U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

28–447 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

S. HRG. 113–892 

VAWA NEXT STEPS: PROTECTING 

WOMEN FROM GUN VIOLENCE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 30, 2014 

Serial No. J–113–71 

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 

KRISTINE LUCIUS, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

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

C O N T E N T S 

JULY 30, 2014, 10:04 A.M. 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Blumenthal, Hon. Richard, a U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut ........ 8 

Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois .................... 9 

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

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62 

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

Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota ................... 6 

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

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

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ...... 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 64 

WITNESSES 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 39 

Campbell, Jacquelyn, Ph.D., Professor and Anna D. Wolf Chair, Department 

of Community–Public Health, Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, 

Baltimore, Maryland ............................................................................................ 11 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40 

Daniel, Elvin, McHenry, Illinois ............................................................................. 19 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53 

Malcolm, Joyce Lee, Ph.D., Patrick Henry Professor of Constitutional Law 

and the Second Amendment, George Mason University School of Law, 

Arlington, Virginia ............................................................................................... 13 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 

McCaffery, Hon. Seamus P., Justice, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania .............................................................................................. 17 

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

Schmaling, Christopher, Sheriff, Racine County, Racine, Wisconsin .................. 15 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

QUESTIONS 

Questions submitted to Jacquelyn Campbell, Ph.D., by Senator Blumenthal ... 66 

Questions submitted to Joyce Lee Malcolm, Ph.D., by Senator Flake ................ 69 

Questions submitted to Joyce Lee Malcolm, Ph.D., by Senator Grassley ........... 71 

Questions submitted to Hon. Seamus P. McCaffery by Senator Grassley .......... 72 

Questions submitted to Sheriff Christopher Schmaling by Senator 

Blumenthal ........................................................................................................... 67 

Questions submitted to Sheriff Christopher Schmaling by Senator Grassley .... 73 

ANSWERS 

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

to the written questions, the Committee had not received responses from 

Jacquelyn Campbell, Ph.D.] 

Responses of Joyce Lee Malcolm, Ph.D., to questions submitted by Senator 

Flake ..................................................................................................................... 75 

Responses of Joyce Lee Malcolm, Ph.D., to questions submitted by Senator 

Grassley ................................................................................................................ 74 
Page

IV 

Responses of Hon. Seamus P. McCaffery to questions submitted by Senator 

Grassley ................................................................................................................ 79 

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

to the written questions, the Committee had not received responses from 

Sheriff Christopher Schmaling.] 

MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

American Academy of Nursing, Washington, DC, July 31, 2014, letter ............. 103 

Campbell, Bonnie, Former Director, Office on Violence Against Women, U.S. 

Department of Justice, statement ...................................................................... 85 

Center for American Progress (CAP), Washington, DC, August 5, 2014, letter . 88 

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), Washington, DC, statement ................ 81 

Everytown for Gun Safety, New York, New York, statement .............................. 97 

Martin, Christy Salters, Former American World Champion Boxer, statement 93 

National Center for Victims of Crime, Washington, DC, statement ................... 95 

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 101 

National Physicians Alliance, Washington, DC, July 30, 2014, letter ................ 105 

Ponce, Laura, Mother of a Domestic Violence Victim, Berryville, Arkansas, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 107 

States United to Prevent Gun Violence, New York, New York, statement ........ 106 
(1) 

VAWA NEXT STEPS: PROTECTING 

WOMEN FROM GUN VIOLENCE 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 2014 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in 

Room SD–106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Sheldon 

Whitehouse, presiding. 

Present: Senators Whitehouse, Durbin, Klobuchar, Franken, 

Blumenthal, Hirono, and Grassley. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Good morning, everyone. The hearing 

will come to order. I am delighted to see you all here, and I welcome the witnesses and thank them for coming. I welcome my 

Ranking Member, the distinguished Senator from Iowa. I welcome 

Senators Klobuchar and Blumenthal from Minnesota and Connecticut. And I have one procedural announcement, which is that 

we evidently have a vote scheduled at 10:45, and so toward the end 

of that vote, I plan to—and, Senator Hirono, from Hawaii, nice to 

see you. I plan to adjourn the hearing or recess the hearing briefly 

to allow us to go over and catch the end of one vote, the beginning 

of the next, and then reconvene. That will probably take about 15 

minutes total, just so you all know. 

On June 18, 1999, Carmen Cruz was watching television with 

her 8-year-old son, Travis, when her ex-boyfriend, Frederick 

Escobar, broke into her apartment and calmly walked toward her, 

carrying a pillow. When he was just a few feet away from Ms. 

Cruz, Mr. Escobar pulled a gun from the pillow, pointed it at her, 

and pulled the trigger. Travis watched as his mother collapsed, 

felled by a bullet shot by his own father. 

Ms. Cruz spent hours in surgery while doctors removed the bullet from her abdomen. She was hospitalized for 3 weeks and wore 

a colostomy bag for almost 2 years following the shooting. Today 

Ms. Cruz is a passionate advocate in Rhode Island’s domestic violence community, but her scars serve as a constant reminder that, 

as a survivor, she is one of the lucky ones. 

American women are 11 times more likely to be killed with guns 

than women in any other industrialized country. As this chart 

shows, the red line, which you may not be able to see, stands far 

beyond any other industrialized country. 
2 

Put another way, women in the United States account for 84 percent of all female firearm victims in the developed world. 

Let me repeat that: Women in the United States account for 84 

percent of all female firearm victims in the developed world. 

Of all the women murdered in this country, more than half are 

killed by family members or intimate partners. 

In fact, when a gun is present in a domestic violence situation, 

it increases the risk of homicide for women by 500 percent. 

Protecting women from gun violence by domestic abusers should 

not be, and has not been, a partisan issue. In the late 1990s, Congress passed important laws prohibiting the possession or purchase 

of firearms by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence or subject to domestic violence protective orders. These laws, 

which were part of the Violence Against Women Act and an 

amendment authored by the late Senator Frank Lautenberg, complemented the prohibitions on convicted felons and passed Congress with broad bipartisan support. 

These laws have saved lives. In States with rigorous background 

check laws, 38 percent fewer women are shot to death by intimate 

partners. But they are not enough. 

Current law prohibits domestic abusers from possessing guns 

only if they are—or were—married to the victim, if they have lived 

with the victim, or if they have a child in common with the victim. 

Dating partners who have been convicted of domestic violence offenses are not covered, even though the most recent data shows 

that more domestic abuse is committed by dating partners than 

spouses. Closing the dating partner loophole would save lives, plain 

and simple. There are other steps we can take as well. These include requiring universal background checks and helping States 

collect and share the data necessary to ensure that those who we 

already agree should be prohibited under existing law are, in actual practice and fact, prohibited when they try to purchase firearms. Along these lines, I am willing to work with anyone who 

wants to strengthen the National Instant Criminal Background 

Check System, or NICS, to ensure that it operates as Congress intended it to. 

Nobody on this Committee has been working harder than Senators Blumenthal and Klobuchar to shine a light on the role of 

guns in domestic violence and to address the loopholes that allow 

abusers to use guns to kill, injure, and threaten their victims. I 

know we will hear more about their initiatives, and I want to 

thank them both at the outset for their commitment and their efforts. 

I also would like to thank Chairman Leahy for his leadership in 

reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act last year and for 

his longstanding recognition of the role of guns in domestic violence. 

Finally, it bears mentioning that this is not a hearing about the 

Second Amendment or the right of law-abiding Americans to own 

firearms. Nobody on this Committee wants to deprive individuals— 

women or men—from legally owning guns, and none of the solutions we are here to discuss involve doing that. What we are here 

to consider is how guns in domestic violence situations threaten 

American women and how best to ensure that those who should 
3 

not possess guns do not possess guns. I understand that there are 

a number of domestic violence survivors and advocates here with 

us today. I would be honored to recognize them right now if they 

would not mind standing up. 

[Applause.] 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

I would also like to submit the statements of our Chairman, Senator Patrick Leahy; of Christy Salters Martin, Bonnie Campbell, 

Laura Ponce, Katie Ray Jones, and Everytown for Gun Safety, and 

the National Center for Victims of Crime into the record. Without 

objection, they will be added to the record. Thank you all for your 

support of this effort and for your courage. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Leahy appears as a submission for the record.] 

[The information referred to appears as submissions for the 

record.] 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. I would like to welcome all our witnesses and thank them for participating in the hearing and turn 

the microphone to my distinguished Ranking Member, Senator 

Grassley. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. Bonnie Campbell, whom you just mentioned, 

is a former Attorney General of the State of Iowa. 

Mr. Chairman, we are here to discuss a very important subject. 

Thanks to our experts who have agreed to be panelists for us. All 

of us want to see the Federal Government take appropriate action 

to assist in fighting domestic violence, and especially domestic 

homicides. 

I have met with many victims of domestic violence over the 

years. I feel compassion for the physical, mental, and emotional injuries they have suffered, and you particularly feel that when you 

talk to people that have experienced that. They have told me of the 

fear that they confront. And I want to take effective action against 

perpetrators of violence against women. 

So today I am one of the lead Republicans in a group of bipartisan Senators who have come together on a bill to address sexual 

assault on our Nation’s college campuses. 

But to me, all domestic homicides are tragedies. It does not matter how the victim died. Forty-five percent of domestic homicides 

now do not involve guns, a figure considerably higher than in the 

1980s. 

In 1996, I had the pleasure of voting for the Lautenberg amendment. Those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors were prohibited from owning firearms. So were those against whom permanent restraining orders were entered because of domestic violence. 

For these prohibitions to be effective, obviously records of the 

convictions and restraining orders must be entered into the National Instant Background Check System. And the Chairman just 

spoke about his interest in that, for that to be an effective system. 

So it distresses me that even now, all these years later, according 

to the Center for American Progress, ‘‘only 36 States have submitted any domestic violence misdemeanor convictions to the NICS 
4 

Index, and of these, 21 States have submitted 20 or fewer of these 

records. An even smaller number of States have submitted records 

regarding restraining orders: 19 States have submitted domestic violence restraining order records to the NICS Index, and of these, 

9 States have submitted 10 or fewer.’’ 

I note that Rhode Island has submitted exactly zero misdemeanor domestic violence records to NICS and exactly zero domestic violence restraining order records. The corresponding numbers for Delaware are zero and zero; Hawaii, three and zero; Illinois, one and zero; Minnesota, 16 and two; New York, zero and ten; 

Vermont, two and zero. 

These States are failing to do their jobs. 

Iowa ranks near the top among the States in this regard, but I 

can confess to you we still have to do a better job in my State. 

Seventy-nine percent of the records submitted come from three 

small States. As the report says, ‘‘If all States submitted records 

of misdemeanor domestic violence convictions at the average rate 

of these three States, we can project there would be 2.9 million 

records in the NICS Index in this category, more than 40 times the 

number currently submitted.’’ 

This means that large numbers of prohibited persons under the 

law today can purchase a firearm through legal channels because 

the instant background check system fails to identify them as such. 

Our NICS system is full of holes with respect to the current gun 

prohibitions, greatly reducing the effectiveness of background 

checks. 

Last year, Senator Cruz and I offered an amendment to legislation before the Senate that would have helped fix the NICS system. 

Our amendment would have improved State compliance with NICS 

reporting for mental health records for prohibited persons. 

It received the most bipartisan support of any similar legislation, 

but it did not move because it did not receive the 60 required votes. 

We should do the same with respect to persons who have been convicted of domestic violence crimes and subject to permanent restraining orders. We should be able to gain a bipartisan effort to 

enact legislation of this type. 

But that is not the majority’s approach. 

There are two bills before the Committee on domestic gun violence. 

One of them, from Senator Klobuchar, expands the definition of 

prohibited persons to include dating violence, beyond the cohabitating relationships in current law, as well as to add convicted 

stalkers to the list of prohibited persons. 

Another, by Senator Blumenthal, also expands the relationships 

and would make those subject to temporary restraining orders, entered without notice to the alleged abuser, prohibited persons. 

