we're going to take a break and when we come back, our aiferration participants will convene in their breakout rooms to discuss concrete actions that we might take to enhance safety even further. for those of you who will be participating in the afternoon sessions, the cafeteria is open and staffed, or you can find someplace of your choosing nearby. we'll resume our meetings promptly at 1:30. to the news media and others, we appreciate, we truly appreciate your attendance this morning. because we want the afternoon sessions to be as truthful as possible. the breakout sessions will be available only to aviation industry participants. the f.a.a.'s office of communications will provide a readout at the end of today that summarizes the overall direction

of the conversations as well as any other updates that we might be able to provide. billy indicated earlier that this is only the beginning of what we expect to be an ongoing conversation and we look forward to keeping you and the american people informed. i just want to take one point of privilege here and thank all of those from the f.a.a. and other organizations who helped put this program together this morning and who will continue to do what we need to do to address the whole issue of aviation safety as we move forward. thank you. thank you for attending this morning. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. the impacf

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 this is a closed captioning test. this is a closed captioning test. this is a closed captioning test. this is a closed captioning test. this is a closed captioning test. violence incidents have you 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 thank you for the question, senator. i think, overall, morale is decreasing. >> yeah, and there's probably a lot of reasons for that, but it's harder to get people into law enforcement now.

i'd like to work with people to try to change that. mr. reuben, do you agree with the decision that, in terms of the second amendment to be an individual right, is that a good legal decision? >> yes, sir. >> you do? >> miss glen, your experience was terrible. your husband, former husband, had been charged with armed robbery. had he been convicted of armed robbery? i don't know -- >> yes, many years before the incident, yes. >> and he had actually been charged with kidnapping you two before the shooting? >> yes, months before the incident. >> here's my point. senator cornyn has shows a way to work on responsible gun ownership limitations, and i don't think there's anything in this case that says common sense doesn't prevail, but this -- are important, in my view. miss chairman, it reinforce the

idea that 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 could do is and, to the extent possible, the revolving door policies that allow people time and time again to come back out on the streets, hurt their fellow citizens. in this situation, i would just add in conclusion, the reason so many people are buying guns is because they've lost faith in their government to protect them. >> thank you senator graham, senator whitehouse. >> thank you chairman, thank you to the witnesses for being here. professor reuben, the history and tradition of fact finding in the american usual system is that it's done at the trial

court level. where the rare challenge, successful challenge to the very tough, clearly erroneous standard, is made on appeal. then, an ordinary way to resolve that is to send the case back to the district court for a fact finding, where fact-finding belongs. i've had a hearing in my courts subcommittee on this supreme court's recent pensions for a -- fact finding. some of the prominent cases have been shelby county, where they made the finding that no one had anything to worry about from the freed legislatures that conditions have changed, and then of course, immediately, you saw a case come up in which federal judges said, this is targeted, it was surgical precision at minority voters.

clearly discrediting the spontaneous fact finding by the court. citizens united was another one, they said that, don't worry about it, all the unlimited spending we're going to unleash is independent of candidates and it's going to be transparent. a couple of billion dollars of dark money, not transparent funding later, we know perfectly well that that fact finding was false. so, this seems to be an increasing trend, and 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 said that is junk history, that is not real. it did not come up through any kind of an adversarial process. it was not tested in the different layers of review, it was just made up by the supreme court justices.

could you talk a little bit about the danger serves of fact finding in terms of how it permits ambitious and activists courts to run a bit wild if they're not constrained any longer to facts as found through the judicial history and tradition of fact-finding and lower courts an adversarial process. >> thank you, senator. bruin has transformed the way that litigation looks. transformed from before bruen was decided, a more conventional approach applied. now one of the things that we're seeing was the historians are getting retained by the parties, in fact the courts themselves, are asking litigates whether or not they should retain their own independent historian to help them parse the historical facts. one of the challenges that

comes up, as you mentioned, is what happens on appeal. especially if a court on appeal is due to historical fact finding that subsequently is determined to be erroneous. the lower codes courts are then bound by that his erroneous historical determination, when ordinarily, there would be -- appeal and challenges. this is transforming in the way that litigation is looking. >> i think it needs to transform a good deal because, if you have an appellate decision that stands on what -- false facts, and the appellate court hasn't gone back and cleaned up it's clear error, then it becomes incumbent on the lower courts to take a look at that and see if it really makes sense -- marinas and says it's a drop of the supreme court to decide what the law in. it has no particular expertise with respect to the facts.

