>> here's what's ahead this afternoon and into the even on c-span3. up next, the senate judiciary committee reviews legislation to tighten gun background checks including banning devices designed to increase the firing rate. dianne feinstein is sponsoring the legislation. then beginning at 8:00 eastern, the first of three c-span cities tours leading off with programs about charlottesville, virginia. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite

provider. >> next, testimony from officials with the atf and the air force on proposed firearm regulations. and updating the criminal background check system. the measure proposes banning bump stocks and similar devices that enable guns to fire as fast as an automatic weapon. senator dianne feinstein is the ranking member of the senate judiciary committee. she introduced the legislatio

and thank you for attending today's hearing. we gather here today in the wake of violent acts of an evil man in las vegas and sutherland springs and those two places get all the attention, but there's lesser numbers of people who have died other places as well.

today with the help of our witnesses, we hope to learn more about how those tragedies might have been prevented. and we will discuss various proposals on preventing similar tragedies in the future. before october 1st, 2017, few americans knew what a bump stock was. then a shooter used bump stocks to fire more than 1,100 rounds into a crowd attending a country music concert. the shooting lasted only ten minutes. the bump stocks enabled this person to fire ammunition as fast as if he had used an automatic weapon. 58 people died. 500 wounded. the deadliest mass shooting in our history. our laws prohibit the manufacture of machine guns for decades and decades, that's been the case. and greatly restrict their sale.

during the obama administration the aft determined that bump stocks are legal. a number of members of congress led by senator heller of nevada recently wrote the atf to ask it to revisit its decision. two days ago the atf announced it was changing its mind and issued advanced notice of proposed rule making that would apply the statutory definition of machine gun to bump stocks and similar devices. publication of this notice will provide the public and the firearms industry an opportunity to submit formal comments to atf on the proposed rulemaking. we do not have any proposed regulatory text before us today, but i think the committee deserves to know why the atf decided that its classification of bump stocks during the previous administration was incorrect. it's also important for the committee to understand how atf

is now proposing to interpret the statutory definition of machine gun. under current case law, the courts may give deference to the agency's interpretation of statutes governing firearms. depending on the atf's interpretation, congress may wish to weigh in. today we will also have a discussion about the national institute criminal background check system commonly known by the acronym nix. nix is the system used by those licensed to sell firearms to quickly determine whether a perspective buyer is eligible to bye whatever he wants to buy. nix background checks are supposed to prevent prohibitive persons like convicted felons, domestic abusers and those who have been determined to have certain mental health problems from purchasing firearms.

every year tens of thousands of prohibited persons are turned away from purchasing weapons. but for nix to keep weapons out of the hands of dangerous individuals, federal and state agencies must swiftly and must accurately report information on prohibited persons. unfortunately, this does not always happen as it should. the sutherland springs shooting was carried out by an individual who should not have been able to purchase a firearm. while in the air force, devin kelly was court-martialed for domestic violence. he served prison time and was discharged from the air force for bad conduct. but because his information was not entered into nix system as a law requires, kelly was able to purchase four weapons after his release from prison, including the weapon he used in the

sutherland springs shooting. kelly killed 26 people attending sunday services at the first baptist church there in sutherland springs and wounded 20 more. in the days following the shooting, the air force acknowledged its role in failing to report kelly's conviction to the fbi. the air force's failure to comply with nix reporting standards is inexcusable. but i do appreciate the way the air force has moved to accept responsibility for their mistakes and i look forward to learning more about the steps the air force is taking to make sure that every prohibited person is reported to the fbi. nix reporting issues are not limited to the air force, however. reports on nix in 1997 and 2015 showed severe reporting problems across the department of defense.

a report released by the department of defense inspector general just two days ago shows from 2015 to 2016, more than 30,000 of convictions in the department of defense were not reported to the fbi. other federal agencies and states can also improve their nix reporting. i was pleased to hear attorney general jeff sessions ordered a federal review of nix by the fbi and atf to insure all federal agencies are reporting all required information into nix. as far as states are concerned, some progress in nix reporting has been made in recent years. especially in areas of reporting mental health records. but some states, even those represented by members of our committees such as rhode island, vermont, hawaii, and louisiana, continue to lag behind.

these states reported fewer records to nix on a per capita basis than most of the other states. and more improvement can be made in order -- in other areas such as reporting domestic violence offenses. it is clear that this is a systemic problem and that there are many thousands of abusers who are not in the nix system, but absolutely should be in that system. states should also to report to insure that all records submitted to nix are complete and up to date. all of us wish that the recent tragedies in texas and nevada could have been avoided. nothing we do today or in the weeks to come will restore lives for those who were lost in those two cities. we owe it to the victims of those shootings to seriously consider what we should do as policymakers. as legislators, one of the most powerful tools we possess is legislation.

the problem with such a big hammer, however, is often everything looks like a nail. we must wield our legislative power carefully, particularly where it involves the fundamental liberties of our republic. the supreme court made it very clear that laws that concern the second amendment right to keep and bear arms is subjected to heightened scrutiny. so new laws affecting firearms and firearms accessories must be narrowly tailored to address government interest. nirgz, we have laws and regulations already on the books that require nix reporting and that regulate automatic weapons. the atf has just issued a notice that they intend to promulgate a new regulation about bump stocks baseded on existing laws. before we pass new laws, we should make sure that our current laws are being effectively followed and enforced. we should also make sure that existing programs designed to ensure nix reporting compliance are fully funded and effectively run.

so i look forward to this hearing and answers to some of these questions. and once again, as i will thank you again because witnesses go to a lot of work to appear here, thank you for what you have done to make this hearing and bring light on this subject. senator feinstein. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for holding the hearing and allowing senator cortez masto from the state of nevada so much affected by this issue, to testify here this morning. it is very much appreciated. two months ago we witnessed the deadliest mass shooting in las vegas. it was on october 1st, a sole gunman sprayed over 1,100 rounds into a crowd of concertgoers from the 32nd floor of a hotel room in a matter of minutes. the attack left 58 people dead and over 500 injured. witnesses describe the scene as

a war zone. think about that. a war zone at a music concert. this was conducted by one 64-year-old man with a vast arsenal of weapons. how did he exact such devastation within minutes? he had at least, i understand, 23 guns, thousands of rounds of ammunition and at least 12 of something called a bump stock. bump stocks allow a gunman with a semiautomatic weapon to mimic automatic gunfire. with a bump stock device attached, semiautomatic weapons can fire up to 700 rounds per minute. i'd like to ask you to turn your attention to the screens to a video clip that shows how these

devices work. [ gunshots ] [ gunshots ] >> machine guns and guns with automatic fire are already banned under federal law. bump stocks are not. the national firearms act was enacted in 1934 to strictly regulate machine guns. it was passed in response to the

st. valentine's day massacre in 1929 when thompson machine guns called tommy guns, were used in a chicago mass shooting by mobster gang members. the original law heavily regulated machine guns but later the law was updated in 1986 to ban all future automatic weapons from private possession. there's no reason to believe that this ban should not also be applied to bump stock devices and other similar devices. while some have argued that the atf can ban or regulate these devices under existing law, the atf has repeatedly stated that bump stocks cannot be regulated because they do not fall within the legal definition of a machine gun. we introduced a straight forward bill to fix this. to treat bump stocks and other

devices like machine guns. specifically, the bill bans, quote, the import, sale, manufacture, transfer, or possession of a trigger crank, a bump device, or any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that's designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire from a semiautomatic rifle. that's what the bill actually says. several witnesses today including police chief tom manger, the president of the major cities police chiefs association, will discuss how bump stock devices put us all at risk. the witnesses today will also discuss this despicable attack that occurred a month after las vegas at a baptist church in sutherland springs, texas.

there a convicted domestic abuser, who was able to pass an fbi background check and obtain four guns, brutally murdered 26 people with victims ranging from 18 months old to 77 years old. i understand one was a pregnant woman with a boy child. it was an act of pure evil. we were all devastated and infuriated to find out that the the fbi background check missed the gunman. he should never have been allowed to get those guns. the air force failed to provide the fbi background check system with records indicating he assaulted his wife and infant stepchild while in the air force. and i must say that i had a very fine call from the secretary of the air force yesterday and she has taken, i think, very effective action, which i think

she'll outline later this morning. so this is all unacceptable. i understand that we need to look forward to the future. i also understand that it was almost five years ago to the day that america witnessed the tragic shooting of elementary children and their teachers at newtown, connecticut. and mr. chairman, i just want to take this opportunity before i end to acknowledge the fact that there are large numbers of people here today in this audience who have been affected by gun violence, so i would like to ask that they stand, and i would like to recognize the representatives from the brady campaign, the newtown action alliance, moms demand action, gabby gifford and mark kelly's

group, the police foundation, the center for american progress, and the coalition to stop gun violence and the national task force to end sexual and domestic violence. if those representatives are here, if you would stand please. we'd like to give you a round of applause and thank you for attending this hearing. [ applause ] thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you for attending. everybody for attending, but those that have been felt the tragedies particularly. we now turn to the senator from nevada that will speak because of the tragedy that happened in her state and any view she wants to give us. then we'll hear from senator cornyn, and if senator -- both senators from texas want to speak about the tragedy in their state, we'll do that. then we'll go to our second panel. you're our first panel so please cortez masto, go ahead.

>> thank you for holding this hearing and for allowing me the opportunity to testify. our subject today is difficult, but it is also incredibly important. on october 1st, 2017, my hometown where i was born and raised in las vegas experienced a tragedy. 58 innocent people were murdered and more than 500 were injured after a gunman rained down fire at the route 91 harvest festival. this event now has a sad distinction of being the worst mass shooting in modern american history. the human cost of this atrocious crime is incalculable. those who survived must not only heal from physical wounds but cope with the mental scars. as members of the senate judiciary committee, you are in a unique position to take the first steps to end these senseless massacres. i ask the senators of this committee to be brave and do what's right for the victims and

survivors of las vegas, sutherland springs, sandy hook, aurora and countless communities that want to see commonsense reforms. i will never forget the stories i heard walking through our hospitals and meeting with victims and our first responders. entire emergency room and hallway floors stained with blood. a recovery room and one of our hospitals turned into a makeshift morgue. a victim's phone ringing continuously with calls from her father who would soon learn she would never be coming home. there's one life story cut short for each of the 58 people killed that night. we have come to learn their stories of sacrifice, courage, and love. we have also learned the thousands of stories from those in the crowd who did not hesitate to help others. they are our true heroes. stories like that of heather gooze, who is here today, and you'll hear from, but i also

want to recognize two other survivors of the october 1st shooting who are here. heather brown and christine korea. lives were saved because stranger helped stranger. there were helpers like jonathan, despite receiving a gunshot wound to the neck, jonathan saved the lives of 30 people by leading them out of the venue and aiding them in taking cover. other helpers like tammie, an iraq war veteran, stayed behind to help victims on the ground. she used her nursing experience to triage those immobile because of their injuries. despite her best efforts, she couldn't save one young woman and had the heartbreaking task of telling a mother that her daughter was dead. tammie said, i'll never forget that girl's face. i had to tell the mom that her daughter had gone. as a lifelong las vegan, i have never seen such a profound community response as i saw in the hours, days and weeks after the shooting. i continue to be amazed at the

strength and spirit that will help us move forward. following this terrible event, i have focused on working with my colleagues on reforms that would stop tragedies like this from happening again. as members of this committee, the mass shooting in my hometown was made more lethal because of a firearm accessory referred to as a bump stock. as you have seen, this is a device designed to turn a semiautomatic rifle into a deadlier weapon. i welcome the testimony today on these accessories. i believe what we hear today will confirm that these devices should be kept off our streets. i am proud to co-sponsor senator feinstein's automatic act, a bill to outlaw bump stocks and similar accessories. i believe we must pass this legislation so the law is clear. bump stocks do not belong in our country. we cannot and should not wait to do this through a lengthy rulemaking progress that could take years.

