tv House Judiciary Committee on Gun Violence Prevention CSPAN September 16, 2019 12:05am-2:33am EDT
universal and anything less than that would be a challenge for them to pass to get democratic support and republicans are looking to not ban everything. you're talking about online sales, sales at gun shows, and private the most contentious of those expansions. >> on twitter, he is @toddruger. thanks. with that background, here is the debate on the bill supporting state and local efforts to remove access to forearms from those who are a danger to themselves and others. the extreme risk protection order act of 2019. for purposes of markup we move
into the house. the clerk will report the bill. efforts to remove access to firearms from individuals who already danger to themselves or others pursuant to court orders for this purpose. the bill is considered read and open for amendment. i recognize myself for an opening statement. last month, the country was rocked by news of mass shootings on two successive days in el paso, texas where 22 were killed and dayton, ohio, nine people were killed and 27 injured. a few weeks later, the gunman in odessa texas took the lives of seven people. 5 people were killed in mass shootings in mass shootings. the governor's speech was called to do something. today we will. this committee has passed two important gun safety measures.
the background checks act and enhanced back grouped checks act. and they are being blocked in the senate by the republican. today we consider three more measures that will prevent the tragic gun violence that has engulfed this nation. i want to emphasize we are not taking these actions simply to respond to mass shootings. it has been our motivation with respect to the gun safety bills the committee has considered, we are reacting the gun violence whether mass shootings or not and whether or not they make national headlines. no single bill that will address all of these issues and we are considering three additional bills today. more than 35,000 americans lose their lives because of guns every year. every day in america on average, 34 people are murdered with a firearm. gun violence of this magnitude
is an american problem. the country-to-country comparison is shocking. n 2011, the united kingdom had 147 deaths. in march of 71, japan, just 0. the united states more than 35,000. even when you adjust for population differences, americans are discxds difficulties proportionately killed by gun violence. a recent study in the american scrourm of medicine, compared to 22 other countries, the murder rate in the united states is 25 times higher. the president and others try to pin blame on mental illness. we know the united states does not have a rate of mental illness that is 25 times higher than the rest of the woled. that is not the source of our gun violence crisis. we must approach this issue with
a range of solutions and with a sense of urgency and cannot use mental illness as an excuse to do nothing real. the first gun safety bill we will consider, h.r. 1236, extreme risk protection order act of 2019 provides funding to states to enact statutes that empower law enforcement and families to petition courts to intervene when individuals pose a danger to themselves and others. this bill encourages states and localities to take meaningful steps to prevent gun violence while at the same time otecting the due protecting the due process rights of those in crisis. states and localities are encouraged through funding assistance to pass laws to ensure court may issue a protective order and preventing people from purchasing firearms
only after making a finding there is evidence that is demonstrated that the person poses a significant danger. the judge considering the petition from law enforcement or family members would authorize temporary firearms restrictions for up to 0 days. to stepped the length of the firearms restriction up to a year, the court must afford the firearm owner a full hearing ensuring due process rights. h.r. 126 strikes an appropriate balance between protecting the rights of the gun owner and ensuring community safety. the amendment in the nature of a substitute will include rovisions based on h.r. 3076 introduced by the gentlewoman mrs. mcbath. and law enforcement family members or household members. inclusion of this is an acknowledgement that gun violence and mass shootings have
no bounds. every jurisdiction in this will country has been touched by gun violence. the federal provisions ensures access to courts and ensures continuity of enforcement across state lines. federal courts have been bass tons of due process and the protections included in the federal provisions protect respondents' due process rights. the duration of an order issued to the proceeding contemplated in this bill during which annuity tral judge is limited to 14 days. during which the court will determine after a hearing including participation by the respondent if a long-term order is appropriate. taken together, the provisions n h.r. 1236 have the federal provisions incorporated from an. 3076 provided means that individual exhibits dangerous
behavior can be prevented. according to one study, 50% exhibited some warning signs. the combiped bill before us authorizes an individual who has serious concern that someone they know poses an extreme risk to take the action needed to save hives and prevent suicides. 17 states and district of columbia have passed these laws which have proven to be effective. in california, one study found that extreme risk protection orders were where there was concern of a mass casualty event. after connecticut enacted this law, the state experienced a 14% reduction in its firearm suicide rate in indiana, the number of icides deliped 7.5% after it enacted its extreme risk protection order law. the bottom line is we know this
law saves lives. we have witnessed the effectiveness in state after state. we need to take the steps that the american people demand. 90% of americans support support extreme risk protection laws. today the committee has the opportunity to build on h.r. 8 and which also enjoys similar overwhelming support. i thank representatives who are championing this effort and introducing the critical provisions. and i urge all of my colleagues to support h.r. 1236 as will be amended by the amendment in the nature of a substitute. i recognize the ranking member of the judiciary committee, the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins, for his opening statement. mr. collins: thank you for holding this markup today. and i'm concerned about addressing this important issue
from addressing the incidents of mass shootings plaguing our urban communities. work with you on sensible solutions. what i'm not willing to do is support legislation that will not do anything to make us safer and infringes on the rights and liberties guaranteed of our constitutions. all three of these bills just do that. we will be considering h.r. 1236. it may seem like a commonsense measure, it is far worthy. five months ago in an interview, one of the statements that was given by the chairman and you said it to one of your papers, the time i was probably 12 years old was civil rights and due process and that has never changed. i'm not sure what has changed, but the bill before us has due rocess problems.
and the proceedings standards are not the only flaws in this bill. for a permanent order, the court must find that the preponderance of the evidence that the individual must have access to a firearm. we don't convict people for a preponderance of the evidence. and i urge the committee charged with protecting due possess and every constitutional right. yet the effects of this bill continue to emerge. once the court finds the person
is too dangerous. es it provide for inca passtation? o. >> any other things that would allow thems. if they do this is a waste of time. h.r. 126 allows a person to petition to take away any person second amendment rights. there is no required nexus between the parties. they don't have to know each other. it is unthinkable this bill does president require a law enforcement to substantiate the claims and no penalties against making a false claim against anyone. these are a few of the myriad of problems that is found in this
bill. i have heard statements from my colleagues that we would be willing to consider red flag legislation. the promise so flawed that not anyone is committed to looking. i have said this before, there are ways we have worked together in the past. this is not one of those, this is another issue in which the harm that is found here, not discussed probably as much today as will be is something that will begin work to as the chairman alluded to to make us feel better. but in the ent not help in those situations and in many ways could add to the problem and with that, i yield back. mr. nadler: other opening statements will be included in the record. i recognize myself. the clerk: amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r. 1236 offered by mr. nadler,
strike mr. allred: after the enacting clause and insert the following. mr. nadler: without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute will be considered. i will recognize myself to explain the amendment. discussed in my opening statement, it adds provision introduced by the gentlewoman from georgia. these provisions authorize the issuance of a protective order by a federal court. in addition to a few other changes to the underlying bill, these provisions strengthen significantly the underlying legislation and i urge all members to support it. i now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, mr. collins for any comments he may have in the amendment in the nature of a substitute. mr. collins: i suppose -- it may be addressed in some of the due process issues that i raised.
