that decision and other measures that could be used to ensure public safety. [background noises] the senate judiciary committee will come to order is my understanding senator grimace on the way. and has asked us to start. of course recognizing when he arrives for any opening statement he may have. last week out to the senate floor and paid tribute to a fallen chicago police officer. thirty-two years old. he was an immigrant to this country, became a u.s. citizen, a volunteer for the chicago police department, served over five years. he was killed protecting the same southwest side neighborhood he lived in. on march 1, officer responded to

a 911 call about a domestic violence incident. when he arrived on the scene the suspect fled in a chase ensued. the suspect had a gun. when he ran into an elementary school playground with children present, he turned and fired it five times. kids were taking cover under slides and equipment they could find on the playgrounds. officer vasquez lasso was killed. for his funeral last week at saint regis chapel, his wife wrote and i quote i wish i would've hugged you stronger wednesday morning. give many more goodbye kisses. if only i had known it was the last time i would see you alive. every day millions americans like this officer dedicate themselves to protecting public safety and keeping our communities and our kids safe. law enforcement officers, emergency responders, social

services workers, community leaders and teachers, these are increasingly dangerous jobs. in part because there are more guns than people in this country. and hundreds of americans are shot every day. we owe it to these americans to enact laws that will help protect them from being shot and killed. i believe a well radiated fire ownership to keep america safe is consistent with the second amendment. but we are up against the gun lobby to strike down the government stop doing from passing. that brings us to the bruin case. here is a brief. >> the ruling tonight impacts not only new york but seven other densely find a place with similar laws were 80 billion americans live.

>> shocking. absolutely shocking. >> in addition the court established a new test for determining whether gun legislation is constitutional. >> the old test had history get it. but also consider contemporary cost and benefit. what the new test apparently does the state know. only history. >> of the supreme court was justice clarence thomas said you can't bounce individual right against public safety, against violence and crime. you can only look at quote history and tradition. the nra and other gun rights advocates are going to go into court challenge hundreds of gun laws that have been upheld by the courts. >> a federal judge in texas has ruled it's no wonder constitutions to ban under felony indictment for buying guns. >> courts ruled yesterday to

help domestic violence restraining order against them from owning guns. >> the bottom line, a lot of gun laws in a lot of jurisdictions. with this new standard the supreme court has come up with. but for the record the bruin decision came down the day before the dobbs decision which of course through public opinion. a supreme court decision we conclude the second amendment is an individual right. the gun lobby was not happy with more than 1500 cases implemented in the lower court, why? those cases largely upheld the gun laws on the books from constitutional challenge. said the laws passed muster then to step test that looked about that history and considered modern-day ends and means. that was just too much for the gun lobby to take.

so they went to work the advocate of aggressively what justice on the supreme court who supported a history based approach to second amendment challenges. so-called original is in. literalism. i discussed this approach of both justice kavanaugh and justice barrett at the confirmation hearings. i was concerned about what a conservative majority on the supreme court were due to our gun laws. and then, as i feared the gun lobby work the case before the supreme court the bruin case. last year the court's majority went further than necessary i so's the new purely historical test the gun lobby was thrilled. put out a press release, he called the bruin decision a landmark win from the nra. that quote unequivocably felony the position of the nra.

that's the same who sent in this room 10 years ago testified before the committee that are currently on the books but is bruin press release did not say that said many unconstitutional gun control laws remain in america for the end they will continue to fight these laws. now, after the bruin decision long-standing gun laws on the books have been challenged across the country. more than 100 cases so far. under the new bruin historical test judges decide not a lot reasonably protects public safety but whether the lot resembles law that were in place in 1791 war in 1868 in the beginning of 1791 of course we were taught about muzzleloading muskets. i think about drawing that standard, legality of constitutional based on 1791. i think about the last fourth of

july at highland park, illinois when a deranged individual when on the roof of the downtown business and discharged 83 rounds in 60 seconds. killing seven innocent people injuring dozens of others including paralyzing an 8-year-old little boy, cooper. it is no surprise to see decisions like the fifth circuit recent case a panel of judges struck down a federal law barring those with domestic violence restraining orders from possessing guns. i cannot score that decision with the actual danger women and police officers faced from armed domestic abusers. and i do not believe the founders of this nation would have what is courts to simply ignore this danger when applying the constitution they wrote. they chaos the bruin decision has caused was predictable. for 15 years courts have been steadily applying the heller decision and judgment about gun laws on the books.

now the supreme court has imposed a radical new framework under judge thomas' decision with barely any guidance to apply it. plenty of opportunity for judges to cherry pick from history, to engage in judicial activism in the name of original is in for the gun lobby saw bruin as a landmark win but is significant house for police, law enforcement the population of america when it comes to public safety. that is what we will discuss today we have a distinguished panel of witnesses as we navigate bruin's in-person upheaval of efforts to combat gun violence toward to this discussion now turn to ranking member senator graham. >> thank you, mr. chairman. number one, i think this is an important hearing to have. the role of the second amendment and average everyday life, senator cornyn worked in a

bipartisan fashion to make some changes to background checks, putting money into the system to deal with folks or danger to themselves or others. to enhance public safety there is a bipartisan approach to some of these issues. but this is the difference between the parties i would think. america's second amendment was passed for a purpose for you live in a kingdom and the king rules the first thing they want to do is neck shirt nobody can object in your pretty much defenseless. you have to ask yourself why did we have a second amendment to begin with question 10 history of the country people claim in england you cannot say bad things about the king. you really cannot express yourself so the first amendment allows you to speak openly to worship the weight you would choose not the way the king was

used and on and on and on the right to assemble. the second amendment is to be able to bear arms. there's a 1.7 million times per year people use firearms to defend themselves. i have a very long list of people who it able to protect their family, their property by having a firearm to ward off intruders and people who are actively aggressively toward them, particularly women. and i like unanimous consent to put that in the record. >> without objection. >> will be are trying to do here i think is our democratic friends are trying to make the argument the bruin heller case, cases if they could they would overturn those decisions. i think people on our side are going to be unanimous in the idea that responsible gun ownership is part of american

society. guns are used every day to defend americans and people abuse the right to own a weapon. i would hope we could find common ground to go after those who abuse the right to own a whack of action responsibly enforce laws on the books. so, what we will be doing in response to this hearing as i have introduced legislation, federal law that would basically codify the heller decision that the second amendment right to own a weapon is an individual rights in the bruin decision, having a different legal analysis about efforts to regulate guns, more back to the historical perspective of why we have the second amendment. as you work to overturn these decisions, we want to reinforce these decisions. we found bipartisan support for the idea of background checks

and trying to "guns out" of the hands of people who are dangerous, mister. we have not had much success in finding common ground on increasing punishments for those who are involved in crime. we are talking a lot about fentanyl but we have not done much to deter it. all of us see the laws regarding sexual exploitation of children in need of upgrading. so i hope we will find this in bipartisan support to go after the criminal and reinforce america's. this is a very dangerous time in america, mr. chairman. the policies being pursued in the major cities of this country are not working. on the drug front, on the public safety front. and here is the sad news. this probably never been a more important time to own a weapon than now. the threats to the average

american are going up not down. and at the end of the day the second amendment is part of our constitution, is part of the fabric of this nation. there is bipartisan support to make sure reasonable gun ownership rains but there will be on our side of the aisle, mre to the idea of undoing the legal framework that is coming out of the supreme court because we believe now is the time to reinforce responsible gun ownership. not to undermine it, thank you. >> thank you center grand prix today we will work with witnesses on introducing my first witness is ruth and glenn present a public affairs international coalition against domestic violence. the project of the national domestic violence hotline. prior to joining this organization she served in the colorado department of human services for 28 years nine and

which she spent as a director of domestic violence program. she is indeed a survivor of gun violence herself. amy has appeared before the committee before she was a fellow in the heritage foundation or her heirs of scholarship in the second amendment over criminalization, school safety, at the intersection mental health and gun violence. eric ruben assistant professor of law cool of law. his scholarship focuses on exploring the regulation of violence and weapons and how that regulation intersects with self-defense and second amendment. raphael commented i pronounce it right good, is the fellow and head of research for police and public safety initiative of the manhattan institute for policy research where he writes on topics relating to police, crime, incarceration among others.

