U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

26–766 PDF 2006

FIREARMS CORRECTIONS AND

IMPROVEMENTS ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 5005

MARCH 28, 2006

Serial No. 109–113

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida

PHILIP G. KIKO, General Counsel-Chief of Staff 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

MICHAEL VOLKOV, Chief Counsel 

DAVID BRINK, Counsel 

CAROLINE LYNCH, Counsel 

JASON CERVENAK, Full Committee Counsel 

BOBBY VASSAR, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

MARCH 28, 2006

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

The Honorable Howard Coble, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 1

The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 2

The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas ................................................................................................................. 3

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Michael R. Bloomberg, Mayor, City of New York 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 4

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 8

Mr. Richard E. Gardiner, Attorney at Law, Fairfax, Virginia 30

Ms. Audrey Stucko, Deputy Assistant Director, Enforcement Programs and 

Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) 32

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement by the Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security ................................ 40

Prepared Statement by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas .................................................................. 41

Letter from Antonio Villaraigosa, Mayor of the City of Los Angeles, to the 

Honorable Howard Coble and the Honorable Robert C. Scott ......................... 45

Letter from Richard Daley, Mayor of the City of Chicago, to the Honorable 

Howard Coble ....................................................................................................... 47

Letter from Richard Daley, Mayor of the City of Chicago, to the Honorable 

Robert C. Scott ..................................................................................................... 48

Letter from Thomas Menino, Mayor of the City of Boston, to the Honorable 

Howard Coble and the Honorable Robert C. Scott ............................................ 49

Letter from Tom Barrett, Mayor of the City of Milwaukee, to the Honorable 

F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, and 

the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 51

Letter from Gregory Nickels, Mayor of the City of Seattle, to the Honorable 

F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. ............................................................................... 53

Letter from Gregory Nickels, Mayor of the City of Seattle, to the Honorable 

John Conyers, Jr. ................................................................................................. 55

Letter from the Fair Trade Group to the Honorable Howard Coble ................... 57

Letter from the National Firearms Act Trade & Collectors Association to 

the Honorable Howard Coble .............................................................................. 58

Letter from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence to the Honorable 

Howard Coble and the Honorable Robert C. Scott ............................................ 60

Page

IV

Letter from Crime Gun Solutions LLC to the Honorable Lamar Smith, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property ........................................................................................................................ 68

Declaration of Service via JusticeLink In re Firearm Case ................................. 70

Declaration of Robert A. Rickler in support of plaintiffs’ opposition to defendant manufacturers’ motion for summary judgement in Firearm Case ............ 71

(1)

FIREARMS CORRECTIONS AND 

IMPROVEMENTS ACT 

TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:55 p.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Howard Coble 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. COBLE. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

Mr. Gardiner and Ms. Stucko, we appreciate you two for remaining for the second panel. And we welcome the mayor, His Honor. 

I want to welcome you all to the second panel that has been called 

to participate in a legislative hearing on H.R. 5005, the ‘‘Firearms 

Corrections and Improvements Act.’’ H.R. 5005 implements a number of common-sense provisions 

which clarify, update, and eliminate obsolete language in the gun 

laws. Recently, Congress passed and the President signed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which restricted frivolous 

gun liability suits designed to target the gun industry. H.R. 5005 

is consistent with that act and implements some less controversial 

issues, many of which have already been enacted as part of the appropriations process. 

H.R. 5005 enhances the country’s national security efforts by 

eliminating current barriers which prevent private contractors who 

provide national security from training personnel in the use of firearms, preventing manufacturers from fulfilling Government contracts by restricting access to certain firearms and ammunitions for 

testing purposes. 

H.R. 5005 also eliminates the current double reporting requirement which requires that the same information be provided to the 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives and to the 

State or local law enforcement when an individual purchases more 

than one firearm within 5 days. Repealing the duplicative multiple 

sales reporting requirements serves the dual purposes of protecting 

individuals’ privacy rights and of relieving State and/or local law 

enforcement agencies from the burden and cost of having to comply 

with the Federal regulations. 

ATF is the national agency responsible for enforcing gun laws 

and has a proven track record in effectively maintaining duplicative sales data. This provision recognizes ATF’s role and eliminates 

the requirements that hundreds of different local law enforcement 

2

agencies, all of which vary in size, resources, and expertise, maintain this data. 

Finally, the bill includes a provision to limit the use of information contained in ATF’s Firearm Trace database and protects individual privacy rights without hindering the criminal investigation 

and prosecution of gun violations. The Firearm Trace system was 

not established to provide research data for civil litigation. It was 

established to solve crimes. H.R. 5005 provides the necessary safeguards from the disclosure of private individual information related 

to gun purchases—informants, suspects, investigating officers, and 

Federal firearm licensees, which are required to enforce effectively 

the gun laws. 

I am told that the Justice Department will propose modifications 

to a few of these provisions, and we look forward to working with 

the Justice Department regarding these changes. I also appreciate 

that some of today’s witnesses do not wholeheartedly support the 

language in H.R. 5005, and we as well look forward to hearing and 

considering those views. 

Prior to introducing our panel of witnesses and the mayor, I 

want to recognize the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I notice we have the patron of the bill, a Member 

of the Committee with us, and I’d ask unanimous consent that he 

be able to participate fully in the hearing. 

Mr. COBLE. Without objection. And I apologize to the distinguished gentleman from Texas. I did not see him come in. That’s 

a good suggestion, Mr. Scott. And you’re welcome, indeed, Mr. 

Smith. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’m pleased to join in convening the hearing on H.R. 5005, the 

‘‘Firearms Corrections and Improvements Act.’’ Some of the provisions of this bill are non-controversial. Others, clearly are not 

uncontroversial, as we will hear from our witnesses today. 

I’m concerned with certain provisions, in particular the provisions eliminating the requirement for reporting multiple sales to 

State and local governments. Virginia, as I understand other jurisdictions, has a one-gun-a-month restriction. And this information is 

clearly necessary to enforce this law. 

So I will clearly want to know what the proposed legislative restriction—what effect it may have on the one-gun-a-month law we 

have in Virginia. I’m concerned with the access to gun tracing and 

other information restricted by this legislation. I see no reason why 

we should shield individuals or companies from the responsibility 

for the results of their negligent acts, including those convicted of 

crimes directly relating to the injuries or deaths that are subject 

to negligence claims. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses 

on the impact of this legislation. I look forward to working with you 

to ensure that we do not have undue restrictions on the abilities 

of our States and localities to effectively enforce their laws and on 

the ability of injured parties to recover from negligent acts or individuals or companies in their use of firearms. 

I yield back. 

3

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman. And as Mr. Scott appropriately indicated, the primary author of the bill is with us. Mr. 

Smith, did you want to make a brief opening statement? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will, and it will be brief. 

Mainly, I want to thank you for having this hearing on this particular piece of legislation. As you have mentioned and has the 

Ranking Member, Mr. Scott, there are certain tweaks that may 

need to be made to this legislation. But we have run it by the Department of Justice, and we believe that overall it is a good piece 

of legislation and will address a lot of concerns that need to be addressed. 

So I am looking forward to this hearing. And I want to thank you 

for including me, and I want to thank Mr. Scott for his sentiments 

expressed a while ago as well. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman. 

The distinguished gentleman from New York, Mr. Weiner, has 

requested permission to introduce another distinguished gentleman 

from New York—His Honor. Mr. Weiner? 

Mr. WEINER. Thank you very much, Mr. Coble and Mr. Scott. I 

appreciate your obliging me. It is my great honor to introduce to 

the Committee, and to those who are viewing, the mayor of the city 

of New York, Michael R. Bloomberg. 