in fact, it's probably the worst part of government to make a decision about the facts, considering the constraints on briefing and so forth. thank you for that observation. the other thing that was noticeable about bruen is that 12 nra funded and mickey showed up. the funding disclosures of the supreme court have been a continuing source of frustration. the judicial conference is now looking at the, and i hope putting out a report fairly soon, but what is the danger if other parties in the public and the judges don't have a true and accurate description of who was really behind and amicus group that shows up in court, particularly as regards to coordination with multiple unlucky. >> senator, i think it's important to understand who is filing different briefs, just in terms of assessing whether or not there's any particular bias he's with the briefs that

are getting files. >> motive matters, right? thanks, chairman. >> thank you, senator. senator grassley. thank you mister chairman. thanks all the witnesses for being here that discuss this very important issue. we're going to start with mr. mango l. last year, i held a funeral hearing in a while for the drug crock is that i cold -- white house. at that hearing, the iowa department public safety commissioner said that 42% of the murders that occurred in des moines in the last two years had a tie to drug trafficking. i'm interested in your view on a national base, how does drug trafficking factor into increase what we've seen in violent crime? >> i think drug enforcement certainly can play an important role in the provision of public safety, and one of the main reasons for that is there's a substantial overlap speaking the people involved in the drug trade and people who are --

gun violence that we're here to talk about today. one of the statistics that comes to mind when this point is the cystic out of the city of baltimore, which in 2018, reported 118 homicides suspects identified from the year 2017, seven in ten had at least one prior drug arrest in their criminal histories. if you look at the -- data at the national level of bureau of statistics, often, reports on longitudinal analysis looking at the rate of recidivism for people who are -- drug offenses. 75% of them will be re-arrested for at least one non drug offense and more than a third will be arrested for assyrians violent offense, specifically. so, if you talk to law enforcement, what we'll tell you is, they view drug enforcement as a way to pretext really attached violent crime. taking that shoe off the table or minimizing it has been done in the criminal justice policy over the years. i think it'll be significantly detrimental to our overall strategy to reducing gun violence. >> also, to what extent is the

rise of violent crime connected with gangs or overnight criminal activity? >> gangs significantly drive violent crime numbers. at least gun crime, in these pockets of concentrated violence that i talked about in my testimony. if you look at places like the south and west side of chicago, the southwestern district of baltimore, certain precincts and cities like detroit and st. louis, what you'll see is that gang members, or crew members are significant drivers of the violence -- in my home city of new york as well. identifying those individuals and signaling them out for prosecution can be an effective strategy. there is one study done by an individual named eric chalfants who is a criminology professor at the university of pennsylvania on position policing in new york city. what that study found is that gang suites prosecutions -- significant, i think almost 80% reduction in shootings, over the time period of the study, which shows that if you are able to target your law

enforcement resources at the small number of actors in the tight-knit social networks that drive gun violence, you can have a -- safety picture. >> last fall, the fbi releases 2021 crime cystic's. those statistics show that the number of murders increased from 2020 to 2021 by four and three tenths percent. that's on top of the 29% increase, 2019 to 2020. so, do you mister mangual, that's a steep increase in violent crime, but is it true that the rates of violent crime has affected some communities more than others? and as an example, african american communities. >> that's exactly right. the homicide victimization rate for african american males is about ten times that for the right is our white male counterparts. you know, in my home city of new york, new york city police department has been keeping data on gun violence and gun

violence victimization since at least 2008 in a systematic way. every single year, for which we have data, a minimum of 94% of all shooting victims in that city are either black or latino. i can assure you that blacks and latinos are not constitute anywhere close to 95% in new york city's population. just to really hit the point home on the geographic concentration point, which i think is really important to understand, in any given city in america, somewhere around 5% of streets a maze we'll see about 50% of all the violence. in my home city of new york, about three and a half percent of streets against d.c. 2% of all violent crime. about 40% of street say when some see any violent crime whatsoever. just to really bring the point home with an example out of the city of chicago, the ten most dangerous neighborhoods in that city in 2019 had a collective homicide rate of 61 per 100,000. collectively, the population of neighborhoods was 95% black and hispanic. if you take the 28th safest communities in that city, that same year, the homicide rate was less than two per 100,000. this is a problem that

