begin -- going to south carolina. forty others are leaving the gun show. how does that work what do those people do, check it in at the counter? >> the bill does nothing affirmative to allow someone to carry a firearm on an aircraft. >> i can drive to new york to utah, i wouldn't have had one because new york's laws are restricted but i could go from new york and get me a gun and then drive back to new york and new york under this law would have to observe my carrying concealed weapons prerogative. >> not if it's your hometown. not if it's if i don't go to my hometown. if i go to utah -- >> it's good in 49 other states, not your home state.

>> so i go to utah then and i get me a gun permit and i can carry it anywhere i want to except certain states. well, you see, that's crazy, and th's why in this particular instance we're getting ready to get way off the track with something. this doesn't appear to be particularly relevant, but i have in my hand the gun shows that are established in the united states of america in the month of november alone, and at eve of those gun shows i see the big signs all the time. as a matter of fact, i've been thinking about how to break that up i know the first day that we see a sign saying african-american gun show in harlem in liberty city in mile, there ain't going to be no more gun shows. we will stop giving permits at that time. but there is sometng drascally wrong with

weaponizing a society the way that we are doing it. nobody has any problem getting a gun. most states already allow for some form of carrying a concealed weapon. but the rub comes when certain states have more strict provisions and you need, then, only to read that felons doet guns and i gather that they get carrying concealed weapon permits. "new york times'" lead article today dealt specifically with the number of people who are felons, real felons, not misdeanors, but people that had committ eted felonies befor that got guns and went somewhere and killed somebody, and it's all right i gather if they can pass a less-restrictive -- like send it had in the mail or carr a concealed weapon withes provisipr

prisions, it's okay for them to have a gun well, you and i know it's not okay, okay? so i find it passing strange and borrowing from mr. mcgovern's provision and mr. polar. coming up on 19 years in this institution. it seems to me that my friends and many of them are my friends spend a lot of time concerning themselves about guns, gay rights, and god. last week i had to be reminded about my faith in god. this week i'm getting ready to let anybody just about carry a concealed weapon just about anywhere, and i guess next week we'll get around to equality marriage issues ande won't have done one single solitary thing to cause an american to have a job. i said to a friend once, you go have all the guns you need, no gay people are going to be

around you, your children ain't going to go to school with no black people, and you ain't going to have no job. i saw him about two years ago, and he told me it came true. he doesn't have a job and he ain'got one because he's a carpenter that wanted guns and didn't want black people t go to school with him and didn't want gay people to have marriage equality. you all can spend your time on this stuff if you want, but there are those of us who are going to continuously rail against it and i think it's absurd that we are spending taxpayer time, our time here in this institution, discussing something, number one, that ain't going to about become the law and, number two, shouldn't become the law. if we follow this line of reasoning -- mayor bloomberg and the mayors against illegal guns, at their web with site, www.com our lives our laws.org, provide a summary of this legislation

where they say that the bill that we are considering may very well allow people convicted of assault, domestic abusers, ug addicts, stalkers, people with violent arrest records, people convicted of illegal firearms possession, self prx predators, habitual alcohol abusers, people with zero training who ining wh never touched a gun before. if we are going to permit them to carry a conceal weapon, it's absurd to the highest degree. state legislatures have intensely debated and ultimaty decided their own standards for who n carry a loaded concealed weapon in their community. 38 states do not issue permits to people who have been committed certain felonies and violent misdemeanors, like assault or sex crime. 36 states do not issue permits

to people under the age of 21, and 35 states require gun safety training, often including live fire drills or other proof of competency with a fire alarl. this legislation would eliminate many of those standards reducing concealed carry permitting to a lowest common denominator imposed by congress as a federal mandate. i think it will put police officers at risk in every state, and i think it is -- i gather we're going to hide under the notion tt ignorance of the law is no excuse thaf. that would being the only reach some of this. there's no way in the world that a person that got a gun permit in one state is going to know what the laws are in another state, and i gather they won't be required to. and how crazy is that? knowing local laws and

recognizing when someone is breaking them already keeps our law enforcement busy, and we don't have any real national sl to check who can legally carry a concealed weapon wi. i just think it's absolutely absurd. simply having a conceal and carry permit would enable a gun trafficker to bring cars or backpacks full of guns across state line. and they could simply present their ot-of-state carry permit if they he got stopped. i think that we have reached the height of absurdity in this institution and we need to reject this measure. and i hope that we do. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to say to my friend from florida that those issues that you raise may be real, but they're issues that we already confront today. your great state of florida has reciprocity age thes with 35 other states.