Many of you know him as perhaps the single most successful 

businessman today, but if not, one of the top several in American 

history. But for those of us who have gotten to know him in New 

York, we also are familiar with his philanthropy and his charitable 

work. 

When Tom Ridge, the former Director of Homeland Security, said 

that homeland security begins in our hometown, no one took it 

more seriously than Michael Bloomberg, who had just been sworn 

in shortly after September 11. With Policy Commissioner Kelly and 

about 36,000 police officers, including an anti-terrorism unit that 

extends, quite literally, beyond the ocean into other countries we 

have done a remarkable job in the city of New York of sometimes 

having to do without. 

But there are some additional measures that the city of New 

York, and other localities, that so many of my colleagues here in 

Congress say that we should let the localities do what they do best. 

And in the case of the city of New York, thankfully, it’s preventing 

and cracking down on crime. 

But we can’t do it entirely alone and we can’t do it with major 

obstacles being put in the way with legislation that doesn’t add to 

the enforcement actions but, frankly, makes them more and more 

and increasingly difficult. 

You know, we in the city of New York have come to see Mayor 

Bloomberg as someone who proceeds with issues based on merit, 

not based on politics. Although I can say I have developed some appreciation for his political skills the hard way, I can say that this 

is an issue that, frankly, should and ought to transcend politics. 

I learned from you, Mr. Coble, and others in this House that 

guns carry a certain cultural meaning in places around the country 

that perhaps I can’t understand, having grown up in Brooklyn. But 

I think all of us recognize, particularly now after September 11th, 

4

that there are going to be tools we’re going to need to be able to 

give to local law enforcement to be able to do their job. And Mayor 

Bloomberg doesn’t come here asking for things frivolously, but I 

think that his testimony today speaks for itself. And I think that 

we should give it the weight that it deserves. And we should be 

mindful of the fact that he is testifying not only on behalf of himself, but based on some of the letters we’ve gotten, based on mayors 

and executives all around this country in administrations both 

Democrat and Republican. 

And I also want to express my gratitude to you, Mr. Chairman, 

for your flexibility in understanding the schedule of the mayor of 

the city of New York. 

And with that, I’d like to ask unanimous consent that upon Mr. 

Bloomberg’s testimony and our asking him questions that he be allowed to return to the city of New York. I have enough trouble operating in his shadow in New York. I’m more than eager for him 

to get back on the job in the city of New York. So I would ask for 

unanimous consent. 

Mr. COBLE. Without objection. None heard. 

Your Honor, it’s good to have you with us. Mayor, we operate 

under the 5-minute rule, but you won’t be keelhauled if you violate 

that rule. But if you can stay on or about 5 minutes, and your 

warning light will be that red light that will illuminate into your 

eye. The amber light tells you that you have a minute to go. 

Now, Mr. Mayor, I am an alumnus of the rural South, and you 

and I probably won’t agree on gun legislation. But we can disagree 

agreeably, as Mr. Scott and I oftentimes do. But when I come to 

your town, Your Honor, that country boy come to town. New York 

City overwhelms me, but it’s good to have the mayor of America’s 

largest city with us. And you may be heard, Mr. Mayor. 

And, Mr. Weiner, I thank you for the introduction. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG, 

MAYOR, CITY OF NEW YORK 

Mr. BLOOMBERG. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And we’d love to 

have you in New York City. Come and spend a lot of money. We 

need the sales tax revenues. 

Thank you and, Ranking Member Scott, Mr. Weiner, thank you 

for the kind introduction, Mr. Feeney and Mr. Smith, thank you for 

the opportunity to appear before you and give testimony on H.R. 

5005, what I would call the misnamed Firearms Corrections and 

Improvements Act. My name is Michael Bloomberg, for the record, 

and I am mayor of the city of New York. 

Let me start by being very clear that I am not here today to engage in an ideological debate. H.R. 5005 has nothing to do with the 

second amendment and the right to bear arms, but it has everything to do with illegal guns and the dangers they pose to our police officers and citizens. And that’s why I’m here, because the bill 

this Subcommittee is considering would explicitly impinge on our 

ability to fight illegal gun trafficking, and it would result in the 

shooting deaths of innocent people. And I urge you, in the strongest 

possible terms, to reject it. And I am submitting letters from mayors around the Nation, as well as from the former Chief of the 

5

ATF’s Crime Gun Analysis Bench who join me in opposing this legislation. 

Why do New Yorkers care about illegal gun sales in other States? 

It’s true that New York is the safest big city in America. And I am 

very proud that we have been able to reduce major crime by nearly 

25 percent in the last 5 years. But the harsh reality is that far too 

many people continue to be killed with illegal guns. And nearly all 

of those guns are purchased outside of New York State. Last year, 

illegal guns were used to take the lives of more than 300 people 

in our city. 

To protect all New Yorkers, we must not only root out and punish those who possess, use, and sell illegal weapons—and we are 

doing that more effectively than ever—but we must also do everything in our power to keep guns out of the hands of those criminals 

in the first place. This requires us to look beyond our borders because 82 percent of the guns used in crimes in New York City were 

purchased outside of New York State. 

H.R. 5005 would make it immeasurably harder to stop the flow 

of illegal guns across our borders and into the hands of criminals 

by offering extraordinary protection to gun dealers who knowingly 

sell guns to criminals and depriving local governments and their 

law enforcement agencies of the tools they need to hold these dealers accountable. 

Specifically, these obstacles would take the form of severe restrictions on our use of ATF trace data, which is perhaps the most effective tool we have in combatting illegal gun trafficking. Without 

question, the vast majority of gun dealers are law-abiding businesses, and we have no quarrel with them. Most dealers follow the 

law and take every precaution to ensure that their products do not 

fall into the hands of criminals. 

But there’s a very small group of bad apples—about 1 percent of 

all gun dealers who account for almost 60 percent of all crime guns 

nationwide. That’s an astounding statistic. Imagine if 60 percent of 

all crime in a city were committed in one block. Would you pass 

a law that effectively prevented the police department from using 

every tool at its disposal to crack down on that block? Of course 

not. Yet H.R. 5005 would effectively prevent cities, like ours, from 

holding the 1 percent of bad gun dealers fully accountable for their 

actions. And that makes no sense whatsoever. 

When rogue gun dealers break the law and their guns cause injury or death to innocent people, they should be compelled to answer for their conduct in a court of law, just as any other law 

breaker would. And when they hold licenses issued by State and 

local authorities, they should be called to account in administrative 

proceedings to revoke their licenses. 

This is what happens to businesses in other industries when they 

act irresponsibly. Think about a tavern that sells alcohol to teenagers and as a result loses its license. Why should an irresponsible 

firearms dealer, who possesses a far greater threat to the overall 

safety of our citizens, be given special protection from State and 

local authorities? 

In non-criminal proceedings, to revoke a rogue gun dealers’ license trace data is the single most powerful way to demonstrate 

unmistakable patterns of illegal conduct. It’s pretty simple. Gun 

6

dealers with inordinately large numbers of traces to crime guns are 

gun dealers who make it a practice to sell to straw purchasers. Yet 

H.R. 5005 would ensure that this devastating evidence never sees 

the light of day. 

Studies show that when dealers are subject to enforcement efforts, or even if they suspect enforcement efforts, the number of 

crime guns later traced to these dealers falls off sharply. Yet by 

forbidding the use of trace data in civil and administrative proceedings, H.R. 5005 would make it far more difficult to bring civil 

suits against rogue gun dealers and far more difficult to bring administrative actions to revoke their licenses. 

