARD OF TRADE; PASTOR H. LIONEL EDMONDS, COCHAIR, WASHINGTON INTERFAITH NETWORK; SANDRA

SEEGARS, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RESIDENT; TYRONE

PARKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALLIANCE OF CONCERNED

MEN; AND FRANCINE LOWE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RESIDENT

STATEMENT OF JOHN R. LOTT, JR., PH.D.

Mr. LOTT. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and

distinguished panel members. I appreciate your time here today.

Guns make it easier for bad things to happen, but they also

make it easier for people to protect themselves and prevent bad

things from happening. And what concerns us all is what is the net

effect that guns have on crime. Does it increase or decrease murders? The impacts it has on rape, robberies, and aggravated assaults.

We all want to keep guns away from criminals, but the problem

that you basically run into is that when you pass these different

type of gun control laws, it is the law-abiding citizens, and not the

criminals, who are most likely to obey them, you can actually see

increases in crime rather than reductions in crime.

My own research shows that police are the single-most important

factor for reducing crime. Surely, Police Chief Ramsey talked about

some of the things that he is doing to increase arrest rates and conviction rates. But even though they are extremely important, one

thing I think is clear, and one thing that the police themselves understand, when you look at surveys of them or talk to them in different places, and that is they realize that they virtually always arrive on the crime scene after the crime has been committed.

In D.C., in 2003, the average response time for priority one calls

was about 8 minutes and 25 seconds. So the question that you run

78

into, then, is what do you advise someone to do when they are having to confront a criminal by themselves, if they have to wait that

81⁄2 minutes before the police can arrive, and then assuming that

they can make a 911 call.

And there is a lot of evidence on this. Probably the largest study

that has been done is the National Crime Victimization Survey

done by the Department of Justice, which surveys about 100,000 to

150,000 people each year, and it has been doing this survey for

about 25 years now, almost. And what they find is that you look

at victims of crime, you find how they responded to the crime, you

found how the criminal responded—was the criminal armed or

not—what was the type of crime that was involved; what were the

circumstances, time of day, many different factors that were

there—did it occur in a house, outside the residence. And what you

can find is that given the residence or given that victims respond

in different ways, what was the probability of serious injury to

them with all those different factors.

And what you find is that by far the safest course of action for

victims to take is to have a gun. We frequently hear that passive

behavior is a safe course of action. We heard that today. And there

is a kernel of truth to it, but when you look at the survey, you find,

in fact, that is very misleading and actually dangerous advice. If

you compare passive behavior to all forms of active resistance

lumped together, passive behavior is, indeed, slightly safer.

But the problem with it, and the reason why it is misleading is

that, under active resistance, you are lumping together 10 different

types of active resistance, everything from yelling and screaming,

running away, a baseball bat, mace, a knife, a gun, or a stun gun.

Some of those are indeed much more dangerous than passive behavior.

For example, for a woman, by far the most dangerous course of

action for her to take when she is confronted by a criminal is to

use her fists. There is a very simple reason for that, and that is

you are virtually always talking about a male criminal doing the

attacking. In the case of a female victim and a male attacker, there

is a large strength differential that exists there. The second most

dangerous course of action for a woman to take is to run away. If

she can run away and escape, that is great. But the problem is that

women victims tend to be significantly slower runners than men

are, and in the process of being tackled and subdued significant injury frequently results.

Again, as I say, if you look through these numbers—and I am

happy to go through it more in depth—by far the safest course of

action is particularly true for people who are relatively weaker

physically—women and the elderly—is to have a gun.

There are other things that have been brought up today about

fears about what might happen. We see this debate occurring time

after time. We have 37 States now in the United States that have

‘‘right to carry’’ laws. A lot of the concerns about people using guns

improperly, in the heat of the moment, other things that could happen, in these States you consistently find that the people who carry

these concealed handguns tend to be extremely law-abiding, they

lose their permits for any type of gun related violation at hundreds

79

or thousands of 1 percentage point, and virtually always for fairly

trivial types of violations.

There were discussions today about the assault weapons ban. I

find it a little bit interesting it was just brought up today, because

just a few weeks ago we had the first crime numbers come out

after the assault weapons ban sunset last year, and there was obviously a lot of concern about what would be happening to crime.

Well, it turns out now that murder rates and robbery rates fell last

year. Murder rates fell by 3 percent. And, more interestingly, the

murder rates fell by more in the States that didn’t have their own

assault weapons ban—over 4 percent—than the States that did

have an assault weapons ban of their own.

We could talk about other things. The risks of having guns in the

home is something that has been brought up multiple times. There

are a couple of serious issues with the study that people were citing earlier in the testimony, and that is that what they would do

is they would look at a city over the course of a year, identify people who had been killed or injured from a gun, and then ask the

relatives of the deceased whether a gun was owned in the residence.

Then, as a comparison group, they would find people who lived

within a mile who were the same age, sex, and race, and ask them

whether they owned a gun. And they would run a regression that

would say what is the probability of dying based on whether a gun

was said to be owned in the home.

When people have gone back and looked at that data, what they

found is that in only, at most, 14 percent of the deaths—and that

includes suicide, was the gun in the home that was mentioned in

the survey actually the weapon that was used in the death. Eightysix percent of the time it was from weapons being brought in from

the outside, which raises an issue of why it would have been beneficial for them to own a gun.

But, on the other side, they only count as benefits times when

you actually killed the attacker. Killing the attacker in self defense

occurs fewer than once out of every 1,000 times. You are ignoring

the benefits from simply brandishing the gun and you are ignoring

even times where you would wound the attacker or fire a warning

shot.

Now, what I would like to try to do in the brief minute or so that

I have left, is just to turn to some data, because—if I could see the

first slide there—we have been talking about what might happen

after the D.C. ban was removed. Well, one thing you can go and

look at is what happened when the ban was imposed to begin with.

In the 5-years before the D.C. ban in late 1976, murder rates declined from about 37 to 27 per 100,000 people. In the 5-years afterwards, they went up to 35 per 100,000 people.

And you can see from the graph here—and 1976 is the line

there—there is only 1 year between 1976 and, in fact, today, that

you find a murder rate even just slightly below the murder rate

that existed in 1976 before the ban went into effect. And even that

it is a small tenth of a percent difference in terms of murder rates.

Now, one of the things that the police chief was bringing up is

he would talk about numbers in terms of the number of murders.

One concern just to bring up there and keep in mind is that the

80

population in D.C. has fallen by about 20 percent over that period

of time. And when you take that into account, it helps explain why

the murder rates—in 2004, for example, the murder rate, even

with all the drops that they were talking about, was still about 30

percent higher than the murder rate was in 1976.

Can I see the next slide, please?

This shows you how violent crime rates have changed before and

after the ban went into effect. You basically find that violent crime

rates were falling, on average, prior to the law going into effect,

were rising for the next 7 years basically, and they have gone up

and down since then. But, again, after that point in time there

have been 2 years after 1976 where the violent crime rate was as

low or as low as it was when the ban went into effect; all the rest

of the time it has been dramatically higher than that.

Now, you can compare D.C. to the changes in murder rates or

violent crime rates in Maryland or Virginia, the next graph that is

there. And it is very difficult—that is for murder. Or you can look

at the next slide for violent crime rates.

And it is very hard to see. Violent crime rates were falling relative to Maryland and Virginia up until 1976, and then they were

flat or rising in the period of time afterwards.

And I can go and show you the numbers for Chicago—I won’t go

through that right now—and other places in the United States, but

Chicago you actually see a very big increase in robbery rates after

they instituted their ban. And if you compare it relative to the

counties that surround it, you see very large increases that occur

in either murder rates or—why don’t we skip a couple slides just

to show you. Next one.

That is robbery rates. That just shows you how the robbery rates

changed before and after the Chicago gun ban.

The next slide, please.

That shows you, when you compare the murder rates relative to

the counties that are surrounding Chicago, how there was a substantial increase in Chicago murder rates relative to the surrounding counties.

And if you show the next slide, that shows you how violent crime

rates changed.

You know, the bottom line—and I have data in here from Australia and from England that show you after they had their bans.

It would be nice if simply banning the guns took guns away from

criminals. But the problem is that it seems to be mainly the lawabiding citizens, and not the criminals, who obey these rules. And

you end up having unintended consequences in terms of higher

crime rates, at least, certainly not lower, as a result of these

changes.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lott follows:]

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Levy, thank you for being with us.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT A. LEVY

Mr. LEVY. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members, thanks

very much for inviting me to testify. I want to comment very briefly

on the Home Rule question, since that came up several times. The

question was raised why shouldn’t D.C. officials run the D.C. government. Well, the short answer is because D.C. officials are violating the U.S. Constitution.

Now, Congress has expressly set out in Article I, Section 8, has

plenary power over the District of Columbia. Moreover, every Member of Congress has an independent and affirmative obligation to

uphold our Constitution. So if the District’s handgun ban violates

the second amendment, as it almost surely does, then Congress

should act to defend D.C. residents’ second amendment rights,

much as Congress would act if a State were violating rights of free

speech or discriminating against racial or religious minorities. The

question in all of those cases is whether the challenged law is Constitutional. And, in D.C., the gun ban is indisputably unConstitutional.