as a project manager for combating crimes guns initiative at brady. before joining brady he served in the national police department in san diego county and the california department of justice. he has 27 years of law enforcement experience. i thank all of the witnesses for being here today. each senator will have five minutes after you five minutes for opening statement. each of the witnesses please stand at moment to be sworn in? >> raise your right hand. you affirm the testimony about too go before the committee be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? at the record reflect the likenesses have answered in the affirmative. we will recognize you in the seating arrangement you have chosen. this glenn you are first. >> good morning.

chair derman, ranking member graham, and this for members of the senate judiciary committee. i thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on a critical issue, the impact of the supreme court's decision in new york state association versus bruin on victims and survivors of domestic violence. as was stated my name is ruth glenn i'm currently the public affairs president for the national coalition against domestic violence at the national domestic violence hotline. i take my time to share with you why i do what i do, why it is important to speak to this issue. and how i hope to enable further understanding of the particular concerns for victims, survivors, advocates and those who care for them when there is access to firearms by abusive intimate partners. there was always a gun present during my 13 years of marriage.

it was used as a tool to frighten me and control me. in one instance of my son was 14 years old and was struggling in school, my then husband aimed a gun at me, looked at our son and said if you bring one more effort and this house i will kill your mother. i was so traumatized and terrified i could hardly think. my experience was and is far from unusual for about 14% of women and almost 6% of men in the u.s. experienced firearm threats. from an abusive intimate partner, 43% of those women who have been injured by a firearm include being shot, pistol whipped, or sexually assaulted. i wish i could share with you that was the extent of my experience, but it was not. i am to be among the 43%.

fortunate because i was almost another statistic. one of the people murdered every seven hours by an intimate partner, mostly with firearms. an abusive sales partners access to fire increases the risk of intimate partner fivefold. a gunshot is most awful sounds. the smell is even worse, especially c-uppercase-letter. i remember those two blasts each one distinctly. the first went under my scalp, the other skipped off my forehead. when the bullet hits you you feel a stinging sensation. stink elite metallic black being burned or getting an electric shock. i thought this can't be happening and then he shot me again in the arm. he drove away and left me for dead. this was prete 1994 when congress passed a law prohibiting respondents to final protective orders for for

possessing firearms. i did not have the benefit of legal protections that are now afforded to survivors with protection orders almost everywhere in the united states. i say almost everywhere because those protections are being eroded by courts confused by the supreme court ruling in bruin. current throughout the post hell or two-part test that courts were using to assess the constitutionality of firearms laws. and now requires courts to rule solely based on historical tradition. to be blunt the historical tradition when it comes to women in particular includes burning women at the stake as which is, permitting and even encouraging physical chastisement of wives in other words domestic violence in turning a blind eye to rape and other forms of gender-based violence post bruin court across the country applicable federal laws disarming adjudicated partners and have come to dramatically different

conclusions. while most courts that are considered the protective order prohibits or have upheld it, a three-judge panel of the fifth circuit court of appeals found unconstitutional in the united states. the legal implications of this ruling aren't limited as it applies only to texas, louisiana and mississippi it does not apply to state laws. does not apply to the relief written directly into protective orders. but it is important to realize the confusion and concern that has resulted from the ruling. it is also important to note the hotline the national domestic hotline contacts mentioning firearms in texas, louisiana, and mississippi between februard in march 9, increased by 56.6%. conflicted same time period last

year. given the general confusion many respondents to final protective orders are erroneous believe they are allowed to have firearms and survivors may believe they can no longer rely on the courts for protection. from abusive partners with firearms. the lack of historical laws restricting firearms access by domestic abusers is not evident that such laws are unconstitutional. it's unconstitutional. rather it is a reflection of that legally subordinate status and general disregard for the rights and needs of women in early america. ultimately, we expect federal and state laws restricting firearm possession by adjudicative use intimate partners to be upheld. however, in the interim some of you intimate partners will legally access firearms they were previously forbidden from

possessing. and some will use us firearms to terrorize or even kill their victims and others. the uncertainty created has created victims and children fear of their lives and created yet another barrier to safety. thank you again for the opportunity to testify today and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. >> german durbin, ranking member graham and distinguish senators. last june the supreme court affirmed ordinary law-abiding americans have a right to bear guns in public for self-defense. instruct out new york's restrictive public carry framework which required applicants to prove they had a proper cause to exercise the constitutional rights outside the home. i'm burdened that was usually insurmountable. additionally bruin rejected lower court's use of a heightened scrutiny approach and approach and they, not heller. that in practice led many courts

to never make a gun line they could not find perfectly constitutional. instead under bruin judges must assess where the challenge restriction is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation. some pundits and politicians immediately responded with hysterical fear mongering about potentially devastating consequences. even today the title of this hearing presupposes albeit with fewer theatrics bruin is a thing from which the public must be protected. this is simply not true. bruin immediate impact on public safety for too long states like new york told millions of citizens the right to armed self-defense and at moment they left their homes. lawful gun owners are not the driving force behind criminal gun violence. this is perfectly true of concealed carry permit holders. at the same time as i outline a much greater details in my written submission they play significant but underappreciated

role in crime prevention and crime interruption. yes good faith application will likely result in some favored gun control laws being struck down paid to the extent threatened certain laws however these are generally laws that were not very good at protecting the public in the first place. and at the same time it's undeniable it does not threaten many of the laws that are most effective at protecting the public. but in recent months some have succeeded and lower courts the opinions and reasoning there and have been grossly mischaracterized in the same we saw bruin. i covered this handful of successful and self largely ongoing challenges in more depth in my recent submission but the circuit decision and u.s. is worth highlighting as others have noted the panel struck down the federal statute for helping gun possession for individual subjected to certain domestic violence civil restraining orders the opinion has been widely and wrongly denounced

some respect given domestic violence abusers a license to kill and essentially preventing the government for doing anything at all about it. let's review the facts underlying that case. the defendant there is a despicable cretin that note same moral person should own guns. he violently assaulted his girlfriend, threatened to kill her in shock that a bystander who witnessed the assault. the government quite properly charged him with several crimes. but then it released him apparently believing a civil restraining order and set of pretrial detention was the best way of dealing with this individual. predictably, he soon thought and committed aggravated assault with a deadly weapon against a different woman using a gun he was not legally allowed to own but obtained anyway. the government appears to protect the public by releasing him. again and once again he ignored the restraining order is on his

way to ignoring a lot of other gun laws about not shooting people. in two month span he shot a guy who sold drugs to be shot at a constable, shot at the driver of a car crash he caused, fled the scene returned a different car and shot him again and then for good measure filed a couple of rounds into the ceiling of the restaurant. system for the sake of the art of the fifth circuit interpretation is correct the government cannot charge him for violating his domestic violence restraining order because this is historically an inappropriate method by which to disarm people. anyone who insists this result somehow dramatically endangers the public either did not read the case in good faith, does not understand the criminal justice system or is very comfortable lying to your face. as he judges noted at length in that opinion the government could have completely consistent with bruin held him for pretrial detention after either time that he violently assaulted someone they could have disarmed him as

condition of his pretrial relief a condition he likely would have ignored as a flippantly as he did his restraining order but at least it would been constitutional. prosecute and convict him for at least a dozen serious crimes and incarcerate him for very long time. if and when he's ever released from prison, every post- court agrees in itself indicates the government can continue prohibiting him from owning guns in perpetuity as a violent felon. senators, do you see the problem here? it is not bruen as some critics have stated, get women killed both before and after bruen it's terrible criminal justice policy that get women killed. to any extent bruen limits the public safety options it does so in a way that forces the government to use the far more effective tool party at its disposal to protect us from violent offenders. we are told all the time to