And my question to you is why. Why is this in the best interest 

of the American people? Why is this in the best interest of your 

constituents? Why would Congress protect irresponsible gun dealers who help criminals get guns? Why is it good public policy to 

make cities fight the war against gun violence with one hand tied 

behind their back? Is it to benefit special interest groups or the one 

in a million person who was prosecuted for a purchase that is negligent, but not criminal? Is it for those few ideologues and extraordinary, unusual cases that you are willing to facilitate the shooting 

deaths of thousands of innocent Americans across this country 

every year? 

I can’t believe so. Nor can I take those answers back to the parents of the slain members of the New York City Police Department, 

including the families of Detectives James Nemorin and Rodney 

Andrews, who were murdered 3 years ago this month by one of the 

hundreds—in one of the hundreds of buy-and-busts that the NYPD 

carries out every year to take illegal guns off our streets. 

Finally, of the other retrograde provisions in H.R. 5005, the 

worst of all is the provision that would actually treat police officers 

like criminals. Under the terms of H.R. 5005, a detective who 

shares ATF trace information with another State government for 

use in a license revocation hearing against a rogue dealer would be 

committing a Federal felony, a crime punishable by up to 5 years 

in prison. In other words, if an NYPD detective talks to a New Jersey State Trooper about a gun dealer problem, that detective could 

go to jail. 

I would not expect that I would need to remind Congress of the 

horrific consequences that this country, particularly New York 

City, suffered as a result of the Federal Government’s failure to 

share information among law enforcement agencies and to work together to connect the dots in order to establish patterns of criminality and threats of danger. 

Yet, incredibly, instead of demanding that our law enforcement 

agencies share information, Congress is considering making it a 

crime, as absurd as that sounds. This bill would not only erect new 

barriers to information, it could send police officers to prison in 

order to prevent them from holding the worst gun dealers accountable for their potentially dangerous actions. 

How in the world can you explain that to the public? 

Members of the Subcommittee, I have been to too many police officers’ funerals to believe that this bill actually has a prayer’s 

chance in hell. But if it does pass, the next time an officer is attacked by an illegal gun—and I say next time because until ConVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:24 Aug 15, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\032806B\26766.000 HJUD2 PsN: 26766
7

gress gets serious about illegal guns, more police officers and many 

more citizens will be murdered. There can be no denying that those 

who vote for this bill will bear some of the responsibility. That may 

sound harsh to you, but I’m not going to sugarcoat my words when 

discussing a bill that coddles criminals and endangers police officers and citizens, not only in New York City but across this Nation. 

On behalf of the members of the NYPD and their families and 

all New Yorkers, I am urging you in the strongest possible terms 

to reject this God-awful piece of legislation. 

Thank you very much. And I’d be happy to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bloomberg follows:]

8

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG


MRB0001.eps
9


MRB0002.eps
10


MRB0003.eps
11


MRB0004.eps
12


MRB0005.eps
13


MRB0006.eps
14

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Your Honor, and the Chair wants to express thanks, as well, to Ms. Stucko and Mr. Gardiner, for having 

agreed to permit you to go first, Mr. Mayor. And then we will examine you. And then you’re on a short leash. You need to go back 

to the Big Apple. And then we’ll talk to Ms. Stucko and Mr. Gardiner. 

Mr. BLOOMBERG. Congressman Weiner wants me out of Washington as soon as possible, and I’d be happy to accommodate. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COBLE. We need to accommodate Anthony. 

Mr. Mayor, what would you say if someone said to you, as I’m 

going to say to you, that for decades New York had tough, tough 

gun control laws and crime continued to run rampant. And then 

when the New York police were allowed to do their jobs and the 

courts more effectively did theirs, the crime rate reduced. How 

would you respond to that? 

Mr. BLOOMBERG. We’ve brought the number of murders per year 

down from 2,200 a year down to 530 last year. But it’s still 530 too 

many, and roughly 300 of those were committed—the murders 

were committed with guns. We have to continue to do our job. 

And you’re 100 percent right. We’ve done a good job and will continue to do it. But this is just one more tool in helping us get guns 

off the streets. Guns don’t belong on the streets of big cities. And 

we recognize that in the suburbs and in other parts of the country, 

different laws may very well be appropriate. But in the major cities, I don’t think there is a mayor that wouldn’t stand next to me 

and say this is a significant problem. And it is a national problem 

because of the ease of carrying guns across the border from one 

State to another. 

Mr. COBLE. But, Your Honor, much of the reduction in crime occurred after some of the gun laws were rolled back. 

Mr. BLOOMBERG. Gun laws have something to do with it, in some 

cases don’t. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be able to conduct an investigation. It’s 1 percent of the dealers that sell 60 percent of the guns used in crime. 

I mean, if it was any other industry, any other kind of crime, the 

public would be screaming. And I trust all of you would be leading 

the charge to help the cities continue the reduction in crime that 

they have been able to accomplish. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Your Honor. 

Now, I want to recognize Ms. Stucko and Mr. Gardiner if you all 

have any comment to make prior to the mayor’s departure. Mr. 

Gardiner? 

Mr. GARDINER. No. 

Mr. COBLE. Ms. Stucko? 

[No response.] 

Mr. COBLE. Well, I have beat the red light. The distinguished 

gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. And, Mr. Mayor, you’ve noticed your colleague from the New York area, Ms. McCarthy, who has, as you 

know, a significant interest in gun legislation. 

Mr. BLOOMBERG. She has mentioned it to me on more than one 

occasion. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, good for her. Good for her. 

15

What effect would this—do you have one-gun-a-month legislation 

in New York? 

Mr. BLOOMBERG. We have reasonably strict gun regulations in 

New York in terms of background checks and how much you can 

buy. 

The big problem that we have are not people that are trying to 

buy guns legally. It is people that go out of State, buy a dozen 

guns, come back into the State and sell them to people that they 

know are criminals. And it’s something that we can’t control without having information, and we’re going to use every tool in our 

quiver. We use the criminal law. We use the civil law. We use licensing requirements. We do that all the time to try to stop all of 

the kinds of behavior that really is so damaging to the young people of our city. We are losing our citizens to guns every day. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, a major portion of this is a restriction on what 

you can do with the documentation. 

How would it help law enforcement to be able to have access to 

this information? 

Mr. BLOOMBERG. What you try to do is you try to find out when 

a crime has been committed where the gun that the criminal had 

in his possession came from. You go to the manufacturer because 

you know the type of gun. You can look at the gun and know who 

manufactured it. That manufacturer can look and see what dealer 

he sold it to. 

If one dealer has tens or hundreds of crime-used guns that he 

handled, that’s the dealer you want to go after. This is not something that we’re going after the manufacturers. 

This legislation is bad for the manufacturers. In the end, the 

manufacturers have every interest in keeping guns out of the 

hands of criminals. In the end, everybody that wants to have the 

right to bear arms should have exactly the same interest. And this 

is a very important tool—having information. I know of no other 

place where we would deliberately prevent law enforcement officers 

from using the information. There’s the old joke of follow the 

money. It’s follow the information in all criminal investigations. 

Mr. SCOTT. I can see how we would perhaps want to limit access, 

public access to this information. 

Mr. BLOOMBERG. Nobody’s arguing about that. We’re not taking 

information and making it available to everybody. This is the fact 

an NYPD detective can’t talk to a New Jersey State Trooper. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, you’ve indicated that some gun dealers, 1 percent of the gun dealers have an overwhelming portion. Are these 

60 percent of gun crimes, are these illegal purchases or legal purchases? 

Mr. BLOOMBERG. We’re talking here only about illegal purchases. 