I support the principles underlying H.R. 1288, but I must say

that I oppose enactment of the bill at this time. My written testimony establishes four points: first, the second amendment secures

an individual, not a collective right; second, the second amendment

indisputably applies to the District of Columbia, despite the fact

that D.C. is not 1 of the 50 States; third, District residents and

other citizens across the Nation can best secure their second

amendment rights through the judicial process, not through the

D.C. Personal Protection Act; and, fourth, Congress should, for that

reason, step aside at least until Parker v. District of Columbia,

which is the second amendment challenge to the D.C. gun ban, is

resolved in Federal court.

Of course, I would be happy to answer questions on any of those

points, but in the next few minutes I want to focus on my third

and fourth points exclusively. So let us begin with this question:

How can D.C. residents most effectively secure their second amendment rights? And then I will discuss the best role that I think Congress should play.

To permanently guaranty the rights of D.C. residents, a Constitutional challenge to the District’s gun laws should be brought

in a Federal court, like the D.C. Circuit, where there is no adverse

precedent. Preferably, the challenge should be civil, not criminal,

filed by sympathetic, law-abiding plaintiffs, not bank robbers or

drug pushers.

And, in fact, that case is now in litigation. In 2003, three local

attorneys and I filed Parker v. District of Columbia, pro bono, on

behalf of six D.C. residents. The case is not about machine guns;

it is not about assault weapons. It is about the right to own an ordinary, garden variety handgun. Nor do the plaintiffs argue in that

case for the right to carry a gun outside their home. That is another question for another day.

This case is about a pistol in the home for self defense. In effect,

no one in the District can possess a functional firearm in his or her

93

own residence, and the law applies not just to unfit persons like

felons or minors or the mentally incompetent, but across the board

to ordinary, honest, responsible citizens.

There have been more than three dozen challenges to the D.C.

law that have already been filed, mostly by criminals who are serving longer sentences for gun possession. The Parker case is quite

different. The lead plaintiff, Shelly Parker, a young lady who resides in the heart of D.C., where she and her neighbors are relentlessly harassed by the drug dealers. Ms. Parker decided to do something about it. She called the police; she organized block meetings;

and she encouraged her neighbors to complain.

Not surprisingly, she was labeled as a troublemaker by the dealers, who threaten her at every opportunity. One dealer, in fact,

tried to pry his way into her house repeatedly yelling, ‘‘Bitch, I’ll

kill you. I live on this block too.’’ But Ms. Parker knows that the

police are unlikely to shut down the drug traffic on her block, and

she would like to possess a functional handgun within her home for

self-defense. But she fears prosecution because of D.C.’s unConstitutional ban.

A second plaintiff is a private police officer who carries a handgun to provide security for the Thurgood Marshall Judicial Center.

But when he applied for permission to possess a handgun within

his home to defend his own household, the D.C. government turned

him down.

The six plaintiffs in Parker live in D.C., they pay their taxes in

D.C., and they obey the laws in D.C., but the District of Columbia

says that if somebody breaks into their house, their only choice is

to call 911 and pray that the police arrive in time. That is not a

good enough choice. The right to keep and bear arms includes the

right to defend your property and your family and your life, and

no government should be permitted to take that right away.

And, yet, that is why I argue that Congress should step aside

until Parker v. District of Columbia is resolved. Parker is now

pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. If

H.R. 1288 is enacted, the lawsuit will be dismissed as moot. Plaintiffs, of course, cannot challenge a law that no longer exists. Otherwise, Parker could well be headed to the Supreme Court, and that

is where it belongs.

It is a compelling case. The citizens of this country deserve a

four-square pronouncement from the Nation’s highest court about

the real meaning of the second amendment for all Americans, not

just the residents of D.C.

Temporarily, the rights of D.C. residents can be secured either

by litigation or by legislation. But the Parker plaintiffs know—indeed, we all know—that a narrow bill aimed at the D.C. Code could

easily be repealed by the next anti-gun Congress, and the bill will

have no effect outside of the District. That means it will have negligible impact on second amendment rights when contrasted with

an unambiguous proclamation applicable across the Nation from

the U.S. Supreme Court.

Thanks very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Levy follows:]

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Peck.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT PECK

Mr. PECK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I particularly want to

thank you for all that you do to make the greater Washington area

such a great region. My name is Bob Peck, and I serve as president

of the Greater Washington Board of Trade. I also want to thank—

since we have a regional group—the members from Maryland who

came here to uphold the District’s right to enact its own laws and

make them stick. And I also want to thank Congresswoman Watson for staying here for so long during this hearing too.

The Board of Trade consists of about 1,200 members who represent 40 percent of the region’s private sector work force, and I

would note to you that 80 percent of this region’s work force is in

the private sector. As a voice of business in the National Capital

Region, we have been deeply troubled by attempts over the past

year to repeal the gun safety laws that were in place to protect the

families, workers, and tourists in the District of Columbia.

Today, Washington is in the midst of an economic renaissance.

It has earned the acclaim of urban advocates throughout the country and the world and has captured the interest of investors

throughout the world, even more important. For 2 years running,

we have been rated as the best place to invest in real estate in the

entire world. Downtown blocks that were once lined with vacant or

dilapidated buildings now comprise the second largest office market

in the Nation, behind only Midtown Manhattan. We have crowds

on the streets daytime and nighttime, and we have tourism back

up to levels that we haven’t seen since September 11th.

From January 2002 to December of this year, 5,000 new residential units will have opened in Downtown Washington, an area that

was once an office area only. As a District employer ourselves, the

Board of Trade, which has been in the city for 115 years, vividly

recalls worse times in this area, and we take considerable pride in

our city’s transformation.

To sustain this climate of economic revival and this outcome, our

city’s elected officials and business leaders have worked hard to

overcome the perception that Washington is not a safe place to

bring the family. And I submit to you that the economic numbers

that we have posted over the past few years are proof that we have

made that stick.

And I have to say that I am appalled at the comments we have

heard today about the Nation’s Capital. I think it is a deliberate

attempt to malign the people, the businesses of this city, and it has

the effect of making our Nation’s Capital look bad not only to our

country, but to the entire world.

Moreover, the comments are just untrue and unfair. We have a

hardworking employee community here, and you would not know

it to have heard what we heard from some of the Members today.

We also, I have to say, have a hardworking, effective police force

and I was particularly appalled to hear our police department maligned the way it was today.

Passage of the D.C. Personal Protection Act would garner plenty

of national attention for the city by reinforcing the harmful percepVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:22 Aug 26, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\22473.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
106

tion, no longer true, that the District is a haven for crime. Our

business community has worked hard, invested dollars, and taken

risks to bring this community back together and some of the rhetoric we have heard here today threatens our success.

We know that there is work to do in the District of Columbia.

We know that we have room for improvement on the crime front.

We wish, quite honestly, that some of the Federal police forces here

spent more time working with our metropolitan police to patrol all

the areas of the city. I know that Ms. Norton promoted legislation

that would have the other Federal police forces cooperate with the

metropolitan police. We support the police department and its

chief. We do not think that this area needs a change. We do not

think that we are doing so well that we do not want to see a

change in our basic gun laws.

I also have to tell you I am appalled at this notion that people

who go buy a weapon are going to go out and use it presumably

whenever they feel like it. In my training as a military officer and

in what I have seen of police training, including in my stint in the

Government when I had a Federal police force under my jurisdiction, I know how hard all of us who have been authorized to use

weapons are trained not only in using them, but in when not to use

them. And I doubt that we would find the sympathy among the

supporters of gun repeal for very extensive training among our private citizens for how safely to use a weapon or to learn, for example, fire discipline or rules of engagement.

We will continue to support responsible and collaborative efforts

to improve the safety of District communities, and we will continue

to fight the imposition of policies that could take our city back to

a time most of us would rather forget.

And finally, I will say this about the business community and the

D.C. government. We do not support everything that the D.C.

Council does. We do not support everything that the executive

branch of the District government does. But we sure as heck do

support the right of D.C. citizens to fight out our policy disputes

in our own forums. We win some in the business community, we

lose some in the business community, and that is the way democracy is supposed to work in towns and cities all over the country,

and we think that should be true in Washington also.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Peck follows:]

107

108

109

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Pastor Edmonds, thank you for being with us.

STATEMENT OF PASTOR H. LIONEL EDMONDS

Pastor EDMONDS. Good afternoon, Congresswoman Norton, my

Congresswoman, Congresswoman Watson, and Chairman Davis.

My name is H. Lionel Edmonds and I am a co-chair of the Citizens

to Save D.C. Gun Safety Laws. I also am the pastor of Mount Lebanon Baptist Church in Northwest Washington, D.C., and I serve

as president of the Washington Interfaith Network.

I would first like to thank Chairman Davis for the compassionate

leadership that you so graciously offer to the citizens of the District. The District of Columbia as well as the Nation is both blessed

by your efforts to make the places where we work, worship, and

live environments that enrich and enlarge us.