i have a concealviccealed carry in florida and it's recognized in 35 states and today i'm required to understand the rulz and regulations of those 35 other jurisdictions. i have permission to carry, but i have permission to rry only under the rules of that home state. mr. chairman, my understanding is exactly what hr-822 would do as well, is that right? >> that is correct. also, i'm not aware of any state that allows an individual convicted of a felony to get a concealed carry permit. >> did i hear you say you're required if you get that carry and conceal weapon permit in florida to know the laws in the other state? >> required to obey the laws in the other state. >> obey the laws. how about knowing them? >> ignorance of the law is no excuse, i say to my friend. >> back where we started. >> i absolutely agree with that. mr. chairman, i struggle with this, too. i'll going to raise the states

rights issue but not as a red perfect h herring. i'm genuinely concerned about it. i hope as my friend mr. bishop does the next time we come around with states' rights issue we'll have the same chorus of voices supporting individual states. but today in georgia we have recessiprocity with 24 other states. i'd like for that number to be higher. it generally does hinge on training requirements and other issues of that nature. what would you think about an amendment to this language that left the 24 agreements that georgia already has in place, in place and then made this federal language the floor for those states with whom georgia does not have reciprocity agreements? >> i would not look favorably on an idea because it really runs counter to one of the goals of this bill, wch is to have a

national uniform standard that would allow any state to recognize and offer reciprocity to another state that had a conceal carry prlt. i know how strongly you feel. >> i'm grateful to youor that. >> in the two ways i jt meioned, this bill does recognize and respect state laws as well as local jurisdictions. >> you said 35 states? the state of florida made that decision, which 3 states had laws that they wanted to abide by and5 states they did not age with. did not want reciprocity with them. that is a decision the state made. one of the things that i think in this whol debate is over the research done by dr. lott where the basis of the core finding is if more people carried firearms the crime rate would go down. i would join the gentlelady from

new york in that i don't take that research on faith. in fact, it's been challenged and there are a lot of questions about it. if you believe that more people carrying firearms would lower the crime rate, you'd have probably one view of this legislation. and if you believe that, as i do, more people carrying firearms is not helpful to the crime rate, then you probably have a different -- >> it is absolutely true, mr. scott, my view is having the ratio of licensed firearms carriers to unlicensed carriers, having the higher ratio of licensed carrier, i feel safer walking the seets of georgia than i do walking the streets of jurisdictions that do not allow that same privilege. when you go and stand in line -- you may not be a conceal to carry permit holder -- i encourage you to go down to the jurisdiction, whether it's the probate judge or county sheriff, look at the folks in line to get those permits. what it says to me is, there are

plenty of guns out on the streetas my colleagues on the other side suggested. the estion is, are you licensed to carry it? have you been looked over, background track they do on us in georgia is extensive. the renewal process is extensive and the permit is expensive. >> you mentioned renewal. a state can revoke a concealed weapon withes permit and in fact can revoke reciprocity if they find another state is issuing permits, you can revoke the reciprocity. but this bill will force you to accept the validity of an out-of-state license given by a state whose standards you think the home state are too lax. >> let me ask, mr. chairman, when with i got into this bll i was surprised to learn there were more states that covered conceal carry prlts than states that allow for open carry. when i think of the second