disproportionately effects of communities than others and we should keep that in mind. it should also be a source of comfort to know that we don't have to take a -- approach to enforcement cities adopt well. we can target our post because data tell us very clearly that a small number of individuals drive this problem. >> mister chairman, could i ask a very short chairman of mr. -- can you tell us what the fastest growing group of gun orders in america's? >> my understanding, senator, is that that is specifically black women. >> thank you, mister chairman. >> let me add, since we're displaying your expertise on chicago that i know a little bit about that. i would say, poverty is an important overlay in this question and it applies to hispanic neighborhoods as well as black neighborhoods. i also think that if you're looking at the general population of chicago, you'll find that violent gun crime is

now reaching beyond those areas into other neighborhoods because of social media and many other aspects. there's a lot more to the story than what you just said. senator roanoke. >> thank you, mister chairman. in 2020, hawaii had the lowest gun death rates and the third lowest rates of gun ownership in the entire country. prior to bruen, why e, police departments only issued for licenses to carry in the past two decades, following the court's decision, however, police departments across all counties in hawaii have become issuing licenses. as of december 2022, hawaii county has issued 89 concealed gun licenses and -- has issued 18. between 15,000 to 60,000 people are expected to apply for a concealed carry permit and upcoming years. state and local officials have expressed concerns that lacks gun laws may lead to a rise in

violent crime. consequently, county police departments have implemented stronger requirements for applicants seeking licenses to carry. state and local legislators have also introduced gun safety measures, including enacted law in hawaii county, designating sensitive places, such as churches, where firearms are prohibited. however, gun owners have say it is their intent to challenge these gun legislations in court. in september 2022, the national association for gun rights, and asi, and a.g. are, filed a lawsuit against the state of a y seeking to overturn the states ban on assault pistols and large capacity magazines. the nagr is seeking to challenge the constitutionality of these laws under the courts new framework in bruen the organization had filed six other lawsuits against state and cities, with assault rifle

or large capacity magazine bans. so, question for mr. lindley, do you think the concern over the thousands and thousands of applicants who will now apply for licenses in hawaii, and this this could be to a rise in violent crime, is not a misplaced concern? do you agree with the concern of long for students in hawaii? >> i do agree with those concerns, senator. if you just looked at morgan's equal safety, there's over 400 million firearms in the united states. if that is the case, we should be the safest country in the world. so, more guns is not the answer to safety. >> i agree with you, and this is sussex i pointed to in hawaii where we have some of the strictest gun safety laws, and there is a cause in effect as to the use of guns in hawaii and in violence adjurations. >> miss glenn, you spent almost 30 years as an advocate for

violence victims and now testified today on the impact of bruen on the intimate partner of violence. just last month, the fifth circuit in the first major case to apply bruen found that portion of the violence against women act that prohibited the position of fire arms by those subject to certain domestic violence restraining orders violated the second amendment. this kind of restriction was once a covid since a -- violent abusers. how will interpretations of bruen, like this one in the fifth circuit will make it harder to protect victims of domestic violence. >> thank you so much for the question. i think we go back to my recent 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 firearm

removed from the situation so that i am safer, safer is very very critical. >> i'd say under bruen, there's no historical basis for removal of firearm in those circumstances. a really found it instructive that you said that this decision is transforming the way litigation is looking and historians are being retained in cases. justice barrett in bruen over that the flaw of historical approaches the second amendment and the interpretation of the constitution is that originalism is far from scientific. i would agree with that, and some ego she went ahead and entered with the majority opinion in that case. i want to ask you, professor bruen, you examine new york's -- require gun owners to have express permission from property owners to carry guns

onto their private property, including homes, restaurants, offices and entertainment venues. do you think a lot like that would stood -- >> so, senator, that law is currently the subject of litigation, some adverse decisions currently on appeal. there is a fundamental right to keep to bear arms, but it's important to recognize that there is also a fundamental right to private property. there's nothing in the constitution that says that the right to keep and bear arms have to trump the private property rights of other people. and so, one of the things of that law in new york does is it switches the default private property owners always have the ability to exclude people who are carrying again if they don't want that person on there. all it does it's which the default about who has to ask who about the private property owners preferences. >> i applaud new york for their

approach, and by the way, before hillary, which is a 2008 decision, there was no win -- for individuals to own guns and also to own whatever the guns they wanted. we heller is a 2008 decision, how did we get along with the second amendment before then, i say. thank you, mister chairman. >> thank you senator, hirono. >> thank you -- i appreciate illegal someone are as much as anybody, but what i'd like to see, whether we can get some agreement on some basic principles. first of all, the miss wearer, do you believe a law abiding citizen is -- because they exercise their second amendment rights to keep and bear arms? >> so physically, no, senator. law-abiding citizens are not a threat to public safety, they are overwhelmingly not