My first contact with a gun came as a small child in the great

State of Indiana, Congressman Burton’s home State, in the city of

Fort Wayne, in the home of my Uncle Jesse, the neighborhood barber. His son Marshall and I had just finished playing some catch

in the backyard of the house. We ran into the house to refresh ourselves when Marshall went somewhere in Uncle Jesse’s room and

came back out with a loaded gun. ‘‘Look what I found,’’ Marshall

said. ‘‘I saw this game on television called Russian Roulette, let’s

play some of that.’’

Thank God that the bullet that was left in the chamber of that

gun by accident never was fired. Yet, I cannot help but to think

that the trouble that Marshall got into later on in life first found

fertile soil within the curious little mind of that little boy in a barber’s house.

I support the gun safety laws in the District. These laws attempt

to limit the access to guns. Such laws may prohibit the curiosity

of children who may by chance come across a gun in the home of

a relative or a friend and may use it for something other than its

intended purpose.

As the pastor of a church just a couple of blocks from this place

where our testimony is now being given, I could tell you if time

permitted the countless number of tearful funeral services that I

have both participated in and conducted where a little boy or girl’s

cold corpse lays still in a coffin all because of a senseless verbal argument which led to someone going back home to get ‘‘my mother

or father’s gun.’’ Places of worship ought to be places where young

people gather to celebrate life, not to weep and cry over its ending.

How can anyone be pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage, and progun at the same time? Repealing the gun laws in the Nation’s Capital is a gamble where too much is at stake. The parent or adult

may purchase the gun for protection and yet they are promoting

the idea within the conscious of their child that it is all right for

me to take some matters into my own hands. Children ought to be

learning on the computer or reading a book in the house, not coming across a misplaced case of bullets and then bring them to

school for show and tell.

Thank you so much, Chairman Davis, for your leadership on this

issue.

[The prepared statement of Pastor Edmonds follows:]

110

111

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Let me just note, I was gone because we had an amendment on

the floor I had to sit there and rebut, it was the committee’s jurisdiction, and that is where some of the other Members are, too. So

we are holding down the fort. But thank you very much for staying

with us.

Ms. Seegars, thanks for being with us.

STATEMENT OF SANDRA SEEGARS

Ms. SEEGARS. Good evening, and thank you for holding this hearing. I am a resident of Congress Heights in Southeast Washington,

DC. I am the chairperson of Advisory Neighborhood Commission

8E, a commissioner with the D.C. Taxicab Commission, a member

and the public relations person for the Seventh District Metropolitan Police Department Citizen Advisory Council, member of the

National Rifle Association, and an unchallenged candidate for

president of the United Planning Organization ‘‘Petey’’ Green Center.

I do not support the current gun laws of the District of Columbia.

I do support repealing the strict gun ban laws in the District.

Repealing the current handgun ban in the Nation’s Capital

would permit persons who want or need a loaded handgun to own

one for his or her protection of person, property, or family. I am

of the opinion that if law-abiding citizens could own loaded handguns, it would create a deterrent because thugs would know that

some of us have a handgun, but not which ones.

It is time to face reality. The District’s handgun ban is not working. It has not worked for a long, long time. What it is doing is giving more control and power to the thugs, and making law-abiding

citizens more vulnerable and fearful. The ban has allowed thugs

more reason to prey on law-abiding citizens because they are not

armed. Thugs are using handguns on innocent law-abiding citizens

and on each other. I know many criminals and some of them have

told me that they like easy prey; that is, seniors, women, and

frightened people. Sure, the victim can arm themselves with baseball bats, knives, and mace, but they are no match to a person with

a handgun.

I have seen this city go from good to bad to hell. I am fully aware

of the acceleration of handgun fatalities, which has occurred since

the handgun ban went into effect. My oldest brother, who owned

a handgun, was shot down in the streets in 1978. It so happened,

that day he did not have his with him. I believe this triggered my

younger brother to shoot someone to death in 1980.

The crying mothers and tearful family members of gunshot victims have every right to cry and be angry. My heartfelt sympathy

goes out to all of them, including my mother. However, this is not

an emotional, subjective issue. It is a Constitutional right that

should be granted to all Americans, including the citizens of the

District of Columbia. I want my rights honored, so who would cry

for me?

I, along with the residents of the District, am being denied the

right of self-protection because we are being denied the right to

bear arms. I feel that we are being victimized twice—once by the

strict handgun ban, and second by the handgun-toting thugs. For

112

those of you who live where handguns are legal, how many

shootouts have there been? Is crime high or low? Are crimes being

committed by legal or illegal handguns?

Reflecting back to pre-handgun days, there was not a handgun

in every household. Therefore, when the handgun ban is repealed,

everyone is not going to rush out to purchase a handgun. However,

we should have that option; to bear arms or not to bear arms would

become the question. At that time a person can make a conscious

decision to bear arms or not to bear arms, whichever best fits their

circumstances. Those who do not want to own a handgun should

not stand in the way of those who do. If a person has a child or

a mentally challenged person in the home and feels that it would

create havoc, they could decide not to own a handgun.

We can compare other situations with owning a handgun. When

a person fears height, that person would avoid high places. A person who has a fear of automobiles more than likely would choose

not to own an automobile. The government has not banned automobiles because someone has a fear of them. Nor does the government ban automobiles, trains, or airplanes because people died in

them or by them.

All I am saying is that an individual’s personal circumstances

should not stand in the way of others. As far as suicide, people

have not stopped committing suicide because they do not own a

handgun. Suicide being an issue, the government needs to ban

knives, ropes, medicine, and bridges. Even with suicidal attempts

with these items, the doctors do not ask the government to ban

them. They tell their patients and their family members to keep

the items away from the individual.

Currently, we can own unloaded rifles and shotguns. I believe

handguns are safer because they are less cumbersome. When a

rapist or burglar enters my home, I would like to have an even

playing field by being able to defend myself with a loaded handgun,

not a bat, knife, or mace. I say loaded because an intruder is not

going to wait on you to go get a weapon and load it.

It is strange that the same District residents who cannot own

handguns to protect themselves are the same ones who are enlisted

in the armed forces protecting our country with handguns, rifles,

and other artillery and munitions.

Once the ban is repealed, in order to get a license approved to

own a handgun, I believe a thorough criminal background check,

a physical and mental exam should be done upon submission of an

application for a license, and before the person purchases a handgun. The persons licensed to own a gun must have proof that they

have successfully completed a firearms training course. There

would be one handgun per household.

Once approved to own a handgun, I believe that the handgun

should be examined periodically by the police or another authorized

entity, at the expense of the handgun owner, to see that the handgun is still operable, if it has been fired, and that it is still in possession of the legal owner.

If there is a felon or ex-felon in the household, or if a felon plans

to return to the household, everyone in the house would become ineligible to submit an application. Some misdemeanors should be denied as well; such as, drunkards and drug addicts. The applicant

113

must be a citizen of the United States, and there should be a specified period of time that the applicant lived in the District prior to

the application for the license.

Another reason the residents of the District should be able to

own handguns to defend themselves is because of a 1981 court ruling in the Carolyn B. Warren case, which is attached to my testimony. It was declared that the police do not have to protect individuals, only the public at large. It was stated that the police owe

an individual nothing, thereby not liable for injury occurring due

to an officer’s neglect or refusal to assist a victim of a crime. If you

may have noticed, very seldom is a police officer found guilty in

court when liable or negligent charges are filed against them.

I believe the right to bear arms is a Constitutional issue, which

Congress does play a role and has a responsibility to ensure this

right to the residents of the District. Once Congress repeals the

ban, the City Council at that time should introduce laws accordingly. I believe the application to own a handgun should be stringent. I believe that Congress’ decision to repeal the handgun ban

in the District should not be guided by emotions and subjectivity,

but by intellect and objectivity.

As to Home Rule, our Representative has already weakened that

when she approved expanding the Capitol Hill Police Department’s

patrol area. I believe Judge Reggie Walton made an incorrect decision when he ruled on our case to bear arms in the District, just

as the judge did when she ruled on baby Briana returning to her

abusive family. Now Briana is dead. I believe that denying the

right to bear arms is denying a right under the Constitution.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Seegars follows:]

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Parker, thank you for being with us.

STATEMENT OF TYRONE PARKER

Mr. PARKER. First of all, let me thank you for your continued

consideration and regard to the citizens of the District of Columbia,

and for this particular hearing. Ms. Norton, I continue to support

and be behind your outstanding work because I know beyond a

doubt you have always been for the least and the less and those

who do not have a voice. Ms. Watson, I heard you say that you are

from the place that started gangs, so I know that you can sympathize and understand the testimony that we, the citizens, come

forth with.

I am the executive director of the Alliance of Concerned Men, a

501(c)(3), that offers two to three different perspectives in regard

to my presentation today. The Alliance of Concerned Men is an organization that basically was composed of previously incarcerated

men that understood the conditions of our community and wanted

to step forward and make a difference. To this point, the last 13

years we have been involved with working with the gangs, working

with the crews, working with returning prisoners in the whole compound in an attempt to get them back on the right track. So we

understand beyond a question of doubt what the impact of this particular law would be in regards to repealing the ban pertaining to

guns in our community.

