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

68–298 PDF 2011

NATIONAL RIGHT-TO-CARRY RECIPROCITY ACT 

OF 2011 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

H.R. 822 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 

Serial No. 112–53 

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 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

[Vacant] 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Majority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas, Vice-Chairman 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

CAROLINE LYNCH, Chief Counsel 

BOBBY VASSAR, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 

Page 

THE BILL 

H.R. 822, the ‘‘National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011’’ ........................ 3 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Wisconsin, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security .......................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security .......................................................................... 9 

WITNESSES 

Joyce Lee Malcolm, Professor of Law, George Mason University 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 12 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 14 

David B. Kopel, Adjunct Professor, Denver University Sturm College of Law 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 25 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 27 

Charles H. Ramsey, Commissioner, Philadelphia Police Department 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 51 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 53 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security ................................ 10 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Letter from the Dave Pecchia, Executive Director, Minnesota Chiefs of Police 

Association (MCPA) ............................................................................................. 86 

Letter from Charles H. Ramsey, Police Commissioner, City of Philadelphia, 

President, Major Cities Chiefs’ Association ....................................................... 88 

Letter from Mayors Against Illegal Guns .............................................................. 89 

Letter from Mark A. Marshall, President, International Association of Chiefs 

of Police ................................................................................................................. 97 

(1) 

NATIONAL RIGHT-TO-CARRY RECIPROCITY 

ACT OF 2011 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,

AND HOMELAND SECURITY, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:59 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Sensenbrenner, Goodlatte, Lungren, 

Forbes, Poe, Chaffetz, Griffin, Gowdy, Adams, Quayle, Conyers, 

Scott, Cohen, Chu, and Quigley. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The Subcommittee will be in order. 

I yield myself 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

Many States with concealed carry laws have extended concealed 

carry privileges of reciprocity to residents of other States. However, 

the laws are confusing, vary widely, and subject otherwise lawabiding citizens to frivolous prosecution. To address this problem, 

H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Act, provides that anyone 

who has a valid firearm carry permit to use that permit in any 

other State that issues concealed weapon permits. 

Individuals carrying a concealed firearm would be required to 

comply with the rules and restrictions of the State he or she is visiting. Forty-eight States currently permit concealed carry in some 

manner. Thirty-five States have shall-issue permit laws, which require States to issue permits to people who meet legal requirements for a concealed carry permit. 

In November, my State of Wisconsin will implement a newly enacted shall-issue law, replacing its current prohibition on concealed 

carry. As more and more States adopt the shall-issue policy, the 

idea of national reciprocity legislation makes more sense. 

The ability to travel freely and to provide for one’s defense are 

the hallmarks of liberty and should be recognized by our government. 

Moreover, States with right-to-carry laws have lower violent 

crime rates than States that don’t. According to FBI statistics, 

States with concealed carry laws have 22 percent lower violent 

crime rates, 30 percent lower murder rates, 46 percent lower robbery rates, and 12 percent lower aggravated assault rates, compared to the rest of the country. 

2 

It is important to reiterate that this legislation does not create 

a national licensing scheme. Rather, it would require States that 

currently permit people to carry concealed firearms to recognize 

other States’ valid concealed carry permits, much like States recognize drivers’ licenses issued from other States. H.R. 822 does not, 

however, impact State laws governing how firearms are used within the various States. 

I have long been an advocate for the Second Amendment, and I 

believe the Constitution provides law-abiding citizens the freedom 

to keep and bear arms. This legislation recognizes that the right 

to bear arms does not stop at the State line and is unimpeded by 

different State governments. 

And with that, I yield back the balance of my time and recognize 

the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, the Ranking minority 

Member. 

[The bill, H.R. 822, follows:] 

3 


HR822-1.eps
4 


HR822-2.eps
5 


HR822-3.eps
6 


HR822-4.eps
7 


HR822-5.eps
8 


HR822-6.eps
9 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, gun violence remains a major problem in our 

country. As a Nation, we continue to struggle with various proposals to address this issue. I believe this bill is a step backwards 

in an effort to enhance gun safety, because it would overrule existing judgments enacted by States controlling who should be allowed 

to carry concealed weapons within their borders. 

Setting aside for a moment the issue of whether it is a good idea 

to allow or encourage the carrying of concealed weapons, it should 

certainly be unwise and improper for us to discard the ability of 

States to protect the safety of their own citizens. 

I cite a letter from the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police to 

this Committee, stating that, ‘‘H.R. 822 would severely undermine 

State concealed carry licensing systems by allowing out-of-state 

visitors to carry concealed firearms even if those visitors have not 

met the standards of carrying a concealed weapon in the State 

which they are visiting.’’ 

I would ask, Mr. Chairman, this letter be included into the 

record. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

10 

Mr. SCOTT. If a State decides to enter into a reciprocity agreement with another State, as many States do, that is their right, 

and they continue to exercise independent judgment about how to 

protect their own citizens. However, we in Congress must not strip 

them of their power to decide how to protect the safety of their citizens. 

Also, this bill presents police on the beat with an almost impossible challenge of knowing whether an out-of-state permit as valid 

or not. 

Do we have the screen? 

You can see on the screen—I think they are going to show—this 

is a South Dakota permit, and the next—— 


68298B.eps
11 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman would suspend a bit, can 

we dim the lights here so we can see what is on the screen a little 

better? 

Mr. SCOTT. This is the South Dakota permit. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. And the next, Mr. Chairman, is an Indiana permit. 

If you notice, these look apparently easy to forge, to just print up. 

And a cop on the beat wouldn’t know whether he is looking at a 

valid permit or not. 

Today, we will hear from Philadelphia Police Commissioner 

Ramsey about the unnecessary problems this bill presents to law 

enforcement and experience he has had, which illustrates why we 

should reject the bill. 

In the Crime Subcommittee, we debate measures which we hope 

will protect public safety. Unfortunately, this will do just the opposite. 

I look forward to the witnesses and look forward to discussing 

the issues with them. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you. 

Without objection, all Members’ opening statements will appear 

in the record at this time. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of 

the Committee during votes today. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce today’s witnesses. 

Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm is a professor of law at George 

Mason University School of Law. She previously taught at Princeton, Bentley University, Boston University, Northeastern University, and Cambridge University. She is a fellow of the Royal Historical Society and a fellow of Robinson College at Cambridge University. She served as the senior advisor of MIT’s securities studies 

program and a visiting scholar at the Massachusetts Center for 

Renaissance Studies. She earned her bachelor of arts, master of 

arts, and Ph.D. from Brandeis. 

Professor David Kopel is research director of the Independence 

Institute, a public policy research organization in Golden, Colorado, 

and is associate policy analyst with the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. He is an adjunct professor of constitutional law at the 

University of Denver Sturm College of Law. 

Before joining the Independence Institute, Mr. Kopel served as 

assistant attorney general for the State of Colorado. From 1998 to 

1999, he served as an adjunct professor of law at NYU. And from 

2001 to 2009, he was a media columnist for the Rocky Mountain 

News. He earned his bachelor of arts in history from Brown, and 

his juris doctorate from the University of Michigan. 

Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey was appointed police commissioner of the Philadelphia Police Department in 2008. He currently 

serves as president of both the Police Executive Research Forum 

and the Major Cities Chief Association. 

In 2007, he was a security consultant to the Washington, D.C., 

Convention Center and the United States Senate Sergeant at 

Arms. During that year, he also served on the Independent Commission on Security Forces of Iraq, led now by National Security 

Advisor General James L. Jones. 

12 

Commissioner Ramsey also served as the chief of the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department from 1998 to 2006. 

He served in the Chicago Police Department for nearly three decades in a variety of assignments, including deputy superintendent 

of the bureau of staff services. He holds both a bachelor’s and master’s degree in criminal justice from Lewis University in 

Romeoville, Illinois. 

Each of the witnesses’ written statements will be entered into 

the record in its entirety. I ask each witness to summarize his or 

her testimony in 5 minutes or less. 

And, Professor Malcolm, you are the first up. 

Could you please turn the mike on and pull it toward you? 

And we will reset the clock. 

TESTIMONY OF JOYCE LEE MALCOLM, PROFESSOR OF LAW, 

GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY 

Ms. MALCOLM. Thank you. As we all know, there has been a national debate in this country for more than 30 years over whether 

more guns in private hands means more crime or more guns in private hands means less crime. While the national Government has 

passed statutes like the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban, 

and then allowed it expire, the States have also been discussing 

which route to take. And they have been opting one by one to permit their citizens to carry firearms concealed, in the confidence 

that this can both help them defend themselves and also deter 

crime. 

The Americans and the British share a common law view on selfdefense, which William Blackstone summarizes very briefly when 

he says: ‘‘Self-defense is the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the laws of society.’’ 

In America, the people have opted and the States have opted to 

allow the people to be armed. In Great Britain, they have preferred 

to insist that people depend on the police, and they have disarmed 

public citizens more and more. 

And there has been a dramatic difference in the rate, in the 

crime results in both of these. I am just quickly going to start with 

America. 

In America, since crime, violent crime, peaked in 1991, 25 States 

have passed concealed carry statutes. And I will ask the Chairman’s permission to include Wisconsin in the 49 States that now 

permit concealed carry, since I believe it is November that it will 

go into—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The Governor signed the bill, so permission 

is granted. 

Ms. MALCOLM. Okay, thank you. 

So there are now, or there will shortly be, 39 of the States of the 

49 States that are shall-issue States. Illinois is the only State that 

does not permit people to carry concealed weapons. And all of these 

States have trusted to the good judgment of the people and their 

responsibility. 

Since 1991, when crime peaked, millions of guns have been purchased and hundreds of thousands of permits have been issued. 

But violent crime has been declining for 20 years. In 1991, 758 

13 

crimes per 100,000 people were recorded. By 2009, it was down to 

429 per 100,000 people. 

The people who have been registered to carry concealed firearms 

have done so remarkably responsibly. There is a sense and an understanding that police cannot protect everyone. And in fact, court 

cases have shown that they have no duty to protect. 

In the case here in the District of Columbia, Warren v. the District of Columbia, when women sued the police department because 

they had failed to answer 911 when called repeatedly for over a 

half hour, the judge, in finding in favor of the police, found what 

he called ‘‘a fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public 

services such as police protection to any individual citizen.’’ 