but i'm scratching my head over some of the amazement of what was just offered in the nature of a substitute. to 1236 allows for a judge order -- [indiscernible] >> if there is reasonable cause to believe that the individual has and access to a firearm. the amendment allows for such higher evidentiary standard. if they can receive grants, they are requiring the judge to make this or probable cause, i'm not sure and maybe we'll hear about it later, but this will lead to laws that will create incentive for those seeking protective orders. if they can't find a state, this amendment allows them to ask a federal court to issue them. when we look at the process to obtain extreme risk protection
order, the amendments were made -- we can't say this was -- indiscernible] under the grant program, states would be allowed to allow anyone to petition for an order. under the proposed federal process. may petition the court. under the grant program, an order can be in effect for 0 days and be ordered based on the finding of reasonable relief. under the federal process, it can only be for 14 days and based on the finding of probable cause. the court hold a long-term order hearing. the federal process would require counsel to be provided free of charge if they are nable to afford counsel. and the individual poses a danger of causing himself to
himself. under the federal process, a court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the individual poses a risk of injury to himself by possessing. for ammunition that the order is necessary to prevent. under the grant program, the order can be in order. under the federal process it would expire under 180 days. it does amaze me that we have set one set of standards and different sets in another. and i would simply suggest we go back to the drawing board and come up with a consistent proposal that doesn't cause confusion or as we said forum shopping. we are under immense pressure from folks to do something, but this now looks discxds difficulties jointed and creates bad policy and i urge a no vote and i yield back. mr. nadler: the gentleman yields back. are there any amendments to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute. for what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition? ms. lofgren: i would like to strike the last word. support this bill and the substitute that you have just introduced. as the chair of the california democratic delegation, we are aware in the state of california that california has taken relief in so many gun violence in measures, one of which is the so-called red flag bills. and we know just from the statistics in law enforcement that there are people who really were in a bad place who shouldn't have been armed and the state procedures were used and the public safety was protected. so that's really important thing. we passed bills already and sent
them to the senate. no one measure is going to solve every problem. but if we take a number of sensible steps, it will make people safer. and i think that's very important. i wanted to say a word about mr. cash hall, because he took the lead to offer this bill. he was here earlier in the proceedings and had another and he is not a member of the committee and he took the lead to introduce this bill. and i want to give him credit for doing that. too many of us have had situations where people in our districts were the victims of gun violence. recently, my district in gilroy, california, was added to the long sad list of communities that experienced gun violence. and that's one of the issues and
we'll get to the other bill later in the evening or perhaps tomorrow, but you can't do it state-by-state. california in that case, prohibited the purchase of assault weapons and magazines and also restricts sales to people under 21. as much as i credit those states who have stepped up to make a difference. so i support the bill and the
underlying bill, but i wanted to coleeg, mrs. mcbath who is a leader and responsible r the substitute for the efforts that have been put in and with that, mr. chairman. >> would the gentlelady yield? ms. lofgren: i yield to mr. swalwell. mr. swalwell: just to follow up on the point that you made about california's gun safety laws. it's often used against us. california has some of the toughest laws than new york and you hear it in illinois and people will cite the gun deaths in oak lapped, chicago, we are only as safe as the states around us. and recent study by a district attorney found that in the last
year, 2018, over half of the weapons used in the homicides was where the weapon recovered, the firearm came from outside the state primarily arizona and nevada. these bills seek to recognize that, we need to be safe everywhere. ms. lofgren: i yield to the gentleman from maryland. mr. raskin: i wanted to respond to my friend from colorado who in the last round of statements lobbed kind of a question in my direction saying he would hope i stand by the constitution on these bills as i did on the bill on total arbitration and i gladly accept that challenge. i take my lead in the heller versus district of columbia case where the supreme court said we can protect the core of the second amendment, self-defense and having arrival, but does not
give you the right to carry dangerous weapons and does not give the right to dangerous people or the negate the power of the state to have time place, manner and right. every constitutional right is set of ned by a regulatory restrictions and police power of the states. ms. lofgren: reclaiming my time. mr. raskin: if you believe these are unconstitutional, you should say so. all of the second amendment is quite off point. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> [applause] mr. nadler: the spectators in the audience, please refrain from showing approval or disapproval of remarks from
here. those are our rules, we appreciate the sentiment. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> let's go with strike the last word. ms. lesko: mr. chair if i could strike the last word. mr. chair and members, i really understand people that want us to do something after mass shootings. the thing is we need to work on a pipe fashion so we actually get it passed into law and do things that will actually make a difference. and we have done things in a bipartisan fashion in the past he and we wantp, to make sure we are not taking away people's constitutional rights without due process. that is why i oppose this legislation. and i oppose it because, one, it
lacks the due process protections i want to see before someone loses their second amendment rights. two, it doesn't address mental health concerns. there is no requirement in this bill for an individual to be detained, evaluated or provide mental health services. three, it allows people's second amendment constitutional rights to be taken away through to ex parte orders. and they might not know. and d, once people are stripped of their rights, there is no way to earn them back in this bill. but i do believe we can work together on bipartisan legislation. i'm from arizona. and our republican arizona governor had put forward through the senate a bill last year, red
flag legislation that was also supported by the n.r.a., but it had really strong due process protections. it also addressed mental health concerns and it did not allow for ex parte orders but allowed for emergency orders with notice to the individual and it allows people that did have their second amendment rights taken away, away to earn the gentleman from colorado is first. mr. jordan: last year, we will have changed a fundamental and sacred principle in this country. in america, you are innocent until proven guilty today. if we pass, we will invert the standard and say you are guilty until proven innocent and you will be guilty without doing anything wrong. under this bill, you are guilty without doing anything wrong
simply because someone thinks you might do something wrong. who is the someone who can petition the court? who is the someone to define? under age 13, the chairman just. family or household member go down to subsection d and individual who has resided with the respondent during the past year. a roommate who hung out with you one month last year can petition a court to take a way your second amendment liberties. maybe the roommate didn't like you, thought you were a slob, can petition to take away your fundamental rights and guess what? when they go into courts to take away your fundamental liberty, and committed no crime, guess what? you don't get to be there. you don't get to defend
yourself. that is what this bill does. and mr. raskin has talked about the second amendment rights and that's how we are going to take away someone's second amendment liberties. this is the house judiciary committee, for heaven's sake. what constitutional right can you take away without doing anything wrong and petition the court to get it back. tell me when that happens. this bill is so wrong on so many levels. it violates fundamental second amendment rights and property rights and due process rights and yet today, the house judiciary committee, with the storied history this committee has in defending the bill of rights is going to pass this legislation? i mean this is a scary road to start heading down.