respect the rights and needs of the victim as we should. we should respect them by detaining, arresting and criminally prosecuting the men who harm them. and believe in them enough to allow them to defend themselves means violent offenders when the government won't. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, professor ruben. >> german durbin, ranking member graham, and members of the committee. thank you for inviting me too testify. my name is eric ruben i am professor of law at smu school of law. today i'm testifying in my personal capacity. this committee is considering how to protect public safety after the supreme court's decision in bruin it's important to understand what that decision did and the challenges it presents for the lower courts. you just heard one view on bruen and its aftermath. i read the opinions ongoing to provide a different view. i will make four points. first, bruen may abandon a mode

of reasoning eased by almost every other right inserted a new test for value in the constitutionality of modern laws addressing modern guns in modern problems. in particular bruen held in cases where the second amendment text applies, courts must assess whether or not a moderate restriction is consistent with this country's history and tradition but did you that the bruen majority said the government has to point to regulations from the late 1700s or perhaps the 1800s. courts how and why modern historical gun laws arm self-defense. this is a novel approach different than the courts reason before the decision came down and in fact it's different from how the court itself usually evaluates constitutional rights questions. second point that i would like to make is that bruen has introduced a substantial amount of uncertainty for such member

doctrine with this new test. the lower courts have struggled to apply bruen to modern law such as those relating 3d printing guns, large capacity magazines and gun possession by domestic abusers. bruen reported to constrain judicial decision-making through a test of historical analogy but the post bruen case highlights the risk that in fact bruen has enabled judicial subjectivity and unpredictability. in different cases dealing with the same laws, or even in the same case dealing with the law, courts have pointed in opposite directions about what the second amendment means. third, as the issue of keeping "guns out" of the hands of domestic abusers show, courts are struggling with how to compare modern laws to historical ones in light of the immense changes between the past and the present. what meaningful historical

comparative can there be for the modern prohibition on guns in airplane cabins? or on automatic weapons. perhaps more fundamentally what about modern laws that reflect broader social change like prohibitions on gun possession by domestic abusers? domestic violence focus highlight the challenge of today's constitutional decision-making on the legislative priorities of the distant past. the circuit in the recent case applied to strict on gun possession of people subject to domestic violence restraining orders. the court said the record did not contain comparable gun laws in the framing direct. but of course there were not robust protections for the victims of domestic violence back in the framing era. two it did not prioritize

protecting the victims of domestic violence through legislation. in fact, rather than focusing on protecting domestic violence victims, historically the law protectively husband's legal prerogative to inflict marital chastisement. but it would be absurd to think the constitution today condemns us to that same view. fourth, and finally, despite initial disruption has called bruen does not mean an end to reasonable gun policy. we have a long tradition of gun regulation in this country. justices in the bruen majority say properly interpreted the second amendment still allows for a variety. the major challenge is how to compare historical gun laws to modern ones and change circumstances. the court for example recognizes historical laws disarm various groups of people viewed to be

dangerous. but construe those historical laws narrowly and concluded they could not serve as analogs for the modern laws regulating gun possession by those with the domestic violence restraining orders. they have a different message from the same historical gun laws. the case judge amy coney barrett looked at the same laws that were considered by the courts. but she reach a different conclusion about their meaning. she wrote quote history is consistent with common sense. demonstrates legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns". the central challenge for the second amendment today is ensuring history and common sense to not part ways. thank you for the opportunity to testify and i look forward to your questions are. >> thank you professor. >> good morning german durbin, ranking member graham and members of the committee.

i would like to begin by thanking all for this perhaps the most single most important policy issue of our time. public safety especially gun violence. overarching point this morning is straightforward. when it comes the important issue public safety are most pressing promise on the possibility more at law-abiding citizens will not be able to carry firearms for self-defense in a small handful of states did not arty allow them to do so, it is that so many parts of the country legislative and administrative policy have exacerbated the risks associated with healing to arrest, prosecute and meaningful incapacitate high risks high rate criminal offenders. as such the focus of policy makers hoping the tide of violent crime should be in identifying plugging the holes created bait larger by incarceration efforts. failing to do so will lead to tragedy as it hasn't so many cases already. one of those cases the shooting deaths of upstate new york last year.

the 40-year-old mother was taken to school police and prosecutors she was fatally shot in the head by her husband. her husband was released on his own recognizance the day before the shooting. that release came after being charged with savagely beating her as an assault captured by home security camera and shared with the authorities. the release occurred despite the defendant been paroled in 2015 after serving time for the armed kidnapping of an ex-girlfriend and escaping from a correctional facility. newark's bill laws require the lease in prohibitive the danger this man post to his wife or the community. most tragic part of the story she was so certain about the risk she faced she was reportedly wearing a bulletproof vest at the time she was killed. until the safety she needed all the court would offer it was a piece of paper with an order of protection. unfortunately data from multiple sources suggest when it comes to domestic violence, shooting, homicide stories like fine

crystal, and criminal justice a report 3036 individuals missing mounds of teen had a combined total of 15396 prior arrests. sending him of the chicago crime lab on average those arrests were shooting our homicide in that city in 2016 prior arrests. nearly one in five and more than 20. this meant recent remarks in washington d.c. metro police chief robert told members of the meeting earlier this month, on the average homicide has been arrests in 11 times prior to them committing homicide. with all this tells us the laws we have on the books regarding firearms restrictions are no good unless we have the wherewithal to see to it those who violate the rules protect public safety. this is the focus of policymakers lay seeking to find anywhere necessary to create opportunities to back supply the

incarceration about actors. actively supporting efforts to cut down on those incapacitation benefits is simply congress calls for gun rights restrictions to pursue public safety gains and cutting them for it is precisely the reason forms have been achieved over the past decade plus. these reforms individual incorrectly have reduce the likelihood of arrest prosecution and during incarceration for many as evidenced by the 24% the client and the prison population 50% decline in general population in 2,102,021 as well as the 25% decline between 2009 in 2019. makes a safer especially living in a small slice of the country. the downside risk associated with the cursory and indeed policing will be disproportionally by the very same people living and concentrated gun violence. a crystal clear by study

published last year the wall street journal shows the 2021 firearms breach in the 1990s peak there it remained in the single digits america gun violence problem has got significant we worse in recent years. that should concern us all. the reverse of progress made over the 1990s has been a very small price in a very big way. now i am encouraged by this committee's desire to engage with this problem and i urged its members to consider the policies most urgent need of change are those that have lowered the transaction cost of committing crime will raise the transaction cost of enforcing the law. at the end of the day rules without means will enforce them a little more than empty threats. and for those living in america's most dangerous

neighborhoods, they are broken promises to boot. thank you note for trick questions for quick thinking mr. >> german durbin, ranking member graham distinguished members, thank you for the opportunity test testify before you today. i've spent my career in the service. nearly three decades is been my honor to serve in law enforcement working my way up to detective sgt. i managed the upper ranks of the california part of justice. none on i serve as a senior technical advisor. [inaudible] california it was a very different place and the police force in 1990 the national police department responded to shootings every night. everyone in the streets had a gun by 1993 california had a homicide rate that was 46% higher than the national

average. our streets were awash with guns and victims everyday my colleagues and i and hope for the best. almost every cop has a moment when gun violence really hits home. for me as 1992 when held a 16-year-old boy and watch the life drain from his eyes. he got into a fight over a girl. a fight that happens every day and our country. sometimes hundreds of times. except during this fight one of the kids had a gun. what should have been with a bruised ego and may be a black eye. he asked if he was going to die and i wish i could've told him he was going to be okay. i wish my story was unique but represents a bigger problem that requires more than thoughts and prayers. between 1989 in 1991 california took its initial steps for drug violence passing early assault weapons ban competence of background checks and