amendment, i think of the open carry being the most rebest realization of the second amendment. i think conceal carry is a little more dangerous for officers than open carry. what led to this bill coming out of committee with a conceal carry focus instead of carry? >> i think there was one situation where we know where -- we believe we know where country is going. 49 states have conceal carry so clearly that's the most common type of permit allowed, most common way for an individual to possess firearms in ways other than what is usually allowed by law. you have 40 states who offer some type or form of reciprocity, 40, 49, you look at the numbers you may as well have something that fits everyone and you have a consistent standard. >> i think about my friends in illinois who don't have the roit to carry and i feel for them, but i know you can go over the

border in indiana, if you have a business there you can get an out-of-state permit in indiana, iowa, allows for nonresident permits. how does this legislation deal with holders of nonresident rmits? if i'll an illinois resident, holder of a florida nonresident permit, is that florida nonresident permit then recognized in the other 49 jurisdictions just not my home jurisdiction? >> in the case of illinois, illinois has affirmatively chose be not to issue can seonceal ca. states that take no position are allowed to have individuals enter those states with a conceal carry unless they've affirmatively denied it because the constitutional right to bear arms. the bill treats out-of-state permits the same as one from your own state. >> okay. fantastic. >> except that you can't use the out-of-state permit in your home state. you can use it in all of the

other states, not just your hole state. you can't get an in-state permit by gng out of state. but if you do go out of state, you can use that permit anywhere else. and we had testimony -- it's not clear that you actually have to be physically present to get a permit. you may be able to buy these things over the internet. and the way this thing is going, this is going to be a revenue enhancement where you just charge enough money and people just over internet get their little concealed weapons permit that they were notentitled to get this in their home state. >> having gone through the licensing process, i trust the local jurisdictions to do a quality job. i'say to the chairman, this is a bill that's been knocking arnd these kmaim betters for a long, long time. it's always been widely co-sponsored, supported, but just does not make it to the floor. i just want to tell you how much i appreciate -- i agree with speaker boehner. the house works well best when

it works its will. grateful. >> i would -- i'm interested -- the gentleman had indicated -- i don't know whether it's true or not -- that you can justo on the internet and get a conceal carry license. is tt true? >> in the state of georgia, we're a must-issue state, i would argue that we're as aliberal as you're likely to find, that is absolutely not true. you must show up at the probate judge. you must be fingerprinted. you must pay for your background check. you must go on as many states to provide certification of some level of training, as the gentleman indicated in virginia. it's a very thorough process and it doesn't happen instantly. even in a must-issue state like georgia, it takes weeks if not months for that process to finish because, again, you have two choices. you can have unlicensed gun owners or you can have licensed gun carriers.

i prefer every day that i'm standing beside someone who's been certified. >> i appreciate continuing this conversation can. but in a mustssue state, the term you use? >> that's right. >> does that mean you must issue it to them no maer what the background is? >> you raise an interesting question. must-issue is the most permissible category. to answer your question, absolutely not. >> then why would someone come before this committee and offer testimony that you could get it on the internet? why would someone -- because that's -- in georgia that's the requirement in georgia. the testimony that we heard in the committee was there's nothing in the bill that requires the physical presence to get the permit. >> appreciate it, gentleman. but the gentleman is from georgia, and you said it is a requirement that internet -- >> in georgia. he said that is not correct. >> in a must-issue state like

georgia, must-issue means, if someone applies and they qualify, a permit must be issued. th that qualification process deta detailed. it's in person with fingerprint cards through the probate judge's office. >> so if someone suggested you could gain that in georgia in testimony before this committee, you would tell them that's not correct. >> well, i will say to my friend -- and he has been here a year or two longer than i have. >> with respect. >> with respect, it is one of my great frustrations 11 months in that these are serious issues, licensing of handguns is a serious issue, concealed carry is a serious issue, and states rights of the ninth and tenth amendment are seriouses issues. and, yes, when with you walk into a hearing like this and you see the red herrings throwing out one after another, it cheapens the entire debate.