we want to stop gun violence and we know it is terrible and evil, but trying to do something what this bill seeks to do in this manner is so fundamentally wrong and again, for the judiciary committee in the united states house of representatives who is charged more than any other committee in this body to defend the constitution and the bill of rights, to pass this, is just wrong. >> would the gentleman yield? >> mr. chairman. r. chairman. >> i move to strike the last word. mr. nadler: the gentlelady is recognized. >> thank you for calling this markup and take these life saving measures. i'm proud we are holding a historic markup on extremist
protection orders including my bill. i'm proud to be co-sponsor of h.r. 1236 led -- ms. mcbath: protection orders are life saving tools to firearms out of the hands out of those who pose ar danger. the bill we are marking up today will guarantee nationwide access to this critical tool. the extremist laws at the state and federal level, we can prevent mass shootings and suicides and horrific events that do not make the headlines. we are told we must accept gun violence and told no single ece of legislation can prevent. we must have more lockdown drills and more bulletproof glass. but we see time and time again, someone knew the shooter was
the rer and had weapons or person was thinking of taking his own life. no one had a tool to do anything about it. some states dieded their law enforcement officers, their communities and families deserve that tool. that's why 17 states as was expressed earlier and the district of columbia passed extreme risk laws. these laws have had bipartisan support. they have been passed by state legislature controlled by republicans and democrats. they have been signed into law by governors across the political spectrum and they are saving lives. today, we take the next step in preventing gun violence. this package provides an incentive for more safe capacities law. support states that already have them and every community and
every corner of this country has access to this lifesaving tool. our law enforcement officers put their lives every day on the line. they deserve every tool we can give them to help keep our communities safe instead of fighting the horror. we can empower our law enforcement officers to disarm threats before a shot is fired before another life is lost. this legislation also empowers family and household members, those who are most likely to see the signs that a person is in crisis. my legislation gives law enforcement and family members a way to take action and prevent mass shootings and save the life of won who is considering suicide. and yes, i will never let you forget that my son jordan was
one of them. i know the pain of losing a child to gun violence and anyone in this room should ever be faced with that pain. and every single day that which fall and not taking action, mothers and fathers will live through the same nightmare that i did and many survivors that i worked with and every day we fail to take action, siblings and spouses will feel the same grief. it is our responsibility to prevent this suffering, to bring an end to this constant heartbreak. inaction is unacceptable and today we are acting to help those in crisis. we act to empower law enforcement. and we act to empower the individuals who keep losing if we don't do something about this. and i thank my colleagues who
have co-sponsored this legislation and many advocates and survivors who continue to fight to end gun violence because i promise you, no one is immune to this. don't ever believe that you are immune to this. i ask my colleagues on this committee, both republicans and democrats, to stand up with me nd supporting this legislation. we have to save lives. i yield back the balance of my time. >> will the gentlelady yield? mr. nadler: the gentlelady has yielded back. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from arizona. >> move to strike the last word. mr. nadler: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the dialogue that's taking place
oday, this is a serious issue. the gentleman, mr. lesko and the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan, i want to appreciate that the gentlelady from california, ms. lofgren, mentioned statistics and data. she mentioned the use of those. mr. biggs: so the department of justice, put out a study earlier this year just in january of this year. this is important to realize because they found that 1.3%, who had of prisoners committed a violent crime in this country obtained their goal from a retail source. only 1.3%. that means that it has an impact on whether the nics background check program is going to work or be effective at all. what they found that i think is
really interesting and really problematic is that 43% obtained their weapon off the street or from the underground market. there are no background checks off the street and in the underground market, it isn't happening. the point is, and this is what i think we miss, is a lot of times, we think that we're going to correct something, correct a problem, an we create legislation, and it leaves massive gaps because there are massive gaps in how these things take place. an additional study was conducted at the behest of president barack obama in 2013. he ordered the centers for disease control and prevention to assess existing research on gun violence and that report, compiled by the institute of medicine and the national research council found, among other thing that firearms are used defensively hundreds of thousands of times a year.
according to the c.d.c., self-defense can be an important crime deterrent and indeed it can be. recent c.b.c. reports suggest that actual defensive use of guns find consistently lower owning crimeof gun victims. in particular the ar-15 that the gentlelady from texas mentioned. let me tell you some times that's been used in self-defense. oswego, illinois, 2015. man with an ar-15 intervened in a knife attack against a neighbor. north carolina, 2018, a 17-year-old successfully fought off three armed attackers with his a rferings-15. houston, texas, 2017. a homeowner survived a drive-by shoot big defending himself with an ar-15. broken ar rowe, oklahoma, a homeowner's son killed three would-be burglars with an ar-15.
ferguson, missouri, an african-american protected a store from riotiers using an ar- 15. 2013 in texas, a 15-year-old used an ar-15 to save the life of himself and his sister. i think sometimes in our zeal to try to protect people we sometimes forget the other side of the story. that there are lawful uses of these weapons, used to defend themselves against people who are evil with malevolent intentions. no one sanctions or approves of the type of mass shooting and violence that we have seen periodically in this country. similarly, i don't think we can tolerate turning what is a constitutional right on its head , turning the burden of proof on
someone who has not committed a crime, telling them you'll be found responsible or not responsible based on an ex-parte proceeding with or without your awareness of that ex parte proceed and -- proceeding and then you'll have the pleasure of trying to set that aside at a future date if you will. that's not the american way. with that, i ooppose the amendment and i thank the mr. gaetz: strike the last word. mr. nadler: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gaetz: thank you, mr. chairman. during my colleague from california's presidential campaign, he and i didn't agree on too many issues. but there was a sentiment expressed that is generational in nature. and that is ours is the first generation that has lived with these mass shootings throughout our time in school. and then now as young people are having to endure yet another generation of school shootings. and regardless of which solutions that you adopt, it is
a fact that younger americans have these mass shootings as a part of their psychological and american experience. and it is just deeply sad. so i still think there's plenty of room to denounce evil. i still think there's plenty of room for our states to enact red flag laws. and i have some caution based on the comments of my good friend from florida, mr. deutch, you know, the bill from florida that he references is one i helped write. my colleague from florida, mr. deutch, can ask his own constituent, a democrat, former state representative, i helped write those red flag provisions because i believe strongly that our state could do better. but when my colleague talks about veterans and their firearms and their access to firearms, i can assure you that if laws like this were in place in the be a sense of due process, -- in the absence of due process, and i think we should do more there, that veterans might be less willing to share their trauma, share their mental health frailties
out of fear that it would divorce them from their firearms. it's a population i care a lot about because i represent i think more veterans than any member of the committee and most other members of congress. we would never want to live in a world where people are less likely to seek the mental health care that they need and that we would all want them to seek out of fear that it might depriving them of their right. none of these are easy issues. there's definitely room here for legislation that would accommodate the concerns of republicans and democrats. sadly this isn't that bill. i continue to be encouraged by the work of senator graham and his approach seems to be more closely aligned with legislation that had been previously introduced in a bipartisan fashion by senators nelson and senator rubio following the tragic events in the state of florida. and so, i hope that's ultimately the work product we end up with. if we get work product like that, i would be inclined to
support it. but the legislation before the committee now seems to go further. i yield to my friend from florida. mr. deutch: thank you. i thank my friend. i just want to use the opportunity not to talk about this legislation. i want to use the opportunity to talk about veterans and anyone else in mental distress. it is suicide prevention month. today is world suicide prevention day. i believe. and i want to just reiterate the importance of having difficult conversations about mental health, asking someone that you care about if they're thinking about suicide, will not hurt them, but it could save their life. i would encourage anyone listening today to reach out if they need help. the suicide prevention life shrine 1-800-273-talk. there is great agreement among every member in this committee that we need to do what we can to ensure that people have access to help. that's one thing that there is no doubt. i want to take the opportunity to do that. i thank my friend from florida and, mrs. mcbath, if --
mr. gaetz: i'm going to reclaim my time. i appreciate the gentleman's recognition that these are not buynary issues. that there is a point -- binary issues. that there is a point at which if you create barriers to people seeking mental health, that that could limit the ultimate success that they could have in their treatment. i think about our colleague, the gentleman from massachusetts, seth moulton, who bravely, courageously during his presidential campaign stepped forward and said he himself dealt with trauma as queans from hiser is. i don't think anyone here would -- his service. i don't think anyone here would want to go red flag congressman moulton for making those admissions. you would want people that have those challenges to show the same bravery and the same positive action that he showed and we wouldn't want to create a deterrent to that. mr. deutch: will the gentleman yield? can we agree there are too many members of congress running for president? mr. gaetz: wait until 2024. i yield back. [laughter] mr. nadler: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment.