prohibitions for violent offenders. with congress passing the brady background check bill at assault with a mark of gun laws and in last three decades homicide rate was in half. the biggest state with many of the country's largest cities. her gun death rate is 36% lower than the national average and sexless in the country. it could've been much lower tens of thousands of guns from other states. needless to say we also assure the national burden of mass shootings. most recently monterey park. however our laws a sponsor of this assault weapons most of the firearms. california's 25% less likely to die for mass shooting event people in other states. what's of the strongest gun laws

in the country and they are working. rest assured the second amendment is alive and wellin california. with more civilian owned firearms in most other states, more than a quarter of californians live in a gun owning a home. purchased almost a million firearms last year. this past summer the supreme court upended california's long-standing framework with the opinion and bruin. and today, counsel assault weapons ban high-capacity magazine ban, restrictions and ammunition checks are all at risk. other laws are also at risk including those passed by this body last year. courts across the country receive confusion and activism in applying the standards. states are being forced to reconsider every law as if it was written in 1791. with the most loaded muskets and pistols were the only firearms available to the public. shows laws protect public safety

are representing second amendment rights. i am neither a lawyer nor a historian. but what i can tell you is after 30 years of law enforcement gun safety laws continue to be struck down will be harder for law enforcement to protect public safety it will make their jobs far more dangerous. after early three decades of law enforcement, i can also say we cannot incarcerate our way out of this problem. we tried that and it did not work. we all agree we need to enforce the law. we do not devote enough attention to the upstream source of guns being trafficked into our communities. funds do not grow on trees they do not magically appear on our streets. in addition to my work at brady and also high school teacher. my students worry about a million different things these days. near the top of that list are they going to be shot on the way to school? or while at their desks? as i water my students on constant reminders of the

16-year-old kid who died in my arms. the kid who today, could be in my class. he lost everything he was in everything he could have been. i look at my students and i wonder if i will lose one of them. what one of them was their future to senseless gun violence? will my daughter? that is a question it terrifies me every day. the question millions of parents ask themselves every day. thoughts and prayers are not enough. action is needed. thank you for the time today look forward your questions. >> thank you mr. lindley will start the questions. i want to thank you personally, 27 years in law enforcement i want to thank all the men and women in law enforcement. we know they are under close scrutiny and living lives which subject them to dangerous situations on a daily basis to protect us, our neighborhoods, and our homes. let me ask you this point blank,

foreign morning in chicago because two weeks ago to an officer responded a domestic violence incident, came across a man with a gun, chased that man, who turned on him and killed him in the playground of a school in chicago while the children around were cringing in fear. how often do domestic violence incidents have you run into in domestic violence incidents in your practice in law enforcement? >> thank you for the question. law enforcement as were the most difficult jobs i think we have in this nation. we ask a lot of our officers day in and day out. one of the most unpredictable situations they are called to deal with is domestic violence. they are going into a and emotionally charged situation not knowing what the basis of it is, into a situation that may

have taken years to come about. also you look at the different types of weapons inside the house. you have firearms you have knives your frying pans it's a very difficult situation lots of injury to law enforcement and injuries to the public come about from domestic violence situations. quicksort of the witnesses here's says it is okay and accepted that person would have a gun they will probably break some other law they can be prosecuted, does the presence of a firearm in a domestic violence dispute make it more dangerous for the police? >> absolutely. firearms in the house when law enforcement is there in an emotionally charged situation, alyssa situation is completely controlled which is difficult for law enforcement to do these days makes it very dangerous for them. >> professor rubin let's follow with the court has decided to see if you could help me understand a little better. they have decided they could not

find an analogy to removing a firearm for a person under domestic violence protective order. and so as a consequence they struck down the applicable law and the situation. and yet when it comes to the firearms themselves, they don't go back to 1791 and asked the obvious question, what did the founding fathers have in mind when they use the word arms? they seem to have expanded to almost anything crazy example for pilot park the fourth of july parade with the man on the roof of a building firing off 83 rounds of 60 seconds killing seven people, injuring dozens of on theirs. there is not even a weapon imaginal in 171 that could do that. how did they make that leap when it comes to arms to that type of assault weapon? >> thank you, senator. this is where the challenges on the questions that come up after bruen is how can we make sense of our historical gun laws in

light of the vast changes including gun technology and also in terms of our moral sensibilities. when it comes to gendered violence back in 1791. one of the points i flushed out in my written testimony is if we are going to be approaching what counts as an arm and a high level of generality and allow that to evolve with the times we certainly need to find ways to likewise find regulatory frameworks to evolve as well, to do with modern problems today. >> next line you have personal experience with this which is chilling to think what you went through. as a victim of domestic violence, what do you think about the argument summit with a gun in a domestic violence episode is likely to break some other law they could be prosecuted for that's good enough? >> thank you so much for the question. it certainly is not good enough. without understand the dynamics

of domestic violence and when there is a domestic violence situation which an abuser has a firearm. the escalation that occurs if you don't understand the dynamics of domestic violence, sometimes that's all that is present is the domestic violence situation. waiting for prosecution or charging in that particular instance is unreasonable. protect the borders are built to help the victim provide themselves with protection. removing the firearm is also that part of ensuring that safety and that they can be saved. >> thank you, senator graham? >> thank you. let's revisit comments after ratings? >> yes, sir believe so. >> let's see what is the most compelling thing to learn from that case. how many times has this

gentleman been involved shooting at people? >> i am not sure in total. it seems like at least six or seven. >> and he was released based on what charge she was facing a charge and released? >> the first time he was facing at least one felony domestic violence charge. and to others i'm not sure if the screeners or felonies under texas law. >> is a pretty fair to say this guy should not have been out on the street? >> absolutely not here it is very clearly a danger to the specific individuals in the public at large. is this a common problem for our criminal justice system has a revolving door when it comes to people exhibiting violent behavior? >> it most certainly is a common problem. and when that is a long-standing problem as well. one of the statistics they did not get a chance to get to between 1,992,002 the bureau of justice statistics reported over

one third of individuals convicted of felonies were either out on probation, parole or pretrial release at the time of those offenses but as our criminal justice system is gone softer that promptly got bigger. so when you look at what america is facing which you agree to be the best thing we could do a nation is to make sure our parole laws and attitude toward violent criminals is a change so they are not out hurting people they stay in jail? >> that is exactly right. one of the biggest challenges we currently face as evidenced by the data on the role that repeat offenders to play answers and gun violence as we are systematically failing to draw and enforce the lien as to how much repeated criminal conduct we are willing to accept and tolerate. >> if your proposition is true, america would be responding in a certain way. do you realize that from 1991 until 2019, the number of guns

in america the number weapons owned by americans have doubled? >> i am aware of that, yes editor. >> are you aware at that number concealed carry permits has increased by seven fold? >> i know it has increased exponentially but i'll take you and your is roughly seven folder quickly aware between 2019 and 202058% increase in gun purchased by african americans, 43% increase by asians, 46 increase in purchases fight latino americans, 40% of those purchases were made by first time gun buyers. are you aware from 2005 until 202077% increase in gun ownership by women and from 2019 to 2020 a majority people buying gun for women are you aware of all that? >> yes editor i am.

>> writing this going on? women and ethnic minorities a lot of them for the first time in their lives looked around at the state of reality in this country with widespread issues with policing. >> let's just stop there for a moment. mr. linley, you've been a police officer parade thank you for your service. how is morale among the police in america generally speaking? >> thank you for the question senator. i think overall i think browse decreasing progress is a product a lot it's harder to people law enforcement now do you agree with the heller decision that interpreted the second amendment to be an individual right, was any good legal decision? >> yes, sir.