We have already begun to make a significant change in regards

to public safety. In the public housing areas that we primarily

work with, we have been able to negotiate seven peace treaties in

the District of Columbia in the last 8 years and have not had one

single retaliation, simply because they have seen the opportunity

to turn their lives around and not increase the prison population

which a number of our men are basically going into now.

I think that this is one of the greatest challenges that we are

confronted with—the massive number of prisoners that are basically returning from the prison, but as well as are in the prisons

today. It has destabilized our family structure and our community

structure. Therefore, these individuals do not have anything to be

able to model after or anything to be able to margin themselves

after.

So they tend to look at the one single thing that is so blatant

today in our community, unlike the times of our days, which I consider, as we say, the ‘‘baby boomers.’’ We look at the echo generation that does not have the components in place, so when it comes

time for them to settle an argument, they tend to do the next best

thing, to go for a gun. A gun has been the common denominator.

But now we are beginning to see changes in our particular communities. We are not hearing about the drive-by shootings every

morning that we are accustomed to hearing about. We are no

longer hearing about gang turf wars over drugs as we have been

hearing. I know when their lives are concerned, men began to go

into some of these communities and the topic of the conversation

they heard was who got shot, what was the magnitude of the gun,

how fast can you buy one, and they could respond on a dime by

getting as many guns as they wanted.

130

Now, as we see the momentum of what is occurring in regards

to the initiative that is in place and other things that are happening, we are beginning to hear the texture of the conversation

change. We are beginning to hear the kids talk about baseball

games and the opportunity to go to school. We are beginning to see

the public elements of human fear no longer in these communities.

People are beginning to live as they should live and not be just

simply because they do not have the economical dollars to be able

to leave and live in other places, but having a high quality of life.

We are beginning to see a movement take place where the quality

of life is beginning to surface from those individuals who at one

point in time considered that they had no chance.

For us to take a step back and lose the momentum of victory, in

which we are current in a number of these particular places where

most folks dare not go, it would be a sin and a shame. The information that I have heard today has saddened my heart and just basically made me feel so bad, because it talked about outstanding law

enforcement agencies, and it talked about people that were doing

their very best to make the quality of life what it is. But it is one

thing, as they often say, the road to hell is paved with a lot of good

intentions. And even while some of the intentions may be good, the

outcome will not be.

I speak also from the perspective of being a previously incarcerated person, having done time for armed robbery in the District of

Columbia some 26 years ago. I understand the impact of who I was

and who I had to become. This last year, I was given the award

of Washingtonian of the Year because of the work and outstanding

support that our type of organizations have been able to do. But

as we see the men and the women return back to the District of

Columbia with nothing in place to the point of employment, shelter, health care, they will have very little opportunities to be able

to work themselves back, especially as things are today.

So I would truly hate to see this gun ban lifted, where each and

every household basically lives in fear because of the environment

that has been created to have the gun in the house. I tell you, we

would create bands of individuals who see no opportunities and, instead of stealing cars, they would become house-breakers and the

new commodity would be the guns that they would bring out of

these particular places, the guns that they believe would give them

another opportunity to be able to rid themselves of the problems

that they have.

No, we cannot afford to step back 1 inch and relinquish the momentum that we have accomplished. I know it is not perfect, but

it is quite a way from how it once was. And victory is truly in sight

for the storm has passed. And for that I say, ‘‘Thank you, Jesus,’’

because I do not have to attend the number of funerals or see the

mothers cry as they have cried. I do not have to see the communities in the conditions that they have been. We are there each and

every day.

I thank you for your time, I thank you for your spirit, but I pray

that this bill goes nowhere.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Parker follows:]

131

132

133

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Ms. Lowe, last but not least, we appreciate your patience.

Thanks for being with us.

STATEMENT OF FRANCINE LOWE

Ms. LOWE. Good afternoon, Mr. Davis, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ms. Watson. My name is Francine Lowe. I am an employee of

the Department of Public Works Solid Waste Management Division. I am proud to be a native Washingtonian. I have seven kids,

four girls and three boys, ranging in age from 4 years old to 20

years old. They were also born in the District of Columbia.

I am asking the Congress to leave our gun laws alone in the

name of my daughter, Myesha. Myesha was an innocent bystander

who was shot and killed July 24, 2004. I testify here today because

that is the least I can do. But I come in great sadness because my

family and I have not gotten over, and will never get over, the

death of Myesha by gunfire. Yet Congress keeps trying to repeal

our gun safety laws.

Does Congress think that repealing our gun laws will save children like Myesha? Many mothers like myself who are raising their

children in tough neighborhoods in D.C. know otherwise. If Congress makes it easier for residents to have guns, there will be more

mothers like myself and more children like Myesha.

We had much hope for my wonderful daughter, Myesha. She was

what mothers want daughters to be, pretty, bright, and polite.

Myesha was an honor roll student and had graduated from Hine

Junior High School. Her school this last fall was going to be Dunbar. She never made it. Myesha and her sister Rasheida were in

the Trinity College Upward Bound program. She was shot and

killed on a Saturday, and that Monday Trinity College was going

to take them up to Niagara Falls to tour some colleges.

Myesha had permission from my mother to go to Checkers to get

her something to eat on the evening of July 24th. Some kids drove

by and had words with a passenger in another car. All agree that

Myesha was not in the dispute and was not the intended victim,

but Myesha was shot twice, one in the head and once in the leg,

sitting in a car full of girls. My heart started aching then and I do

not think it will ever stop. When I arrived at the hospital Myesha

was dead.

Anyone with a teenage child knows that a gun in the house will

almost be impossible to keep from a teenager. There is a saying,

you can run but you cannot hide. You can hide guns and lock them

up, but if someone can get to it, a teenager can. I know there are

people who would think a gun in their home would protect them.

But anyone who knows our city knows that our guns are more likely to be pulled out and used to cause tragedies in our homes and

streets.

A gun caused a tremendous tragedy in my family. The last thing

I would want this city to do is to have more guns, legal or illegal,

in homes or in the streets. Please, Congress, do not pass this legislation to repeal our gun laws.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lowe follows:]

134

135

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much.

This has been a very, very interesting hearing. Part of it, I think

we see the cultural divide in this country in terms of how people

view guns, people’s rights to own them. To me, the ultimate question I think is, however you feel about it, who should be making

the decisions: should they be made locally or do they get made nationally?

Dr. Lott put up some very interesting statistics. Of course, I am

reminded that statistics can show anything. But is there anything

that can show statistically how this has reduced crime? The interesting thing to me is are there any facts that we can show that

have shown that preventing guns legally in the city has reduced

crime? Because according to Dr. Lott’s statistics, it has actually

gone up, and I have seen that used before. It is kind of counterintuitive that it would work that way.

But the committee would be very interested in looking at that,

and we will ask the police chief as well. A lot of this is I guess I

would say intuitive in terms of what it would mean. But I thought

those statistics were interesting at least in terms of putting a case

together.

I am not sure how relevant they are because crime is dependent

on so many different things than just do you own a gun or not. You

look at when crack cocaine hit the city, the crime rate went up, and

that did not have anything to do with guns. But I would be interested if anybody has any statistics, not today, and we will ask the

police chief at the same time for that and see what he can produce

on that.

Mr. Levy, let me ask you. I have not followed the court suit.

Where is that at this point? Because ultimately, if it is a second

amendment question, Congress is not going to decide it, it is going

to be decided in the courts. I think your point is you want to pick

the best case you can and take it up the ladder and the courts will

ultimately decide if cities have the right to do that, not just the

District of Columbia, but all the other cities that have passed these

bans on handguns. Is that correct?

Mr. LEVY. That is correct. There were two cases involved, parallel cases. In the Seegars v. Ashcroft case, the trial court Judge

Walton dismissed the Seegars case holding that none of the plaintiffs has standing to challenge the D.C. handgun ban. One of the

plaintiffs who owned a shotgun had standing to challenge another

portion of the D.C. law.

But Judge Walton found that the second amendment did not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. On appeal, the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit determined that none of the

plaintiffs has standing in the Seegars case. So that case has been

resolved and dismissed on June 21st, just 1 week ago. We do not

know whether the Seegars plaintiffs will seek to obtain certiorari

at the Supreme Court level.

The parallel case is the one that I spoke about, and that is

Parker v. District of Columbia. Even though it was filed 4 months

before the Seegars case, it was resolved by the District Court later

by Judge Sullivan. He found that the Parker plaintiffs were not

protected because, again like Judge Walton, he found that the second amendment did not secure an individual right to keep and bear

136

arms. That has been appealed to the D.C. Circuit. The D.C. Circuit

put that case on hold until the Seegars case was resolved. One

week ago today the Seegars case was resolved and dismissed. And

so now the Parker case is front and center.

The Parker plaintiffs, we think, will have standing and so the

D.C. Circuit will address this case on the Constitutional merits.

The Parker plaintiffs were told that they would, in fact, be prosecuted by the D.C. government at oral argument in the trial court.

So standing is likely to be conferred and the D.C. Circuit is likely

to issue a merits-based opinion on the second amendment very

soon.

Chairman DAVIS. Why do you think there has not been more litigation like Shelly Parker’s suit over restrictive gun laws?

Mr. LEVY. In D.C.?