A significant problem exists with the completeness of background 

checks under the law. It is hard to believe that expanding the universe of prohibited persons whose records will not show up when 

a background check is performed will reduce gun homicides. 

I fear that false hopes are again being raised. In many states, 

few persons are convicted of misdemeanor stalking. In Maryland, 

for instance, zero were convicted of that crime last year, one in Arkansas, and five in New Mexico. Making these offenders prohibited 
5 

persons will not accomplish very much, even if their records made 

it into NICS, which is a questionable assumption. 

These bills would expand retroactively the definition of ‘‘prohibited person.’’ But they will also make actual individuals who were 

allowed to own guns criminals retroactively, not by virtue of their 

crime, but by the passing of the legislation. 

Who is going to spend the time and the personnel to go over 

every domestic violence conviction record and examine the relationships between the parties to determine whether they fit the definition of these bills? Who is going to actually input those records into 

NICS? 

Suppose someone determines erroneously that a prior conviction 

was for conduct against a dating partner. What recourse will the 

individual have to demonstrate that he is not a prohibited person? 

How will guns actually be taken from that prohibited person? How 

soon would an officer be diverted from another law enforcement activity to remove those guns? 

The restraining order provisions could pose some problems. In a 

large percentage of cases, temporary restraining orders issued 

without notice to the defendant do not lead to permanent orders. 

Yet the constitutional rights of the accused could be taken without 

due process. That person will not know that he or she is a prohibited person if, during the brief period the order is in effect, law enforcement should show up to take away a gun. 

We should also be very skeptical that a temporary order will be 

entered into NICS in time to stop someone from passing a background check. Making existing NICS records more complete is far 

more likely to make the difference in domestic violence homicides, 

especially gun homicides, than the bills the Committee is considering. 

I understand that domestic violence advocates asked the majority 

to hold a hearing on domestic violence homicides many months ago 

but were repeatedly put off. For instance, the Klobuchar bill was 

introduced more than a year ago. But only as we are about to head 

out of town, with very few legislative days remaining, has this 

hearing taken place responding to the request of advocates. Only 

as the number of days until the election grew short did the Committee schedule the hearing. 

The Committee has not held a markup for bills for 2 weeks now. 

Had the majority been serious about reducing domestic, we had the 

time to work together to come up with a bipartisan solution. There 

was a real opportunity in this Congress for a bipartisan effort to 

combat intimate homicides of all kinds. That opportunity I believe 

has been squandered. 

The bills before the Committee today deal with the problem of 

keeping currently prohibited persons from owning firearms. I hope 

that going forward, we will work together to find bipartisan, wellthought-out, practical ways to protect women and men from violence of all kinds. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. I am sure we will, Senator Grassley, 

and I think this hearing will help advance that cause. And because 

Senator Klobuchar and Senator Blumenthal have both shown such 

leadership in this area and have bills in this area, they have re-
6 

quested making an opening statement, so I will recognize the two 

of them for opening statements, first Senator Klobuchar, and then 

we will proceed with the witnesses. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Chairman 

Whitehouse, thank you, Senator Grassley, and thank you also to 

Chairman Leahy for holding this hearing, and thank you to Senator Blumenthal for his work in this area. 

Tragically, we have had a number of major shootings that have 

killed multiple people over the last few years in our country. From 

Newtown to Nevada, we have seen that there is still more to be 

done in terms of closing loopholes in our background check system 

and looking at mental health issues. 

I would point out that some of the issues raised by Senator 

Grassley, which are good ones, about the recordkeeping, some of 

that would have been helped by the Manchin-Toomey bill, which 

contained penalties for States and also grants to make it easier for 

them to enter in this data. In States that do require a background 

check for private handgun sales, 38 percent fewer women are shot 

to death by their intimate partners. 

As a former prosecutor, I have seen firsthand how domestic violence and sexual assault can destroy lives and tear apart families. 

For 8 years, I ran an office of over 400 people. I was charged with 

protecting domestic violence victims and enforcing the gun laws we 

had on the books. Enforcing the laws involving felons in possession 

of a gun was one of my major priorities for those 8 years. 

But one of the things I learned as a prosecutor is that there is 

still more work to be done. I was reminded of this over the Christmas holidays in 2011 when I went to one of the saddest funerals 

I have ever attended for Officer Shawn Schneider. He was a young 

Lake City police officer with three children. His department had received a domestic violence call from a 17-year-old victim. It was 

someone that she had dated. Officer Schneider, just doing his job, 

showed up at the door that day. He was wearing a bulletproof vest, 

but no vest could have protected him when the perpetrator shot 

him in the head and killed him. 

At the funeral in that church were his three children. Only a 

week ago, the officer had been there with the family at the church 

nativity play. That day he was in the front in a coffin, and his 

three little children walked down the aisle of the church. And the 

one thing I will never forget was the little girl in a blue dress covered with stars. That is what this is about. 

Last year, the women of the Senate stood together to reauthorize 

the Violence Against Women Act. The bill that was signed into law 

included the provision that I worked on with former Republican 

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison that strengthens and updates Federal anti-stalking laws to better address a new technology that 

predators are using to harass their victims. Passing that bill was 

a critical step in protecting women, but there is more to be done. 

A recent report found that 57 percent of recent mass shootings 

involved domestic violence. That is why last July I introduced, 
7 

along with Senator Hirono, the Domestic Violence and Stalking 

Victims Protection Act. Our bill really does two things. 

Our common-sense bill would help protect stalking victims and 

keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people that stalk. It 

makes sure that stalkers cannot get guns. Many States are already 

starting to do this on a bipartisan basis with Democratic and Republican support, including my own State. 

One in six women have been stalked during their lifetime. Stalking is often the first step in an escalating pattern of criminal behavior that culminates in physical violence. The Department of 

Justice reports that 76 percent of women who are murdered by intimate partners were first stalked by their partner. 

Second, our bill would make an important change to expand the 

definition of victims who are covered. Right now, people who are 

not married and have not either lived together or had a child together are not covered under the current definition of ‘‘intimate 

partner.’’ They are vulnerable because their stalkers and their 

abusers are legally able to obtain firearms despite having committed a domestic violence crime or being subject to a permanent 

restraining order. Our bill fixes this problem by expanding the definition of ‘‘intimate partners’’ to include dating partners. Many 

States have already done it. We are simply bringing the Federal 

law in line with what many States have already done. 

I have been proud to stand up for this bill with former Representative Gabby Giffords and her husband, astronaut Captain 

Mark Kelly, in support of this bill. Like Gabby and Mark, in my 

home State of Minnesota, we value hunting and the outdoors. If it 

is not duck season or pheasant season in Minnesota, it is deer season. And when I looked at doing this bill, I always thought of my 

Uncle Dick in his deer stand and would this do anything to hurt 

him in that deer stand. The answer is clearly no. 

This bill is about preventing a person with a documented history 

of domestic violence or stalking or mental illness from having a 

firearm. That is it. 

I know that Senator Blumenthal has been working on these 

issues as well, especially for dating partners and temporary restraining orders, and I want to thank him for his leadership. 

One of the things that Justice McCaffery said in his testimony 

was that our bills ‘‘look to strengthen current Federal domestic violence laws to bring them more in line with the current laws that 

many States have dealing with crimes of violence toward women 

[and] same-sex partners . . . ’’ 

These bills are simple. These bills are designed to focus on an 

area where we know we have seen rampant violence. 

I want to thank all our witnesses for being here, and I hope that 

our colleagues will join us in supporting these bills. And one of the 

reasons, Senator Grassley, that we waited to do this hearing was 

that I have been trying to get a Republican cosponsor on this bill. 

I have been very close several times. I know I am going to get it 

done. But that is the reason that we waited to have this hearing. 

Thank you, Senator Grassley, Senator Whitehouse. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Senator Blumenthal. 
8 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you very, very much, Senator 

Whitehouse, for convening this hearing and for yourself spearheading and advocating measures to stop domestic violence, and I 

want to join you in thanking our Chairman, Senator Leahy, for 

permitting this hearing to go forward. 

I also want to particularly salute and thank my colleague Senator Klobuchar, who has been so steadfast and strong in advancing 

this cause, and I am proud to be working with her and to be supporting her bill as a cosponsor. And I think our measures are very 

much complementary. 

I want to thank also the other Members of this Committee, including Senator Durbin and Senator Hirono, Senator Feinstein, 

and the late Senator Lautenberg for their leadership, really incomparable leadership in this cause. And, of course, the many advocates around the country who are championing common-sense, sensible measures to stop gun violence and domestic violence. The two 

together are a toxic, deadly combination. Women are five times as 

likely, more likely to die from domestic violence when there are 

guns in their household. 

I especially want to thank the survivors, the loved ones of victims who are here today. I know how much courage and strength 

it takes for you to be with us. But your presence is so powerful and 

meaningful, far more eloquent than anything I could say here or 

anywhere else. And I want to say a particular thanks to a Connecticut family who are here, Mary and Doug Jackson. Their 

daughter, Lori, was a victim of domestic violence. But she chose not 

to accept it. She displayed the courage that her parents taught her, 

and she decided to break with it. As many of you know, that decision takes such enormous bravery and resoluteness. She broke with 

her husband. She went to live with her parents. She took with her 

her 18-month-old twins. She left her abusive husband, and she decided to begin a new life. 

Lori’s act of courage should have liberated her, should have freed 

her. But instead she became a victim again, and this time fatally. 

Her estranged husband tracked her down in her mother’s house, 

and he used the gun that he was still legally allowed to possess to 

gun her down and to seriously injure her mother, firing bullets at 

her that almost killed Mary Jackson. Mary and Doug Jackson are 

with us today, and I am so deeply grateful to you for joining us. 

Lori Jackson sought, successfully, a temporary restraining order, 

which should have protected her. The law failed Lori Jackson. The 

judge granted that restraining order after determining that her 

husband posed a clear threat to her safety and the safety of her 

children. But even after that determination, Lori’s husband was 

still able to keep the gun that killed her. 

Even if he had not possessed that gun, he could have legally purchased a new one, even at the moment of heightened rage when 

he learned that she had left and was seeking that restraining 

order. In most States, somebody subject to a temporary restraining 

order can lose access to his house, to his children, to his car, but 

under Federal law he can still keep his guns. 
9 

Somebody might be considered too dangerous to see their son but 

not too dangerous to buy a handgun. And because of that loophole 

in our law, abuse victims are the least protected by the laws of our 

Nation at the moment they are in the most danger. At the moment 

when they are most likely to be physically harmed because of the 

rage and wrath of their estranged spouse or intimate partner, they 

are less protected than any other time. 

I have offered legislation to close this loophole and require a period after the domestic abuser becomes subject to a temporary restraining order. During that period when a judge has found that 

someone poses a threat and issues a temporary restraining order, 

the subject of that order should be barred from purchasing or possessing a gun, and the justice system should be helping the potential victim. 

Unfortunately, and tragically, and unacceptably, most victims 

are still at the mercy of their abuser’s rage, despite the kind of 

courage that Lori Jackson demonstrated in breaking with an abusive spouse. 

I have also introduced a measure, the Gun Homicide Prevention 

Act, to make sure that there are incentives and resources and 

grants available to States so that they will enforce these laws. 

These States are provided with grants under this legislation that 

encourages them to get illegal guns out of the hands of dangerous 

people and away from dangerous situations, and it gives them the 

resources to do so effectively. 

Enforcement, as I know from my own background as Attorney 

General of the State of Connecticut for a couple of decades and as 

a Federal law enforcement officer as United States Attorney, is the 

key to making the law real in people’s lives. Right now Federal law 

is a shadow of what it should be in protecting against gun violence 

and domestic abuse. 

I want to recognize again the thousands of men and women who 

have become victims as a result of this gaping, unforgivable loophole in Federal law. Their strength and courage will inspire me 

and I hope inspire this body, just as Lori Jackson’s parents being 

here today should give us the resoluteness and the strength to 

make this law real. I want to thank again them, the advocates who 

are before us today on this panel, and, Mr. Chairman, thank you 

very much. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Senator Durbin, do I understand you 

wish to make a statement as well? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DICK DURBIN, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Senator DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I know we want to hear from 

the panel. I want to especially recognize the attendance of Mr. 

