U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

98–436 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 113–825 

WHAT SHOULD AMERICA DO 

ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JANUARY 30, 2013 

Serial No. J–113–2 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

MAZIE HIRONO, Hawaii 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa, Ranking Member 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JANUARY 30, 2013, 10:12 A.M. 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

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

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 128 

Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ............................ 3 

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

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 130 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 2 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 126 

WITNESSES 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 67 

Giffords, Hon. Gabrielle, a Former Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona .............................................................................................................. 1 

Johnson, James, Chief of Police, Baltimore County Police Department, and 

Chair, National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, 

Towson, Maryland ................................................................................................ 11 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 108 

Kelly, Captain Mark E., United States Navy, Retired, Americans for Responsible Solutions, Tucson, Arizona ......................................................................... 6 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 68 

Kopel, David B., Adjunct Professor, Advanced Constitutional Law, Denver 

University, Strum College of Law, Denver, Colorado ....................................... 9 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 72 

LaPierre, Wayne, Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer, National Rifle Association, Fairfax, Virginia .......................................................... 14 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 122 

Trotter, Gayle S., Attorney, and Senior Fellow, Independent Women’s Forum, 

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 13 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 111 

MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Ackerman, Bruce, et al., ‘‘Statement of Professors of Constitutional Law: 

The Second Amendment and the Constitutionality of the Proposed Gun 

Violence Prevention Legislation,’’ statement ..................................................... 183 

American Federation of Teachers (AFT), Washington, DC, statement ............... 131 

Barden, Mark, and Jackie Barden, ‘‘Make the debate over guns worthy of 

our son,’’ The Washington Post, January 29, 2013, article ............................... 176 

Bueermann, Jim, President, Police Foundation, Washington, DC, and former 

Chief of Police, Redlands, California, statement ............................................... 142 

Greenberg, Sheldon, Ph.D., Associate Dean, Johns Hopkins University, School 

of Education, Division of Public Safety Leadership; Former Associate Director, Police Executive Research Forum; Former Officer, Supervisor, and Bureau Commander, Howard County, Maryland, Police Department; Past 

President, Maryland Crime Prevention Association; statement ...................... 178 

Horwitz, Joshua, Executive Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, statement ...................................................................................................................... 152 

Kopel, David, ‘‘Guns, Mental Illness and Newtown,’’ December 17, 2012, 

article .................................................................................................................... 138
Page

IV 

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Juliet A. Leftwich, Legal Director, 

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

January 28, 2013 .................................................................................................. 157 

Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Hon. Thomas M. Menino, Mayor of Boston, 

Massachusetts, Coalition Co-Chair, and Hon. Michael R. Bloomberg, Mayor 

of New York, New York, Coalition Co-Chair, January 30, 2013, letter ........... 160 

Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), National Association for 

the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), New York, New York, statement ...................................................................................................................... 167 

National Education Association (NEA), Mary Kusler, Director, Government 

Relations, January 29, 2013, letter .................................................................... 173 

Nelson, Eliot W., M.D., Professor of Pediatrics, University of Vermont College 

of Medicine, statement ......................................................................................... 147 

radioiowa.com, ‘‘Law officers tell Congressman mental health issues more 

important than gun ban,’’ article ........................................................................ 136 

Rahamim, Miya, Minneapolis, Minnesota, statement .......................................... 164 

Rodgers, Hon. John, Vermont State Senate, statement ....................................... 192 

United States Department of Justice, Report to the National Institute of 

Justice, June 2004, excerpt ................................................................................. 145 

Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, Clint Gray, President, January 

29, 2013, letter ..................................................................................................... 191 

Watts, Shannon, Founder, One Million Moms for Gun Control, statement ....... 189 

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

Center for Gun Policy and Research, statement ............................................... 180 

Zeoli, April M., Assistant Professor, School of Criminal Justice, Michigan 

State University, January 28, 2013, letter ........................................................ 134 
(1) 

WHAT SHOULD AMERICA DO 

ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE? 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 30, 2013 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:12 a.m., in Room 

SH–216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Leahy, Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin, 

Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Franken, Coons, Blumenthal, Hirono, 

Grassley, Hatch, Sessions, Graham, Cornyn, Lee, Cruz, and Flake. 

Chairman LEAHY. We have more than 200 people here today. 

Hundreds more are watching on our Committee Webcast. I expect 

everybody in this room to be respectful of the Senators and the witnesses speaking about this very serious subject. That means I do 

not want applause for or against any position I might take or anybody else takes. The Capitol Police have been notified to remove 

any audience member who interferes with the orderly conduct of 

this important hearing. 

This, incidentally, is a warning I give at many hearings. We are 

going to hear a lot of different perspectives on gun violence, and 

both Senator Grassley and I will give opening statements. But we 

have a former Member of Congress here, Gabby Giffords, who is 

going to give a brief message, then leave. And, Captain Kelly, 

thank you for your help in bringing your wife here. 

Ms. Giffords. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, A FORMER 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

ARIZONA 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you for inviting me here today. This is an 

important conversation for our children, for our communities, for 

Democrats and Republicans. 

Speaking is difficult but I need to say something important. Violence is a big problem. Too many children are dying. Too many 

children. We must do something. It will be hard, but the time is 

now. You must act. Be bold, be courageous. Americans are counting 

on you. 

Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Captain Kelly, do you want to help Ms. Giffords out? I will give you a few moments. 

[Pause.] 
2 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. We will return to the hearing, and I thank 

former Congresswoman Giffords and her husband. We will be calling up the witnesses shortly, and Senator Grassley and I will give 

our opening statements. 

On December 14, America’s heart was broken when 20 young 

children and 6 dedicated educators were murdered. This is the first 

Judiciary Committee hearing of the 113th Congress, and I want everybody here to join in the discussion as part of a collective effort 

to find solutions to help ensure that no family, no school, and no 

community ever has to endure such a grievous tragedy again. 

We have to come together today as Americans seeking a common 

cause. I hope we can forgo sloganeering, demagoguery, and partisan recriminations. This is too important for that. Every American abhors the recent tragedies: in just the last 2 years, in an elementary school in Connecticut, in a movie theater in Colorado, in 

a sacred place of worship in Wisconsin, and in front of a shopping 

mall in Arizona. 

Americans are looking to us for solutions and for action. This 

Committee is a focal point for that process. I have introduced a 

measure to provide law enforcement agencies with stronger tools 

against illegal gun trafficking. Others have proposed restrictions on 

military-style weapons and the size of ammunition clips. Others 

have proposed modifications to the background check systems to 

keep guns out of the wrong hands while not unnecessarily burdening law-abiding citizens. 

I am a lifelong Vermonter. I know gun store owners in Vermont. 

They follow the law. They conduct background checks to block the 

conveyance of guns to those who should not have them. And they 

wonder why others who sell guns do not have to follow these same 

protective rules. And I agree with these responsible business owners. If we can all agree that criminals and those adjudicated as 

mentally ill should not buy firearms, why should we not try to plug 

the loopholes in the law that allow them to buy guns without background checks? It is a simple matter of common sense. And if we 

agree that the background check system is worthwhile, should we 

not try to improve its content and use it so it can be more effective? 

What responsible gun owner objects to improving the background 

check system? 

When I buy firearms in Vermont, I go through a background 

check. I would expect everybody else to. 

Now, at the outset of this hearing, I note that the Second 

Amendment is secure and will remain secure and protected. In two 

recent cases, the Supreme Court has confirmed that the Second 

Amendment, like other aspects of our Bill of Rights, secures a fundamental individual right. Americans have the right to self-defense 

and, as the Court has said, to have guns in their homes to protect 

their families. No one can take away those rights or their guns. 

Second Amendment rights are the foundation on which our discussion rests. They are not at risk. But what is at risk are lives. Lives 

are at risk when responsible people fail to stand up for laws that 

will keep guns out of the hands of those who will use them to commit murder, especially mass murder. I ask that we focus our dis-
3 

cussion on additional statutory measures to better protect our children and all Americans. I say this as a parent and as a grandparent. Ours is a free society, an open society. We come together 

today to consider how to become a safer and more secure society. 

No one begrudges the Government assistance provided to victims 

of mass tragedies made possible by the law we passed after the 

bombing at Oklahoma City. The bill I introduced last week against 

gun trafficking will similarly prove helpful and I believe will become an accepted part of our crime control framework. It, too, is 

a common-sense reform. It fills a hole in our law enforcement arsenal so that straw purchasers who acquire weapons for criminals 

can be prosecuted more effectively. 

Last Thursday, the President nominated the U.S. Attorney from 

Minnesota—and we have two Senators from that State here on this 

Committee—to direct the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. And I trust that all Senators will cooperate 

in a prompt hearing and action on that nomination and will join 

in good faith to strengthen our law enforcement efforts against gun 

violence and to protect public safety. 

As a responsible gun owner and someone who cherishes all of our 

constitutional rights, as a Senator who has sworn an oath to uphold those rights, as a father and grandfather, and as a former 

prosecutor who has seen the results of gun violence firsthand in 

graphic detail, I undertake these efforts with the hope that this 

hearing can build consensus around common-sense solutions. Previous measures to close the gun show loophole or to improve the 

background check system have been bipartisan. And I hope in this 

new Congress further improvements will also become bipartisan 

and we can act together as Americans. 

Now, I have said what kinds of measures I can support. I will 

ask other Senators to come forward and do so as well. I will ask 

our witnesses what legislative proposals they support to make 

America safer, and I thank everybody here for joining in today’s 

discussion. 

Senator Grassley. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank you as well for this 

hearing, and thanks to everybody who is here, and particularly our 

witnesses. 

What happened at Newtown shocks our Nation. We will never 

forget where we were or how we reacted when we learned that 20 

very young children and 6 adults were killed that day; or if we forgot about that specific instance, you do not forget about all the 

tragedies that have happened recently. 

As a grandfather and great-grandfather, I cannot imagine how 

anyone would commit an evil act like that, and I cannot ever begin 

to know what it would be like to be a relative of one of those slain 

children. We pray for the families who continue to mourn the loss 

of loved ones. We pray for all victims of violence, by guns and otherwise. 

Clearly, violent crimes and those who commit them are a plague 

on our society, one that has been with us for far too long. We have 
4 

looked at these issues before, but I welcome this renewed discussion. 

I think the need for the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings 

after Newtown is very clear. All over America, people were appalled by what happened to those vulnerable and precious victims, 

and we all want to examine sensible actions that could reduce the 

likelihood of future crimes. 

And we have extended a special welcome to former Congresswoman Giffords. She was doing what a conscientious Representative should do, what I hope all of us do: taking the pulse of constituents to represent them in Congress. She was representing the 

people of her congressional district when a gunman opened fire. 

The shooting was a horrible tragedy. But her determination to 

overcome her injuries, progress through rehabilitation, and continued contribution to society are an inspiration or at least should be 

an inspiration to all of us. I thank her for being here today, and 

with her husband, Captain Kelly. 

Although Newtown and Tucson are terrible tragedies, the deaths 

in Newtown should not be used to put forward every gun control 

measure that has been floating around for years because the problem is greater than just guns alone, and I think the Chairman’s 

speech indicates that as well. Any serious discussion of the causes 

of gun violence must include a complex re-examination of mental 

health as it relates to mass shootings. Society as a whole has 

changed as well, and that statement is made. It is difficult for anyone to measure it, but I think you see a lack of civility in American 

society has grown considerably in the last couple decades. You see 

it here in the Congress as well when we are partisan and do not 

treat each other with the respect that we ought to. 

There are too many video games that celebrate the mass killing 

of innocent people, games that, despite attempts at industry selfregulation, find their way into the hands of children. An example: 

One video game released November 2009, which has sold over 22 

million copies in the U.S. and U.K., was for foreign distribution because the opening level depicted shooting innocent civilians in an 

airport security line. This game was specifically cited in the manifesto of the Norway mass shooter as ‘‘part of my training simulation’’ for carrying out his attacks. 

Where is the artistic value of shooting innocent victims? I share 

Vice President Biden’s disbelief of manufacturer denial that these 

games have no effect on real-world violence. 

Above all, we should not rush to pass legislation that will not reduce mass killings. Banning guns based on their appearance does 

not make sense. The 1994 assault weapon ban did not stop Columbine. The Justice Department found the ban ineffective. Scholars have indicated that refining or expanding such legislation will 

not cut gun violence. 

I also question the limitation on magazine capacities. Those can 

be circumvented by carrying multiple guns, as many killers have 

done. We hear that no one needs to carry larger magazines than 

those that hunters use to shoot deer. But an attacking criminal, 

unlike a deer, shoots back. I do not think that we may—I do think 

that we may be able to work together to prevent straw purchasers 

from trafficking in guns. 
5 

The oversight work that I conducted on the illegal Operation 

Fast and Furious shows that there are some gaps in this area of 

law that should be closed. Besides legislative proposals, the President recently took 23 Executive actions on guns, and without knowing exactly how they are worded, we cannot find fault with them, 

and probably should not find fault with a lot of his actions. Despite 

this administration’s claim to be the most transparent in history, 

the text of these actions is still not posted on the White House 

website, only very brief statements about what they do. But all of 

those Executive actions could have been issued 4 years ago or after 

the Tucson shooting or after Aurora. Why only now? 

One order directs the Centers for Disease Control to research 

causes of gun violence. Contrary to what you may have heard, Congress has never prohibited CDC from researching gun violence; 

rather, Congress prohibited Federal research to ‘‘advocate or promote gun control,’’ which some Government researchers have been 

doing under the guise of taxpayer-supported science. Had Congress 

actually prohibited gun violence research, the President could not 

legally have directed CDC to conduct that research. 

I was taken aback when the President cited the Declaration of 

Independence and the Constitution as sources of Government 

power to restrict gun ownership rights. The Constitution, in fact, 

creates a limited Federal Government. It separates powers among 

branches of the Federal Government, and it preserves State power 

against Federal power. The Framers believed that these structures 

would adequately control the Government so as to protect individual liberty. 

But the American people disagreed. They feared that the Constitution gave the Federal Government so much power that it could 

be tyrannical and violate individual rights. So the Bill of Rights 

was added. Each of those rights, including the Second Amendment, 

was adopted to further limit Government power and protect individual rights. President Obama’s remarks turned the Constitution 

on its head. He said, ‘‘The right to worship freely and safely, that 

right was denied to Sikhs in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. The right to 

assemble peaceably, that right was denied shoppers in Clackamas, 

Oregon, and moviegoers in Aurora, Colorado. That most fundamental set of rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are 

fundamental rights that were denied to college students at Virginia 

Tech and high school students at Columbine and elementary school 

students in Newtown.’’ 

But this is not so. Except for its prohibition on slavery, the Constitution limits only actions of Government, not individuals. So, for 

instance, the right to peaceably assemble protects individual rights 

to organize, to protest, and seek to change Government action. 

That right is trivialized and mischaracterized as protecting shopping and watching movies, and those constitutional rights are not 

the source of governmental power to enact legislation as the President suggested. In fact, just the opposite. They were included in 

the Bill of Rights because throughout history governments have 

wanted to shut up those who would criticize government to suppress unpopular religions or to disarm people. The President cited 

constitutional protections of individual rights as the basis for expanding Federal power over the lives of private individuals. This 
6 

is the same President who exceeded his power under the Constitution to appoint recess appointments. So no wonder millions of 

Americans fear that the President might take Executive action and 

Congress may enact legislation that could lead to a tyrannical Federal Government. 

So I cannot accept the President’s claim that ‘‘there will be politicians and special interest lobbyists publicly warning of a tyrannical 

all out assault on liberty, not because that is true but because they 

want to gin up fear.’’ This necessarily and understandably leads 

many citizens to fear that their individual rights will be violated, 

and that extends well beyond the Second Amendment. It should be 

a matter of deep concern to all of us. The Constitution for 225 

years has established a Government that is a servant of the people, 

not the master. 

So, Mr. Chairman, as we consider and debate legislation arising 

from these tragedies, I hope that we will proceed with proper understanding of the relationship that the Constitution establishes 

between Government power and individual liberty, and I hope we 

will pass those bills that would actually be effective in reducing 

gun violence. 

I welcome the witnesses and look forward to this hearing. Thank 

you very much. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you. 

I would ask that Captain Mark Kelly, Professor David Kopel, 

Chief James Johnson, Ms. Gayle Trotter, and Mr. Wayne LaPierre 

step forward. Just stand behind your chairs for the moment while 

I swear in the panel all at one time. Please raise your right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give in this 

matter will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you God? 

Captain KELLY. I do. 

Professor KOPEL. I do. 

Chief JOHNSON. I do. 

Ms. TROTTER. I do. 

Mr. LAPIERRE. I do. 

Chairman LEAHY. Let the record show that all five witnesses 

have been sworn in. Please take your seats. 

What I am going to suggest we do, I am going to call on each 

witness—we are going to try to keep to fairly strict time, and I will 

call on each one to give their testimony. Then we will open it to 

questions in the usual way, alternating between both sides. 

Our first witness is Mark Kelly. He is a retired astronaut and 

U.S. Navy captain. Captain Kelly recently co-founded Americans 

for Responsible Solutions. This is an advocacy group that promotes 

solutions to prevent gun violence and protect responsible gun ownership. He did it with his wife, former Congresswoman Gabrielle 

Giffords. 

Captain Kelly, please go ahead, sir. 

STATEMENT OF CAPT. MARK E. KELLY, UNITED STATES NAVY, 

RETIRED, AMERICANS FOR RESPONSIBLE SOLUTIONS, 

TUCSON, ARIZONA 

Captain KELLY. Thank you, Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley, for inviting me here today. I look forward to a con-
7 

structive dialogue with your Committee. I also want to take the opportunity to congratulate Gabby’s friend and much respected 

former colleague, Jeff Flake, on his new role as Arizona’s junior 

Senator. 

As you know, our family has been immeasurably affected by gun 

violence. Gabby’s gift for speech is a distant memory. She struggles 

to walk, and she is partially blind. And a year ago she left a job 

she loved serving the people of Arizona. 

But in the past 2 years, we have watched Gabby’s determination, 

spirit, and intellect conquer her disabilities. 

We are not here as victims. We are speaking to you today as 

Americans. 

We are a lot like many of our fellow citizens following this debate 

about gun violence: 

We are moderates. Gabby was a Republican long before she was 

a Democrat. 

We are both gun owners, and we take that right and the responsibilities that come with it very seriously. 

And we watch with horror when the news breaks to yet another 

tragic shooting. After 20 kids and 6 of their teachers were gunned 

down in their classrooms at Sandy Hook, Elementary, we said this 

time must be different. Something needs to be done. 

We are simply two reasonable Americans who have said, 

‘‘Enough.’’ 

On January 8, 2011, a young man walked up to Gabby at her 

constituent event in Tucson, leveled his gun, and shot her through 

the head. He then turned down the line and continued firing. In 

15 seconds, he emptied his magazine. It contained 33 bullets, and 

there were 33 wounds. 

As the shooter attempted to reload, he fumbled. A woman 

grabbed the next magazine, and others restrained him. 

Gabby was the first victim. Christina-Taylor Green, 9 years old, 

born on 9/11 of 2001, was shot with the 13th bullet or after. And 

others followed. 

The killer in the Tucson shooting suffered from severe mental illness. But even after being deemed unqualified for service in the 

Army and expulsion from Pima Community College, he was never 

reported to mental health authorities. 

On November 30, 2010, he walked into a sporting goods store, 

passed a background check, and walked out with a semiautomatic 

handgun. He had never been legally adjudicated as mentally ill, 

and even if he had, Arizona at the time had over 121,000 records 

of disqualifying mental illness that it had not submitted into the 

system. 

Looking back, we cannot say with certainty, ‘‘Only if we had done 

this, this would have never happened.’’ There is not just one thing 

that would have prevented the Tucson shooting from being written 

into the history books. 

Gabby is one of roughly 100,000 victims of gun violence in America each and every year. Behind every victim lays a matrix of failure and inadequacy—in our families, in our communities, in our 

values; in our society’s approach to poverty, violence, and mental 

illness; and, yes, also in our politics and in our gun laws. 
8 

One of our messages is simple: The breadth and complexity of 

gun violence is great, but it is not an excuse for inaction. 

There is another side to our story. 

Gabby is a gun owner, and I am a gun owner. We have our firearms for the same reasons that millions of Americans just like us 

have guns: to defend ourselves, to defend our families, for hunting, 

and for target shooting. 

We believe wholly and completely in the Second Amendment and 

that it confers upon all Americans the right to own a firearm for 

protection, collection, and recreation. 

We take that right very seriously, and we would never, ever give 

it up—just like Gabby would never relinquish her gun, and I would 

never relinquish mine. 