the second, ninth and tenth amendments are important. it's a great frustration to me that when dealing with issues of at gravity -- >> i thank the gentleman for engaging with me and the time extended. >> if the gentleman would point in the bill where you're required to have a physical presence if you get not in georgia but in utah or montana or a prohibition against them changing the laws to allow it over the internet, then maybe we should have that amendment to prohibit internet -- obtaini these permits overt internet and require a physical presence in front of a judicial officer. maybe we should have that. but it's not in the bill. >> i'm -- if the gentleman will yield, i'm not aware of a single state where you don't have to physically go get your fingerprints. >> well, the testimony in the committee was not clear as to whether or not in -- >> let me clarify for the record. i think every state requires physical presence for

fingerprints, minimum. >> and this bill, if they change -- >> we're not changing that. it's in existence in all 50 states. >> that's exactly what we're doing. if they change it to not require physical presence, that internet concealed weapons permit is good all over the country. >> is the gentleman suggesting a federal licensing procedure that we adopt the georgia standards on a federal level so we can all carry? that would certainly sol the issue that the gentleman is concerned about. >> that would be better than this bill. >> well, i look forward to working with the gentleman. >> i yield back. >> i'd like to submit this for the record. this is a map courtesy of rocky mountain gun owners association. it shows colorado's reciprocal agree thes. agreements. i think we have about 30. it seems like a solution in search of a problem. colorado gun owner, very easy to get a concealed permit, we have

a must issue as well. you can drive to any of our neighboring states it's still good. it's not good in nevada, the question is why is that not a matter between the sovereign state of colorado and the sovereign state of nevada, approach their state legislators and governors to work out? why does this require federal intervention and bureaucrats in washington deciding this rather than in our states? >> as i mentioned a while o, i think there's value in having a consistent standard that is not confusing where you don't have 50 different types of variations respecting the fundamental right to bear arms. the fact that different states might have different standards to acquire a concealed carry is not as important in my judgment as the fact that we need to allow reciprocity and allow states to recognize the rietzs of those in other states across state lines with the concealed carry permit. as i mentioned again and it's just a difference of opinion, this bill does respect states rights in two fundamental ways. if a state like illinois has

affirmatively said you cannot have a concealed carry, you're not allowed to go into that state with a concealed carry with another state. second of all, if either local jurisdictions or the states themselves have decided that one should not under a concealed carry permitarry a firearm into a public facility or a church or a bar or sports event, those instances will be recoized under thisbill. >> do you believe that -- i think illinois has been brought up a number of times. and i believe it was in reference to them not having a concealed carry regime. is that -- you said illinois does not allow concealed carry? >> illinois to m knowledge -- >> do you believe it's the constitutional right of a state if they choose to not have a way to have concealed carry, or do you believe he under the second amendment the state is required to have a version of concealed rry laws? >> i did not hear. let me ask you to repeat t question. >> illinois has been brought p

up a number of times. based on this, it's my understanding illinois does not have a concealed permit system. so my question is, do you feel that not having a concealed permit system is contrary to the second amendment and states actually have to have a way to have a convicted sealed permit in their state in. >> no. i think it's up to the state to decide -- i don't think the amendment requires states to all have concealed carry prlts. i think it is a protected right, not a required right. >> just to be clear, i don't think you're arguing this particular proposal which has its merits and flaws, weighing the second amendment versus the ninth and tenth, do you believe this is conitutionally required to protect the second amendment or is it optional and just good policy you're advancing? >> the problemere is quite frankly states don't have constitutional rights, individuals do. so i do think an individual has a constitutional right to, for example, if we deem it, to carry a weapon or fire arl into

another state that recognizes concealed carry permits. >> sure. i have rocky mountain gun owners calling my office against this particular bill. they're worried about the federal overreach. they're worried this is the foot in the door for a lot of what could come with federal bureaucrats making decisions and having a federal database about who has it and who doesn't. i think this would be a larger issue for me and my constituents, many of whom have concealed weapons permits. if we didn't have these reciprocity agree thes. i think my constituents are quite cob tent with them. i would direct their attention to our governor and state legislature both of whom i think are receptive to negotiating more. but given that many of the calls from the gun owners groups in my state have been ainst this, you know, i'm far from convinced it's needed, given the many reciprocity agreements that exist. if the people of illinois need one or want one, they need to elect a governor it would seem