In addition, since citizens are left to themselves, it is really important they be able to protect themselves. And of course, in the 

last couple of years, the Supreme Court has affirmed that the Second Amendment does guarantee an individual right to keep and 

bear arms in both the Heller case and now in McDonald v. the City 

of Chicago last year. 

In Great Britain, by contrast, since 1920, both parties have decided to disarm citizens. So in 1920, they passed a law that you 

had to get a license to carry a handgun and you had to have a good 

reason to get that license. And gradually, what was considered a 

good reason has been ratcheted down, so that by 1969, self-defense 

was never a good reason to have a gun. In 1997, their Firearms Act 

outlawed all handguns in private hands and confiscated those that 

were already owned and registered. 

In 1953, their Prevention of Crime Act prohibited carrying any 

article for defensive purposes in a public place. And an Arizona 

tourist was arrested, for example, for defending herself against 

three men who attacked her in a subway station by using her penknife. When she reported it to the police, she was arrested for carrying an offensive weapon. 

They also have a list of weapons for which you get an automatic 

10-year sentence, and along with rocket launchers and machine 

guns, this includes chemical sprays. 

The result of this kind of disarmament of the public has been 

that gun crime in the United Kingdom doubled in the past decade. 

So having banned handguns and taken them out of the possession 

of people who already had them, they have not stopped gun crime. 

They have simply made it worse. 

In 2009, Britain was judged from studies as the most dangerous 

country in Europe. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

Ms. MALCOLM. Okay. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Malcolm follows:] 

14 


JLM-1.eps
15 


JLM-2.eps
16 


JLM-3.eps
17 


JLM-4.eps
18 


JLM-5.eps
19 


JLM-6.eps
20 


JLM-7.eps
21 


JLM-8.eps
22 


JLM-9.eps
23 


JLM-10.eps
24 


JLM-11.eps
25 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Professor Kopel? 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID B. KOPEL, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, 

DENVER UNIVERSITY STURM COLLEGE OF LAW 

Mr. KOPEL. Thank you, Chairman Sensenbrenner. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Could you please turn on the mike? 

Mr. KOPEL. We are slow learners over here. 

The constitutional right to travel is supported by many Supreme 

Court precedents. The Supreme Court’s most recent decision on the 

right to travel is Saenz v. Roe from 1999. Writing for a seven-justice majority, Justice Stevens explained that the nature of our Federal union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and 

breadth of our land, uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations, 

which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement. 

The Saenz court explained that one component of the right to 

travel is the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than 

an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second State. 

In 1868, the 14th Amendment granted a new power to Congress 

to enforce the national citizenship rights of the American people. 

Notably, congressional debate on the 14th Amendment’s privileges 

or immunities clause indicated specific intent to protect the right 

to travel. 

Congress discussed South Carolina’s notorious 1844 persecution 

of Samuel Hoar, an attorney from Massachusetts. He had traveled 

to South Carolina to mount a legal challenge to the State law 

which authorized the capture and enslavement of free Black sailors 

whose ship entered a South Carolina port. Incited by the South 

Carolina Legislature and Governor, mobs threatened violence 

against the attorney, and he was forced to leave the State. 

The great Illinois Senator Lyman Trumbull was the author of the 

13th Amendment abolishing slavery. He cited the Samuel Hoar 

case and Mississippi’s prohibition on gun ownership by freedmen as 

examples of the needs for a congressional power to enforce national 

citizenship rights. 

Today, every State but one allows the carrying of handguns in 

public places for lawful self-defense. The large majority of these 

States have reciprocity agreements with other States, so that a 

carry permit issued to residents in State A may be used by those 

residents when they visit State B, and vice versa. 

These States are not the primary problem that H.R. 822 addresses. A few States, including California, New York, and New Jersey, 

refuse to enter into reciprocity agreements with any of their sister 

States, and they have no provision allowing a nonresident to apply 

for a permit. 

These States impose impediments on interstate travel that discriminate against travelers based on the mere fact that they are 

citizens of other States. They deny the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily 

present in the second State. 

Notably, the need to be prepared for self-defense is especially 

acute when one is traveling in a different State. At home, one will 

be familiar with the safety of different parts of town at different 

26 

times of the day. A visitor will not have such familiarity and could 

more easily end up in a dangerous, high-crime area. 

Further, tourists and similar visitors are particularly targeted by 

criminals. Their style of dress or mannerisms may indicate that 

they are not familiar with local customs. Because they are not local 

residents, they are known to be less likely to be able to make another trip to testify in court against a criminal, so the criminal has 

a greater sense of impunity in attacking a tourist. 

To be deprived of the right of self-defense while traveling is to 

be deprived of the constitutional right to travel freely and safely 

throughout the entire United States of America. 

In addition to the right to travel, Congress has the constitutional 

authority to protect American citizens from State or local government infringements of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. 

As the Supreme Court explained in District of Columbia v. Heller, 

the right to bear arms includes the right to carry weapons in the 

case of confrontation for the core lawful purpose of self-defense. 

The Heller opinion listed some presumptively lawful regulatory 

measures. According to the Supreme Court, ‘‘nothing in our opinion 

should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the 

possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places, such as schools 

and government buildings.’’ These are the exceptions that prove the 

rules. 

Under Heller, ordinary citizens, but not felons or the mentally ill, 

have Second Amendment rights to possess guns. The Second 

Amendment right includes the right to carry guns but not in sensitive places. 

Samuel Hoar escaped before the criminals could injure or kill 

him. Many interstate travelers are not so lucky. Congress has the 

clear constitutional authority and the responsibility to protect national citizenship rights from infringements by State or local governments. 

H.R. 822 safeguards the constitutional right to travel and the 

constitutional right to bear arms and enhances public safety. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kopel follows:] 

27 


DBK-1.eps
28 


DBK-2.eps
29 


DBK-3.eps
30 


DBK-4.eps
31 


DBK-5.eps
32 


DBK-6.eps
33 


DBK-7.eps
34 


DBK-8.eps
35 


DBK-9.eps
36 


DBK-10.eps
37 


DBK-11.eps
38 


DBK-12.eps
39 


DBK-13.eps
40 


DBK-14.eps
41 


DBK-15.eps
42 


DBK-16.eps
43 


DBK-17.eps
44 


DBK-18.eps
45 


DBK-19.eps
46 


DBK-20.eps
47 


DBK-21.eps
48 


DBK-22.eps
49 


DBK-23.eps
50 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much. 

Commissioner Ramsey? 


DBK-24.eps
51 

TESTIMONY OF CHARLES H. RAMSEY, COMMISSIONER, 

PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT 

Mr. RAMSEY. Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Scott, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, for inviting me to testify today. 

This is an important opportunity to discuss a critical issue affecting law enforcement organizations across our Nation and our ability to serve the public. 

Having had 42 years in policing and law enforcement, I have witnessed many important changes in public safety across police departments in three cities, first in Chicago for 30 years; and as chief 

here in Washington, D.C., for 9 years; and now as police commissioner in Philadelphia, the Nation’s fourth-largest police department, for the past 3.5 years. 

I also have the privilege of serving as both President of the Major 

City Chiefs Association, which represents the leadership of 63 of 

the largest municipalities in the United States, and the Police Executive Research Forum. 

I am here today to urge Congress to oppose H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act. This bill would eliminate the 

right the States now have to set their own public safety laws in 

consultation with law enforcement professionals. 

This legislation is not aligned with our vision for the future of 

policing. It is counter to what the field of law enforcement needs 

to create safer neighborhoods, towns, and cities. 

The Federal Government, under this bill, will compel every State 

to honor every other State’s permit to carry concealed and loaded 

guns, no matter how different their standards and criteria for securing a permit. H.R. 822 undermines the traditional authority of 

State and local governments to protect their citizens with reasonable, constitutional, and community-specific laws for carrying hidden loaded guns. 

Every State legislature has intensely debated what minimum 

standards should apply within their borders, and has put the 

standards in place. If a State has decided that a person should 

demonstrate proficiency with a gun before carrying it loaded in 

public, Washington should not second-guess that decision. 

In 2005 in Philadelphia, a man named Marqus Hill had his concealed carry permit revoked by the Philadelphia Police Department 

after he had been charged with attempted murder. He was able to 

receive a permit in Florida despite his record and then use his 

Florida permit to carry a loaded gun in Philadelphia. He eventually 

shot a teenager 13 times in the chest, killing him on the street. 

H.R. 822 would nationalize the ill-conceived policy to put a gun 

in Marqus Hill’s hands. Pennsylvania’s current reciprocity agreement with 25 other States, including Florida, have demonstrated 

the difficulty and the impact that a national policy such as H.R. 

822 would impose. 

Consider the following situation, which could happen if this bill 

were to become law. A police officer in Brookfield, Wisconsin, has 

just pulled over a speeding driver who was a resident of Texas. The 

driver presents a concealed carry permit from Utah, which grants 

nonresident permits. There is no way for the Brookfield officer to 

verify that the permit is legitimate and up to date. He would simVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:35 Oct 31, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\091311\68298.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
52 

ply be required to honor it. The consequences for our frontline police officers could be severe. 

Congress should not consider a policy at the Federal level that 

has no implementation system. We as police leaders cannot leave 

our officers, whose safety is our first priority, without a mechanism 

to determine if the permit they hold in their hands is real and 

valid. 

Today I represent countless uniformed officers across the Nation 

who oppose this bill, including the police chiefs who are members 

of the Major City Chiefs Association, the International Association 

of Chiefs of Police, and the Police Executive Research Forum, 

amongst others. 

As we face the challenge of keeping our citizens and our officers 

safe, I ask Washington to partner with local law enforcement agencies and develop reasonable approaches that protect citizens, protect our officers, and support States rights to provide public safety 

for their communities. 

And I am happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

Thank you again, and all Members of Committee, for providing me 

with the opportunity to testify this morning. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ramsey follows:] 

53 


CHR-1.eps
54 


CHR-2.eps
55 


CHR-3.eps
56 


CHR-4.eps
57 


CHR-5.eps
58 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you, Commissioner. 

I will yield myself 5 minutes to start the questioning out. 

Commissioner Ramsey, I think you have a good point, relative to 

not knowing the legitimacy of a concealed carry permit that is 

issued by a foreign jurisdiction, what it looks like, and the like. Say 

this bill passes and a police officer makes a traffic stop and somebody pulls out a concealed carry permit of questionable legitimacy. 