Elvin Daniel, who is a resident of Illinois and is going to tell us 

the sad story of his sister. Mr. Daniel makes a declaration early in 

his statement that he is a conservative, constitutionalist, member 

of the NRA, and he comes to us today still asking for protection for 

women like his sister and others who might have a chance if we 

pass the Manchin-Toomey background check to keep guns out of 

the hands of convicted felons and people who are mentally unstable 

as well as the Klobuchar and Blumenthal legislation to protect 
10 

women who are victims of domestic violence and stalking. Thank 

you, Mr. Daniel, for being here. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator. 

Will the witnesses please stand to be sworn? Do you affirm that 

the testimony you will give here today will be the truth, the whole 

truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Ms. CAMPBELL. I do. 

Ms. MALCOLM. I do. 

Sheriff SCHMALING. I do. 

Justice MCCAFFERY. I do. 

Mr. DANIEL. I do. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

I will introduce the whole panel, and then we will go through 

their testimony. 

I will first introduce Jacqueline Campbell, who is the Anna D. 

Wolf Chair of the Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing and 

the national program director of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Nurse Faculty Scholars Program. In 2012, she was recognized 

by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as one of 20 national leaders in injury and violence prevention for her work related to domestic violence. Dr. Campbell is on the board of directors 

of Futures Without Violence, has served on the board of five domestic violence shelters, and was a member of the congressionally appointed Department of Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence. 

She has published more than 225 articles and 7 books and has extensive policy-related service nationally and internationally related 

to women and violence, and she has cut a vacation short to be with 

us, so we are particularly honored that she is here. 

Joyce Lee Malcolm will testify after Dr. Campbell. She is the 

Patrick Henry Professor of Constitutional Law and the Second 

Amendment at George Mason University School of Law. She holds 

a Ph.D. in history and specializes in constitutional law, legal history, and law and war. Malcolm is the author of seven books and 

numerous articles for legal and historical journals and the popular 

press. Her book, ‘‘To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an 

Anglo-American Right,’’ was cited by the Supreme Court in the recent Second Amendment case of District of Columbia v. Heller. 

After her, we will hear from Sheriff Christopher Schmaling. 

Sheriff Schmaling was elected sheriff of Racine County, Wisconsin, 

in 2010. In that role, he established the first ever domestic violence 

specialist position in the State. Sheriff Schmaling has served as a 

law enforcement officer for two decades and resides with his family 

in the village of Mount Pleasant. And I understand that it is his 

son’s 16th birthday today, so we are particularly grateful for his 

participation in this hearing. It is a pleasure to have you with us, 

Sheriff. I know your son must be very proud. 

Next we will hear from Justice McCaffery, who was born in Belfast, Northern Ireland, but has called Philadelphia his home since 

the age of 5. He has made a career of public service, serving his 

country as a United States Marine, his city as a police officer for 

20 years, and his State as first a trial and now an appellate judge. 

Justice McCaffery is the liaison justice for problem-solving courts 

across Pennsylvania as well as the liaison justice to the special 
11 

court judges of Pennsylvania. He has been at the forefront in creating veterans courts across Pennsylvania. 

And, finally, already introduced by his Senator, Senator Durbin, 

Elvin Daniel joins us from Illinois, where he is a salesman for 

Blackhawk Industrial. He is here to share the story of his sister, 

Zina, who was killed by her estranged husband just days after she 

obtained a restraining order against him. Unfortunately, Zina’s 

story highlights only too well the urgent need for universal background checks. We are very grateful that Mr. Daniel is here and 

thank him for coming and for his courage. 

Let me begin now with Dr. Campbell. We have a terrific panel. 

Lead us off. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF JACQUELYN CAMPBELL, PH.D., PROFESSOR 

AND ANNA D. WOLF CHAIR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY– 

PUBLIC HEALTH, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF 

NURSING, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 

Ms. CAMPBELL. Senators, I am grateful for the opportunity to testify in these very important hearings today. I will present data 

from my own research on domestic violence homicide of women, as 

well as from other important research and national data bases on 

this topic. I testify today as a citizen, as a nurse, and with the endorsement of the American Academy of Nursing. 

The United States, as has been said, has a higher homicide rate 

of women than all other westernized countries and amongst the 

highest rate in the world. This disparity is particularly pronounced 

for homicides of women committed with guns, in which the country, 

as was said, the rate exceeds by 11 times the average rate in other 

industrialized countries. 

Much of this fatal violence against women is committed by intimate partners. Although neither entirely complete and nor without 

coding errors, the FBI’s Supplemental Homicide Reports are the 

most complete national data base of homicide with information on 

the relationship of the perpetrator to the victim. In the most recent 

data available, from 2011, at least 45 percent of the murders of 

women were committed by a current husband or boyfriend or exhusband. If we only examine the homicides where the perpetrator 

relationship to the victim was identified, more than half—54 percent—of the homicides of women are committed by a husband, boyfriend, or former husband. There were 10 times as many women 

killed by a current husband or boyfriend or ex-husband as by a 

male stranger in that data base. 

The majority of this violence is perpetrated with firearms. In the 

Violence Policy Center analysis of the 2011 murders of women, 

there were 1,707 females murdered by males in single-victim/single-offender incidents. Of those incidents of homicides in which the 

weapon could be determined, more of these homicides were committed with firearms—51 percent—than with any other weapon. 

Women are also killed by partner or ex-partners when they are 

pregnant. In an important study of maternal mortality in the State 

of Maryland from 1993 to 2008, Dr. Diana Cheng and Dr. Isabelle 

Horon examined medical records of women who died during the 

pregnancy and the first postpartum year. Homicides were the leading cause of death to those pregnant women and immediately 
12 

postpartum. Firearms were the most common method of death, 

61.8 percent. A current or former intimate partner was the perpetrator in more than half of those murders, and nearly two-thirds 

of intimate partner homicide victims in this study were killed with 

guns. In a national study of pregnancy-associated homicide, firearms again accounted for the majority of homicides. And a majority 

of those perpetrators were not married to their victims. 

Research my peers and I have conducted provides further insights into how firearm access and domestic abuse elevate the risk 

of homicide for American women and explain why existing Federal 

laws restrict certain convicted domestic abusers from buying or 

possessing guns. 

Survey research of battered women indicates that when a firearm is present, a majority of abusers will use the gun to threaten 

or injure a victim. In a study Susan Sorenson and Douglas Weibe 

conducted with over 400 women in domestic violence shelters in 

California, two-thirds of those abused women who reported a firearm in their home said their intimate partner used a gun against 

them, with 71.4 percent threatening to shoot or kill her and 5.1 

percent actually shooting at her. 

Among the most rigorous research available on factors that influence a woman’s likelihood of homicide is the national, 12-city casecontrol study of intimate partner homicide by a husband, boyfriend, 

ex-husband, or ex-boyfriend conducted by myself and my colleagues. In the study we compared a group of abused women who 

were murdered by their partner or ex-partner to another group of 

abused women who were not. Controlling for other factors, we 

found that gun access or ownership increased the risk of homicide 

over and above prior domestic violence by 5.4 times. Gun access 

was the strongest risk factor for an abused woman to be killed by 

her partner or ex-partner. When the perpetrator committed suicide 

after killing his partner, the gun ownership increased the chances 

of this homicide-suicide by an adjusted odds ratio of 13. 

Neither of those studies found evidence that women frequently 

use firearms to defend themselves against abuse or that access to 

a firearm reduces the risk of homicide for the woman victim. 

In leaving out abusive dating partners, current Federal firearm 

prohibitions ignore the perpetrators of a large and growing share 

of intimate partner homicides. The U.S. Department of Justice data 

shows that the share of domestic violence homicides committed by 

dating partners has been rising for three decades, and boyfriends 

now commit more homicides than do spouses. The Supplemental 

Homicide Reports does not accurately code for ex-boyfriends, and 

this is a category that is also growing. Estimating from our study, 

we find that approximately 300 to 500 female intimate partner 

homicides each year should be added to the approximately 1,000 already counted in those Supplemental Homicide Reports. 

Bill 1290, the Protecting Domestic Violence and Stalking Victims 

Act, would expand our national domestic violence laws to include 

both former and current dating partners who together represented 

48 percent of those male domestic violence perpetrators in our 

study and, therefore, is an extremely important way to keep 

women safe and to save lives. 
13 

There is also evidence that State laws to strengthen firearm prohibitions against domestic abusers reduce intimate partner homicide. Two separate important studies—one of 46 of the largest cities in the United States, and one of State-level data—found that 

State statutes restricting those under domestic violence restraining 

orders from accessing or possessing firearms are associated with reductions in intimate partner homicides, driven by a reduction in 

those committed by firearms. Vigdor and Mercy’s study also found 

that State laws that prohibit firearm possession by people under 

domestic violence restraining orders, along with entering state domestic violence restraining orders into that Federal data base, reduced intimate partner homicide of women by firearms by 12 to 13 

percent and decreased overall intimate partner homicide by 10 percent. 

In conclusion, women who suffer abuse are among the most important for society to protect. Congress has an opportunity to do so 

by strengthening the laws to keep domestic abusers from getting 

guns. Ample scientific evidence also shows that in doing so you will 

save lives. 

And I want to end with a quote from a woman that I interviewed 

who was the mother of one of the women who was killed in our 

study, and she said, ‘‘Please let her story be told. Do not let her 

death be for nothing.’’ 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Campbell appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Dr. Campbell. 

Dr. Malcolm. 

STATEMENT OF JOYCE LEE MALCOLM, PH.D., PATRICK HENRY 

PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND THE SECOND 

AMENDMENT, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF 

LAW, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 

Ms. MALCOLM. Yes, first I would like to thank the Committee for 

inviting me. It is a real honor to be present at this important hearing. 

I think that we can all agree that we have the same goals here: 

that we want to protect victims of domestic violence, and more generally we are interested in public safety. 

The current laws on the books are not perfect, but they have the 

great virtue of according with longstanding traditions of American 

law by protecting the rights of everyone concerned, rights that the 

Supreme Court defines as ‘‘deeply rooted in the Nation’s history 

and tradition,’’ ‘‘fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty.’’ And 

with due respect to Chairman Whitehouse, these bills that are behind this hearing do violence to the right of the Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and 

seizure, and most importantly, I think, to due process, providing 

due process in the normal way. 

I would like to first start with some statistics to put this whole 

debate in context. A fact that is very seldom advertised is that 

homicides in this country have been down sharply for the last 20 

years, as well as other violent crime. The last time that the crime 

rate for serious crime—murder, rape, robbery, and assault—was 
14 

this low, gasoline was 29 cents a gallon. And the average American 

working person was earning $5,807. It is hard for us to remember 

gas at 29 cents a gallon. 

The rate of family violence, which is much more the focus of this 

hearing, has also fallen between 1993 and 2002, and it continues 

to fall. Only one in ten violent victimizations involve family violence, and most family violence is simple assault. Less than onehalf of 1 percent of the victims are killed. 

The proportion of female homicides during this time period of 

women who are killed by guns is also down while women who have 

been killed by other means has gone up. 

The Blumenthal and Klobuchar bills present various problems 

for the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, for the protection against unreasonable search and seizure, and due process. 

There is this new focus on stalking expanding to non-cohabiting individuals and involving not only serious incidents of actual violence, but bullying and a wide range of other acts under a definition of ‘‘harassment,’’ which can be verbal and very vague and 

seems to often tend to grow depending on what you regard as harassment. Large numbers of people who are likely to be convicted 

or might be convicted of simply verbally harassing somebody might 

lose the right to have a firearm. 

The most concerning thing, I think, is the change in the temporary restraining order. The temporary restraining order would 

mean that the person who is alleging that they are endangered, 

after they file for this, after the mere allegation, can send the police to the person that they are citing’s home searching for guns or 

any other weapon that they find, without any kind of a hearing. 