responsible as a driving force between criminal gun violence. >> one area that we're in this very -- one 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 are prohibited under existing law from purchasing or possessing firearms, many people with criminal convictions, people with mental health commitments and the like, this has been a war area where we have been able to find some consensus. the couple of yards ago, we passed a bill called fix next, which is after the sutherland spring shooting, where the air force that failed to upload criminal convictions of the shooter into the dick's background check system. several of us went recently to clarksburg, west virginia, to see how the fbi is conducting

background check system that it is pretty impressive. more recently, as the chairman mentioned, or others mentioned, we were able to find some common ground on the bipartisan safer communities act. tagain, in an area where it's hard to find much common ground. i just want to update my colleagues on exactly what has happened so far with this, for example, the it hands background check for gun purchasers between the age of 18 and 21. unfortunately, it's a cohort of individuals who are disproportionately impacted by this profile, disproportionately -- a part of a profile that characterizes shooters from and

a lands and sandy hook, through the shooter in new validly more recently. using the enhanced background check authority that congress pass to the bipartisan safer communities act, so far, the background check system has identified 101 potential transactions where juvenile records, which are now subject to the background check system, have disclosed individuals who have -- are either convicted felons, drug users, or those with mental health -- otherwise, had they've been an adult previous that statute, would have already been prohibited from purchasing a firearm. at the same time, 98.5%, 98.5% of the national criminal background check transactions are unaffected by the barr's -- safer communities act.

focused on that cohort, that each cohort that was disproportionately represented in some of the mass shootings that we've seen around the country. it seems to be working. likewise, some of the additional penalties that we've included for -- purchasing a fire arms and trafficking in firearms, has led to 30 indictments, so far, just in the brief few months it's been in effect. indictments of gang members, cartel members and other violent criminals. mr. mangual, let me ask you, i thought you made a really important point about how, what parts of the communities are affected by gun violence and others that are not as effected as dramatically, and how communities of color and where there's lower income levels are

disproportionately affected. you're familiar, i'm sure, with project safe neighborhood, are you not? >> no, i don't think i am. >> okay. it will project safe neighborhoods is a targeted effort, would you seem to allude to there, where you go after targeted enforcement of convicted felons and people who cannot legally possess firearms and you prosecute those cases using the minimum mandatory sandal under federal law to keep those individuals off the streets. is that a sort of targeted effort that you think might address this, what you identified in terms of where this is a big problem and where it's not as big or as urgent a problem. >> i, do the kind of prohibited processors laws -- significant sentences, i think it would be really important to a targeted approach to addressing the gun violence problem. >> thank you.

>> thank you senator cornyn, senator welch. >> thank you, mister chairman. i think the witnesses. you know, this question of gun violence, it's really being affected by changes in analytic approach by the supreme court. the changes in the analytic support by the supreme court, in my view, has resulted in a significant threat to the legislative prerogatives. in a imbalance, in the checks and balance that are so essential to the well-being of our democracy. the historical approach that the supreme court is taking to many as a senator white house courses, the leader of the subcommittee has been a leader on this, in my mind, is creating the significant, not

potential, but the significant reality of the court, essentially, food shopping opinions to get to the result that it once. and interviewing in the legislative prerogatives and responsibilities that a legislator help to protect the well-being of its citizens. this historical approach, i want to ask you about, mister professor, you've been talking about it. it's leading to some of these anomalies where, things at the lower codes are deciding in response of this seems to me to make no sense what whoever. i'll just give a specific example, the united states, the -- prohibiting possession of a firearm. with an altered or it glittery did or move serial number, something is essential in law enforcement investigation was unconstitutional, and the reason was, we didn't have serial numbers that weren't in common use in 1971.