But rights demand responsibility. And this right does not extend 

to terrorists, it does not extend to criminals, and it does not extend 

to the mentally ill. 

When dangerous people get guns, we are all vulnerable—at the 

movies, at church, conducting our everyday business, meeting with 

a Government official; and time after time after time, at school, on 

our campuses, and in our children’s classrooms. 

When dangerous people get dangerous guns, we are all the more 

vulnerable. Dangerous people with weapons specifically designed to 

inflict maximum lethality upon others have turned every single 

corner of our society into places of carnage and gross human loss. 

Our rights are paramount. But our responsibilities are serious. 

And as a Nation, we are not taking responsibility for the gun rights 

that our Founding Founders conferred upon us. 

Now, we have some ideas on how we can take responsibility. 

First, fix gun background checks. The holes in our laws make a 

mockery of the background check system. Congress should close the 

private sales loophole and get dangerous people entered into that 

system. 

Second, remove the limitations on collecting data and conducting 

scientific research on gun violence. 

Enact a tough Federal gun-trafficking statute. This is really important. 

And, finally, let us have a careful and civil conversation about 

the lethality of firearms we permit to be legally bought and sold 

in this country. 

Gabby and I are pro-gun ownership. We are also anti-gun violence, and we believe that in this debate Congress should look not 

toward special interests and ideology, which push us apart, but toward compromise, which brings us together. We believe whether 

you call yourself pro-gun or anti-gun violence, or both, that you can 

work together to pass laws that save lives. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Capt. Mark E. Kelly appears as a 

submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Our next witness, David Kopel, is the research director for the 

Independence Institute as well as an associate policy analyst for 

the Cato Institute and adjunct professor of Advanced Constitutional Law at Denver University’s Strum College of Law. 

Did I get that all correct? 
9 

Professor KOPEL. Perfect. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. Go ahead, please. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID B. KOPEL, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, 

ADVANCED CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, DENVER UNIVERSITY, 

STRUM COLLEGE OF LAW, DENVER, COLORADO 

Professor KOPEL. Thank you, Chairman Leahy and Senator 

Grassley. 

I think to continue the themes that Captain Kelly has so eloquently spoken about, gun rights and gun control do not have to 

be culture war enemies. Properly conceived, they can work together 

and reinforce each other. It is important to recognize that the Second Amendment is not absolute any more than the First Amendment is. It certainly has an absolute core that cannot be violated 

under any circumstances, but that does not prohibit all firearms 

controls. 

Chairman LEAHY. Excuse me, and this will not come out of your 

time. 

Professor KOPEL. Okay. 

Chairman LEAHY. All of the statements will be put in the record 

in full so we can keep close to the time. 

Go ahead. 

Professor KOPEL. Thank you. I will keep very close to the time. 

And, likewise, gun controls do not violate the Second Amendment 

if they are constructed so they do not violate the rights of law-abiding citizens and they actually do something constructive, significant, and effective to protect law-abiding citizens. 

Captain Kelly talked about the matrix of failure. Twenty years 

ago, I testified before this Committee—some of the Senators are 

still here—about one thing that turned out to be part of that matrix of failure, and that was the ban on so-called assault weapons. 

I warned during that testimony then that it was based not on the 

function of guns or how fast they fired or how powerful they were, 

but on superficial, cosmetic characteristics and accessories. 

As part of the compromise that eventually led to that bill being 

mistakenly passed by Congress, the bill had a 10-year sunset in it 

and a requirement that the Department of Justice supervise a 

study of the effectiveness of that law. That study was—the people 

that carried out that study were chosen by Attorney General Reno’s 

Department of Justice. They did several interim studies and then 

a final study, and they concluded that the law had done nothing. 

It had not saved lives; it had not reduced the number of bullets 

that were fired in crimes. It had been a failure. It had, to some 

minor degree, switched the types of guns that were used in crimes, 

so you had a gun with one name instead of another name. But it 

did not reduce crime overall. And, indeed, it was a dangerous bill 

in the sense that so much political attention was distracted by the 

focus on this that it took public attention away from debate on 

measures that might have been more constructive and life-saving. 

Today, police and law-abiding citizens choose semiautomatic 

handguns and rifles, such as the AR–15, for the same reason. They 

are often the best choice for the lawful defense of self and others. 

To assert that such firearms and their standard capacity factory 

magazines are only meant for mass murder is truly to libel law- 
10 

abiding citizens and the many law enforcement officers who choose 

these guns not for hunting, not for collecting, but for the purpose 

for which police officers always carry firearms: for the lawful defense of self and others. 

Great Britain shows the perils of mass gun confiscation that 

some people have proposed. It has a higher violent crime rate than 

the United States and an especially high rate of home invasion 

burglaries. 

Congress has repeatedly outlawed gun registration because of 

the accurate recognition that in other countries, and in the United 

States, in New York City, gun registration has been used as a tool 

for confiscation. These 1941, 1986, and 1993 congressional statutes 

are one way that gun rights can be protected against future abuses. 

Unfortunately, the bills about universal background checks that 

have been proposed in recent Congresses with the support of New 

York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg have often had provisions in 

them for gun registration and for many other violations of the civil 

liberties of law-abiding persons, such as allowing gun bans for people who are accused, but acquitted, of drug crimes. 

Universal background checks should be available. It was a wise 

move by President Obama in his January 16th press conference to 

begin changes in Federal regulations and their interpretation to 

allow private sellers to access the background check system via a 

federally licensed firearms dealer. Many people will choose to take 

advantage of that, and I commend them. But mandating universal 

checks can only be enforceable if there is universal gun registration, and we know that universal gun registration in every country 

in the world where it has existed has been a serious peril to gun 

ownership. Universal gun registration was imposed by Canada in 

1995 and was later repealed in 2012 by the Canadian parliament 

because it was such a fiasco. 

If we want to save lives right now, not with constructive reforms 

that might do some good in the future, there is only one thing that 

will stop the next copycat killer, and that is, lawful armed self-defense in the schools not only by armed guards but also by teachers. 

Utah provides the successful model. There, a teacher who has a 

permit to carry after a background check and a safety training 

class everywhere else in the State is not prohibited from carrying 

at the schools. Gun prohibition lobbies come up with all kinds of 

fantastic scenarios about the harms that these would cause: teachers will shoot each other or threaten students or the students will 

steal the guns. But we have had this policy and practice in Utah 

for many years, and we have never had a single problem. And, 

quite notably, we have never had an attack on a Utah school. If 

we want to save lives, armed defense in the schools is the immediate and best choice while other constructive solutions make take 

longer to have an effect. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Prof. David B. Kopel appears as a 

submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. As I said, your full 

statement will be placed in the record. 

Chief James Johnson is the police chief for the Baltimore County 

Police Department. He started his career as a police cadet at the 
11 

age of 18. He has more than 30 years of experience with the department. He is also the Chair of the National Law Enforcement 

Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence that represents nine national 

law enforcement organizations. 

Chief, thank you for taking the time to be here. Please go ahead, 

sir. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES JOHNSON, CHIEF OF POLICE, 

BALTIMORE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND CHAIR, 

NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT PARTNERSHIP TO PREVENT 

GUN VIOLENCE, TOWSON, MARYLAND 

Chief JOHNSON. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, 

and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify. I am here on behalf of the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence—— 

Chairman LEAHY. Is your microphone on? 

Chief JOHNSON. Yes, sir, it is. 

I am here on behalf of the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, an alliance of the Nation’s law enforcement leadership organizations concerned about the unacceptable level of gun violence in the United States. 

We mourn the loss of gun violence victims, including the 20 children and 6 adults in Newtown whose lives were cut short by an 

individual armed with firepower originally designed for combat. 

More than 30 homicides occur in America each day. Two thousand children—and 6 adults certainly in Newtown, are amongst 

those individuals—ages 18 and under die of firearm-related violence and deaths every year. In 2011, for the first time in 14 years, 

firearms were the leading cause of death for police officers killed 

in the line of duty. 

In a 1-week period in 2011, the Police Executive Research Forum found that gun crime in six cities cost more than $38 million, and 

in the year 2010 the cost to the entire country more than $57 billion. 

We urgently need Congress to address the rising epidemic of gun 

violence in this Nation. Law enforcement leaders support the President’s comprehensive approach, which includes enhancing safety at 

educational institutions and addressing mental health issues. But 

on behalf of my colleagues across the Nation, I am here today to 

tell you that we are long overdue in strengthening our Nation’s gun 

laws. Doing so must be a priority for Congress. 

The organizations in the National Law Enforcement Partnership 

to Prevent Gun Violence urgently call on you to: 

Require background checks for all firearm purchasers; 

Ensure that prohibited purchaser records in the National Instant 

Criminal Background Check System (NICS) are complete; 

And limit high-capacity ammunition feeding devices to ten 

rounds. 

Seven of our nine groups, including the largest among us, also 

support Senator Feinstein’s assault weapons ban legislation. 

Federal law prohibits dangerous individuals, such as convicted 

felons and those with mental health disqualifiers, from possessing 

firearms. While background checks are required for purchases 

through licensed gun dealers, no check is required for private sales, 
12 

such as those through online or print ads or gun shows. It is a 

major problem. 

From November 2011 to November 2012, an estimated 6.6 million gun transactions occurred without a background check. Up to 

40 percent of firearm transactions occur through private individuals rather than licensed gun dealers. Allowing 40 percent of those 

acquiring guns to bypass checks is like allowing 40 percent of passengers to board a plane without going through security. Would we 

do this? 

Last October, in Brookfield, Wisconsin, seven women were shot 

by a prohibited purchaser who was under a domestic violence restraining order. The shooter answered an online ad and was able 

to buy a gun without a check very quickly. Had the sale been required to have a check, this tragedy could have been prevented. 

Background checks work. They stopped nearly 2 million prohibited purchases between 1994 and 2009. We already have a national 

background check system in place. Therefore, extending background checks to all firearm purchasers can easily be implemented—and it should be—without delay. 

States cannot do it alone. Interstate firearms trafficking is a 

rampant problem, and it must be addressed federally. According to 

ATF, in 2009, 30 percent of guns recovered at crime scenes crossed 

State lines. Maryland recovered nearly 2,000 last year from outside 

the State. 

Submissions to NICS must be improved, especially mental health 

and drug abuse records. The 2007 massacre at Virginia Tech is a 

great example of a prohibited purchaser slipping through the 

cracks due to an incomplete NICS background check. 

The ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition must 

be reinstated. Like assault weapons, high-capacity magazines are 

not used for hunting. They do not belong in our homes, and they 

wreak havoc in our communities. Banning these magazines will 

limit the number of rounds a shooter can discharge before he has 

to reload. Reloading can provide a window to escape, to seek cover 

or concealment, or attack the adversary, to take down the shooter, 

as we have heard in Tucson. 

In 1998, 4 years after the assault weapons and high-capacity 

magazine ban was enacted, the percentage of firearms with largecapacity magazines recovered by Virginia police decreased and continued to drop until it hit a low of 9 percent of the weapons recovered in 2004, the year the ban expired. It hit a high of 20 percent 

in 2010. 

I have been in law enforcement for nearly 35 years, and I have 

seen an explosion in firepower since the assault weapons ban expired. It is common to find many shell casings at crime scenes 

when you go out and you investigate these days. Victims are being 

riddled with multiple gunshots. 

The common-sense measures we call for will not infringe on Second Amendment rights, but will keep guns out of the dangerous 

hands of people who are out there to commit danger in our society, 

and excessive firepower out of our communities. 

Generations of Americans, including our youngest ones, are depending on you to ensure they will grow up and fulfill their roles 

in the great human experience. None of us can fail them, and I 
13 

urge you to follow the will of the American public on this issue and 

stand with law enforcement on these common-sense public safety 

measures. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Chief James Johnson appears as a 

submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, Chief. 

Our next witness is Gayle Trotter. She is the co-founder of 

Shafer and Trotter PLC, a law firm here in Washington. She is 

also a senior fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum. 

Attorney Trotter, good to have you here. Go ahead, please. 

STATEMENT OF GAYLE S. TROTTER, ATTORNEY, AND SENIOR 

FELLOW, INDEPENDENT WOMEN’S FORUM, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. TROTTER. Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, and 

Members of this Committee, thank you for inviting me to appear 

before you today. 

We all want a safer society. We differ on how to make our society 

safer, and we differ on whether some proposals will actually increase public safety. I urge you to reject any actions that will fail 

to make Americans safer and, in particular, harm women the most. 

I would like to begin with the compelling story of Sarah McKinley. Home alone with her baby, she called 911 when two violent intruders began to break down her front door. These men were forcing their way into her home to steal the prescription medication of 

her recently deceased husband. Before police could arrive, while 

Ms. McKinley was still on the phone with 911, these violent intruders broke down her door. One of the men had a foot-long hunting 

knife. As the intruders forced their way into her home, Ms. McKinley fired her weapon, fatally wounding one of the violent attackers. 

The other fled. Later, Ms. McKinley explained: ‘‘It was either going 

to be him or my son. And it wasn’t going to be my son.’’ 

Guns make women safer. Over 90 percent of violent crimes occur 

without a firearm, which makes guns the great equalizer for 

women. The vast majority of violent criminals use their size and 

their physical strength to prey on women who are at a severe disadvantage. 

In a violent confrontation, guns reverse the balance of power. An 

armed woman does not need superior strength or the proximity of 

a hand-to-hand struggle. Concealed-carry laws reverse that balance 

of power even before a violent confrontation occurs. For a wouldbe criminal, concealed-carry laws dramatically increase the risk of 

committing a crime. This indirectly benefits even those who do not 

carry. Research shows that in jurisdictions with concealed-carry 

laws, women are less likely to be raped or murdered than they are 

in States with more restrictions on gun ownership. 

Armed security works. Brave men and women stand guard over 

Capitol Hill, including this building where we are now. Armed 

guards protect high-profile individuals, including prominent gun 

control advocates, some of whom also rely on personal gun permits. 

While armed security works, gun bans do not. Anti-gun legislation keeps guns away from the sane and the law-abiding, but not 

criminals. No sober-minded person would advocate a gun ban in-
14 

stead of armed security to protect banks, airports, or government 

buildings. 

We need sensible enforcement of the laws that are already on the 

books. Currently, we have thousands—thousands—of underenforced or selectively enforced gun laws, and we fail to prosecute 

serious gun violations or impose meaningful, consistent penalties 

for violent felonies involving firearms. 

Instead of self-defeating gestures, we should address gun violence based on what works. Guns make women safer. The Supreme 

Court has recognized that lawful self-defense is a central component of the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep 

and bear arms. For women, the ability to arm ourselves for our 

protection is even more consequential than for men because guns 

are the great equalizer in a violent confrontation. As a result, we 

protect women by safeguarding our Second Amendment rights. 

Every woman deserves a fighting chance. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Gayle S. Trotter appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much, Ms. Trotter. 

And our last witness—and then we will go to questions—is 

Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president and CEO of the National Rifle Association. 

I believe, Mr. LaPierre, you have been there since 1978. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. LAPIERRE. That is correct, Senator. 

Chairman LEAHY. Please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF WAYNE LAPIERRE, EXECUTIVE VICE 

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL 

RIFLE ASSOCIATION, FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 

Mr. LAPIERRE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Committee. It is an honor to be here today on behalf of more than 

4.5 million moms and dads, sons and daughters—— 

Chairman LEAHY. Is your microphone on? 

Mr. LAPIERRE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to be 

here today on behalf of the more than 4.5 million moms and dads, 

sons and daughters, in every State across our Nation, who make 

up the National Rifle Association of America. There are 4.5 million 

active members of the NRA, and they are joined by tens of millions 

of supporters throughout the country. 

It is on behalf of those millions of decent, hard-working, lawabiding citizens that I am here today to give voice to their concerns. 

The title of today’s hearing is ‘‘What Should America Do About 

Gun Violence? ’’ We believe the answer to that question is to be 

honest about what works and honest about what does not work. 

Teaching safe and responsible gun ownership works, and the 

NRA has a long and proud history of doing exactly that. 

Our ‘‘Eddie Eagle’’ child safety program has taught 25 million 

young children that if they see a gun, they should do four things: 

‘‘Stop. Do not touch it. Leave the area. And call an adult.’’ As a result of this and other private sector programs, fatal firearm accidents are at the lowest levels in more than 100 years. 
15 

The NRA has over 80,000 certified instructors who teach our 

military personnel, law enforcement officers, and hundreds of thousands of other American men and women how to safely use firearms. We do more—and spend more—than anyone else on teaching 

safe and responsible gun ownership. 

We joined the Nation in sorrow over the tragedy that occurred 

in Newtown, Connecticut. There is nothing more precious than our 

children. And we have no more sacred duty than to protect our 

children and to keep them safe. That is why we asked former Congressman and Under Secretary of Homeland Security, Asa Hutchinson, to bring in every available expert to develop a model School 

Shield Program—one that can be individually tailored to make our 

schools as safe as possible. 

It is time to throw an immediate blanket of security around our 

children. About a third of our schools right now have armed security already—because it works—and that number is growing every 

day. Right now, State officials, local authorities, and school districts in all 50 States are considering their own plans to protect 

children in schools. 

In addition, we need to enforce the thousands of gun laws already on the books. Prosecuting criminals who misuse firearms 

works. Unfortunately, we have seen a dramatic collapse in Federal 

gun prosecutions in recent years. Overall in 2011, Federal weapons 

prosecutions per capita were down 35 percent from their peak in 

the previous administration. That means violent felons, violent 

gang members, and drug dealers with guns and the mentally ill 

who possess firearms are not being prosecuted. And that is completely and totally unacceptable. 

And out of more than 76,000 firearms purchases supposedly denied by the Federal instant check system, only 62 were referred for 

prosecution and only 44 were actually prosecuted. Proposing more 

gun laws, while failing to enforce the thousands we already have, 

is not a serious solution for reducing crime. 

I think we can also agree that our mental health system is broken. We need to look at the full range of mental health issues, from 

early detection and treatment, to civil commitment laws, to privacy 

laws that needlessly prevent mental health records from being included in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. 

While we are ready to participate in a meaningful effort to solve 

these pressing problems, we must respectfully—but honestly and 

firmly—disagree with some Members of the Committee, many in 

the media, and all of the gun control groups on what will keep our 

kids and keep our streets safe. 

Law-abiding gun owners will not accept blame for the acts of violent or deranged criminals. Nor do we believe the Government 

should dictate what we can lawfully own and use to protect our 

families. 

As I said earlier, we need to be honest about what works and 

what does not work. Proposals that would only serve to burden the 

law-abiding have failed in the past and will fail in the future. 

Semiautomatic firearms have been around for over 100 years. 

They are among the most popular guns for hunting, target shooting, and self-defense. Despite this fact, Congress banned the manu-
16 

facture and sale of hundreds of semiautomatic firearms and magazines from 1994 to 2004. Independent studies, including one from 

the Clinton Justice Department, proved that it had no impact on 

lowering crime. 

And when it comes to background checks, let us be honest. Background checks will never be universal because criminals will never 

submit to them. 

But there are a lot of things that can be done, and we ask you 

to join with us. The NRA is made up of millions of Americans who 

support what works . . . the immediate protection for all—not just 

some—of our school children; swift, certain punishment of criminals who misuse guns; and fixing our broken mental health system. 

We love our families. We love our country. We believe in our 

freedom. We are the millions from all walks of life who take responsibility for our safety and protection as a God-given, fundamental American right. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Wayne LaPierre appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Now, Chief Johnson, let me begin with you, sir, if I could. I find 

in my experience that many criminals are able to get guns illegally 

because they use straw purchasers. In other words, a person who 

has no criminal record, can easily pass a background check, goes 

in and buys the guns, then turns around and gives them to criminals. 

But there is no Federal law that makes it illegal to act as a 

straw purchaser of firearms. So last week, I introduced a bill that 

will strengthen Federal law to combat firearms trafficking. It 

would specifically target straw purchasers. 

Do you think there should be such a law? 

Chief JOHNSON. The background procedures in this Nation are 

seriously in need of modification. Again, 40 percent of those acquiring firearms try to do it outside that background procedure. 

Senator, you are absolutely correct. Many will use a straw purchaser to go in and acquire these firearms. It happens each and 

every day across America. It is a serious problem. And the National 

Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence supports 

your initiative to address that issue. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, Chief. 

We also heard testimony about the safety of women and gun violence. Now, I am seeking immediate consideration of the LeahyCrapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. I was told 

yesterday that sometime in the next couple weeks we will have it 

on the floor of the Senate for a vote. I do this because of concern 

for domestic violence victims. We have statistics that show women 

in this country are killed at an alarming rate by domestic abusers 

with guns. 