What would the officer do in Philadelphia, if that happened? 

Mr. RAMSEY. If it was questionable now, they would seize it and 

bring the individual in and check further to see whether or not it 

was legitimate. Now that is if it is obviously forged. Some of these 

forgeries are so good, you honestly cannot tell the difference unless 

you have certain equipment in order to be able to tell. 

Many of the permits from other States do not even have photographs on the permit. In Pennsylvania, we do. But in many jurisdictions, it is just simply a card with writing on it. And there is 

no way to really verify. If it is 3 o’clock in the morning and you 

have a traffic stop, there is not even a database. You can’t even 

contact radio to determine whether or not this is a valid permit, 

because you can’t run it through a database like you can a driver’s 

license. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay, so the person who used that type of 

document would be detained for at least some period of time while 

the legitimacy of the document is checked out, either at a police 

station or elsewhere? Are you clear on that? 

Mr. RAMSEY. I understood your question to be if it looked suspicious. In other words, it looked like it had been forged. That’s different. If you have no reasonable suspicion that it is anything other 

than a legitimate permit, you wouldn’t do that. You would simply 

allow the person to go. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay. 

Professor Kopel, what do you think about this hypothetical? 

Mr. KOPEL. Well, I would say, in the Supreme Court, I have represented the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, which is the main organization that trains law enforcement in firearms use. And I think the levels of police training 

are capable of addressing different types of identification from 

other States. 

It used to be, in the olden days, not all drivers’ licenses had photographs on them, and it was certainly true that, in previous decades, if someone was in Colorado, say, with a New York driver’s 

license, and they were speeding at 11 o’clock at night, the police 

officer in Denver couldn’t call up the New York State Department 

of Motor Vehicles to test the validity of that license. And things 

still worked out all right anyway. 

I think this is something that is addressable by police training. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay, I yield back the balance of my time. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Professor Malcolm, you mentioned the debate about whether or 

not more guns would increase or decrease crime. Do you think 

more firearms would increase crime or decrease crime? 

Ms. MALCOLM. More firearms has not increased violent crime. 

We have had more firearms over the last few years, millions more, 

59 

and violent crime has been going down dramatically. And the murder rate has been going down dramatically. 

Mr. SCOTT. So if we had more firearms, the crime rate in your 

judgment, would go down? Is that what I am hearing? 

Ms. MALCOLM. It has gone down. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. 

Ms. MALCOLM. I should say that, obviously, when crime goes 

down, there is more than one reason for that. I mean, good policing 

is also important. 

Mr. SCOTT. Do any States prohibit open carry, kind of Wild West, 

strap it to your waste, unconcealed—do any States prohibit open 

carry? 

Mr. KOPEL. Approximately half the States prohibit open carry. 

Mr. SCOTT. Half the States prohibit open carry. 

Commissioner Ramsey, what kind of standards are usually imposed in order to get a concealed weapons permit? 

Mr. RAMSEY. Well, in Philadelphia, for example, we will do a 

background check on an individual, looking for a criminal record. 

If they have a criminal record, certain misdemeanor offenses, such 

as stalking, for an example, some domestic violence, luring a child 

into a building, impersonating a police officer, certainly felonies, 

DUI convictions, those kinds of things, would make a person ineligible for a permit. 

In fact, we have had circumstances where we have denied a permit, but that same individual gets a permit from Florida, where we 

have reciprocity with the State Florida, and they are able to carry 

a gun in Pennsylvania, even though we have denied them the permit in Philadelphia. 

Mr. SCOTT. You don’t have to be a resident in order to get a concealed weapons permit? 

Mr. RAMSEY. Well, you do in Pennsylvania, but there are States 

where a nonresident permit is allowable. 

Mr. SCOTT. Do you have to be physically present to get a concealed weapons permit? 

Mr. RAMSEY. There are some I am told you can get online. 

Mr. KOPEL. If I could just elaborate a little on that? 

Florida is one of several States that issues permits to nonresidents. So for example, when I knew I was going to Florida on 

a business trip, you cannot walk into a Florida police station on 

Tuesday morning and then get a permit that same day. It is a process that takes weeks, including going to your local sheriff’s department to get fingerprinted, and then the sheriff’s department sends 

those fingerprints to—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Do any States allow this to be done online? 

Mr. KOPEL. There may be parts of the application process—instead of writing your name and address on a piece of paper, there 

may be some States that allow you to do that online. But a completed application would require your in-person fingerprints taken 

by local law enforcement and then sent to the Florida Department 

of Law enforcement, for example. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is that the case in every State? 

Mr. KOPEL. In Colorado? 

Mr. SCOTT. In every State. 

60 

If this bill were to pass, and a State were to adopt fairly lax 

standards, like, you know, type it online and they will mail you 

your permit, would it be valid everywhere under this legislation? 

Mr. KOPEL. Actually, for professional interests, I have tried—I 

have done applications for almost every State that issues nonresident permits, on a regular basis. And I have never seen States 

with anything lax like that, where you could just fill in a form and 

they wouldn’t even verify your identity. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is there anything in the legislation that prohibits 

that? If they just charged enough, it could be a great revenue-raiser. 

Mr. KOPEL. It is basically following the same system as with 

drivers’ licenses, where some States, at least in the olden days, 

used to issue drivers’ licenses to 14-year-olds, and others to older 

people, and they had different requirements for the amount of 

training you would have. And States were comfortable having reciprocity with each other for their licenses. 

Mr. SCOTT. Do all States prohibit access to a concealed weapons 

permit for someone on the terrorist watchlist? 

Mr. KOPEL. I don’t know of any State that formally does that, because the terrorist watchlist is a secret government list that people 

don’t even have access to. I mean, that is really McCarthyism at 

its most extreme, to say somebody—— 

Mr. SCOTT. What about domestic abuse? 

Mr. KOPEL. Pardon? 

Mr. SCOTT. Domestic abuse. Domestic violence. 

Mr. KOPEL. Federal law prohibits gun possession by anyone convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor. So no State would or 

could issue a carry permit to a person with a domestic violence 

misdemeanor conviction. 

Mr. SCOTT. And, Commissioner Ramsey, if a person presented an 

out-of-state permit, would there be any probable cause to do anything? 

Mr. RAMSEY. If there is a State, and we have 25 States where 

we have a reciprocity agreement, then they would be legitimate in 

terms of being able to carry that firearm. 

The problem is that different States have different criteria. Now, 

it has been mentioned, drivers’ licenses. You can’t just go to a car 

dealership, buy a car, and start driving. The step in between is 

called getting a license. You have to be tested, have certain knowledge of rules of the road. You have to show proficiency in being 

able to drive a car. There are certain standards that are in place. 

That is not the case with concealed—with gun permits right now. 

Some States require a person to show a level of proficiency with 

a firearm and go through certain steps to do that. There are other 

States that don’t allow that at all. In fact, I believe it was Nevada 

that recently terminated their agreement with both Florida and 

Utah, but previously they had reciprocity agreements, because 

their standards did not match what they considered to be appropriate, and they, therefore, withdrew their reciprocity agreement, 

which a State ought to have the right to do that. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

61 

Commissioner Ramsey, thank you for your service in the various 

positions of responsibility you have had. 

Let me ask you this. In the past, one of the arguments, strong 

arguments, has been, over the last 20 years, that if we were to 

allow more carry permits, or, generally speaking, if we were to 

allow more people to have access to personal weapons, it would 

cause the crime rate to go up, that is particularly the violent crime 

rate. The facts seem to be the opposite of that. 

And I listened to law enforcement, respected law enforcement, 

was a part of law enforcement as attorney general of California 

when these arguments were made. But I always said I would look 

at the facts as they were presented when people said there is a different side to it. 

In your opinion, both representing the group that you are here 

representing and in your personal experience, how do we explain 

the drop in the violent crime rate at the same time we have evidence of more weapons available to individuals? And there appears 

to be, over the last 20 years, a larger number of concealed permits 

given by the various States? 

Mr. RAMSEY. Thank you, sir. 

Let me just say that the vast majority of people that purchase 

handguns legally are decent, law-abiding citizens that do not commit crime. They have no intention of committing crime. There is no 

question in my mind about that. 

In fact, in Philadelphia, for an example, we took a look at our 

homicides just for the first 6 months of this year. More than 80 

percent of the people who were victims of homicide in Philadelphia 

had previous criminal records that would have barred them from 

buying a gun legitimately or getting a concealed permit to carry. 

Some 88 percent of the offenders, same thing. 

So the population that is committing the crime isn’t necessarily 

the same population, to a large extent, buying the handguns. 

The issue I have is the lax nature of some of the laws of certain 

States that then I would have to accept in my jurisdiction should 

a national concealed carry law be passed. There are no standards 

in place at all for that. 

Mr. LUNGREN. So you are not against the idea of individual citizens having carry permits for concealed weapon? 

Mr. RAMSEY. Well, that is a different issue. Personally, I don’t 

like it, personally. But I am also a realist, and if you already have 

a jurisdiction—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. Let me ask you that question. Personally, you 

don’t like it. At least in my experience, most law enforcement people I know that have retired have a right to continue to carry. 

Mr. RAMSEY. Right. 

Mr. LUNGREN. So it is good enough for them, but not good 

enough for the average citizen? 

Mr. RAMSEY. Well, sir, the average law enforcement—in fact, all 

law enforcement officers, we are trained in the use of force. We are 

trained in how to use a firearm. We undergo constant training in 

that area. 

The average citizen that buys a gun, there is no requirement in 

most jurisdictions that they know how to load the gun or how to 

properly use it. There needs to be checks. 

62 

As you get older, I mean, you get physical disabilities that can 

afflict you. Do you want someone with advanced stages of Parkinson’s with a handgun firing—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. No, I wouldn’t, but it seems to me if someone is 

older and has less ability to physically defend themselves, perhaps 

the use of a weapon in their own home, or as they are going to 

their car, or in their own business, might be a means by which 

they are able to defend themselves despite age. 

Mr. RAMSEY. Well, I am not arguing the in the home part. The 

carry and conceal is a danger to law enforcement. As we stop these 

individuals, we are the ones who have to make the stops on the 

street, sir. We are the ones that have to do that. 

Mr. LUNGREN. No, I understand. 