the way i react to that is, the court is the ultimate legislative body when it has the capacity to, essentially, wave away the rights of the people of this country through their elected representatives to address challenges that it faces as a society. can you come in on that? >> sure, thank you. you talked about legislative prerogatives and, indeed, there's a hearing i heard a lot of comments about policies that, in some people's opinions, work or don't work. traditionally, conventionally, that was what legislative bodies focused on. one of the problems and concerns with the bruin opinion is that the bruin opinion says that, in fact, it's not modern legislative priorities that are most important for assessing the constitutionality of modern

law, assessing modern problems, it's the legislative priorities of legislative bodies over 200 years ago. now, this still shouldn't cause all gun laws to be struck down. the court set forth some standards, they're simply not specified enough to provide a lot of guidance. one of the things we see in the lower courts, including the price case and others, is the courts are emphasizing or de emphasizing different historical facts. their history wing -- then the reaching different results in the same case. with respect to altered sewer numbers, for instance, one of the things the spring court said is that modern courts have to compare modern historical laws in light of how and why modern laws impact arm self. well, it's unclear how the law that simply restricts somebody

from removing a serial number has any impact on that person's ability to engage in armed self defense. so, there are differences of opinions there, and the opinions are coming out in different ways, different directions, about what the second amendment means. let me just ask mr. lindley, are you working in law enforcement, how does it affect you? there is discussion about law-abiding people aren't the problem, we all agree with that, it makes sense. but you deal with a lot of other people who aren't so law abiding and also law-abiding people who have a temper and who have a gun and have a domestic partner. sometimes, in that moment, they're not so law-abiding. can you comment? >> so, we've talked a lot about individuals and all the rest they've had. one of the things we've had in the united states is, you are innocent until proven guilty. you can have a lot of arrests.

but, individual mental health problems, convicted felons, people with a history of other types of violence, whether it is a two misdemeanor, those individuals with firearms is a, it's a poisonous cocktail, not only to the community, but to law enforcement -- >> thank you. my time is up. thank you, i yield back mister chairman. >> thank you senator welch, senator lindsey. >> thank you, mister chairman. i do think it's important i'm not talking about legislative priorities from 200 years ago, we're talking about revision of the constitution. it's different than a legislative priority. we adopt something into the constitution, we're making a law that's meant to stand this test of time, unless until that amendment is removed or altered, it stands. it's a job as a court to interpret what that means. that's exactly what happened here. i do think it is important, and

i really was senator wells that it's a very important, we always focus on the rights of the law and keep those in mind whenever we consider legislation or legislative strategies here. one of the worst things that you can do, particularly for a constitutional right is involved, but really, in any case when you're dealing with something that involves public safety's. 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. in, with respect to advice that we received from season law enforcement officers. just last week, d.c. police chief, robert conte -- if we really want to see homicides go down, keep bad

guys with guns in jail. he went on to say, right now, the average homicide suspect has been arrested 11 times prior to them committing a homicide. that's a problem, mr. mangual, 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 the view, especially with respect to the last part of that. you know, sort of playing the detainment part. the failure to incapacitate repeat offenders is at the core of america's gun violence problem, has been for a long time. if you look at statistics on people who are charged with homicides are shootings, you will never truly see long criminal history is the norval multiple arrests, multiple convictions, and active criminal justice statuses. until that changes, we're gonna continue to deal with this problem, especially given the fact that over the last ten years we've exacerbated, by

enacting all kinds of reform efforts that have, again, lowered the transaction costs of criminal offending in important ways. whether we're talking about bill reforms, discovery reforms, sentencing reforms, decriminalization efforts, the electoral success of the progressive prosecutor movement, all these things have come together to make it less likely that when individuals come before a court of law, after being charged with a gun crime or some other kind of serious offense, becomes less likely that they will be prosecuted, and incarcerated. and if prosecuted and incarcerated, less likely 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. the same bad guys committing violent crimes with guns. so, it defies reason and logic to say that that is not a problem. we know that is the source of the problem.

it's also important for us to remember how -- decision reached its conclusion. and the constitutional restraint on which it was based. i find, especially helpful, the penultimate paragraph in the majority opinion. it reads as follows. quote, the constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not a second class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other bill of rights guarantees. we know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise, only after demonstrating the government officers, some special need. it is not how the first amendment works. when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise clause or protections with the guard for exercise of religion, it's not how the sixth amendment works when it comes to a defendants right to confront the witnesses against him. it's not how the second amendment works when it comes

to public carrying for self-defense. -- do you agree with that assessment? both as a matter of constitutional reasoning and a matter of logic when dealing with crime? >> senator, i absolutely do. with the second amendment, especially in what we saw with new york's framework was fundamentally treated and held to a different standard. he was essentially had millions of residents who were told, regardless of what the text says, you might have a right to keep, you don't have a right to bear arms the second you leave your home, this renders toothless that unalienable national right to self defense on which the second amendment is based. so, certainly for those residents in new york and the seven other states with those types of public carry frameworks, their rights were being treated and held to a second class standard. >> i see my time has expired. as i wrap this up, i just want