Unfortunately, if a woman has a protective order against her 

abuser, if he is able to get a gun through a straw purchaser, of 

course, he still gets it, but he is not going to be able to purchase 

a gun if a background check is conducted. And we have at least one 

study that says that in States that require a background check for 
17 

every handgun sale, 38 percent fewer women are shot to death by 

their partners. 

Now, do you agree that if we want to keep firearms away from 

domestic abusers who are not supposed to have them anyway, we 

have to improve the background check system and require a background check for every firearm purchaser? 

Chief JOHNSON. Absolutely. I would like to stand in front of this 

group today and say I have spent my years chasing down violent 

armed robbers each and every day. The fact of the matter is that 

as a young patrol officer, most of my day was one domestic to another. It was the post that I had. Statistics show that when females 

are killed, it is more likely, over 50 percent of the time, to be by 

a spouse or household member. A gun in a home where there is a 

history of domestic violence, statistics show that there is a 500-percent increase or chance that that person will be victimized by gun 

violence. 

The State of Maryland in the last several years enacted legislation to address this domestic violence issue to allow us to go out 

and seize the guns of domestic violence abusers where the spouses 

went and obtained a protective order. This has been very effective, 

and in my jurisdiction, which averages generally about 35 homicides a year—unfortunately, most being domestic violence related— 

this had a significant impact in reducing the amount of those domestics. Two of the last 3 years, the statistic was below the 41-year 

homicide rate, and I credit in this case the Lieutenant Governor of 

the State of Maryland, Lieutenant Governor Brown, for this initiative, and it has helped us tremendously. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Captain Kelly, Mr. LaPierre has testified that universal background checks would not work because criminals would never submit to them, and I understand that. But under current law, criminals do not have to go through background checks because there 

are so many loopholes—the gun show loophole, no real punishment 

for straw purchases. 

Do you agree that there is nothing we can do to strengthen our 

background checks? 

Captain KELLY. Chairman Leahy, I disagree. I mean, there is a 

lot we can do. The situation that I know best is what happened in 

Tucson on January 8th of 2011. Jared Loughner, the shooter in this 

case, when he purchased a gun, he did purchase it through a background check. But there was a lot of evidence that could possibly 

have been in the National Instant Criminal Background Check 

System about him that would have prevented him from buying a 

gun through a background check. So that is part of the solution. 

Now, the other problem, let us say he was denied, denied the 

purchase of the gun, which he purchased in November 2010. It 

would have been very easy for him to go to a gun show and purchase a gun without a background check. 

So, you know, there are several things that need to be done, and 

in my opinion and in Gabby’s opinion, this was one of the most important things that we must do to prevent criminals, terrorists, and 

the mentally ill from having easy access to guns. Closing the gun 

show loophole and requiring private sellers to require a background 

check before they transfer a gun is—for us, I mean, I cannot think 
18 

of something that would make our country safer than doing just 

that. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Mr. LaPierre, in 1999, you testified before the House Judiciary 

Committee, and you testified, ‘‘Nobody is more committed than we 

are to keeping guns out of criminals’ hands. That is obviously in 

our best interest.’’ 

I assume you are still just as committed to keeping guns out of 

the hands of criminals. Is that correct? 

Mr. LAPIERRE. Yes, sir. 

Chairman LEAHY. And would you agree that we should prosecute 

and punish those who help criminals get guns? 

Mr. LAPIERRE. If you are talking about straw man sales, we have 

said straw man sales should be prosecuted for years. There are 

about six to eight statutes on the books right now—— 

Chairman LEAHY. So you agree that we should prosecute and 

punish those who help criminals get guns? 

Mr. LAPIERRE. If someone is doing a straw man sale, they should 

be prosecuted, absolutely. 

Chairman LEAHY. Now, in your testimony in 1999, you supported 

mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at 

every gun show. You said, ‘‘No loopholes anywhere for anyone.’’ 

Now, today, of course, you said criminals would never submit to 

background checks. Statistics show that plenty of them do. Nearly 

2 million convicted criminals and other dangerous people tried to 

buy a firearm since 1994, as Chief Johnson said, and were prevented. 

So let me ask you this: Do you still, as you did in 1999, support 

mandatory background checks at gun shows? Yes or no. 

Mr. LAPIERRE. We supported the National Instant Check System 

on dealers. We were here when Senator Birch Bayh, one of your 

colleagues, held hearings in terms of who would be a dealer and 

who would be required to have a license. If you did it for livelihood 

and profit, yes; if you were a hobbyist, no. 

Chairman LEAHY. Let us make it easier, though. I am talking 

about gun shows. Should we have mandatory background checks at 

gun shows for sales of weapons? 

Mr. LAPIERRE. If you are a dealer, that is already the law. If you 

are talking—— 

Chairman LEAHY. That is not my question. Please, Mr. LaPierre. 

I am not trying to play games here, but if you could answer, it 

would help. Just answer my question. 

Mr. LAPIERRE. Senator, I do not believe the way the law is working now, unfortunately, that it does any good to extend the law to 

private sales between hobbyists and collectors. 

Chairman LEAHY. Okay. So you do not support mandatory background checks in all instances at gun shows. 

Mr. LAPIERRE. We do not, because the fact is the law right now 

is a failure the way it is working. The fact is you have 76,000-some 

people that have been denied under the present law. Only 44 were 

prosecuted. You are letting them go. They are walking the streets. 

Chairman LEAHY. Then do I understand back in 1999 you said 

no loopholes anywhere for anyone, but now you do not support 

background checks for all buyers of firearms? 
19 

Mr. LAPIERRE. I think the National Instant Check System, the 

way it is working now, is a failure because this administration is 

not prosecuting the people that they catch. They are not—23 States 

are not even putting the mental records of those adjudicated mentally incompetent into the system. 

Now, assume that if you do not prosecute and they try to buy a 

gun, even if you catch them, and you let them walk away, to assume they are not going to get a gun, they are criminals, they are 

homicidal maniacs, and they are mentally ill, I mean, we all know 

that homicidal maniacs, criminals, and the insane do not—do 

not—— 

Chairman LEAHY. Mr. LaPierre—— 

Mr. LAPIERRE [continuing]. Abide by the law. 

Chairman LEAHY. My time is up. With all due respect, that was 

not the question I asked, nor did you answer it. 

Mr. LAPIERRE. But I think it is the answer. I honestly do. The 

fact—— 

Chairman LEAHY. It is your testimony. 

Senator Grassley. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Before I ask questions, Senator Hatch asked 

if I would explain to everybody here why he left. He is Ranking 

Member of the Finance Committee, and Senator Baucus has scheduled a hearing for 10:45, and he has to be there for that. 

Professor Kopel, was the 1994 assault weapons ban a sensible 

and effective means of reducing gun violence? And, second, is there 

any reason to re-enact a more extensive assault weapons ban? 

Professor KOPEL. Based on the Department of Justice study, the 

answer was no, that it was something that was tried with great 

sincerity, a lot of people thought it would be a good idea, but it did 

not seem to save any lives that the researchers could find. 

The revised law is just more of the same, but it suffers from the 

same fundamental problem. You can have a 1994 law that lists 

some guns by name and a 2013 law that lists more guns by name. 

But the very fact that you are banning guns by name, that is just 

an example of how the law does not address the guns’ firepower or 

their rate of fire. It simply—if there is something that makes these 

guns more dangerous, then legislation ought to be able to describe 

it in neutral terms. So all these names I think are a sign of exactly 

what is wrong with the bill. 

Now, the present bill, like its 1994 predecessor, also outlaws 

things based on various features. But, again, these are not things 

that have to do with the internal mechanics of the gun, how fast 

it fires, or how powerful the bullets are. They are things like 

whether a rifle has a forward grip. Well, a forward grip on a rifle 

helps the user stabilize it and make the gun more accurate so that, 

if you are deer hunting, the second shot is almost as accurate as 

the first, or if you are target shooting or, more importantly, most 

importantly, if you are engaged in lawful self-defense. And that is 

why you see guns like the AR–15 with their standard factoryissued 30-round magazines in police cars all over the country, because they make the gun more accurate for the core purpose of the 

Second Amendment, which is lawful self-defense. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Okay. Chief Johnson and Professor Kopel, listen while I read, and I will ask each of you a question. Recently, 
20 

Iowa law enforcement officials were quoted in an article that I ask 

consent to include in the record entitled ‘‘Law officers tell Congressman mental health issues more important than gun ban.’’ In 

it, a bipartisan group of elected sheriffs and police chiefs offered 

candid assessments of current legislative proposals. One chief of 

police stated, ‘‘I think banning assault weapons and high-capacity 

magazines is strictly a feel-good measure. It is not going to accomplish anything.’’ 

Instead, they asked for options for getting mentally ill individuals treatment. Chief Jim Clark, Ottumwa, Iowa, added, ‘‘We identify some that are mentally ill, they need treatment, but we cannot 

access the system.’’ 

So, Chief Johnson, what options do your officers have from your 

experience—because I quoted Iowa—currently have in dealing with 

individuals they believe to have untreated mental illness? 

Chief JOHNSON. It is a major problem in America today and in 

my jurisdiction. I am here today to talk about guns and ways to 

stop gun violence, and we know a comprehensive background check 

that picks up these mental health issue disqualifiers will make our 

Nation a safer place. We know that banning high-capacity magazines will make our police officers safer. We have lost dozens of police officers in America due to assault weapons, and we have seen 

tragedies all across this great Nation—Aurora, Newtown, and Webster, New York. An off-duty police officer—you are never off duty. 

He was a police officer shot down by an assault weapon. It is a serious problem, and it must be addressed. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Professor Kopel, you authored an article in 

the Wall Street Journal last month entitled ‘‘Guns, Mental Illness, 

Newtown.’’ And I would also like to have that included in the 

record. 

Is there evidence that mental illness and changes to civil commitment laws play a part in mass shootings? And what can we do 

to keep guns away from the mentally ill consistent with our Second 

Amendment? 

Professor KOPEL. Well, certainly they play quite a major role in 

homicides in general. According to the Department of Justice research, about one-sixth of the people in State prisons for homicide 

are mentally ill. If you look at these mass murders where suicidal 

people try to end their lives in the most infamous way possible, in 

Tucson, Virginia Tech, Newtown, Aurora, you have a very strong 

thread of mental illness running through that. And certainly improving the background—the data about mental health adjudications, not just a psychiatrist’s recommendation or something like 

that, but what due process and the Constitution require, which is 

an adjudication, a fair decision by a neutral decisionmaker, getting 

those into the background check system is something that Congress 

started working on after Virginia Tech, and there is more progress 

to be made. 

But it is not just a matter of checks. Even if you have the most 

ideal check system in the world, at the least—and imagine these 

criminals, violent, insane criminals, could never get a gun anywhere else—you know, Adam Lanza at Newtown did not have 

background checks. He stole the guns after murdering his mother. 
21 

So the long-term solution is not just about background checks. It 

is about why are these people on the streets in the first place. 

All of these killers I have just mentioned could have been civilly 

committed under the civil commitment laws we had several decades ago. Those laws were changed because they were sometimes 

abused. But I think we can move back to a more sensible position 

that strongly protects the due process rights of people against involuntary commitment, but also gets dangerous people off the 

streets. And that will cost money at the State level, but it is money 

that will be greatly saved in the long term through reduced incarceration costs for crimes. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Okay. Ms. Trotter, your testimony discussed 

the need for women to be able to use firearms to defend themselves 

and their families. The law currently permits the lawful possession 

of semiautomatic rifles such as AR–15s. Can you tell us why you 

believe a semiautomatic rifle such as an AR–15 has value as a 

weapon of self-defense? And does banning guns which feature designed to improve accuracy disproportionately burden women? 

Ms. TROTTER. I believe it does. Young women are speaking out 

as to why AR–15 weapons are their weapon of choice. The guns are 

accurate. They have good handling. They are light. They are easy 

for women to hold. And most importantly, their appearance. An assault weapon in the hands of a young woman defending her babies 

in her home becomes a defense weapon, and the peace of mind that 

a woman has as she is facing three, four, five violent attackers, intruders in her home, with her children screaming in the background, the peace of mind that she has knowing that she has a 

scary-looking gun gives her more courage when she is fighting 

hardened, violent criminals. And if we ban these types of assault 

weapons, you are putting women at a great disadvantage, more so 

than men, because they do not have the same type of physical 

strength and opportunity to defend themselves in a hand-to-hand 

struggle. And they are not criminals. They are moms. They are 

young women. And they are not used to violent confrontations. 

So I absolutely urge—I speak on behalf of millions of American 

women across the country who urge you to defend our Second 

Amendment right to choose to defend ourselves. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Feinstein. 

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

holding this hearing, and I want to thank everybody for being here, 

particularly our witnesses, even you, Mr. LaPierre. It is good to see 

you again. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I guess we tangled—— 

Mr. LAPIERRE. We have. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. We tangled, what was it, 18 years ago? You 

look pretty good, actually. 

Chairman LEAHY. I will give a little prerogative to the laughter, 

but please go ahead. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I would like to add something to the record, 

Mr. Chairman, page 44 of the Department of Justice report, As-
22 

sault Weapons as a Percentage of Gun Traces, which shows a 70- 

percent decline from 1992–93 to 2001–02. 

Chairman LEAHY. Without objection, so ordered. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

[The information referred to appears as a submission for the 

record.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Chief Johnson, I would like to talk with you. 

First of all, I am very grateful for the support of your organization, 

of the Major Chiefs, and the International Association of Chiefs of 

Police, as well as trauma surgeons who see what these guns do in 

tearing apart bodies. 

I have become very concerned, as I looked at the bill before in 

1993, at the technological improvement in these weapons over 

these years. And one of the things that we have tried to do in this 

new bill is prevent that from happening in the future. 

In looking at the AR–15 magazine on a device which is legal 

called a ‘‘slide fire,’’ I note that, with practice, a shooter may control his rate of fire from 400 to 800 rounds per minute or shoot 2, 

3, or 4 rounds at a time and just as easily fire single shots. 

So this is a weapon—and I think Ms. Trotter is right. It apparently is versatile. It apparently is rather easy to use. But it has 

tremendous velocity and tremendous killing power and I suspect 

tears young bodies apart. 

Additionally, it is my understanding that Mrs. Lanza actually 

gave this gun to her son. Is that correct? 

Chief JOHNSON. These guns used in Newtown were not stolen, 

Professor. They were in the home, accessible to the shooter. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

Chief JOHNSON. It is a major problem, safety and security of 

weapons. In my jurisdiction, two school shootings, safety and security of the weapons would have made a difference in that case. 

And, Senator, your bill, I salute and applaud you for including a 

safety and security measure. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, thank you very much, Chief. This is 

such a hard debate because people have such fixed positions. Police, I think, see killings as they are. Many people do not. So in a 

sense, the straight speak about this issue, the more you add highly 

technologically efficient weapons which are originally designed to 

kill people in close combat, and they fall in the hands of the wrong 

people. 

It is my understanding that Mrs. Lanza’s son, the shooter in this 

case, had no mental health record. Is that correct? 

Chief JOHNSON. It is my understanding that no record exists. It 

is my understanding that there was ample evidence, though, 

amongst those close to him that there was a serious problem. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Which is really something that I think we 

need to tackle today. Mental health laws are usually the preserve 

of the State and the local governments. They provide the facilities. 

Do you have any suggestions there with respect to anything that 

we might be able to do to improve mental health laws nationally 

which might catch people who are a danger to themselves or others 

in this area? 

Chief JOHNSON. This is a major problem for law enforcement. 

Citizens, police officers, doctors, parents can petition for an emer-
23 

gency evaluation when they see behavior that presents an individual as being a danger to themselves or others, and it is really 

important that we all do this. And it is a tough decision, but sometimes you have to make it against your own son. Very, very hard. 

It could affect their entire life. But it has to be done. 

The improvement that needs to be made is we have to have this 

information entered instantly into a data system in the event that 

the individual tries to go out within 24 hours to get a gun. 

The fellow in Wisconsin that went into the salon to shoot his 

wife, he wanted a gun fast. He wanted it fast. He was hot. He was 

emotional. He was out of control. And he wanted to get a gun fast, 

and the way you do that is you reach out outside the established 

background check system and acquire it. If that record would have 

been entered into the system, the domestic violence order, it would 

have been entered instantly, like we can do today in many areas, 

that gun could have—a gun could have been prevented from getting in the hands of a person who is going to carry it out when they 

are at a high emotional stage. This is really, really important. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. We have millions and millions of big clips. 

The Aurora shooter used a 100-round drum. Fortunately, it 

jammed; otherwise, he would have killed more people. I think most 

people believe that, sure, we could have guards at schools. I am 

well aware that at Columbine there was a deputy sheriff who was 

armed who actually took a shot but could not hit the shooter there. 

The question comes: What do you do about the malls then? What 

do you do about our movie theaters? What do you do about businesses? We cannot have a totally armed society. And that is my 

feeling in terms of the need to say that there are certain categories 

of guns. 

We actually exempt over 2,000 specific weapons by make and 

model name to create and then ban about 158 assault weapons and 

go to a one-characteristic test. 

You have looked at this bill. Do you believe it will be effective? 

Chief JOHNSON. Yes, ma’am, I do. I believe that holistically addressing all the issues in the President’s plan as well as a comprehensive universal background check procedure, banning highcapacity magazines, and banning the sale of assault weapons, 

frankly, collectively, all these together will create a system. The 

best way to stop a bad guy from getting a gun in the first place 

is a good background check. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

As Senator Grassley noted, Senator Hatch has to be at another 

thing. I will recognize him when he comes back. I am going to go 

back and forth going by seniority, and we will go to Senator Sessions. But I will also announce that all Members can put statements in the record by the close of business today as though read. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have spent the better part of my career, I guess, prosecuting 

cases, 12 years as a United States Attorney, and during that time 

I gave a high emphasis to prosecutions of gun violations. We were 

one of the top prosecuting districts in the country. 
24 

I note in the latest University of Syracuse report, they list my 

district, the Southern District of Alabama, as number one in the 

Nation still today in prosecution of gun violations. 

This is what the University of Syracuse study said, however, in 

its lead comment: ‘‘Weapons prosecutions declined to the lowest 

level in a decade.’’ 

‘‘The latest available data from the Justice Department show 

that during January 2011 the government reported 484 new weapons prosecutions. This is the lowest level to which Federal weapons 

prosecutions have fallen since January 2001, when they were 445 

at the time President Bush assumed office.’’ 

They go on to note some of the declines in various categories, and 

so, first and foremost, I would say to you as someone who has personally tried a lot of these cases before a jury, written appellate 

briefs on these cases, that the bread-and-butter criminal cases are 

felons in possession of a firearm and carrying a firearm during a 

crime, both of which are serious offenses. Carrying a firearm during a crime, drug crime or crime of violence or other serious crimes, 

is a mandatory 5-year sentence without parole. Those prosecutions 

have declined, unfortunately, substantially under President 

Obama’s Presidency. 

Chief, does it concern you that comparing total prosecutions per 

month for guns in Federal court with those per month in 2011 with 

those for the same period in 2010, the number of filings went down 

7.9 percent and were down 28.8 percent from 2006 in Federal 

court? Does that concern you? 

Chief JOHNSON. Senator, I can tell you that in the Baltimore 

County Police Department—— 

Senator SESSIONS. I just asked you if those are the numbers, 

does that concern you? 

Chief JOHNSON. No, because you do not—— 

Senator SESSIONS. It does not concern you? 

Chief JOHNSON. Sir, you are not including local prosecutions. I 

cannot stand before you today and tell you of a single case in Baltimore County of an illegally possessed gun that was not prosecuted 

at the State level—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, are we trying to pass a Federal law 

today or a State law? 

Chief JOHNSON. Certainly background checks—— 

Senator SESSIONS. That is what you are calling for, is a Federal 

law. We would like to see the Federal laws on the books enforced, 

I suggest. 

And with regard to the crimes of carrying a firearm during the 

furtherance of a violent or drug-trafficking offense, those prosecutions declined 27.5 percent between 2007 and 2011. So I would just 

say, first of all, we need to make sure we are doing our job there. 

I would also note that although crime is a very, very important 

matter, we should never lose our emphasis on bringing down crime. 

The murder rate in America today is half what it was in 1993. We 

have made progress on that, and we can continue to drive those 

numbers down. It is not as if we have an unusual surge in violent 

crime in America. 