Mr. RAMSEY. We do it at all hours of the night, 3 and 4 in the 

morning, with individuals, some very dangerous individuals that 

could be carrying falsified, forged documents. We just don’t need to 

make it easier for them. 

If a State decides they will allow concealed carry for the residents, that is the right to do so. But to have a national concealed 

carry, without any kind of standards—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. Okay, let me ask you about that. 

Mr. RAMSEY [continuing]. Is a problem. 

Mr. LUNGREN. If the legislation had some minimum standards, 

could you support it at that point in time? 

Mr. RAMSEY. It depends on the standards, sir. Registration, 

showing proficiency in the use of it, there are a lot of standards 

that would have to be present before I would sign off and say that 

it is a good bill. 

Mr. LUNGREN. But if we had standards that to your satisfaction 

met the standards you have Pennsylvania for example—— 

Mr. RAMSEY. Pennsylvania, I think, has a terrible law as it relates to concealed carry. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Oh, really? 

Mr. RAMSEY. Way to lax. I happen to live in Pennsylvania and 

work in Pennsylvania; it doesn’t mean I like the law in Pennsylvania. I think it is one of the weaker laws in the country. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Is there any State that you would suggest has the 

proper standards? 

Mr. RAMSEY. Sir, I am not a proponent of concealed carry. 

Mr. LUNGREN. No, I understand. That is obvious. 

Mr. RAMSEY. But from your question, then I would have to recognize a State, saying that I think that that is the right way to go. 

I realize there is a debate on this issue, and I respect the opinion 

of those that have a contrary opinion. But I personally do not like 

the idea of people carrying guns with no training, with no understanding of when it is appropriate to use force, get lost in a quote, 

unquote, ‘‘bad neighborhood,’’ everyone who lives in that neighborhood is not a criminal, and just because you were afraid, you turn 

around and shoot somebody. I have a problem with that. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I have a problem with that whether you have a 

permit or not. 

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

The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Quigley? 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

63 

I will address my comments to the professors here. I have only 

been here a little over 2 years. What I have learned from about 

States’ rights is that people are for them if they agree with the 

issue. 

My questions to you are, where do we draw the line? 

Professor, you made a reference to Justice Scalia’s opinion in the 

Heller case, creating the exceptions to the rule, as you said. Basically, what the justice seemed to be saying is that this isn’t an unlimited right and not everybody can have a gun of any type anywhere they want, which is appropriate. 

But not all States even take it to that limit, as you understand. 

The Court was saying you can restrict on these issues. 

Mr. KOPEL. Yes. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Not every State does that. So what you are saying 

is, those States don’t have a right to make their own laws, even 

within the bounds of that Supreme Court decision, which I am sure 

you thought was an appropriate decision. 

So at what point do we draw the line? At what point do we say 

these States rights are important, they follow the Supreme Court, 

and these aren’t, because we want uniformity. Does that apply to— 

let’s just recognize something else. 

This isn’t the only issue in which there is no uniformity. Extraordinary issues, which the Court has upheld in many cases, those 

people’s fundamental right to have. Are we talking about uniformity in laws now that the Federal Government is going to dictate about marriage licenses, particularly when it comes to an issue 

like same-sex marriage? Are we talking about alcohol laws being 

uniform? Are we talking about abortion rights being uniform? Are 

we talking about smoking laws? 

You know better than most of us in this room, maybe 20 or 30 

other real sensitive issues, of which there are people who are passionate about those rights. Are you saying, well, I care about guns, 

so we are going to create a niche for guns to be uniform and dictate 

from the Federal level, but I don’t care about the other rights. 

Where do we draw the line? 

Mr. KOPEL. I appreciate your concern for federalism, and I think 

you, Representative, are absolutely right that there are many people in Congress or elsewhere who sort of switch sides on these 

States rights vs. federalism issues, depending on the particular 

topic. 

I think the principal way to do it is to go back to the 14th 

Amendment. The 14th Amendment was created for the purpose of 

giving Congress the power to protect national citizenship rights. 

Now, when they were debating the 14th Amendment in Congress, 

they weren’t talking about saying, well, this is terrible because one 

State has one rule on smoking and another State has another rule 

on smoking, or States have different policies on alcohol. They had 

very different policies back then. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. You are saying they weren’t concerned about uniformity? 

Mr. KOPEL. On issues like smoking or alcohol, for example, which 

you raised. But they were concerned about protecting the minimum 

baseline of the national citizenship rights on travel and on the Bill 

of Rights, including the Second Amendment. And we know that exVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:35 Oct 31, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\091311\68298.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
64 

pressly from the congressional debates, and that is with the 

McDonald decision was founded on. 

In terms of what you talked about, the Heller decision says that 

States can restrict gun carrying in sensitive places, you are exactly 

right that some States go as far as possible on that, and other 

States don’t really have those restrictions. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. At all. 

Mr. KOPEL. Exactly. This bill appropriately matches that, because it says when the visitor is carrying in the second State, the 

visitor must carry only in those places according to the rules of the 

host State. 

So, for example, in Colorado, we say someone with a concealed 

handgun permit could have a gun in the car when he is picking up 

his kids from a K-12 school. Other States wouldn’t allow that. 

Whatever State you are in, you have to follow the rules about that, 

as that State defines sensitive places. That is what in H.R. 822 

right now. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Professor? 

Ms. MALCOLM. Yes, I agree. I think there is a great deal of difference between rules on drinking and something that affects one 

of the rights in the Bill of Rights. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. What about the right to be married? You don’t tie 

to any constitutional right, that people have a right to get married? 

Or the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on marriage rights again and 

again a constitutional right, Loving and other cases such as that? 

Ms. MALCOLM. That is a very hot issue. The Supreme Court 

has—— 

Mr. QUIGLEY. So is this issue. They are all hot issues to the person who cares about them. 

Ms. MALCOLM. The Federal Government has a Defense of Marriage Act, which supports States rights in this area, so it has—— 

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

The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Gowdy? 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Professor Kopel, you agree that the first eight amendments apply 

to the States? 

Mr. KOPEL. I think there is substantial evidence from the original enactment of the 14th Amendment that was the intention. The 

Supreme Court hasn’t taken it all the way for all eight, but it has 

taken it all the way for most of—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, that would certainly create a very curious result, if some applied to the States and some did not. Agreed? 

Mr. KOPEL. Certainly, but, for example, the grand jury right 

doesn’t currently apply, nor does the Eighth Amendment prohibition on excessive fines. 

Mr. GOWDY. Do you agree that there is a constitutional right to 

travel? 

Mr. KOPEL. Yes, that is clear. It is one of those things that dozens of court decisions have said is necessarily implicit in our structure as a national union, and is one of the things that the 14th 

Amendment was specifically intended to—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Do you agree that there is a constitutional right to 

defend yourself? 

65 

Mr. KOPEL. Yes, the Heller decision recognizes a right of self-defense. 

Mr. GOWDY. Commissioner Ramsey, while I disagree with you on 

this point, I respect your service and that of others who wear the 

uniform. 

Mr. RAMSEY. Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. Do you agree that there is a constitutional right to 

defend yourself? 

Mr. RAMSEY. Well, I am, unlike the two professors here, not an 

expert in the Constitution. But I would say yes. 

Mr. GOWDY. If there is a constitutional right to defend yourself, 

and the Second Amendment applies to the States, do you agree 

that New York cannot have a different variation of the First 

Amendment than Nevada? 

Mr. RAMSEY. Yes. 

Mr. GOWDY. Do agree that Vermont cannot have a different Miranda application than North Carolina? 

Mr. RAMSEY. I would agree. 

Mr. GOWDY. So you are willing to concede the need for uniformity 

in the administration of certain constitutional rights? 

Mr. RAMSEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GOWDY. Do you agree that there is a constitutional right to 

bear arms? 

Mr. RAMSEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GOWDY. Professor Kopel, what is the constitutional right 

analysis by which you would limit that right to bear arms? 922(g). 

What is the constitutional construct that one would go through to 

limit your right? 

Mr. KOPEL. In the terms of 922(g), you mentioned that, the section of volume 18 of the United States Code which creates the Federal list of prohibited persons, such as collected felons—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Right. 

Mr. KOPEL. Domestic violence misdemeanors. 

Mr. GOWDY. Right. I know what it is. I was asking what is the 

constitutional construct that you use to support Congress’s ability 

to limit the Second Amendment application? 

Mr. KOPEL. The argument would be that it is—— 

Mr. GOWDY. It is a fundamental right? 

Mr. KOPEL. Yes. 

Mr. GOWDY. Would you use strict scrutiny? 

Mr. KOPEL. Well, when the Supreme Court says something is a 

fundamental right in the sense that it must apply to the States via 

the 14th Amendment, that is not the same as every part of that 

right getting strict scrutiny. 

Mr. GOWDY. What level of scrutiny which you use? 

Mr. KOPEL. The courts are still working that out. And I think 

what that right answer is shown, for example, by the Seventh Circuit in the Ezell case, which said Chicago couldn’t ban target 

ranges entirely in the city, which if you have strict scrutiny or 

something close to it, for things that involve the primary exercise 

of the right, and you might have, as by analogy, if the government 

tried to restrict the content of speech, that would have strict scrutiny. 

66 

On the other hand, when the government sets regulations about 

speech in public places, such as permitting regulations to have a 

parade, things like that, those hit intermediate scrutiny. And I 

think similar—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Do you think there can be 50 different variations of 

the First Amendment? 

Mr. KOPEL. No. As the Supreme Court articulates First Amendment doctrine, of course, every State has to obey that as a baseline. 

Mr. GOWDY. Can some States opt out of the requirement that you 

provide legal counsel for people who are facing a term of imprisonment? 

Mr. KOPEL. Absolutely not. 

Mr. GOWDY. Can they opt out of Miranda? 

Mr. KOPEL. Certainly not. 

Mr. GOWDY. Can they interpret cruel and unusual punishment 

differently? 

Mr. KOPEL. No. 

Mr. GOWDY. Then why is there no national standard for the Second Amendment? 

Mr. KOPEL. Because the Supreme Court has—it took them about 

a century and a half to start protecting the First Amendment 

through judicial decisions, and it took them even longer to get 

around to the Second Amendment. And so the Supreme Court has 

not yet articulated the detailed rules. 

Mr. GOWDY. So we are waiting on them. 