That’s where we want to find out who is knowingly selling guns to 

criminals. Unfortunately, crimes are committed by people who have 

a gun and have a license for that gun and bought it in an appropriate manner. But you know who that is. 

That’s not what we’re talking about here. This is purely a case 

where you have a handful of unscrupulous dealers, not manufacturers, who knowingly sell to people who they know will either use 

these guns in crime or will resell them to people who are buying 

16

them for only one purpose, and that’s to go out and to commit 

crime. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman, distinguished gentleman from Florida, Mr. 

Feeney. 

Mr. FEENEY. Thank you, Mayor. It’s an honor to have you here 

today. We appreciate the job you do in America’s most famous city. 

And thanks for being here. 

Also, you know, I want to congratulate you. I mean, the truth of 

the matter is that for many decades, as long as I have been watching New York politics and national politics, mayors of New York 

have been insisting that in order to get control of the crime problem in New York, they need to have national anti-gun legislation. 

And, in fact, it turns out that Mayor Giuliani and your administration have enforced the laws of New York. And you have had a remarkable success. As a matter of fact, I feel safer visiting New 

York than at any time since I was a young man, the last 6 or 8 

years. That hasn’t happened as a consequence of national gun legislation. The truth of the matter is that in the last few years we 

have had some 70 million new handguns that have been sold and 

purchased, and yet violent crime continues to decrease. 

And so I guess I’m a little bit mystified by some of the logic of 

your argument that in order to save 300 people in New York, we 

have to have some effect from New York City on people that sell 

or engage in lawful behavior outside—and let me finish, Mayor, if 

I can, and I am sure we will give you as much time as you need 

to respond, because I just have some respectful differences of opinion. 

One of the things you have said is that you have implied that 

what Congress wants to do is to protect, if we pass the 5005 legislation—I haven’t made up my mind. I don’t know that I’m a cosponsor, but I certainly haven’t made up my mind on specific language. I don’t think anybody in Congress wants to protect the 1 

percent bad gun dealers, but that is what you suggested, and we 

can have a difference of opinion about what the effect of the bill 

will be. 

But I don’t know whether you were here to hear some of the testimony of the last panel. What we heard, among other things, is 

that the number of gun dealers nationally since 1992 has gone 

from roughly 250,000 to less than 50,000. What we also heard is 

that ATF has a zero tolerance policy. No mistakes. Even though 

the language says ‘‘willful noncompliance by licensed gun dealers’’

is a crime, the tolerance policy is zero at ATF. 

So I guess my question is: If you’re going to say that you don’t 

believe that ATF is policing the 1 percent of bad apples and that 

what you want to do is to have civil liability, you want to hold civilly responsible gun dealers that ATF is not holding responsible 

under its very rigid zero tolerance policy, then isn’t the purpose 

really—and here is where I get concerned, and remember, the entire congressional intent when we created the Trace system was 

not to allow civil litigation or cities to crack down and license legal 

dealers elsewhere. It was to solve crimes. And there’s nothing in 

this bill—and if we need to clarify the language, I can guarantee 

17

you, I will support an amendment to say that a police officer anywhere in the country, to help solve a crime or help prevent a crime 

in New York can at any time pick up the phone, talk to any one 

of your detectives. You have my assurance on that. I will support 

such an amendment. But here is the problem I have, Mayor, and 

then I would like to invite you to respond, because we obviously 

have a big philosophical difference of opinion. 

For decades in this country, as long as I’ve been alive, we have 

had a debate about whether or not the second amendment actually 

protects Americans’ individual right to bear arms. I’m a big believer the second amendment is as important to America as the 

first amendment, freedom of the press. I happen to like the 10th 

amendment, also, by the way, and all the rest of the amendments. 

But as a consequence of the political failure of the gun grabbers, 

the anti-gun lobby, to be able to convince Americans that we should 

take away Americans’ weapons or their right to access to weapons, 

what they have done is to go after the people that manufacture 

guns. And now our concern is that individual jurisdictions will try 

to affect national policy by suing licensed gun dealers that have not 

committed a crime that the ATF finds them responsible for, but 

some judge in some local jurisdiction does. 

And I will leave you with this last thought. You can address this 

hypothesis. The Legislature of South Dakota just decided that, 

whatever the U.S. Supreme Court has said, there should be no 

right to an abortion in South Dakota. If the legislature’s intent in 

South Dakota is to protect women and unborn children in South 

Dakota from abortions, should they have the right after they pass 

this legislation to regulate the practice of medical doctors in the 

other 49 States that may continue to perform abortions if that occurs? We’ve got two constitutional rights there. One I don’t find in 

the Constitution. One I see in the second amendment. And that’s 

the problem I have with local jurisdictions impacting the 10th 

amendment rights of the rest of us. 

Mr. BLOOMBERG. Mr. Feeney, I am not here to argue that the 

right to bear guns should be taken away. I’m not one of those gun 

grabbers. We are here talking simply about going after people who 

knowingly violate the law and sell guns to criminals, and the purpose of this bill is to take away the information we need to go after 

them. All law enforcement is done with both criminal law and civil 

law and licensing law. They’re all tools that anybody that tries to 

enforce the law would use. 

You say that the ATF has done a good job. They did, back in 

2002, they inspected 4.5 percent of all Federal firearms licensees, 

and they found that a whopping 42 percent of those inspected had, 

on average, over 70 violations per store. They only attempted to revoke licenses in 30 cases, 1.6 percent of those violations. So if we 

are depending on the Federal Government to drive this car, they’re 

asleep at the wheel. 

I don’t know that I agree with the analogy with the abortion laws 

in one State. That has nothing to do with what goes on in another 

State. These are guns used in New York that are sold in another 

State and transported into New York City. And so it should be up 

to the Federal Government to do something about it, and if they 

18

don’t, then the law permits local jurisdictions to go to court and to 

try to find liability. 

I don’t see why anybody should have more protections in the case 

of selling one kind of product than another kind of product. Things 

that are sold commonly, manufacturers and dealers have liability 

if their product is used incorrectly. They have labeling requirements or try to mitigate the liability through labeling requirements. Nobody suggests that a car dealer would sell—should sell 

a car to a 10-year-old who walks in with cash. I would argue that 

a car dealer that sold a car to a 10-year-old with cash probably 

should be put in jail, particularly if that kid goes out with a car, 

we find the money’s been stolen, and he drives the car into a school 

bus and kills lots of other people. 

Mr. FEENEY. Well, in fairness—and I appreciate your testimony, 

but, by the way, this bill doesn’t allow any of those sorts of abuses. 

As a matter of fact, lawsuits against gun manufacturers, if their 

product doesn’t function properly, all those things are still open——

Mr. BLOOMBERG. Those are open things. What we’re talking 

about here is the information to find out who is deliberately and 

explicitly violating the law and selling guns to criminals. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman’s time has expired. If you could wrap 

up, Mr. Mayor. 

Mr. BLOOMBERG. Let me just finish by saying, number one, 

thank you for listening to me. We do have some—— Mr. COBLE. Oh, no, I meant his time has expired. 

Mr. BLOOMBERG. He’s fine. I’d love to stay. Let me finish up by 

simply saying that we’re not talking here about ideology. We’re not 

talking about the Second rights—the second amendment rights. We 

are talking about withholding information in a world where the 

biggest problem we seem to have is that we are not sharing information, whether it’s going after terrorists, coming from overseas, or 

going after criminals on our streets, whether the information is 

bottled up. There’s a restriction, for example, in this legislation 

that says this data should be kept on microfilm. This is the year 

2006. To put it on microfilm is only designed so that nobody can 

get at it. How can anybody look at their constituents in the eye and 

explain in a day when every kid has a cell phone that is more powerful than the biggest IBM computer made 20 years ago and restrict—come on. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady, the distinguished gentlelady 

from New York, Ms. McCarthy. Good to—although not a Member 

of the Judiciary Committee, good to have you with us, Ms. McCarthy. 