In other words, as the Red Queen in ‘‘Alice in Wonderland’’ said, 

it is, ‘‘Sentence first and verdict afterwards.’’ And that is a true violation of the right of everyone to be heard. And, in fact, in temporary restraining order hearings in the past, half of those who 

have been cited as being potentially dangerous have been found not 

guilty. But all of these people would in the future have their weapons taken away from them first, and then sometime later there 

would be a hearing at which they would be allowed to produce 

some kind of evidence to the contrary. 

The other aspect that is troubling is making this retroactive so 

that anyone who is ever convicted of harassment or had a temporary restraining order against them would lose their right to be 

armed indefinitely. Many people who have accepted plea bargains 

on the assumption that they knew what that entailed would find 

that they now no longer have a right to be armed for the rest of 

their lives. 

I think that the intention is there to do good and to protect 

women, but I think that both of these bills have the wrong approach. It is wrong to deprive people of their basic rights. It is 

wrong to deprive people of the right of due process and the opportunity to present evidence before they are actually treated as if 

they were guilty and afterwards things are sorted out. 

I would like to just conclude with the majority opinion written 

by Justice Scalia in Heller, where he ends by saying, ‘‘the 

enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.’’ I think there are other and better ways 
15 

that women can be protected without having to violate the rights 

of anyone in the process. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Malcolm appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. We now turn to Sheriff Schmaling. 

Thank you very much for being here. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER SCHMALING, SHERIFF, 

RACINE COUNTY, RACINE, WISCONSIN 

Sheriff SCHMALING. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Whitehouse, Senator Grassley, and other Members of 

the Committee, thank you for hosting this hearing today. It is quite 

an honor to be here before you today. My name is Christopher 

Schmaling. I am the sheriff of Racine County, Wisconsin. I have 

been a law enforcement officer for nearly 20 years. I am a conservative Republican, and I am here today to ask you to pass two very 

common-sense laws that will protect our sisters, our daughters, 

and our mothers by keeping guns out of the hands of domestic 

abusers. 

As the top law enforcement officer in Racine County, and with 

over two decades of law enforcement experience, I have seen firsthand the tragic events firsthand. I want to tell you about one such 

domestic violence incident, a tragedy that changed my career. 

Back in 2004, Teri Jendusa-Nicolai was violently abused and left 

for dead by her ex-husband. After 3 years of a violently abusive 

marriage, Teri had the courage to divorce her husband. She had 

taken out multiple restraining orders during this timeframe. On 

that horrible day, a very cold January day in 2004, he beat her in 

the head with a baseball bat, and as she tried to fight back, he 

then threatened her with a .38 caliber handgun. He bound and 

gagged her, filled a garbage can full of snow, pushed her into the 

garbage can, and placed her in an unheated storage locker for 26 

hours. 

My partner and I were the lead investigators on this particular 

case, and through some great breaks and some great luck and a 

blessing from above, we were able to rescue Teri before she died. 

As a result of this ordeal, Teri had a miscarriage, and she lost all 

ten of her toes on both feet due to frostbite. 

Teri is one of the most wonderful people I have ever known and 

has been a tremendous advocate for victims of abuse over a decade 

since she was nearly killed at gunpoint. We have become very close 

since then, and my eyes have been wide open to the reality of domestic violence and gun violence, as they seem to go hand in hand. 

I have also been close with Elvin Daniel, who is sitting here today, 

and I have been moved by his sister Zina’s story. 

I am proud to say that in Racine County we were the first in the 

State to have a full-time domestic violence specialist. We work 

closely with domestic violence victims to see how we can best protect them. Any cop will tell you that domestic violence calls are the 

most dangerous calls that law enforcement officers will respond to. 

The last thing that the victim needs and the last thing that my 

deputies need is a dangerous abuser armed with illegal weapons. 
16 

Abusers routinely threaten to shoot my deputies prior to our arrival at domestic violence calls. And, in fact, according to the FBI 

statistics, 150 law enforcement officers have been killed in action 

while responding to domestic disturbances. 

I am proud to have worked on a great domestic violence bill in 

Wisconsin earlier this year. It was called ‘‘The Safe Act’’ that ensures guns are kept out of the hands of domestic abusers. This bill 

was passed by a bipartisan majority and signed by our Republican 

Governor Scott Walker. 

The first bill I am asking you to pass today is the Protecting Domestic Violence and Stalking Victims Act, S. 1290, introduced by 

Senator Klobuchar. This bill would close a loophole that allows 

abusive boyfriends to buy and have guns, simply because they are 

not married to their victims. And it would also block people with 

stalking convictions from having guns. Dangerous boyfriends can 

be just as scary as dangerous husbands; they hit just as hard and 

they fire their weapons with the same deadly force. In fact, according to FBI data, more women are killed in America by their abusive boyfriends than by their abusive spouses. 

This past March, just a couple hours from Racine County, Cheryl 

Gilberg was killed by her ex-boyfriend in a domestic dispute. The 

killer, a convicted felon, apparently shot Cheryl with her own gun. 

According to news reports, she had been seeking a restraining 

order at the time of the killing. But in cases like Cheryl’s, a restraining order is not good enough. If you have never been married 

to your abuser, Federal law likely will not stop him from buying 

or purchasing a gun. 

The second bill I am asking you to pass today would require 

criminal background checks for gun buyers who shop with unlicensed sellers. Current Federal law prohibits many abusers from 

buying guns, but only requires them to pass a background check 

if they shop with a dealer. This gaping hole in the law simply 

means that a convicted wife-beater can slip through the cracks and 

get a gun by finding a seller who does not own a gun store. 

This is exactly what happened in our State, Dane County, Wisconsin. Tyrone Adair was a domestic abuser who had been convicted of battery not once but twice. He was legally prohibited from 

possessing a gun because of a restraining order. So instead of shopping at a gun dealer, he found an ad for a 9mm Glock in a local 

newspaper. He reached out to the seller. They agreed to meet at 

a hardware store. There was no background check, though the seller did ask this question, and I quote: ‘‘You are not going to go out 

and kill someone, are you?’’ Tyrone Adair used that gun on a horrific murdering spree. He killed both of his children—they were 

ages 1 and 2 at the time—and both of their mothers. 

We see the terror that abusers create when they are armed. We 

see the impact on their wives, their girlfriends, and their children. 

We are major proponents of community policing in Racine County. 

We have a community of about 200,000 people. And if I and my officers are on the street, working closely with these very citizens 

that we are sworn to protect, I want to know that our laws are 

doing everything we can to keep guns out of abusive hands. 

So I am here today to speak for victims of abuse and to speak 

for my deputies. I have made it a priority to talk to victims. I have 
17 

seen the escalation over the years—yelling, battery, and, unfortunately, homicide. When an abuser has a gun, the victims will tell 

me, ‘‘Sheriff, it is not a question of if he will use that weapon 

against me; it is a matter of when.’’ 

I am asking you today to stand up against abuse by fixing our 

out-of-date laws and passing some clear, common-sense legislation. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Sheriff Schmaling appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Sheriff 

Schmaling, and happy birthday to your son. 

We will go ahead and hear from Judge McCaffery, and then we 

will see how the vote is going, and we may break after that to go 

get the two votes in. I want to wait until the very end of the vote 

because we have to catch the end of one vote and the beginning of 

another. So, Judge McCaffery. 

Your microphone, please? 

STATEMENT OF HON. SEAMUS P. MCCAFFERY, JUSTICE, 

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 

Justice MCCAFFERY. Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to address the Members of the Committee about the pending 

legislation dealing with the growing epidemic of domestic violence 

and, in particular, the Klobuchar and Blumenthal bills. 

It appears to me that the above bills look to strengthen current 

Federal domestic violence laws to bring them more in line with the 

current laws that many States have dealing with crimes of violence 

toward women and same-sex partners, a clearly laudable goal. Effectively strengthening such laws would seem to be an even more 

laudable goal. 

I have spent most of my adult life in law enforcement. Those 

years include 20 years as a Philadelphia police officer and a detective, 10 years as a trial judge, 4 years in the appellate courts, and 

now I am a Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. 

I have dealt with domestic violence at literally every level of our 

system. Sadly, I can say with the certainty born of experience that 

our law enforcement community finds itself in a reactive not a 

proactive posture and operates as a reactive defense force. By that 

I mean that more often than not, Senators, our law enforcement 

community shows up after the fact. 

I was one of those. I would show up after the fact. I saw the 

blood. I went to court. And so much of the time I saw crime in the 

streets and people getting victimized in the streets of our cities, 

getting victimized in our courtrooms. And that was one of the— 

that was the impetus for me to go to law school and become a jurist, because I really felt that people needed somebody there who 

had experienced what goes on in our streets. 

Senator, I absolutely agree that we should have dating partners 

included within the scope of the protection of the proposed 

Klobuchar bill—we have such inclusion in Pennsylvania. Okay? It 

is important. As the sheriff said, dating partners can shoot, they 

can beat up people just like anybody else. 
18 

But, you know, as Dr. Malcolm points out, I went from being a 

cop where I cared about the victims, to being a jurist where I care 

about the accused. We have to keep focused on the fact that we 

have two parties here: We have the accused and we have the accuser, the victim. And my goal has always been to have a level 

playing field. 

You know, one of the things that I always thought was so needed, so necessary, so wanting was law enforcement’s ability to be 

there before the abuser got to the victim. When I was a cop in my 

day, we did not have that opportunity. It was not there. But let me 

tell you something, we can enact all the laws we want. The bad 

guys on the streets—and I was out there where the rubber meets 

the road, both as a cop, as I said, and as the judge who created 

the first ever domestic violence court program in Pennsylvania because I felt it was so important. 

The frustration was as follows: Victims are terrified. Senators, 

when they get to court, oftentimes they have memory loss. They 

are scared, they are intimidated. They do not have the support network. In Philadelphia, we are lucky we do. Philadelphia is one of 

the more progressive cities around. But just as an example, only 

35 percent of our preliminary PFAs become permanent—35 percent. Why? People are not showing up. They are afraid. 

Of the PFAs, of the temporary ones, 25 percent include an order 

barring possession of a firearm. Only 25 percent. What is going on 

here? 

Well, again the frustration comes in that we have to protect our 

victims. How do we do that? Once upon a time, unless you had a 

crystal ball, you could not. But today, Senators, we have the technology to give law enforcement the capabilities. And by that, what 

do I mean? Right now, probation and parole officers across this 

country have GPS that is available to them so they can track people under their supervision. 

Let us just say for discussion purposes right now—and keep in 

mind domestic violence is not just about firearms. The overall majority of domestic violence cases that I saw both on the street and 

in the courts involved fists, knives, and blunt objects. It is a real, 

major epidemic in this country. We have legislation out there that 

curtails more and more people’s ability to have a gun, but yet domestic violence is still out there. 

People who want to get a gun or want to stab you, they are going 

to do it. They are going to make it happen, despite whatever laws 

you put on the books. To me, what I think is important is being 

proactive. And by that I mean right now, through technology, we 

can give law enforcement officers GPS-assisted support. So the actual patrol officer in the neighborhood, moments away from the victim, can know if a stalker, who is now wearing a GPS device on 

his ankle, on his wrist, is now approaching within a certain proximity of the victim. It comes up on the victim’s smartphone that 

somebody has now crossed the threshold, whether it is a mile or 

a block. The same officer in the neighborhood is notified. The officer then responds. The officer gets there, and then the violence can 

be prevented. 

It is about prevention to me, because if we do not have prevention, once again, what are we going to do? Show up after the fact? 
19 

Pick up the pieces? Transport the body to the morgue? That is not 

what we want. 

Personally, I cannot believe that we do not have bipartisan legislation. Who on Earth can stand up and say that they are really not 

opposed to domestic violence? Every one of us has a mother, some 

have wives, some have daughters, some have granddaughters. 

None of us want to see anything like this happening out there. 

Anything. But we need to step up to the plate. 

You know, legislation is great, and this is a beautiful place here. 