Chairman DAVIS. Everywhere. This is a case of the city’s right

to do it, I guess there are probably some nuances with the city, but

in any city being able to ban them outright. Ultimately, this is a

second amendment decision that should not be resolved legislatively, it ought to be resolved Constitutionally.

Mr. LEVY. I think a couple of points in that regard. One of which

is that D.C. has the most draconian gun laws in the Nation. So one

would expect that the suits most likely to succeed would be the

ones here in D.C.

A second issue is a complicated legal issue, and that is the issue

of incorporation. The 14th amendment has incorporated a number

of the Bill of Rights provisions to apply against the States. Prior

to the 14th amendment, the Bill of Rights only applied against the

Federal Government. Most of the Bill of Rights provisions have

been assessed as to whether or not they are incorporated. The verdict is still out on whether the second amendment has been incorporated.

So not only in other States than D.C. would you be faced with

a merits determination on the second amendment, but you would

also be faced with the issue of whether the second amendment even

applies against States. You do not have to address that issue in

D.C. D.C., not being a State for purposes of the 14th amendment,

the incorporation issue is a non-issue. So you can bring a second

amendment challenge in D.C. without concern over incorporation

problems.

Chairman DAVIS. I think we actually heard some very cogent arguments from everybody today in terms of whether this works or

does not work. But I guess where I come down is that is ultimately

up to the voters of the city to make that decision. If you are out

in Shenandoah County or out in rural Virginia, they are going to

make one decision.

But in cities that are plagued by high crime, the elected officials,

and this has been pretty uniform, and the elected officials in Washington too, you do not find a lot of urban Members opposing gun

control laws. It seems to be kind of a cultural phenomena depending to some extent on where you live.

But here is my difficulty. Washington, D.C. does not get a vote

in Congress. We are spending billions of dollars to bring democracy

to Baghdad, to other parts of the world, and then here we do not

allow a vote even in the House for the Nation’s Capital, if you will,

137

which is the Capitol of democracy. And when the local officials

make decisions we do not give them sometimes the kind of respect

and rule that we would in other city in the United States as well,

which kind of compounds it.

And if you want democracy ultimately to be successful here, you

have to hold elected officials accountable. That means a high crime

rate, let the people in the city hold them accountable and let them

sort that out. Cities are going to come to different conclusions the

way they deal with that.

The city has a lot of laws on the books that I am not happy

about, particularly the cell phone law that they have gotten in

terms of when you are driving. But my feeling always has been

that if it does not interfere with the operations of government, that

you let the people make those decisions and that is just kind of the

way it is.

Mr. LEVY. May I comment on that, Mr. Chairman?

Chairman DAVIS. Sure. Yes, please.

Mr. LEVY. I think the issue of whether or not the District has

a vote in Congress is quite a separate issue and need not impinge

upon this issue as to whether or not the District government is now

violating the second amendment. The very nature of a Constitutional republic is——

Chairman DAVIS. Correct. That is on a Constitutional basis and

that is why getting it resolved in the court is different. I do not disagree with you on that. But, of course, what we are talking about

today is a legislative solution and a legislation solution that applies

just to this city and just to the one city in the United States, that

happens to be the capital of the free world, that does not have it,

which makes me, at least from my perspective, more reluctant to

try to engage in it from a legislative position regardless of the merits.

Mr. LEVY. The position of the Federal Government in regard to

enforcing rights violations against the States was changed in 1868

when the 14th amendment was ratified. After 1868 the Federal

Government had every right to step in and stop the States from

violating provisions of the U.S. Constitution. That is what the civil

rights cases were all about.

Chairman DAVIS. But we have not stepped in with any other cities. This is not the only city with a gun ban. There are other cities

in the country that have them.

Mr. LEVY. It is the city with the most draconian gun ban in the

Nation.

Chairman DAVIS. I think if you look at some of the suburban Illinois cities, they also have it. You could pass I guess a conceal and

carry law nationally, you could pass I guess a national law on that

basis. But if you can do it nationally one way, you could probably

legislate it the other way as well. But I understand your argument.

But understand, this is just one Member’s perspective, my reluctance, whatever you might think about the merits of this thing, to

pass a hurdle here where we would impose nationally, 435 Members impose their will on a city that has elected officials.

Now, I understand that within the city there is always some controversy on these amendments. And the city would have the right,

by the way, to change this if the Council wanted to change it, and

138

that would be the right of members here who advocate gun ownership rights to elect council members and Mayors who take an opposite view, if that is what they choose to do. We would respect that

and I would feel the same way, that you kind of respect the ability

and the rights of the city to make that decision.

Ms. Seegars, did you want to say something?

Ms. SEEGARS. I hear everything you are saying, but D.C. is unlike anyplace else in the country or in the world. We have a representative there who is basically a lobbyist for us. When she gets

a vote, then you can say all those things about D.C. and other

States and it will apply to us. Right now, with no vote, that does

not apply to us. And we do plan to take the case to the Supreme

Court.

Chairman DAVIS. I agree. But she is an effective lobbyist.

Ms. SEEGARS. She does fairly well. No, she is good.

Chairman DAVIS. Even when she goes down, she goes down fighting. I can testify to that.

Ms. SEEGARS. She sure does.

Chairman DAVIS. I have a couple other questions, if I could get

to them before I hand it over to Ms. Norton.

Ms. Seegars, let me just ask you, do you think that repealing the

handgun ban would encourage D.C. residents to take the law into

their own hands? Or do you think it would just be used by lawabiding citizens to defend themselves?

Ms. SEEGARS. I believe it will stop the criminals from attacking

us. I believe that we, the law-abiding citizens, as I am, I do not

think we will just run out in the street and start shooting people.

I think we will use it in our homes. And yes, we do plan to take

this case to the Supreme Court.

If you look at other cities in other States, they do not run out

on the street and shoot people for no reason. So I do not think we

would be so stupid as to go out and start shooting people.

Chairman DAVIS. Mr. Lott, let me ask, you had your stats up

there, murders, rapes, and robberies have all declined the last couple of years.

Mr. LOTT. Correct.

Chairman DAVIS. The gun ban of course predated that. Do you

think these recent numbers could be indicative of a long-term decline in the crime rate in the city?

Mr. LOTT. We have been seeing a drop nationally in violent

crime. There have been increases in arrest and conviction rates,

and I think those are important in helping to explain it.

Chairman DAVIS. Do you think the gun ban effectively keeps

dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals?

Mr. LOTT. I think it keeps the guns out of the hands of some

criminals. But I think it has a relatively bigger effect in terms of

disarming law-abiding citizens relative to criminals. And the net effect of that is to actually lower the cost for the criminals committing crimes.

Chairman DAVIS. Is it your opinion, and I guess it would be Mr.

Levy’s opinion, that the right to bear arms is one that belongs to

individuals, not just members of the militia?

Mr. LOTT. I am a statistician. I will leave the law questions to

others.

139

Chairman DAVIS. All right. You are a numbers guy.

Would you agree with that, Mr. Levy?

Mr. LEVY. Well it is not just Mr. Levy’s opinion. I think it is important to note that it is the opinion of most legal scholars now.

Here is Alan Dershowitz, former ACLU board member, who says

he hates guns and he wants to see the second amendment repealed. But he condemns ‘‘foolish liberals who are trying to read

the second amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it is not

an individual right. They are courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution

that they don’t like.’’

Harvard’s Laurence Tribe, another liberal icon, who in his latest

treatise on Constitutional law, joined by Yale’s professor Akhil

Amar, writing that ‘‘reasonable regulation in the interest of public

safety’’ is permissible but that there is an indisputable individual

right to keep and bear arms. I think Tribe and Amar, and

Dershowitz, and I can name dozens and dozens of other respected

legal scholars, they agree with Attorney General Ashcroft and they

agree with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of U.S.

v. Emerson that there is an individual right, not a collective right.

The only thing they disagree on is what constitutes reasonable

regulation; that is, where do you draw the line. One place we know

we are not do draw the line, and that is where D.C. has drawn it,

where there is an absolute ban on handguns, even in your own

home for your own family’s defense.

Chairman DAVIS. OK. But the courts have not ruled on that.

Mr. LEVY. The appellate court has not ruled. It is pending now

and we hope for a ruling sometime soon.

Chairman DAVIS. And that decision was not successful at the

lower court, correct?

Mr. LEVY. The lower court ruled in favor of a collective right, not

an individual right. The appellate court of course reviews this de

novo; that is, this is strictly a matter of law, it is not fact-dependent. The appellate court will look at this from scratch.

Chairman DAVIS. Sure. I think this works its way up.

Mr. Peck, what would be the economic impact on tourism if the

gun ban is repealed? Do you see any economic impact at this point?

Is it a perception issue, or is it a real issue?

Mr. PECK. It is mostly a perception issue. As I said in my testimony, I think our fear, were this law to pass, would be just to highlight again for people what is an unfair characterization of the city

as an unsafe place to be. We market this region around the country

and around the world and we are still fighting perceptions from 20

years ago about crime.

The fact is, on an economic basis, aside from, and I say that advisedly because it should never be aside from, the personal tragedies that happen with gun play in this city, there is an impact on

even the areas of the city that we can prove statistically are safe

because people do not make those kinds of distinctions.