the victims of the october 1st massacre and all americans need action now. i also welcome a discussion on the ways we can improve the national instant criminal background check system. our wounds from las vegas had not yet healed when we learned of another terrible shooting in sutherland springs, texas. the tragic event at the first baptist church drove home that we must re-evaluate our background check system so those who should not have a gun cannot buy one. i am proud to co-sponsor the fix nix act to place tighter protocols on government, states and localities to ensure the crucial information of prohibited purchasers is uploaded into the nix database. i hope the system today will inform our work on this important legislation. as a gun owner myself, i understand the importance of our second amendment rights. hundreds of thousands of law-abiding nevadans own guns. it's part of the culture of our state.

but my constituents also understand there are commonsense steps we can take to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals. this hearing is an important first step to making meaningful change. i look forward to working with the members of this committee on the next steps we can take to make america safer. every day i think of the victims and survivors of the las vegas shooting and every day i try to honor their legacy. thank you for the opportunity to share their stories today. >> thank you very much. we usually don't ask questions of our colleagues, so you're free to go if you want to. senator cornyn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate you and the ranking member senator feinstein getting us together on this very important topic, and i want to thank senator cortez masto and senator heller for your leadership following the wake of the horrific shooting in las vegas. texas suffered its own tragedy a month ago on november 5ing

when a deranged gunman shot and killed 26 people worshiping at the first baptist church in sutherland springs. as senator cruz and i learned, when we went down to sutherland springs, the gunman actually shot through the walls, the exterior walls of the church while people were worshiping inside. then entered a side door to shoot the wounded in the head and otherwise end their lives. it was a horrible, horrific experience. but i think we need to recognize, too, that were it not for the heroic actions of steven and johnny, even more bloodshed and deaths would have occurred. steven was an nra trained firearms instructor who heard the gunshots at the church and ran a block away in his bare feet to the scene along with his rifle and fired on the shooter and forced him to flee, wounding him twice.

and with the help of johnny, a neighbor who was driving past the church, they chased down the shooter and made sure that the rampage ended. the senate judiciary committee is holding this hearing today to ask what we're going to do about these horrific events. i personally have gotten a little tired of the statements following these tragedies that we need to do something. do something. i think it's pretty clear particularly when it comes to fixing our broken background check system what that something is. and if it we do that something, it will save lives. and every day we let the current dysfunction in the background check system continue, lives are in jeopardy. so i hope we will do something. but that that something will make a difference and save lives. we can do it. i think it's important what the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms is doing to reevaluate the legality of bump stocks.

i share many of the concerns that have been expressed. shortly after the shooting, we learned that in sutherland springs, we learned that the shooter had a significant criminal history of domestic violence and mental illness thereat should have prevented him from purchasing firearms. he simply lied when he purchased these firearms from a federally licensed firearms dealer. but because the information had not been uploaded it wasn't available to prevent him from purchasing these guns. i appreciate general goldfine and the secretary of the air force's response. they recognized what a problem this is, and they have worked quickly to try to address it. but it is simply unacceptable when you look across the united states department of defense. and the failure to upload this

essential information that's required information in the background check system. and i hope if anything good comes out of this tragedy, it will be that we finally fix on a bipartisan basis this broken background check system, like senator cortez masto, i'm a gun owner, too. i believe in the second amendment. i believe we each have an individual right to keep and bear arms. and legal gun owners like steven not only are no threat to the community. they can help protect the community when the police are not immediately available. but there simply is no excuse for not enforcing current law. it could have avoided the tragedy in virginia tech in 2007 when a person who had been ad d adjudicated mentally ill, that information was not uploaded into the system in virginia, and he got a firearm, and we know what happened after that.

so i am pleased that following this tragedy in sutherland springs, we have decided to do something on a bipartisan basis. there are 25 co-sponsors of the fix nics act. it is a balanced and bipartisan piece of legislation that has one objective and one objective only. to make sure that federal and state agencies are complying with the current law in uploading complete and accurate records to the nics system. i, for one, never want to have to look a mother or a father or a brother or a sister or husband or wife in the face and say, yes, we could have acted to prevent a tragedy, but we didn't. we didn't do our job. the fix nics act is supported by a number of groups across the political spectrum, from second amendment groups like the nra and the national shooting sports

foundation, law enforcement groups like the fraternal order of police and the national sheriffs association and domestic violence groups like the national coalition against domestic violence. so i want to thank my colleagues, all of my colleagues, for joining me in this effort. this is something that will save lives, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing and highlighting the problems that we have and what solutions we have available to us to fix the broken background check system and save lives. >> senator cruz. >> thank you, mr. chairman. sutherland springs in texas saw a truly horrific mass murder. i was in sutherland springs the day after the shooting. i stood in that sanctuary where over 450 bullets had been fired. pews overturned, shattered

glass, pools of blood, as those who had come that sunday morning to worship hid in fear and terror while a deranged lunatic walked down the center aisle of a small country sanctuary and systemically executed every man, woman and child he saw with a rifle shot to the head. shooting as young as 18 months old. i spent time with the pastor and his wife who lost their 14-year-old daughter, holding them, crying with them, praying with them. spent time with the victims. one individual lost eight members of his family including his parents and wife and unborn child. one little girl who is 7 saw two of her siblings murdered right in front of her.

heidi and i have a 7-year-old daughter at home. i don't know how that precious girl moves on from that tragedy. one of the shooting victims when i visited him in the hospital at brooks army medical center had a ventilator on, his arm was shot up but he could write with his left hand. he wrote in scraggly text, don't blame god. this is evil. we saw the face of evil in sutherland springs. it's the most horrific thing i have ever seen in my life. we also at the same time saw incredible bravery. steven willerford, a neighbor who lived a block away. his daughter called him and said someone is shooting at the church. steven ran to his gun safe and

pulled out his rifle, an ar-15, and he ran a block to the church barefooted, didn't bother to put on his shoes. he sheltered behind a pickup truck. the shooter was still in the church and executing people. indeed, he had his rifle pointed at one woman. when steven engaged him and brought him outside the church, what proceeded was a gunfight. the shooter fired repeatedly at willerford. i stood by the pickup truck where he sheltered. behind him the house had bullet holes in the walls and windows. steven was an nra rifle instructor. he shot the shooter twice, once in the side and once in the leg. the shooter threw down his rifle, jumped in the car and sped off. steven waved down a man who he didn't know and said somebody just shot up the church.

he jumped in the truck with him and the two of them followed the shooter and called 911 were speaking to police, directing where the shooter was. the shooter pulled over and finally took a gun and took his own life. the day after the shooting i spoke with steven. he's a humble, simple man. he's a plumber. media has descended upon him. he's not interested in the media attention at all. what he said that next day, he said, look, i'm not a hero. i don't know why people are using words like that. he said i was scared out of my mind. i was terrified. my response, i said, mr. willerford, courage is not the absence of fear. courage is acting in the face of fear. and i'll tell you what a half dozen law enforcement agents

told me that day on monday and then i was back there all day wednesday of that week. they said the same thing. had that individual citizen not engaged, not risked his life, many more people would have been murdered that day. now congress in the wake of this naturally asks what can we do. i can tell you what multiple survivors of sutherland springs said to me. when i met with them, over and over again, they volunteered, said the answer to this is not gun control. one woman, a mom whose son was in surgery, said, you know, we all had our guns. we just left them in the car. we left them in the car out of respect for the church. if any one of us had brought our guns in, this madman would have been stopped. the answer, i believe, is not in restricting law-abiding citizens. law-abiding citizens whose

heroism saved lives that day, the answer is stopping criminals and madmen from getting guns. the thing that is infuriating is this shooter it was illegal for this shooter to have a firearm. existing federal law it was illegal. the reason he had a firearm is the federal government screwed up. in 2013 the chairman and i joined together in introducing legislation. grassley/cruz, voted on on the floor of the senate, got the most bipartisan votes of any of the comprehensive legislation voted on. a majority of the senate voted for grassley/cruz. 52-48. nine democrats voted for it. what did grassley/cruz do? it directed the federal agencies go through, review criminal convictions and get them in the nics database. directed the attorney general, make sure the agencies have complied. if it had passed, the air force should have caught this conviction and reported it to the database.

it also directed the department of justice prosecute the felons and fugitives who try to illegally buy firearms. stop ignoring these as paperwork offenses. if a felon comes in and lies and tries to illegally buy a firearm, put him in jail. in april of 2016 this shooter went into an academy, lied on the form, purchased a gun, and if grassley/cruz had passed, he should have been prosecuted, put in jail, and if he was in a federal jail, he never would have murdered anyone in sutherland springs. we need to stop criminals from getting guns. >> thank you, my colleagues. will the four people on the first panel come forth. before you sit down, i would like to enter an oath and then i will introduce you. do you each -- i'll wait a minute.

do you each affirm that the testimony you're about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? each have affirmed. please be seated. i would like to introduce you before you testify. we have dr. heather wilson, 24th secretary of the air force. she's responsible for the affairs of that department including organizing, training equipment, providing for welfare of nearly 660 active duty guard, reserve and civilian forces. dr. wilson is a graduate of the air force academy doctored from university of oxford. this was followed by a distinguished career in the united states air force. thank you for serving your country in that capacity. from '98 to 2002 she served as a member of the u.s. house of representatives representing new mexico.

mr. thomas brandon has decades of experience in law enforcement. he currently serves as acting director of bureau of alcohol tobacco, and firearms and explosives. atf for short. been at the agency since '89. mr. brandon has been part of the senior leadership at atf since 2011 when he was selected as deputy to director while serving as special agent in charge of phoenix field office throughout his time at atf he's also served as chief of the atf national academy as well as a number of other positions throughout the country. mr. douglas lindquist serves as assistant director for the fbi criminal justice information service division.

the arm of the fbi that oversees the nics program. mr. lindquist has been in his position since march 2017. he's also been with the fbi since joining as a special agent in '97. mr. lindquist's experience in the fbi has taken him all over the world, including being a member of the rapid deployment team in africa, legal attache london, and london supervisor of middle east unit of international terrorism operation in counterterrorism section. mr. glenn fine is the acting inspector general for the department of defense. a role he's held since january 10th, 2016. in this position he's responsible for detecting waste, fraud and abuse as well as promoting accountability for the entire department of defense. prior to being acting inspector

general, mr. fine was named as the department of defense principle deputy inspector general, june 1st, 2014. and we all know him because he previously served as inspector general doj for 11 years. i think i didn't introduce you this way, but we're going to go dr. wilson, brandon, fine, and then lindquist. and then your entire statement will be put in the record, and to the extent to which you can do it in five minutes, i never cut anybody off at exactly five minutes, but when you see the red light go on, try to summarize. thank you, doctor wilson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my full statement will be in the record but i'd like to summarize a few remarks to open. what happened in sutherland springs was absolutely awful. a mass murder of people gathered to pray. the morning after the shooting in sutherland springs, the chief of staff and i directed the rapid investigation to find out

what happened, why, and correct it. it was clear very early that mr. kelly's criminal history was not reported, and it should have been. in the week since, our review has determined that the breakdown in reporting was not limited to this case and it was not limited to this detachment at the air force base. the actions that we have taken since then include steps to add steps to case management for both the office of special investigations and also the air force security forces. so that cases cannot be closed just at the local detachment. that higher headquarters must

also check off the fingerprint records had been filed. a third check has been added that when the file is actually archived, the file is checked again to make sure that the fingerprints have been put on record. we have also added a requirement that the person working the case, the case investigating officer not only has to file the fingerprints, they have to check the database to ensure that the fingerprints have been properly recorded and received by the federal database and print out a screen shot or a record of that check and file it in the air force records so that anyone looking at that record knows that the proper steps have been taken. the air force has updated its training requirements and on the 17th of november we had a worldwide standdown for all offices of the office of special investigation for re-training and reminding of what the

requirements are under dod and air force policy. over the next month, the security forces in the air force, squadron by squadron, are doing similar analogous training. after the 2015 dod/ig report showed there were problems with respect to reporting criminal information to the federalidate abases, a number of steps were taken, particularly by air force osi to correct deficiencies. they were insufficient. one of the things not done was a complete retroactive review of the cases in the database maintained by the air force to insure that previous cases that had not been properly reported were properly reported. the general and i have stood up two task forces of 30 people each, one in the security forces and one in the office of special investigations, to go through

the air force database that goes back to 2002 to insure that any case that was not properly reported at the time is properly reported. i wanted to thank the fbi and the department of justice for working with us and ensuring that we can make those updates expeditiously. i also wanted to comment brief ly on accountability and disciplinary action. there are some things that i cannot say today, and i know many of you may have questions about accountability or disciplinary action. when all of the facts are compiled and there's a final report, commanders with the advice of counsel will make decisions about any accountability or disciplinary action. i have to be careful not to prejudge the facts in a way that would amount to undue command influence by the secretary of the air force. there are still things that we have to do.