The Chair is now pleased to recognize the distinguished gentleman from New York, Mr. Weiner. 

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I think we should pick up something 

that Mr. Feeney said that I think put it very well, that with the 

laws of the city of New York, with good enforcement, with a police 

department second to none, with an anti-gun unit that is as vigorous as any in the country, we have been able to drive down 

crime. Why do you need new laws? 

Well, Mr. Feeney, that’s exactly the point we’re making. The 

point is that now we’ve got the tools that we need to do—and I 

19

should say, for someone who has opposed the renewing of the 

COPS program, which allowed more police on your streets and 

mine, that’s one of the tools we’ve had that has been taken away 

in recent years. But all we’re saying here is we don’t want additional laws. We just want Congress not to butt in as we try to get 

the last 500 victims to not be victims, to try to drive that number 

down. You’re exactly right, and I got to give credit—you know, from 

time to time my friends on your side of the aisle are exactly right. 

We seem to run around sometimes looking for new laws to pass, 

looking for new things to do. And sometimes it’s just letting the 

good people in the localities and the cities and the States do their 

job. 

Well, you have someone here who has arguably done it more effectively than anyone in recent memory. We’ve done it, sometimes 

without the help we needed from Washington, but we’re dealing 

with that. Now you’re coming here and saying we do need another 

law because, whoa, you’re getting too good at this. And I want to 

start—I want to ask—make that the jumping off point for a question. 

Mr. Bloomberg, tell us, if your police commissioner comes to you 

and said, You know what? We’ve made arrests and convictions, arrests and convictions. But based on our intelligence, we know that 

a particular dealer in a particular State on a particular avenue is 

where a lot of this is coming from, we’ve reported to the ATF, but 

they only do about 25 percent—their prosecutions are down 25 percent, you quoted 2002. I’ll give you another number from 2002. 

There are over 2 million reported stolen firearms. There were 152 

investigations, never mind prosecutions that year. 

So I would ask you, Mr. Mayor, tell me a little bit about what 

you would do if Commissioner Kelly comes in and says that, with 

all your good work, with all your police officers, with all your prosecutors, with all your good intentions, at that point are you effectively stymied at that point, or do you have to launch an invasion 

of that State? 

Mr. BLOOMBERG. The first thing we would do, Mr. Weiner, is call 

our corporation counsel and try to get clarification on a law that 

we read 10 times, and you could read it either way. It is very convoluted and complex as to whether or not you have the right to 

share information. But the fact that there is a law like this would 

certainly crimp most law enforcement efforts to share information, 

and they would err on the side of not sharing it. And the damage 

here is that somebody can die, that if we could have done something yesterday and stopped an unscrupulous gun dealer. 

Let me repeat again: I have no problems with people buying guns 

legally, depending on the State that—the State law. But when 

those guns are then resold into our State and used by criminals, 

we, if we can’t get Congress to act, will try to act ourselves and 

avail ourselves of the existing law that lets us use civil suits. But 

we need the information. And it seems to me that H.R. 5005 has 

one purpose and one purpose only, and that’s to keep us from getting information that law enforcement agencies in any other area 

would have and we would encourage them to have, and, in fact, 

Congress pays for them to obtain. This is just trying to protect 

somebody who is a criminal. It doesn’t have anything to do with 

20

the right to bear arms. It doesn’t have anything to do with the people who go hunting. It doesn’t have anything to do with people who 

buy arms legally to protect themselves. It is purely and simply designed to protect the bad guys. It’s to keep us from having the information. 

And, Mr. Feeney, if you have concerns about how we should 

share the information, I don’t have any problems with legislation 

that strikes the right balance between protecting the public and allowing the law enforcement officers from the great State of Florida 

or from New York to do their job. If we learnt anything from 9/11, 

it was we are in a common fight against those who would take 

away our rights, including, incidentally, the second amendment. 

We are in a battle to protect ourselves from terrorists from overseas and terrorists on our streets. And what we can do is to help 

our law enforcement officers, not hurt them and take away information. 

Mr. WEINER. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FEENEY. Would the gentleman yield before he yield back? 

Mr. WEINER. Certainly. 

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, we are going to get you some of the 

language from the bill because—and I appreciate that we have 

some differences in approach. But there’s nothing in the bill that 

prohibits information sharing between different law enforcement 

officers, and if there is, you have my commitment to support an 

amendment that will do that. What it does do is to say that the 

Trace information that we gather so we can track down the real 

criminals and solve crimes—— Mr. WEINER. Would the——

Mr. FEENEY. If it’s not designed for civil litigation——

Mr. WEINER. If I can reclaim my time, I would just refer the gentleman to page 8, line 18 through 25, and you tell me—you know, 

I pride myself as being one of the few non-lawyers on the Committee. If you would—if there is some confusion, I think there 

might be, if you would take a look at it. But I will say, line 22, 

‘‘and only to the extent that the information pertains to the geographic jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency or prosecutor requesting the disclosure.’’ I read that to mean if you’re interested in 

someone who’s not in your geographic subdivision and you’re not in 

your geographic jurisdiction—by the way, I don’t even known what 

‘‘geographic jurisdiction’’ means. I guess, I mean, the city of New 

York has prosecutions and investigations literally worldwide, but 

it’s clear that there’s some confusion. And I would welcome the 

gentleman’s support in perhaps in Committee striking that whole 

section. 

Mr. FEENEY. If you will yield to respond——

Mr. WEINER. Sure, sure. 

Mr. FEENEY. I appreciate that, and, by the way, I’d be happy to 

help clarify the language. But what that refers to is the Trace information. To the extent to what the mayor wants is a database of 

all 50,000 gun dealers in the United States that some——

Mr. WEINER. I should think the mayor can expound on what he 

would like. It’s the Trace—— Mr. FEENEY. Well——

21

Mr. WEINER. If I can reclaim my time for a moment, I’d be much 

more comfortable—— Mr. COBLE. The gentleman—— Mr. WEINER [continuing]. Letting the mayor say what he—— Mr. COBLE. The gentleman—— Mr. FEENEY. Well, respectfully, the mayor’s under the opinion 

that a law enforcement officer in Florida, aware of a potential 

crime that’s either occurred or about to occur in New York can’t 

talk to him, that’s simply not true. 

Mr. WEINER. Okay. Let me—if I can reclaim my time, because 

now——

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman’s time has expired, but I will——

Mr. WEINER. Could I have one more minute? 

Mr. COBLE. Will you yield just a moment, Anthony? Will you 

yield? 

Mr. WEINER. Sure, thank you. What’s important here——

Mr. COBLE. I want to say a word, if I may. 

Mr. WEINER. Oh, sure. 

Mr. COBLE. I don’t want to accelerate the mayor’s departure. I 

know he has to get to New York. I hope we can wrap up pretty 

soon because we still have Ms. Jackson Lee and Ms. Waters just 

came in, so we have two——

Mr. WEINER. Sure, but I thank your indulgence for one additional minute because this is an important point. 