It really is. First time here. But at the end of the day, tonight, 

somewhere in North Philly in a row home, some woman is going 

to be battered, okay? And that same woman has probably been battered for years. And she looks at her three, four, five children, and 

she cannot escape. She cannot escape. And if we take it down to 

court, what do we get? Now they hug and kiss. The emotions are 

down. Somebody talks to the victim and the case disappears. We 

have a frustrated prosecutor and an even more frustrated court. 

So my point is we need to do things that are really going to make 

things happen. You want to send a message out there? You put 

that bracelet on that abuser. You come within a mile of that victim, 

and not only will you be locked up, but it will be strict, it will be 

swift, and it will be really, really bad for you. You want to talk 

about deterrence? It can happen. 

So, you know, again, my point to you all is there are ways that 

we can address domestic violence well beyond violence dealing with 

guns. Some of our States with some of the strictest gun laws still 

have a growing epidemic in domestic violence. 

With that being said, my position is, quite honestly, I think 

that—I really strongly support the concept of bringing in the dating 

partners. You know, it is important for law enforcement. Again, our 

State has it. I cannot speak for others, obviously, and that being 

said, I will just forgo my last 2 minutes. 

[The prepared statement of Justice McCaffery appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Judge McCaffery. 

I think we should probably take a run for the vote, and so if, Mr. 

Daniel, you would be patient with us, we will be recessed for probably 10 to 15 minutes to get over to the floor and back. As soon 

as I am back, we will come back into session. 

[Whereupon, at 11:07 a.m., the Committee was recessed.] 

[Whereupon, at 11:29 a.m., the Committee reconvened.] 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. No rush. We can take a moment to get 

quietly back into our places. Thank you for your patience, and let 

me now turn to Mr. Daniel, with our appreciation and our apologies for the interruption. Please proceed with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ELVIN DANIEL, MCHENRY, ILLINOIS 

Mr. DANIEL. Thank you, sir. Good morning. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Good morning. 

Mr. DANIEL. Thank you, Chairman Whitehouse, Chairman 

Leahy, Senator Grassley—— 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Is your microphone on, Mr. Daniel? 

Mr. DANIEL. And I was reminded to turn it on before I started. 

Thank you, Chairman Whitehouse, Chairman Leahy, Senator 
20 

Grassley, and the Members of the Judiciary Committee, for holding 

this important hearing. 

My name is Elvin Daniel. I am a Republican. I am an avid 

hunter, a gun owner, and I enjoy using my guns for target practice 

with my family and friends. I am a strong supporter of the Second 

Amendment and an NRA member. I also believe in common-sense, 

sensible gun laws. 

I am here today to speak for my sister, Zina. I speak for Zina 

and my entire family because Zina is not here to speak for herself. 

Zina loved life. All she wanted to do was to be a good mother to 

her two daughters. She loved Disney World, Rick Springfield, and 

helping other people. As a matter of fact, her last moments, she 

was begging her estranged husband, ‘‘Please, leave these people 

alone.’’ 

She was a beautiful person, full of goodness, and some good will 

come out of her death. 

On October 21, 2012, I received a phone call that no one should 

ever have to receive. I was told that my sister had been shot and 

killed by her estranged husband. We later learned that Radcliffe 

had bought the gun through Armslist.com, an irresponsible Internet site that does not require background checks. It has been nearly 2 years since Zina was murdered, and it is heartbreaking to 

know that our weak gun laws continue to allow dangerous abusers 

to buy guns without a background check. 

Zina was married for 13 years and eventually left her husband 

because he abused her, physically and mentally. He continued to 

terrorize Zina, slashing her tires while she was at work, and 

threatening her physically. Zina went to court and obtained a protective order. She told the judge, ‘‘Your Honor, I do not want to die. 

I just do not want to die.’’ 

Under Federal law, this protective order prohibited Radcliffe 

from buying a gun. If he had tried to buy a gun from a licensed 

dealer, he would have been denied. He knew that. So he chose to 

go through an unlicensed dealer to buy his gun. 

He went on Armslist.com and posted an ad saying, ‘‘Serious 

buyer looking to buy a gun ASAP.’’ Within hours, he found an unlicensed seller, and they met at a McDonald’s parking lot and exchanged $500 cash for the gun that he used the next morning. 

This was all after the protective order was issued against him 

and entered in the NICS system. The next day Radcliffe stormed 

into the Azana Spa where Zina worked, shot seven people, murdered my sister, Zina, and two of her co-workers, injuring four others before he took his own life. I am convinced that he deliberately 

bought the gun from an unlicensed dealer because he knew he 

could not pass a background check. Had there been a background 

check done, chances are my sister Zina would still be here with us. 

Now, I am helping to care for my two nieces who lost their mother and who will have to grow up without her. I look at my parents, 

and especially my father, who lost his baby daughter. 

I am here today for Zina and for the stories like Zina’s that happen every day because of the serious gaps in our gun laws that continue to put women’s lives in danger. 

I believe that there are two steps that Congress could and should 

take to save women’s lives: require background checks for all gun 
21 

sales, and keep guns out of the hands of abusive dating partners 

and stalkers. 

I am grateful for the opportunity to share my sister’s story with 

you today. She was a loving mom, a terrific sister. For nearly 2 

years now, my family has lived a nightmare. Every happy family 

milestone is now covered with sadness. Mother’s Day is now a day 

to survive rather than celebrate, because we know that Zina is not 

here to watch over her girls. She will not be here to take pictures 

of her youngest daughter dressed up for prom or to congratulate 

her daughters on their wedding day and dance with them. Those 

moments will be happy and sad at the same time. 

I am committed to honoring Zina’s memory by working to reduce 

the number of women who are killed by preventable and senseless 

guns. 

You have the power to pass the laws that we need to keep our 

sisters and mothers and daughters safe, and so I am here today to 

ask you to remember Zina when you think about taking on this 

issue. 

Thank you for your time and the opportunity to let me speak 

today. I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. 

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

for the record.] 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Daniel. You have very 

well and very powerfully represented your sister today in this hearing room. 

As the Chairman, I am going to be here until the end, so I will 

reserve my questions and allow my colleagues to proceed ahead of 

me, and I will recognize first my friend, the distinguished Senator 

from Minnesota, Amy Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to all the witnesses, and particularly Mr. Daniel, 

thank you so much. And I wear your sister’s bracelet that you gave 

me today with pride, and she will not be forgotten. 

Mr. DANIEL. Thank you. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And I think one of the things that is most 

powerful about your testimony is the fact that you are a hunter, 

a gun owner, a member of the NRA. And could you talk a little bit 

about how you reconcile that, which I think has been a real issue 

for some of our colleagues in trying to understand how we can reconcile, those of us that support hunting, with the fact that we are 

simply looking at some common-sense rules here, for instance, 

making sure that we include dating partners when we look at the 

domestic violence rules, making sure we have good background 

checks in place, and looking at making sure that people who are 

convicted of stalking are also included in these prohibitions? Do 

you want to talk about how you reconcile that in your mind? 

Mr. DANIEL. You know, it is totally different. I mean, doing a 

background check has nothing to do with infringing on my Second 

Amendment. Me—as a gun owner, I want to make sure that I keep 

the guns out of the hands of the wrong people. I do not want criminals or abusers to get their hands on guns. And I think every gun 

owner should feel the same way as I do. 

I go through background checks every time I buy a gun, and actually I feel that everybody should go through a background check 
22 

without a doubt. It takes 5 minutes, fill out a form, and in my case 

in Illinois, wait 3 days. And usually I get the gun, and I do not get 

to shoot it for 2 or 3 weeks until I gather my family or whoever, 

the friends that are shooting. 

So to me, common sense says that we should have background 

checks on all gun sales. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

Sheriff, thank you for your testimony from my neighboring State 

of Wisconsin. My mom was born in Wisconsin. And I think you also 

are from a State that understands how important hunting is, and 

you identified yourself as a conservative Republican as well. And 

do you want to talk about how you have been able to reconcile that 

hunting—incredibly important hunting culture in your State with 

your support for my bill and the stalking and extending the domestic prohibitions to dating partners? 

Sheriff SCHMALING. Absolutely. Thank you, Senator. It is true, I 

am a conservative Republican, and I have said this rather openly 

in my community. I have nothing to fear and we should have nothing to fear of law-abiding citizens who choose to arm themselves. 

As a sheriff, a constitutional officer, I have sworn to protect the 

Wisconsin Constitution as well as the United States Constitution. 

So coming from a family of hunters, myself being one of them, and 

a gun owner, I understand the importance of preserving our Second 

Amendment. 

But the key words here are ‘‘law-abiding citizens,’’ and a law enforcement officer, that alert is even especially heightened because 

we are the ones on the front line, the boots on the ground, if you 

will, responding to these very dangerous calls. And if you look at 

the statistics provided by the FBI, 150 law enforcement officers 

have lost their lives responding to these types of calls. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Exactly. Do you want to talk a little bit 

about what you have seen just as law enforcement and the cases 

that you used as an example of the woman being found and put 

into a freezing garage in the snow and who clearly would have died 

without your intervention and your good detective work? Could you 

talk a little bit about how this sort of dating arrangements and the 

stalking and those kinds of things have evolved in your time as law 

enforcement? I am particularly looking at how stalking works. I 

think some people think, oh, if you are just sending a bunch of 

emails, that is not scary to people. And also how over time it is not 

just married people, there are people that date that can also be victims. 

Sheriff SCHMALING. Thank you. I certainly can answer that. 

What I have seen, at least in our community of Racine County, and 

speaking with my fellow sheriffs of the State, we have seen an uprise naturally in individuals who cohabitate together, boyfriends 

and girlfriends, as opposed to being married, and the domestic violence, as I mentioned in my testimony, is just as vicious and just 

as dangerous, whether they are married or not. 

When we look at with respect to stalking and looking at some 

statistics, from 2005 to 2013 the State of Wisconsin suffered 29 domestic violence homicides; of those 29, all of them precipitated by 

history of stalking behavior. 
23 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. And for your law enforcement 

officers, I think when most people think about law enforcement officers out there doing their jobs, I do not actually think—if you 

asked them, well, what do you think some of the most dangerous 

calls they get, they would probably say robbery, they would probably maybe think about drunk driving, all those kinds of things. I 

am not sure they would say a domestic violence call would endanger an officer’s life. Do you want to elaborate on that and why that 

is a fact? 

Sheriff SCHMALING. Absolutely. As we mentioned about the FBI 

statistics of 150 law enforcement officers losing their lives, that is 

a well-known fact, and all the police academies, the way we treat 

and train our law enforcement officials today, undoubtedly domestic violence, domestic disturbance calls are the most dangerous. We 

are entering the homes of individuals. We are intervening in their 

conversations. We are hearing intimate details. Tensions, emotions 

run high during those situations, and oftentimes when a gun is involved, it turns to be deadly consequences or violence is naturally 

always present. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. It is like my story of Office Schneider and 

just showing up, as your officers do every day when they get— 

when the department gets called, they cannot question it. They just 

show up at the door. 

Sheriff SCHMALING. It is unfortunate, and there are naturally 

many, many stories, but I have literally been on calls where the 

offender, the abuser, has told the dispatcher that he will shoot law 

enforcement as they arrive at these calls. We just had one 2 weeks 

ago where the offender indicated he planned to shoot every law enforcement officer that arrived at his home. So they are very, very 

dangerous calls. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. 

Justice McCaffery, thank you for being here today, and thank 

you for your thoughtful words, and I do appreciate that need to enforce the laws we have on the books in my old job and do everything you can to do that, which we valiantly did. But I also appreciate you understanding that the laws have to be as up-to-date as 

the people that are breaking them. 

Justice MCCAFFERY. Absolutely. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And I think what the sheriff was pointing 

out, which you understand, is that there are a lot of these dating 

partners now that get involved in these—basically in violence or 

domestic abuse in the same way that people that were married did. 

And so I appreciate your willingness to look at that piece of our 

bill. 

Justice MCCAFFERY. Absolutely. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Campbell, I just wanted to talk a little bit about the link— 

you have done a lot of research here—the link between the stalking 

and the violence against women. Could you talk about that and 

what your research has shown? 