to emphasize, again, the second amendment isn't something new. yes, it is old, it has been in place since 1791, that is a long time ago. it doesn't make it relevant to our time. the fact is, as we've seen crime increase, i don't think it's ever been more relevant. particularly when you look at those who were victimized, those who 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 could come either sooner or later to their home. this is moreover something that had its roots centuries before the american revolution. well understood terms, not an exaggeration, not a modern-day rewriting of a piece of the constitution. this is a correct application and one that is right.

thank you, mister chairman. >> thank you, senator lee. next up is senator -- >> thank you very much, mister chairman. and thank you, i had other hearings and things going on, but i caught up on your testimony and i just want to thank you all for being here in this important hearing and thank the chair for calling it. one of my focuses on guns has been on domestic violence for too long domestic abuse was considered a family affair. they would say, what happened in the house didn't have to come into the courthouse. we all know times have changed with the 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, women in abusive situations are five times more likely to be killed. which is why as part of the gun safety bill in the bipartisan basis, we put in a version of a

bill that i've been working on a senator ronald others for years. this is to make sure that people that are convicted of domestic abuse can't go out and buy a gun the next day. as a survivor yourself, miss glenn, can you say more about the dangerous connection between domestic violence and gun violence. and then, you could add on to that, just your concern about the bruin decision and what that will mean. go ahead. >> thank you so much for the question. the concern, of course, is that, what i stated earlier, which is that victims will feel less safe, there is the idea that at minimum, when and if i felt like i could do something about it, now, i cannot. i cannot get the gun removed. secondly, i would say that we

are also talking about abusive persons feeling more freedom to take a few seconds to pull the trigger on a gun when there's domestic violence presents by them. what we're seeing is widespread confusion, widespread 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 -- particularly when there's a fireman home. the concern is really quite market right now what this will mean outside of via circuit. okay, and i know mr. lilly, eventually this in your testimony, do you want to add anything? >> thank you for the question, it's a domestic violence and firearms, it's a lethal cocktail. you already stated that women's

are five times more likely to be killed when there is a fire arm in the home with domestic violence. it's also a 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 an already volatile situation. >> and, i know you are also an expert on this, so, my state has passed a number of common sense gun safety laws, which prevent convicted felons, fugitives from justice, and convicted stalkers and domestic abusers from getting a gun we. also have this very strong tradition of hunting, it is a big part of our life with legal gun owners and people who are law-abiding. but yes, we've been able to differentiate those that

shouldn't have a gun, who have broken the law, and those that have not. so, can you talk about how the bruen complicates efforts by state and local government to protect local safety? >> thank you, so, california has a program called the arm prohibit or -- who identifies individuals who at one time purchase a four arm, but subsequent to that purchase became prohibited, due to mental health, a restraining order, or some type of active violence. that has been a very successful program, identifying people who no longer have the ability to possess firearms because an act that they've done or a mental health issue. it doesn't deal with individuals who are still law abiding. so, with those things combined, you look at bruen and i'm not an attorney, i look at this from a law enforcement

perspective, that can muddy the waters with who might be having the restraining orders removed because of some acts going back to 1791. things are far different in 1790 ones in the or today. >> one last question, professor ruben, in your dissent in the bruen case, in his dissent, you didn't have a descend, you probably were thinking one, in the dissent in the bruen case which was -- justices kagan, and, he asked this question, he asked, will the courts approach permit judges to reach the outcomes they prefer and then cloaked those outcomes in the language of history. based on the cases that have recently applied to bruen, how would you answer justice breyer's question. >> the history does not speak with one voice when it comes to the tradition of firearms regulation.