the gentlelady from pennsylvania. >> i move to strike the last word. mr. nadler: the gentlelady from pennsylvania. >> i did just want to note that we lose 20 veterans to suicide every day. and that one of the big purposes f this law is to address the issues of folks using guns to commit suicide, that that 60% of the gun violence in this country. ms. scanlon: and that this is a healthy step toward trying to address those issues. with that, i would yield to the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentlewoman from pennsylvania. i want to associate myself with your words and congressman deutch, i want to associate myself with your words about suicide. and i think it's important to note, in an earlier hearing that we had today, a veteran himself acknowledged the fact that he would want to take away guns from a veteran who was contemplating suicide. so veterans themselves
understand, to save veterans' lives, they would want to have the construct to be able to do that. i indicated a gun violence prevention summit that we held in houston. , that hearing of individuals presentations without respect to party, the issue that they raised was the issue of dealing with the displaying of warning signs. the very crux of this bill. in 51% of mass shootings, from twine to 2017, -- 2009 to 2017, the attacker exhibited warning signs before the shooting. for example, before killing six people inal at that vista, california, in may, 2014, the shooter made homicidal and suicidal threats and his parents alerted law enforcement, but there was nothing they could legally do to remove the firearms before the california
changed its law. the u.s. secret service and the u.s. department of education studied targeted school violence incidents and found behavior warning signs that caused others to be concerned in 93% of the cases. they also found that in 81% of incidents, other people, most often peers, had some type of knowledge about the shooter's plans. in parkland, where 17 people were killed, it was noted that this student had been expelled from school and students and teachers reported he displayed threatening behavior, his mother had repeatedly contacted law enforcement. in domestic violence cases, before there is a conviction, family members are without any structure to in fact talk about the behavior of that loved one that is in the household, that is threatening the family members and the children. and so, this legislation is long
overdue federally. and i want to acknowledge the individuals who came to this conclude last week -- conclusion last week. the doctor can the texas children's hospital, dr. wolfe, deputy chief medical examiner in harris county, sergeant jeffrey mcgowan, harris county sheriff's troy thinner, ef who is the executive chief of the houston police department. executive director of the harris county public health. kim aug, district attorney for harris county. dr. howard henderson, a professor of administration of justice at texas southern university. professor ronald turner, a professor of law university of
houston. matthew simpson, deputy political director, aclu. sonia corrales, chief program officer for the houston women's center which con firms the need for this kind of law as it relates to domestic violence. and sonia stewart who lost her two brothers, the founder of the i am foundation. rhonda heart, -- hart, who lost a doctorate santa fe. and ariel hobbs who we heard from today, who said that many of her friends, she has them now, because of death. she represents march for our lives. and elizabeth haynes, moms demand action. they conceded to the point that this legislation of extreme risk orders was important to save lives and i believe this is what we need to do on the federal level, not just state by state. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. mr. nadler: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question occurs on the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
mr. nadler: the gentleman from north dakota is recognized. >> mr. chairman, thanks. mr. armstrong: move to strike the last word. we've heard it all. everybody thinks we voted on a red flag law in the north dakota legislature. we voted it down. we're now putting a federal system that will be in place that will be in effect in north dakota the same as it is elsewhere and we're also setting up a situation where we incentivize states to do this. so, i think we know all this is going, i think -- i'm hopeful that there is more common sense across the chamber than there is here, but that is not necessarily the case. so here's what i am actually imploring my friends on other side to do.
most importantly, in the federal one, you're requiring court appointed counsel. we don't require that in any state court. in fact, in the states that do have red flag laws, court appointed counsel is the exception and not the rule. we are setting up a system, one, where you're forcing the citizens in north dakota to have this law in federal court when they have rejected it in the state legislature which happened in the last legislative session. secondly, you're sbent advising states to put their own policy
in place and, thirdly in states that already have it, you are going to have two completely different evidentry standards in hearings depending on when you're in federal court or in state court. you have competing interests. this is before we get into whether the federal government should actively be engaged in this. by the rationale in which we allow the federal government to do, that any crime involving a gun should rise to the federal level as opposed to having state level assaults, murder, domestic violence, all of the things which we ask our states to do. . .
generations have been punished for the sins of their predecessors. anyould not conceive of type of punishment other than pres and -- then prison. people could be punished paying tremendous amounts of money. the comment basically that we are not going to do any good by declaring against immorality. there is nothing this committee can do in the way of declarations that can change the status of the immorality in this country.
by declaring tonight, but it would help if people in congress, including this committee, would not jump to conclusions too soon and condemn law enforcement before they find out the officer was acting in self-defense and further dividing the country. we had a president that chose before the evidence was in to go against law enforcement. been 12 years in a soviet gulags for promoting freedom of speech. he said and this was echoed by oprah winfrey when she said we have lost our moral center. it used to be provided by churches. a lack of moral clarity is why people in free societies cannot distinguish between religious fundamentalists in a democratic
state and terrorist in a fundamentalist state. the arsonist and the firefighter are deemed morally vocal level morally equivalent. we can't effectuate what needs to be done tonight. we can resolve that we are going to encourage the teaching of right and wrong. we are not going to use politics to promote jealousy. of us.ngs to all we are going to promote this idea it is important to protect a free society. we have not done a good job of that. it is all relative. if it feels right for you, ok. for somebody else, this relativity has encouraged people to wonder, would it feel good to kill people? then they go out and kill people.
we need to be promoting morality among ourselves and his body and encouraging schools. there is nothing wrong with speaking and teaching against jealousy and against killing instead of just ignoring those and teaching relativity instead. oprah winfrey is right, we have lost our moral center. we cannot fix that tonight, but until that is fixed we are going to have to keep having to take away more and more and more constitutional rights. why? because we need to be safe. and it was attributed to franklin, some question whether he said it or not, those who would give up their liberty for safety deserve neither. but it is important to understand before we start giving up these liberties, these things that are in the constitution, continue to give them up and continue to have to have the supreme court say, you know what? we are going to have to cut back
on the rights that this constitutional provision allows because people want to be safe. we have seen it for decades now and the point is, oprah winfrey was right. we have lost our moral center and we ought to be promoting that. we are going to be spending many and many hours debating the taking away of what is to be american rights. i yelled back. -- yield back. announcer: the committee voted to approve the bill 2-16./ -- 22-16. this bill makes it illegal to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess a large capacity device. this portion of the divine -- debate is just over one hour. easonable hour.r up and hr1186 regulate
ar to ty magazines simil those used seven years ago similar to the aurora theater shooter. last month, the shooter in round drum a 100 magazine to kill nine people and others in just 30 seconds. and days perfect that attack the people that killed four and injured 13 others at garlic a 75 al in gilroy used round magazine in addition to 40 round magazines. of screen shot shows type round magazine used to kill 6 ictims from ar old v first rad classrooms near the front of the school of. shot multiple e times.
perfect turning the weapon on the shooter at the post nightclub in florida used the to kill e of magazine, 49 people lee years ago. and in 216 shoot six people at her t baptist church in sout land springs texas used a merely identical magazine. o shows a device similar to 33-round magazine funman in tucson, wounded and almost killed representative gab brie yil giffords in a supermarket parking lot, using a handgun with a 33 round magazine enabling him to kill six people, including a chief jus from the rizona strict court of a and injuring three others. the shooter's dream only interrupted when attacked by a by stanner as he temporarily
newpped shooting to attach a when theto its weapons ammunition.ut of large capacity magazines make it easier to kill more people and they serve virtually no other function. gs analysis of has shootin foun they were recovered in over half of the incidents. average, the use caused twice as many fatalities and was times as many injury out question, it is long overdue death.these instrums of congress considered and enacted imilar legislation before. in 1994, congress banned possession of transfer of zag mag scenes more than tending rounds of ammunition. those magazines on or before the
exceeding ten rounds were grand fathered in and they can ontinue to possess banned magazines. 1994 it contained a sunset 2004, the ban in expired. e law the expiration of th in 2004, the use of high nes in crime guns has grown with tragic results. there was a reduction and down to a low of 10% before the law expired in 2004. 2010, the sheriff with crime guns more than doubled. 22%. tates in the district
high umbia regulate capacity and according to a researcher, whether a state has a large magazine ban is the single best predictor of the mass shooting rates in their state. in this nce is clear time we reestablish a ban on ple e devices, american peo strongly agreechlt one poll shows 70% of americans support a arge capacity magazines under scoring the obvious. today we take a step to limit by passing a 10-round magazine limit. thank you for championing this effort and introducing this bill.