we believe it will take between four and five months to complete the database review that we have directed by these two task forces. we know that air force security forces we need more electronic fingerprint machines so every detachment of security forces has the modern tools that will make it more likely that fingerprints will be accepted. we have directed annual audits for compliance including one within the next 12 months to ensure that fixes have been made and are taking hold. we have also directed a 30-day review by the chief data officer of the united states air force. one of the factors in this situation is that we're dealing with four government agencies, no less than ten databases, and five title codes. it is a largely manual system and it is labor intensive. we'd like to know from our chief

data officer whether there are ways to improve this system electronically. we are also feeding information to the department of defense inspector general's review which is looking at the department as a whole and cooperating with our colleagues providing information on what we have learned to our sister services. and finally, we have asked the air force inspector general not just to look at reporting in this way, but what other kinds of reports are required and to make sure that we are complying with those as well. i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you. now mr. brandon. >> mr. chairman, ranking member feinstein and distinguished senators on the senate judiciary committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before you today. on behalf of the men and women of atf, i extend heartfelt

condolences to the friends and family of those killed, injured, and survived the horrendous attacks in las vegas and sutherland springs, texas, and survivors of all forms of the firearms violence that plagues every community every day. all of the men and women of atf are aware of the need for constant vigilance fulfilling our mission to combat violent crime. although we are a small agency, we embrace the challenge of our mission and strive to the best partner possible to our colleagues. delivering investigative and technical experience that drive results. atf is the federal agency primarily responsible for enforcing the regulatory provisions of the federal firearms laws, particularly the national firearms act of 1934 and the gun control act of 1968. atf's authority to regulate firearms is limited by the terms of those statutes and they do not empower atf to regulate parts or accessories designed to be used with firearms.

for atf to regulate under these statutes, the device in question must fit within the gun control act's definition of a firearm and must fall within one of the specific categories of weapons defined in the national firearms act, including machine guns. atf does not have direct authority to regulate or ban bump stocks. we classify not approved devices as either firearms or national firearms act weapons. by applying the definitions in the statutes. if a device does not fall within those statutory definitions, atf has no authority to regulate the device. the horrible las vegas massacres focus congressional and public attention on specific types of firearms accessories so-called bump stocks. bump stocks are devices that are designed to facilitate a shooting technique known as bump firing. bump firing is a technique in which the shooter uses the recoil energy of a semiautomatic firearm to accelerate the rate

of fire by bumping the gun's stock off the shooter's shoulder or other item to reengage the trigger more quickly. but the goal of mimicking automatic fire. some shooters are able to accomplish this technique without using any device or accessory. beginning in 2008, atf received a series of classification requests for such bump stock devices. we have classified most of these to be a firearm accessory that are not subject to nfa regulation, either because the devices shot only one bullet or pull of the trigger or because the devices did not appear to initiate a full automatic firing cycle. in the aftermath of the tragedy in las vegas, members of congress, including many on this committee and the general public have asked atf to reexamine its past decisions on bump stocks to determine whether existing federal law can be interpreted to include these type of devices within the definition of machine gun.

atf and the department of justice have undertaken a review of the available options, and after thoughtful, thorough consideration, i have directed atf to initiate the process of promulgating a federal regulation interpreting the definition of machine gun in the national firearms act and gun control act to clarify whether certain bump stock devices fall within that definition. as we advised the committee yesterday, we submitted an advanced rule making to provide the public and industry the opportunity to submit formal comments to atf on certain preliminary topics to help inform atf's decision regarding further steps in the rheulemaki process. issuance is within my authority as the agency head of atf and is the appropriate starting point in the regulatory process. i fully appreciate the desire

that this process move quickly and i insure the committee that we'll work tirelessly to complete the process as soon as possible. i'm honored to represent atf today, and i'm armed to share this panel with secretary wilson, general fine, and lind request, all of whom are dedicated servants working to make our country more secure. >> thank you, mr. brandon. now glenn fine. >> chairman grassley, ranking member feinstein, and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify about the dod office of inspector general's reviews regarding the dod's submission of criminal history information for entry into fbi databases. i appear before this committee many times in a prior capacity as the inspector general of the department of justice for 11 years, from 2000 to 2011. today's, i appear before you again in a different capacity, as the head of the dod ig this time which i have led since

january of twen 16. unfortunately, this hearing arises from the parts of the tragic events of november 2016 when a former air force member shot and killed 26 members of the first baptist church in sutherland springs, texas. at the request of the secretary of defense, the dod ig agreed to investigate what happened with his criminal records and to review more broadly the practices and procedures regarding when appropriate information is submitted by dod law enforcement agencies for entry into fbi databases. the oig has begun that investigation and review. the dod ig has previously done several reviews that have found serious deficiencies in the submission of required criminal history to the fbi. our first review in 1997 found significant gaps in the military services compliance with the requirement to submit criminal history data to the fbi. in addition, other previous

dod-oig evaluations by law enforcement organizations such as sexual assault investigations or the handling of certain types of evidence, such as dna. they also found the services were not consistently submitting required data from criminal investigations to the fbi. in 2015, the dod oig completed another evaluation and found noncompliant in their submission of fingerprint and final disposition reports to the fbi. in february 2017, the oig opened a follow-up review to evaluate again whether the military services were submitting fingerprint cards and final disposition cards for its members convicted of qualifying offenses. we reviewed these submissions for the period from january 1st 2015 to december 31st, 2016. in our report, which we issued yesterday, we determined that military services still did not

consistently submit fingerprint cards and final disposition reports as required. overall, of the 2500 fingerprint cards required to be submitted, 601 or 24% were not submitted. the final disposition reports required to be submitted, 31% were not submitted. the results differed by service. the army, navy, and marines failed to submit many such fingerprint cards and final disposition reports. the air force performed better but still had many missing fingerprint cards and final disposition reports. our report made a series of specific recommendations to address these serious deficiencies and to insure that all fingerprint cards and disposition reports be submitted as required. we also recommended to the dod take prompt action to institute oversight coal controls to vartie compliance in the past and future and make sure such

compliance is required in inspector general inspections. finally, we recommended that the dod also insure that other required investigative and criminal history information, such as criminal incident data and dna samples has been submitted for inclusion in fbi databases. the secretary of the army, navy, and air force, the deputy chief management officer, and the undersecretary of defense for intelligence all concurred with our recommendations. they also described actions they have begun taking and steps they intend to take to fully implement the recommendations. in conclusion, the dod oig has repeatedly found deficiencies with submission of fingerprints, final disposition reports and other criminal history information to the fbi. it is critical that the dod fully implement our recommendations to correct past deficiencies and prevent future lapses in reporting. we intend to follow up on these issues, to help insure that the dod fully complied with its

obligation to submit to the fbi all required criminal history information. that concludes my statement, and i look forward to answering any questions. >> thank you, mr. fine. now mr. lindquist. >> good morning, chairman grassley, ranking member feinstein and members of the committee. i thank you for this opportunity to appear before you to discuss the federal bureau of investigations national instant background check system or nics. the brady act requires federal firearms licensees to use the nics to determine whether a perspective firearm transfer would violate state or federal laws. it provides information to determine if a person is disqualified from receiving or possesses fire arms. they're the national crime information center, which contains information on one person's protection orders and other information relevant to the nics surface. the iii, which accesses criminal

history records and the nics indices. the includes individuals who are federally or state prohibited from possessing or receiving fi information may not be available through ncic or iii data back. the nix has experienced a steady background of checks. this past black friday, was the highest volume day in nix history. on that one day, we processed over 2,300 transactions. in 2016, the nix staff continues to maintain an immediate determination rate of over 90% on transactions to the ffl's. the vast majority of records needed by the nix are in the iii and ncic databases which are the

back bones of law enforcement in this country. to encourage and increase the submission of records, the nix program is implemented in an array of outreach and initiatives with agencies nationwide. the nix program is a dedicated team providing continuous support to local, state, tribal and federal partners, and provide technical support in entering and maintaining information within the nix indexes. the fbi continues to work with federal agencies to help identify and report relevant records and these efforts have led to a significant increase in the amount of information available to the nix. the fbi is also partnered with the u.s. courts to receive dispositions electronically under federal supervision. another area of focus is improving the completeness of state, territorial, tribal and

federal history records contained in the iii. they conduct teleconferences, holds meetings with state, territory, tribal and federal agencies to address the methods available to challenge the partners may be having. every opportunity was taken for updated and timely dispositions. the fbi works proactively with our criminal justice colleagues to make resources available to agencies working to approve their disposition reporting. the attorney general increased reporting to the nix, we look forward to accomplishing this important work. we all want to earn sure that nix has access to accurate and complete information so it can do its job to make sure the public is safe. they take their work very seriously, since they're aware of the potential consequences 37 our heartfelt condolences go out

to the victims of shootings across the country. i thank the members of this committee for their engagement on this issue. >> i thank all of you for staying within the time limits. we're going to have five rounds of questions. your agency two days ago, started the process of promulgating a regulation interpreting the definition of machine gun, in the national firearms act and gun control act to collar phi whether certain bump stock devices fall within that definition. does atf have the authority to regulate bump stock? >> there's the possibility that it's possible as we go through the administrative procedure act, and the first step is the

advanced notice of proposed rule making, which is with omb as i said in my statement. if that wasn't a possibility at the end we wouldn't initiate this process. >> many gun owners are concerned that eye regulation restricting manufacturer or sale of bump stocks could apply to other firearms, or firearms, accessories and common use, are you confident that the regulation if you move forward with a regulation can be written so that it addresses the bump stock issue separately, but does not go beyond that. >> well, mr. chairman, thank you for the question. and what i promise to you is that atf will follow the process of the administrative procedure's act in the formal comments we received from the public and the industry members that we use that information to go to the next step. so i can't promise anything other than to follow the rules of the apa.

and also to evaluate and categorize the comments we received. >> i'm going to ask it anyway, after you receive comments from your advanced notice of proposed rule making, is it possible that the atf will conclude it cannot regulate bump stocks? >> mr. chairman, i couldn't answer that question at this time, until i receive the comments. >> secretary wilson. >> the air force security forces failed to report incidences to nix. can you please explain why the discrepancy exists and what steps you're taking to fix the

problem? >> push the button. >> senator, there are two elements of law for law enforcement in the united states air force, the office of special investigations, which generally investigates crimes that can be punishable for more than one year in prison and security forces, which are security force squadrons on an individual basis. they're organized differently, they have different responsibilities. my responsibility is to make sure that both of these law enforcement requirements comply. there are a number of things we're doing, global training and making sure that every security forces office has electronic fingerprints capability. we're adding it in as a special interest item on the next air force inspections. and increase command interest in oversight. we've also promulgated new

training for all security forces personnel, not only how to do the fingerprints, but how to file those fingerprints with the national database, and finally as i mentioned in my opening statement we are looking at is it to see if there's a way to do this that's less manual. >> bump stocks are not complicated devices, it's my understanding after study of it, it could be a piece of plastic, so bump stocks could be made by a 3-d printer in somebody's garage. if i'm correct on that and given the simplicity, if i'm wrong, you tell me. given the simplicity of manufacturing these devices, how to atf propose to regulate them.