>> you do? ms. glenn, your experience was terrible. your husband, former husband has been charged with armed robberies, head b had he been convicted of armed robbery? i want to make sure her. >> yes in many years before the incident yes. >> he had actually been charged with kidnapping you to before the shooting question what. >> before the incident. >> here is my point. center has shown the way to work on responsible gun ownership limitations. i do not think there's anything in this case it said common sense does not prevail. this case and heller case are important in my view, mr. chairman reinforces the idea of the second amendment is there for individuals and that individuals have a right to defend themselves in a responsible way even outside their home. so what i would hope this

committee would do is end to the extent possible the revolving door policies that allow people time and time again to come out on the streets, hurt their fellow citizens list at in conclusion the reason so many people are buying guns is because they have lost faith in their government to protect them. >> thank you scattergram, senator whitehouse? >> thank you chairman, thank you to the witnesses for being here. professor ruben, the history and tradition of fact-finding and the american judicial system is done at the trial court level. and where the successful challenge to the very tough clearly erroneous standard is

made on appeal than an ordinary way to resolve it is to send the case back to the district court for fact-finding where fact-finding belongs. i have had a hearing in my court subcommittee on this supreme court's recent for appellate fact-finding. some of the prominent cases have been shelby county were they made the findings nobody had anything to worry about from the freed legislature conditions have changed. then of course immediately a case came out federal judges said this is targeted to surgical precision and minority voters. completely discrediting these spontaneous fact-finding by the court. citizens united was another one. they said don't worry about it, all the unlimited spending we

are going to unleash is going to be independent of candidates and it's going to be transparent a couple billion dollars of dark money, nontransparent funding later we know perfectly well the fact-finding was false. so, this seems to be an increasing trend. i noticed in the bruen case there was a lot of fact-finding done in the context of defining what the true history and tradition were. a lot of historians look at that and say that his junk history, that is not real. it had not come up through any kind of adversarial process. it was not tested on the different layers of review. it was just made up by the supreme court justices. could you talk a little bit about the dangers of appellate fact-finding in terms of how it permits ambitious and activist

courts to run a bit wild?what happens on appel especially if the court on appeal is doing historical fact finding that's subsequently determined to be erroneous. the lower court is then bound by

that erroneous historical determination when ordinarily there would be appeal and challenges, so this is transforming the way this the litigation is looking. >> i think it needs to transform a good deal because if you have an appellate decision that stamps on what events have proven to be utterly. facts and the appellate court hasn't gone back and cleaned up its clean air or then it becomes incumbent on the lower courts to take a look at that and see if it really makes sense because marbury versus madison says it is the job of the supreme court to decide with the law is and has no expertise with regard to the fact in fact it is probably the worst part of government to make the decisions about the fact given the constraints on breathing and so forth. so, thank you for that observation. the other thing that was notable is that 12 nra funded showed up

and the funding disclosures of the supreme court have been a continuing source of frustration. the judicial conference is looking at that and i hope we will be putting out a report soon. what is the danger if other parties and the public at of the judges don't have a true and accurate description of who was really behind the amicus group that shows up in court particularly with regards to coordination? >> senator, i think it is important to understand who is filing different briefs in terms of assessing whether or not there are any particular biases with the briefs that are getting filed. >> motive matters, right? thank you, chairman. >> thank you, senator. senator grassley. >> thank you, mr. chair man and all the witnesses for being here to discuss this important issue.

last year i held a field hearing in iowa for the drug caucus that i cochaired with chair man white house. at that hearing of the iowa department of public safety commission said 42% of the murders that occurred in des moines in the last two years had been tied to drug trafficking. so i'm interested in your view on the national basis how does drug trafficking factored into increases that we have seen in violent crime? >> i think that the enforcement can play an important role in the division of public safety and one of the reasons for that is there's a substantial overlap between people involved in the treaty and people that are driving the series of gun violence that we are here to talk about today. one of the statistics that comes to going out of the city of baltimore that in 2018 reported that of the about 118 homicide suspects from the year 2017, seven in ten have at least one

prior arrest in their criminal history. if you look at the recidivism data the bureau of statistics often reports on the longitudinal analyses and the rate of recidivism for people that are incarcerated primarily for drug offenses. 75% will be rearrested and more than a third for a serious violent offense specifically. so if you talk to law enforcement i think what they will tell you is they view it as a way to attack violent crime. taking that off the tool table and minimizing it in the justice policy over the years i think can be significantly detrimental to the strategy to reducing gun violence. >> also to what extent is the rise of violent crime related to getting this over organized criminal activity? >> they significantly drive the numbers at least gun crime in the pockets of the violence that i talked about in my testimony.

if you look at the south and west side of chicago, the district in baltimore certain precincts and cities like detroit hints st. louis what you will see is the gang members and the crew members such as true in my state as well. identifying those individuals and singling them out for prosecution to be an effective strategy. there's one study who was a criminology professor on precision policing in new york city and what that found is that the prosecutions were responsible for a significant i think almost 30% reduction over the time period of the study that shows if you were able to target the resources of the small number and those that drive the gun violence you can have an outside impact on the picture. >> the fall releases the 2021 crime statistics and of those

showed the number of murders increased from 202221 by four and three tenths% that is on top of the 29% increase 2019 to 2020. that is a steep increase in violent crime but isn't it true the rates of violent crime have affected some communities more than others and as an example, african-american communities. >> that is right. the victimization rate for the males is about ten times that for the rural white male counterparts. in my home city of new york the police department has been keeping data on gun violence and gun violence victimizations since at least 2008 and a systematic year for which we have data at a minimum. i can assure you that they do not constitute anywhere close to

90% of the population. and just to hit the point home on the geographic concentration point that it's important to understand, any given city in america around five will see 60% of all the violence. in my home city of new york about 3.5% see 50% of all violent crime at about 40% don't see any violent crime whatsoever. just to bring the point home with an example in the city of chicago the ten most dangerous neighborhoods had a collective homicide rate of 61 per 100,000. collectively the populations was on average 95% black and hispanic. if you take the 28th safest communities the same year the homicide rate was less than two per 100,000 so it affects more than others and we should keep that in mind. it should be a source of comfort to know we don't have to take a dragnet attach. we can target the approach because the data tells us very clearly that a small number of

individuals drive the problem. >> mr. chair man, can i ask a very short question. can you tell us what the fastest growing group in america is? >> my understanding, senator, is that is specifically black women. >> thank you, mr. chairman. since we are displaying our expertise and i would say poverty is an important overly in this question and applies to the hispanic neighborhoods as well as black neighborhoods, and i also think that if you are looking at the general population you will find the violent gun crime is reaching beyond those areas into other neighborhoods because of social media and many other aspects. so there's a lot more to the story than what you just said. senator hirono. >> thank you mr. chair man.

in 2020, hawaii had the lowest gun death rate and lowest rate of gun ownership in the entire country. pry your time of the police pole departments had only issued for licenses to carry in the past two decades. the decision, however, the police departments across all counties in hawaii had begun issuing licenses. as of december, 2022, the issue would 89 concealed gun licenses and the county issued a team between 50,000 to 60,000 people are expected to apply for the concealed carry permit in upcoming years. the state and local officials expressed concerns that the gun laws may be to the rise in violent crime. consequentially, the departments of employment to the stronger requirements for africans seeking licenses to carry. state and local legislators also introduced gun safety measures

including an enacted law in hawaii county designating sensitive places, such as churches, or firearms on parameters. however, gun owners have stated their intent to challenge the guns legislation and courts. september, 2022, the national association for gun rights filed a lawsuit against the state of hawaii seeking to overturn the states ban on assault pistols and large capacity magazines. they are seeking to challenge the constitutionality of the laws under the new framework. the organization has filed six other losses against states and cities with assault rifles or large capacity magazine bands. so, the question. do you think that the concern over the thousands and thousands of applicants who were now applying for licenses in hawaii

and that this could be the rise of crime is that a misplaced concern, do you agree with of the concern of law enforcement in hawaii? >> i do agree with those concerns, senator. if you look at more guns equals safety, there's over 400 million firearms in the united states. if that was the case, we should be the safest country in the world. so it isn't the answer to safety. >> i agree with you. the statistics we pointed to in hawaii where we have the strictest safety laws into their is a cause and effect as to the use of guns in hawaii and violent situations. you have spent almost 30 years as an advocate for domestic violence victims and have testified today on the impact on intimate partner violence. just last month the fifth circuit in the major case to apply found that portion of the violence against women act that prohibited the position of firearms by those subject to