Now, with regard to the background checks and straw purchases, 

let us be frank. Straw purchases are a problem and should be pros-
25 

ecuted. I have prosecuted those cases before on a number of occasions. I prosecuted gun dealers who failed to keep records as required by the law. But the number of defendants charged under 18 

U.S.C. 922(a)(6), making material misrepresentations under the 

Federal firearms law regarding the lawfulness of a transfer, has 

declined from 459 in 2004 to 218 in 2010. That is about half, a 52- 

percent decline under this administration’s leadership. 

I would just say to you, mathematically speaking, violence in 

America is impacted mostly when you are enforcing these breadand-butter violations that are effective, they are proven, and they 

work. They have the support of Mr. LaPierre, I think. I know that 

group supports them. I think everybody supports these strong laws, 

and that is where the rubber meets the road. That is where you 

really begin to impact crime. If you can intimidate—and I believe 

the word is getting out. It did in our district, that if you carry a 

gun in a crime, a drug-dealing offense, you could be prosecuted in 

Federal court, given 5 years in jail without parole. And I believe 

we saw a decline in the violence rate and the number of drug dealers and criminals carrying guns. But you have to prosecute those 

cases. 

Mr. LaPierre, it does appear that the straw purchase prohibition 

that is out there, that prohibition seems to me to be legitimate, and 

I support and you said you support the prosecutions of it. If we expand the number of people covered, but we do not have any prosecutions—I believe you used the number 44 was all—there are 90 

United States Attorneys in America, only 44, only one out of every 

two apparently is prosecuting a single case in a single year. That 

is the weakness in the system. 

Mr. LAPIERRE. Senator, there needs to be a change in the culture 

of prosecution at the entire Federal level. It is a national disgrace. 

The fact is we could dramatically cut crime in this country with 

guns and save lives all over this country if we would start enforcing the thousands of Federal laws we have on the books. I am talking about drug dealers with guns, gangs with guns, and felons with 

guns. They are simply not being enforced. The numbers are shocking. 

In Chicago, one of the worst areas in the country in gun violence 

by criminals, it is 89 of 90 in terms of Federal prosecutions. 

In the entire United States, 62 people prosecuted for lying on the 

Federal background check. I mean, when Dave Schiller and Project 

Exile cleaned up Richmond years ago, they did 350 cases in Richmond. I mean, if you want to stop crime, interdict violent criminals, incarcerate them, get them off the street before they get to 

the next crime scene. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I agree. 

Mr. LAPIERRE. Or worse. 

Senator SESSIONS. My time is up. Richmond was a great model, 

and I would just say I would call on President Obama to call in 

Attorney General Eric Holder and ask him why the prosecutions 

have dropped dramatically across all categories of Federal gun 

laws. And he should call in his United States Attorneys and tell 

them, ‘‘You need to look at your numbers and get them up and emphasize these prosecutions.’’ 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
26 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Schumer. 

Senator SCHUMER. Well, thank you. 

First, let me apologize to the witnesses. We have a Finance Committee meeting on reconciliation, which probably affects our police 

chief anyway, and so I had to be there. 

And I want to thank you, Chairman Leahy, for organizing this 

important hearing. 

I thank all the witnesses for being here, particularly Congresswoman Giffords and Captain Kelly for your testimony. We have 

been moved by your strength, your courage that your family has 

demonstrated in the face of unspeakable tragedy. By being here instead of cursing the darkness, you are lighting a candle. Thank 

you. 

Now, I do believe today we have a chance to do something reasonable in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook tragedy. But when we 

discuss ways to stop violence, guns must be included in that discussion. 

I heard Ranking Member Grassley say that we must go beyond 

guns. That is true. But we must include guns as well. Not including guns when discussing mass killings is like not including cigarettes when discussing lung cancer. 

But at the same time, I agree. We cannot simply replay the usual 

zero sum political game on guns, or the moment will pass us by. 

The Supreme Court ruling in Heller, which struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns, laid out a good framework. 

It said an individual right to bear arms does exist, but it comes 

with limitations, like every amendment. In other words, it is now 

settled law that the Government is never going to take away Americans’ guns. 

Progressives need not to accept this decision, but to endorse it. 

We have got to follow it, not just de jure but de facto. And it makes 

sense. You cannot argue for an expansive reading of amendments 

like the First, Fourth, and Fifth, but see the Second Amendment 

through the pinhole of saying it only affects militias. 

At the same time, those on the pro-gun side must recognize no 

amendment is absolute. The First Amendment protects freedom of 

speech. It is hallowed. But you still cannot falsely shout ‘‘Fire’’ in 

a crowded theater or traffic in child pornography. Those are reasonable limits on the First Amendment. 

The Second Amendment has sensible limits, too. My colleagues 

have offered a range of impressive and thoughtful proposals on the 

topic of gun violence. 

For example, Chairman Leahy has introduced a bill on trafficking. Senator Feinstein has introduced one on assault weapons, 

Senator Blumenthal on ammunition. 

But for the last several years, my particular focus in the area of 

gun safety has been on responsible gun ownership and background 

checks. Universal background checks is a proven, effective step we 

can take to reduce gun violence. And I believe it has a good chance 

of passing. Federally licensed firearm dealers have been required 

to conduct background checks on prospective gun purchasers since 

we passed the Brady bill. And we have seen that they work. Since 

1999, the Federal background check system has blocked 1.7 million 
27 

prohibited purchasers from buying firearms at federally licensed 

dealers. 

Yes, we should prosecute them. But the number one goal is to 

prevent a felon from getting a gun in the first place. That is what 

this did 1.7 million times. The current system works well. But 

there are some glaring holes. 

First of all, not all gun sales are covered by a background check. 

The problem, sometimes referred to as ‘‘the gun show loophole,’’ 

means that a private seller could set up a tent at a gun show or 

somewhere else and not have to conduct background checks on his 

purchasers. 

Current estimates show that because of these loopholes 48 percent of gun sales are made without a background check. If you are 

a felon, if you are a gun trafficker, if you are a mentally ill person, 

you know that you can go to a gun show and not have any check. 

So, of course, that is what they do. 

This is not fair, also, to dealers who follow the rules and conduct 

checks. The registered dealers at their gun stores have to obey the 

rules. Why should someone going to a gun show have a different 

rule? There is no logic to it. None. I was there. I was the author 

of the Brady bill, and that was something that we were forced to 

put in the bill, those of us who were not for it, as a way to get the 

bill passed. But the last 15 years has proven it does not make 

sense. 

The second problem with the current system is that not all 

records are fed into the system. This is especially true with mental 

health records. Nineteen States have submitted fewer than 100 

mental health records to NICS. 

I think we can get bipartisan agreement on a bill that solves 

these problems by doing two things. One, it will prevent felons and 

the mentally ill from getting guns by requiring a background check 

before all purchases. And, two, it will get relevant records into the 

system. 

Now, at the moment, right now, as we meet here today, I am 

having productive conversations with colleagues on both sides of 

the aisle, including a good number with high NRA ratings. And I 

am hopeful that we are close to having legislation we can introduce. 

And I would urge the NRA, Mr. LaPierre, and other gun advocacy groups to work with us on this proposal. The NRA supported 

our 2007 legislation that improved the NICS background check system. And I hope they will reconsider and try to do that again. 

It is a simple, straightforward solution. It is one the American 

people support. A recent survey by the New England Journal of 

Medicine found 90 percent of the public and 74 percent of NRA 

members support requiring background checks for all gun sales. 

I understand, because we have not introduced it, I cannot ask 

the witnesses about it, but I want to tell you what it will not do. 

It will not create any gun registry. That is already illegal, and 

it will be repeated as illegal in our law. That is particularly for Mr. 

Kopel. And it will not limit your ability to borrow your Uncle 

Willy’s hunting rifle or share a gun with your friend at a shooting 

range. 
28 

It will include reasonable exceptions to make sure we are only 

requiring background checks for bona fide sales and transfers. So 

specious claims about background checks are a tactic made by 

those who cannot argue with the facts. 

Now, I would like to ask Chief Johnson a question or two about 

those checks. Do you agree with the logic that even—you know, 

that we should prosecute people who illegally try to buy guns, but 

even without that, the law has done a whole lot of good because 

people who are felons or adjudicated mentally ill, millions have 

been stopped from buying guns and getting guns? 

Chief JOHNSON. Since 1994 to 2009, the record is very clear. It 

is a fact that nearly 2 million prohibited purchases were stopped. 

God only knows what they would have done with those weapons 

had it not been for that particular law. 

Senator SCHUMER. And from a law enforcement point of view, 

would not we rather—we want to do both, but would not we rather 

stop them from having a gun than after they shoot somebody or 

buy a gun illegally, then arrest them and put them in jail for that 

crime? 

Chief JOHNSON. Yes, sir. You have to address the pathology, how 

you get the gun in the first place. And that is what we are trying 

to achieve here by a universal background check. And I am very 

proud to stand before you this morning to let you know that the 

entire National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, every member of our organization supports background 

checks. 

Senator SCHUMER. Right. And does it make any sense to exclude 

the same people who sell them in a gun shop or others to go to a 

gun show and not have any background check at all? 

Chief JOHNSON. It is absolutely insane. Again, it is like letting 

40 percent of people just pass a TSA checkpoint at an airport. It 

is not an inconvenience. The record shows that nearly 92 percent 

of the individuals that go in to try to do a background check at a 

gun shop, in a minute and a half they are done. I cannot write a 

ticket, a citation in a minute and a half. Even with e-tick technology, I cannot do it that fast. 

It is not inconvenient. And it is fair to the gun owner and the 

shop owner, too. Why impose on a shop owner, a gun dealer, a federally licensed dealer, more restrictions than you do on anyone 

else? And if you think for a minute you can sell your gun to your 

neighbor that you have known for 10 years, you do not know your 

neighbor. You do not know your neighbor. And the only way to 

make sure that you are safe in what you are doing is a comprehensive background check. 

Senator SCHUMER. One final quick question. Many police officers 

are avid sportsmen. They enjoy shooting, not in their official professional duties. The surveys show the overwhelming majority of gun 

owners are for background checks. Does your personal experience 

corroborate that? 

Chief JOHNSON. It is my understanding that 74 percent of NRA 

members support a background check. I am a hunter. I love to 

hunt. I own several guns. I love going to the range with my son 

who is a police officer today. It is enjoyable. I have met many great 

people. 
29 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

I understand we are not going to go in quite the order we said 

before, but Senator Graham has graciously said Senator Cornyn 

could go. So please, Senator Cornyn. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to 

all of the witnesses for being here today and sharing your observations and testimony. I am particularly gratified to see Congresswoman Giffords here doing so well and speaking so forcefully. 

I hope this hearing serves as a starting point for us to consider 

a range of ideas on this topic. Anything that falls short of serious 

examination and discussion is just window dressing, just symbolism over substance. I have a hard time telling my constituents 

in Texas that Congress is looking at passing a whole raft of new 

laws when the laws that we currently have on the books are so 

woefully unenforced. 

I think we can and we should come together to address the shortcomings in mental health care, both in the general response to 

mental illness and also in the background checks mechanisms we 

use to screen out prohibited gun buyers. 

We need to ask whether years of deinstitutionalization of the 

mental health population have left America more vulnerable. Perhaps it is time to consider our background check laws to see if they 

need to be updated to screen out the growing number of people who 

are subjected to court-ordered outpatient mental health treatment. 

It is unclear whether the tens of thousands of committed outpatients in this country are falling through the cracks, and surely, 

we can agree that more needs to be done to enforce existing gun 

laws, as I said a moment ago. 

Gun crime prosecutions are down across the board, including enforcement of laws against lying on background checks. And, Mr. 

Chairman, I hope we will have a follow-on hearing where we will 

ask administration witnesses to come before the panel and to testify why the Department of Justice and other law enforcement 

agencies of the Federal Government are not enforcing laws that 

Congress has already passed. 

It is worth noting that 5 years ago, Congress was asking the 

same questions we are asking right now. In 2008, there was an attempt made to strengthen the background check laws following the 

murders at Virginia Tech. Looking back, we have to ask ourselves: 

Did those laws work? Well, the Government Accountability Office 

just last July gave it mixed reviews. 

The GAO reports that only a handful of States have taken seriously the responsibility to share mental health records. And I am 

pleased that Texas is highlighted by the GAO as outperforming 

other States in this area. But we have a long way to go. 

So I think there are areas where Congress can come together 

right now to examine the nexus between gun crime, violence, and 

mental health care. And I am willing to listen to serious ideas, not 

just window dressing, to try to come up with solutions. 

Captain Kelly, I noticed in your testimony you alluded to part of 

what I talked about, which is the fact that at the time in Arizona 

there were 121,000 records of disqualifying mental illness for people in Arizona that had not been subjected to background checks 
30 

because the State had not sent that information to the Federal 

Government. 

Could you expand on the significance of that? 

Captain KELLY. Yes, sir. So in the case of Jared Loughner, the 

person who shot my wife and murdered six of her constituents, he 

was clearly mentally ill. He was expelled from Pima Community 

College because of that. There was nowhere for—or his parents and 

the school did not send him anywhere to be adjudicated or evaluated with regards to his mental illness. 

Now, Mr. LaPierre earlier tried to make the point that criminals 

do not submit to the background checks. Well, Jared Loughner, the 

guy, the Tucson shooter, was an admitted drug user. He was rejected from the U.S. Army because of his drug use. He was clearly 

mentally ill. And when he purchased that gun in November, his 

plan was to assassinate my wife and commit mass murder at that 

Safeway in Tucson. He was a criminal—because of his drug use 

and because of what he was planning on doing. 

But because of these gaps in the mental health system—now, in 

this case, those 121,000 records, I admit, did not include a record 

on him. But it could have. And if it did, he would have failed that 

background check. 

Now, obviously, in this case, he would have likely gone to a gun 

show or a private seller and avoided a background check. But if we 

close the gun show loophole, if we require private sellers to complete a background check, and we get those 121,000 records and 

others into the systems, we will prevent gun crimes. That is an absolute truth. It would have happened in Tucson. My wife would not 

be sitting in this seat, she would not have been sitting here today, 

if we had stronger background checks. 

Senator CORNYN. Mr. LaPierre, you talked about the laws that 

are already on the books and the fact that the Federal Government 

has a poor record of enforcing current laws. And I fail to see how 

passing additional laws that the Department of Justice will not enforce is going to make America any safer. 

But let me just ask you to react briefly to these statistics. From 

2007 to 2011, the Department of Justice has charged 13 percent 

fewer total firearms cases. In each of the years during that span, 

the current administration has brought fewer firearms prosecutions 

than the year before. 

In January 2011, only 484 new firearm prosecutions were initiated by the Department of Justice, the fewest number of prosecutions in 10 years. As far as background check prosecutions from 

2006 to 2010, the number of investigations for unlawful possession 

decreased 26 percent. During the same period, 77 percent fewer 

NICS denials were referred by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and 

Firearms for prosecution. Federal prosecutors declined 82 percent 

more cases over the same period. In 2010, out of the 76,125 denied 

background checks the FBI referred to the ATF, a verdict or plea 

was reached in just 13 cases. 

Would you give us your reaction to that record? 

Mr. LAPIERRE. I think it is tragic, Senator. I mean, the fact is, 

in the shadow of this Capitol, right under everyone’s noses, in this 

building, right now there are drug dealers out in the street with 

guns violating Federal law, illegal. There is all kinds of drugs and 
31 

cocaine being sold. By God, gangs are trafficking 13-year-old girls. 

And it goes on day after day after day. 

What we have got to do is interdict these people, get them off the 

street before they get to the next crime scene. I mean—and get in 

the real world in terms of checks. I mean, the fact is the NRA has 

been trying for 20-some years—Senator Schumer and I went back 

and forth on ‘‘Face the Nation’’ where I asked him if he would help 

get those adjudicated mentally incompetent into the system 20 

years ago. He said yes, and they are still not in the system. And 

my point is, even if you turn up someone on an instant check that 

is a mentally ill person or a felon, as long as you let them go, you 

are not keeping them from getting a gun, and you are not preventing them from getting to the next crime scene. 

I mean, we have got to get in the real world of this discussion. 

The problem with gun laws is criminals do not cooperate with 

them. The mentally ill do not cooperate with them. So you have got 

to interdict, incarcerate, interdict, get in treatment, and do things 

that matter. And then you have got to put police officers in schools, 

armed security in schools. But let us do the things that work. Let 

us get serious about this. 

I mean, this discussion, I mean, I sit here and listen to it, and 

my reaction is how little it has to do with making the country and 

our kids safe and how much it has to do with this decade-long or 

two-decade-long gun ban agenda that we do not enforce the laws 

even when they are on the books. The Attorney General of the 

United States, Attorney General Eric Holder, during the Richmond 

program called it a ‘‘cookie-cutter approach’’ to solving crime that, 

you know, he really did not have a lot of enthusiasm about. 

I remember Senator Sessions held a hearing, and the Department of Justice testified, well, a drug dealer with a gun is a guppy, 

and we cannot really concentrate on guppies. Those guppies are 

what are ruining neighborhoods, destroying lives, and killing people. And we have got to confront their behavior, take them off the 

street because they do not obey all the laws that we have right 

now. We have got to get in the real world on what works and what 

does not work. 

My problem with universal background checks is you are never 

going to get criminals to go through universal background checks. 

For all the law-abiding people, you will create an enormous Federal 

bureaucracy, unfunded, all the law-abiding people in the country 

will have to go through it, pay the fees, pay the taxes. We do not 

even prosecute anybody right now who goes through the system we 

have. So we are going to make all those law-abiding people go 

through the system, and then we are not going to prosecute any of 

the bad guys when we catch one. And none of it makes any sense 

in the real world. We have 80,000 police families in the NRA. We 

care about safety. We will support what works. 

Chairman LEAHY. I am trying to be fair to everybody here, and 

certainly you are going to have a lot more chances to speak. 

Senator Durbin. 

Senator DURBIN. Mr. LaPierre, that is the point. The criminals 

will not go to purchase the guns because there will be a background check. We will stop them from the original purchase. You 

miss that point completely. 
32 

Mr. LAPIERRE. Senator—— 

Senator DURBIN. I think it is—it is basic. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LAPIERRE. Senator, I think you miss—— 

Chairman LEAHY. Let there be order. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. LAPIERRE. I think you are missing—— 

Chairman LEAHY. There will be order. 

Mr. LAPIERRE. If you do not prosecute them, you are not stopping 

them. 

Chairman LEAHY. Please wait, everybody, for a moment. As I 

said earlier, there will be order in the Committee room. 

Senator Durbin, and then—— 

Senator DURBIN. I am going to give you a chance, but let me just 

say at the outset, Captain Kelly, thank you. Thank you for bringing 

that wonderful, brave wife of yours today to remind us what victims suffer from gun violence. What a heroic figure she is, and 

what a great pillar of strength you are to stand by her during this 

entire ordeal and her rehabilitation. We are so proud of her and of 

you. 

Captain KELLY. Thank you. 

Senator DURBIN. And I say with some regret, there should have 

been a hearing just like this right after your wife, one of our own, 

a Member of Congress, was shot point-blank in the face at a town 

meeting in Tucson, Arizona. 

I am sorry it has taken 2 years for us to convene this hearing, 

but it took Newtown, Connecticut, to finally bring us to our senses 

and to open this national conversation. But I hope that you will extend to her our best wishes, our love, and our support for what she 

is doing today and what she has meant to all of us for this long 

period of time. 

I also want to say a word about an incident. There was a young 

lady from Chicago, Illinois, 15 years old. She attended King College 

Prep School in Chicago. She was an honor student and a majorette, 

and she marched in the inauguration last week here. It was the 

highlight of her young 15-year-old life. 

Yesterday, in a rainstorm after school she raced to a shelter. A 

gunman came in and shot her dead. Just a matter of days after the 

happiest day of her life, she is gone. 

A lot has been said about the city of Chicago, and I want to say 

a few words, too. Our biggest problem in Chicago, according to Superintendent McCarthy, who came to Chicago from New York, is 

that we are awash in guns. 

The confiscation of guns per capita in Chicago is six times the 

number of New York City. We have guns everywhere. And some 

believe the solution to this is more guns. I disagree. 

When you take a look at where these guns come from, 25 percent 

plus are sold in the surrounding towns around the city of Chicago, 

not in the city. 

And you look over the last 10 or 12 years, of the 50,000 guns confiscated in crimes, almost one out of ten crime guns in Chicago 

came to that city from Mississippi. Mississippi. Why? Because the 

background checks there, the gun dealers there are a lot easier 

than they are in other places. And they end up selling these guns 
33 

in volume, and they come up the interstate and kill wantonly on 

the way. 