>> with 3-d printing, there's been rapid advancements in that technology over the years. and as far as going forth with any regulation. again, i'm just going to go back and adhere to the administrative procedure's act, and we'll follow that to the t, and go from there, and keep the committee informed. >> we have three seconds left, so i can start my question. the inspector general for the department of defense recommended in 1997 and 2015 that dodd needed to take steps to improve its next reporting and comply with federal law and dod regulations, in a report just issued two days ago, it appears that in 2015, 2016, 31% of the dod records were not being reported to the fbi about why has the department of defense failed to do a better job? >> there are a variety of

issues. there was inadequate training, inadequate verification, they didn't take these recommend,s as seriously as they should have, there are a lot of people involved with this, and they should have been more conscientious and making sure everyone knew the requirements. there are steps that need to be taken. some of which secretary wilson has mentioned. there needs to be focused attention on this, someone responsible for it. and they need to have dedicated effort -- >> i'm going to call on you now, and step out for a minute, if i'm not back with senator cornen, to take over as her five minutes are up. >> thank you. atf i've learned over the past 25 years has a very hard job, and i thank you and your people for doing it. when atf is given information that a prohibited person has

failed a background check and is likely lied on the background check form, i'm talking about form 4473, what is the process if any by which fbi or atf alerts local law enforcement. >> i appreciate your support for atf, and your genuine concern for public safety, half the victims from las vegas came from california, as i understand it, i thank you for that. with the fbi, through their nix process, it's entered into ncic, when someone doesn't pass, and is denied, and i refer to my colleague, director lynn quiindo answer that question. >> i will ask director lindquist

that question right now. can you answer that? >> ma'am, if i could get back to you on that. >> that's important to me, i just want you to know that. director lindquist, what is the main reason for the large numbers of domestic violence offenders, adjudication records not being entered into the ncic files. the nix files or the triple i files, the interstate identification index. which states submit the most and the least records, or is it that records are often incomplete for the purpose of conducting a background check? >> that's a multipart question, i will try to address those. right now we have 4.5 million disqualifying mental health entries in the system.

those are mainly housed -- >> go slow. you have 4.5 million disqualifying entries due to mental health issues. that's where they're housed. >> these people who are mentally ill, who apply? >> these are people who -- no, not necessarily, they're entered into our system in case there's an application. >> i see. >> those are people who have been adjudicated through the system, in other words, a court order, has put them into a mental health institution, those are the qualifications accord together brady act. there are probably more records out there that we do not have. those are some of the challenges we face on a regular basis. another part of your question, ma'am, what else is there that i failed to answer at this point?

>> main challenges, i believe. it's a complicated matter, we have to have in the records, ready for our examiners to go through, an act of violence, threat of act of violence, there has to be a relationship established in the record for us to process that, otherwise it will be in the other indexes of criminal matters. it's a complicated matter and often times an incomplete record. >> how would you sort that out? >> education is the main source. >> and you do do that? >> creme, we do. >> let me go back to director brandon. year after year, members of congress push for policy riders to limit atf's ability to make

common sense updates to its definitions, to require sellers to report suspicious transactions and to properly classify dangerous ammunition. can you describe how these riders impact the atf's ability to protect public safety? >> thank you for that question. riders we're sensitive too, we can't expend any energy, time or resources to do that, we would be violating the law. >> so what impact have they had specifically if you can? otherwise i'll ask you in writing? >> no, ma'am, i appreciate the questions, i can give probably a full response to your written request. >> why don't i give you a written request. i'm really interested in this, you know, i've been here 25 years, i've watched it year after year after year.

and i've seen your agency in a sense effectively crippled. i think we need to do something about that. >> senator cornen. >> let me try to 1u78 rise, the national crime information center is -- contains information from three databases, is that correct? >> not exactly senator. it is the -- what we're talking about, the nix system is it what you're referring to, the system set up to inforce the brady act to make sure we have the information available. one of those subsets is ncic. which is active wash an thes and protection orders in it. s. >> that's what i was going to get to, it's not just convictions, it's people with restraining orders and protective orders and domestic disputes, and people with mental health commitments, where would

those be reflected? in the iii? >> some of those, yes. the gamut of the three records we check for background checks. criminal history is in iii. people that have been arrested and convicted of crimes, that information is in iii. ncic has protection orders. and if it doesn't fit into either of those categories, it will go into the nix index. >> it strikes me as pretty complicated. >> it seems that way at first, i've learned to work with this. "law enforcement partners, the trooper, the officer, the agent that has someone pulled over on the side of the road, the first thing they're checking is ncic. that system is there for their use. to make sure they know who they're dealing with. they'll check triple i to find out if they have a history.

we want them to know who they're dealing with. that's the main purpose of those systems. one of the ancillary checks is for background -- >> the state fails to upload mental health protective orders, criminal convictions into the nix background check system. >> that's a challenge, senator, to be frank with you, i know that's something you are trying to address through legislation, and something we're actively reviewing right now for the benefits that would have. >> the federal government can't compel the state to do it? >> that's correct. all we can do is incentivize the state to do that. that's one of the problems we ran into with the virginia tech shooter. he was determined mentally ill, because virginia didn't upload that information, it wasn't available to the fbi under the nix background system. correct? >> yes, sir. >> we have two problems here. it strikes me. the military, the department of

defense, which is a huge gaping hole in the nix background checks system, we also have the challenge of dealing with the sovereign states, and incentivizing them to provide that information. and, of course, that's part of what we're trying to do in our legislation. is not only have the kind of accountability and disciplinary consequences that secretary wilson talked about, when a federal official doesn't comply with federal law, but also we have the corresponding challenge of dealing with the state governments to incentivize them to upload the information. you know, after sandy hook, we looked -- in aurora, which were mentioned by senator feinstein. we tried to look at the mental health issues, and we provided additional tools to family members in the 21st century bill, to try to help family members intercede when they know their own loved one is mentally ill, is not compliant with

doctors orders, not receiving treatment. but it seems to me there is no clearer cause and effect between tragedy and the prevention of that tragedy, than improving the background check system. as you described it, it's exceedingly complex, it's not only criminal convictions, it's domestic violence, protective orders in divorce cases, custody disputes, and it's mental health commitments. we just simply have to do better. so secretary wilson, i know that you can't comment on the potential results of impending investigation, because of the issue of undue command. influence in a investigation there. but what can setting this case aside, what can the military do? what can the department of

defense do to make sure that our commanding officers, the people responsible for overseeing the people who implement this process in the air force and the department of defense, actually do their job. is it possible for us to -- congress to make sure that this has a negative impact if their commanding officer doesn't do their job, that they don't get promoted? that their career can be ended? i think we need to have some means of enforcing this as you said, accountability and discipline, what would you suggest? >> one of the things that we have put in place is checks. if there's a failure to file a fingerprint card, the next level of command will be able to see it, as you close the case, you can't just close it. the regional commander has to look at and close that case and say, yes, this has been done

with respect to future accountability, how do we make sure this doesn't happen again, and the system is fixed, one of the most important things is making a special interest item on inspector general's investigations when we go out to commands to do command reviews and within the next 12 months, the air force audit agency is going to audit to see, are the results showing up from the actions we've taken? >> senator leahy? >> thank you, mr. chairman. this hearing is important, but doesn't begin to address all the problems. i know i'm glad we're having it. i held four hearings between 2013 and 2014 on gun violence

and the rest, we had a number of pieces of legislation which passed the senate as a result of that, unfortunately, we haven't had any since. one of the things we found out in those hearings, and i'll direct this to you, director brandon. no matter how tough our laws are, it's easy to evade them. we see criminals look to straw purchasers, we've seen people come to our state to buy guns, that go to gangs.

there's no background check. we can talk about tightening up our background check, that won't make any difference. i understand the san bernardino shooter, couldn't -- even though he knew the shooter was planning a terrorist attack, he didn't know what specific attack. 14 people died. the legislation we have here wouldn't close that loophole at all. i'm a gun owner. i competed in shooting matches through college, actually paid my way through college. i believe these laws should be tightened, i know you worked on gun cases in the field for a

number of years. what are some of the challenges bringing a firearms trafficking charge under 9248. >> thank you for your question, and i'm a gun owner too. i say raise your hand if you're in favor of gun violence. it's an american issue. to answer your question would be, knowingly transferring a firearm that would be in commission of a violent crime, or a drug related crime. it is a harder element to prove to your point, we have electra diggs ali relied on paper cases. we use the appropriate laws you have given us and tried to enforce them to the best of our ability to reduce violent crime. one of the charges i put out, sometimes cases are simple,

sometimes they're complex. but they all should be good, and good means they have an impact on reducing gun violence. that's taken the statutes you all have given us, and trying to do the best we can with them, to go after the two t's, the trigger puller and the trafficker, the person pulling the trigger and the person giving that trafficker -- the trigger puller the gun. >> let's talk about the laws we have. you have to record the sales of guns entirely on paper. go back to how that came through, those are saying we have to do this because there's a conspiracy. if it's electronic, it would be a nationwide seizure of guns. and there are people who believe

that bologna. atf wants to trace the origin of gun users flew crime, searching through boxes in a warehouse. good lord. if you want -- if you have a recall on your car because there's something wrong with the brakes, it's all done electronically. if you are going after guns that kill people, you're going to check it out on people. this seems to be a hell of a burden on law enforcement. >> it's the law, like you said, it's the law and we comply with it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the incident that is we have talked about today are tragedies. i don't want anything that i say

today to be construed as undermining that fact. inspector general fine. let me ask you, have you seen a lot of waste in government? a lot of stupidity in government? can we agree that training is expensive, but bad employees are more expensive? >> incredible problems. >> director lindquist, all things being equal, when it comes to the right to own a gun and whether to own a gun, who do you think is better able to make that decision?

the people who are governing or the people who are governed. >> i would defer to this body. it is representation, we're trying to do that, trying to enact the laws that you all as a body have put out there, and we are trying to do that to the best of our ability. >> no disrespect, but that was a nice dodge. let me offer a thought. there are some people in this world who are not confused and they're not sick. and they're conduct is not determined by the fact that their mother or father didn't love them enough. they're just plain damn bad. i don't know why that is. if i ever make it before the

good lord, i'm going to ask him or her. when a radical islamic jihadist abducts a young girl and turns her into a sex slave, we're told not to judge all muslims by the conduct of one? >> i've heard that, senator, i know from my work in violent crimes cases, i've seen evil, i know what that is, i know what you're talking about. >> do you agree with my statement? >> i've heard that, yes, sir. >> well, i agree with it.

do you think it is appropriate to blame 90 million gun owners in america because of the actions of certain people? >> nobody is. >> i know we're trying to -- >> just answer i have more questions. >> we're trying to enforce the laws as written. 90% of the transactions are law abiding scitizens. and they get the weapons they're entitled to have. >> let me ask director brandon, have you ever heard the expression, you can't fix stupid, but you can fire it? >> no, sir, not until you just said it. >> would you agree with it? >> without giving it deeper thought, it sounds like a catchy phrase. >> you're pretty good at dodging too.