certain domestic violence restraining orders violated the second amendment. this kind of restriction was common sense to the kind of restriction on violent abusers. how would the interpretations like the fifth circuit make it harder to protect the victims and survivors of domestic violence? >> thank you so much for the question. i think that we go back to the written testimony, which is there has to be some type of protection that is allowed before the violence escalates. so, having a protection order that says i can have a fire arm removed from the situation so that i am safer is very, very critical. >> i would say there is some historical basis for the removal of the firearm in those kind of circumstances. professor, i found it

instructive that you said that this decision is transforming the way litigation is looking at historians being retained in cases. the justice observed that the fall of the historical approach to the second amendment and the interpretation of the constitution is that over journalism is far from scientific. i would agree with that and went ahead and agreed with of the majority opinion in that case. so, i want to ask you, professor, in the wake, you examined the proposed legislation to require a gun owners to have expressed permission from property owners to carry guns onto their private property including homes, restaurants, offices and entertainment venues. do you think a law like that would stand up to the challenge? >> so, senator, that law is

currently the subject of litigation. some adverse decisions on appeal. there's a fundamental right to keep and bear arms, but it's important to recognize that there is also the fundamental rights to private property. and there is nothing in the constitution that says that the right to keep and bear arms has to trump the private property rights of other people. and so, one of the things that law in new york he does is it is which is the default private property owners always have the ability to exclude people who are carrying a gun if they don't want that person on there. all it does this which is the default about who has that and about who the private property owners preferences. >> i applaud new york for their approach. and by the way, before heller, which is a 2008 decision, there was no explicit in my view rights for individuals to own guns and also to own whatever the guns they wanted. heller is a 2008 decision.

how did we get along with of the second amendment before then? thank you, mr. chairman. >> thanks, senator hirono. senator cornyn. >> thanks, mr. chair man. i appreciate the legal seminar as much as anybody. but what i would like to see, whether we can get to some someagreement on some basic principles. first of all, do you believe a law-abiding citizen is a threat to public safety because they exercise the second amendment rights to keep and bear arms? >> statistically know, senator. law-abiding citizens are not a threat. they are overwhelmingly not responsible as the driving force between the criminal gun violence. >> one area that we are in this very what can be a controversial topic, where i think we've been able to find some consensus is

on the importance of background checks to make sure that people who were prohibited under existing law from purchasing or possessing firearms, nearly people with criminal convictions, people with a mental health commitment and the like, this has been one area where we have been able to find some consensus. a couple of years ago we passed a bill that was after the sutherland spring shooting where the air force that failed to upload the criminal convictions of the shooter into the background check system. several of the recently to clarksburg virginia to see how the fbi is conducting the background check system, and it is pretty impressive. more recently, as the chair man mentioned or others mentioned, we were able to find some common ground on the bipartisan safer

communities act. again, in the area where it is hard to find much common ground. but i just want to update my colleagues on exactly what has happened so far for example with the enhanced background check for gun purchases between the age of 18 and 21. it is a cohort of individuals who disproportionately were impacted by this profile were disproportionately part of a profile that characterizes shooters from adam lanza and sandy hook to the shooter in your faulty. using the enhanced background check authority in the bipartisan safer communities act, so far the background check

system has identified 101 potential transactions where the juvenile records that are subject to the background check system have disclosed individuals that have been convicted felons, drug users were those with mental health and adjudications with rise were previous to that statute would have already been prohibited from purchasing a firearm. at the same time, 98.5% of the national instant criminal transactions are unaffected by the bipartisan safer communities act so it's focused on that cohort that was disproportionately represented in some of the mass shootings that we've seen around the country and it seems to be

working. it led to 30 and vitamins in the brief months that it's been in effect. and vitamins are cartel members and other violent criminals. what parts of the communities are affected by gun violence and others that are not as infected as dramatically as the communities of color and income levels are disproportionately affected. you are familiar with project safe neighborhoods, are you not? >> i don't think i am. it's a targeted effort with

targeted enforcement of convicted felons and people who cannot possess firearms and you prosecute them using the standards under federal law to keep those individuals off the street. is that a sort of targeted effort that you think might address what you've identified in terms of where this was a big problem and where it's not as big or urgent a problem. >> the kind that you are talking about that carry the sentences i think it could be an important role in the targeted approach to addressing the gun violence problem. >> thank you, senator. >> i thank the witnesses. this question of gun violence is

affected by changes in analytic approaches by the supreme court the end balance in the checks and balances that are essential to the well-being of our democracy. the historical approach that the supreme court is taking to the leader of the subcommittee is in my mind creating the significance, not potential but the reality of the court essentially bootstrapping opinions to get the result that it wants. and interfering in the legislative prerogatives and

responsibilities the legislature has to protect the well-being of its citizens. at the possession of a firearm within altered or removed serial numbers something is essential in the law enforcement investigations was unconstitutional and the reason why was we didn't have serial numbers in common use in 1791. it's the ultimate legislative body when it has the capacity to

address the challenges that it faces as a society. can you comment on that? >> sure. thank you. you talked about the legislative prerogatives and i've heard a lot of comments about policies but in some people's opinions work or don't work and traditionally conventionally that was what the legislative bodies focused on. one of the problems and concerns with the opinion is that in fact it's not modern legislative priorities that are most important for the constitutionality in the modern law. it's the legislative bodies over 200 years ago. this still shouldn't cause all gun laws to be struck down.

the court to set forth some standards and there's simply not specified enough to provide a lot of guidance, so one thing we are seeing including in the price case and others is they are emphasizing or deemphasizing the different facts and construing the history differently. then they are reaching different results in the same case. so with respect to the altered serial numbers for instance one of the things the supreme court said is that the courts have to compare modern and historical walls in light of how and why the modern walls impact on self-defense. it is unclear how the law that simply restricts somebody from removing the serial number has any impact on that person's ability to engage in armed self-defense. so, there are differences of opinion there and the opinions

are coming out and pointed in different ways and directions about what the second amendment means. >> let me just ask how does it affect you and of the discussion about law-abiding people, because you work with a lot of other people that are noticeable law-abiding and those that are with a temper and have a gun and a domestic partner. sometimes in that moment they are not so law-abiding. can you comment? >> we have talked a lot about individuals and all the arrests that it had. one of the things here you are innocent until proven guilty. you can have a lot of arrests, but the problems, convicted felons, people with the history, other types of violence whether it's a misdemeanor, those individuals with firearms, not

only to the community but to law enforcement and of the are very difficult and dangerous to deal with. >> my time is up. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator lee. >> thank you, mr. chair man. i do think it's important in the conversation we are not talking about legislative priorities we are talking about the provision of the constitution. it's different than a legislative priority when we get up to something we are making a law that is meant to stand the test of time. unless and until that amendment is removed or altered, it stands and it's the drop to interpret what that means. and that is exactly what happened here. i do think it is important, and i agree with senator walsh that it is very important that we always focus on the rights of the law-abiding and keep those in mind when we consider legislation and the legislative strategies. one of the things you can do,

the constitutional right involved, but really in any case where you are dealing with something that involves public safety, what are we doing that might make it more difficult for the law-abiding to defend and protect themselves? what is this legislation going to do to make us safer or less safe? it's important to remember a few dynamics that are well known with respect to the study of criminal offenses and advice that we have received from law enforcement officers. last week the dc police chief remarked, quote, if we really want to see homicides go down, keep the bad guys with guns in jail. he went on to say the average homicide suspect has been arrested 11 times prior to them committing a homicide. that is a problem. do you want to respond to that?