Here are the basics. I think we all agree—I hope we all agree— 

that the Supreme Court decision in Heller said we can have reasonable limitations on a Second Amendment right in terms of the type 

of weapon and the people who own them and the background 

checks on those people. It is something we desperately need to do. 

But we know now that 40 percent of the sales are not going 

through the background checks. That is a huge problem. It has created this abundance of weapons that are available. 

And the straw purchasers, I salute the chairman for addressing 

this issue on straw purchasers. It is one of the worst situations in 

our State and in the city of Chicago. 

I can point to one gun store—one gun store—in Riverdale, Illinois, that accounts for more than 20 percent of the crime guns in 

Chicago. Straw purchasers buy the guns there, and they end up in 

the hands of criminals in the city of Chicago. We got to put an end 

to this. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your bill. 

And let me ask—I am going to ask a question here of some of 

the panelists. 

Mr. LaPierre, I run into some of your members in Illinois, and 

here is what they tell me: ‘‘Senator, you do not get the Second 

Amendment.’’ Your NRA members say, ‘‘You just do not get it. It 

is not just about hunting. It is not just about sports. It is not just 

about shooting targets. It is not just about defending ourselves 

from criminals,’’ as Ms. Trotter testified. ‘‘We need the firepower 

and the ability to protect ourselves from our Government’’—‘‘from 

our government, from the police if they knock on our doors, and we 

need to fight back.’’ 

Do you agree with that point of view? 

Mr. LAPIERRE. Senator, I think without any doubt, if you look at 

why our Founding Fathers put it there, they had lived under the 

tyranny of King George, and they wanted to make sure that these 

free people in this new country would never be subjugated again 

and have to live under tyranny. 

I also think, though, that what people all over the country fear 

today is being abandoned by their Government, if a tornado hits, 

if a hurricane hits, if a riot occurs that they are going to be out 

there alone. And the only way they are going to protect themselves 

in the cold and the dark, when they are vulnerable, is with a firearm. And I think that indicates how relevant and essential the Second Amendment is in today’s society to fundamental human survival. 

Senator DURBIN. Well, Chief Johnson, you have heard it. The belief of NRA is the Second Amendment has to give American citizens the firepower to fight back against you, against our Government. 

Mr. LAPIERRE. That is not—— 

Senator DURBIN. So how do you conduct your business in enforcing the law and not knowing what is behind that door? 

Chief JOHNSON. I find it to be scary, creepy, and it is simply just 

not based on logic. Certainly, law enforcement across this Nation 

is well prepared to deal with any natural or man-made disaster 
34 

that will occur. And, frankly, I just—I cannot relate to that kind 

of thinking. 

Senator DURBIN. I cannot either. And I cannot relate to the need 

of that man in Aurora, Colorado, to have a 100-round drum, 100 

cartridges. 

Professor Kopel, do you think that is necessary for hunting, 

sports, target practice, even self-defense? 

Professor KOPEL. It would be not legal for hunting in most States 

where there are limits on how many rounds you can have in a 

magazine. But as I think you have recognized, the Second Amendment is not primarily about hunting. 

What I have been talking about is what the Supreme Court said 

in District of Columbia v. Heller, which is what is the core of the 

Second Amendment, which is the firearms and their accessories 

which are commonly owned by law-abiding people for legitimate 

purposes. 

Senator DURBIN. But let me tell—— 

Professor KOPEL. And those are not—and I am not talking about 

100-round magazines. I am talking about what police officers carry, 

what citizens carry, semiautomatic handguns, typically with magazines of 11 to 19 rounds—— 

Senator DURBIN. But those are police officers. 

Professor KOPEL [continuing]. And rifles. 

Senator DURBIN. Those are members of our military. 

Professor KOPEL. No, they are not military men. They are not 

coming to attack people. They are coming to protect people, and 

they want to protect—and citizens protect themselves the same 

way that police officers do. 

Senator DURBIN. What I am trying to get to is this: If you can 

rationalize a 100-round drum that someone can strap onto a semiautomatic weapon, as it did in Aurora, Colorado, and turn it loose, 

killing dozens of people there, and saving lives only because it 

jammed, then you certainly ought to object to the laws that have 

been on the books for 80 years about machine guns. Why are they 

not allowed under the Second Amendment? 

Professor KOPEL. According to Heller, because they are not commonly used by law-abiding citizens for legitimate purposes. 

Senator DURBIN. And 100-round magazines are? 

Professor KOPEL. You are the one who wants to talk about 100- 

round magazines, and thank goodness—— 

Senator DURBIN. I sure do. 

Professor KOPEL. Thank goodness he had a piece of junk like that 

that jammed, instead of something better made where he could 

have killed more people with it. 

Senator DURBIN. Well, that is what it is all about, then? 

Professor KOPEL. It is about saving—— 

Senator DURBIN. We are playing God here? 

Professor KOPEL. It is about saving lives. It is about saving lives 

with ordinary magazines. Hundred-round magazines are novelties 

that are not used by police officers or hunters or most other people. 

Senator DURBIN. Well, Captain Kelly—— 

Professor KOPEL. But what you are talking about banning, Senator, is normal magazines. 
35 

Senator DURBIN. Tell us about the lives that were saved in Tucson and what it had to do with magazines. 

Captain KELLY. The shooter in Tucson showed up with two 33- 

round magazines, one of which was in his 9-millimeter. He unloaded the contents of that magazine in 15 seconds. Very quickly. 

It all happened very, very fast. The first bullet went into Gabby’s 

head. Bullet number 13 went into a 9-year-old girl named Christina-Taylor Green, who was very interested in democracy and our 

Government and really deserved a full life committed to advancing 

those ideas. 

If he had a 10-round magazine—well, let me back up. When he 

tried to reload one 33-round magazine with another 33-round magazine, he dropped it. And a woman named Patricia Maisch grabbed 

it, and it gave bystanders time to tackle him. I contend if that 

same thing happened when he was trying to reload one 10-round 

magazine with another 10-round magazine, meaning he did not 

have access to a high-capacity magazine, and the same thing happened, Christina-Taylor Green would be alive today. 

I certainly am willing to give up my right to own a high-capacity 

magazine to bring that young woman back, that young girl. 

Now, let me continue with what happened that day. In that 15 

seconds—or, actually, with the first shot, a man ran out of 

Walgreen’s, a good guy with a gun, with the intent to do the right 

thing, an armed citizen. He came within—he admits that he came 

within about a half a second of shooting the man who tackled 

Jared Loughner and nearly killing him. 

I mean, we almost had this horrific mass murder followed up 

with a horrific accident. The horrific mass murder because of the 

high-capacity magazine and the horrific accident because of the 

armed person there who, with good intention, wanted to end something that was—that was going really bad. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Graham. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think I am speaking for a lot of people when they say we are 

heartbroken when a family member is taken through an act of gun 

violence, whether it be a child or anyone else, but particularly children. That is just a heartbreaking episode in society. And I think 

most people would appreciate the fact that there are thousands, if 

not millions, of Americans who saved their families from home invasions or violent assault because they had a gun to protect themselves. And most of us are glad it ended well for you. So those are 

the two bookends. 

And you mentioned, Captain Kelly—and I very much appreciate 

your being here and your service to the country—about you and 

your wife are reasonable Americans. I do not doubt that one bit. 

I am sure you are. The question is: Am I a reasonable American 

if I oppose this bill? Am I a reasonable American believing that the 

Constitution says guns commonly used by the population sold for 

legitimate purposes? Being a supporter of the Second Amendment, 

I do not want to own a gun to attack my Government. That is not 

what I think a legitimate purpose is. 
36 

Let us talk about a real-world incident that happened in 

Loganville, Georgia, on January 4, 2013. My basic premise is that 

one bullet in the hand of a mentally unstable person or a convicted 

felon is one too many. Six bullets in the hands of a mother protecting her twin 9-year-olds may not be enough. So I have got a 

chart here. At the very top is a .38 revolver, and on the right is 

a 9-millimeter pistol that holds 15 rounds. 

Does everybody on the panel agree that a convicted felon should 

not have either one of those guns? Does everybody agree that a 

mentally unstable person should not have either one of those pistols? Okay. Common ground there. 

Put yourself in the shoes of the mother. The guy broke into the 

home. She ran upstairs. She hid in a closet. She got on the phone 

to the police. And she was talking to her husband in real time. The 

intruder broke into the home, had a crowbar, and he found them 

in the closet. And they were confronted face to face. According to 

media reports, her husband said, ‘‘Shoot, shoot.’’ She emptied the 

gun, a six-shot revolver. The guy was hit five of the six times. He 

was able still to get up and drive away. 

My question is: Put your family member in that situation. Would 

I be a reasonable American to want my family to have the 15- 

round magazine in a semiautomatic weapon to make sure that if 

there are two intruders, she does not run out of bullets? Am I an 

unreasonable person for saying that in that situation the 15-round 

magazine makes sense? 

Well, I will say I do not believe I am. So I can give you an example of where a 15-round magazine could make the difference between protecting a family if there is more than one attacker. 

Now, back to your point, Captain Kelly. In the situation you described, I do not want that person to have one bullet or one gun. 

And the point of regulating magazines is to interrupt the shooter. 

That is the point of all this. 

And I guess what I am saying is that we live in a world where 

there are 4 million high-capacity magazines out there or more. I 

think the best way to interrupt the shooter if they come to a schoolhouse is not to try to deny the woman in Atlanta the ability to 

have more than 10 rounds, but to have somebody like you, Chief 

Johnson, meet them when they come into the door. I think that is 

the best way to do it. 

Now, my good friend Joe Biden, who we have very spirited conversations about a lot of things, was online recently talking to 

someone in California who mentioned the fact, what if there is an 

earthquake out here and there is a lawless situation? In 1992, you 

had the riots in Los Angeles. I think it was the King event. But 

you could find yourself in this country in a lawless environment 

through a natural disaster or a riot, and the story was about a 

place called Koreatown. There were marauding gangs going 

throughout the area burning stores, looting and robbing and raping. And the Vice President said, in response to, ‘‘That is why I 

want my AR–15,’’ he said, ‘‘No, you would be better off with a 12- 

gauge shotgun.’’ 

Well, that is his opinion and I respect it. I have an AR–15 at 

home, and I have not hurt anybody, and I do not intend to do it. 

But I think I would be better off protecting my business or my fam-
37 

ily if there was law-and-order breakdown in my community, people 

roaming around my neighborhood, to have the AR–15, and I do not 

think that makes me an unreasonable person. 

Now, Ms. Trotter, when you mentioned that you are speaking on 

behalf of millions of women out there who believe that an AR–15 

makes them safer, there were a lot of giggles in the room, and I 

think that explains the dilemma we have. The people who were 

giggling were saying to you, ‘‘That is crazy. Nobody I know thinks 

that way.’’ Which reminds me of the Harvard professor who said, 

‘‘I cannot believe McGovern lost. Everybody I know voted for him.’’ 

And I bet there are people on our side that cannot believe Obama 

won because everybody they know voted against him. 

The point is that we have different perspectives on this. And the 

reason I am going to oppose the legislation, Chief Johnson, is because I respect what you do as a law enforcement officer. Has your 

budget been cut? 

Chief JOHNSON. Yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. Do you think it will be cut in the future? 

Chief JOHNSON. I am optimistic that it will not. 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, I hope you are right, but I can tell people 

throughout this land, because of the fiscal state of affairs we have, 

there will be less police officers, not more, over the next decade. Response times are going to be less, not more. 

So, Captain Kelly, I really do want to get guns out of the hands 

of the wrong people. I honest to God believe that if we just arbitrarily say nobody in this country can own a 10-round magazine in 

the future, the people who own them are the people we are trying 

to combat to begin with, and there can be a situation where a 

mother runs out of bullets because of something we do here. 

I cannot prevent every bad outcome, but I do know and I do believe in the bottom of my heart I am not an unreasonable person 

for saying that in some circumstances the 15-round magazine 

makes perfect sense and in some circumstances the AR–15 makes 

perfect sense. And I think our efforts to solve a problem that exists 

in the real world out there from Washington by having more gun 

laws that really do not hit the mark, so to speak, politically or situationally, that we are off base, but this is why we have these hearings. And I really do appreciate the fact that we have these hearings. 

Professor ‘‘Kopel’’—‘‘Koppel’’ ? 

Professor KOPEL. Either one. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. Some people on our side say—and I will 

wrap this up, Mr. Chairman—that it is unconstitutional to put a 

limit on magazine size. Do you agree with that? 

Professor KOPEL. I think if we follow Senator Schumer’s approach and say we are going to follow what the District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court decision says, what that tells you is 

the core of the Second Amendment is the firearms and accessories 

that are commonly owned by law-abiding people for legitimate purposes. 

Senator GRAHAM. Is it constitutional to say 10 rounds versus 15? 

Professor KOPEL. Ten is plainly unconstitutional because, as I 

was trying to explain to Senator Durbin, magazines of up to 19 are 

common on semiautomatic handguns and up to 30 on rifles. 
38 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. I will end with this, Mr. Chairman. I do 

not know if 10 versus 19 is common or uncommon. I do know that 

10 versus 19 in the hands of the wrong person is a complete disaster. I do know that six bullets in the hands of a woman trying 

to defend her children may not be enough. So I do not look at it 

from some academic debate. 

Let us agree on one thing. One bullet in the hands of the wrong 

person we should all try to prevent. But when you start telling me 

that I am unreasonable for wanting that woman to have more than 

six bullets or to have an AR–15 if people are roaming around my 

neighborhood, I reject the concept. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Whitehouse. And then after Senator Whitehouse, Senator Lee. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I have heard testimony in this hearing that the 

Federal gun crime prosecutions number 62 per year, and that, ‘‘We 

do not prosecute any.’’ And I was surprised to hear that testimony 

because I was a United States Attorney. And in the time that I was 

United States Attorney, it became an absolute priority of the Department of Justice to prosecute firearms. 

So I went to every police department in my State to talk up what 

we could do with gun criminals. We set up a special procedure 

where the Attorney General’s office, which has criminal jurisdiction 

in Rhode Island, and our office viewed gun crimes together to make 

sure they were sent to the place where they could get the most effective treatment. And I believe that that continues, although I am 

no longer a U.S. Attorney. 

So I pulled up some quick statistics, and according to the Executive Office at United States Attorneys, in 2012 more than 11,700 

defendants were charged with Federal gun crimes, which is a lot 

more than not doing it and a lot more than 62. And the numbers 

are up at the Department of Justice since 2000 and 2001 by more 

than 3,000 prosecutions. 

So we may have a debate about whether more should be done 

and who at the witness table actually wants more to be done in the 

way of gun prosecutions, but I think to pretend that the number 

is in double digits or that the number is zero is flagrantly wrong 

and I think inconsistent with the type of testimony that Senators 

should rely on in a situation like this. 

I would also add that there has been repeated testimony, also 

mentioned by Senator Durbin, that criminals will not subject themselves to a background check. And my response to that is that is 

exactly the point. Criminals will not subject themselves to a background check so they do not go into the gun shops; and if they do, 

they get prevented from buying a gun. So instead they go to illegal 

means. They go primarily to the main way we distribute guns without a background check, which is to the gun shows. 

And so I think to the extent we can expand the background 

check, the very fact that the criminals will not subject themselves 

to a background check provides the kind of prevention that Senator 

Graham was talking about, to keep the guns out of the hands of 

criminals in the very first case. 
39 

Chief Johnson, tell me a little bit about the men and women with 

whom you serve in law enforcement and the type of training and 

screening that is important both in gun use, in gun safety, in situational awareness, before they are put in a position where they are 

expected to defend the public with firearms? Is that something you 

just give somebody a gun and say get in there and go defend the 

community? Or how rigorous and how cautious are you about the 

training required? 

Chief JOHNSON. The process starts well before we even offer you 

a badge. And it is a very robust, in-depth, psychological review of 

whether or not we are even going to allow you to enter the force 

itself. All departments are universal in this issue. It includes psychological, polygraph, and other means to determine whether or not 

you have the fiber to have that awesome responsibility to carry a 

gun. The training is exhaustive—weeks and weeks of training on 

how to use the weapon, and tactically how to deal with it, how to 

care for it, and how to safeguard that weapon. 

But it does not stop there. Once you are out in the field, a very 

robust psychological services section, yearly training, and other 

safety equipment that must be carried. This talk about teachers 

having guns—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. That is actually where I was going to go. 

But before we get to teachers, to your knowledge, does the military 

have similar types of concerns and programs with respect to arming men and women who serve in our armed forces? 

Chief JOHNSON. It is my understanding, talking with my associates in the military, that public policing mirrors much of what the 

military does. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So against that background, tell me how 

much sense you think it makes to have our line of defense be 

armed teachers. 

Chief JOHNSON. Certainly when we have this discussion, you 

have to—does a teacher have the inner fiber to carry that weapon, 

the awesome responsibility? You are a teacher in a classroom. You 

are an educator. You dedicated your entire life to that pursuit, but 

you have got a sidearm strapped to yourself? And you had better 

have it all the time, because if you put it in your desk drawer, your 

purse, or your briefcase—and where you going to leave it? 

Let me tell you something. Carrying this weapon on my side has 

been a pain all these years. I am glad I have it if I need it, but 

let me tell you, it is an awesome responsibility. And what do you 

do in the summertime when you dress down? How are you going 

to safeguard that weapon from a classroom full of 16-year-old boys 

that want to touch it? How are you going to do that? And certainly, the holsters, I am spending $200 apiece just for 

the holsters so you cannot rip it from my side. 

So these are all the factors that in a robust, psychological service 

section we all face catastrophic changes in our lives as we go 

through divorce and other things that bring us down. But you need 

people to step in, like we have in policing, that notice those things 

and deal with them. This is a major issue. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We have had cases, including a case in 

Rhode Island, in which trained police officers who were off duty responded to a situation, and because they had not been adequately 
40 

trained in how to respond off duty and because they were out of 

uniform, it led to tragic blue-on-blue events. 

Presumably that would have some bearing on armed police officers responding to an event in which a lot of armed and untrained 

teachers are trying to defend students in a school. 

Chief JOHNSON. Well, that is a very important point. Two years 

ago in Baltimore City, an on-duty officer in plainclothes was shot 

by uniformed on-duty personnel, and they worked the same shift. 

It is just in the darkness of the night they could not tell. And as 

Captain Kelly has pointed out, that is a major issue in the Tucson 

shooting. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And, Ms. Trotter, a quick question. Sarah 

McKinley, in defending her home, used a Remington 870 Express 

12-gauge shotgun that would not be banned under this statute, correct? Under the proposed statute? 

Ms. TROTTER. I do not remember what type of weapon she used. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, trust me, that is what it was. And 

it would not be banned under the statute. So it does not—I think 

it proves the point that with ordinary firearms, not 100-magazine, 

peculiar types of artifacts, people are quite capable of defending 

themselves. In fact, that was your example. 

Ms. TROTTER. I respectfully disagree. I understand that you are 

also a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law, and 

you were close to Monticello where Thomas Jefferson penned our 

Declaration of Independence and close to Montpelier where James 

Madison was instrumental in drafting the Bill of Rights. And I 

think you can understand that, as a woman, I think it is very important not to place undue burdens on our Second Amendment 

right to choose to defend ourselves. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Oh, I have no objection—— 

Ms. TROTTER. I do not know what weapon she used—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE [continuing]. To that point. My point is 

that the example you used is one that would not bear in argument 

against the proposal that is before us, because that Remington 870 

Express is a weapon that would be perfectly allowed. 

Ms. TROTTER. So would it have been unreasonable for her to use 

a different gun to protect her child? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I think that if she was using a 100 weapon—let me put it another way. She would clearly have an adequate 

ability to protect her family—— 

Ms. TROTTER. How can you say that? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE [continuing]. Without the need for a 100- 

round piece of weaponry. 

Ms. TROTTER. How can you say that? You are a large man, and 

you are not a teenage—— 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. TROTTER. Tall. A tall man. You are not a young mother who 

has a young child with her. And I am passionate about this position. Because you cannot understand. You are not a woman stuck 

in her house having to defend her children, not able to leave her 

child, not able to go seek safety, on the phone with 911. And she 

cannot get the police there fast enough to protect her child. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And my point simply—— 

Ms. TROTTER. And she is not used to being in a firefight. 
41 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And my point simply is that she did it 

adequately and successfully with lawful firearms and without the 

kind of firepower that was brought to bear so that the 12th, 13th, 

14th shots could be fired by the man who shot Gabby Giffords—— 

Chairman LEAHY. I am going to have to—and I will let you go 

back. There is another round. 