And I will say this, it is not just an impact on the city, it is an

impact on the whole region. When the city had a reputation for

being unsafe, not being well-governed, not handling its infrastructure well, it had an impact on the economy of the entire region.

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much. Ms. Norton.

140

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to particularly thank all of today’s witnesses for staying

so long. You see the way the Congress operates. There is nothing

that any of us can do about the fact that votes come and people

have to go and do them, or at least most people do. I want to thank

all of you. All of you have presented important testimony for us to

hear. I have only a few questions for each of you.

Ms. Lowe, I cannot bear to ask you any questions. I just think

we have to let your testimony stand for itself. It would break my

heart to ask you any questions. I can only thank you for having the

courage to come here and speak out.

Chairman DAVIS. Let me just associate myself with those remarks, and we appreciate that very much.

Ms. NORTON. Reverend Edmonds, just let me compliment the

work of the Washington Interfaith Network. It is the most extraordinary community organization in our town, where the ministers

from around this region, from congregations White and Black and

Hispanic, work together on the toughest issues—housing, after

school, in the most extraordinary set of organizations that really

force elected officials to come to bear with issues. It is quite an extraordinary organization that I tremendously admire.

You are pastor of a church near Dunbar High School where I

went to school, Myesha was on her way. This is in a hard core part

of the District of Columbia, hard core.

Pastor EDMONDS. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. Where the District had to go in with lots of resources to clear out folks with guns. You also are a member of ministerial organizations in the District. Where do ministers of the gospel, ministers in our city stand on the gun laws in our city, so far

as you know? Do they support the gun laws, or would they support

repeal?

Pastor EDMONDS. From my perspective and position, I do not

know of any minister who would want to see the gun laws in the

District repealed. To us, that is an appeal to the lower instincts in

man. And when I hear the conversation and the argument to repeal the gun laws, to me as a minister, it is an attraction to the

base elements in us that seek to resolve issues by violence, retribution.

I could go to a young person’s funeral each week, I could conduct

a funeral each week due to gunfire, due to some type of weapon

violence. And so, in summary, I do not know of any pastor worth

his or her salt that wants to see an increase in the accessibility of

guns in the District.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. I regard you as an expert witness on

that, Reverend Edmonds.

Mr. Levy, I understand and appreciate that at least you want to

step aside until the Parker case is resolved. You and the NRA have

a beef on your competing lawsuits going in various ways, all on the

second amendment. You opine that our laws are, ‘‘indisputably unConstitutional.’’ Well, fortunately we have courts for that. I guess

I have to repair you to the courts. You have argued the case here

and your lawyers will argue it there.

I only note for the record that, for whatever reasons, you and Ms.

Seegars have lost below. And to the extent that you want to argue,

141

and here you are speaking also, sir, to a Constitutional lawyer, to

the extent that you want to argue that you did not lose on the merits but on some other matter, such as standing, may I say to you

that it is the obligation of courts to avoid reaching the Constitutional issue if they can sidestep it by going to another issue.

So the only answer we can get for you is the answer you are

seeking in the proper forum. Having lost below, you are now at the

next court. You will go to the Supreme Court. Good luck. There is

very definitive language at the Supreme Court level about the second amendment.

I want to therefore move on to Mr. Lott, who tells us that a

woman even would be better when attacked if she had a gun in her

hand, safest course of action. Let me just ask you, Mr. Lott, do you

oppose the assault weapon ban that Congress has not reenacted?

Would you oppose that?

And I am sure you were in the room when Mr. Waxman held up

the gun, life-size, that could be sold in the District of Columbia now

that there is no assault weapon ban and presumably therefore

could be legally owned. Would you therefore sanction the ownership of assault weapons in the District of Columbia today?

Mr. LOTT. Assault weapons is a made-up term.

Ms. NORTON. AK–47s, M–16s. You name it what you want to call

it that sounds better. Would you in fact sanction the ownership of

such guns as, call it what you want to, Mr. Waxman held up in the

District of Columbia in homes owned by law-abiding citizens in the

District of Columbia?

Mr. LOTT. When you use the term AK–47, that is not——

Ms. NORTON. Answer the question outright, Mr. Lott, and call it

what you want to.

Mr. LOTT. OK. I do think the assault weapons ban made no

sense. I think it had no beneficial impact in terms of crime. I think,

if anything, it just imposed costs on some law-abiding citizens. But

I know of no statistical study that has been done, nothing that has

been published in any academic journal that shows there has been

any benefit in terms of reduction in crime with the assault weapons ban.

Ms. NORTON. I just want to be clear. All I want to do is to be

clear, as you are aware, this is an area, a high terrorist target, I

just wanted to have it on the record.

Mr. LOTT. Sure.

Ms. NORTON. And you have been honest and you have been clear.

I just want to go now to your own statistics where you compare,

first of all, States. I am really wondering about your statistics and

causation.

For example, you compare the District of Columbia to Virginia

and Maryland. Not only are these huge jurisdictions, Maryland has

one large city like the District of Columbia. One might want to

compare the District of Columbia to Baltimore. Virginia has maybe

one, that would be Richmond, like the District of Columbia. Meanwhile, Maryland has jurisdictions like Montgomery County, one of

the richest counties in the United States, and Virginia has Fairfax

and other of the richest counties in the United States.

Chairman DAVIS. Wealthier than Montgomery, for the record.

[Laughter.]

142

Ms. NORTON. Therefore, I am questioning your statistics. Did you

control, because I could see nothing in the text of your testimony,

that controlled for concentrated poverty? In as much as the data

shows that Census tracts with high poverty are where the crime

rose in the District of Columbia, from 36 to 44 tracts. That is to

say, as the tracts of poverty increased, this figure from 1976 also

increased.

I am a native Washingtonian. When I was born and raised in the

District of Columbia it was a largely middle class city, Black and

White. Like every other city, the middle class moved out, except for

some of us. My own sister, who also went to Dunbar High School

with me, raised her sons in Montgomery County. Did your study,

which compared us to two of the richest States that surround us,

control for concentration of poverty when you compared us to

Maryland and Virginia?

Mr. LOTT. I have two books, one published by the University of

Chicago Press, that are the largest studies that have been done on

crime. I have data in those that look at the 10,000 largest cities

in the United States as well as all the counties in the United

States over a 24 year period of time, where I literally control for

thousands of different factors. I have detailed information——

Ms. NORTON. What I am asking is, look, you cannot put testimony before us and——

Mr. LOTT. Right. All I tried to do——

Ms. NORTON. If you want me to quote from your testimony, I am

going to quote from your testimony.

Mr. LOTT. Sure.

Chairman DAVIS. Let him answer.

Ms. NORTON. But he is now going into his books, Mr. Chairman.

My question is——

Mr. LOTT. All I tried to do in these——

Ms. NORTON. Much larger than the changes in neighboring

Maryland and Virginia. You come in here with it, I have a right

to cross examine you on it.

Mr. LOTT. Right. All I tried to do for those things is just in a very

simple way just show how the crime rate in D.C. has been changing, mainly just to show that it has not fallen. It has gone up, if

anything, in these simple things that you can do there.

Now I have books where I try to control for lots of factors in regression analysis over a long period of time looking at all the jurisdictions in the United States, control for poverty, different measures of income, multiple demographic type measures that are there.

And what you find is that the stricter the gun control laws that you

have, you see increases in violent crime.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Lott, I asked you a simple question. You answered my first question. I asked you that in offering us this sentence, ‘‘These drops and subsequent increases were much larger

[here] than any changes in neighboring Maryland and Virginia,’’ I

simply asked you whether you controlled for poverty?

Mr. LOTT. No, I do not. But I am saying that I have done that

in other places where I have gone—I just did not want to go into

regression analysis——

Ms. NORTON. I would just ask you to do it here as well. I would

just appreciate it.

143

Finally, I must say to you, Mr. Lott, because I think it needs to

go on the record, I am going to read from a Washington Post article, since, as you have said, you are only a statistician, I am going

to read from it because I think it is relevant in evaluating your testimony. ‘‘Lott’s greatest fan and defender online, Mary Rosh, a

former student of Lott’s, has jousted online for 3 years against

Lott’s harshest critics who have bitterly attacked his research and

data which he says show gun ownership deters crime. Rosh said

Lott taught her at the University of Pennsylvania in the early

1990’s and was ‘the best professor that I ever had, would try to

take any class he taught’.’’

I am not even going to read all of this. He posted an effusive review of his books on the Amazon.com site, giving it the highest five

star rating. It was signed Mary Rosh. Mary Rosh was not real. She

was actually John R. Lott, Jr. That was you.

Mr. LOTT. There are multiple mistakes in that piece.

Ms. NORTON. Mistakes? It was an intentional—it is something

that an academic, someone with a Ph.D. should have known better

than to do.

Chairman DAVIS. Well, let him explain it. Do you want to explain

it or say anything about it?