>> what do you think is the best way -- clearly some people within the state and federal bureaucracy who are supposed to report to nix are not doing it. surely you'll agree with me on that? >> all information that can get to nix is accurate and complete. because any system -- >> i understand, i get it. let me try this way. what is the best way to enforce the requirement this information be turned into nix. to turn to the bureaucracy of the state and federal level and say pretty please with sugar on top, and we'll give you extra money if we do it? or how about we get out of la la land and into the real world and say, here's a radical thought, if you don't do, you're fired?

because no one around here ever gets fired, madam secretary? >> what does that mean? >> i'm done. >> senator blumenthal. >> with your permission, i'm going to yield to my colleague, senator whitehouse, he has an obligation on the floor, if -- >> senator whitehouse. >> i appreciate that courtesy. let me say i thought the atf office in rhode island was terrific. you made big cases with a small office. you were low maintenance and high performance. and it was terrific. i want to express my appreciation to my colleagues from that office, back then and to the atf generally now. >> if i may say thank you for that. right now, there are men and

women all around the country serving high risk warrants. i know they'll hear what you said. >> it's sincere on my part. we're hear because of the general pop significance that the database -- this hearing is mostly about nix, but i'd like to ask you a few questions about the nibn database. what is your view as the abilitying director of atf as to how effective the collection is of data of crime guns, weapons and cartridges and bullet willings that goes into that system? do you think we're operating effectively, at catching the data? so we aren't having the kind of data slips in the nix system this hearing is about, is nibn

an example? is nibn a system we should use. >> it stands for the national integrated ballistics network. i spoke to chiefs back in october. where nibn is working well is when the police chief establishes policy, but also changes culture, culture will chew up policy all day long. it's quite effective. we turned it into a leech generator instead of a scientific confirmation. as an example, i had the assistant chief of the cincinnati pd, came up to me two years ago and said, i have to stop and compliment. we had a shooter shoot at our

police headquarters, within 12 hours, we emptied the casing that was left at the scene, and it went through a training center in huntsville, alabama which we recently established two years ago now. within 24 hours we had a match to three other shootings, and he said his detectives and the atf agent had three guys locked up in 72 hours. it's effective when it's proper ly executed. >> it's a valuable tool. my question is, and you can take it for the record, i know this wasn't the specific focus of this hearing. in the universe of date that that should be coming into nibn,

so information can be generated for those quick leads. how much of the information do you think now is coming into the system. >> of the sites that we have it has improved. i will get back to you on the exact -- >> make it a question for the record. i appreciate your service, your support, and the crime solving capabilities. >> thank you. >> i totally agree, thank you, senator. >> senator tillis. >> thank you. mr. brandon, i want to go back to the time line for locking at regulations, that could be promulgated regarding bump stocks. can you give me a best case scenario for the time this would take if you determined at the end of the process, you have the authority to do so? >> thank you for the question, senator. and i was told that once the anprn would be approved from omb

there would be a 30 day comment period. i don't want to guess, because we could have tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of response, and we have to look at each one and categorize that. and so i would be happy to report back to the committee after that was announced to give a time frame to your question. >> we are probably talking months, right? this is a month's long proposition minimally? you think that's a fair characterization for me to make, not you? >> yes, sir. >> that's -- it's an area, you did respond to the chairman's question that the end result of this could be that perhaps you don't have the authority to regulate bump stocks. is that a boblt for what could occur after some months long

review of this process? >> that is a possibility. >> it raises a question about whether or not -- the apa is in place to allow rules to be promulgated. congress moves forward sometimes more quickly, it's something we should look at, rather than wait several months and find out we have to act to specifically focus on the bump stock issue. secretary wilson, you mentioned in your opening testimony, there were some 10 databases and manual intents and processes that you're looking at as part of your investigation, is that within the air force or the hall of dod or a little bit of both. >> it's both. across four agencies. >> as you're going through this investigation. you're looking at the specifics of what occurred recently in texas, and how we put a gun the

hand of someone who shouldn't have had one. are we doing a more holistic view to see problems? it's one thing to take a look at who made mistakes, the individuals who made mistakes in this particular case, but there seems to be a number of other of these processes that we're going through, that just thank god have not resulted in the kind of outcome we saw in texas. where does your -- does your investigation focus on the specific matter or are we looking more broadly about a lot of people potentially not doing what they should be doing? >> we found both a problem at that local detachment. we don't just look at the particular causes in the case. but what needs to be fixed. >> we're looking at the whole of dod. there may be a rational basis for more than one database.

i don't know the nature of the databases, have we made any recommendses about how we can streamline and automate these processes? >> we have looked at that in general. there's an enormous number of systems. that is a problem in the department of defense. there needs to be more standardization. there needs to be a broader look at the systems, in this case, in response to your question we are looking at the policies. in the army, the navy, the defense agencies, it's a critical problem all throughout. it's not only a problem in the state and local governments.

i'm quite certain it's other departments as well. >> i think we should take a look at a whole of government approach. i will say in deference -- we're going to have people come before this committee and point it dumb at an agency. they're not properly funded or instructed the whole of government or the dod. i think we all need to recognize that we need to do to properly resource and focus the agencies. and we own that problem. it's not something you can fix if you're handed a less than

optimal environment. and the majority of the people who are working in the agencies thank you, mr. chair. >> senator coons. >> i'll defer to senator blumenthal. >> thank you. >> i want to express my thanks to you and the ranking member for holding this very important hearing and my colleagues for nevada and texas for their heartfelt and moving statements i can tell them as we approach the fifth an versery of sandy hook, they will continue to look in the eye of the families and loved ones of victims who died in massacres for years to come and feel the same sense of heart break and grief also the families and loved ones of victims of gun violence who die one by one in our communities,

in our streets, in neighborhoods across the country in every community in this country. 90 every day. that's why i want to thank the groups that are represented here today. they reflect and represent the victims across the country who know from their personal experience the toll that gun violence takes and how preventable it is. and that's why i have joined with senator cornen and others, on the nix fix legislation. with senator feinstein on bump stock legislation. but also generally to extend background checks to purchases that are uncovered now, 40% or more of all gun sales around the

streets making them safer. >> would you agree with me that state reporting of con investigations and oregon dispositions is abjectly inaccurate currently. >> yes, sir. >> and something should be done immediately and urgently to fix a broken recording system? >> there are many states that are required to do in entering these dispositions. >> how many states are failing? >> would you agree with me, it's a majority of states? >> i don't know if it's a majority of states it may be representative of the

population. >> in one way or another it's putting our people in danger, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and it's putting law enforcement in danger? >> yes, sir, it is. they are the ones who are at the other end of that gun that's facing them in the possession of someone who should be barred from having it in. >> that's correct. >>. >> has the department of justice so far as you know, taken a position on the nix fix legislative proposal? >> i don't believe we have as yet, we're still looking at it. >> would you personally agree it should be passed? >> i've read the entire thing, as i see it, it has a lot of benefits to it. >> i am struck by the failure of the department of defense to comply with the law. year after year and repeated

evaluatio evaluations. do you have any answer for it? >> i think it's a fact they didn't make this an item on their inspections i think it's a problem with people moving on. there's really no excuse for it, it should have happened. >> your report says that the department of defense should go back to the years 2015, 2016 to make sure that convictions are entered. >> we say go back to 1998, we looked at 2015 and 2016, we think there are problems all the way back. we recommend that go back to at least 1998. >> would you agree also that there should be greater accountability namely stern and

strict discipline for the failure to do adequate reporting? >> i do believe accountability should occur. there has to be training and calculation, if they don't do it when that happens, there ought to be accountability. >> one last question would you agree that the uniform code of military justice should be amended to include a specific article on domestic violence? in other words, specific punishment as a felony for domestic violence? >> the current domestic violence is under article 128 as you know, there is a proposed revision to the ucmj manual that has enhanced penalties for assault against a family member. i think that has been published in the code and is pending.

>> would you agree with me that specifying an article on domestic violence would send a message to our military men and women. that domestic violence simply will not be tolerated? >> it does send a message. i would be happy to work with you on that. >> i hope you'll support the proposal. >> i'd like to thank the panel. and everyone who has come here today to remind us of the millions of families across our country who have been touched in some way by gun violence. i'm from the small city of wilmington in delaware. we're currently struggling with a spade of gun violence that

exceeds any previous records. we have looked to and received great assistance from atf and fbi and are struggling as a community with how to address this wave of violence. i think we're one small window into what we see nationally. the shooting incidents described early on. and then the routine tragically daily that plague our whole country. that's why i've sponsored senator cornen's bill i want to pursue a line of questioning if i might. that senator feinstein began earlier. it is a crime to buy a firearm

if the law prohibits you from having one federally and in individual states? >> yes, sir. >> how many of these crimes are prosecuted every year, do you think? >> i can't answer that fp. >> if a person tries to buy a firearm, but is denied, they are likely to go somewhere else and get a gun. >> that's possible. >> possible or likely? >> i don't know the answer to that. >> it would be a good predictor that someone is in the market for a weapon if they try and are gee nied? >> it can be a predictor yes, sir. >> wouldn't it be helpful if they knew about that person and their illegal attempt to gain a weapon before they succeed in getting a gun another way? >> it can be, yes, sir. >> that's the sort of thing i hope we can find a bipartisan

path toward solving. last year alone, there were 4,000 instances where individuals were permitted to purchase a firearm, despite their not being cleared by the background check process. that's a ten year high if i understand. >> senator, i don't know the exact reasons for that. my supposition is that the number of background checks have increased astronomically, we had 14 million background checks in the nix system. and last year was the record year of 27.5 million. that's nearly double in that time frame. that's a tremendous strain on the individuals that do that work for the fbi and the state, the point of contact states across the nation. so the three-day background check. the three business days we're allowed, that sometimes gets stretched with those volumes like that, that's the only reason i can think of that would lead to those purchases being

allowed, in other words, the firearms dealer, according to the brady act. they can sell that firearm, according to the brady act. so that firearm can be sold at that point. if we get the disqualifying information, we get that back out. and that's why those 4,000 weapons were retrieved at that point. requests by the fbi are particularly dangerous. we're asking an atf agent who is known to possess one or more weapons. the attempts to redress them in the field are particularly dangerous for law enforcement? >> my executive team and i made it a priority of retrieving delayed denials. i have a monthly case briefing where we see how it's trending

up and down. the comment about the volume of sales, you're going to have a more people delayed denial. it may be the perception that all these people are violent felons, sometimes it will come back that they're not prohibited. we have to do a thorough investigation. affirming to you, that it's a priority, to atf. and we own it. delayed denials get our full attention. >> this is an area where i hope there is broad bipartisan agreement. fbi and atf, and state and local law enforcement, to make sure people should not have access under our current laws don't. that we're coordinating and in

particular, someone who is prohibited is denied an opportunity, that that information is shared in a way that is appropriate and actionable. the best way to stop gun violence is to make sure that those under our current laws do not get access to them. thank you for your testimony. i think this is an important issue for us to work on. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank all the panelists for coming today. i along with many of my colleagues have supported reasonable measures in our country. including restricting or banning of bump stock weapons. i would like to follow up on a question that was asked by senator blumenthal, i do have a

bill that the department of defense is not objecting to that would close the loophole to the nix system. that has to do with the fact that in 2012, devin kelly had been convicted in a general court marshall on assault charges. there is no specific charge in ucmj. this is for secretary wilson and mr. fine. my bill will close that loophole by making a specific charge, not just under a general assault charge. do you think that's such a specific charge for domestic violence that would include dating partners? do you believe a measure like that would bring clarity to the reporting process? >> this case should have been reported and was not. the disposition of this case is

clearly marked as a crime of domestic violence. it should have been reported and was not. with respect to how it would help or hurt. the reporting in the databases, i'm afraid i can't answer that question for you now. i would be happy to take the question for the record. >> the fact that it should have been reported but was not. i think can be cleared up if there is a charge for domestic violence. and there is no such specific charge you can categorize or describe a general assault charge i think that would be a very reasonable way to collar phi that situation. mr. fine, would you like to add? >> it does seem to me there's a disconnect between the qualifying offenses in uniform code. and the disqualifying offenses

which does prevent people who have committed a misdemeanor crime from obtaining a weapon. there is no specific charge there is no specific charge. that may be something that could ensure that those crimes are more accurate ly coded, noted ad sent to nix. we have seen that not many crimes of domestic violence is reported as such that could be a problem. >> if there is a specific charge then. whoever is bringing the charge has to think about, and make a determination. that is not left to someone down the line trying to constitute assault.