All right, I have a little bit of time. I want to Professor Malcolm, 

have you done any studies or are aware of any studies with respect 

to the crime rate among concealed weapon permit holders? 

Ms. MALCOLM. The studies among permit holders show that 

there are very few permit holders that ever commit a crime. 

Mr. GOWDY. With respect to officer-involved shootings, have you 

done any—respect to whether or not there are any concealed weapons permit holders who have been involved in officer-involved 

shootings? 

Ms. MALCOLM. There aren’t any that I know of. 

I should say that people that are interested in committing a 

crime are not likely to go ahead and register a gun and get a permit. 

Mr. GOWDY. Amen to that. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Chu? 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. 

Before I begin with my questions, I want to mention that Mayors 

Against Illegal Guns, a bipartisan coalition of more than 600 U.S. 

mayors, has launched a national campaign called ‘‘Our Lives, Our 

Laws,’’ along with major national police organizations, domestic violence prevention advocates, and faith leaders, to express their opposition to this bill. In just 5 days, 45,000 grassroots supporters 

have signed this petition. 

And my first question is to Commissioner Ramsey. In your testimony, you mentioned that laws for obtaining permits in Pennsylvania might not work in New York. Now, I was in the California 

State Legislature before, and I know how much we debated these 

laws and passed laws that were specific to our State. Can you 

67 

speak a little more on how States should be allowed to create permitting standards that best address the needs of that State and its 

safety concerns? 

Mr. RAMSEY. Yes, ma’am. I think that just like, as it is now, it 

is not an issue of the right to bear arms. I mean, that is covered 

by the Second Amendment. But this issue of concealed carry, a part 

of that, is being decided on an individual basis, state-by-state, as 

to whether or not they will allow residents to carry a weapon concealed, in some cases open carry, outside of their home in different 

places. 

I mean, some jurisdictions have some restrictions as to where 

that can be. Others may not have the same restrictions. 

I think that a State ought to make that decision for themselves 

based on their knowledge of their State, their residents, and so 

forth, and that a national policy in this regard is not needed. 

And let me just comment on one thing that was said earlier 

about the right to defend yourself. I believe a person has a right 

to defend themselves. However, we are talking about the potential 

use of deadly force when we are talking about having a firearm. 

This is not the same as getting in a fistfight, or whatever. 

And at what level is it acceptable to shoot and kill a person? I 

mean, police, we are trained constantly on use of force issues. If a 

person breaks into your house and is running away from you, down 

the street, can you shoot them in the back and kill them? 

I mean, there are circumstances in which use of deadly force is 

not permitted. I don’t know if 300 million Americans are going to 

get that same lesson and understand it the same way. 

And I have some serious concerns about people, some circumstances in a bar, have a drink, or you get heated in a domestic 

situation, in regards to a permit to carry person using it—this past 

weekend, we had a police-involved shooting. The person that was 

shot by police had a permit to carry, got involved in a situation 

waving a gun around, got himself shot. I mean, these things can 

happen. 

Is it the norm? No. But is it a concern? Absolutely, it is a concern 

for me, because, again, it is the use of deadly force. You can’t take 

it back. You cannot take it back. And that concerns me a great 

deal, and I think it puts a lot of people unnecessarily at risk. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you for that. 

Professor Kopel, a few minutes ago, when Congress Member 

Scott asked you whether individuals convicted of domestic violence 

could legally obtain a permit, you said no. However, people are still 

obtaining concealed carry permits, and here are a couple examples. 

In 2009, Clinton Gallagher pled guilty to misdemeanor domestic 

violence, for which he lost his Missouri permit to carry concealed 

weapons. Gallagher then sued the county sheriff to have his permit 

reinstated and won the case. The court held that a misdemeanor 

domestic battery conviction does not prevent someone from possessing firearms in Missouri, even though a misdemeanor domestic 

violence conviction disqualifies a person from possessing a gun 

under Federal law. 

In December 2010, Gallagher shot and killed his 6-year-old son 

and then killed himself. 

68 

A second example, Jason Kenneth Hamilton was arrested in December 2005 for attempted strangulation of his on-again, off-again 

girlfriend, which led to his conviction for misdemeanor domestic 

battery in June 2006. He was still able to obtain an Idaho permit 

to carry a handgun. And in May 2007, Hamilton shot and killed his 

wife, a police officer, and a church sexton before killing himself. 

The county sheriff confirmed that Hamilton had a concealed 

weapon permit despite the domestic violence conviction that should 

have barred him from owning firearms. 

How do you respond to that? 

Mr. KOPEL. Well, I would say—have you investigated those cases 

yourself, Representative? Or did you get them from an organization? 

Ms. CHU. I got this from an organization. 

Mr. KOPEL. Those cases are new to me, so I can’t tell you much 

in depth about them. I will certainly look them up and find out 

what I can. I know that sometimes organizations have misreported 

situations, for example, saying that somebody was one of these concealed killers when in fact the police and law enforcement determined they acted in lawful self-defense. 

But hypothesizing of those facts, if the organization provided the 

facts to you accurately, certainly nobody should—if a person is ineligible by Federal law to possess a gun, local law enforcement or 

whoever is issuing the permits would be making a terrible error to 

issue a carry permit to a person who by Federal law can’t even possess a gun, let alone carry one. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Poe? 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for being here, Commissioner. I appreciate your service—— 

Mr. RAMSEY. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. POE [continuing]. As a peace officer. Having been a prosecutor and judge for a long time, I saw a lot of men and women 

come in blue to the courthouse to testify. I appreciate your service. 

May I ask the professors this question? The Second Amendment, 

the basis of the Second Amendment, is it a right of self-defense or 

is it, based upon historical precedent, a right to protect us from 

government intrusion? Which of those theories, or both, do you believe? Just your personal opinion. 

Professor Kopel first. 

Mr. KOPEL. I think if you go back to the origins of the Second 

Amendment and its early interpretation, for which probably the 

fullest exposition as St. George Tucker’s treatise, which was the 

leading American law treatise for about the first quarter century 

after the Constitution. He described the Second Amendment right 

as including both of those important purposes you said, as well as 

other purposes, such as hunting. 

The First Amendment has multiple purposes in it of the communication that people enjoy with each other just for fun as well as 

finding out information about the government or preventing tyranny that way, by speech about what the government is doing. So 

likewise, I would say the Second Amendment has many salutary 

purposes. 

69 

Mr. POE. Those are at least two of the purposes, historically. 

Mr. KOPEL. Yes. 

Mr. POE. As well as hunting, a militia as well. 

Professor Malcolm? 

Ms. MALCOLM. Yes, I would agree with that. The two main purposes are the right of individual self-defense and also this notion 

that should the government ever become tyrannical and deprive 

you of your rights, that this right would enable you to recover 

them. 

But, you know, it is sometimes called I guess a suicide clause, 

but I think that originally that that was the idea, that people 

would be able to vindicate their right. 

Mr. POE. Thank you. 

Commissioner, when somebody comes into your State and they 

have a foreign driver’s license, I should say out-of-State driver’s license, from Utah or Texas or wherever, set aside the issue of fraud, 

you generally accept that driver’s license? 

Mr. RAMSEY. Yes, sir. We are able to run it through our communications center. We can to a name check. We can see if it is a 

valid license or not. 

Mr. POE. Even though States have different rules on who can get 

drivers’ licenses? Some require more stricter standards than others. 

Mr. RAMSEY. Some do, but they do have some standards. I mean, 

driving test, certain age, they can suspend for drunk driving. I 

mean, each one is slightly different, but there are some standards 

in place. 

Mr. POE. Some have different ages on who can drive, put a limit 

on who can drive. Some States even allow people illegally in the 

country to get a driver’s license. You would let that person—you 

wouldn’t treat that person with a driver’s license from some State 

that is illegally in the country any different than you would somebody else in another State, because his driver’s license on its face, 

if checked out, is presumed to be correct. 

Mr. RAMSEY. Well, that would apply whether or not they are 

written for driving without a license. Whatever violation they committed that caused the contact to begin with, we would proceed 

with. 

Mr. POE. I understand. 

Mr. RAMSEY. I mean, so traffic as an example, I mean, it is not 

the—I mean, there is a specific charge for driving without a license, but they would have been stopped for something—— 

Mr. POE. But you always check their driver’s license? 

Mr. RAMSEY. We would have, yes. 

Mr. POE. You always check their driver’s license. 

Mr. RAMSEY. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. 

Mr. POE. If he stopped for—— 

Mr. RAMSEY. Everybody should have a driver’s license. 

Mr. POE [continuing]. Speeding or run a red light. 

Mr. RAMSEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. POE. Make a left turn without a signal, you know, one of 

those. 

Mr. RAMSEY. Yes. 

Mr. POE. In Houston, or in Texas, before we had permits to 

carry, we had this phenomena. We had a tremendous amount, in 

70 

my opinion, of carjackings. It was a simple procedure. It was usually a woman that was the victim at night, driving alone. A car 

would pull in front of her. She would pull behind it at an intersection. Another car would pull behind her, block her in. She is 

carjacked. 

Those almost stopped overnight, when they got the right to carry, 

because criminals believed that lone female and that gun was packing, and she probably was, since there are 461,000 permits in the 

State of Texas. 

So that is a self-defense issue. It affects the crime rate on that 

particular type of crime, carjacking, which was, I thought, an epidemic. 

Let me ask you this, Commissioner, you have drivers’ licenses 

that are little different from State to State. But you also have permits that are little different from State to State. Do you see the 

analogy between the two? Or do you still think that there should 

be a difference with permits, firearm permits as opposed to drivers’ 

licenses? 

Mr. RAMSEY. Well, one, I mean, I personally think that if there 

were going to be, you know, concealed carry—of course, there are 

concealed carry laws, that there ought to be standards in place by 

that particular State. 

But here is where the example that you are using, I kind of get 

lost. If I make a mistake and let a person drive with a driver’s license that is expired or a forged driver’s license, that is just a person operating a motor vehicle illegally. If I let a person leave with 

a gun that shouldn’t have a gun, they potentially can go out and 

do far greater harm. 

So, you know, I mean, I don’t disagree. The carjacking is a question of whether or not use of deadly force is justified. There are 

some cases where it is justified. It would be appropriate to use it. 

I just don’t think everybody has that training to make those distinctions. 