you, mr. chairman. >> now, second bill of the night ering a bill we'll do nothing to make americans safe. ou don't have to thak my word for it. let's tlak at published studies. a 10-year 1994 federal ban on magazines was enacted as part of the violent crime law act of 1994. 1997 an was in place in department of justice funded study of the ban determined at best the assault rifle ban can only have a limited affect on total gun murders because they a modest involved in fraction. ooked at 51 dc l studies including assault weapons ban limitation and unable to show limitation
reduced crime. following year, in 2004 a follow up study determined affect eeded the pan would likely to be small at best perhaps too small. and polling the 2007 shooting at virginia tech, governor cane reviewed a bath to study the atrocity. the shooter used several that's had magazine larger than ten rounds. uld not have made a difference in the april 16th incidents. the law after 0 years in an 2004, the ban magazines rounds.r ten
nd even pistol was rapid loaders could have been deadly. if you want to disagree with doj, and virginia tech findings. corporation study available rand saw through to on the e how pans assault weapons affected the found oncluded and we ith the outcomes we've in stigated hag scenes that this bill are are common with abiding americans. million detachable magazines. 30 million can accommodate more
the sponsor of the bill. >> thank you. thank you for including this bill to ban high ka pass rity magazines on this issue. 'd like to thank our colleague n the senate and acknowledge leadership of congress woman senting columbine and we all know too many victims of too many surviving family members and loved ones of mass shootings and acts of gun violence. we stand to demand congress do something to stop it and that is
t is this about? seconds. just seconds. seconds matter. and those seconds can save a live. seconds matter. yesterday, president trump honored first responders that to everything they could save lives and in dayton, ohio, first responders tped the 30 ter in a remarkable ly onds and that is hocking fast. we're grateful they were there. the shooter killed nine people .nd injured 27 others 30 ght of joy cut short in seconds. felt terror and at pulse,
fter the hooting had orlando and gun violence happens in every day in , america. and a mass shooting happened in tug las a d stoneman gunman injured 17 others and rounds in six minutes. 150 in six minutes. down the hallways for safety. in of the students may have survive that had horrible day. igh ka aboutsity magazines not meant for our communities. with assault weapons they injure
more people, faster than gun violence without them. from w, to mass shootings ings found in those shoot there were twice as many times as many 14 incident.r and we need to act today so we don't keep breaking the record for the next worses mas shooting in american history. to the next t now cert goers or n those preciousve to escape. olleagues and implore my colleagues to support this
legislation to take action here, to help save lives. >> for what purpose? e last word. th of the work inning heart i was faced with breaking news that gilroy, in my correctional district had joined the too-long list of communities experiencing a tragedy of a mass shooting. at a garlic festival, a family happens every year. like perpetrators, that
proceeded the shooting and swems ones that followed and every day gun violence, the gilroy shooter style weapon with a 75 round magazine. now, california along with anning assault weapons is one of nine states that bans sale or import of large capacity magazines or those that accept more than ten rounds. law protect us? law and thes a state shooter went to nevada to buy what he could not buy in california. know, these weapons
a hurry an lets in they do damage. nders in gilroy were facing a shooter with an assault weapon with bullets and they ran at him in under one minute, they that.him and put an end to because of the nature of the to kill three able people and injure 17 others. it others me saying well, won't solve the problem. yes, it would. old.en romero was six years he was kill that had day. ld.ley sala star, 13 years o they'd still be alive if that shooter had in the had access to
right onecause they're the spot. f those, some will never fully recover. hat is how damaging these weapons are. so this is to support the raumatized d those t nd now is not the time to talk is the medies but now time. and i'll remember the victims 6-year-old boy a year-old girl that should still be alive today.
back. d >> move to strike the last word. >> gentleman recognized five minutes. >> first i'd like to submit for losing count. there are a number of issue was this bill. first definition. 2, 14, the define what a magazine is under this magazine pan. and hat can be restored converted. every firearm there e that could be readily restored and converted to accept rounds.an ten so this would ban just about the
automatic y semi rifle and handgun. that i carry, carry more than ten rounds so you're unnning just about every handg accept a m that would magazine because any of those could be converted. there is a piece at the bottom for any rifle that accepts a magazine. that is the first issue. second is that this would solve where and i don't know the other gentleman got his information from. would do nothing to have addressed that because he
gazines in und ma virginia tech shooting for several years, deadliest mass shooting in american history, hooter changed a total of 17 times. what you're rying to accomplish you're not going to flish and any of us that served this the military, we did exercise, as training you can exchange in 1, 2 seconds, then, further, on page two, paraphotograph 12, 15 this devices and ly to in ess on so the shooter
parkland, any person that possesses the magazines can keep their magazines because you're not banning anything that people time this bill is is passed into law. accomplishing nothing for thing to say only people acting in violence had ten round magazines they're peopleng to kill as many 30 wound and i don't tryingand if the left is to stay and purport nobody should va ten round magazine itause if they decide to use for a nefarious purpose and try
understand how this is protecting other than inflicting citizens on biding carry. o >> i forgot to put in a communication from the city of santa clara and article about gilroy. >> without objection. other gentle woman from california. n tonight.'t spoke you for putting forward these bills and all of us just coming off of a six week recess z just one end of ed from the country to the them. i was listen owing my colleague it sounds like he might have interest in banning assault
tening to d i was lis him say why not go after the funs? if he has interest in doing that, i would love to join him in that effort. when we're considering these pills, those are steps we've made in this house. refers to the left i'm in the sure who he's referring to. i see people in the democratic party. i'm not sure what left he referring to. if i think about less than two weeks ago what happened over 54, in addition to mass tragically all witnessed a 54-year-old st. louis man was arrested in connection with a fatal shooting of a 15-year-old child over the hot, nd, 34 people were s ix fatally in gun violence in
chicago and 131 murders in 2019 in los angeles and i know my california colleagues mentioned ough lifornia we have t unlaws we're proud of but the is lem we are in california ing from are com outside. so we know it's a problem that far and wide many and i hough community will soon of issues, r types bout hing confusing to me a my colleagues on the other side of the aisle they're clear on s itics or holes thi legislation we might propose. i never hear a solution. and i know you have to be as concerned about the violence in
this country as we are. so what on earth is the lugs? i hear you put something forward, mental health is is issued. i'm fine with that. let's deal with mental health but there is never a concern of putting resources toward mental health. it is an issue but interesting had mental health comes up it's a particular type of funman. hot the type of pun violence many communities see on a daily basis. o i just would really like to hear in solutions. a ranking member mentioned various study that's don't prove this is a solution or that asolution. what haf leaved. y weren't allowed to look at it. i don't know what studies is he
is talking about. is hot deficit. it is possible to save some lives, and it plows up myths, which is that we need to make sure good guys have funs and if guys can go after bad guys well, if guys did have guns. it didn't matter because those slaughtered within a few seconds. good guys the there and took out how many people were killed? how many injured? it makes no sense. when it comes to assault weapons ey are for.t th and i would like to hear solutions from my colleagues, support you ing to on the mental health tip. with resourcesle resources to address mental health and not just the
rhetoric. i for consent to enter into a clay, from rom lacy missouri. >> one study i want to reference on is used sault weap with a high capacity magazine the number of people killed in a by six oting increases #%. so weo because they're deadly, they kill more people. so there is this doubt that passing a ban on these magazines will result in safing lives. that, i yield back. who seeks recognition? >> i'd like to strike the last word. >> yes. recognized for five minutes. you.hank
agueswant to thank my colle who continued to work on fun reform bills. thank you to my friend and duetche.ative ted twice as he use cause has wraalities as those kers where they're in the being used. roy. seen gil people were killed and 13 wounded. sandy hook elementary. assault weapon used with a 30 ine.d magaz nd that took the lives of 20 children. pulse, orlando in 2016.
a 30 round used magazine. taking the lives of 49 individuals. lives taken at pulse jerry wright. and when i hear representative not ins saying this bill is going to do anything to save any i would like to ask my colleague to say that to fred continue to to fight for common sense gun reforms. i would lick for him to look into the eyes of the parents of ve not stopped ha advocating for common sense gun reform. een the bill or the courage by my colleagues
when you had the majority for decades, not one fun reform bill was brought into committee. of assed in the house representatives. from my colleague, karen bass, you think it's mental health? fine, let's invoft in mental health programs and take action andther forms of gun reform gun safety legislation to save people we f the continue to see loose lives on senseless gun violence. and this is a very difficult subject for me. every single time, i sit in this i hear my and obstruct colleagues
think action disheartening because i know most americans are watching. and they see that you have no will, no courage, and i lost my to gun violence. nd no it wasn't through a massacre. they didn't use high capacity magazines. waits criminal but there are many things we can do to avoid nother family member from getting a call that they've lost a loved one. i implore you. have coverage and work with us. in good faith to take action. a. please. i yield back. tennessee.