the department of defense has indicated to me they would not object to a clarification. there is a connection between domestic violence and gun violence. for all of the panelists why is it important that those convicted of domestic violence crimes be convicted of owning a firearm, would you care to opine? any of you. >> there is a connection between domestic violence and gun violence. there are many studies to that effect. >> i'll take the question. if we have information that someone has a firearm, and they have a conviction for domestic violence, that becomes a priority to us again, it shows that usually a close partner or a loved one could be a danger and our whole job is to prevent

that, to prevent gun violence from happening. >> is that a priority for the military also? >> it is. domestic violence, sexual assault, any assault is a priority for the military. >> there are a lot of members of the military who do own weapons. it would be a very hard priority should there be any kind of assault in the background of these individuals, that you are totally apprised to protect these victims. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i have one question, senator blumenthal has two questions, we'll be done with this panel. i'm going to ask, when dod inspector general issued a report showing they have serious nix reporting issues, what did

the obama administration do in response? >> either one of you? start out, and then both of you answer it? >> i don't know what the obama administration, we obama administration did. we made the recommendations to the services. and it's quite clear the services did not take the appropriate action to follow up on those recommendations. >> senator, i came in office here in april, so i didn't look back that far to see what was taking place there. >> would you answer in writing? then i'll have to questions i want to submit to the panel for answer in writing. senator bloomenthal. thanks, mr. chairman. and i will be very brief because we have a panel afterwards. let me just say in listening to the testimony from this panel, an excellent panel this morning i am reminded of all of the work

i have done and i know other former u.s. attorneys and attorney general have done with the fbi and the atf. and i just want to express my thanks to you and to the men and women who are out there every day literally putting their lives on the line. i can remember well one of the highlights of my service as u.s. attorney which was a trial i did with the atf involving an agent who worked undercover at extraordinary personal danger to himself, and i think americans should be extraordinarily grateful for your service and sacrifice. i want to ask you a quick question about this advanced notice, anticipated notice of rule making. you've been asked about the time

that could be taken by this process. it could be months, but it could be years because there could well be a challenge after the rule, if there is a rule is in fact promulgated, correct? >> that would be true, sir. >> there would be challenge in court. and in fact the challenge in court would use the previous statements that have been made by the atf. i have one in front of me dated june 7, 2010. i ask that it be made part of the record. which says about the bump stocks that they're not regulated as a firearm under the gun control act or the national firearm act because they are accessories. there are a number of statements like this one, correct? >> correct. >> and in fact you, i think, personally told a meeting in

philadelphia very recently that federal law to bar bump stocks would probably require a new statute to be effective, correct? >> i'm not quoting directly, but i think you said in effect present law doesn't cover them. >> thank you for the question. what i was saying was they're lawful, however, that i've asked for attorneys outside of atf to take a fresh look at it because i took seriously the letters i received from the senators and from the congressmen and women on both sides to keep an open eye and to do something. those lives lost hit everybody hard. and with the capacity we had

with atf, we kept an open mind to do whatever we can do, and that's this advanced notice of proposed rule making. i'm not in the legislative branch to make a law, but whatever we can do and to the people sitting behind here, i've been at scenes of gun violence and throughout my career as an atf agent, and it hits hard. whatever we could do, trying to do -- >> and i appreciate that, sir. and i hope this body will act more quickly than the years that would be taken for you to do to protect the public. and i thank you for your sincere desire to do so. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. thank tuesday the panel, and i think we give about a week for people to submit questions. so since there's a lot of absenteeism, maybe expect

questions from people that weren't here. while they're going with the other panel, please hurry and come. and i'm going to let you sit down, and while you're -- and while you're being seated, i'm going to introduce you to save time. on october 1st was working at the route 91 harvest country music festival, las vegas, when stephen paddock began firing at the festival from the second floor mandalay bay hotel. when firing began this witness did not flee but instead helped victims move out the way. she stayed with the man for

hours after the shooting, notifying and comforting friends and loved ones. mr. david slaten is the administrative director of the texas courts, been in that position since 2012. in this role mr. slaten is responsible for directing the operations of the office of court administration and serves as the director of judicial council. an organization tasked with overseeing the texas courts methods and improvement. he was formerly secretary on the board of directors of the texas association for drug court professionals. he has worked in the texas judicial branch in various roles since '98.

mr. halbrook is a senior fellow. he has also taught legal and political philosophy at howard university and tuskegee institute. mr. halbrook has argued cases before the supreme court, author of several books on second amendment and gun control. one of those books is titled the founders second amendment, origins of the right to bear arms. and other one that every man be armed, the evolution of constitutional rights. his writings have appeared in several legal journals. chief jay thomas enger, has been chief of police in maryland since february 2004.

he began his law enforcement career in 1977, fairfax county, virginia police department ultimately becoming chief of police in '98. during his distinguished career in law enforcement he's received multiple awards including the james s. brady law enforcement award, the community champion award for law enforcement, community champion award for youth leadership foundation and montgomery county victims rights foundation public safety award. additionally this chief is currently the president of the major cities chief association, and he also knows very well the chief of police of cedar rapids, iowa, my home state. david copal is a research director at the independent institute in colorado, an associate policy analyst for

cadel, author of several books on the second amendment. one entitled "truth about gun control" and no more wackoes, what's wrong with law enforcement and how to fix it. he's been featured on media programs and his work has been published in several legal journals. and we're going to go in the same way i introduced you. so please proceed. >> chairman grassly, ranking member if i knowstein, and members of the committee thank you so much for inviting me to speak today. i was in las vegas, nevada. also there were christy and heather here sitting behind me

today. before i tell my story i feel i need to disclose someone to the committee. i'm not someone who is anti-gun. i'm very pro-second amendment. but i support senator feinstein's bill to prevent bump stocks. they're for hurting people, and they have no place in our general society. i hope that my story will make you understand why. the three day country music festival has been going on for five years. people come from all over the world for this event. at around 10:00 p.m. that night the first round of gunshots peppered the festival grounds. i remember hearing a loud noise and thinking about it's just feedback from the speakers or maybe fireworks. then everyone started to rush in all directions, trampling the bar and pushing through the back

doors. at first i thought a group was starting to swarm the vip area of the bar until i started to hear the screams, shooter, gun, help me. this was followed by a second round of gunshots. there were people covered with blood all over their bodies. my night of terror continued with me helping frightened concert goers get through the back doors hoping they'd be safe. i joined about 20 others to push the fence over so they could run out. i went to the vip to check on the other bartenders. that's when another set of gunshots rang out directly in front of my bar. my coworker ryan was only spare bide hiding behind an atm. he saved another worker by pulling them next to him. i had a moment to call my mom and sister. i told them both in separate phone calls they're going to hear some really scary things on

the news and most of it was true, but for now i was okay. we tried to stay as quiet as possible. throughout this entire ordeal as any point i expected to look up and see a gunman standing right in front of me ready to shoot. after that round of gunfire everyone scrambled for the gate. but for whatever reason i ran back into the bar. the first thing i saw was a woman bleeding from a wound from her leg. i looked down and saw my first bullet holes. i asked a man from the bar to help carry her out back. but then someone else came in, he'd been hit in the thigh. at this point there were 68 already injured there. as bodies and wounded continued to grow, i ran to the medics tent for help. every two minutes someone else was running in. there was one group carrying a girl who had been shot in the back. i found out later after looking

at pictures that that girl hasn't made it. i ran back to bar and told everyone help was on the way. strangers started pulling up in trucks and cars volunteering to drive the injured to the hospital while myself and others volunteered to help carry them to the ambulances. we shouted for him to wake up, he was breathing but he wasn't conscious. as a car pulled up to load the injured, the jacket fell and i was left plugging the hole in the victim's head with my bare fingers. that man's name was chris, he died the next day. then i met the victim who'd become a main part of my story. he'd been laid on a maintenance ladder that had been used as a makeshift stretcher. i held it with one hand and touched his hand and his fingers lightly touched mine. when a group reached the sidewalk area deemed safe from whoever was shooting, they put the ladder down.

the man asked if i was okay as i was covered in chris' blood. i told them it wasn't my blood. i kept holding this unnamed man's hand, and his hand stopped holding mine. they asked how they could help, but what do you say? he was now doa. for some strange reason i felt compelled to stay and sit with the body. i felt attached. i saw other bodies lying alone, and i didn't want this man to be left alone. i was still holding his hand. about an hour later his phone rang and i answered. the perp on the other end of the line asked who is this, why are you answering my friend's phone. i asked them who are you, where are you calling from, who are you calling? the other voice said i'm trying to reach jordanmic ludoon. i had to tell them that jordan had died. i told him to call his parents, pulling out jordan's wallet i

took a picture of his idea and sent it to everybody on his facebook friend list. 911, do you know this man. then came a call from jordan's mom. we got ahold of her and she asked is he okay, and i said no. she said he's breathing, right? and i said, amber, he's not breathing, he's dead. she said are you sure, he's the love of my life. i said he's gone. i made a promise to stay with jordan no matter what so amber would know when the emergency personnel took him away. at that point there were only two of us there who knew he was. i called jordan's mom back. i realized we had never told her he had passed. i had to tell her he had died. i had to tell her from a complete stranger in another country that her only child had been murdered. i kept my promise not to leave jordan's side and staying with

him for over four hours during that night. when police and emergency personnel arrived i told them about jordan. it was about 3:30 in the morning when the police finally got ahold of amber. covered in blood, exhausted and crying i made it home still not believing or understanding what had just happened. when i asked myself in the days following why i had stayed with a stranger's body i could only answer that i hoped someone would do the same for me. i didn't want jordan to be a john doe. his death mattered, and i wanted him to be remembered. i don't know why i didn't run. i had more than one opportunity. i still don't know. i'm not that strong. i'm not that special. i'm not a hero or an angel, but something wouldn't let me run that night. and something compelled me to help chris and jordan and others whose names i still don't even know. as i mentioned a moment ago i

may have stayed because i hoped someone would do the same for me. i did it because i wouldn't want to be forgotten. but the truth is none of us would want to pea forgotten. and ask the committee not forget all the lives that were lost that day, affected tat day and all the lives that could be affected in the future. thank you. >> thank you. you're a brave person. mr. slaten. >> chairman grassly, ranking member feinstein and senators, my name is david slaten and i am testifying on the behalf of coska. whose membership consists of the principle corp for each state and territory is dedicated to the improvement of state court systems. as you know state courts handle 98% of all judicial proceedings in the country. i'd like to share with you about

texas' reporting. various criminal offenses are entered by law enforcement, jails, prosecutors and courts into the criminal justice information system or cjis. information about mental health disqualifiers are submitted by court clerks to cjis and forwarded to the database. to ensure it's properly entered takes concerted effort by all of those who contribute to smtss. this is due to the complexity of the justice system and the various stakeholders who must contribute records. many of the records are paper based and need to be converted to a format that nics will recognize. as you know the database is only as good as the record it

contains and we feel that texas has made great strides in reporting the mental health and disqualifiers to it. this is in large part from the funding received on improving the records available to nics. in fiscal year 2012 and 203 they received a nics improvement grant to develop a plan and assist courts in identify mental records to be reported. it increased by 69% between the time we received the grant and last friday. in addition to the efforts made on mental health records, oca has been working to ensure family violence protection orders are entered into the systems. in fiscal year 2013 oca received another grant from the doj. oca established a task force to

study the issue. the task force developed five training modules to assist stakeholders and recommended improved timeliness in entering the records. those recommendations became law. prior to this texas law was silent as to the time frame under which protective orders were provided to law enforcement or entered into the cjis system. without his project the significant improvement in texas would likely not have occurred. most courts have few resource tuesday devoted to developing improvements in these records. thanks to senator cornen for his bill to fix nix legislation. we ask congress fully fund for

the grant programs. we ask the state courts also be included in discussions at the federal and state level as to how to improve reporting to databases and the dispersement of federal funding for these purposes. oats difficult for state courts and other agencies to verify the number of records available to nix. it limits the ability to determine if there are systemic issues with reporting. we suggest states be given access to reports that would allow the states to identify on a regular basis the number of reports available to the nix system. coska and the state courts look forward to the ability to address the shortcomings in the current system and considers the various needs of the state courts and the country.

thank you for the opportunity to testify on these important matters and i look forward to answering any questions you may have. >> mr. holbrook. >> chairman grassly, ranking member feinstein, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here. as an attorney in private practice i've done significant litigation on the technical firearm definition and the gun control act. and i was privileged to represent a majority of members in both houses of congress in the security brief involved with d.c. versus heller. everybody here is on the same page in we sympathize with the victims. one thing i think everybody is on the same page about is particularly the nix -- the fix

nix act, excuse me. what's incredible is there's been a duty all these years that these records be reported from federal departments and agents. the nix improvement act from 2008 directly stated departments and agencies had to report the records. and yet there's been no oversight. we've had so many new laws be advocated to make rights harder for gun owners. instead we're to the point we have to threaten that political employees will not get bonus pay if they don't report these records. there are some improvements that could take place with this fix nix bill, in particularly involving denying agencies with

records -- when people are wrongly denied there's a problem on putting the onus on the person who's denied and not fixing the nix system. it's kind of a complex issue. i've got in my written testimony, so i'll move onto the automatic gunfire prevention act, which doesn't apply to automatic gunfire. it explicitly states that it does not refer to the conversion of semiautomatic rifles into machine guns. i think the language that's disturbing in this legislation that would ban any part of design or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle. if you understand anything about firearms you understand that trigger pull has a lot to do with rate of fire. you could have a 10 pound trigger pull, and if you put in

another part or have a gunsmith change that part so it's a 3 pound trigger pull, so that it's more efficient, more reliable and more accurate, you're going to increase potentially the rate of fire. there are several other aspects about trigger pull, how smooth they can be. again, these are gunsmithing terms. the word trigger creep, the more you decrease that potentially the higher rate of fire. that raises the potential you could ban any semiautomatic rifle based on a good gunsmithing job. we're not talking about gunfire stocks, we're talking about simple mechanisms of semiautomatic rifles. raises second amendment issues. the heller case raised the second amendment protects firearms that are commonly possessed for lawful purposes.