one of the big risk of bruen that we are seeing right now, in the way that lower courts are addressing constitutional questions after that opinion came down last june, is that courts are picking and choosing historical laws to and the size, they're construing them differently, they're -- and they're pointing in opposite directions about what the constitution means, so, was at work or if occasion about what, how exactly to do the bruin test, there is a real risk that opinions will -- cloaked in history, will actually be subjective. >> all right, well, i will ask the rest of my follow-up questions -- boyfriend loophole bills and laws. implications of these cases on that, but i will do that on the record, because i know my colleagues are here and ready to ask. so, thank you. >> thank you senator -- >> thank you, mister chairman,

we appreciate so much that you are all here, it's an important conversation to have. we are grateful for your testimony. the chairman said he just couldn't square why some people would purchase guns or have guns. would i can't square is why we have prosecutors and judges who are letting criminals back out on the streets and not holding people who have committed crimes. that's letting people that shouldn't have a gun get a gun. so, let me ask, mr. lindley, let me start with you. do you know who jack wilson is? >> actually, i do not. >> okay, you don't. a large addiction? >> i'm not really a name person, so no. >> let me tell you, these are

both good samaritans that exercised their right to carry a firearm. as a result, we're able to intervene during a mass shooting. one in texas, when an indiana. and they saved untold lives. these are the law abiding citizens that we want to be carrying guns and who's right to do so is protected by the second amendment. what about tyre rentals? do you know that name? >> >> christian wing fields? do you know that name? >> they're familiar to me, but not in detail. >> not in detail. well, they should be. these are criminals who committed violent crimes using firearms and then they were released back to their communities as a result of the

radical left soft on crime policies. the soros that they all reform. so they got out. they went on to participate in shootings, one week, 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 gun ownership for law abiding citizens. violent crime is raging across this country. we hear about it in communities, every year i visit with each of our 9 to 5 counties in the

state of tennessee. i visit with law enforcement in those counties. and what we hear is with gangs proliferating, with drugs flooding this country, because of the cartels, because of that open border, crime is on the rise. and, there seems to be a penchant, though, from my colleagues across the aisle, to restrict self defense options. senator graham talked about this at the onset. this is a right. the second amendment is a right. senator we lee, just mentioned, is the only right, that you have to go talk to a local official and get a license in order to exercise that right.

but we have plenty of people who are alive today because jack wilson, and elijah dickinson, 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 to have people that tried to restrict self-defense options for good samaritans. they should be spending their time trying. to get violent criminals off the streets. miss swearer, i'd like to come to you for a moment. i let an amicus brief last month to support the lawsuit, challenging atf pistol -- rule. this imposes potential criminal liability on millions of

americans for exercising their second amendment rights. the atf claims that this rule is necessary because armed braces transformed a pistol into a short barrel rifle, now, when i'm back at home in tennessee, and i'm talking with a lot of our veterans and our disabled combat veterans, they talk to me about why they rely on these pistol braces to be able to operate a firearm. to operate that gun. so, can you explain how are our disabled calm that veterans use pistol braces, and the devastating impact that the atf rule would have on their ability to exercise their second amendment rights? >> senator, thank you for that question. pistol braces work in such a way, so, if you understand, a handgun, which generally

speaking, you can hold with one hand, a lot of these disabled veterans cannot use that secondhand, for example, as a additional stabilize there. they have trouble losing that with one hand the way the pistol brace works is that it extends, a lot of them down the arm, would either allow the person with back brace to brace it against their inner arm, or to even strap into their four arm to give them additional stability. >> so, it's a safety mechanism? >> correct, yes. >> it stabilizes the handgun? >> correct. >> and to the extent that 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 on a stable race, they can just use a handgun or, for example, he was a rifle. this exclusively is something that is beneficial to law-abiding but disabled citizens. it might be used by people who are not disabled, but that is

primarily a benefit to them, at the same time, it would be criminals, that they've a plethora vaulter natives to accomplish their goals. >> thank, you thank you, mister chairman. >> thank you, senator blacksburg. i want to thank ranking member graham for holding this hearing. there's 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, another small town becomes a household name because across the country, because of another tragedy. we have a moral obligation to act. just yesterday, i joined president biden in monterey park california to. meet with the community that is still grieving from a mass shooting that took the lives of 11 people at a dance studio on

the eve of lunar new year. i was pleased to see president biden announce his executive actions that will make our communities safer and will save lives. i think we all acknowledge, including the president that these executive actions to address gun violence do not absolve us of our duty as legislators. last congress, this committee held 11 hearings on common sense steps to reduce gun violence. and we know the overwhelming public support these measures have, but as we gather here today meg, just after america surpassed 100 mass shootings in this county here, that's 100 tragedies by the first week of march. and americans are watching from home, asking when will congress