If using Trace the city of New York is doing an investigation, arrests some guy, arrests another guy, arrests another guy, and it 

turns out that there’s information they’ve gotten from ATF that 

says there is a likely candidate for an enforcement action in another subdivision, and ATF doesn’t prosecute, for whatever reason, 

or it doesn’t reach someone’s desk, or they want to pursue it before 

the next guy gets shot, that, according to this language, sharing 

that Trace information with another agency of Government that’s 

outside of New York would be a violation of this statute. And I 

would say—I would also say this: If there’s confusion and the law 

enforcement folks think it’s going to hinder them, take their word 

for it, Mr. Feeney. They know what they’re talking about. They do 

it for a living. If they say so, maybe the best thing to do here is 

to strike the language—I would say to put aside the bill in toto. 

But the last thing you want to do is just because you have 100 percent certainty, if law enforcement feels they would be hindered, 

they’re the folks we should defer to, and you know who says that 

most around here? Frankly, many folks on that side of the aisle say 

let law enforcement enforce the law. I think Mr. Coble and you just 

said it in your opening questions to Mr. Bloomberg, and I yield 

back. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentlelady from—the distinguished gentlelady from Texas, 

Ms. Jackson Lee, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the distinguished Chairman. I’m delighted and honored to be able to join one of the stronger visionaries on gun safety in Carolyn McCarthy from New York, and as 

well, Mr. Mayor, to thank you as well as the other witnesses. I’m 

from Texas, but I wear slightly a different perspective than might 

be expected. 

22

I frankly believe that H.R. 5005 is, if you will, redundant. And 

I also believe that there is a degree of dumbing down the ATF in 

its collaborative work with local law enforcement. We have worked 

on this Judiciary Committee for a number of years that I have 

served to increase the collaboration and cooperation between local 

and State law enforcement and our Federal authorities. 

Let me also reinforce a point that you made. I serve on the 

Homeland Security Committee. You’re absolutely right. The singular issue after 9/11 that we began to address, even before looking 

at border security and other issues, was the sharing of intelligence. 

I mean, we’ve spent the longest period of time in light of a lot of 

issues that came to light—the FBI memo, which I’m sure you’re 

aware of, the training of individuals to take off and not land. So 

this strikes me—it gives me a certain amount of ‘‘befuddleness,’’ if 

you will, and I’ll claim that word. 

I would like to just go back to some comments that you’ve made, 

and I’m disappointed that some of the lawsuits that cities had undertaken dealing with gun usage was not only stopped by the 

courts in some instances but by legislation. And I want to go back 

to this question dealing with H.R. 5005. I view section 7 as the one 

that eliminates specifically the sharing of data between local law 

enforcement and the Federal. 

Just take, for example, the last, I think, 48 to 72 hours, in the 

tragic shooting in Seattle. The perpetrator, alleged perpetrator, was 

first described, we don’t know why, it’s a perfectly genteel individual, yet to discover that, well, the individual was well armed but 

also had a number of other gun equipment. 

The question is—we don’t know what the investigation will find, 

but the question is: In that kind of tragic episode that may happen 

in any American city, wouldn’t it have been—or would it be certainly more valuable—and this is in what we think is a standard 

crime, tragic crime situation—where information could be shared 

as to whether those guns had been used in other criminal circumstances, whether or not they were sold inappropriately, whether or not there was evidence of a person who sold them who violated the law? Would you share with me, even on the basis of simple crime solutions that happens in every major city, how a bill like 

this that dumbs down the ATF data system where it cannot be 

shared really undermines your commissioner’s work, undermines 

your local—I shouldn’t say your local, but your police officers on 

the street who we’re trying to protect, and simply puts a large divide between what should be a unified scene of law enforcement 

and the sharing of intelligence? 

Mr. BLOOMBERG. Ms. Jackson Lee, I cannot understand why this 

bill is before this Subcommittee. You would think that those who 

want to have the right to bear arms would do everything they could 

to keep the bad guys, if you will, from having guns. I don’t know 

where any investigation goes. We never know what’s going to happen in this tragic case that you referred to, or anyplace else. In this 

country, we have a number of rights. One is the right to bear arms. 

Another is a restriction on how Government can use information, 

and I think most of those restrictions are well founded. They have 

been tested in the courts. There’s a lot of history behind them. 

23

What this law would do is for one kind of product, go and remove 

the ability for law enforcement officers to do their jobs even under 

the protection of the civil rights that we all hold so dear. And the 

only beneficiary of this bill are the bad guys. It does not help gun 

manufacturers. Most of them are very responsible. It does not help 

gun dealers. Most of them are very responsible. It doesn’t help people who buy guns legally and use them responsibly. It just helps 

one group—the bad guys. We have a law says they shouldn’t have 

guns, and yet here’s ways that you’re taking away from the police 

department’s ability to find out who is violating the law. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Plain and simple—and might I just add these 

two points, and I’d appreciate your brief comment on it, because, 

again, it gives me great consternation and heightens the level of 

confusion. To limit ATF from gun tracing data and to limit it from 

using—or at least allowing this gun tracing data or the data that 

they might come about and potential civil action, which from my 

perspective the judiciary system or any legal system is for petitioners and defendants—or plaintiffs and defendants, rather, or 

prosecutors and defendants, to go before the court, and someone 

prevails. And so eliminating information to be given to either side, 

to be adjudged by either a hopefully independent jury or a jury of 

one’s peers and/or a judge seems to me to put a major dent in any 

judicial system that we would claim to have. Why eliminate information? 

Mr. COBLE. The gentlelady’s time has expired, but you may respond, Mr. Mayor. 

Mr. BLOOMBERG. Ms. Jackson Lee, before you came in, I talked 

about the difference between criminal law and civil law and licensing law. The truth of the matter is law enforcement officers and the 

governments use all three all the time. We use building codes to 

close down bars that may sell alcohol to children or houses of prostitution or places where they sell stolen goods. We use civil suits 

to make this city, our city, the city of Washington, safer all the 

time. The distinction is this is not a bunch of ambulance-chasing 

lawyers going out and looking for a case to make a few bucks. This 

is the Government that’s sworn to protect all of us using information to catch a handful of people who go out and kill other human 

beings. 

And, Mr. Feeney, one of the things you had said is we have done 

a good job at bringing down crime in New York City, but it’s not 

just going after demand. It’s going after the supply as well. Why 

not do both? And you do both simultaneously. And I think that 

there’s plenty of protections for the public. In the past, I don’t know 

of any kind of tracking data like this that was used inappropriately. All of a sudden, however, there’s a law that was in the past 

put through as part of an appropriations bill, so it never really—

Congress never really had to stand up and say yea or nay. This is 

the first time, I think, that Congress has to do that. 

But it seems to me, plain and simple, you’ve got to answer to 

your constituents. Who are you trying to protect and why in this 

day and age, given everything that we’ve learnt from 9/11, everything that’s going on in this world, we want to tie the hands of law 

enforcement officers? You may feel that there should be some 

24

added protections for the public in terms of how the information is 

used, and if there are abuses, fine. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Absolutely. 

Mr. BLOOMBERG. I have the same interest in my personal rights 

as anybody else. But I don’t think that you can make a rational 

case that deliberately keeping information of who is selling tens, 

hundreds of guns that they know are going to go out on the streets 

and be sold to criminals, that keeping that information from law 

enforcement makes—— Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have just one sentence. What 

the mayor has enunciated I believe represents fatal flaws in legislation that I don’t think can be cured or rehabilitated. And I’d just 

cite to my colleagues, though it is not a gun issue, but some decades ago when we took on Volkswagen to be helpful, we drive 

Volkswagens today that are safe. And that was a civil suit based 

upon information that had been garnered. Slightly different set of 

facts, but a good turned out. Why not allow facts to go to local governments so that good can come out of it for those they serve and 

for this Nation. This legislation is fatally flawed, and, again, I hope 

we’ll find a way to detour it away from consideration. 