do you share this view that if we want to keep homicides down, we have to arrest, convict and detain those who are violent? >> i do share that with respect to the last part of that sort of playing to the detainment part. the failure to incapacitate 3 feet offenders has been at the core of the problem for a long time. if you look at the statistics of people charged with homicides or shootings you will see histories that involve multiple arrests and convictions and criminal justice statuses. until that changes we will continue to deal with of this problem especially given the fact that over the last ten years we have exacerbated it by interacting all kinds of efforts that have lowered the transaction cost of criminal offenses. whether we are talking about the reforms, discovery, sentencing reforms, decriminalization efforts, the electoral

prosecutor movement. all these things have come together to make it less likely that when individuals come before the court of law after being charged with a gun crime or serious offense it becomes less likely they will be prosecuted and incarcerated and then less likely that they will be there for a significant period of time. >> and as a case in point just recently the district of columbia council voted to reduce criminal penalties for a lot of the same offenses. at the same bad guys committing violent crimes with guns. and if so, it defies reason and logic to say that is not a problem when we know that is the source of the problem. it's also important for us to remember how the decision reached its conclusion and the constitutional reasoning on which it was based i find

especially helpful in the majority opinion in which reads as follows the right to bear arms for the self-defense is not the second-class right subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other guarantees. we know of no other constitutional right to an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers a special need. that is until the first amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech were the free exercise clause or protections with regards to the exercise to religion. it's not how the sixth amendment works when it comes to the right to confront the witnesses. and it's not how the second amendment works when it comes to public carry self-defense. do you agree with that assessment has a matter of constitutional reasoning and logic when dealing with crime?

>> i do. the second amendment especially with what we saw with of the new york framework was fundamentally treated and held to a different standard. you've essentially had millions of residents who were told regardless of what the text says you might have the right to keep but not to bear arms the second you leave your home which renders that inalienable natural right to self-defense on which the second amendment is based and so certainly for those residents in new york into the other states with those type of public three frameworks the rights were being treated and held to a second-class standard. >> i see my time is expired and as i wrap this up i want to emphasize again the second amendment isn't something new. yes it is old and it's been in place since 1791. that's a long time ago. it doesn't make it irrelevant to our time as we have seen time

increase i don't think it's ever been more relevant particularly when you look at those that were victimized, those who were work are at a competitive disadvantage with regard to size, strength, speed, wealth, assets, where they live in proximity to a police station and the availability of police officers who got there sooner or later to their home. this is moreover something that had its roots centuries before the american revolution. as we are in understood the terms it's not an exaggeration. this is not a modern-day rewriting of a piece of the constitution. this is the correct application. and one that is right. thank you, mr. chair man. >> thank you, senator lee. next up is senator klobuchar. >> thank you mr. chair man. and thank you. i had other hearings into things going on, but i caught up on

your testimony and i just want to thank you all for being here. one of my focuses has been on domestic violence. for too long domestic abuse was considered a family affair and they would say what happened in the house didn't have to come into the courthouse. we all know times have changed with passage of the domestic violence bill, the reauthorization of it many times, but we also know that when a gun is present in the home and women in abusive situations are five times more likely to be killed, which is why he is a part of the gun safety belt and the bipartisan basis, we put in a version of the bill that i've been working on with senator hirono and others for years to make sure people that are convicted can't

go out and buy a gun the next day. as a survivor yourself, can you say more about the dangerous connection between domestic violence and gun violence and then i just, you could add onto that your concern about the decision and what that will mean. >> thank you so much for the question. the concern of course is that what i stated earlier that victims will feel less safe because there is the idea that at a minimum if i felt like i could do something about it now i can't, i can't get the gun removed. a second, i would say that we are also talking about abusive person feeling a bit more freedom to take that time to pull the trigger on the gun when this domestic violence by them. what we are seeing is widespread

confusion and concern about this particular ruling and what it will mean to the future. as we all know domestic violence victims very seldom if at all call law enforcement simply because of the already present a danger particularly when there is a firearm in the home. the concern is quite market right now what this will mean outside of that circuit. >> i know you mentioned this in your testimony. do you want to add anything? >> thanks for the question. with domestic violence and firearms it is a lethal cocktail. you stated the statistics women are five times more likely to be cold when there's a firearm in the home with domestic violence. with that there is also the danger towards law enforcement and the greater community so we need to really look at

protecting those domestic violence restraining orders in order to ensure that women or other victims are protected and we remove those firearms from the already volatile situations. >> i know that you are an expert on this, so my state has passed a number of common sense gun safety laws to prevent convicted felons, fugitives from justice and convicted stockers and domestic abusers from getting a gun and we also have a very strong tradition of hunting it is a big part of the rights with legal gun owners and people that are law abiding, but yet we have been able to differentiate those that shouldn't have a gun who have broken the law and of those that have not so can you talk about how the decision complicates efforts by state and local governments to protect

public safety? >> thank you. so, california has a program called -- which identifies individuals that legally purchased a firearm and subsequent to that became prohibited due to a mental health issue or restraining order or some kind of act of violence. it's been a very successful program identifying people who no longer have the ability to possess firearms because of an act that they've done or a mental health issue. it doesn't deal with individuals who are law abiding so with of those things in mind you look at this and again i'm not an attorney i'm looking at this from a law enforcement perspective. that could muddy the waters with you might be having a restraining order and removed because of some act going back to 1791. things were different in 1791 van they are today.

>> last question. professor in your dissent in the case in his defense, you didn't have a dissent, you probably were thinking of one. in the dissent in the case which was justice breyer was joined by justices soto mayor he asked this question will the courts approach and permit the judges to reach the outcomes they prefer and cloak those outcomes in the language of history. based on the cases that have recently apprised, how would you answer the question? >> history doesn't speak with one voice when it comes to the tradition of the firearms regulation. one of the risks that we are seeing right now in the way that lower courts are addressing the constitutional questions after that opinion came down is that the courts are picking and choosing different laws to

emphasize the construing differently the reading of history at different levels of generality and pointing opposite directions about what the constitution means, so without more clarification about how exactly to do the test, there is a risk that opinions will, quote in history be subjective. >> all right. i will ask the rest of my follow-up questions on the many on the loophole bills and laws and implications of these cases on that. but i will do that on the record because i know my colleagues are ready to ask. senator blackburn. >> thank you, mr. chair man. we appreciate so much that you are here. it's an important conversation to have, and we are grateful for your testimony. the chair man said he just

couldn't square why some people would purchase guns or have guns. but i can to square is why we have prosecutors and judges that are letting criminals back out on the streets and not holding people who have committed crimes. that's letting people who shouldn't have a gun get a gun. so, let me ask, let me start with you. do you know who jack is? >> actually, i do not. >> okay. elijah dickens? >> i'm not really a name person, so no. >> let me tell you these are both good samaritans that exercised the right to carry a firearm and as a result were able to intervene during a mass shooting one in texas and one in

indiana and they saved untold lives. these are the law-abiding citizens that we want to be carrying guns and whose ride too do so is protected. what about tyree reynolds? >> they are familiar to me but not in detail. >> they were using firearms into then released back to their community as a result of the radical left soft on crime policies. so they went on to participate

in shootings. one of these individuals left a child dead. so, this is the disparity. it is outrageous. absolutely outrageous. instead of prosecuting violent criminals who are committing these crimes that many on the left are focused on criminalizing the gun ownership for law-abiding citizens. violent crime is raging across this country. we hear about it and communities. every year i visited with each of our counties in the state of tennessee. i visit with law enforcement in those counties. what we hear is with gangs proliferating, with drugs

flooding this country because of cartels, because of that open border, crime is on the rise. there seems to be tension though from my colleagues across the aisle to restrict self-defense options. senator graham talked about this at the outset. this is a right. at the second amendment is a right. senator lee just mentioned it is the only right that you've got to go talk to a local official and get a license in order to exercise that right. but we have plenty of people that are alive today because jack wilson and elijah chose to exercise that right. and in exercising that right,

they saved a lot of lives during a time with a mass shooting event. and we ought not have people that try to restrict self-defense options for good samaritans. they should be spending their time trying to get violent criminals off the street. i'd like to come to you for a moment. i lead an amicus brief last month to dispute the law suit challenging the rule. this imposes potential criminal liability for exercising the second rights. it claims that this rule is necessary because they transform into a short bill rifle.