>> i would lick to clarify on people perfect hi side of the eye. a lot of us were in the state on te and house and worked these issues. we want to make sure we're people's rights. there is a pill to make it illegal educe the street sales and persecute nce.etrators of gun viole and they all protect due process. there is last year, republicans controlled the house legislation to prevent mass shootings signed by
the president. un violence blocked g from individuals so pru say republicans haven't done anything on this issue i want to investigate what we've done perfect we got here. back just a look think about we take a balanced approach and makes it hard for bad guys to get guns. time. d back >> what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? the last word.ke and. characterizations of bill with respect to notion
to characterize it in the same way. othing to do with making us feel good and verything to do with saving lives. that is why we're passionate about it. i did not intend to quote oprah tonight. mr. gomert made a comment saying oprah is right. she said quote, what will be the number? ber? will be the num what number is high enough to get our attention to say enough? i thought the number was 26 in where 20 e continued children and six adults were k.ain at sandy hoo
you know? do we believe assault weapons sary?eces when are we going to be conscious enough to say that doesn't make sense? to bear arms ight weapons.assault columbine, 20 milesago i lived just ten away in, ninth grade and high school was shut down and we learned students, same age as me had lost their lives in a tragic ble shooting and it's become common place.
ne of the first places to experience this violence is an epidemic taking far too many lives and wrecked communities and nothing has been done. i have many constituents waiting act.this congress to folks like jane doherty who lost her sister. sandy hook work in on december 14th and never seen again. and 26 individuals murdered in minutes. and 156 rounds found at the scene. me talk about tom sullivan. courage. 100 rounds used so i will say this. i recognize that some of my colleagues have some objections to these bills but i would
on the my colleagues other side of the aisle to be honest. doesn't use a bill solve all problems doesn't mean it's worth pursuing and i encouraging colleagues to vote in favor of the bill in front of us today. and bring outsues package and it requires and this spirited discussion will take care to keep our comments in comp lines
with house rules. strike the last word. air woman ciate the ch and chair lady follow that fact. discussionng a decent until a few months ago. there are many solutions to what dealing with. and as someone said to have looked and explained why i don't have. this will work, i only a pastor t have presented where a loved one was killed by a drunk member and a member of
hand. family's wo not bring d their loved one back. would not do everything many supposed to help with. if we put resource was u.s. attorneys to actually prosecute gun crimes. to actually do things that can actually get these other thing that's make this so different. ttee hat is what this commi is about.
can't get a hearing. ask the chairman about that? it.y don't want to deal with that.'t get that. e, ill look anyone in the ey and tell them. georgia, heart bre breaks for her tragedy. disagree tell her i with the bill. that is just the way we go. if we can't make our point we try to make others a thing f so be kes us feel better
it. back.ld from texas.y >> irwant to say knowing courtesies areou certainly had the possibility of about leadership and i don't think anyone is disregarding any members legislative work. ere ave three bills now h today. of us are optimistic for markup of additional bills. some have a bill we believe will contribute to a new schematic on
safety in this nation. so the fact it's not on a final not a motion i will occur. >> will you join me in a markup on it? . >> i will join you in increasing the number of opportunities for bills to be marked up. >> how about mine? >> we all will be advocating for our bills. and let me say this. congressman raskin gave a ecounting of the bill i think no red the and
are after the fact. ng about getting to the point where those of ill do not have rounds for law enforcement officers rushing to the scene and trying to the innocent. t, indicated a trauma n you see those chill's heart d a this your hands who is pleading the death on the operating room table. we're trying to suggest japan, try than oursr coun has in gun violence, no guns. we're not that country. but we realize we want to be in
mode to save ve lives. oung man cannot go into the closet of stored gun that's were not stored properly. and so t was not locked we don't have civilians walking around that are war like or law enforcement in case they're in an issue or situation where they're under siege. ten have i seen that having tone to be used. these are weapons of war.
he as the congressman said, said young man in florida only gun jammed.use his ten ensure we have a w about statement and la saving lives. back.ld >> thank you. to ask for question any person in es our country needs 100 round magazine. to hunt? hoot for sport in protect yourself in your home? killings?y out mass
and there have been fair criticisms tonight. what i see kind of reminds me of puzzle. my colleague says this piece doesn't make sense. and that may be true. imperfections of each but when you put limitations together and other reforms, what you have is a safer america f you're going haveand say this would not ason to d there is no re do anything. if we can reduce one shooting or
a thousand shootings. it was predicted today to a doctor that testified over the ten years, there will be 1 victims.un violence if protect half of those people. he said it grand fathers in 250 million magazines out there that go beyond capacity in this bill. that true. this gives us a chance that into our church to
have a few extra seconds because nds, onlyt have 100 rou 106789 it gives us a chance to and to someone shoots up a concert, duck for cover. childrenren, gives our a chance in school if if someone forbid through their tols just a few more seconds lives. back ground checks are a much better way to prevent shootings. but if someone is go going to do gives time an a
can happen to any one of our children. >> other gentleman from florida ent that the mass used a n this district ten round magazine that, may be 262 but i'm reading page done from the marjorie stoneman y commission given 262 e governor and on page says issueded a florida it card firearms and hase a single firearm and the
firearm purchased february 11th and so this is to he suggestion made florida.entleman in i'm afraid that it's kind of a game of threes. three card you know? if there is a mass murder, they say mental health. s and they flag law say it violates second amendment. it doesn't. so we're looking for real solutions and this will move us forward. back.d in favor and yield >> thank you.
ica wants ple in amer this bill passed. and action others dem want this pill passed and i want to commend them for what they've rally support throughout and there no good teed for these magazines except for sport. you want sport? go rent out for opportunities but do it, m poe where you don't take it home hool oru to take it to sc concert or whatever. bill ing to vote for the
rambo, be want to be ram rambo, join the army. a boat and go away. so thank you. i look forward to voting for bill. >> strike the last word. >> one of the things is that when you lose clarity you fail to realize who your friends are and enemies are. there is nobody here that my enemy. and i hope you realize i'm not
your enemy. k, you need to understand, growing up i was very, very small. nose bloodied more i'ms than i care to think about. the years, 7-12 i was smallest guy on the football team. things have no idea the i've done to disregard to isplay or lack of display of courage. so for anyone on this committee think you're going to nimdate what you heard in junior high, you're a scaredy g to hat is not goin accomplish anything. serious, here is so saying we have a lack of courage and need to get courage and with regard to oprah winfrey.
people love ings about oprah winfrey she has an incredibly big heart. she loves people. she ofs helping people. judiciary committee we have to be about using our so to say it's you are courageous? i never got a thought for being on this lican leader standsee because of this i've taken on my party. ssibility. there are times i wished some of ratic friends would have joined me in condemning the ustice department in their abuses.