I yield back. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The Chair has been very lenient on time because this is a very 

significant issue, and, Ms. Stucko and Mr. Gardiner, if you all want 

to weigh in before we adjourn, I will let you do that. But meanwhile I want to recognize the distinguished gentlelady from California, Ms. Waters. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members. Allow me to take a moment to thank Mr. Bloomberg, the 

mayor, for being here today. I want to commend you not only because of your position on this issue, on the issue of gun laws, but 

for your courage in coming here. This bill is being advanced by a 

Member of your party, and oftentimes it is difficult, even when you 

know something is wrong, to look them in the eye and tell them, 

and you are here doing that today, and I commend you for that. 

As a matter of fact, I like people with courage. 

Let me just say that I’m from Los Angeles, and I have a very diverse district. But one section of that district where we have a concentration of public housing developments and a concentration of 

poor people and gangs is a very troubling part of my district. In 

about a month’s period of time, I think starting about December 

23rd, there were 12 people killed in what has been described as 

gang warfare. And what’s very interesting about what has taken 

place is the guns that they’re using are more sophisticated, they 

have more fire power, and they’re not killing just one person, 

they’re killing several persons in a single round of shooting. 

Now, we’re all asking: Where are these guns coming from? How 

are these young people getting access to these guns? Can’t we trace 

them? Can’t we find out what is going on? 

The NRA and maybe the gun dealers who support this bill can 

say whatever they want about constitutional rights. The Constitution never envisioned that sophisticated weaponry would be on the 

streets of America with people getting killed day in and day out all 

over this country. 

25

Aside from the gangs and the criminals who have access to these 

guns, I would think that every Member of Congress would be concerned about terrorism. The President has made this his number 

one priority. We talk a good game up here about terrorism. We 

have an alert system with yellow and orange and red and all of 

that. But that does not really do very much to protect us from the 

potential for terrorists right here in our own country having access 

to the kind of weapons that could wipe out a whole bunch of people 

at a theater, in a supermarket, you name it. 

And I want to tell you, each morning that I wake up, I wake up 

wondering whether or not some of what I’m hearing about what is 

going on in Iraq is not going to occur here in the United States, 

and how we could do something like the section 7, the elimination 

of duplicative, multiple sales report requirements, is unconscionable. To say that someone can walk in and purchase maybe ten 

guns or more and there would be a report maybe that goes to ATF 

but not to the State and locals and the ATF does not have a responsibility to report it to the State and locals is just beyond me, 

my comprehension. I don’t understand why we would be doing 

something like this, and I think you raised the question why. Why 

do we have this bill in this Subcommittee before the Congress of 

the United States? Who are we trying to protect and why? And for 

anybody to say we’re not trying to protect the criminals, I don’t 

know how they would explain it. 

I’m sick and tired of the sloganeering and the stupid slogans— ‘‘Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.’’ Well, I want to tell you 

who’s killing folks. This kind of public policy is what can help get 

a lot more people killed and our inability to find out where these 

guns are coming from and how they’re being sold. 

So you give me an opportunity with this platform today to say 

how deeply concerned I am about what is going on not only in my 

own district and with young people and with gang members, but 

what’s going on across this Nation. 

I thank you for being here, and I hope that no matter what kind 

of criticism you may get from inside your party, that you continue 

to do this kind of work and show up at times when it’s not popular 

to show up. And I don’t need a response. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. COBLE. Ms. Waters, you beat the red light. I commend you 

for that. 

Your Honor, I think we’re about to excuse you, but I want to give 

Ms. Stucko and Mr. Gardiner a chance to make a statement—— Mr. BLOOMBERG. Can I just say something about Ms. Waters’

comments? 

Mr. COBLE. Sure. 

Mr. BLOOMBERG. I don’t view this as a partisan issue. 

Ms. WATERS. It shouldn’t be. 

Mr. BLOOMBERG. I’m not a particularly partisan person, as many 

people know, but I—and I don’t view this as the NRA versus the 

rest of the world. This is not about the right to bear guns. This is 

not a philosophical issue. This is plain and simple: You’ve got 

criminals out there and we’re not going after them, and I fail to 

understand how anybody can argue that we shouldn’t have this information. It does not restrict anybody from legally buying a gun 

26

anyplace or doing anything that is legal. And it seems to me that 

it is in the NRA’s interest long term to do everything they can to 

make sure that guns are used responsibly, because whether the 

politics worked today or the politics work tomorrow, eventually the 

public is going to say enough is enough. And I had the mayor of 

Los Angeles, Mayor Villaraigosa, in the city recently, about 2 

weeks ago, and we had dinner together and talked about crime, 

and we both have similar problems, and education. This is not 

something that’s East Coast/West Coast, Republican/Democrat, 

rich/poor. Everybody is a victim of criminals, and all we’re saying 

is don’t take away the information that we need to catch the criminals. And I think that those that really care about the second 

amendment should not want this bill to become law. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Mayor, since Mr. Gardiner and Ms. Stucko have 

been very generous with their time, do either of you have anything 

to say prior to the mayor’s departure? 

Mr. GARDINER. Are we going to have a chance to make——

Mr. COBLE. Your mike is not hot, Mr. Gardiner. 

Mr. GARDINER. Are we going to have a chance to make statements afterward or is this the only—is this going to be the 

only——

Mr. COBLE. This will be it. Well, now, the record will be kept 

open for 7 days. If you want to communicate with us in writing, 

that will be in order. 

Mr. GARDINER. I would like to make a couple of comments, and 

please—— Mr. COBLE. Oh, I stand corrected. Sure, you may indeed make 

them right now. 

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, can—the mayor has to run back, but 

I just want to thank him on behalf of the Committee. 

Mr. COBLE. Ms. Stucko, did you or Mr. Gardiner want your 

words to be received by the mayor necessarily? 

Mr. GARDINER. I would like to make a couple of comments if the 

mayor could hold on for a couple minutes. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Mayor, could you accommodate us to that end? 

Mr. BLOOMBERG. I think this is important enough. I’d be happy 

to——

Mr. COBLE. Folks, we’re departing all around from the rules of 

order here, but I think we’ll be forgiven. Go ahead, Mr. Gardiner. 

Mr. BLOOMBERG. I’d just like to say thank you—thank you, Mr. 

Gardiner and Ms. Stucko, for your patience, and I apologize. 

Mr. GARDINER. I have prepared testimony, which has been in the 

record, but I want to comment on several things the mayor has 

said. First of all, he suggests that this bill would somehow impair 

the ability to bring lawsuits against dealers who knowingly sell 

firearms to criminals. That’s absolutely untrue. There’s nothing in 

this bill which would in any way prevent suits against dealers who 

knowingly sell firearms to criminals. If there are dealers who are 

doing that, those kind of lawsuits can be brought now. There’s 

nothing that prevents that. 

What the mayor is talking about here is the data from the National Trace System, the database that ATF maintains, and it’s important to understand why what the mayor is saying about this bill 

simply is not true, because you have to understand what that dataVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:24 Aug 15, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\032806B\26766.000 HJUD2 PsN: 26766
27

base is. It is a list of guns which have been traced. That’s all it 

is. And as the Congressional Research Service said in a study at 

least a decade ago, all traced firearms are not crime guns, and all 

crime guns aren’t traced. Indeed, the vast majority of guns which 

are traced are not crime guns, and probably the vast majority of 

crime guns aren’t traced. You have a database that essentially all 

it’s doing is indicating how many times law enforcement agents 

have called ATF and said, ‘‘Who—where did this gun go after it 

was manufactured?’’ That’s all the Trace database is. It is not in 

the slightest way indicative of whether a particular dealer is selling 

guns to criminals. And so eliminating the ability of ATF to release 

the Trace database is not in any way going to impact on the ability 

to bring suits against dealers. 