that would do that rather than come crying to washington. >> just very briefly, you're talking -- you keep talking about consistent standards. these are not consistent standards. ese are lowest common denominator standards. if you want consistent standards, maybe everybody will agree that georgia standards would be the standard. but this says whoever's got the lowest standard, dealing them out without any kind of requirement, no training, no nothing, you've got to honor that permit, too. so it's not consistent tandard, it's lowest standard. >> let me ask a legal question. at the boflt the map from this gun advocacy group, it says, please be aware you must abide by the laws from the state you're traveling. under this federal law, you would have to abide by the law off the state you were in as well. >> that's correct. >> so it encroaches the state's sovereignty somewhat but it does require that they also fill that -- again, not an issue that my constituents have been --

>> you cannot be eligible to get a permit in that state, you may not be old enough. >> you might not have to -- in effect you may not be eligible in a state because o ageor a prior conviction, perhaps misdemeanor, because of some psychological -- >> lack of training. >> interesting. >> you may not be aiblg do get a permit, but if you have a permit you have to abide by the rules in in terms of whether you can carry it into a bar or school or -- >> and i represent a district and state with many, many concealed gun permit older holders. i don't happen to be one myself. many of my friends are. but this is simply -- it's a solution in search of a problem. maybe this can provide a newed focus on all of us for states to enter more reciprocity agreements rather than take this arguthe to washington. i yield back the balance of my time to the chairman.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. aloft discussion particularly about illinois. and i have a little experience there because i was born and raised and was a police officer in illinois for 12 years. one of the things that always struck me was that we had to have gun owner's i.d. card. is that still in effect in illinois? >> i don't know, but i can find out. >> it just always struck me as a police officer that legal folks had to have a gun owner's i.d. card but those that were committing the vast majority of the crimes that i dealt with never had a gun owner's i.d. card. and what i've seen in my years and experience in florida is that those that did have a concealed weapons permit, i don't recall an occasion of arresting them for committing a homicide or an armedobbery. you know, the bad guys could care less about legal folks and the ability to get a concealed

weapons permit. they're going to carry a gun because they can. >> mr. nugent, i don't know about illinois or those states. i do know we can look at florida as a case example. in the case of florida, i think it's 0.03% of concealed carry permit holders have had to give up those licenses. i mean, that's, what, 3 out of 1,000 or something like that. by far the great majority concealed carry permit holders are law abiding. they may actually prevent crimes from occurring and certainly they can feel better about defending themselves in their own home. >> i've actually seen that in regards to preventing crime where a done sealed weapon holder was coming by and assisted a deputy. >> across the united states i believe it between 2 million and 2.5 million incidents occur every year where an individual uses a firearm to prevent a crime from occurring. >> you know one of the thing it's, when you it talk about

consistency and what you don't want to do is make someone who is a law-abiding legal firearms in regards to having a permit a criminal because they happen to cross a state line. you know, it wasn't that many years ago in law enforcement, as an officer, there were certain states i couldn'tarry my weapon in. and i had to know that before we traveled. they gave us a sheet like this with all exceptions across what states a certified law enforcement officer could carry a concealed weapon in. you know, this body came across and allowed active law enforcement and retired, which i am, the ability t carry in every state if i have a legal -- or if i have the ability to do that because of my agency or state allows me to do that. it just seems that when you can make it accessible to folks that

legally have done -- crossed all the t s and dotted the is todo the right thing, we don't want to make criminals out of them because they happen to go to georgia from florida. whether or not they currently have reciprocity agreements, but more likely this just i think levels the playing feeltd in regards to folks understanding their rights, particularly constitutional right. what's -- you know, i've heard a lot of negatives and we've heard about this from some of the folks saying that this is an overreach by the federal government in regards to collecting names and addresses of those that currently have a permit. is that true? >> federal government has very little to do with it. it's a matter of reciprocity as we talked about today coming up with a uniform measure that