The two neighbors arguing over something between them, and 

someone gets shot, the domestic violence situation, the bar where 

somebody is carrying a gun and it escalates, I mean, those are the 

kind of things that I get concerned about. And when you have lax 

standards, and we have got people—I have examples in Philadelphia where a guy attempted murder in Philly. He goes to Florida 

and gets a permit, comes back and commits a homicide in Philadelphia. 

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

The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Quayle? 

Mr. QUAYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Professor Malcolm, you have done a lot of research and writing, 

comparing the crime statistics from the United States as compared 

to Great Britain. In Great Britain, basically, they have prohibited 

handguns pretty much across the board. How does the U.S. violent 

crime rate compare with Great Britain’s? 

Ms. MALCOLM. Their violent crime rate is much higher than ours. 

The only thing that is different is the murder rate. But for all other 

types of contact crime, their violent crime is much higher. 

Mr. QUAYLE. So after the ban in 1997, violent crimes committed 

with firearms, did they drop or disappear after that ban? 

71 

Ms. MALCOLM. No, they doubled. They doubled after they banned 

handguns and retrieved all of them from people who had bought 

them and registered them. The amount of crime with those very 

same weapons that had been banned doubled. 

It really was not a very useful exercise. In fact, their Olympic 

team is not—shooting team is not allowed to practice or have their 

guns in the country. They have to practice in Switzerland. 

Mr. QUAYLE. Okay. 

Do you think that concealed carry laws will actually have an effect on property crimes as well, not just violent crimes? 

Ms. MALCOLM. I think so. I mean, certainly thefts, it makes a big 

difference, or burglary. In Britain, most burglaries are live burglaries where the people are home, because the burglars aren’t 

afraid anybody will be armed, whereas in this country, it’s about 

13 percent with the people home, because the burglars are more 

worried about armed homeowners than they are about the police. 

So it really is a deterrent. 

Mr. QUAYLE. Okay, thank you. 

Commissioner Ramsey, earlier in the Q&A portion, we were talking about concealed carry for former police officers. Now, what 

would be the reasoning behind a former police officer for wanting 

to carry a concealed arm? 

Mr. RAMSEY. Well, I will be honest with you, sir, when that law 

was before Congress, I was not a proponent. I mean, you know, listen, when I take his uniform off, that is it. If I never see another 

gun, it is okay with me. That is my personal opinion. I had nothing 

to do with that. 

But again, you are talking about people that have for however 

many years undergone extensive training in not only the handling 

of a firearm, but use-of-force policy. When is it appropriate to use 

a firearm? This bill doesn’t contain any of those safeguards. 

I mean, the debate about whether or not we should have gun registration, should we even report a gun lost or stolen? We can’t get 

laws on that. 

I mean, so we pass some shallow law that says that you can 

carry concealed anywhere you want, as long as you get it from a 

State, and Lord only knows what their requirements would be. And 

you don’t want to put in anything around safeguards about registration, the kinds of crimes that would prohibit you from being 

able to carry a gun, provisions for revocation of that permit. 

I mean, all those kinds of things are very, very important. But 

just to say because this State issued a gun, I ought to be able to 

carry it anywhere I want, we have States right now whose gun 

laws are so lax it is scary. And all we are going to do is extend 

that, and you will have this situation where you have all these different things. Police officers are not going to know all 50 States 

and their individual laws. 

And as you travel, sir, from one part of the country to another, 

every time you cross the border, do you know whether or not that 

gun in that unlocked glove compartment is legal or illegal? I doubt 

it. I mean, if you go from one State to another, you look at a sign 

that tells you have gone from a speed limit from 65 to 55, you kind 

of know. Are you going to have a big sign with all the gun laws 

on it, that as you are driving, you are going to read it and underVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:35 Oct 31, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\091311\68298.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
72 

stand what the laws are? It is not practical, the way it is being proposed. 

Mr. QUAYLE. Well, ignorance of the law is never a defense in actual committing a crime or not abiding by the various laws that are 

put in place for concealed carry within the different jurisdictions. 

But do you think, if a former police officer wanted to carry a concealed handgun, wouldn’t that go along the lines of he is wanting 

to look out for his own personal protection and the protection of his 

own family? 

Mr. RAMSEY. Well, that is a law that was passed by Congress, 

the Federal law that allows retired police officers to carry a firearm. Everyone has their own rationale. I didn’t push that law. I 

didn’t support it. It was probably the FOP or some others that were 

able to get that bill through. 

But again, you know, if you are getting at a double standard, getting in this building you have to walk through all kinds of security 

and machines and so forth. We are not going to allow people to conceal carry in this building, and I understand that. I was the police 

chief here in July 1998 when two cops got shot right in the Capitol. 

I understand all that. 

Well, give us the same safeguards. That is all I am asking. Give 

us the same safeguards. 

Mr. QUAYLE. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Griffin? 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Professor Malcolm, I want to follow-up on my colleague Mr. 

Quayle’s question. I think he referred to some of the statistics and 

research you have done with regard to the U.K. 

Ms. MALCOLM. Yes. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Have you looked at other European countries? Have 

you seen similar data? Have you seen similar data from the other 

countries? 

Ms. MALCOLM. Most of them have stricter gun laws than we do. 

But I think the British laws are probably the strictest, and they 

certainly now have the worst record of violent crime than any other 

country in Europe. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. So the statistics that you have seen with regard to 

burglaries and homes, where the occupants have firearms vs. those 

that don’t, the statistics, the numbers are about the same, in terms 

of the Netherlands and some of the other countries in Europe? 

Ms. MALCOLM. I don’t really have an exact statistic about that. 

I don’t know whether Professor Kopel does. 

Mr. KOPEL. If I could jump in, Representative Griffin, I wrote a 

law journal article on this, and it is hard to get from most countries 

data about—you can get total burglaries, but then breaking that 

down into how many are in the home, and then of the ones that 

were in the home, how many were hot burglaries with the victims 

there vs. how many were, like the American pattern, where they 

cased the joint to try to make sure that there is nobody there. 

To the extent that there is data, and the Netherlands is actually 

one of those places, and the Republic of Ireland would be another, 

73 

these other countries seem to have much higher rates of home invasions, hot burglaries, than the United States does. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. I wanted to ask you one more question, Professor 

Malcolm. Could you comment, and then any of you can comment 

on this, can you comment on the role of the right to self-defense 

in the Heller case and the reasoning of the Heller case? 

Ms. MALCOLM. Yes. Actually, the majority opinion was very careful in going through the history of the meaning of the Second 

Amendment. And the basic right to self-defense was very much a 

part of what the Founders had in mind. They were preserving their 

right to self-defense that they had had as Englishmen and continuing it. And also there was a very strong belief, which remains, 

that it is sort of a fundamental law of nature, that a person should 

be able to defend himself, that it is not very much comfort for the 

law to come in afterward and pick up the pieces. Locke has written 

about that and Blackstone. 

So self-defense was, you know, rightly found, I think, to be the 

primary purpose of it. And I was actually at the oral argument before the Supreme Court, and I remember, I think it was Justice 

Roberts asking about whether, under the Washington, D.C., law, 

you know, there was some possibility that you might be able to put 

your disassembled gun together in the middle of the night in the 

dark if somebody entered. 

You know, I think that self-defense was really uppermost in their 

minds, and it is very, very basic. And it is only one of our Bill of 

Rights that actually makes a point of that. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. So it is fair to say it is an underpinning of the Heller decision, is it not? 

Ms. MALCOLM. It is the main finding of the Heller decision that 

people have a right to have a handgun in their homes for their selfdefense, yes. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Okay, thank you. 

Professor, do you have anything to add? 

Mr. KOPEL. I would add that the D.C. law that was found unconstitutional, one part of it banned acquiring handguns. Another 

part—and it was found unconstitutional. Another part of the law 

said that even if you had a lawfully possessed rifle or shotgun in 

your home, you couldn’t use it for self-defense. That was against 

the law in D.C., and that was also found to be unconstitutional. 

So the Court was not saying just that you have a right to have 

a gun. But it was also saying that prohibiting self-defense is itself 

something that is unconstitutional. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Thank you. 

I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This is the most insane bill I have heard of in—well, I can’t think 

of one that was less rational than this one. 

I just want to start off our very friendly discussion with you 

about the subject. 

But I do agree with David Kopel in one area, and I am glad that 

you are here today, sir, because you have maintained that we 

might reach a mutual agreement with the National Rifle AssociaVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:35 Oct 31, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\091311\68298.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
74 

tion and gun control advocates by having mandatory safety training and licenses renewable every few years with fingerprinting, 

background checks, and disqualifications for people that may have 

accumulated records of drug abuse or alcoholism. Do you still stand 

by that? 

Mr. KOPEL. I am not quite sure what you are quoting from or 

where I have said of that. That is not something in my testimony. 

But I think what you just described is something like the concealed 

handgun licensing system in Colorado that another one of my clients I sometime represent, the Colorado State Sheriffs Association, 

drafted, and it is now the law in Colorado. Yes, so I think what 

you just said approximates the Colorado law, and I think that is 

a good law. 

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. 

Mr. KOPEL. But I haven’t said anything about whether that 

should be nationalized at all. 

Mr. CONYERS. Now we have three witnesses here. How many 

know that almost 300 African-American youths between the age of 

15 and 24 are injured or killed by gunfire each week? 

Do you know that? Have you ever read that from the Center for 

Disease Control? 

Ms. MALCOLM. I also know that—— 

Mr. CONYERS. I just said, ‘‘do you.’’ 

Ms. MALCOLM. That particular—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, yes or no. 

Ms. MALCOLM. Yes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Okay, now, what else do you want to add? 

Ms. MALCOLM. I want to add that most of the people who are injured with gun violence have a record of previous crimes, or are 

part of a gang. So usually, this isn’t something—— 

Mr. CONYERS. So that makes it kind of—— 

Ms. MALCOLM. I am not saying it makes it okay, but—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Okay, all right. 

Okay, let me ask you, have you heard of that before, Professor? 

Mr. KOPEL. I have similar statistics presented in my book, 

‘‘Guns: Who Should Have Them?′′ 

Mr. CONYERS. All right. 

And do you know that, Commissioner Ramsey? 

Mr. RAMSEY. Yes, sir. I am Philadelphia now, so I live it on a 

fairly regular basis, dealing with gun violence amongst young people of color. 