Ms. CAMPBELL. Yes. In our national case control study that compared women who have been killed with other abused women in 

those same cities, we found that the vast majority of the women 

who were killed had been stalked beforehand. Even when there 
24 

was no prior physical violence, the majority had been stalked. So 

we found that of the ones that were abused and then there was a 

murder afterwards, it was 87 percent of them were stalked. And 

the ones that were not abused, it was 58 percent. 

So, clearly, stalking was part of those pictures, as was the gun 

ownership. And that combination of domestic violence, stalking, 

and guns is extremely dangerous. And as you say, people think 

that stalking means, you know, harassing kinds of texting and that 

only. And when stalking laws are violated, it is when someone has 

been texted 40 times a day, and with threatening texts and clearly 

unwanted texts. And most often the stalking, though, especially 

with the homicidal cases, was actually following her, was doing 

things like slashing tires that was mentioned in one of the cases, 

destroying property, was not just the verbal harassment, not just 

the emails and the texts. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Because one of the criticisms was that, you 

know, in modern days now, people do not always call. They oftentimes text things or send emails. One of the criticisms was, well, 

that is not that scary if they do that by text. But you do see a lot 

of that in stalking behavior in the modern age. 

Ms. CAMPBELL. Absolutely, and it is threatening texts, it is 

threatening emails, not—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. To make that qualification of what is stalking. 

Ms. CAMPBELL. Absolutely, for stalking, threatening and unwanted texts and emails, and continual. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. Well, I think my time is up. I may 

come back in a second round, but thank you very much. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 

again for holding this hearing. And thank you to all of our expert 

panel. 

I want to mention that I am very pleased to be working with my 

partner from Connecticut, Senator Chris Murphy, who has been a 

real leader in this area, and I know he joins me in thanking the 

Jackson family for being here today. 

Let me ask, Dr. Campbell, based on your research, do women 

take the decision lightly to seek a temporary restraining order? 

Ms. CAMPBELL. Absolutely not, and neither do judges in granting 

them. I talk with many judges, and women very carefully consider 

their options, and many women go for temporary protective orders 

and do not get them. Judges are very careful in listening to what 

evidence is available around the temporary restraining orders, so 

they are neither sought nor granted lightly. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And I believe Judge McCaffery testified 

that temporary restraining orders often are not made permanent 

because women are afraid to appear for the hearing. Is that confirmed by your research? 

Ms. CAMPBELL. Absolutely. That is what we find. And oftentimes 

they are afraid because they have been threatened with a weapon 

or threatened with a gun. That is the most scary thing for women 

in terms of, you know, reinforcing that fear and making it that 

they are less able to actually seek that long-term protective order. 
25 

We also find that women are afraid that the hearing that goes 

with the long-term protective order, that is the time that he will 

know where she is, and that can be an increased danger unless we 

take some protective actions around that. And if she knew that he 

was not allowed to have a gun, then she could be less afraid of that 

access to her at the hearing. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. As you may know, in Lori Jackson’s case, 

there was a temporary restraining order, which was going to be 

made permanent literally the day after she was gunned down by 

her estranged husband. If that restraining order had resulted in 

those guns being taken from her estranged husband, I believe that 

she might well be alive today. 

Ms. CAMPBELL. I agree with you, and we just had a case in Maryland with a similar kind of an incident. And, fortunately now in 

Maryland, we just passed a bill where we can deny possession of 

guns to persons who have had a temporary restraining order 

against them. But it is not true in all States, and so it is an issue 

for many women. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. In Lori Jackson’s case, her estranged husband actually traveled to another State where guns might have 

been obtained. Wouldn’t it make sense to have a uniform national 

rule that takes guns away from men or women who are under temporary as well as permanent restraining orders? 

Ms. CAMPBELL. I believe so. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And, Sheriff, let me ask you, based on 

your expertise, whether you agree that a uniform national standard 

would make sense. I know you are a local law enforcement official, 

but wouldn’t your job be made more effective if there were such a 

standard? 

Sheriff SCHMALING. Absolutely. I think we need to look at why 

victims seek these protection orders. They do so because they have 

a reasonable fear for their safety. They are not taken lightly. I 

think I have heard that term. Again, I can only speak for my community, but the victims that I have spoken to seek these very important pieces of paper, these documents, these protective orders 

because they fear for their safety. Irrespective if they live in Racine 

County or Danbury, Connecticut, that fear is real. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Can you tell me again, Dr. Campbell, or 

any of the other folks who are on the panel, whether the danger 

to a potential victim increases after she or he indicates she is leaving, she wants a divorce, the relationship is over? Does the danger 

increase? Is it higher then? 

Ms. CAMPBELL. Yes, it definitely is, according to our study and 

other research. It definitely increases the risk of a homicide, especially in the immediate 3 months and full first year after she leaves 

an abusive relationship. So it does heighten the danger, which says 

to us that that is a time period when we need to be particularly 

vigilant as communities, that we need to—in order to prevent those 

homicides. And the onus of responsibility should not be on her. We 

need to bring the full bear of the law and implement those laws 

around the country. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. This panel has been extraordinarily valuable in reinforcing and evidencing, providing objective facts and research in support of what we know from our experience and from 
26 

the tragic stories that are before us in this audience, Lori Jackson’s 

family among them, and I want to thank all of you for being here 

today. It has given us impetus and momentum in this effort to 

solve this problem, which we will do. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. I turn now to our distinguished Ranking 

Member, Senator Grassley. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Chairman, before the clock starts, I 

would like to apologize particularly to Mr. Daniel for missing his 

testimony and say that we are sorry for the loss that you talked 

about. 

Also to apologize to everybody here because this is an apology I 

have done for the third time in the last half-hour, first of all, to 

a news conference with Senator Gillibrand and then to a group of 

people that I worked with very closely on foster care. It is kind of 

a rude way to treat all you folks that come here when we have to 

have two votes and then two intervening things, but I appreciate 

hopefully your understanding that. 

My first question is going to be to Professor Malcolm. A Kentucky law took effect this month that allows people who receive an 

emergency protective order and pass a background check to obtain 

a provisional concealed carry permit in 1 day. I view this as a law 

that enables victims to protect themselves even when the police are 

not around and when their abuser’s information would not show up 

in a background check. 

So my question: Professor Malcolm, do you support the ability of 

people who obtain emergency protective orders to quickly obtain a 

provisional concealed carry permit? 

Ms. MALCOLM. Yes, I do. I think that is the perfect way to really 

help women who feel endangered. We have heard a lot of stories 

today about people who had temporary restraining orders or permanent restraining orders and, nonetheless, were harmed by the 

person who was to be restrained. 

You mentioned a list of States that have not submitted their 

records for this background check that so many people are depending on, so it makes it much easier for someone who should not get 

a gun to get it. 

I think the ultimate protection has to be the individual, and no 

police department can protect everyone all the time. To allow 

women to have a firearm just as a deterrent or ultimately to absolutely protect themselves I think is essential. I think it is a great 

idea. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Justice McCaffery, you have been a police officer and trial judge who issued many temporary restraining orders. Sometimes you ordered that the person subject to the order 

to surrender his gun. Sometimes you did not so order. Based on 

your experiences, what practical problems do you think would arise 

if the bills before the Committee addressing domestic violence and 

guns were to be enacted into law. 

Justice MCCAFFERY. Well, Senator, first off, let me say that we 

have these types of laws on the books in our State. So much of it 

comes down to enforcement, and let me just give you an idea. 

Dr. Campbell pointed out how sometimes it can be somewhat 

tough for a victim to get a PFA. Understand something, and this 
27 

is something that I hope our former prosecutor, Senator, understands. The jurist is there to make sure that there is a level playing field. The jurist must make sure that whatever the allegations 

are, they are factual, they are for real, they are not made up, and 

they are not gaming the system. 

We have Federal orders that constrain the number of prisoners 

we can put in our county jails. We have State laws now coming 

down with, again, additional prohibitions. Where are we going to 

put these people? What we keep hearing is we have to downplay— 

or downgrade, I should say, some of the laws so that we do not put 

people in State custody, because why? Our second largest budget 

item in Pennsylvania is our prisons. 

My point is the more laws we have, the more people we are going 

to convict, the more people are going to be sent to jail. Where are 

we going to put them? We keep getting told that we do not have 

the space. 

One of the reasons why I started so many diversion programs in 

Pennsylvania was to intervene early on, divert them out of the system, keep them out of the jails, and give them the type of treatment they need so as to cut down on that need to put people in 

jail. 

Understand something, Senator. One of the things we have to 

worry about on the bench are people that game the system. And 

what do I mean by that? Right now in Philadelphia County, you 

have approximately 10,000 to 12,000 custody cases waiting to be 

adjudicated. That means if you file today, your custody case may 

not be up until April 2015. Think about that. 

Now, some of the people who know how to game the system will 

pick up the phone and call 911, and they basically say, ‘‘I am being 

abused,’’ ‘‘I am being beaten,’’ or, ‘‘I am being threatened by a firearm.’’ What happens? Those cases are immediately jumped right to 

the beginning of the list. It is the job of the judge to make sure 

that these people are not gaming that system, because, otherwise, 

we have an accused who really is not doing what they are being 

accused of. And that is the role of the jurist. 

Senator GRASSLEY. This will have to be my last question. I appreciate, Sheriff Schmaling, your testimony today ‘‘to require criminal background checks and checks by unlicensed dealers’’ as well 

as block dating violence abusers and stalkers who own guns. I note, 

however, that only last year in an interview with the Journal 

Times, you said, ‘‘I am opposed to any regulation that would require a farmer in Waterford, for example, to somehow conduct and/ 

or pay for a background check on a neighboring farmer to whom 

he wanted to sell a firearm.’’ Continuing the quote, ‘‘Rather than 

trying to strip away our constitutional rights, I believe law makers 

need to define private sales and retail sales. More regulation will 

increase straw purchases. If a criminal is bent on doing evil, he or 

she will simply find a weapon on the streets or solicit a third party 

to make the weapon purchase.’’ 

In the same interview, you opposed as ineffective limiting magazines in capacities of ten bullets or more, and in an accompanying—and I completely agree with you, Sheriff, when you said 

in that interview, ‘‘We must not allow the actions of a few cowards 
28 

who are bent on evil to promote any laws that infringe upon constitutional liberties of responsible and law-abiding citizens.’’ 

So my question is: Why do you now say that you are in favor of 

the universal background checks and believe that they would stop 

criminals from obtaining guns? 

Sheriff SCHMALING. Well, very simply put, and you said it best, 

as I have, ‘‘law-abiding citizens.’’ ‘‘Law-abiding citizens.’’ I have always said—and I have said this before this Committee—that I 

have nothing to fear of law-abiding citizens who wish to arm themselves. I preserve the Constitution, especially the Second Amendment. When we have individuals who are bent on evil, bent on 

breaking the laws, bent on abusing women, they should be prevented from purchasing firearms. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Okay. Thank you very much. Thanks to all 

of you. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much. 

Let me ask Dr. Campbell first, as Senator Grassley just indicated, if somebody is bent on murder, there are all sorts of weapons 

that can be used to kill another human being. Why is it that guns 

in particular create the added risk of violence that you have chronicled in your work? 

Ms. CAMPBELL. Well, for one thing, the destruction of a gunshot 

to the human body is far greater than any of those other weapons. 

Yes, you can kill with other weapons, but it takes far more stab 

wounds, more carefully placed, et cetera. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. So they are much more lethal. 

Ms. CAMPBELL. Much more lethal. And, second, I have examined 

thousands of homicide records in the police department. In many 

of those cases, it is clear that there may have been a domestic violence incident, maybe someone would have gotten hurt, but no one 

would have died if there was not a gun accessible, way too handy, 

already there, oftentimes not a gun that anybody went out and 

bought the day before—although that does happen, too—but a gun 

that has been in that home that the perpetrator of domestic violence has owned for years. And it was easy to get at, it was all too 

available in a moment of extreme anger, and, therefore, someone 

died where they would not have otherwise. 