There are a number of things I could say as a gun owner, but 

I will pass up on the opportunity and go to Senator Lee. 

Senator LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to 

thank each of the distinguished members of our panel today for enduring now over 2 hours of this hearing. As a more junior Member 

of the Committee who sometimes gets to ask questions last or second to last, I am especially appreciative of your willingness to stay 

this long. 

I think every one of us, both here in this room and everyone 

watching on television, has been horrified by the incidents that occurred in Newtown, in Tucson, and elsewhere. And I do not think 

there is one of us that would not like us to find a way as a society 

to put an end to events like this. 

It would be my preference if we could find a way to put an end 

to events like this, without doing violence to the Constitution and 

also without leaving law-abiding citizens more vulnerable to crime. 

There are a number of statistics on this, but one statistic I have 

read has indicated that about 2.5 million times a year in America, 

a gun is used to protect its owner, its possessor, from a crime. That 

is quite significant, and that is a fact that we need to take into account. 

There has been a lot of reference today to the fact that the protections of the Constitution—the protections of the Second Amendment right to bear arms—are not unlimited. And I agree that they 

are not unlimited. There are limits. I think it is important for us 

from time to time to focus on what those limits are. 

The Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller held that 

the guns that are within the zone of protection of the Second 

Amendment are those that are typically possessed by law-abiding 

citizens for lawful purposes. 

Why don’t we start with you, Professor Kopel. Can you tell me, 

is a gun, a semiautomatic weapon, whether a rifle or a handgun, 

that holds more than 10 rounds in its ammunition magazine one 

that could fairly be characterized as one that is typically possessed 

by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes? 

Professor KOPEL. In handguns, semiautomatics are 81 percent of 

new handguns sold. A very large percentage of those have as 

standard, not as high capacity but as standard factory magazines, 

magazines between 11 and 19 rounds. 

Another thing that is very common, to get back to Senator 

Whitehouse’s issue about the Remington 11–87 shotgun, is Senator 

Feinstein’s bill would outlaw that shotgun if it has a seven-round 

magazine on it. It comes with a five-round magazine. You can extend it by two or more rounds. And the Feinstein bill would outlaw 

that very standard home defense shotgun if it simply has a sevenround magazine. 

So it is all fine to talk about novelty items on the fringe, like a 

100-round drum, but in practice what is at threat of being out-
42 

lawed that people are actually using is their standard-capacity 

handgun magazines and standard-capacity magazines for rifles and 

shotguns. 

Senator LEE. And what are the law-abiding citizens doing with 

these? In other words, what are the lawful purposes to which lawabiding citizens are putting these guns, who own them? 

Professor KOPEL. Self-defense, target shooting—all the purposes 

which are lawful to possess a firearm. And I would—regarding 

what the chief was talking about, about all this extra training that 

police officers have, well, since I have represented the two leading 

police training organizations in the U.S. Supreme Court, I would 

certainly agree that the police have more training for all kinds of 

reasons, including they have the power to effectuate arrests, which 

ordinary citizens do not. 

But the training, in the view of the police training organizations, 

the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, the International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms 

Instructors, they believe that the training that is required in most 

States to obtain a permit to carry a handgun for lawful protection 

of self—only nine States currently violate that by not letting 

trained citizens carry—that that is appropriate, sufficient for people to be able to protect themselves, not necessarily to go out and 

do arrests but to defend themselves. And that includes defending 

themselves in their place of employment, including if that place of 

employment happens to be a school. 

Senator LEE. One of the arguments that I have frequently heard 

for making this type of weapon illegal or making any weapon illegal if you are using an ammunition magazine containing more than 

10 rounds is that weapons like these are available on a widespread 

basis; that it is relatively easy to buy them in the sense that, you 

know, most people may lawfully buy them and own them. And that 

is used as an argument in favor of restricting access to these weapons. 

In your opinion, does that make it more or less constitutionally 

permissible to restrict their sale? 

Professor KOPEL. Well, I think you have hit exactly what District 

of Columbia v. Heller was all about, which, you know, you talk 

about how often are 100-round drum magazines used in crimes. 

Pretty rarely. How often are they used in self-defense? Pretty rarely, too. 

Handguns are used—70 percent of gun homicides in this country 

are perpetrated with handguns. And the Supreme Court said the 

fact that these are very frequently used in crimes does not mean 

that under the Constitution you can prohibit them. 

So the fact that you can point to any particular crime where a 

gun was misused and say, oh, that proves we have to ban this gun 

or this accessory, is the opposite of what the Supreme Court is saying. The Supreme Court is saying you do not look only at the misuse of an arm or an accessory, you look at its lawful use. Does it 

have common, lawful use? 

Yes, handguns have common, lawful use. Yes, handgun magazines in the standard size of 11 to 19 rounds have common, lawful 

use. And yes, the AR–15 rifle, the most popular, best-selling rifle 

in this country for years, has pervasive lawful use. 
43 

Senator LEE. So if we restrict access to these guns, we are limiting the ability of individual Americans, law-abiding Americans, to 

use them for lawful purposes? 

Professor KOPEL. Yes, and the teaching of Heller is the fact that 

criminals may misuse something does not in itself constitute sufficient reason to prohibit law-abiding citizens from using a commonly 

used firearm. 

Senator LEE. Ms. Trotter, do most of the gun-owning women that 

you know have an inclination to abide by the law in connection 

with their gun ownership? 

Ms. TROTTER. Yes, definitely. 

Senator LEE. If we were to ban all weapons that contained an 

ammunition magazine capable of accommodating more than 10 

rounds, would most female gun owners that you know abide by 

that law? 

Ms. TROTTER. Of course. 

Senator LEE. What about criminals? What about people who use 

weapons like these in connection with crimes? Do you think they 

are as likely to abide by that law? 

Ms. TROTTER. By definition, criminals are not abiding by the law. 

Senator LEE. Where does that then put women like those that 

you described, women like those that you represent, what kind of 

position does this put them in relative to their current position as 

their ability to defend themselves? 

Ms. TROTTER. It disarms the women. It puts them at a severe 

disadvantage, and it not only affects them, but it affects anybody 

that they are responsible for—their children, elderly relatives, incapacitated family members. 

Senator LEE. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired. I 

have one question for Mr. Johnson, if I could have—Mr. Johnson, 

according to FBI statistics, about 72 percent of the gun homicides 

that are committed each year in America are committed with handguns—4 percent with rifles, 4 percent with shotguns, 1 percent 

with other types of firearms, and then 18 percent that fit into the 

category of unknown, but 72 percent classified as handguns. 

If 72 percent of the gun homicides are being committed with 

handguns, would that suggest that you would prefer banning handguns as well? 

Chief JOHNSON. Our partnership and, frankly, I have been party 

to no discussion of banning handguns or restricting handguns from 

women or any other group. I do not want to give up my handguns. 

We are here today to talk about a universal background check that 

would help make our Nation safer and limit high-capacity magazines that are used in crimes and violence across America. 

Senator LEE. Even though far more people die each year from 

handgun-inflicted injuries than from assault rifle-inflicted injuries? 

Chief JOHNSON. We believe the limit on high-capacity magazines 

even for handguns is necessary. No more than 10. 

Senator LEE. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. I first wanted to just acknowledge all of the families 

out here who have lost loved ones in shootings. And I especially 
44 

wanted to acknowledge Maya Rahamim, who is here from Minnesota, who lost her dad, Reuven, in a horrible shooting at the 

company that he built and loved, a small business in which he was 

killed—along with four other employees and a UPS guy who just 

happened to be there—by a coworker who was mentally unstable. 

And this just happened this fall. So thank you. 

I also was listening to all the statistics here, which are very important. I am a former prosecutor. I believe in evidence. But the 

statistic that I will never forget is the one from Newtown, Connecticut, shared with me by a relative of one of the young victims 

in that tragedy. And that is that little Charlotte Bacon loved her 

Girl Scout troop. And her Girl Scout troop once had 10 girls, and 

now there are only five left. So we have to remember what this is 

about as we look at solutions. 

For me, as a former prosecutor, I have always believed in enforcing the laws on the books. And, Mr. LaPierre, I made it a major, 

major focus of our office to prosecute the felon in possession of 

guns. I think that is clearly part of the solution. You cannot lessen 

the importance of that as we go forward. 

But there are other things as well, including the recommendations that have been made by Vice President Biden and that task 

force. And I think it is very important that we explore those in addition to enforcing the laws on the books. 

I have heard from my sheriffs—Republican sheriffs from all over 

my State—that there are major issues with background checks. 

And so I think I would turn to that first, Chief Johnson. We had 

a guy in Minnesota—this just came out in our paper, the Minneapolis paper—who had killed his parents as a juvenile, got out, 

somehow got a permit, and was able to obtain guns. 

In fact, when they found him, he had 13 guns in his house. And 

he had a note that he had written to the gunman in Newtown. And 

he also said in the note, ‘‘I am so homicide, I think about killing 

all the time.’’ And he was somehow able to get a permit and get 

those guns. This just came out in our local paper. And I wondered 

what you see as some of the biggest loopholes—we have talked 

about gun shows, Internet, private sales—and how you think that 

could help. 

And then I want to get to the thing you talked about, about how 

you can get those background checks done quickly, because I come 

from a hunting State. The last thing I want to do is hurt my Uncle 

Dick in his deer stand. And I want to make sure that what we do 

works. And so if you could address that? 

Chief JOHNSON. There has been great improvement in the Nation. Some statistics show nearly an 800-percent increase in data 

entered into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. That is good. But it is not good enough, and we are really failing miserably, nationally, entering that data. 

Statistics I have read indicate that nearly 18 States across the 

Nation submit less than 100 records to the NICS system on a regular basis. We have to improve that. Maryland has to improve that, 

in fact. We are not doing enough in Maryland. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And is it true that about 40 percent of gun 

sales take place at the gun shows? 
45 

Chief JOHNSON. Statistics reveal that 40 percent of gun sales 

take place at gun shows and other non-licensed dealer sales arrangements, nearly 6.6 million guns through that process a year. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And are more and more people now using 

the Internet to buy guns, as we see in other areas? 

Chief JOHNSON. I sat with my detectives in the gun squad for 

weeks before I had a chance to come—the honor to come here 

today, and they regularly used Internet, PennySaver classified ads. 

They will go outside the State in many cases. A variety of methods 

are used, including straw purchasers. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And you talked a little bit earlier about 

how quickly these background checks can get done. You compared 

it to issuing a ticket. If you could answer that. 

Chief JOHNSON. The analysis that we have conducted, the information I have, I believe it is 92 percent of NICS background checks 

come back in less than a minute and half when you go to a licensed 

Federal dealer. And, certainly, that is much quicker than I can 

write a citation. And I think that should be universal. That is what 

we are calling for. That is what is going to make our Nation safer. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. LaPierre, do you want to respond about 

the timing on the checks? 

Mr. LAPIERRE. Sure, I will respond, yes, Senator, to a couple 

points. 

One, the chief is talking about using the Internet to do interstate 

sales. That is a Federal crime and should be prosecuted. The only 

way you can do a sale is to go through a dealer, and it has to be 

cleared through a background check. 

The Senator from Rhode Island talked about the prosecution 

data. I get all that from the Syracuse University TRAC data, which 

is who tracks the initial—the prosecution of the Federal gun laws 

where that is the initial charge. 

And why Project Exile worked in Richmond, Virginia, is what 

they started to do is they caught a drug dealer with a gun. They 

put signs up all over the city saying, ‘‘If you have an illegal gun 

in Richmond, under Federal law you are going to be prosecuted 100 

percent of the time.’’ Drug dealers, gangs, and felons stopped carrying guns. 

So the 62 statistic, Senator, was for lying on the background 

check, not total prosecutions for the entire country. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. LaPierre, if you could—and I know you 

want to discuss this with Senator Whitehouse, but I have my question about the timing. Do you agree with the chief here that we 

could do this quickly? And all we are trying to do here is close some 

of these loopholes so we expand some of the background checks, but 

that it still could be done in a way that will not interfere with lawabiding gun owners. 

Mr. LAPIERRE. Well, gun shows right now, according to all the 

surveys, are not a source of crime guns, anyway. It is 1.7 percent. 

Where criminals are getting guns is the black market, they are 

stealing them. They are not getting them through gun shows. 

But if you are talking about expanding a system that is already 

overloaded, where they are not doing any prosecutions, basically, 

even if they catch somebody—they are saying it is like Bonnie and 

Clyde. They catch Clyde, and he goes home and says, ‘‘Bonnie, they 
46 

did not do anything to me, so let us go get a gun and commit our 

crime.’’ 

I mean, if you are talking about expanding that system to every 

hunter, to every family member, every relative all over the United 

States, when the system already cannot handle what it has, you 

are creating an enormous Federal bureaucracy. It is only going to 

hit law-abiding people, not criminals. 

Honest people are going to be entrapped into committing crimes 

they had no intention to commit. It is an unworkable, universal 

nightmare bureaucracy being imposed under the Federal Government. 

I just do not think that law-abiding people want every gun sale 

in the country to be under the thumb of the Federal Government. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. But it is my understanding that when people buy guns, they do undergo a background check. We know that 

and we are just simply trying to close some of these loopholes. 

Chief, do you want to respond to this? 

Chief JOHNSON. Well, certainly when a weapon is purchased 

through a licensed Federal dealer, they undergo a background 

check. But as we have said many times here today, 40 percent of 

these guns are being sold outside that process. This is not unreasonable. And certainly I do not consider it a restriction. If I buy a 

gun next year, you know, through a private seller, I will go to a 

licensed dealer to do it. This is not unreasonable. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And, Captain Kelly, I think you really said 

it best at the very beginning of this lengthy hearing when you 

talked about your belief in the Second Amendment and in those 

rights, but with those rights comes responsibility. And you talked 

about the responsibility to make sure that these guns do not get 

into the hands of criminals and terrorists and those with mental 

illness. And do you see this, the background check, as a way of 

helping to get at this problem? 

Captain KELLY. Gabby and I are both responsible gun owners. I 

bought a hunting rifle from Walmart a few months ago, and I went 

through a background check. It did not take very long. And, you 

know, they were able to very clearly determine that, you know, I 

was a responsible person. 

You know, in Tucson and in many of these cases, there are people that either would have failed a background check if the right 

data was in the system, like in the case of Jared Loughner, and 

certainly in that case he would have had the option to go to a gun 

show or a private seller, and I imagine he would have gotten a 

weapon. You know, he was a pretty marginalized person. I would 

imagine—and quite mentally ill and did not have much of a community around him. I imagine in that case, if he would have not 

been able to get—not pass a background check, and—if there was 

a universal background check. I actually do not see him going on 

the black market to get a gun. And maybe if he did, maybe it 

would have taken him a long time to do that, to find the right place 

to go. And maybe in that period of time, just maybe, his parents 

would have gotten him some treatment, got him on medication. 

And if they did, from what his attorney and the prosecutors have 

told me, on medication he would have never done what he did on 

that day. I mean, so you might not be able to prevent every single 
47 

criminal from getting a weapon, but a universal background check 

is a common-sense thing to do. I mean, if we do them for Federal 

licensed dealers, why cannot we just do it at the gun show and for 

a private sale? 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. And I was thinking, 

as I listened to you, about all the people in this room that have 

thought those maybes too. Maybe if this had been in place, maybe 

if that had been in place. And I think your acknowledgment that 

it is not one solution for every person, for every case, that we have 

to enforce the laws, but we have to do better with background 

checks, and with the number of the proposals recommended out 

there by Vice President Biden’s commission, that we can do better. 

Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

I want to welcome one of our three new Members to the Committee, Senator Cruz of Texas. Senator Cruz, you have the floor. 

I apologize that the allergies are causing my voice to be so bad. 

Senator CRUZ. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is a pleasure to serve with you and all the Members of this Committee. 

I want to begin by thanking each of the distinguished witnesses 

who have come here today. Thank you for taking your time. In particular, I want to thank you, Captain Kelly, for your service to this 

country and for your wife’s extraordinary journey, for her coming 

here. Congresswoman Giffords has been lifted up in prayer by millions of Americans, and her heroic recovery is inspirational. And 

please know that you and your family will continue in our prayers 

in the years to come. 

My wife and I have two little girls. They are 4 and 2. I think no 

parent, and in particular no parent of young children, could watch 

what happened in Newtown without being utterly horrified—utterly horrified at the depravity of a deranged criminal who would 

senselessly murder 20 young children at an elementary school. 

Unfortunately, in Washington, emotion I think often leads to bad 

policies. When a tragedy occurs, often this body rushes to act. And 

at times it seems the considerations of this body operate in a factfree zone. I will suggest a philosophy that I think should guide this 

body in assessing gun violence, and then I would like to highlight 

and ask a few questions on a couple of points that I think are particularly salient to addressing this issue. 

The philosophy I would suggest makes sense is that we should 

be vigorous and unrelenting in working to prevent, to deter, and 

to punish violent criminals. I have spent a substantial portion of 

my professional life working in law enforcement, and the tragedies 

that are inflicted on innocent Americans every day by criminals are 

heartbreaking, and we need to do more to prevent them. 

At the same time, I think we should remain vigilant in protecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. And I think 

far too often the approaches that have been suggested by this Congress to the issue of gun violence restrict the liberties of law-abiding citizens rather than targeting the violent criminals that we 

should be targeting. 

And I would point out that I hope some of the passion we have 

seen from Members of this Committee with respect to the need to 

prevent violent crime will be reflected equally should we find our-
48 

selves in a judicial confirmation hearing with a judicial nominee 

who has a record of abusing the exclusionary rule to exclude evidence that results in a violent criminal walking free and being able 

to commit yet another crime. I hope we see exactly the same passion devoted to assessing whether judicial nominees will enforce 

our criminal laws and not frustrate the administration of justice. 

Three points I think are particularly salient. The first is, in my 

judgment, the proposed assault weapons ban is a singularly ineffective piece of legislation. 

I was having a conversation recently with a loved one in my family who asked a very reasonable question. She said, ‘‘Why do regular people need machine guns?’’ And, you know, one of the things 

that happens in this debate is the phrase ‘‘assault weapons ban’’ 

gets a lot of people really concerned, and they assume, much like 

the phrase ‘‘military-style weapons,’’ that we are talking about ordinary citizens running around with M–16s and Uzis that are fully 

automatic. 

Fully automatic machine guns are already functionally illegal. 

Ordinary citizens cannot own them absent very, very heavy regulation. This entire discussion does not concern machine guns, and yet 

I would venture to say a large percentage of Americans do not understand that. 

I want to begin by talking about the assault weapons ban as it 

was enforced before, and I would ask for slide number 1. 

The assault weapons ban that used to be in effect, according to 

the Department of Justice, ‘‘failed to reduce the average number of 

victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.’’ 

Now, that is the assessment of the United States Department of 

Justice, and that is in 1994. That was the Janet Reno Department 

of Justice under President Clinton that said the assault weapons 

ban was singularly ineffective. 

If we could move to the second slide? 

The Department of Justice likewise concluded that the assault 

weapons ban, ‘‘under it there has been no discernible reduction in 

the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.’’ 

So the reaction to this tragedy in Newtown is for a lot of elected 

officials in Washington to rush to re-enact a law that, according to 

the Department of Justice, did absolutely nothing to reduce gun violence. 

Now, why is that? That is not accidental. Because the assault 

weapons ban, if it does not ban machine guns, what does it ban? 

And what it bans, I would suggest to you, are scary-looking guns. 

If we could move to slide 3. 

This is a photograph of a Remington 750. It is one of the most 

popular hunting rifles in America. This rifle would be entirely legal 

under this so-called assault weapons ban. 

Now, I have a question for you, Mr. LaPierre. Functionally, in 

terms of the operation of this firearm—this is a semiautomatic firearm. You pull the trigger once, one bullet comes out. Is the operational firing mechanism in this firearm materially different from 

the so-called assault weapons ban that this bill is targeted at? 

Mr. LAPIERRE. No, it is not. 
49 

Senator CRUZ. Now, what the assault weapons ban instead targets are cosmetic features. So, for example, I am holding in my 

hand a pistol grip. Under this proposed legislation, if this piece of 

plastic, this pistol grip, were attached to this rifle, it would suddenly become a banned assault weapon. 

Now, I would ask you, Mr. LaPierre, are you aware of any evidence to suggest that attaching a piece of plastic to this rifle would 

make it in any way whatsoever even slightly more dangerous? 