ften alone in doing. that we've got to be about using here.ads and i know it plays on the heart well to say if we can save one life. f you study there have been millions of lives lane down to they can keep freedom and saying worth keep freedom it was us giving lives. let's take a look in terms of how we preserve this in self and try to preserve freedom without belittling each other. i unders we wanting to do
that thely important committee today adopt the disarm hate act. this bill introduced by our colleagues from rhode island would prohibit the purchase of possession of firearms by individuals who have been convicted of misdemeanor of a hate crime have received an enhanced sentence for certain misdemeanor convictions. the fbi reports there has been a significant increase in hate crimes over the past three years. when more than 7100 hate crimes reported in 2017 alone. this count is likely substantial undercount the total number of hate-motivated crimes that occurred communities throughout the country. reporting of these incidents to law enforcement remains sporadic. according to a survey,
approximately 204,000 hate victims areting committed in the u.s. every year. our country has been particularly devastated by a series of horrific mass murders motivated by hate in recent years. white supremacist killed six people and injuring four. in 2015, a white supremacist murdered nine worshipers during a bible study at the immanuel african methodist church in charleston, south carolina, an historic african-american church. in 2016, the nightclub in orlando florida was attacked leaving 49 dead and 53 others wereed, most of whome
lbgtq and latino. a shooter in el paso targeted mexican americans while shopping in a wall start -- walmart. these horrible attacks were all hate crimes and all committed with a gun. under current law many of those convicted of misdemeanor hate crimes are free to buy and possess guns. these misdemeanor hate crimes include many types of threatening and dangerous conduct, including assault and threats of harassment of members of a protected class. roughly half the states of misdemeanor hate crime are sentencing enhancements in which
conviction would not prevent firearms purchase. this act would address this dangerous gap by providing individuals who have been convicted -- it extends only to those convicted of a misdemeanor crime or those who have had an enhancement because of the attempted use of physical force. the threatened use of a deadly weapon or other credible threats to the physical safety of a person. ensuresfying language it applies only to those convicted of underlying crimes. this is a modest common sense measure which will help ensure the demonstrated history of hate motivated violence do not continue to have easy access to firearms. person would be found under a reasonable doubt to have committed a crime of violence or criminal physical threats based on the race or sex of the victim. the bill sends a strong message
that hate violence is dangerous and unacceptable and that we will do everything in our power to help -- therefore i support this important legislation and urges quick adoption today. i now recognize the gentleman from georgia for his opening statement. >> it has been a long day. this is another piece of legislation that attacks at a different angle. it is a concern. i am just not sure where you find that. somebody attacks somebody else, there is a malice motivation. just by calling something based on who they are attacking or not attacking is not making it worse. crime is not worse because of the identity of the victim. justice must be swift and blind. murder is murder and assault is assault.
it is simply one human attacking another and that is wrong and should be condemned at all costs. this bill is an attempt from the democratic majority to allow future administrations to use vaguely defined hate crimes against individuals with whom they disagree by taking away a fundamental constitutional right. may have occurred years or decades in the past. current law to ensure dangerous felons are prohibited from possessing firearms, whatever
the motivation for those crimes and applying those to a certain level because of a definition is problematic. we are in an interesting slope with this bill. it is the majority's prerogative to pass this bill which i'm sure they will expeditiously. but please hear the warning of the minority which is many times the one that is listened to later in life, be careful what you are doing here. as you go forward, keeping this vague, in a way it can retroactively apply, hate is hate, free speech -- we may disagree and want to suppress things but i respect the right of my colleagues to express views that i disagree with. that is the first amendment. we don't need the first amendment if we all agreed. we need the first amendment attacked it. when somebody attack somebody or murder somebody or assault somebody, when they go after somebody or bully them or anything else, it is wrong.
you don't have to call it what it is. it is already shown in the action. this is a misguided attempt but this is the decision of the majority. i say it's not good. but that's why the votes take place and i yield back. >> i now recognize an amendment. >> amendment in the nature of a substitute to hr2708 offered by mr. nadler, strike all that follows and insert the following. >> without objection the amendment will be considered as read. i will recognize myself to explain the amendment. this amendment adds a clause to the bill providing that should any portion of the bill be found invalid the remainder of the bill will stay intact.
it makes no other changes to the bill and i urge all members to support it. i yield back the balance of my time and i now recognize mr. collins of any comments you may have about the amendment. >> i have already made all my comments, i yield back. >> are there any more comments? the gentleman from rhode island. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you. i want to begin by thanking my colleagues who have participated in the hearing and i want to particularly acknowledge the leadership of my colleagues who have taken very painful personal experiences in their lives and in their communities and use it to focus in a very determined effort to reduce gun violence in this country. you have been an inspiration to all of us. on the concern that a crime is a
crime and hate crimes are no different, and i could not disagree more. the reason that we have adopted provisions in federal and state law to make hate crimes more severely punished is because they are of course a crime committed against an individual because of their race, ethnic origin, religious beliefs or sexual orientation or gender identity. and it is intended to instill fear in an entire community. that is why we tend to treat it more severely rather than an example of someone who commits an offense that does not have that as the basis. what we know from the southern poverty law center is they admit -- estimate there are 892 hate groups currently operating in the u.s., a number that is increased by 14% since last year. they found that 59% of domestic terrorist attacks were carried out between 2009 in 2015 with a gun. so there is a real connection
between guns and hate, the national crime victimization survey revealed between 2010 and 2016 there were over 56,000 crimes that involved guns. this report entitled hate and guns, a terrifying combination prepared by the american center for american progress. it be made a part of the record. >> objection. >> what we know is that on august 3, 2019 a gunman shot and killed 22 people and injured 22 4 others in the mass shooting that occurred in a walmart in el paso, texas. the white nationalists gunman wrote in a manifesto that he drove nearly 10 hours with the intention of targeting mexicans. what happened in el paso is not unique. jeri ryan was killed along with 49 others in the pulse nightclub shooting in orlando, florida, inspired by a shooting at a church in charleston, south carolina. in pittsburgh, a gunman killed
11 people and injured seven more people in a shooting at a synagogue. we have a responsibility to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. and this connection between hate crime convictions and subsequent additional violence is clear. researchers have found, and i'm quoting from this report. researchers have found that individuals who commit hate crimes tend to escalate their conduct in order to ensure their message is received by the targeted individual or community. researchers from northeastern university who specialize in hate crimes explain the phenomenon this way. defensive hate crimes are meant to send a message that maybe blacks are not welcome on a block or latinos should not apply for a promotion. as such, these crimes, their intended effect is very much like ask of terrorism, meant to send a signal of fear and horror. a desired retreat on the part of the victims and the offender frequently escalates the level of property damage or violence. a black family moving into an all-white neighborhood is first
warned, then if they don't heed the warning than their windows are broken, and if they still refuse to move out their house maybe firebombed or worse. there is pattern of escalation that has demonstrating the importance of people of preventing people convicted of misdemeanor hate crimes from buying a gun. but many states do not have prohibitions against this. there are 23 states in the district of columbia for hitting individuals from buying and possessing guns, and the vast majority of states have not enacted laws. so this would prevent people who are convicted of hate crimes, with research that shows there is substantial likelihood of subsequent violence with an increased likelihood of the use of a gun. this is a commonsense proposal to keep guns out of the hands of people who commit hate crimes and have a propensity of violence that will help protect their communities from some the worst gun violence that we have seen. i urge my colleagues to support that legislation and with that i yield back. >> are there any amendments?