So those are the two things that I see. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Sheriff Schmaling, you talked about the 

environment of tension and high emotion in a domestic violence 

scene. If it is dangerous even to a trained, armed law enforcement 

officer, what does that say about that environment for the victim? 

Sheriff SCHMALING. Naturally, I think we have talked about the 

sheer violence in domestic violence calls and the numbers are real. 

The law enforcement officers that are murdered each year responding to these types of calls, they are inherently dangerous. And you 

are correct, we are armed, and we are trained to handle situations. 

But we are knowingly stepping into situation where when a firearm is present, the increase in likelihood of someone losing their 

life is that much greater. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. And how would you respond to Dr. Malcolm suggesting that adding yet another firearm into the equation 

by arming the victim would make this a safer situation for either 

the victim or your officers? 
29 

Sheriff SCHMALING. Suggesting that the victims should arm 

themselves? 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Yes. 

Sheriff SCHMALING. Well, you know, I shared with you a story 

just a couple hours from Racine County where a victim’s gun was 

removed from her by the abuser and she was murdered with her 

own weapon. My experience—let me just give you a little bit of history on Racine County. My jail houses about 876 prisoners. Each 

year we book in 10,000 citizens on average. Ten thousand. Of those 

10,000, about 10 to 12 percent of those are domestic violence-related arrests. Every one of those arrests leave behind victims, typically women, typically children. Every one of those calls, we speak 

to those victims, naturally. We get their statements. I was a detective for 10 years. I have interviewed countless victims of domestic 

violence. Never once have I heard a victim tell me, ‘‘Where is the 

nearest gun shop? Let me arm myself because I need to do this.’’ 

They look toward the system, they look to law enforcement to do 

our job and to keep them safe. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Dr. Malcolm, you are a professor of constitutional law, are you not? 

Ms. MALCOLM. Yes. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Let me ask you two questions of constitutional law. The first is: Does making sure that people who are 

lawfully required to have background checks actually get a background check offend any constitutional principle that you can define? 

Ms. MALCOLM. No. But I think that the questions on background 

checks can be very intrusive, and the Canadian—— 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. I am just asking, to the extent that they 

are lawful, as they are, then having it be enforced clearly that is 

no constitutional problem there. 

Ms. MALCOLM. Right. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. The second question is: Where existing 

domestic violence laws otherwise restrict gun possession by a stalker or an abuser, does the difference between a cohabiting victim 

and a non-cohabiting victim raise any constitutional issues? 

Ms. MALCOLM. No. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Okay. 

Ms. MALCOLM. Can I add something? 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Well, my time is up, and so let me turn 

to Senator Durbin. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator DURBIN. Mr. Daniel, I am sorry that I was not here to 

hear your testimony, but I have read it carefully, and I thank you 

again for being here to tell the tragic story of your sister. 

And from what I have gleaned from your testimony, the key element here was that her former husband had access to a gun over 

the Internet, where he was not subject to any kind of background 

check. Had he been subject to one, he might have been caught and 

stopped from purchasing the weapon. 

Mr. DANIEL. Had he gone to a Federal licensed dealer, he would 

have definitely been denied access because his record was entered 

already as an abuser. 
30 

Senator DURBIN. You probably said this for the record, but it 

bears repeating if you have not. As a person who owns guns, a 

member of the NRA, as you said, conservative by nature, are you 

worried, offended, or do you have any concerns over a requirement 

in the law that would close the gun show loophole and would, in 

fact, require that we inquire of all purchasers, whether they are, 

in fact, prohibited from purchase because of a conviction of a felony 

or because of a state of mental instability? 

Mr. DANIEL. None whatsoever, Senator. I believe most of gun 

owners would agree with me that there should be a background 

check done on all gun sales regardless. 

Senator DURBIN. Mr. Daniel, I am from downstate Illinois. Owning guns is part of growing up and part of most families, and they 

would agree with you. 

Mr. DANIEL. Most of my friends are hunters, NRA members, and 

we often speak of this, and I have not had a person yet say, ‘‘No. 

Why do you want to do this?’’ Just to me it is common sense that 

as a gun owner I certainly do not want guns to fall into the hands 

of criminals or abusers, because it makes the rest of us look bad. 

Senator DURBIN. Professor Malcolm, do you believe that victims 

of domestic abuse are safer if their abusers are permitted to carry 

guns while they are the subject of temporary restraining orders? 

You have to turn your microphone on. 

Ms. MALCOLM. Sorry. I think that to know that that person actually is an abuser, he is entitled—and I am assuming it is a he. He 

is entitled to have a hearing first before his gun or any other weapon is taken away. 

Senator DURBIN. Doesn’t the issuance of a temporary restraining 

order suggest in most cases a hearing? 

Ms. MALCOLM. It does, but not in these bills. They are able to 

accuse the person, their guns or weapons are taken away, and then 

they have the hearing. 

Senator DURBIN. But in these bills, we are talking about convicted stalkers, convicted domestic violence perpetrators, and those 

who are subject in the Blumenthal bill to a temporary restraining 

order. In each of those cases, aren’t we talking about a court hearing before the determination? 

Ms. MALCOLM. We have been in the past. I think that this law 

would change it so that in order to protect the woman, there is this 

opportunity to make the allegation that guns get taken away and 

then they have the hearing. 

Senator DURBIN. There is no question that there can be ex parte 

hearings because in some instances, the person who is the subject 

of the order will not appear. That is a reality. I have been through 

that many years ago when I practiced law. So are we in a situation 

now where a woman terrorized by a boyfriend or former spouse is 

at his mercy as long as he refuses to come to court by your analysis? 

Ms. MALCOLM. No. I think once you agree to hold the hearing, 

if he does not show up, then at least you have given him the opportunity to be heard, so I think that that provides a fair chance for 

evidence to come out on both sides. That is a concern. 

Senator DURBIN. And once the temporary restraining order is 

issued to protect the woman—we are using the case of a woman 
31 

here—to protect the woman from the stalker, the abuser, the person who is perpetrating domestic violence, once that is issued, do 

you still quarrel with the notion that we should at that point take 

the gun away from that person? 

Ms. MALCOLM. No. I think that once there has been a fair hearing and evidence has been presented, then if this person does seem 

to be really posing a threat, I think that that is fair. 

Senator DURBIN. I would like to ask, Dr. Campbell, what you 

think about this argument, the course of hearings and such, while 

we are dealing with perhaps a woman who has been terrorized or 

has evidence of abuse to present to the court. 

Ms. CAMPBELL. In order to obtain a temporary order of protection, or an emergency order they are sometimes called in some 

States, there is a hearing. A judge has to issue that temporary 

order. The permanent or long-term orders are—there is a fuller 

hearing, and that is when perpetrators have the opportunity to appear. 

Senator DURBIN. I have been through this. Anyone who has had 

a domestic practice has gotten a phone call, you know, ‘‘I am scared 

of this guy.’’ It does not happen often, thank goodness. It was not 

in my practice. But it does happen. The first instinct of a lawyer, 

the first instinct of most persons, protect the person who is being 

threatened. Argue it out in court later on, but first protect the person who is being threatened, the children who are being threatened. I think that is the premise of this whole discussion. 

Ms. CAMPBELL. Right, and a judge does have to issue that. A 

judge, like we have heard here, who is concerned with a level playing field in issuing that order, wants to hear evidence before that 

temporary order is issued. 

Senator DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for this 

hearing and Senator Klobuchar for sponsoring this important bill, 

which I certainly support in its entirety. It is sad to comment in 

this day and age that this is one of the few hearings on the subject 

and that it has been over a year since we have seriously debated 

this matter on the floor of the United States Senate. While gun violence perpetrated by contractors, facilitated by straw purchasers, 

sadly the result of a system which does not protect victims like 

mothers, women, and children, continues. 

Thank you for calling our attention to it today. I hope it will inspire us to do something. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. You, Senator Durbin, have been a leading advocate in the Senate in this area for a very long time, and 

your home State of Illinois was extraordinarily ably represented on 

the panel by Mr. Daniel. So Illinois shines today in this hearing 

room. 

I will turn now to Senator Klobuchar. We are going to have a 

second round of questioning, and then we have to break up before 

1 o’clock. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Malcolm, I know you wanted to follow up on something that 

Senator Whitehouse was focusing on when his time ran out. I 

wanted to get at this issue, and maybe this is what it is about. I 

am supportive and a cosponsor of Senator Blumenthal’s bill. I think 
32 

it is a good idea on the temporary restraining orders and very important. 

But let us just put that aside for right now and talk about permanent restraining orders that are in the law, the Federal law 

right now. If you get a permanent restraining order, then you cannot get a gun. Do you support that? 

Ms. MALCOLM. Yes, I do. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. Great. And then if you would extend 

that to dating partners—see, this is what I want to get at, this 

issue that Justice McCaffery and the sheriff have identified here, 

which is what my bill does. A big part of my bill was extending 

that definition of people who get the restraining orders or get a 

conviction to be victims who are dating partners. Do you support 

that piece of it? 

Ms. MALCOLM. I think after there is a full hearing so that all the 

evidence—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. But there would be, by its nature there is 

a full hearing when you get a permanent restraining order. 

Ms. MALCOLM. I think that that is fair. I do not think it should 

be retroactive to everybody who has ever been convicted in the past 

or accepted a guilty plea. But I think that after a full hearing, then 

that is reasonable. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. The other thing I was thinking about, and 

I think the numbers you gave on the reduction of crime rates—and 

I wanted to get Dr. Campbell’s view of that because I know that 

some of the work we have done here with violence against women 

and the work that Justice McCaffery has done when he was in law 

enforcement and doing more—we have a domestic violence court in 

Minnesota. Certainly the sheriff talked about what they have been 

doing in Wisconsin under his leadership—has made a difference, 

and we have seen some reduction in those rates, and I wondered 

if, Dr. Campbell, you would comment on that, and comment particularly on domestic violence and what we are still seeing, however, in terms of the numbers. 

Ms. CAMPBELL. We are extremely pleased and I think we should 

all be very proud that the domestic violence homicides have gone 

down. But, clearly, from the data, they have gone down in part, in 

great part because of the gun restrictions that were put on known 

domestic violence offenders, and that has been upheld by the Supreme Court. 

That is clear that that is where those reductions have come from, 

and yes, we need to do more to reduce the domestic violence homicides by other means, to be proactive, to be preventive. But we can 

continue to reduce the domestic violence homicides with guns if we 

continue to expand the legislation that allows us to restrict possession. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. To me, this looks at just refining the law 

as we see when things change and you have a lot of people that 

date that still get involved in domestic violence. And, also, when 

I hear these—because I know as a former prosecutor, you would always want to get out there with, hey, we reduced crime, great, we 

have done this and this. But, in fact, when you are victim of crime, 

as Mr. Daniel knows, those states do not mean anything to you, 
33 

when it is your sister who is killed, or when it is your child who 

is killed. 

And so the way I look at this is it is a way to build on some of 

the work that has been done in the domestic violence field and to 

understand that we see a changing situation with the population. 

And laws cannot be static. We have to be as sophisticated as the 

people that are breaking them, and that is what this is really 

about. And I just wondered if you could maybe share a comment 

on that. 

Sheriff SCHMALING. Well, when you look at—first of all, let me 

ask you, what is your question with respect—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. The question is about how the situations 

have changed with dating partners, the need to update, and then 

I think, second, in part because of the Internet, which has some 

great things but also has meant there is just more and more stalking and there is more and more ways for people to track people 

down, whereas maybe in the past they could just kind of hide and 

get a new address or a new phone number, why we would need to 

have a bill like this pass. 

Sheriff SCHMALING. Certainly. And I can tell you from what I 

have seen—and I have testified about this earlier—we are seeing 

more dating partner situations as opposed to spouses involved in 

domestic violence cases. And we have heard the stats, that more 

women are killed by their abusive boyfriends than their abusive 

spouses—abusive husbands, rather. 

That said—and we talk about stalking and how that relates, and 

I have shared the stats that we have had here in Wisconsin, from 

2015 to 2013, 29 domestic violence homicides, and all of those were 

precipitated by history of stalking behavior. That stalking behavior, 

technology is great, I will be the first one to admit it. I am glued 

to that smartphone these days. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I appreciate that you have not done it while 

I was talking. Pretty good. 