there's also a vagueness problem with that definition. how would one know, for example, if you have a trigger pull gun, a trigger pull jog gun, that instead of taking 1.4 seconds to pull the trigger it would take 1 1.2 seconds, you would need special knowledge to know that. we have ten years incarceration with no willfulness requirement, the same thing you get if you're a felon in possession of a firearm. moving onto the other concept to the trigger crank and a bump fire device, we don't even have a definition of those in this legislation. as the atf acting director noted, some people can learn how to do a bump fire on a rifle without even any special device on it. so you've got to have the definition. it's not a conversion kit.

you had some discussion about proposed rule making. we have to keep in mind we always like clarification from atf, but it needs to be an interpreted rule because this body makes criminal laws not an agency. i'll close this by mentioning that all previous gun control legislation, you either have a grandfather clause or an amnesty for registration. the nfa was passed in 1934 amended in 1968. newly denined objects or firearms that would be illegal after that date. even the so-called assault legislation had aograph clause. so when you're talking about incarcerating people for ten years with no willfulness requirement, we need to have some kind of discussion about what do you do with all those that are out there. and with machine guns you have a

grandfathering. you have those that are registered or continue to be lawful. and you're going to take something that's not even a weapon and give these draconian -- there's got to be some way to mediate that situation. >> chief? >> senator grassly and feinstein, thank you for holding this hear mchging. i'm here representing local law enforcement. i'm here representing the nation's largest police agencies around the country. and i'm here to speak for the men and women who respond to gun violence every day. i'm here to speak for the victims of gun violence and to speak for the officers who have been killed by gun violence. on good half of american law enforcement let me say it's our greatest hope that republicans

and democrats can come together to protect the public from harm because public safety should not be a partisan issue. worse yet our nation has witnessed a number of devastating mass murders as the shooting in sutherland springs and others we've discussed here today have demonstrated. we need to come together to protect the public. a device that results in the military attack equivalent to a full automatic firing must be stopped. bump stocks and similar devices have no legitimate sporting or hunting purpose. likewise the screening process for individuals looking to purchase a firearm or ammunition has had many loopholes for far too long and the nix system must be strengthened. heather's testimony was profound. the attendees of this music festival in las vegas experienced a horrific hail of gunfir

gunfire, 12 of the 23 guns he had in his hotel room were outfitted with a bump stock accessory you are considering today. he was able to fire approximately 90 rounds every ten seconds. 90 rounds every ten seconds into the crowd below. this deadly device has only one purpose. it enables the gunman to fire rounds at a speed equivalent of a firearm without removing his finger from the trigger. while it is illegal for americans to possess fully automatic weapons bump stocks are legal under current federal law. it is to accelerate the rate of fire to equal automatic firepower. to prevent such horrific mass murders in the future the major

city chief association strongly supports senator feinstein's proposal to ban bump stocks and similar devices. sheriff joe lauombardo likewise calls for action from congress. a 26-year-old gunman enters the first baptist church where he murders 26 individuals and injures 20 others. the shooter entered the church wearing tactical gear and carrying an ar-15 partner ruger ar 556 semiautomatic rifle. law enforcement later reported they found 15 ar-15 rifle magazines each one capable of holding 30 rounds. this hearing today as it demonstrated, this killer should have been barred from the purchase of firearms or ammunition because of his mental

health history and prior criminal convicks. he was charged with assaulting his wife and fracturing his child's skull. he openly made death threats to the superior officers who charged him. this case also raises a broader question interest the committee. does the current nix law adequately cover mental health and domestic violence. he escaped from that facility, apprehended, brought back to be taken for court-martial and later found he used computers at the facility to order numerous weapons and tactical gear. allowing a prohibited person to purchase multiple weapons despite his military court-martial and discharge. that's why we strongly support senator cornyn's proposal to

strengthen nix to ensure federal agencies and states will correct current deficiencies that result in persons being cleared who should not be allowed to purchase firearms. houston police chief strongly supports the measured introduced by his senator from texas ask he goes further to call on congress to expand background checks. sheriff joe lombardo also calls on congress to swiftly adopt this long overdue measure to strengthen nix. but these are only the most recent reminders of what we've already none. tusen, arizona, where congresswoman gabby giffards was shot shot by a deranged shooter, 13 other people injured, six people killed. blaksbering, virginia, 32 people shot by amen tale ill person who slipped through the process. the committee surely recognizes

that this is incomplete and only part of the problem. a man in morgan town, west virginia was able to mumbai a gun and murder four people. he had a previous conviction and this should have prevented him as a background check would have been flagged with his felony convictions. but he was able to mumbai a 9 millimeter handgun through a purchase on facebook. as the chief of police we ask the committee why does congress require background checks for some gun purchases but not all of them? you should also consider how background checks may be expanded to cover all gun purchases. in a letter regarding the recent texas shoot heeg notes that even if the killer had been barred from buying from a licensed gun dealer, he could have simply purchased the weapon elsewhere. and this is nut a controversial

topic. in a recent gallop poll 91% of americans said they would vote for a measure requiring criminal background checks on all gun sales. so i'll close where i began and call for a bipartisan coalition to curb gun violence. we ask you today -- make today the beginning of a comprehensive dialogue to strengthen legislation to curb gun violence. the two measures before the committee will take us down a math to meaningful reform for the public. i will tell you the chiefs and sheriffs of this country will be with you every step of the way. thank you. >> thank you, chief. now david. push the red button. >> thank you, chairman grassly, ranking member feinstein. i most recently represented the national sheriff's association in the u.s. supreme court in the case of colby vs. holgan.

i've represented a large law enforcement coalition led by the international law enforcement educators and trainers association, the main body -- the law enforcement officers who train the rest of law enforcement. i represented them in the supreme court in mcdonald vs. chicago and district of columbia vs. heller in support of second amendment rights. on the terrible late evening of october 1st before the tv coverage began a twitter user provided a video showing the hotel tower and the crowd. to me the audio sounded like automatic gunfire. there is still much we do not know about the crime. we do know that the criminal used bump stocks that allowed him to fire his semiautomatic guns as fast as a full automatic. under current federal law the laws for automatic are very

stringent. the supreme court suggested such guns are not protected by the second amendment. if a device makeans ordinary gun capable of sustained automatic fire, then it should be regulated to similarly to automatic itself. under the 1934 national firearms act, many devices that make a firearm fire like a full automatic are already regulated. atf correctly ruled bump stocks are not within the scope of the present statute. congress, not the atf has the authority to change the law. any realistic new law must account for people who already own the items in question. when there are tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of such people being realistic is especially important. unfortunately, s 1916 has no provision for grandfathering. current owners have 180 days to destroy their property. some will but others will be driven underground, pushed outside the lawful system.

a better policy and precedent have been identified by the atf when items are reclassified. for example in 1984 the atf decided three particular shotguns had to be federally registered. because atf was changing its mind, atf offered a seven-year registration period. the atf also waived the $200 tax per gun that could have been imposed. if a law provided for grandfathered legislation and subjected more new sales to the stringent system of the national firearm act, it would likely pass constitutional muster with the courts. heller indicates the full automatic are outside the scope of the second amendment. and bump stocks make it less suited for self-defense or hunting. their lawful use has been as range novelties and not as

self-defense items. unfortunately, the bill's definition doesn't even define a bump stock, but it does go much further. it prohibits anything that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun. this is insane extremely and over broad. what thing that function to accelerate the fire of a semiautomatic are gun cleaning tools. when you remove the debris you make the parts move together better. as with any mechanical tool, cleaning it makes it work faster. certainly they didn't outlaw gun cleaning tools, but that's how far the bill's poorly written language goes. likewise as dr. halbrook testified, if you change the trigger pull-on a gun from 6 pounds to 4, that would be prohibited. and in fact all the people that

have had trigger jobs done in the past, their arms would be retroactively outlawed and they would become ten-year federal felons. other things that function to accelerate the rate of fire to semiautomatic rifle include better grips, such a replacing a forward grip that came from the factory to a molded grip that fits the person's hand and therefore be able to fire faster. indeed anything that helps stability, that reduces shoulder pain, anvil, or things that reduce the recoil that a user feels, helps the user stabilize the firearm and therefore in effect function to accelerate the rate of fire. guns operate by the expanding of gas energy. some of that gas energy goes forward to push the bullet forward down-and-out the gun and through the muzzle. some of it dissipates elsewhere. anything that improves the operation of the gas system, the

efficiency of the gun will accelerate the rate of fire. these changes might only be acceleration of the rate of a few thousandths or hundredths or tenths of a second, but the bill would be significantly improved if it were only about bump stocks and instead of other items. >> i'm going to ask it anyway about senator feinstein's bill being criticized as overly broad. in your opinion would such a law survive constitutional scrutiny, mr. halbrook? >> if it was limited only to bump stocks or if it included any part -- >> right now i'm asking the question on the way its written. >> the way it's written i think it violates the second amendment

because it would ban commonly possessed semiautomatic rifles. that was the heller test in the supreme court case. >> and mr. campos. >> yes, anders vs. state, which said of course part of the right of arms includes gun repair and taking the gun to a place for repair. so by out lawing ordinary repairs and similar modifications this would seriously violate the second amendment. >> and a follow up more generally, is there danger that a law firearms or accessories on their rate of fire could be used to restrict semiautomatic weapons and be used as a tool as well? >> it would potentially ban any semiautomatic rifle. it applies specifically to semiautomatic rifle parts. and any kind of part that's used that's more efficient than some

other slower part would be encompassed in this language. >> yes. semiautomatics, there's a big difference between a full automatic and a semiautomatic, just like if i said someone is a wit, that's different than calling them a half wit. there's been too much of an effort sometimes to conflate semiautomatics which fire only one round with the trigger is pulled with only automatic rounds which fire continuously. but bump stock turns a normal gun to something effect lavthth fires as fast as a semiautomatic. bump stocks would not violate the second amendment, and i think would be reasonable. >> two of you again on atf announcing that they're going to see if they can issue regulations and whether or not

they're going to issue regulations, in your analysis how might bump stock fit in the current statutory definition of machine gun -- well, i should let you answer that question. >> well, there's two types of opinions that atf has set forth. a bump stock that doesn't use any mechanical device like a special spring would not be a machine gun conversion kit. there's an atf ruling, i cite the number in my testimony, where atf found that because of the use of a spring that makes the mechanism work more than an automatic way, that type of bump stock would be encompassed in the machine gun conversion language. but when you look at the atf letters about approving other bump stocks that do not have any such function, where you end up with a maniple movement that's required for every shot, equivalent to a single pull of

the trigger. that's why the word bump stock itself is ambiguous. >> do you have anything to add? yes, the national firearms act of 1934 as amended defines as a machine gun as something that fires two or more rounds by a function of the trigger. that's the statute atf has to apply. it doesn't seem that a bump stock fits within that. you're still getting -- it doesn't make one trigger pull fire multiple rounds. so i'll be intrigued to see if -- how atf works its way through that statutory language given the high level of chevron deference used by the courts. sometimes very imaginative readings of statutes of them up held on judicial review. >> again, to the two of you, what should be done if bump

stocks with them that have already been purchased by consumers, and that'll be my last question. >> well, there's two choices we have presidents for in the gun control act. number one, you could allow bump stocks to be registered and grandfathered as was done multiple times by this body. in 1986 you had more of an expansion of the machine gun conversion kit, for example. and you had a grace period in which they were allowed to be registered. any after that date could not be manufactured. or you could have complete grandfathering of those that were in existence on the date of the enactment or the effective date as was done with magazines and semiautomatic rifles that were banned under the 1994 legislation. so you could have a grandfather clause that's completely -- the ban doesn't apply to anything made before that date, or you