Now, I wanted to also respond, if I could, to Mr. Scott’s question 

about Virginia and the one-gun-a-month provision. That—this 

database has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the enforcement of the one-handgun-in-30-day-period. That is a database that 

is maintained by the Virginia State Police because we have a statewide instance check. I have personally—— Mr. SCOTT. Doesn’t the bill prohibit the dual reporting and that’s 

why the Virginia——

Mr. GARDINER. It does. It has absolutely no effect, and the reason 

is that in Virginia we have this statewide instant check. In fact, 

Virginia was the first State to create that. And the way the State 

Police determined whether a second handgun has been sold within 

the 30 days is based on the State instance check system. It has 

nothing whatever to do with these multiple-purchase forms. The 

State has its own computer system, and when a dealer makes a 

transfer of a handgun, he has to call in and get permission, get a 

clearance for the individual buyer. And when that check is done, 

when the criminal history check is done, they also do a check to 

determine if the person has bought a second handgun within 30 

days, and I know that’s how it’s done because I’ve represented a 

number of individuals who’ve been prosecuted, and I’ve cross-examined the State Police who’ve been involved in the cases. So this bill 

would have no effect whatever on that issue. 

With regard to the—specifically with regard to section 7 and providing information, multiple-purchase information to the State police and local police, the problem is that part of what Congress said 

was that the data were to be destroyed after—I believe it was 20 

days, and the police were then to provide certifications to the Department of Justice that they had destroyed those documents pursuant to Federal law. 

I have done a Federal—a Freedom of Information Act request to 

get copies of those certifications. I believe in the course of the last 

10 or 12 years since this was done, even though there have been 

thousands and thousands and thousands of multiple-purchase 

forms filed, there were probably four or five certifications from the 

entire United States in that file. The local and State law enforcement have simply—I guess a better—no better way to put it is that 

they violated Federal law because they have not provided these certifications. And that’s part of the reason why the information is 

not—should not be provided, because they apparently have not 

complied with their requirements. 

28

Mr. WEINER. Maybe they should file it on microfiche. 

Mr. GARDINER. Then maybe they’d destroy it? Is that the—— Mr. WEINER. Then none of us would ever know. 

Mr. GARDINER. Paper is easy to destroy. These are forms that are 

about—— Mr. WEINER. I know. I’m joking, Mr. Gardiner. 

Mr. COBLE. Are you finished, Mr. Gardiner? 

Mr. GARDINER. Those are the specific comments that I wanted to 

make. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you for that. 

Ms. Stucko? 

Ms. STUCKO. We have not had a chance to thoroughly analyze 

the bill, but we would like to enter comments for the record. 

Mr. COBLE. Well, the record will remain open for 7 days, and I 

want to thank you the Members of the Subcommittee for their attendance. 

Mr. Mayor, good to have you down here in the Nation’s capital. 

Have a safe trip back. 

Mr. BLOOMBERG. Thank you. 

Mr. COBLE. This concludes the hearing. In order to ensure a full 

record and adequate consideration of this important issue, the 

record will be left open for additional submissions for 7 days. Also, 

any written questions a Member wants to submit should be submitted within the 7-day period. 

This concludes the legislative hearing on H.R. 5005, the ‘‘Firearms Corrections and Improvements Act.’’ Thank you for your cooperation. The Subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 4:03 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(29)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

30

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD E. GARDINER, ATTORNEY AT LAW, FAIRFAX, 

VIRGINIA


REG1.eps
31


REG2.eps
32

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AUDREY STUCKO


AS0001.eps
33


AS0002.eps
34


AS0003.eps
35


AS0004.eps
36


AS0005.eps
37


AS0006.eps
38


AS0007.eps
39

PREPARED STATEMENT BY THE HONORABLE ROBERT C. SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, AND RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE

ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to join in convening this legislative hearing on H.R. 5005, the ‘‘Firearms Corrections and Improvement Act.’’ While some of 

the provisions of this bill are non-controversial, others are clearly controversial, as 

we will hear from our witnesses today. I am concerned with certain of the provisions, in particular, such as the provision eliminating the requirement for ATF to 

report multiple sales to state and local governments. Virginia, as other jurisdictions, 

has a one- gun-a-month restriction, and this information is clearly necessary to its 


AS0008.eps
40

enforcement purposes. So, I will certainly want to know how the proposed legislative 

restriction relates to this purpose. I am also concerned with access to gun tracing 

and other information restricted by this legislation. I see no reason why we should 

shield individuals or companies from responsibility for the results of their negligent 

acts, including those convicted of crimes directly related to the injuries or deaths 

that are the subject of negligence claims. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses on the impact 

the legislation and to working with you to avoid undue restrictions on the abilities 

of our states and localities to effectively enforce their laws, and on the ability of injured parties to recover from negligent acts individuals or companies in the use of 

firearms. Thank you.

41

PREPARED STATEMENT BY THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS


lee1.eps
42


lee2.eps
43


lee3.eps
44


lee4.eps
45

LETTER FROM ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, TO THE

HONORABLE HOWARD COBLE AND THE HONORABLE ROBERT C. SCOTT


arv1.eps
46


arv2.eps
47

LETTER FROM RICHARD DALEY, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, TO THE HONORABLE

HOWARD COBLE


daley1.eps
48

LETTER FROM RICHARD DALEY, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, TO THE HONORABLE

ROBERT C. SCOTT


Daley2.eps
49

LETTER FROM THOMAS MENINO, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF BOSTON, TO THE HONORABLE

HOWARD COBLE AND THE HONORABLE ROBERT C. SCOTT


Boston1.eps
50


boston2.eps
51

LETTER FROM TOM BARRETT, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE, TO THE HONORABLE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

AND THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON THE

JUDICIARY


tb1.eps
52


tb2.eps
53

LETTER FROM GREGORY NICKELS, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SEATTLE, TO THE

HONORABLE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.


seattle1.eps
54


seattle2.eps
55

LETTER FROM GREGORY NICKELS, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SEATTLE, TO THE

HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR.


gjn1.eps
56


gjn2.eps
57

LETTER FROM THE FAIR TRADE GROUP TO THE HONORABLE HOWARD COBLE


ftg.eps
58

LETTER FROM THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT TRADE & COLLECTORS ASSOCIATION TO

THE HONORABLE HOWARD COBLE


nfatca1.eps
59


nfatca2.eps
60

LETTER FROM THE BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE TO THE HONORABLE

HOWARD COBLE AND THE HONORABLE ROBERT C. SCOTT


bc1.eps
61


bc2.eps
62


bc3.eps
63


bc4.eps
64


bc5.eps
65


bc6.eps
66


bc7.eps
67


bc8.eps
68

LETTER FROM CRIME GUN SOLUTIONS LLC TO THE HONORABLE LAMAR SMITH, 

CHAIRMAN OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, THE INTERNET, AND INTELLECTUAL

PROPERTY


cgs1.eps
69


cgs2.eps
70

DECLARATION OF SERVICE VIA JUSTICELINK IN RE FIREARM CASE


A.eps
71

DECLARATION OF ROBERT A. RICKLER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO

DEFENDANT MANUFACTURERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT IN FIREARM CASE


case1.eps
72


case2.eps
73


case3.eps
74


case4.eps
75


case5.eps
76


case6.eps
77


case7.eps
78


case8.eps
79


case9.eps
80


case10.eps
81


case11.eps
82


case12.eps
83


case13.eps
84


case14.eps
85


case15.eps
86


case16.eps
87

Æ


case17.eps