[Laughter.] 

Sheriff SCHMALING. So, yes, we are glued to these devices today, 

and they can be used to facilitate criminal behavior as well. We see 

more and more of that. I just do not know how we would go about 

regulating that sort of behavior when it comes to technology. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. What I was meaning is this stalking, the 

reason we have this stalking bill in there is that we have seen— 

I think there was some recent estimate of 12,000 convicted stalkers 

in 20 States right now who could get a gun. So we have seen 

some—because of this new technology, there are just new ways to 

find people who wish that maybe they could not find. 

Sheriff SCHMALING. It certainly has made it much easier. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Right. All right. Thank you very much. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Let me ask, Justice McCaffery, you said earlier that judges have 

to provide a level playing field when an abuse victim requests a 

TRO, temporary restraining order. Do you believe that judges do 

provide that level playing field? Or do they hand out TROs casually 

and willy nilly? 
34 

Justice MCCAFFERY. All jurists that I am aware of, Senator, take 

this very seriously, especially when it comes to victims. We in 

Philadelphia, and for that matter in Pennsylvania, have been on 

the leading edge, the cutting edge of protecting women that have 

gone through these types of traumatizing events. And, again, as I 

said earlier, to us it is far, far more than just handguns, long guns. 

To us it is all domestic violence. And, yes, judges do take it seriously. 

We have a police department now where we call it Directive 90 

that makes sure that our police officers fill out a specific form, not 

only fill out but follow up on all domestic abuse allegations. And 

the bottom line is it is one of our most—other than child abuse, 

special victims abuse, it is one of our most important criminal investigations. 

So, yes, the answer, the short answer is they take it very seriously. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Dr. Malcolm, do you dispute that—— 

Ms. MALCOLM. Whether they take it seriously or not? No, I do 

not dispute—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, let me—they take it seriously and 

they require a showing of facts indicating dangerousness and 

threat. 

Ms. MALCOLM. I am sure that that is what they do now. It is just 

that you need two people. You need the person who is being accused to be able to present their facts and not just one person who 

comes in and is frightened or pretending to be frightened, or whatever, or just trying to get to the head of the list, as we heard earlier. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, you have heard the testimony about 

when you say ‘‘pretending to be frightened,’’ how much—— 

Ms. MALCOLM. Well, using that—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL [continuing]. How much courage it takes, 

how much strength and resoluteness it takes for a woman even to 

seek a temporary restraining order, not to mention divulge—— 

Ms. MALCOLM. I think that that is true but—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL [continuing]. Very private and sometimes 

embarrassing facts to a complete stranger. 

Ms. MALCOLM. But we also heard from the judge that there are 

people who game the system. I mean, I know it must take a tremendous amount of courage, and that is why I think women should 

be able to protect themselves. They cannot really, even with restraining orders, depend on the police to protect them. 

There was an important case in the District of Columbia in 1981 

with three roommates, women roommates—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Why would a woman game the system to 

protect herself from a dire and dangerous physical—— 

Ms. MALCOLM. Well, we heard from the judge just this morning 

that there were all of these long lists of custody cases, and if she 

says that she is worried about an abuser, it gets her to the top of 

the list. That is something I would not have known had he not 

made that comment from his experience. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And aren’t there proceedings without the 

other side represented, ex parte proceedings, in many other circumstances where equally important decisions are made, such as 
35 

searching houses, surveilling telephones, putting liens on property, 

both civil and—— 

Ms. MALCOLM. I think if that is the case, then we do not need 

to add another one to it. I do not think that people’s homes should 

be searched for weapons on the mere allegation of some other person who they have had no opportunity to refute, and—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, we are not talking about—— 

Ms. MALCOLM. It is dangerous—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL [continuing]. A search for weapons—— 

Ms. MALCOLM. For the police to go in there without this person 

even having notice that this has happened. I think that it does not 

provide the opportunity for evidence from both parties, and I think 

that is necessary. I realize it is very difficult for women, frightening, to make allegations, and many never do because they are so 

frightened, and there is a whole support network to help these people. But I think that all that being said, from the evidence that I 

have seen, half of the accused persons after the hearing are found 

not to be guilty. So I think that they need an opportunity to be 

heard. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And at some point there is an opportunity 

to be heard, correct? 

Ms. MALCOLM. There is right now, yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And if there is a temporary restraining 

order and if the proposal I have made became law, there would be 

an opportunity to be here—— 

Ms. MALCOLM. When? 

Senator BLUMENTHAL [continuing]. Within 2 weeks. 

Ms. MALCOLM. Within 2 weeks, so immediately the guns get 

taken away or any other evidence—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. But not a search—— 

Ms. MALCOLM. And in 2 weeks or 3 weeks—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL [continuing]. Of the house, right? 

Ms. MALCOLM. Later, you know, you are guilty until you prove 

yourself innocent in that position, that your property gets taken 

away immediately, your home gets invaded, police are sent, with 

all the danger that that implies, especially if this person has no notion this is even happening, and later on he gets a chance to say 

something. I do not find that due process. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. So you are against—you are opposed to 

any kind of temporary restraining order? 

Ms. MALCOLM. I am not if there is a hearing at the time for the 

temporary restraining order, only if the hearing is 2 weeks, 3 

weeks, some other time later. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. What if the assailant, the abuser, is unavailable? 

Ms. MALCOLM. Well, if you provide the opportunity for that person to come to the hearing, you notify that person that there is this 

hearing and they do not show up, then that is their fault. But at 

least you are providing the opportunity for the judge to—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And how much notice—— 

Ms. MALCOLM. Hear both sides? 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. How much notice and time would you give 

that person? 

Ms. MALCOLM. I do not know. I mean, that is—— 
36 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. These are practice realities of trying to 

protect people, Dr. Malcolm, when—— 

Ms. MALCOLM. I will tell you a practical reality, too. The police—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL [continuing]. An abuser—when an 

abuser—— 

Ms. MALCOLM. Cannot be everywhere all the time. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL [continuing]. When an abuser represents a 

threat and a judge has to protect a person, man or woman—— 

Ms. MALCOLM. There are other ways—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL [continuing]. From an assailant who has a 

gun and has indicated that he wants to harm her—— 

Ms. MALCOLM. You are not—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL [continuing]. Then—I do not know whether 

you have ever been in that responsibility or been in a law enforcement responsibility, but these are more than theoretical or abstract 

ideas. They are practical, threatening realities. 

Ms. MALCOLM. They are, but you do not know for sure what the 

story is unless both people, as our Constitution demands, have an 

opportunity to be heard. That is called due process of law, that a 

person has an opportunity before something is done against him 

and not 2 weeks, 3 weeks, several months later. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I would just suggest—— 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. So just to be clear, you do not think that 

the police should be allowed to execute a lawful search warrant for 

a firearm? 

Ms. MALCOLM. I think that they can be allowed to, but they need 

to have—for a temporary restraining order, there ought to be a 

hearing before that happens. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. For a search warrant, there is not a 

hearing. So if your rule applies to a temporary restraining order, 

the same rule would apply to a search warrant, which means, to 

quote, I think, what you said earlier, police should not be allowed 

to go into someone’s house looking for a firearm, which is exactly 

what they do when they execute a search warrant. You really—— 

Ms. MALCOLM. But they have to have—— 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE [continuing]. Do not think that should be 

done? 

Ms. MALCOLM. But they have to have evidence—— 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. So they go to the TRO—— 

Ms. MALCOLM. They cannot just willy nilly go into somebody’s 

house and the police, when they often go in, more violence takes 

place. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Do you think there is a higher evidentiary standard for a search warrant than there is for a temporary restraining order? 

Ms. MALCOLM. I think that for a temporary restraining order 

under these conditions where you have one person coming in and 

making allegations that you need to have the other person heard 

before their property is taken away. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Isn’t that what happens in a search 

warrant, too? A complainant comes in to the police, makes an allegation, the police take that before a judge. If the evidence is credible, they execute the search warrant. That happens every day in 
37 

law enforcement. Are you really suggesting that police should not 

be authorized to do that? 

Ms. MALCOLM. I am not suggesting that the police should not be 

authorized after getting a search warrant, but I think—— 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. But just not after getting a temporary 

restraining order. 

Ms. MALCOLM. A temporary restraining order to protect somebody where only that one person has been heard by the judge—— 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. That is exactly the circumstance in a 

search warrant. So if that is your logic, it also must apply to search 

warrants, and that puts you in the position of saying that search 

warrants should not be executed by the police. I really do not think 

that makes a lot of sense. 

Ms. MALCOLM. I do not think it makes a lot of sense to invade 

someone’s house and take their property without their having had 

a chance to be heard about it. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Which is precisely what a search warrant does. So obviously you do not think search warrants are appropriate, and if that is your position, then that is your position. 

Everybody is entitled to have a position. 

Ms. MALCOLM. I think that the way that the law now works— 

you are changing the way that the law now works in these cases. 

The way the law now works, there is an opportunity for people to 

be heard, and you have asked me whether—what if they do not 

show up? Well, then, that is their problem. But at least there is 

an opportunity to be heard before they are put under a temporary 

restraining order, and I think that is the issue here. 

I also—if I can just make one other comment, I also think that 

with temporary restraining orders, with permanent restraining orders, all these issue, the potential victim has to depend on the police being able to be there in time, and I think that that is a real 

concern. This case that I was going to mention, Warren v. District 

of Columbia, where there were women who were abused and called 

and the police never came, and they sued the police, the judge said, 

‘‘It is a fundamental principle of American law, government and its 

agents are under no general duty to provide public services such 

as police protection to any individual citizen.’’ 

So I think in that case, since people cannot really depend on the 

police and the police cannot be everywhere, they need to be able 

to be armed to protect themselves. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Schmaling, any last words with respect to that? 

Sheriff SCHMALING. Yes, I agree. We cannot be everywhere as 

law enforcement. I am sure the judge could comment on that in his 

days of boots-on-the-ground policing. We certainly cannot be everywhere. But we do count on our citizens to call us, and we do encourage them to exercise good due diligence. And I certainly do 

not—I certainly would never tell someone they should not arm 

themselves if they are a law-abiding citizen and exercise their Second Amendment. There is nothing wrong with that. 

The issue we have is those who should not have weapons, those 

who are convicted domestic violence abusers, those who are stalkers, those who represent a public safety threat to not only the vic-
38 

tims but to law enforcement. That is what this is about. It is common-sense legislation. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Perfect words to close on. I will express 

my—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. If I may just add one quick note. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Sure. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And I will supplement it for the record, 

but the notion that action by the Government in law enforcement 

requires both sides to be heard before there can be a wiretap or 

surveillance or a search warrant, search and seizure, put aside domestic violence, would not only undercut but cripple the protection 

of innocent citizens. As the Chairman well knows from his experience in the intelligence area, surveillance is done when one side, 

unrepresented perhaps not only weeks, months, and for longer periods of time, when there is sufficient threat. And our constitutional system depends on a balance of the exigencies of threats to 

individual safety or our national security as against those constitutional rights that may be temporarily infringed upon to—— 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. As Attorney General, I actually had to 

go in and get some of those warrants myself. That is one of the restrictions the Rhode Island law puts on that exercise of power, that 

the Attorney General shall appear in person before the presiding 

Judge of the Superior Court. So we are well familiar with that, we 

three prosecutors. 

So the hearing will remain open for an additional week if anybody wishes to add—I should say the record of the hearing will remain open for an additional week. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Anybody wanted to remain—— 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. But I have to say how very, very grateful I am to Senator Klobuchar and to Senator Blumenthal for their 

leadership in this area, how extraordinarily grateful I am to the 

witnesses for being here, particularly for those who brought personal stories that have had such dramatic effect in their lives. And 

to those of you who are in the audience, thank you for your advocacy. And for those of you who have suffered losses in this area, 

we are with you. We will not forget. And we appreciate very much 

what you are doing. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:33 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 
(39) 

A P P E N D I X 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 

Æ