now when i'm back at home in tennessee and i am talking with a lot of our veterans and our disabled combat veterans, they talk to me about why they rely on these to be able to operate a firearm and operate that gun so can you explain how our disabled combat veterans use pistol braces and the impact of that it would have on their ability to exercise the second amendment rights? >> senator, thank you for that question. they were again such a way that you understand a handgun which generally speaking you can hold with one hand. a lot of these disabled veterans cannot use that for an example as an additional stabilizer. basically they have trouble using that with one hand.

it extends the a lot of them and allows the person to brace it or to even strap it to give additional stability. >> so it is a safety mechanism. >> it stabilizes a handgun. >> and to the extent of someone is not disabled they would have a plethora of other options again whether this is a criminal for example they don't need to rely. if they can just use a handgun or a fork example a rifle. this is something that is beneficial to law-abiding but disabled citizens and it may be people that are not disabled but that is primarily a benefit to them while at the same time would be criminal to the plethora of alternatives that accomplish. >> thank you, mr. chair man. >> thank you, senator blackburn.

i want to thank the chair durbin and ranking member graham for holding this hearing. there is no denying that we have a gun violence epidemic in the united states of america. when gun violence becomes the leading cause of death in america i know it becomes a household name because across the country because of a tragedy we have a moral obligation to act. just yesterday i joined president biden in monterey park california to meet with of the community that is still grieving from a mass shooting that took the lives of 11 people and a dance studio on the eve of the lunar new year. i was pleased to see the executive action that will make our community safer and will save lives.

but i think we all acknowledged including the president that the executive actions have addressed gun violence do not absolve us of our duty as legislators. last congress the committee held 11 hearings on common sense steps to reduce gun violence and we know the overwhelming public support that these measures have. but as we gather here today, after america suppressed 100 mass shootings in the calendar year that is a tragedy by the first week of march. and americans are watching from home asking when will congress step up and do something. so i'm committed to finding a path forward to work with whoever is willing on the other side of the aisle to end of the epidemic of gun violence in our

country. my first question as a program manager for the initiative is a former law enforcement officer you spent a good part of your career on gun violence. it created a system for requiring background checks for gun purchases from licensed dealers and yesterday president biden announced a new order directing the attorney general to ensure that they are following existing laws concerning the background checks. highlighting the role they have in the proliferation of guns in the communities. are you concerned that it will lead to looser gun laws and in particular surrounding the legislation of firearms and undermine the efforts to improve safety? >> thank you for the question,

senator. absolutely. again i'm not an attorney so i can see the future when it comes to legal issues. it didn't go far enough back in the '90s, so we have to look at the universal background checks and something california put in place as a successful weight. we also look at limiting if not outlining the purchases of the assault weapons to -- >> i don't mean to make light of the fact that we hear from a lot of attorneys in this committee. there's a lot of attorneys on the committee. but i do want to uplift your perspective with your law enforcement experience to this conversation. he has a former law enforcement officer you've experienced epidemic of gun violence

firsthand and i think you would agree it was a high-profile example of the epidemic we have in this country and surrounding that one instance they experienced at least two more. in your opinion, what role does the availability of the large capacity ammunition magazines and semi automatic assault weapons play in the gun violence plaguing the nation? >> we've seen far too many victims and mass shootings and when you look at the assault weapons coupled with the high-capacity magazines it makes it difficult if you look at how many people can be shot in that timeframe with of the 30 round

magazine as compared to the ten round magazine and instances in california they had a lower capacity magazine they had fewer victims but individuals have to wait until the person reloads until they engage and try to disarm the individual. it's between ten and 30 round and 50 or 100 rounds. at this point i will turn over to senator blumenthal for questions. >> thank you all for being here. thank you to the advocates who joined us. and i want to thank the other members of the committee for their steadfast support of measures that. that epidemic of gun violence.

it's made more difficult in ways that we have no way of knowing at this point because it remains a frightening obstacle to have common sense measures. i could talk about a great many of them, but i want to focus on safe storage laws named after a young man who was killed when he was shot. he was a teenager at the time and the firearm had been stored in a tupperware box along the ammunition and the key to the gun lock.

with at least one loaded gun an estimated 54% of gun owners don't lock all of their guns securely and requires that they be safely stored. it doesn't away or look at who owns the gun. it doesn't provide a ban on any type of gun. it simply says if you have a gun, you should save and safely store. i would like to ask whether that kind of law would be constitutional under the courts reasoning that there has to be some historical analog on which

any kind of law is based under the second amendment. >> thank you, senator. there's a lot of uncertainty right now about how it will apply including that one. they fared very well in the courts into the question will be first whether or not the storage and the second amendment that's an open question. and whether or not they have historical analogs and it's a challenging one. this is a good example of the challenge the courts have now. they were not kept loaded because of the risk of misfire. they are in the city of boston

and other places. it was a different time with the different problems and back then the problems that existed it will depend on how the courts look to the historical walls on the boston safe storage wall. but it is for sure that the court did say the regulation is still permissible under the standard. >> your plant is very important that in analog it means exactly that that it doesn't have to be exactly the same. the safe storage of the

materials used in the firearms or firing weapons perhaps provided that kind of analog. in fact gun deaths surpass any kind of death. gun violence is the most common cause in the united states and an estimated unintentionally injured and an un- safely stored firearms of the risk may be different, but the analog is the same and so far that says the risk could be taken into account. >> that is correct in terms of how the courts are going to have to apply in light of the circumstances and one of the problems i've seen the opinion that have come out of the decision is they are looking for debt ringers.

that a load of courts are sidestepping the analytical and looking for debt ringers that is and how the reasoning works. they are going to have to be viewed at a high level of generality flexibly. >> thank you for having the hearing. i'm going to continue to advocate at the federal level and other measures that i've introduced here trying to encourage the courts to interpret expensively because it is a matter of life and death and i commend the president for taking the action he did yesterday. >> thank you mr. blumenthal. the roll call vote on the floor so members have to make the roll call and make the hearing and others at the same time.

it's not a display of self-respect it's the reality of our frantic lives in the session. if you use the same standard of the analog we have a hearing coming up on social media and i'm trying to imagine how we would do such in light of the first amendment speech and press and what we would be guided by in the state in which social isn 1791 or it's ridiculous on its face. the court has the particular view of the constitution whether the court is buying it in this instance. do you remember the end goal not the good reason the historic analog but the real reason?

>> i don't know about the intentions of the justices obviously. one of the things that happened is the doctrine from the first amendment cases in the jurisprudence repeatedly and the first amendment context we do not decide cases on the basis of history alone. history is one inputs with the contemporary costs and benefits. to your point about social media, the supreme court said for instance child pornography is not protected expression under the first amendment and the arriving of the decision they were not looking for analogs in the founding generations. this is a unique test that is put forth for the second amendment. ..

in these prim courtroom ones of the second amendment is to withstand the test of time and change over time. the question right now is how to do the bruen analogical exercise in a way that will respect the reality of the fact that things are very different back in the 1790s and they are today. a lot of the probably high with firearms and weapons today it would have on imaginable as a founding. of course they were legislating on these issues.

to draw analogies now. >> one of our founding fathers would've reflected on chilling milestone as we surpassed 100 mass shootings a little over a week ago. that is more than one a day. we ended last year 647 mass shootings which means four people were shot or killed in an incident. six and 47 after almost two a day in more than 44000 people overall killed by gunfire. it appears the proliferation that is what i witnessed many times over. i thank you all for being here today. i think your testimony at the hearing will stay up for a week for questions. thank you for participating in the hearing sands adjourned.

[background noises]