Mr. LAPIERRE. No, the problem with the bill that Senator Feinstein introduced is it is based on falsehoods directed at people who 

do not understand firearms, to convince them that the performance 

characteristics of guns they are trying to ban through that bill are 

different than the performance characteristics they are not trying 

to ban. ‘‘They make bigger holes.’’ ‘‘They are rapid-fire.’’ ‘‘They 

spray bullets.’’ ‘‘They are more powerful.’’ ‘‘They penetrate heavy 

armor.’’ 

All of that is simply not true. I mean, the AR–15 uses a .223, 

and then I hear in the media that no deer hunter would use something that powerful. I mean, .243s, .270s, 25.06, 30.06, .308s—dozens of other calibers used in hunting are more powerful. 

Senator CRUZ. So let me make sure I understand that right. This 

deer rifle, which is entirely legal and is used by millions of Americans, is sold in the identical caliber as the so-called assault weapons ban, although those look scarier because they have a piece of 

plastic attached to them. 

Mr. LAPIERRE. And the Ruger Mini–14, which Senator Feinstein 

exempts in her bill, uses .223. The AR–15, which has the handle 

on the bottom, which she prohibits, uses the same. 

Senator CRUZ. I am out of time. I want to make one final point, 

if I may, which is there has been much attention drawn to gun 

shows, and indeed the statistic of 40 percent has been bandied 

about. Now, that statistic is unfortunately based on a study that 

occurred before the background check went into effect, and so it is 

a highly dubious figure. 

But I do want to point to what the Department of Justice has 

said, which is in slide 5. The Department of Justice has said that 

firearms used in crimes, 1.9 percent of those firearms come from 

gun shows. So, again, in response to this crime, this body does not 

act to enact anti-crime legislation to prevent violent crimes. Instead 

it targets 1.9 percent of the guns, and a substantial portion of those 

guns were sold by licensed firearms dealers who already conducted 

a background check. So even that 1.9 percent, a substantial portion 

are already subject to a background check. 

I would ask, Mr. Chairman, if we have a second round, I would 

like to additionally get into the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of gun 

controls. 

Chairman LEAHY. I am going to leave the record open for questions. I think, because of the Senate’s schedule this afternoon, we 

probably will not have a second round. But I will leave the record 

open so the Senator can submit additional questions. I have further 

questions as well, so I will not have time to speak either and will 

submit my questions. 

Senator Franken. 
50 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all 

the witnesses, especially you, Captain Kelly, and thanks to your 

beautiful wife—and I mean beautiful in every way. 

My wife, Frannie, and I were heartbroken for the families in 

Sandy Hook. We were heartbroken for the families in Tucson. For 

those of you who are listening or watching this hearing in Newtown, I want you to know that Minnesotans have you in our 

thoughts and our prayers and that we have shared in your grief. 

We shared it when we lost lives at a sign factory—Maya is here. 

She lost her father. This was in Minneapolis in September. 

We share it every time we hear gunshots and ambulance sirens 

interrupting an otherwise quiet school night. We share it every 

time we bury one of our sons or daughters. 

I know that a group of students from Red Lake Reservation in 

Minnesota, students who lost their classmates to gun violence, 

made the 1,500-mile drive to Newtown a few days before Christmas 

just to let the people in Newtown know that they are not alone, we 

are all in this together. 

Over the past month or so, I have been talking to my constituents about their ideas on how to make our communities safer. I 

travel the State to meet with hunters and school officials, with law 

enforcement officers, with mental health experts. I have convened 

roundtable discussions, and I have had many, many conversations. 

And what I have learned is that there is a balance to be struck 

here. We can honor the Second Amendment, and we can honor 

Minnesota’s culture of responsible gun ownership while taking 

basic measures that will make our kids and our communities safer. 

So I have cosponsored a bill to limit the number of rounds in a 

magazine. I have cosponsored a bill to require background checks 

at gun shows. I have cosponsored Senator Feinstein’s bill to ban assault weapons. I am reviewing legislation to address gun trafficking. I have supported funding for law enforcement programs, 

and I work every day to carry out the work Paul Wellstone—his 

unfinished work to improve our Nation’s mental health system. 

Tomorrow I will introduce the Mental Health in Schools Act 

which will improve access to mental health care for kids because 

catching these issues at an early age is really important. And I 

want to be careful here that we do not stigmatize mental illness. 

The vast majority of people with mental illness are no more violent than the rest of the population. In fact, they are more likely 

to be the victims of violence. But these recent events have caused 

us as a Nation to scrutinize our failed mental health and system, 

and I am glad we are talking about this issue in a serious way. 

Police Chief Johnson, I met with some mothers from the Mountain View School District in Minnesota whose children’s lives and 

their own lives were changed for the better because their kids got 

access to mental health care that they needed at an early age. And 

they got treatment, and their lives were improved, and their moms’ 

lives were improved. 

As a community leader and a law enforcement official, do you 

think it will benefit our communities if we are able to use schools 

to improve access to mental health care? 

Chief JOHNSON. I applaud your initiatives and your work, Senator, and the answer is absolutely. As a father with a child that 
51 

has mental health issues, I think this is absolutely essential. And 

my child has access to medical care that she needs, but the record 

shows and reflects that nearly half of children and adults in this 

Nation who are diagnosed with mental health issues do not have 

access to the care they need, and it gets even worse after the age 

of 18. And we are seeing this in crimes of violence, and we are seeing this in crimes all across our Nation and in my jurisdiction. It 

is a major problem. And I do recognize that most people with mental health issues do not go on to commit violent crimes. However, 

we have seen over and over again it seems to be a common thread 

or theme or issue that we must deal with. 

Senator FRANKEN. Again, Police Chief Johnson, I have heard 

from some gun owners who are worried that Congress is going to 

outlaw features that they really like in guns, things like pistol 

grips and barrel shrouds and threaded barrels. Some say that these 

features are merely cosmetic, but it seems to me that a lot of these 

features are not just cosmetic, they are functional. 

Can you explain why a pistol grip in the right place makes a 

functional difference, why it is not just a piece of plastic, why collapsible stocks present a danger, why bullet buttons and some of 

the other features are dangerous? I think this is a crucial point. 

Chief JOHNSON. I agree completely. It is not just about the capacity of the weapon to handle numerous rounds, which obviously is 

absolutely critical in this discussion. And, again, we believe no 

more than 10. 

We use that weapon in policing because of its tactical capability, 

its ability to cool down and handle round after round after round; 

its ability—it is rugged, it is ruggedized, it is meant for a combat 

or environment that one would be placed in facing adversaries, 

human beings, people. That weapon can be retrofitted with other 

devices to enhance your offensive capability. 

The weapon itself has features to adjust it, optics sights, for example, that can cost hundreds of dollars—and I have shot this 

weapon many times—that would enhance your capability in various tactical maneuvers, whether it is from the shoulder or the hip, 

whether you choose to spray fire that weapon or individually shoot 

from the shoulder. The optic sights are amazing, the technology advances that weapon has. 

That weapon is the weapon of our time. It is the place that we 

find ourselves in today. And, certainly, I believe it is meant for the 

battlefield and a public safety environment only. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, before I yield my time, I just would like to submit 

the testimony of Miya Rahamim, who is here today. She lost her 

father in a shooting in September in Minneapolis. And I would just 

like unanimous consent to submit her testimony for the record. 

Chairman LEAHY. It will be. As Senator Grassley and I both indicated earlier, there will be other statements for the record, as the 

record will be kept open for questions. 

[The prepared statement of Miya Rahamim appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. As I also indicated earlier, Senator Hatch, a 

very senior Member of this Committee, had to be at two different 

committees. And I yield now to his time, and then we will go to 
52 

the next Republican. After we go back, it will be, of course, Senator 

Flake. 

Senator Hatch. 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

thank all of you for being here today. 

Captain Kelly, I appreciate you and your wife and your testimony and your feelings very much. And I appreciated much of your 

testimony, and I am grateful that you would take the time to be 

with us, and it was wonderful to see your wife again. 

Let me go to you, Mr. LaPierre. President Obama has issued 23 

Executive actions on gun violence. Can you please discuss the commonalities between your organization, the NRA, and the Obama 

administration when it comes to finding ways to reduce gun violence? 

Mr. LAPIERRE. Well, I mean, what we think works—and we support what works—is what NRA has done historically. I have talked 

about our Eddie Eagle child safety program, which we put more 

money into than anybody in the country, that has cut accidents to 

the lowest level ever. 

We support enforcing the Federal gun laws on the books 100 percent of the time against drug dealers with guns, gangs with guns, 

felons with guns. That works. 

We have supported prison building. You have States like California where they—I think more than any other State in the country they send more inmates back to the street and have to put 

more back in jail for new crimes committed against their citizens 

than any other State in the Nation. New York State is, too. I mean, 

the collapse of the fiscal situation in those States has also collapsed 

the criminal justice system in those States. 

I mean, NRA has always supported what works. We have 11,000 

police instructors, and we represent honest people all over this 

country. 

There are 25,000 violent crimes a week in this country. The innocent are being preyed upon. The statistics are numbing. Those 911 

calls are horrible. 

But at the scene of the crime, it is the criminal and the victim, 

and victims all over the country want to be able to protect themselves. 

I mean, you know, this whole debate almost puts it into two different categories. If you are in the elite, you get bodyguards, you 

get—right here you get high-cap mags with semiautomatics protecting this whole Capitol. The titans of industry get the bodyguards whenever they want. Criminals do not obey the law anyway; they get what they want. And in the middle is the hard-working, law-abiding, taxpaying American that we are going to make 

the least capable of defending themselves. 

We are going to say, you can have a bolt action rifle, but, boy, 

you cannot have an AR–15. Or you can have a six-shot revolver, 

but you cannot have a semiautomatic handgun. You can have four 

or five or six rounds in your magazine, but if three intruders are 

breaking down your door, you cannot have 15 rounds because 

somebody thinks that is reasonable in their opinion. I mean, it—— 

Senator HATCH. I understand. 
53 

Mr. LAPIERRE. People want to be able to protect themselves. 

That is why people support the Second Amendment, and that is 

why these bills are so troubling. They do not hit the elites. They 

do not hit the criminal. They hit the average, hard-working, taxpaying American that gets stuck with all the laws and regulations. 

Senator HATCH. I understand that one of the bills will ban well 

over 2,000 guns. I mean, talking about individual guns. 

Mr. LAPIERRE. Senator Feinstein’s bill bans all kinds of guns 

that are used for target shooting, hunting, personal protection. And 

yet, on the other hand, she exempts guns that have the exact same 

performance characteristics as the guns she does not ban. Gun 

owners know the truth. That is why gun owners in this country, 

the 100 million gun owners, get upset about this stuff. They may 

be the victim of these lies, about taking the military term ‘‘assault’’ 

and applying it to civilian firearms. But they know the truth inherently, and they shake their heads, and they go, ‘‘None of this 

makes any sense.’’ 

Senator HATCH. Well, I appreciate that. 

Ms. Trotter, let me just ask you this: In your testimony you state 

that all women in jurisdictions that have concealed-carry laws reap 

the benefits of increased safety, even if they choose not to carry a 

weapon themselves. Can you please explain why? 

Ms. TROTTER. Yes. Mr. LaPierre mentioned that gun owners are 

very concerned about all these burdens that could be possibly put 

on law-abiding citizens. And I will tell you that non-gun owners are 

concerned about this, too, because you do not have to choose to 

carry to be the beneficiary of laws that allow people to carry. And 

for women, you reap the benefit of fewer murders, fewer rapes, 

fewer possibilities of being a victim of violence if the State that you 

live in does not ban anybody, particularly women, from carrying 

weapons. 

So it is a matter of choice. We are not saying that all women 

should or need to carry weapons. But we need to protect the Second Amendment right to choose to defend yourself. 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you. 

Mr. Kopel, Professor, you wrote an article that appeared in the 

Wall Street Journal on December 18, 2012. In the article, you point 

out that firearms are the most heavily regulated consumer product 

in the United States. Gun control laws are more prevalent now 

than in the mid-1960s when you could walk into any store and buy 

a semiautomatic weapon with no questions asked. 

Now, in your opinion, the lack of firearms regulations is not a 

contributing factor to the recent rise in the random mass shootings. 

So what factors have contributed to the rise in these random shootings? You may have answered this already, but I would like to hear 

it again if you have not. 

Professor KOPEL. No, I have not. 

Senator HATCH. Okay. 

Professor KOPEL. For one thing there is a copycat effect. 

Senator HATCH. Could you put your mic on? 

Professor KOPEL. Certainly. There is a copycat effect, and lots of 

studies of scholars of these—of all kinds of criminals, but especially 

of these people seeking notoriety, show strong a copycat effect. And 
54 

that is something that makes me think we need immediate protection for schools because of the copycat danger right now. 

In addition, there was a mass deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill starting in the 1960s and going through the 1980s. Some 

of that was because of budgetary issues, and a lot of the times the 

promise was, well, we will put these people in halfway houses so 

they can be partially in the community, which is a great idea. But 

then there was never the funding for the halfway houses, and if 

people walk away, nothing is done to followup. Jared Loughner, 

Adam Lanza, James Holmes—so many of these perpetrators absolutely would have been civilly committed under the system we had 

50 years ago. 

We need to move back toward greater possibility for civil commitment for the dangerously, violently mentally ill. It is certainly 

right, as I think both Senators from Minnesota were saying, that 

mentally ill people per se are not any more dangerous or violent 

than anyone else. In fact, sometimes less so. 

But there is a subset of them that are dangerously, violently 

mentally ill, and we need to have them off the streets before they— 

so that they cannot endanger themselves or others. 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you so much. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a statement put into the 

record following yours and Senator—— 

Chairman LEAHY. Without objection. 

Senator HATCH. Thank you so much. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Hatch appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator HATCH. I want to thank all of you for being here. I think 

it has been an enlightened hearing. 

And this is not a simple thing, and I have got to say there are 

some freedoms among the mentally ill that have to be considered, 

too. And this is complex. It is not—not easy. 

But I can say this, that I think this has been a particularly good 

panel, and I just appreciate all of you for testifying. 

Chairman LEAHY. I thank you for that, Senator Hatch, and I will 

yield now to Senator Coons. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Chairman Leahy, and thank you for 

convening this important hearing. 

To the panel, thank you for your testimony. And to Captain Kelly 

and to your wonderful wife, Congresswoman Giffords, thank you 

for everything you are doing to bring, I think, an important message. 

We as a Committee are wrestling here today and we as a country 

are wrestling with how to respond appropriately and effectively to 

a whole string of horrific shootings. Whether in Newtown or in 

Tucson, whether in a Sikh temple or at a state university like Virginia Tech, there are just too many of these incidents piled year 

upon year. 

And I am grateful for all my colleagues who have engaged in this 

thorough discussion today about how do we balance things. 

One of the most important things, I think, is for us to get our 

facts right. A number of my colleagues have made a great deal of 

the number of cases of Federal gun prosecutions going down. 
55 

But my staff has pulled the most recent report from the Executive Office of the United States Attorneys, and it turns out that the 

number of defendants charged with Federal gun violations is actually steady. In fact, in 2011, it was 46 percent higher than in 2000. 

So I just encourage all who are paying attention to scoring at home 

the numbers, what matters is the number of defendants actually 

prosecuted with Federal gun violations. 

I have got lots of things I would like to touch on, and I did want 

to say at the outset I am grateful that our Vice President, Joe 

Biden, has led, I think, a very broad and searching conversation 

where he has listened, as I have, to folks across the country and, 

in my case, across my State of Delaware. And I have heard from 

parents whose children suffer from mental illness and who are 

really struggling to provide the care that they deserve and need— 

law enforcement officials, educators, community leaders, gun owners, sportsmen, people who are really concerned about how we 

strike the right balance and how we make our country safer. 

If I could, to Captain Kelly, first, thank you for leading Americans for Responsible Solutions. One of the main ideas you and your 

wife have advanced is expanded background checks. Could you just 

explain for me again how it is today that convicted felons are able 

to get their hands on weapons despite our current background 

check laws and how we might fix that? 

Captain KELLY. Well, currently, certainly Senator Cruz mentioned earlier the statistic of—I think he said 1.9 percent of criminals that committed a crime with a gun—— 

Senator COONS. Of prisoners. 

Captain KELLY. Of prisoners. Well, I want to just look at that for 

a second. 

There is also a statistic that says 80 percent—on a survey done 

of criminals, 80 percent of criminals got their guns from a private 

sale or a transfer. 

So by closing that part of the existing loophole, which is the fact 

that with a private sale or transfer, there is no requirement to get 

a background check, you could effectively reduce the number of 

guns in the hands of criminals. 

And we know from what happened in Tucson that if there was 

an effective background check, which includes having the mental 

health data and the person’s drug use, in the case of the Tucson 

shooter, into the system, and if, in fact, there was no gun show 

loophole, I would contend that he would have had a very difficult 

time getting a gun. 

So the first thing that needs to be done is we certainly need to 

have a universal background check. If background checks are good 

enough for somebody who is a Federal firearms licensed dealer, like 

Walmart, for instance, where I just purchased a gun a couple 

months ago, a hunting rifle, and I had to go through a background 

check, why is not that good for other sales, sales from a private individual or sales from somebody who is really kind of in business 

at a gun show? 

Senator COONS. Captain Kelly, if you would, as a gun owner 

yourself, how do you feel that thorough universal background 

checks of the types that you describe, either for purchase of weap-
56 

ons or large capacity magazines, how would that affect or infringe 

your Second Amendment rights? 

Captain KELLY. I do not think it would infringe my Second 

Amendment rights at all. You know, I am—I think I am as strong 

a supporter of the Second Amendment as anybody on this panel. 

You know, I have flown 38 combat missions over Iraq and Kuwait 

defending what I believe is our—defending our Constitution. 

You know, I have flown in combat. I have been shot at dozens 

of times. You know, I find it interesting that often we talk about 

putting a security guard in the school. That has been brought up 

a lot. And I actually think, you know, that is better than no security guard in the school. But from my experience of being shot at 

and what that actually feels like and how chaotic it is, and with 

the exception of Chief Johnson, I would suspect that not many 

members of this panel—or even in this room, for that matter—have 

been in any kind of a fire fight. It is chaos. 

I think there are really some very effective things we can do, and 

one is, Senator, the background check. Let us make it difficult for 

the criminals, the terrorists, and the mentally ill to get a gun. 

Senator COONS. I agree with you, and I have agreed to cosponsor 

legislation to this affect. 

But let me ask Mr. LaPierre. I, just at the outset, want to say 

I am grateful for the work the NRA in providing training in safe 

gun ownership to millions of Americans. And I hope you will take 

into account the data I have offered on gun prosecutions. 

But I do disagree with a point you made your testimony. You 

said—and I think I quote—that background checks will never be 

universal because criminals will never submit to them. And while 

that may be true, I think the point that Captain Kelly makes is 

telling. And if we in combination put in place tougher restrictions 

on straw purchases and tougher enforcement on those who buy 

guns legally but then sell them to those who should not have them, 

and we put in place universal background checks and impose some 

responsibility on responsible gun owners to report lost or stolen 

weapons in combination, would not all of these things effectively 

move us toward a country where the number of those who should 

not have weapons cannot get access to them? 

Mr. LAPIERRE. Senator, what I think you are going to end up 

with is a huge massive bureaucracy with honestly a huge waste of 

police resources and money that could go into doing things in the 

police criminal justice area that would actually save lives. 

That study that you were talking about actually says where 

criminals get their guns—39.5 percent from friends and family, 37 

percent from street or black market, 11 percent from licensed dealers, 10 percent by theft, 1.7 percent at gun shows. 

Senator COONS. Right. 

Mr. LAPIERRE. I just think that if you try to do this universal 

background check, it ends up being a universal Federal nightmare 

imposed upon law-abiding people all over this country. Criminals 

will ignore it. The Federal Government will not prosecute those 

who fail it. Senator, the Vice President at the meeting we attended 

said they did not have time to prosecute those types of cases. So 

what is the point of the whole thing? If you let the criminal and 

the mentally ill—— 
57 

Senator COONS. Well, Mr. LaPierre, I am almost out of time. Forgive me for the brief cycle. 

Mr. LAPIERRE. Sure. 

Senator COONS. Just to take at face value the data you just suggested, it is not just closing the gun show loophole. It is also thoroughly enforcing those who transfer weapons bought legally to 

those who should not have them. And an awful lot of the folks you 

cited are getting their hands on weapons inappropriately through 

so-called straw purchases or through illegal transfers. 

I just want to ask a question of Chief Johnson, if I might, because I see, Mr. Chairman, my time is almost up. 

I think it is valuable to have the input of law enforcement professionals. In your view, would this sort of a universal background 

check combined with aggressive enforcement of the transfers to 

those who should not have them be a huge bureaucratic mess and 

a waste of police resources? Or might it make a difference on the 

street for those of you who put your lives on the line for us every 

day? 