Mr. LOTT. Yes. I have to go through things. The reviews, the

books that you are talking about was one review. The account was

my children’s account. My four sons’ names are Maxim, Ryan,

Roger, and Shirlin. And you take the first two letters of those and

my wife set up an e-mail account. And the book review was done

by my son. It was not done by me. He had shown me the review

but it was not anything that he had done that was—you know, it

was just a son writing a review of his dad’s book that was posted

there and he just used the e-mail address that was there because

that was the one that my wife had set up for him to go and use.

With regard to the other things, I did use that e-mail address for

postings in Internet chat rooms. But the things that were there

that were done were based upon some facts. So I was just referring

to a graduate class that I had taught where I had gotten perfect

evaluations in the class and what some people had said.

So some of the things are taken out of context there, and other

things are just wrong as to ascribing who was writing what, when.

Ms. NORTON. Well Mary Rosh did not exist. I think we ought to

leave it there because apparently you said, ‘‘We should not have

done it.’’

Let me go on to Ms. Seegars. There are only two more witnesses.

I want to be able to ask everybody who is left a question. Ms.

Seegars is a good friend in the prayer circle. You cannot have 100

percent of anybody.

Actually, Sandra Seegars is a wonderful community activist, a

good friend who does a lot of good work in the District of Columbia

for the people of the District of Columbia in the toughest ward. She

deserves to be heard, even when she is as wrong as she is today,

because she has earned the right to come forward, and when she

wants to challenge us she has gone into court.

I have to ask, Ms. Seegars, were you born in the District of Columbia?

144

Ms. SEEGARS. I was born in Alexandria but I have lived in D.C.

since I was 3.

Ms. NORTON. Do you believe in Home Rule for the District of Columbia?

Ms. SEEGARS. Sometimes.

Ms. NORTON. Oh. Would you explain yourself?

Ms. SEEGARS. I believe in Home Rule when we have a Representative that will stick to Federal levels instead of butting in and out

of local levels when they feel it necessary. So, yes and no.

Ms. NORTON. Well, this is a Federal level, is it not, because the

Congress of the United States is trying to pass this law.

Ms. SEEGARS. But when you came over to ward 8, about 30 people were there when the lady was called ‘‘White trash,’’ you were

all up in that and it was very local. And so to me, you cannot have

it both ways. So my answer is, yes and no.

Ms. NORTON. First of all, Ms. Seegars, if you want to change the

subject, I want to proudly say that if anybody wants to use a racial

epithet against anyone Black or White, Jew or gentile, I will rise

up and criticize that person. But let us get to what the Congress

has control of. You say you are for Home Rule. Do you think the

Congress of the United States, you are going to court now, that is

fair game, but do you think the Congress of the United States

should repeal this or any other law of the District of Columbia?

Ms. SEEGARS. By us not being a State, and by us only having the

top official as a Mayor, yes.

Ms. NORTON. So you then believe that democracy should not be

the rule here? That the 600,000 people here are not entitled to the

same democracy that they would be entitled to if they continued to

live in Alexandria, where you were born?

Ms. SEEGARS. We are not entitled to a whole bunch of things in

D.C. That is why I need to move back to Alexandria. There are a

lot of things we are not entitled to. We do not have a Governor,

we do not have Senators, we do not have any of that. So I believe

it is a Constitutional matter and I believe that Federal is in charge

of the Constitution. I think the elected officials, I voted for none of

them, are not representing me properly.

Ms. NORTON. At least you got to vote for them and you can take

them out. You cannot vote for anybody sitting up here except me,

and I cannot vote.

Chairman DAVIS. If she moves out to Virginia, she might be able

to.

Ms. SEEGARS. I will say that I have gone to Mr. Davis and got

some successful results.

Ms. NORTON. Well, we are very pleased for that. Let us see if you

will get some successful results from the Congress of the United

States when they decide that they want to do whatever they want

to do for the District of Columbia.

Let me move on to this bill. I notice in your testimony that you

are for a whole set of things that are not in this bill—criminal

background check, completion of a firearms training course, even

periodic review by the police department or some other authorized

entity into seeing whether or not the handgun owner has fired his

weapon or anything. In as much as none of that is in the bill pending before us, I take it that you oppose the bill pending before us.

145

Ms. SEEGARS. No. That is when the local officials can step in and

write laws accordingly. Once it is repealed, then the local officials

can write that.

Ms. NORTON. If you want it repealed, why do you not just get us

to write it, since you want us to repeal it?

Ms. SEEGARS. Can you? Will you?

Ms. NORTON. Of course. We can rewrite everything in the District of Columbia law.

Ms. SEEGARS. I understand what you are saying, Ms. Norton. I

understand full well what you are saying. But sometimes we have

to step over something to get to what we want. Right now, I am

willing to step over the elected officials in the city to get this, because I want to be able to protect myself and my home. I really do.

I would like to have a handgun, a loaded handgun so if somebody

comes up to my house in Southeast Washington I can shoot them.

That is what I do believe.

Ms. NORTON. I understand, Ms. Seegars. Let me just say, before

I go on to Mr. Peck, that one of the reasons that I have credibility

when I go on the floor to defend Home Rule is I have to tell Members of Congress that whether or not I would agree with a law of

the District of Columbia, then I give them the one I most disagree

with. And that law is one, by the way, our ministers, I think, were

instrumental in defeating, and that is I would most disagree if the

District Council decided to impose the death penalty in the District

of Columbia.

Ms. SEEGARS. I am for that.

Ms. NORTON. Excuse me. I have conscientious objections and I

have other objections based on the efficacy of the death penalty.

But let me just say this for the record in light of your selective

view of Home Rule, when you are for it and when you are not. If

the Council passes a law imposing the death penalty on the District of Columbia, as a matter of principle I would feel that I would

have to as ardently argue that Congress could not step in as I do

on bills that I favor. I just want to tell you, I have you in a prayer

circle, so I want you to just think about it, whether one can selectively be for Home Rule.

Mr. Peck, finally, Board of Trade here is a Regional Board of

Trade. Let me ask you this, what does the region have to do with

it? Why would the Regional Board of Trade be against repeal of our

gun laws?

Mr. PECK. I can give you two reasons. One is, as I have tried to

express, the economic health of this region depends, as we have

learned and can show over some business cycles now, on the economic and social health of the District of Columbia. So we have a

concern, we in fact have a specific objective in our policy agenda

of supporting measures that would fight crime.

Specifically in that, we decided that since we are not great experts at this, we support police efforts. Not uncritically. We have

gone to Chief Ramsey and suggested more vigorous patrolling,

which he has done, but we generally support what the police chiefs

think is best in their jurisdictions.

We believe, as I have said, that this perception out there that the

District is an unsafe place will hurt the District first, but, by definition, the entire region. It is like pebbles in a pond and it spreads

146

out. Or like I say sometimes, we have a very vibrant economy also

in Fairfax County in Reston and Tyson’s Corner, but when you go

around to the rest of the country or go around the world and say

you want people to do business in the Washington area, you are

talking about the Washington area.

Second, we believe fundamentally, and this is a change I have to

tell you from where the Board of Trade was 30 years ago, that

Home Rule is a good thing. And if you believe in Home Rule, and

what I am talking about now is a locally elected body that gets to

make the laws and decide what happens with, for example, the

money that is raised on business people in the District of Columbia

and then spent in the District of Columbia, that we are prepared

to rise and fall, win and lose on locally elected officials for our laws.

Ms. NORTON. I thank you for that, Mr. Peck. I note for the record

as well that our tourist industry is a regional cash cow for the

neighboring regional counties as well.

The final question for Mr. Parker.

Mr. PECK. May I say one more thing. I want to explain why I

took umbrage before at what people were saying about the District

of Columbia. It is this, No. 1, we are benefited by the presence of

the Federal Government in many ways. We are not adequately

compensated for all the services that we give, but we are benefited

in all kinds of things—free museums, 40 percent of the regional

economic product comes one way or another out of the Federal Government. So I say that.

But you know what, no other city is subject to scrutiny by the

national legislature for what is going on inside its jurisdiction or

we would have an awful lot of cities and districts all over here who

we could up at a table with witnesses and question their policies,

question what they are doing. I would love to ask some other cities

why their economies are not doing as well as ours. But we do not

get to do that.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Peck. My goodness, those are important words.

Final question to Mr. Parker. Mr. Parker, everybody I think had

to listen very closely to what you had to say. There are different

ways to bring credibilities to the table, but you bring it in the hardest, perhaps most important way because you bring it from all

sides—you now work with ex-offenders, you yourself are an ex-offender, used a gun. I am not sure you testified about this, but I

know that you lost a son to gunfire.

Mr. PARKER. Absolutely.

Ms. NORTON. Therefore, I said I regarded Pastor Edmonds as an

expert witness on where the pastors of this city would be on gun

repeal, I certainly regard you as an expert witness on the question

I am about to ask you. This bill would assume that a person who

could get a gun would have to be himself a person who did not

have the kind of record you had. You could not get a gun probably

under this bill. So it would have to be a law-abiding person; that

is to say a person without a conviction record.

I want to ask you what harm it would do in light of the ex-offenders with whom you work? I am assuming a scenario where an

ex-offender comes back home, and we know the thousands that are

coming back now, I am assuming that he does not have a place to

147

live, I am assuming that he certainly does not have a job, because

we are making jobs very well but we also have high unemployment

with people who do not have any record.