step up and do something? i'm committed to finding a path forward and look forward to working with whoever is willing on the other side of the aisle to end the epidemic of gun violence in our country. my first question is for mr. -- as a program manager for brady 's combatting crime guns initiative, that's a former law enforcement officer, spent a good part of your career combatting gun violence. the hand gun violence prevention created a system requiring background checks for gun purchases from licensed dealers. and yesterday, president biden announced a new executive order directing the attorney general to ensure that gun dealers are following existing laws concerning background checks. highlighting the role gondoliers have in limiting the proliferation of guns in our communities. are you concerned that the

decision will lead to looser gun laws and in particular surrounding the registration of firearms and then undermine our efforts to improve safety? i'm >> thank you for the question, senator. absolutely. again, i'm not an attorney, i cannot see the future when it comes to legal issues. >> that's okay, i'm not one either. >> okay. but if you look at some of the things that and put into place with the brady background check process, it didn't go far enough back in the 90s. we do have to look at universal background checks, something that california has put into place and it's been very successful with. you also look at limiting if not, you know, outlying new purchases of assault weapons and high capacity magazines, again, something california has put in and has been successful with over the years. >> thank you, i don't mean to make light of the fact that you're not an attorney, nor my. trust me, we're here 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. now, as a former law enforcement officer, you've experienced the epidemic of gun violence firsthand. and the monterey park shooting was simply a high-profile example of the epidemic that we have in this country. i mean, in a span of eight days surrounding that one incident, california experienced at least two more. in your opinion, what role does the availability of large capacity ammunition magazines and semi automatic assault weapons play in the gun violence plaguing our nation them. >> again, almost 30 years in law enforcement, seen far too many victims, far too many machining's. and when you look at the

lethality of semi automatic weapons, especially assault pins, coupled with the high capacity magazines, it makes it very difficult for the victim -ology, if you look at how many people can be shot in that timeframe with the 30 round magazine as compared to a ten round magazine, and we've seen instances here in california that, an individual one in, didymos,-ing but had a lower capacity magazine, had far fewer victims. individuals usually have to wait until the person reloads, until they engage and try to disarm the individual. a lot of different victims can take place between ten rounds and 30 runs. or, let's say, las vegas, 50 or hundred rounds. >> thank you very much. i have follow questions here, but at this point i will turn it over to senator blumenthal for his questions. >> thanks, thanks very much, senator padilla. thank you all for being here. thank you to the advocates who have joined us today and i want

to thank senator padilla and other members of the committee further steadfast support of measures that will stop the epidemic of gun violence. these measures are made vastly more difficult by the supreme court's decision in ways that we have no way of knowing at this point because remains an inchoate and deeply frightening potential obstacle to common sense measures. i could talk about a great many of them, but i want to focus on safe storage laws known in connecticut as ethan's law. our law is named after a young man who was killed when he was accidentally shot by an unsecured firearm. ethan was a teenager at the time. in the firearm had been stored in a tupperware box, in a

closet alongside ammunition, and keys to the gunlock. ethan's law passed in connecticut, but we know across the country, 4.6 million minors live in households with at least one loaded and unlocked gun, estimated 54% of gun owners john locke all of their gun securely. ethan's laws simply requires new -- doesn't take away the gun, it doesn't take away who owns the gun, doesn't provide any ban on any type of gun. it's a places, if you have a gun, you should save it, save storage, safely store that gun. so, i would like to ask professor reuben, based on the bruin decision, whether that kind of law would be

constitutional under the courts apparent reasoning that there has to be some historical analog on which any kind of laws based under the second amendment. >> thank you, senator. as you mentioned, there's a lot of uncertainty right now but what brown means and how it will apply to specific gun laws, including that one. before bruin, safe storage laws for it very well in the courts. and after bruin, the question will be, first, whether or not the storage of more laws about storage fall within the plain text within the second amendment. that's an open question. the second question that will be asked is whether or not they have historical analogues. and it's a challenging one them, this is a good example of the challenges that courts have now. because back in the framing era,

the guns were largely muzzle loaded black powdered guns that were not kept loaded or carry loaded because of the risk of misfire. there were laws about storage back then, for instance, there were laws in the city of boston and other places about storing gunpowder, separate from the firearms, but those are because there is a risk of fires. it was a different time with different problems. on the policy makers back then addressed the problems that existed. today, the problems, as you mentioned, they're different than the problems back then. the law will depend on how courts, how flexibly courts look to historical laws, like the boston safe storage law, and how they relate them to today. it is very much an open question, but one thing is for sure, the court did say that a lot of regulation is still permissible under the bruins statement. >> we're going to leave last two minutes of this to take you