Chief JOHNSON. I have to respectfully disagree with Wayne on 

this issue. Public safety, police, we are ready, we are unified on 

this issue that a universal background check will make our society 

a safer place, will make my police officers safer. It is absolutely essential. 

Senator COONS. Well, thank you, Chief. Thank you to the panel. 

I will submit some more questions for the record. I see I am out 

of time. 

Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

And, again, another new Member of this Committee, Senator 

Flake of Arizona. I appreciate your being here and your patience 

in waiting. If it is any consolation, I had that seat years ago. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FLAKE. That is good to know. Thank you, Chairman, for 

convening this. And thank you to the panel for being here, offering 

such excellent testimony, and for staying so long. I will try not to 

take my full 7 minutes. But I especially want to thank Mark for 

being here. And I know that Gabby is watching the proceedings in 

a room in the back. I just visited here a while ago. And I just want 

you to know, Mark, and I want Gabby to know how much we miss 

her here. 

I was on a call this morning with a few dozen ranchers, border 

ranchers in Arizona, and was reminded that this is a practice that 

she began years ago, to talk about immigration issues and to keep 

them up to speed and to seek their input. And I have continued 

that practice. And I can tell you, she offered wonderful representation to the people of southern Arizona and she is missed. And I am 

so grateful to you and to her for the public service that you have 

offered in the last year under difficult circumstances and for taking 

up this new cause. So thank you. 

With regard to the Tucson shooting, you mentioned that Jared 

Loughner had had drug use in the past that might have triggered 

some kind of entry into a system that he may have been checked, 

but also the mental health aspect. And that seems to be the difficult problem to solve here, listening to the testimony, is the nexus 
58 

between mental illness and some kind of entry into a background 

system. 

In Maryland, I believe it is, there have only been like 56 mental 

health records provided to the NICS system. Arizona has 120,000 

entries, but not interfaced with the system here. 

What are the major problems there? And I will take anybody 

who can comment on this. Perhaps, Chief Johnson, you know, or, 

Mark, if you have any ideas? Is it solely privacy issues? Many of 

those have a Federal nexus, and that is something that we can deal 

with here. So I am interested in why it is that it is so difficult to 

have some of the mental health records entered into the system. 

Chief, first, do you want to take this? 

Chief JOHNSON. Well, Governor O’Malley in the State of Maryland last week introduced his plans to increase significantly data 

into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. 

Senator, you are right. Maryland could do much better in this area, 

no question about it. 

Senator FLAKE. Is this an issue with Maryland or any other 

state? And I am not trying to pick on Maryland at all. I assume 

it is similar with every state out there. I just had the figures for 

Maryland. But is that an issue of just resources? Or are there privacy concerns that prevent them from offering this information? 

Chief JOHNSON. I think there is confusion. Data that I have seen 

indicates some 18 States submit less than 100 records to the system. I think there is confusion amongst the medical community, 

and even fear. How does HIPAA affect the release of this information and this data system? And I do believe, as the President’s plan 

has called for, an incentive to incentivize States to participate 

would drastically help this problem. 

Senator FLAKE. Mark, do you want to comment on that? 

Captain KELLY. Yes, Senator. Thank you for your kind words. 

Gabby misses being here as well. 

Of those 121,800 records that Arizona has not submitted to the 

background check system, I do not know why. I imagine it could 

be something—it might be a matter of resources. You know, maybe 

the funding is not there to have the manpower to do that. Possibly, 

maybe there is not the will. Maybe for some reason in the State 

of Arizona, maybe they do not have a desire to share that information. 

I do not know, but I can guarantee you after this hearing I am 

going to try to find out. 

Senator FLAKE. All right. 

Captain KELLY. I will get back to you. 

Senator FLAKE. And so will I. I think that that is an area, from 

the testimony today and what we know of this situation, where we 

can have, I think, a real impact here. And so I thank you all for 

your testimony, especially Mark and Gabby for being here. 

Captain KELLY. Thank you. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, Senator Flake. 

Senator Blumenthal, I will recognize you next. And I would just 

note, as everybody probably well assumes, you and I have had a 

number of discussions since the tragedy in Connecticut, including 

one phone call I recall when you were just about to meet with some 
59 

of the families. And I have relied a great deal on both your expertise, your law enforcement background, but also the fact that you 

are from Connecticut. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 

want to express my appreciation to you for your sensitivity and 

your condolences, and so many of my colleagues for theirs as well 

and the expressions that we have had this morning, and also, obviously, for convening this hearing, which is a beginning—hardly an 

end—just a first step in what I hope will be a call to action that 

Newtown has begun and action that is really bipartisan. 

Whatever the impressions that may be left by this morning’s proceedings, I think there is a real potential for bipartisan common 

ground on this issue, because we certainly have more in common 

than we have in conflict on this issue. 

And I speak as a former prosecutor, having served as Attorney 

General in the State of Connecticut for 20 years, but also as a 

United States Attorney, a Federal prosecutor, for 41⁄2 years. And I 

want to thank all of the members of the panel for your patience 

and your staying power today. It has been a very informative and 

worthwhile hearing. 

But I want to say a particular thanks, as others have, to Captain 

Kelly and to Gabby Giffords for your courage and strength in being 

here today, and to all of the victims and their families: Steve Barton, who is here from Connecticut, who was a victim in Aurora. 

Many of the Sandy Hook families who are not here today I know 

are here in spirit. Mark and Jackie Barden, who lost their wonderful son, Daniel, at Sandy Hook, wrote a profoundly moving and inspiring piece in today’s Washington Post. 

And, Mr. Chairman, if there is no objection, I would like to submit it for the record. It is entitled ‘‘Make the Debate Over Guns 

Worthy of Our Son.’’ 

Chairman LEAHY. Without objection. 

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

Senator BLUMENTHAL. To Chief Johnson, you are here not only 

in a personal capacity but, in my view, as representing and reflecting the courage and heroism of the tens of thousands of law enforcement community, police and firefighters and first responders 

across the country, who every day brave the threat of gunfire and 

are often outmanned or outgunned by criminals. And I want to 

thank you for your service to our Nation, as I do Captain Kelly for 

his in our military. 

And just to say, you know, I was in Sandy Hook within hours 

of the shooting at the fire house where parents went to find out 

whether their children were alive. And I will never forget the 

sights and sounds of that day when the grief and pain was expressed in the voices and faces of those parents. 

As much evil as there was on that day in Newtown, there was 

also tremendous heroism and goodness: the heroism and goodness 

of the educators who perished literally trying to save those children 

by putting themselves between the bullets and their children; and 

the heroism of those first responders and police who ran into that 

building to stop the shooter, not knowing that he was dead when 

they did; and their being there, in fact, stopped the tragedy. 
60 

I want to thank also the community of Sandy Hook. I have spent 

countless hours there, the better part of 3 weeks after the shooting 

and, most recently this past weekend, the dedication of a memorial 

and then time with one of the families. And their strength and 

courage I think has been an inspiration to the country and very, 

very important to advancing an agenda of making our Nation safer. 

And one way they have done it—one way, not the exclusive or 

only way—has been through a pledge called the ‘‘Sandy Hook 

Promise.’’ This promise I would like to read. We have it on a chart 

here. 

It is, ‘‘I promise to honor the 26 lives lost at Sandy Hook Elementary School. I promise to do everything I can to encourage and support common-sense solutions that make my community and our 

country safer from similar acts of violence. I promise that this time 

there will be change.’’ 

I am proud to say Steve Barton has made the Sandy Hook Promise. Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly have made the Sandy Hook 

Promise. Tens of thousands of Americans in Connecticut and across 

the country have made that promise, as have I. 

So I want to ask Mr. LaPierre, will you make the Sandy Hook 

Promise? 

Mr. LAPIERRE. Senator, our Sandy Hook promise is always to 

make this country safer, which is why we have advocated immediately putting armed security in schools, fixing the mental health 

system, computerizing the records of those mentally adjudicated. I 

would hope we could convince some of these companies—I know 

they have a First Amendment right to do it—to stop putting out 

such incredibly violent video games that desensitize children to violence. And, finally, we need to enforce the reasonable gun laws on 

the books, which we do not currently do. That will make—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Can I take that as a yes? 

Mr. LAPIERRE [continuing]. The country safer. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Can I take that as a yes? 

Mr. LAPIERRE. Yes. That is a yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

Mr. LAPIERRE. We have 11,000 police—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And can I invite and urge you to advocate 

that your members, responsible gun owners—and I thank them for 

being responsible gun owners—also join in the Sandy Hook Promise? 

Mr. LAPIERRE. Senator, there is not a law-abiding firearms 

owner across this United States that was not torn to pieces by 

what happened in Sandy Hook. They just do not believe that their 

constitutional right to own a firearm and the fact that they can 

protect their family with a firearm caused the problem. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Let me ask you this, Mr. LaPierre. You 

and I agree there ought to be more prosecutions of illegal gun possession and illegal gun ownership. 

Mr. LAPIERRE. You know, the problem, Senator is I have been up 

here on this Hill for 20-some years agreeing to that, and nobody 

does it. And that is the problem. Every time we say we are going 

to do it. I will make you this bet right now. When President Obama 

leaves office 4 years from now, his prosecutions will not be much 

different than they are now. If each U.S. Attorney did ten a month, 
61 

they would have 12,000. If they did 20 a month, they would have 

24,000. Let us see if we get there. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Chief Johnson, you have testified very 

persuasively on the need for better background checks. Do you believe those background checks ought to be applied to ammunition 

purchases as well as firearms purchases? 

Chief JOHNSON. Our organization supports background checks on 

ammunition sales. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

And, Captain Kelly, I am just about out of time, but I would like 

to ask you, if you may, you have supported better background 

checks as an advocate of the Second Amendment, and I join you in 

believing that Americans have a strong and robust right to possess 

firearms; it is the law of the land. Do you also believe that better 

background checks on firearms purchases would help make both 

Arizona and our Nation safer? 

Captain KELLY. Absolutely, Senator. While we were having this 

hearing—and we certainly do not know the details, but in Phoenix, 

Arizona, there is another, what seems to be possibly a shooting 

with multiple victims. And it does not seem like anybody has been 

killed, but the initial reports are three people injured in Phoenix, 

Arizona, with multiple shots fired, and there are 50 or so police 

cars on the scene. 

And I certainly agree with you, sir, that, you know, a universal 

background check that is effective, that has the mental health 

records in it, that has the criminal records in it, will go a long way 

to saving people’s lives. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And improving the quality of information 

in those—— 

Captain KELLY. Absolutely. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL [continuing]. Checks would make a difference. 

Let me just again thank the panel. My hope is that Newtown 

will be remembered not just as a place but as a promise, and that 

we use this tragedy as a means of transforming the debate, the discussion, the action that we need to make America safer. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Just so everybody understands, we are coming to a close. I will 

make an exception to the normal rules. Senator Cruz said he had 

one more question. I will let him do that. Then I will yield to Senator Hirono, the newest Member of this Committee, and she will 

have the final word. 

Senator Cruz. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate 

your allowing me to ask an additional question. 

I wanted to ask a question of Chief Johnson. Your testimony here 

today was in some tension with what I have heard from police officers serving on the ground in the State of Texas, namely that— 

your testimony, as I understand it, was that, in your judgment, 

stricter gun control laws would prove effective in limiting crime. 

And the data I have seen suggests that the evidence does not support it. 
62 

If one looks in the District of Columbia, which had the strictest 

gun control laws in this country and banned firearms, we saw that 

when the ban was implemented in 1976, there were fewer than 200 

homicides. That rose to over 350 in 1988 and to over 450 in 1993. 

That pattern is reflected across major urban centers. Those urban 

centers that have the strictest gun bans, for example, the city of 

Chicago, unfortunately, suffers from, according to the latest statistics, 15.9 murders per 100,000 citizens. 

Your city, the city of Baltimore, has 31.3 murders per 100,000 

citizens. That contrasts with other major urban areas such as my 

home town of Houston, which does not have strict gun control laws 

like the jurisdictions I was talking about, that has a murder rate 

of 9.2 per 100,000, one-third of Baltimore’s. And, in fact, the city 

of Austin, our capital, has a murder rate of 3.5 per 100,000, onetenth that of Baltimore. 

So my question to you is: In light of the evidence, what empirical 

data supports your contention that restricting the rights of lawabiding citizens to possess firearms would decrease crime rather 

than making them more vulnerable to violent criminals? Which is 

what I would suggest the data indicates has happened when it is 

been done. 

Chief JOHNSON. We know that nearly 2 million prohibited purchasers were stopped from obtaining their firearms since 1994 to 

2009. Senator, I would tell you that your homicide statistics would 

be much greater, and often missed from this conversation is the 

medical intervention that takes place today at the EMT level in the 

field to the shock trauma facilities that are very robust in our Nation today. This data would be much higher. 

I am here today representing nine major police executive leadership organizations, and for the sake of time, I am not going to read 

all those. I think they are a matter of the record. 

The problem in areas like Baltimore and New York and Chicago, 

with some of the toughest gun regulations and laws in the Nation, 

is outside weapons coming in. It is about the background check 

problem. It is about acquisition of these firearms outside of the normal firearms licensed dealer process. And that is what we have to 

fix. 

In addition, high-capacity magazines are a problem, and certainly we are seeing assault weapons used each and every day in 

crimes, and police are seizing these weapons each and every day. 

And, holistically, with the plan that the President has laid out and, 

frankly, some of the bills that have been put forth, we can make 

our Nation a much safer place. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

We are fortunate to have three new Members of this Committee: 

Senator Cruz, Senator Flake, and Senator Hirono. And you, Senator, get the last word. 

Senator HIRONO. Are you saving the best for last, is that it? 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, I was just saying you get the last word. 

You are going to have to prove whether it is the best. But I would 

note to both you and Senator Flake that I occupied that seat. 

Senator HIRONO. Good to know. 
63 

Chairman LEAHY. And you are very patient in waiting. Also, I 

thank Senator Blumenthal for representing so well the feelings of 

the people in Connecticut. 

Senator Hirono. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And I 

would like to thank the panel for this very lively discussion on 

what is a highly emotional subject. 

And, Captain Kelly, I would like to thank you for being here because Gabby and I were elected to the House of Representatives in 

the same year, and her courage continues to inspire us. And I certainly take to heart her testimony today asking us to do something 

now to reduce gun violence in our country. 

And, Chief Johnson, you are literally in the trenches. You are on 

the firing line and I certainly give much credence to your testimony. 

We have a lot of hunters in Hawaii, so I certainly understand 

their perspective. And to me, this issue is not about abrogating Second Amendment rights. It is about reasonable limits on those 

rights. And one of those areas that has already been deemed reasonable is the requirement for background checks. 

And so what many of us are saying is what has already been 

deemed reasonable should be a reasonable requirement when guns 

are sold regardless of how or where they are sold. So I hope that 

we can reach bipartisan agreement on the reasonable limit of requiring background checks when guns are sold. 

Captain Kelly, I do appreciate your starting your testimony today 

by saying that there is no perfect solution. There are all kinds of 

antecedent environmental issues and community issues that lead 

to gun violence, but I believe that we should do that which is reasonable. So nothing is perfect. 

I believe that one of the areas of focus for your organization, 

Americans for Responsible Solutions, is the mental health part of 

what we ought to be addressing that leads to gun violence. 

Do you have some key suggestions that Congress can take to 

help address the mental illness problem? 

Captain KELLY. Well, thank you, Senator. 

Well, you know, first of all, compelling States to share with the 

Federal Government the records, the appropriate records, of adjudicated mental illness and criminal records as well, also within the 

Federal Government. 

I had a conversation with the Vice President, who talked specifically about, you know, intergovernment agencies and why—that 

there has also been, you know, some issues in certain Federal Government agencies at times getting the records into the background 

check system. 

So if we could improve the system, close the gun show loophole, 

require background checks for private sellers, I think we will go a 

long way to preventing many of these murders and mass shootings 

in this country. 

We are not going to stop all of them, but there is certainly a reason that we have 20 times the murder rate—20 times the murder 

rate—of other developed countries. And I think that is unacceptable. 
64 

But, you know, like you said, you know, as an organization, I certainly think Congress can come together on this issue. We realize 

there is a problem, and it certainly can be solved. 

Senator HIRONO. Captain Kelly, it is one thing when someone 

has already been deemed to show signs of mental illness, and certainly if there has been any kind of an adjudication, that identification is much easier and, therefore, that information should get into 

our system. 

It becomes a lot harder when you are trying to determine whether someone is suffering from mental illness and needs help. And 

often these kinds of signs manifest themselves certainly in the 

home, but in the schools. And we do not have a lot of psychologists, 

therapists in our schools. 

Would you also support more of those kinds of personnel in our 

schools so that we can help these individuals? 

Captain KELLY. You know, absolutely. In the case of Jared 

Loughner in Tucson, Pima Community College was well aware, you 

know, that he had some form of mental illness. They expelled him 

over it. Multiple cases of very erratic and disruptive behavior in 

the classroom and outside the classroom. 

But, for some reason, he was not referred, as far as I know, to 

an appropriate mental health authority for an evaluation. And I 

know often those need to be voluntary, but his parents, as well. 

I mean, there seems in this case that there was a lack of education within the community to get him some effective treatment. 

And it is really—it is actually really sad. Because in his case, as 

I know in many other cases, often you will see a man who is paranoid schizophrenic that commits some of these horrific crimes. But 

with treatment, they would never have done these things. 

So, absolutely. I mean, we are going to work—at Americans for 

Responsible Solutions—we are going to work to help fix the mental 

health aspect of this, too. It is a big part of it. I agree with Mr. 

LaPierre on that matter. I mean, that is a major issue. But so is 

a comprehensive, universal, a good background check, without a 

loophole, without holes in it, and getting the data into the system. 

Those are critical things that can make our communities much 

safer. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you. 

I do have one question for Chief Johnson. This is an area that 

has not been raised today so far. It has to do with an environment 

that allows bullying to occur in our schools. And sometimes bullying can lead to violent situations. I am sure it has happened in 

Baltimore, and just recently in Hawaii, we had a situation in our 

schools where bullying led to fights, and the school had to be 

closed. 

So I think that one of the ways that we prevent escalation of violent behavior is to put in place programs that will address the 

issue of bullying, which takes place in just about every State. Do 

you have any thoughts on that? 

Chief JOHNSON. Yes. The President’s plan calls for not only funding and an announcement for additional police officers—and I believe Congress should support these plans—they also call for funding to support additional counselors and psychological service providers as well in the schools. 
65 

Certainly, in my particular case and in many jurisdictions across 

America, we have police officers in all the high schools and, frankly, the middle schools, costing my jurisdiction nearly $8 million a 

year. And they have a place, but certainly we believe that more 

needs to be done in this area. In my two school shootings, in both 

shootings, bullying was alleged to be a factor. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

I want to thank all the witnesses who came here. This was a 

lengthy hearing. It is the first of others we will have. I think what 

we are trying to do—and I hope people realize—on this committee 

is trying to write laws that protect the public. Now, I cherish and 

exercise my Second Amendment rights as I do all my rights under 

the Constitution. But I do not think individual rights include weapons of war like land mines or tanks or machine guns or rocket-propelled grenades. And where do we go as we step back from those 

levels? I came here to have a discussion, hoping to build consensus. 

Obviously, there is more work that needs to be done. 

I think there is one consensus. We all want to do what we can 

to prevent future tragedies and put an end to the violence that 

breaks all our hearts. You know, I live an hour’s drive from another country—Canada. I do not see the same kind of problem 

there. I want to find out how we can stop what is happening. I believe there should be some areas of agreement, and I hope the 

Committee can get together to mark up legislation next month— 

this month is virtually over—and then take it to the floor. 

We will respect the diversity of viewpoints represented today. We 

will have hearings that have other viewpoints. We have to listen 

to one another. But if we start with a basic thing that we abhor, 

the kind of violence we see and the violence I saw years ago as a 

prosecutor, let us find which steps work and go forward. 

So thank you all, all five of you, very, very much. 

We stand in recess. 

[Whereupon, at 1:55 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 

(67) 

A P P E N D I X 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
68 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAPT. MARK E. KELLY
69 
70 
71 
72 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PROF. DAVID B. KOPEL
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHIEF JAMES JOHNSON
109 
110 
111 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GAYLE S. TROTTER
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WAYNE LAPIERRE
123 
124 
125 
126 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PATRICK J. LEAHY
127 
128 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED CRUZ
129 
130 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR ORRIN G. HATCH
131 

MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 

Æ