the gentleman from texas. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you. again, the emphasis on hate, the federal hate crime laws that were pushed through here heralding the james byrd case in jasper, texas is the poster case, were misdirected, because james byrd was horribly killed, and as i have said before, i would not have a problem with texas adopting a sentencing where the victim's family can choose the way that he were to lose his life and the death penalty would be invoked, including dragging the perpetrators behind a truck until dead. but under our federal hate crime that was adopted by heralding
the james byrd case, this is why we need a hate crime law, the two most culpable of the three got the death penalty. that is why i want the el paso shooter tried under texas law and not under any federal hate law because you can't get the death penalty under federal hate crimes, and it is an absolute defense under the federal hate crime law if you come in and raise a reasonable doubt that oh, i didn't actually hate any of those people, i chose them all at random, that is a complete defense. you are acquitted under our federal hate crime law. and i know as my colleague said, it is terrifying to think of hate, somebody with hate and a gun, but from what i saw as a judge, most people were more terrified when there was
somebody that was what used to be called a psychopath or a sociopath or antisocial personality. they don't care, they want to hurt somebody and they don't care who it is. those people are far more difficult to ever rehabilitate. there is plenty of evidence if you study sentencing and rehabilitation, there is plenty of evidence out there of people who have hated, committed a crime with hate in their heart, they have a shot at being rehabilitated because they are not necessarily an antisocial personality. the people that choose victims at random, you will have a tough time ever rehabilitating them. and this is how misguided this whole emphasis on hate has gotten. you will look here on page one, convicted in any court of a non-felony, misdemeanor hate crime, and that is defined as a misdemeanor under federal, state, tribal law. but it has to have as an element that the offender was motivated
by hate or bias because, and we use the term here, because of sexual orientation, for example. or gender identity. and it involves the use or attempted use of physical force. we are not talking that somebody that is used to guns or a deadly weapon, a knife or a machete, like the 800,000 or so that were killed with machetes in rwanda. this is just any use of physical force. whether it is a noogie, or the example that got me back when the hate crime laws were passed, and it still is applicable in this scenario, and that is a woman and her little daughter walk up to a street corner and there is a guy there in a raincoat, he flashes himself,
because that is how he is oriented sexually, and that's how he gets pleasure. the woman reacts by hitting him with her purse, she has just committed a federal hate crime. if a mom has taught her little girl that you be careful, beware of strangers, strange men, and she is in a restroom and a guy comes in and the little girl reacts or his mom is in there, and the daughter is freaking out, they have committed a hate crime. in the case of the flasher, he is a victim, she is the hater. this is how strained this kind of law has become. we should not be taking away somebody's right to keep and bear arms, should not be infringing on that simply because somebody reacted to what
used to be called a pervert and now is being called a victim. i yield back. >> the gentlelady from texas. >> i moved to strike the last word. >> the gentlelady is recognized. >> i cannot tell you how distressing it is for me to hear a dismissive account of hate crimes. 5.5 weeks ago, a killer drove to my community, one of the safest communities in the nation for decades, one of the safest communities in the nation. he drove to my community in order to slaughter mexicans and immigrants. and he walked into a store deliberately targeting us. i have two kids, one of whom is
in the audience, my daughter, and i have to worry about the color of my kid's skin. those who do not have to worry about hate crimes don't have to fear things like that. in this country, there are two things we are talking about today, and it is so right that we are talking about both of them on the same day. i was afraid that this bill was going to get kicked over into tomorrow and i was hoping it would not. because we don't just have a gun violence epidemic in this country, we have a hate epidemic in this country, and it has been fueled over and over and over again with language that is racist and bigoted, language that is intended to deprive the -- to divide the good people of this country, language that is intended to make us fear in those who look differently, love
differently, come from different places. language that has made us forgets exactly what we have been taught. one of my colleagues mentioned a quote about losing our moral center. we have lost our moral center when we no longer see human beings with dignity and grace. the dignity and grace that they were born with, when instead we call them illegal, or we look for ways to separate them. or we look for ways to target them. well my people, my community has been targeted. we have had a target placed on our backs because of the color of our skin. the day that your folks are massacred, then i can be lectured about hate crimes and how we should dismiss them and how they are meaningless. hate crimes are not meaningless. the designation of them is not
meaningless. this is about accountability, this is about holding people accountable for the words that say and the actions they take, thank mynk -- colleague, the representative, for bringing this legislation forward. i thank my colleagues here today on judiciary who are standing with people who have been targeted. the best way for us to regain our moral high ground in this country is to begin reconnecting with our compassion and our humanity. and i support your bill. thank you. i yield back my time. [applause] >> are there any further amendments? for what purpose does the
gentleman from florida -- >> i want to make sure there is no more mischaracterization of what i had to say. for me to advocate for the death penalty for the guy who went to el paso and killed all those innocent victims is hardly dismissive. that's unfair. and you were not listening. and to say anything further would probably violate the rules of decorum and i will not do that. the people that commit violent crimes need to be punished. and i am someone who has punished them. and especially when victims were women. and that may shock some people. but to say that we are dismissive of people who commit
violent crimes is just not accurate. they need to be punished. that is why i want the el paso shooter that killed those innocent people to be punished under texas law and not because i'm dismissive, but because the hate crime law passed here does not do as much as the texas state law does to punish such evil perpetrators. so i needed to set the record straight. i thank my friend from florida and yield back. >> does the gentleman yield back? >> not quite yet if that is all right. i just have to reject the notion that the thoughts and the mind of anyone who would commit these heinous acts, would be graded any less by the consequences of the shooting. i think about the kids in parkland. i don't think they were targeted
by virtue of their identity, but the person who killed them was no less evil than the person who committed those murders in texas that we are also sad about. i yield back. >> does anyone else seek recognition? the gentleman from colorado. >> thank you. i believe this legislation is flawed. as a former prosecutor i am very concerned about the effects the legislation would have on the judicial system. my first concern is this legislation is unconstitutional. this bill is not simply forward-looking, but looks backwards to long past convictions in order to impose additional legal consequences on misdemeanor offenders who have already paid their debt to society and in many cases rejected hateful ideology. this is the very definition of a neck. told law prohibited by the constitution. the fact that this bill applies retroactively to past misconduct -- misdemeanor convictions
raises serious constitutional concerns. if the bill only applied prospectively to future restrictions it would be on much firmer constitutional ground. i'm also concerned that this bill is unconstitutionally vague in terms of identifying which misdemeanor hate crimes trigger a loss of gun rights. judges clarity. of hearings on this bill, i don't think we have any idea of the magnitude or scope of what this bill might be asking law enforcement or prosecutors to take on. this will make it difficult to worse the law and likely impossible to ensure equal application of the law. the third concern i have with this bill is a practical consideration. it does not contain information about past misdemeanors such as hate crimes. state, local, and tribal
governments do not report this kind of information so the information does not exist in any meaningful way to guide her all firearms licensees or prospective purchasers. does law enforcement have the ability to go back to review past cases to determine if a conviction qualifies and if it should be reported? probably not. even if a jurisdiction is inclined to go back and look at past cases, are the case files sufficiently detailed to make a fair and just termination so long after the case was originally adjudicated? what potential for redress does someone have if someone unfamiliar with their case incorrectly determines their prior conviction should bar them from possessing a firearm? there's already a law -- long criminal justice backlog. for example, and dna testing, applying this law to pass cases will slow down the adjudication process and further burden already overburdened law enforcement and prosecutors. we do not know many of the answers because we have not held hearings on this legislation.
until this committee engages in the judgment inquiry and genuine fact-finding rather than posturing and grandstanding, we will not know the answers to these questions, and until we have answers and understand exactly what this bill would do, we should not pass it. i yelled back. >> the gentleman yields back. >> todd ruger is legal affairs staff writer with cq roll call, had a busy week this week. let's go to the market -- the markup decision they had on gun legislation. what did the committee pass? todd: it was another law markup about gun legislation. the public and's are not on board with what democrats are -- with what -- the republicans are not on board with what democrats want to do. this was at the top of the democrats' agenda, and they did three bills. one was about extreme risk