could have a registration system as with the nfa where you would register items up to that point. >> do you have anything to add, mr. copel? >> if there's no grandfathering, other things could be added to the black market, which would make a more dangerous. >> i want to point out california has had a law in effect since january 1, 2012, which essentially says a manual or power trigger driven operated device constructed or designed so when attached to a semiautomatic firearm it increases the rate of fire from that firearm. and that is prohibited, and there has been no case brought in court against it. i'm not weighted to any language. what we tried to do was make this simple, direct and understandable. and anything in it can be

changed, but the point is that it's unlawful for any person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer or possess a trigger crank, a bump fire device or any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment or accessory that's designed and functions -- and here's the key -- to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun. so i can certainly change language, but i think that this is worthy. it was drafted by attorneys who know their stuff, so we will see. but chief, i wanted to thank you and i wanted to thank your organization. you always have been stand up. and it's really appreciated. everything in this area is tough

to get done. and it's just an amazing thing as i sit here and i see what happens in this country, and it gets worse and worse and worse. and the bodies can't step up and do anything about it. this is one small thing that could be done, that could make a change that hopefully could keep these things off the market. but i really want to say something to you, heather. i've had occasion just in a small way to find a colleague of mine that had just been shot to death. i know a little bit about what it's like. but on a micro level, in comparison to what you experienced, you are one strong woman. i want you to know that. i want you to feel it. i want you to hold your head

high. what you did most people could not. and i am just so proud of you. and so i want to say on behalf of all of us, thank you. thank you, thank you. thanks, mr. chairman. >> mr. durbin -- senator durbin. >> and let me join the course, heather. because i know you're a native of illinois, grew up there. and thank you for telling your story. i'm sorry you had to tell it, but we need to see that these gun tragedies are real human beings who are dying in front of us, and we need to do more to stop it. we have two tragedies here. we have the tragedy in las vegas, the tragedy in texas which has been referred to. and two different circumstances. in one the man in texas never should have had a firearm, the system failed. but the system is not perfect nor is it designed to be even close to perfect.

there are loopholes in the system. there are ways to avoid a background check for a gun. i know that. 48% of crimes of guns used in chicago come from gun shows where tlfr no background checks. to say we're going to fix nix is to really apply it to every firearm sale. otherwise we're saying tsa just check every other passenger. we would never say that. when it comes to guns, we say that in america. the other thing, though, is the nature of the weapon involved. assuming the second amendment constitutional right to bear firearms, does anyone imagine -- and i'm sure everyone realizes what i'm saying is an exaggeration -- that our founding fathers thought that gave an american citizen the right to own a firearm that

discharged 480 rounds in that church in texas and 1,100 rounds in las vegas. how does that fit into the notion of self-defense or the use of firearms for sport or hunting? it doesn't. and i think future generations may take a look at this hearing and play it back and say, my goodness, they were walking around the obvious. there are weapons there that have only one purpose, mass killing. that's what it's about. it doesn't have anything to do with shooting ducks or deer. if you needed that kind of weapon to shoots a deer, you ought to stick to fish. you know, that is fact. and we seem to have agreed, nobody argues with the notion of banning automatic weapons. nobody said that's unconstitutional, at least i don't think so. but when you can take a semiautomatic weapon and now make it an automatic weapon, obviously we've got a debate here. as mr. copel drew an analogy,

i'll remember that for a long time, in terms of whether you can have use of a repetitive firearm. today its bump stocks, and tomorrow it'll be something else. i was on your assault weapons bill. how many years ago was that, senator if i kn senator feinstein? >> 1993. >> they invented their way around your bill. they'll invent their way around bump stocks, too, so they can find another way for people to discharge hundreds and thousands of rounds killing innocent people. we've got to come to grips with reality here. as the chief said when 91% of people say to us, for goodness sakes, be sensible when it comes to background checks, use common sense when it comes to firearms, even firearm dealers are saying that to us, you can't hear it in congress. chief, there's a major before the house of representatives

about concealed carry. right now every state sets its standard. there are people in the rifle association and others argue we've got to do away with that. we've got to say if you're allowed to carry a concealed weapon in one state you can carry it into another with impunity. what do you think of that proposal? >> i think it's misguided, and i will tell you i think it's dangerous for the community, and i think it's dangerous for my police officers. senator cruz and senator cornyn talked about the two gentlemen that intervened in that case. and i will tell you that they did help in that situation. but there are many, many more, hundreds of times more situations where someone with a gun inserts themselves into a situation thinking that a firearm will solve the problem. and i've been a cop for 40 years, and i know this from first-hand experience that there's only a rare occasion when the use of a gun is lawful,

appropriate and necessary. and sutherland springs may have been one of those situations, but the presence of a gun in my view only increases the danger to the community and my police officers. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator cohens. you'll be the last one. >> thank you. i want to thank this panel of witnesses for their testimony and particularly, heather, for your testimony and for the insight that you give all of us and everybody who is watching about what the horrific experience of being a victim of gun violence and around those who are struggling to survive an incident like this. as you may know i'm from wilmington, delaware. we've had a great deal of gun violence in our little sitfry the last few years. and i've met with families, victims of gun violence.

none of the incidents as massive or tragic or overwhelming as the one you've survived. are there things you would like us as members of congress to know about your experience that you haven't had the opportunity to share, or is it best if i just thank you for your testimony today and move on? >> well, thank you for thanking me. again, i don't feel like -- everybody who was there did what they had to do. but, you know, at any point you expected to turn around and see this guy or men or women running through here with machine guns. that's what it sounded like to us. and just from listening to what everybody has said, again, automatic weapons are -- are not allowed. so why is a piece of equipment that turns a semiautomatic into an automatic allowed? because now it's an automatic weapon. and that's just what i've gotten from listening to everybody. and it doesn't matter if it's a

one-on-one gun or somebody's shooting from the 32nd floor, you know, into a crowd of 32,000. it affects all of us. we become members of this family, this community that none of us want to be a part of, and we're in it for the rest of our lives. and it affects us for the rest of our lives. none of us ever get over it. but if there's something we can do to stop this from happening next week, next month, next year. if we can stop somebody from walking into a festival, into a church, into a school, then we need to do everything possible to make this not happen ever or as often as it is. >> thank you. thank you for that passionate reminder that the struggle to turn loss and suffering into positive forward motion is one of the most inspiring common features of everyone who's had this kind of experience. chief major, if i might, you may or may not know i was a county

executive before becoming a u.s. senator and was honored to have the opportunity of serving along a county police force of about 180 sworn officers. i asked a question in a previous panel about officer safety and how we are putting atf agents at risk by asking them to go and try and locate weapons that may have been inappropriately secured. i'd be interested in hearing more from you about if the fix nix act passes, what other gaps are there that would allow dangerous individuals to acquire firearms? and what are the main challenges facing law enforcement when working with federal agencies to prosecute illegal firearm performances. do you think it would enhance safety if more firearm purchases were prosecuted and enhance safety if local law enforcement was notified when there was a failed background check?

>> to your last two questions, the answer is yes. i think the biggest gap we have is the gun show loophole. if we can fix nix, but people are still allowed -- if we do not accompany that with a universal background check, a background check on every gun purchase, then there is a huge gap in what we need to do. i think that firearm violence is probably one of the most challenging things for cities around this country, especially for major urban areas. i will tell you the atf has been phenomenal in working with law enforcement. the u.s. attorneys offices from around the country have worked closely with federal prosecutions, which are tremendously effective, oftentimes more effective than what we can do at the state level. so i think the relationship is there, and it is effective.

so you asked me several questions, and i think i hit on all of them. >> i appreciate your testimony to the effect that it would help promote officers' safety and if failed background checks and if more illegal firearm purchases were prosecuted. there's a big divide between both sides of our political parties over whether we should do things that out law particular devices or styles of weapons. but what i hear from gun owners and from police officers and from civic activists in my home state and sate is why can't we start by strengthening the background check systems we have? by strengthening the resources for state and federal, local law enforcement and by insuring those that shouldn't have access

to firearms, don't. in the two tragic incidents, we had one individual whoicidant have been able to purchase weapons and who tragedy did and murdered many and afrnother who modified weapons in a way i thinkicide be illegal. thank you for your testimony today and i'd liking to thank your entire second panel and for your leadership on this issue. >> i seem to be the last senator here and even though i'm not a member of the majority, i've been asked by senator grassley to ask my questions and i think at that point we're probably in a position to adjourn and i just want to thank all of you for being here today. both of these panels have been really excellent and have given us both facts and perspectives that are extremely valuable and i particularly want to thank

you, ethhadder for it curage and strength to be here today knowing from other families who have been before this panel the kind of fortitude that it takes, not only to do what you did, but then to relive it as you're doing now. so my thanks, i think, from all of us on this panel and i want to, if i may, ask mr. slaten. you mention the importance of resources. and i'm wondering if you could give us some specifics in amounts of money that were necessary for texas to improve its system and also exactly why that's important. is it computer soft ware? is it people? if you could give us more

specifics. >> thank you, senator. in texas it resources -- the grants we received from the federal government was somewhere less than half a million dollars over a couple of years that we received. we use the funding to be able to literally hire staff to go out and review records. as was mentioned earlier by one of the panelists we went back 20 years to review all the records thaticide potentially be in the system and we assisted those different counties and jurisdictions and entering those into the nick system where appropriate. so that's one thing of staff who can go out and be a task force or a force to go out and work through those historical records. going forward from that, one of the things we've found helpful is providing training and ongoing training to make sure individuals responsible for these functions understand

exactly what it is they feed to be doing. whether that be online training or face to face training and making sure those manuals and task forces are in place. i think from that perspective, that's one issue. but it other side of the coin is automation. it produces the risk of someone missing something and if we could use an automated system that can identify these and automatically, that works better and certainly that takes money to make that happen in many jurisdictions. >> we've had some questions about domestic violence and the relationship between domestic violence and gun violence. and i think it statistic i've heard repeated many times is a woman is five times more likely to die if there is a firearm in the home during an incident of

domestic violence. i don't know what the basis for that number is. but would any of you disagree that gun violence is far more likely or i should say domestic violence is far more injurious if there are guns involved. >> senator, many of the homicides that occur in this country are domestic related. there have been studies, extensive studies done about what were the red flags that folks might have been able to see when you start off with two folks just arguing or getting in fights to progressing to a homicide and what these studies taught us -- we have put together what we call a lethality assessment tool. so every time one of my cops goes to a call for domestic violence, there's a checklist of

about a dozen questions and they ask things like has the person ever threatened your children, choked you. but one of the question is do they own a firearm? and the reason that question is in there is -- under certain circumstances determined to be a red flag. so you can connect it dots between some behavior, domestic violence and the possession of a firearm that would increase the likely hood of there being a homicide at some point in the case. >> i appreciate your answer and i agree with your conclusion. that's why i've sponsored a measure called a laurie jackson domestic violence protection act. laurie jackson was a woman in connecticut killed by her estranged husband while he was fd a temporary protective order. not permanent one, but a temporary one.

and women are killed principally women by their intimate partners while under temporary protective orders which are issued in the first 10 days or two weeks, during the time with the level of rage is greatest. in other words the danger to the woman is highest and they are least protected. so the laurie jackson victims protection act would extend that coverage to victims of domestic violence protected by temporary orders. the law now applies only to permanent orders. like wise another loophole in the current law is the 72-hour exception. i'm sure you are familiar with it. if a background check isn't complete within 72 hours, the purchase can go forward. even if the purchaser is ineligible under the current federal law.

it's a loophole. i've called it the charleston loophole because dylan roof in charleston was able to purchase it firearm only because of that loop hopeple he was ineligible under the current law. so there are loopholes even under current nonuniversal background check that would make enforcement of it kurpt lcurren more effective. and more broadly we need universal background checks is my purseful belief as well as other measures commonsense measures that will help prevent gun violence. my time has long expired. and i want to thank the chairman for his indulgence and again for his holding this hearing which i think shows the ability of this panel to disagree, and we do

disagree, but still want to explore and elicit all the facts that are important and are the perspectives. thank you all. >> at the end here i thank you and i suppose most of us in congress don't appreciate all the work you have to do to get prepared for this. but thank you and we're going to continue to consider this issue very much. thank you for your being here. hearing adjourned.

so