Mr. CONYERS. What about, Professor Malcolm, nine children and 

teens die every day from gunfire, one every 2 hours and 45 minutes. And in 2006, more preschool children—namely, 63—were 

killed by firearms than law enforcement officers—48—were killed 

in the line of duty? 

Ms. MALCOLM. I must say, I don’t see how denying law-abiding 

citizens a right to be armed is going to help that situation, because 

this violence isn’t occurring with registered guns. 

Mr. CONYERS. So the more guns we bring in, the lower these figures might become? 

Ms. MALCOLM. Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, so that elderly people can protect themselves, so 

that women alone can protect themselves—— 

75 

Mr. CONYERS. Preschool children don’t normally have a way of legally acquiring guns. 

Ms. MALCOLM. Well, I agree that some of our schools are very 

violent, and I am not against trying to limit illegal guns. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, let me approach it—I like talking with you. 

Let me approach it this way—— 

Ms. MALCOLM. Okay. 

Mr. CONYERS. We have 65 million or more guns out in the public 

right now. Would you say 165 million would help things? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. CONYERS. Could I get 1 additional minute? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

Mr. CONYERS. Yes or no? 

Ms. MALCOLM. Oh, I think that guns in the hands of law-abiding 

people will prevent crime, but it is very, very difficult to get illegal 

guns out of circulation and these—— 

Mr. CONYERS. That isn’t what I asked you. 

What is your response? 

Mr. KOPEL. Representative Conyers, we have a test for that, because according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 

Explosives, we actually now have in this country approximately 

280 million guns, so as we went from 65 million 165 million to 280 

million, we had a natural experiment about what would happen. 

And the gun crime rate went down, not up. 

Mr. CONYERS. So then what about 380 million instead of 280 million? 

Mr. KOPEL. I don’t think that the number matters that much. It 

is whose hands they are in. Guns in the hands of criminals are extremely dangerous and should be dealt with by law enforcement 

and by the laws. Guns in the hands of law-abiding people enhance 

public safety. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has once again 

expired. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Sensenbrenner. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you. 

The gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Adams? 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Commissioner, is Pennsylvania’s information when someone purchases a firearm, is it the same test or background check or whatever as every other State in the United States? 

Mr. RAMSEY. No, ma’am. 

Ms. ADAMS. So if someone was to purchase a firearm in your 

State, there would be different requirements for an NCIC 

check—— 

Mr. RAMSEY. Oh, so legally purchase? 

Ms. ADAMS. Yes. 

Mr. RAMSEY. Oh, I am sorry—— 

Ms. ADAMS. I said ‘‘purchase.’’ I know that there has been some 

blurring of the lines here, but I am talking about purchasing a firearm. 

Mr. RAMSEY. I don’t know if it is the same in every State. I imagine if not, it is pretty close. You have to do the NCIC checks. There 

is a waiting period. There is a process. 

76 

Ms. ADAMS. I will, in full disclosure, let you know that I am a 

former police officer from Florida. 

Mr. RAMSEY. Yes. 

Ms. ADAMS. And I worked on this a lot. I was actually one of 

those who had to go out when that failed and had to retrieve firearms from felons who weren’t supposed to have them. So I understand the system quite well. 

And I have listened, as it seems that it has blurred between gun 

ownership and gun purchasing. So I wanted to ask you that, when 

you have your records expunged in your State, what does that 

mean? 

Mr. RAMSEY. Well, that means that all official records of an individual’s arrest would be removed from whatever files we have. 

Ms. ADAMS. Could they then get a firearm permit in your State? 

Mr. RAMSEY. They could get one. If the records have been expunged and you ran the records, you wouldn’t have anything to go 

on. 

Ms. ADAMS. So in 2009, when this—I believe it was Mr. Hill you 

mentioned. When he had—in ’05, he had his altercation with you. 

But in ’09, I believe it was when he went to Florida. And at that 

time, his records were expunged; is that correct? 

Mr. RAMSEY. I don’t know if his records were expunged or not in 

’09. Eventually—I am not certain. 

Ms. ADAMS. Okay. Well, that is what the report says. 

So Florida would not have known about the revocation unless 

your State would have notified them. 

Do you notify other States that you have reciprocity with when 

you revoke someone’s permit? 

Mr. RAMSEY. We do send out notices when we revoke an individual. I don’t know if all 25 States, if it is done electronically, because not every State has that capacity, or if it is done by telephone or letter. And I don’t know what they do with information 

once they got it. 

Ms. ADAMS. Well, I can tell you that we would have paid close 

attention to it in our agency. 

So, you know, the reason I am asking these questions is because, 

as a former law-enforcement officer, I have heard the description 

of a 3 a.m. stop. I will tell you that I would be happy to know that 

someone has a concealed firearm permit with them, so that I can 

then ask them to come away from the vehicle, ask where their 

weapon is, actually know if they are actually caring. 

It is a lot easier for me to determine the threat based on if someone is carrying or not. If they tell me upfront they are carrying, at 

least I know that they are carrying. And then I can go forward 

with whether or not it is a legal permit or not a legal permit, but 

I need to be able to determine if I am going to be safe in doing my 

duties. Wouldn’t you agree? 

Mr. RAMSEY. Well, if they tell you. 

Ms. ADAMS. Well, you are saying if they produce this permit, it 

may be false, it may not, and you felt that that would be more of 

a danger to your police officer, whereas I feel like if they produce 

a permit, then they are telling me that there could possibly be a 

weapon within their vicinity, and that I am now aware of that. And 

I felt like that would make me feel a little bit more knowledgeable 

77 

about the stop at 3 a.m. in the morning, because I have done many 

of those. 

Mr. RAMSEY. Well, my issue was, how do you verify whether or 

not it is a legitimate permit? There is no database—— 

Ms. ADAMS. Well, at that time in the morning, wouldn’t you be 

more likely to be verifying where that weapon is and what kind of 

custody there is to it? 

Mr. RAMSEY. Well, ma’am, I have probably made more stops than 

you. I have been on the job longer. But at some point in time, you 

are going to be making—at least attempting to verify whether or 

not the permit is legitimate. And it might or might not be legitimate. 

Ms. ADAMS. But the description you gave me, it seemed like it 

was more on the safety of the police officer. And I am for safety 

of police officers. My late husband is on the wall here at Judiciary 

Square, so I really understand what law enforcement does and does 

not do, as being part of law enforcement community for over 17.5 

years before being elected. 

So the difference that we have heard today, where we have seen 

the lines blurred, is more along the lines of gun ownership vs. a 

permit. If you are not legally allowed to own a gun, whether you 

have a permit or not, you are not supposed to be able to purchase 

that gun; is that not correct? 

Mr. RAMSEY. If you are not legally allowed, if you can go to another State whose laws are different from your own jurisdiction 

and get a permit—— 

Ms. ADAMS. I am talking about purchasing the gun. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen? 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This is an interesting bill, and I am a sponsor. My name appears 

probably as the one you would say is which one doesn’t belong. 

I passed the right-to-carry bill in Tennessee many, many, many 

years ago, under the belief, as Professor Malcolm says, that lawabiding folks who can hit a target, haven’t had a criminal record 

in the past, et cetera, and the standards that we have, are not the 

problem. It is the criminals. And the criminals are always going to 

get the guns. 

I have friends that are gunophiles, and they want to carry their 

pistol everywhere. I remember the Saturday Night Live, show me 

your pistol instead of show me your Lark pack or whatever, and 

they are like that. 

And so they talk to me about traveling to different States and 

having a right-to-carry. And I think that makes sense. 

But I do understand a little problem. If you have some State that 

has really lax restrictions, limitations, maybe don’t even—they 

wouldn’t even necessarily have to have a criminal background 

check. I mean, that is not required by a State or some other—is 

there some way this could be tailored in a way that it facilitates 

people that travel and may be temporary, but not necessarily people that forum shop and go to another State and get a gun. 

Professor Kopel, Professor Malcolm, do you think there is a way 

to tailor it to the interests—— 

78 

Mr. KOPEL. Well, I think that is a very reasonable question. And 

the starting point would be to instead of having these hypotheticals 

about State practices would be to identify what State is the problem, would be allegedly causing this problem. 

Of the States—I don’t know of States that, in practice, where 

they issue concealed handgun permits to anyone without whoever 

is in charge doing a background check. If there is some—some 

State laws, the standard like they have in Tennessee or Colorado, 

has a very particular process to follow, and it would mandate the 

background check. Other States that have sort of older laws that 

haven’t been brought up to date like the Tennessee and Colorado 

laws, and New York State might be an example of that, might not 

have something formal in their statute that says before issuing the 

permit to a background check. 

But my bet would be that in New York, the background checks 

are done, too. So I think it would make sense to say—to first find 

out is there any State where, in real life, permits are issued without background checks. 

And I suspect that there—— 

Mr. COHEN. Well, we are talking about background checks. We 

are saying you don’t get the permit if you have been convicted of 

a gun offense—— 

Mr. KOPEL. Or anything that makes you ineligible to possess a 

gun—— 

Mr. COHEN. The Federal law. 

Mr. KOPEL [continuing]. Under the law, or whatever other requirements there might be in the State. 

Mr. COHEN. Well, of the States that have carry permits, which 

would you say is—a couple of them, the loosest laws, the least restrictions? 

Alaska, I think they give you one at birth, don’t they? They give 

you a gun? 

Mr. KOPEL. Along with a check from oil fund. 

There are four States that do not require a permit to carry a concealed handgun for protection, if you are a person who can lawfully 

possess a gun in the first place. Now, of course, that doesn’t do 

anything—have any application to this bill. 

In Alaska, you don’t need a permit. You can get a permit, which 

would be valid and does have the mandatory background check and 

then the fingerprints and all that. 

Mr. COHEN. But which are the loosest States other than those 

four? And why—what is the minimum requirements they have? 

Mr. KOPEL. Most States formally required training and most of 

their rest that don’t formally require it do it—have more discretionary-type statutes and tend to require it in practice. 

Pennsylvania is one of the States that doesn’t have an explicit 

training requirement. 

Mr. COHEN. So, like somebody from Alabama that couldn’t get a 

license, they could have gone up to Pennsylvania maybe—do you 

have to be a resident up there? 

Mr. KOPEL. Yes, Pennsylvania will not issue to nonresidents, but 

Pennsylvania is one of the many States that is reasonable about 

doing reciprocity agreements with other States. 