Mr. PARKER. Absolutely.

Ms. NORTON. I am assuming he is going to stay with somebody.

I am assuming he is going to stay with his mother or his girlfriend

or his uncle. And now assume that law-abiding person probably living in a part of the city where there is a fair amount of crime, because those might be the people most likely to have guns, I am assuming for purposes of this hypothetical situation that this lawabiding person has a gun in the home. I would like for you to describe what you think would happen as far as the ex-offenders coming back to the city and finding themselves in a home now with a

gun.

Mr. PARKER. Well, there is an old saying that they often utilize

with that population, and it goes like, ‘‘I prefer to be in jail broke

than on the street with no money.’’ And when you look at it from

the perspective that a large number of the returning brothers and

sisters are looking at in comparison to being able to obtain employment, to a degree of actually having a dream that they would like

to manifest but not having the necessary means to, they would primarily take almost any means necessary to be able to obtain some

of the things that they wish to obtain.

And this particular population here I think is actually confronted

with a number of serious challenges. As you made mention in regards to employment, how competitive that actually is, even with

individuals that do not have a prison record. When you look at the

environment today pertaining to these men and women that are returning home, I have heard numbers of 500,000 and 600,000 people, basically the same equivalency of the city of the District of Columbia, that are coming back and just do not have the means to

actually make a transformation into the everyday way of life. It is

a challenge within itself.

I do not think that the environment that we are talking about

creating will actually be anything for the good in regards to working with this particular population, or for the city as a whole. I

think that we are confronting with some very serious challenges.

I heard my good friend, Mr. Peck, who primarily deals with the

business aspects of the city, I think if we can begin to get the business community to the table in the sense of employment for this

particular population and look at it from the perspective of redemption in the highest sense, in which it may not occur.

But to answer your question, long story short, I think from that

perspective that this would be a very serious challenge for us.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Parker.

May I say, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the way you have let this

hearing go on. I know we have one more person who wants to ask

a question. Mr. Parker, we do have a period of time during which

people who get out of prison are tested for drugs? We do not have

any way to test them for guns that may be in the home. Thank you

very much, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you. Ms. Watson.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.

148

To everyone here, I want to apologize to all of you for the disparaging remarks made by my colleagues to the first panel. I think

that both our Mayor here in Washington, DC, and our police chief,

Mr. Ramsey, have done an honorable job in trying to protect the

citizens of this district. I think you heard him say if we could combine—I think it was Mr. Lott who said you have more law enforcement officers here than anywhere in the country, and that is true,

but they have their responsibilities and their assignments. If they

could all work on street crime and, as the chief said, answer the

call when it comes in to 911, we probably would see crime go flat.

Let me say this, I am very, very sensitive to guns in homes because my cousin, 6 years old, was the first victim of a loaded gun.

It was in his house, somebody had it in his house, the young man

who shot him, and here comes little Leonard looking in the screen

window and the 14-year-older said, let me show you how this gun

works. My aunt, his aunt was upstairs and she heard the gunshot

and ran down and he was still quivering with his brain shot out.

So ever since then, I do not want guns in any home.

I want Mr. Lott to tell me how lifting this ban against guns will

stop the drive-by shooters; how lifting this ban against guns will

protect the innocent on the streets. I see it every day. I speak of

what I know, not what I am experiencing here in Washington. I

just want to know how by putting guns in the hands of law-abiding

citizens, you are going to restrict them to protecting their homes?

How are you going to stop the violence that comes from a gun

when it is on the street? Can you respond.

Mr. LOTT. Yes, guns do make it easier for bad things to happen.

But they also make it easier for people to protect themselves to

prevent bad things from happening. Criminals like to go after victims that they perceive as being relatively weak.

Ms. WATSON. Reclaiming my time. Are you saying that we should

arm everyone with a gun and let us have these shootouts? Suppose

the person who is coming to do harm to a home runs on the street.

Should the homeowner be allowed to run out there and shoot him,

when we have traffic, when we have children coming from schools?

If we lift the ban against guns, how do we control their use when

they are on the streets? And I am going to give you another question that you can respond to.

Mr. LOTT. Am I going to be able to answer this one?

Ms. WATSON. Let me just finish with my second question and

then you can respond.

Chairman DAVIS. But we do not control the guns now. That is

one of the problems. You have the laws, but that is why we have

had some of the issues. But go ahead, Ms. Watson.

Ms. WATSON. Let me reclaim my time and then you can respond

to both. They reference the second amendment. I have read it over

and over again. I was on the judiciary committee in my State of

California for 17 years and the NRA had a seat in those chambers.

I have looked at the second amendment. Is the word ‘‘militia’’ in

that?

Mr. LOTT. You would like me to answer both questions now?

Ms. WATSON. Yes. Is the word ‘‘militia’’ in there, yes or no?

Mr. LOTT. Yes.

149

Ms. WATSON. OK. And I have interpreted the second amendment

as saying in regards to a militia, citizens have the right to bear

arms. I asked professors at Harvard and all around and said would

you interpret this for me, and it arguably states that it is related

to a militia. So tell me in response, how do you read the second

amendment? And then also tell me how you see repealing this law

that bans guns will make people in this city safe?

Mr. LOTT. OK, and I will take them in the order you want. I am

not a lawyer. I have taught at law schools; I have taught at the

University of Chicago Law School, and I was at Yale as a research

scholar for a couple of years. I can tell you what those scholars who

look at this tell me, and basically it is that there is a clause there

that says the ‘‘right of the people,’’ and the other parts of the Constitution that refer to the right of the people mean it as an individual right, whether you are talking about the first or the 14th

amendment. And that is the second part of the clause there in the

second amendment. So that is basically my knowledge of the issue.

Now on the other question you are asking, I feel more knowledgeable to try to talk about. And that is, the concerns that you

raise are concerns that have been addressed over and over again

in States that have right to carry laws. You are talking about people carrying guns outside their homes. You have 37 States, including Virginia next door here, that allow citizens, with certain basis

requirements, to go and carry concealed handguns. You have another nine States that have more restrictive rules but still also, including California, still allow some citizens to carry concealed

handguns. A county like Orange County, which obviously is not the

same as Los Angeles, issues a lot of permits.

The types of concerns that you are raising about people acting irresponsibly is just not something you observe. These people lose

their permits for any reason, in hundreds or thousands of 1 percentage point, and most of those times are due to something like

people accidentally carrying a gun into a restricted area like an airport. You can go to Web sites for the Department of Public Safety

with Texas, or the Secretary of State in Florida, they have very detailed data on their Web sites on how many citizens have been

given permits, and the rate at which they have lost them for different types of reasons.

For example in Florida, you are talking about over 800,000 people have been granted permits since permits started being granted

in October 1987, and over that period of time you have had something like 152 have lost their permits for any type of firearms related violation, and virtually all of those have been for one type of

violation, and that is carrying a gun accidentally into a restricted

area like an airport or a school. Not that those people are causing

any harm or representing any threat, when you have that many

people over a long 20 year period of time you are going to have

some hundreds of 1 percent which are going to forget every once

in awhile when they are in a hurry that they have the gun with

them. That is basically the type of case that you have there.

Ms. WATSON. My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you, Ms. Watson. I want to thank the

panel.

150

Let me ask Mr. Lott just one last question. From your observation, if anybody else wants to answer also, when you had conceal

and carry laws in States, has there been a rise in gun violence?

Mr. LOTT. No. It has gone down. In fact, you have seen an even

bigger drop in gun violence than you have seen drops in violent

crime generally. Each additional year that these laws existed.

Chairman DAVIS. How do you explain that?

Mr. LOTT. Well I think what you see happening is that criminals,

if they come across somebody who has a gun, their desire is to

leave the area; go and live another day and try to get another victim.

But I think what is happening here is criminals do not know

until they actually go and attack somebody whether that person is

going to be able to defend themselves or not, and that goes to protect individuals who would never even think of carrying a concealed handgun. You have also seen drops in deaths of police officers after these types of laws have been done, in part I think it is

because you see fewer criminals carrying guns. They realize the

types of examples that the chief was giving earlier about what happens if you run into a situation where a criminal has a gun and

the victim has a gun.

There is a big difference when the criminal starts to use a gun,

OK? He would rather not have to get into a gun fight because that

is a murder held to you or something like that. You look at the

clearance rates, he was mentioning the clearance rates in D.C. for

murder would be about 50 percent, that is much lower than the

clearance rates for other types of crime. So criminals respond to the

fact that they not only face a higher probability of getting caught

once they go and commit a crime like murder, but also the penalties that they face are also much greater.

Chairman DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Let me thank all of our witnesses. It has been a very useful discussion. I think we have been able to get all the perspectives out

here as Congress considers this. This has been very, very helpful

to us. I just want to thank everybody. We have differences of opinion, I respect all and I understand where everybody is coming from

on this, and it has certainly crystallized it for me. Thank you very

much.

The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 7:03 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

[The prepared statements of Hon. Jon C. Porter, Hon. Diane E.

Watson and additional information submitted for the hearing

record follows:]

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

Æ