79 

Mr. COHEN. Well, maybe if the bill was amended to say that you 

had to be a resident of the State at least to get the permit, at least 

that would stop people from shopping in other States, if you had 

to be a resident. 

Do they all require residency? 

Mr. KOPEL. There are about I think a half-dozen States that will 

issue to nonresidents. So for example, some States—Maine, for example, has only a very few reciprocity agreements with other 

States, but they will allow a nonresident to apply. So I as a Coloradoan who might to go to Maine, my Colorado permit isn’t valid 

in Maine, but Maine will allow me to apply for a permit in Maine. 

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

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate your holding this hearing. 

Professor, is it ‘‘Kopel’’? 

Mr. KOPEL. Kopel. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Kopel, sorry. 

Just to be clear, H.R. 822 does not affect a State’s regulations regarding how, where, and when a concealed weapon can be carried, 

right? 

Mr. KOPEL. Absolutely right. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And each State’s laws regarding carrying and 

use will still apply to everyone within their State lines, regardless 

of whether the person is a resident or not? 

Mr. KOPEL. That is right. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Don’t most States have pretty broad concealed 

carry laws, often referred to as shall issue or constitutional carry? 

Mr. KOPEL. That is the norm in the United States. Basically, in 

41 States, law-abiding adults can either with a permit, and a few 

without needing one, can carry a firearm for lawful purposes. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. My understanding is that as of next month, 

when apparently one or two States’ laws will change, 36 States will 

have shall-issue laws and three will have constitutional carry. 

Also, don’t most States currently recognize the concealed carry 

permits of other States? 

Mr. KOPEL. Yes. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Fourteen have outright recognition, 10 States 

automatically recognize permits, and 16 States will recognize another State’s concealed carry permit, if certain conditions are met. 

So in essence, this bill largely recognizes and makes a little more 

consistent the current state of affairs? 

Mr. KOPEL. Yes, while also addressing some of those States 

which are the outliers, such as New York or California, which do 

not have any—in New York, there is no way a visitor of New York, 

to New York State, can carry a handgun for lawful protection. New 

York has no reciprocity and New York will not issue permits to 

nonresidents. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Is there evidence that by lowering violent crime 

rates, concealed carry laws help to save money? 

Mr. KOPEL. Anything that lowers violent crime rates of course 

will probably save money for the public in the long run. Some academic researchers say that there are statistically significant reductions in at least some categories of violent crime after the shallVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:35 Oct 31, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\091311\68298.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
80 

issue laws are enacted. Other academic researchers say that, at the 

level of statistical significance, that they can’t find any statistically 

significant effects one way or the other. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Professor Malcolm, do you have anything to add 

to that? 

Ms. MALCOLM. No, I thought the—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. You might to get used closer to the microphone. 

Ms. MALCOLM. Sorry about that. 

No. Could you just repeat the question? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Just is there evidence that by lowering violent 

crime rates, concealed carry laws help to save money for individuals, for governments, for what have you? 

Ms. MALCOLM. I think that they probably do indirectly by having 

less crime. 

One thing that hasn’t been brought up is the amount of defensive 

actions with guns, where people, for the most part, just need to 

brandish the gun to prevent a crime. So there is a great deal of 

saving in that sense. 

But of course, I mean, I think financial issues aren’t a major 

thing here. It is, you know, human safety. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Of course. But as Professor Kopel notes, if, indeed, you prevent a crime from occurring, you are probably 

also—— 

Ms. MALCOLM. You save, yes. 

Mr. GOODLATTE [continuing]. Resulting in savings in terms of the 

cost of various aspects of our society, the loss to the victims, the 

cost of law enforcement and so on. 

Ms. MALCOLM. Oh, yes. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Commissioner Ramsey, are you aware of any 

evidence of crime increasing as a result of jurisdiction liberalizing, 

of any jurisdiction liberalizing its right-to-carry laws? 

Mr. RAMSEY. I am not personally aware of that, sir. When I came 

to Pennsylvania, they already had a concealed carry law, so I have 

no history there. I came from both Chicago and Washington that 

had pretty strict gun laws. So I don’t know personally if it has had 

any effect one way or the other. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Do you have experience with Pennsylvania’s 

citizens who have concealed carry permits being more likely to engage in criminal activity than those who do not? 

Mr. RAMSEY. The ones that have concealed carry permits and 

that have gone through the process are not, for the most part, people that we have an issue with, although we just had a shooting 

this past weekend that involved an individual with a concealed 

carry permit. One of our officers, unfortunately, had to shoot. But 

that is not the norm. I mean, that—but it does happen on occasion. 

But it is not the norm. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Forbes? 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I apologize I wasn’t here to hear all of your testimony, because I was in the Armed Services Committee in a hearing that we 

have going over there now. 

81 

But as many of my colleagues have said, our big concern is to 

make sure, especially when we have constitutional rights, that we 

are protecting those rights of our citizens, and we are doing so in 

as consistent a manner as possible. 

My colleague from Virginia raised one of my big concerns, which 

was that I have not seen or read or heard of any evidence where 

concealed carries have increased the amount of crime that we have 

had in those States. And it is my understanding from listening to 

your testimony that none of you have heard of any such increases 

either. 

Would that be an accurate statement? 

Ms. MALCOLM. Yes. 

Mr. FORBES. The second thing is that concerns me, obviously, is 

I know if you look at the inconsistency of these laws, I am always 

concerned about an innocent citizen getting caught up in something 

we never intended, not because they were bad or wrong, but just 

because they didn’t know what the law was at that particular point 

in time. And it is certainly not what our goals are, and we 

shouldn’t be doing that. 

And the last question that I would ask is there any evidence we 

have that, whether or not we have a concealed carry law, it is 

going to have an impact on violent criminals? I mean, do we have 

anything at all that says that it deters them, if we don’t have it? 

Or that they use it and manipulate it in some way, if we pass 

these, to increase their violent actions? 

Ms. MALCOLM. Okay, I will go first. 

In regard to your comment about innocent people getting caught 

up in doing something that they hadn’t realized was wrong, one of 

my colleagues has been doing studies along with other people on 

overcriminalization in our laws. And I think that is a real problem 

and one that one would hope that this legislation would help resolve. 

As far as the impact on violent criminals, there is a real deterrent impact if criminals do not know who is armed. And I think 

that is one of the benefits of concealed carry, those people who are 

carrying concealed give a benefit to those people who don’t, because 

the criminal is not going to know who is armed and who isn’t, and 

so they will have to be much more cautious. And I think in that 

sense that it is a really serious deterrent. 

And there have been studies, actually, of violent criminals or 

burglars in jail who say that they have been more worried about 

armed homeowners than they have been worried about the police. 

So I think that that is a real impact. 

Mr. FORBES. And you may have given those to us. But could you 

just give us some of the studies to look at, so that we can—— 

Ms. MALCOLM. Yes, they are in my testimony. 

Mr. FORBES. Wonderful. That’s great, to be able—anyone else 

have different—— 

Mr. RAMSEY. Well, I would just like to suggest a different point 

of view. We handle a lot of shootings that are the result of robberies gone bad. And a lot of times it is because the person being 

robbed, in the description given by the offender who was arrested, 

made a sudden movement, and they believed that movement is toward a gun. 

82 

Well, if you are getting robbed, he has got his gun out. You have 

to get to yours. It can make him shoot quicker than they would 

normally would do. So we can have this debate all we want about 

whether or not it prevents—you never know what you prevent. 

But the reality is, we have more and more people being shot as 

part of a robbery where the offender just shoots right off the bat 

or shoots if they make the slightest move, believing that perhaps 

they are armed, because we do have concealed carry in Pennsylvania. 

Whether that is the motive or not, I don’t know. But it just cuts 

both way. And I just think it is important to get that out there, 

that, you know, this isn’t something that, you know, I am more 

afraid to break in a house—they don’t want to break in a house if 

nobody’s home, period, armed or not. I have gone to more crime 

scenes over 40 years where I have found kids that found a gun and 

shot themselves or a sibling than I have finding a person who is 

trying to break in as a homicide victim. That is just a fact over 40 

years of service in three different cities. 

Mr. FORBES. Commissioner, if I could just—— 

Mr. Chairman, one last question? 

Mr. Commissioner, you know, when we asked the professor if she 

had any studies, she said yes and she would give us the studies, 

and they were in her testimony. Are you suggesting that if you did 

not have a concealed carry law, that someone in a robbery would 

be less inclined to shoot someone who was making up movement 

quicker? 

Mr. RAMSEY. That is not exactly what I am—what I am suggesting is this, sir. I am not an academic. I haven’t spent my life 

doing studies. I have just been on the street for 40 years. So I see 

what actually happens out there on the street, and all of it is not 

captured in studies. There is no—you can’t say that it makes a difference if you have it or it makes difference if you don’t. 

All I am saying is that it cuts both ways. I mean, I can tell you 

incidents where a person thought he had a gun and he shot a little 

quicker than he normally would do, and there are others where a 

person had a gun and was able to defend himself. 

My problem isn’t that. My problem is a very broad law with absolutely no teeth and regulation in it that is going to bring some 

standardization to the issue, so that we can make sure that people 

properly handle guns, they understand use of force, when it is appropriate to use deadly force, because that is what we are talking 

about, not just because you are afraid, but because you actually 

think your life is in jeopardy, or the life of another. If you fire a 

weapon, what does the background look like? The same training 

that we get as police officers, I didn’t see that in this. All I see is, 

you will just honor everybody else’s agreement, irrespective of how 

weak or how poor it is written. 

And we have some that are pretty poor. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I would like to thank all of our witnesses 

for their testimony today. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit to the Chair additional written questions for the witnesses, 

83 

which we will forward and ask the witnesses to respond as promptly as they can, so that their answers may be part of the record. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit any additional materials for inclusion in the record. 

And with that, again, I would like to thank the witnesses. 

And, without objection, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(85) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

86 


68298A-1.eps
87 

f 


68298A-2.eps
88 

f 


68298C-1.eps
89 


68298C-2.eps
90 


68298C-3.eps
91 


68298C-4.eps
92 


68298C-5.eps
93 


68298C-6.eps
94 


68298C-7.eps
95 


68298C-8.eps
96 

f 


68298C-9.eps
97 

Æ 


68298D.eps