applies equally to all states and recognizing the fundamental right to bear arms. >> so the -- dofederal governme does not have access to my concealed weapons permit. >> that's correct. >> and this legislatiodoes not give them that right, is that correct? >> it does not, that's correct. >> let me just say that if you believe that more people having concealed weapons will reduce crime -- a crime, this is probably a good bill. if you believe more people carrying firearms is more likely to create mayhem d cause more crime, then it's a bad bill. i mean, it i think this is basically where with we're ending up. if you believe that professor lott's research that says the more people carrying -- more people carrying guns will reduce crime, i think a lot of us just don't believe in that research. >> would the gentleman from florida yield? >> absolutely. >> i think it's a significant

question the gentlemanrom virginia gives on whether more guns creates more crime or fewer guns creates more crime. what i thought you heard is the distinction in that number so that number is simply not an absolute. the sheriff in my largest county once told me that it's not the legal guns that are going to get hi it's the illegal guns that are going to get hill. >> absolutely. >> so if we take the matrix that representative scott was talking about, should that not be subdivided then between if more legal guns are on there versus more illegal guns and that should be the matrix in which we discuss? >> you know, most of the deaths i've seen is because they were legally possessed to start with. you know, they commia crime with the handgun. that's -- i mean, the law is clear, you can't sot somebody, rob somebody, use a handgun in the commission of a crime. and does that still occur? does it occur in illinois? >> well, let me just say that the evidence i've seen shows

that if you have a gun you're more likely to kill somebody that's innocent than preventing a crime. >> well, i'll tell you the first h homicide i er investigated as a rookie cop did not involve a handgun. it involved an iron pi that bludgeoned somebody. so it wasn't a handgun. any tool can be utilized to kill, whether it's a kitchen knife, a handgun, a pipe, whether it's a bottle. so, you know, if someone is going to legally go through the process to get fierprinted to receive a concealed weapons permit, i don't quite draw the linkages that they're going to commit a kriecrime. the evidence shows that they don't. is that true? >> like i said, the evidence i've seen shows the more handguns you have the more people, including innocent

people, will die. >> well, that's -- >> and, you know, if you believe thatore handguns -- more people carrying handguns will reduce crime, then that's where we disagree. >> i'm just thinking that if i legally possess a concealed weapons permit, what i want to make sure is that the person that has -- that has gone through the steps to get a legal concealed weapons permit happens to stray across the state line, that they're not now committing a crime. i mean, that's my point of this. it's not about allowing people to carry more guns. >> you've started with the assumption that you're going to go through somegeorgia-like process and not sign up over the internet and get it mailed to you. >> well, currently, is there any state you can do that in? >> the evidence during the testimony at the hearing was unclear, but there's certainly nothing in the bill that prohibits a state from dealing

them out over the internet. >> but there's no state currently allowing that, is that correct? >> it was unclear during the hearing. it was unclear. i'm not sure. >> sheriff, would you yield again? >> i absolutely will. >> the assumption i'm going to ask you, as you've looked at this bill, this bill deals with reciprocity not necessarily the minimum standard for gaining a permit in the first place. nor do i know -- in fact, utah was one of the other states somebody mentioned might be able to do it by permit. we call it shall permit, not must. no, you cannot do that. but the question i actuay had goes back to what your testimony was. the issue here was, as the gentleman was saying, the more guns you have the more crime ll take place. i thought what i heard you say is the distinction, the more illegal gubs you may have we do a fast and furious program in the united states, the more legal guns you may have, that may have the result.

but the more legal guns -- this was the result of dr. lott's study -- you have doenot increase the crime rate. it's only the illegal guns. as i think one of the other thing that's was pointed out in his work that you just mentioned there, it's actually more people are killed by knives than they are by guns. if you want to use the analogy that was just given out, we should take away all the butter knives i america and that will make us all safer. there is a difference between a legal gun and an illegal gun, and this bill is dealing with legal weaponry. i'm asking you, as an expert witness as a sheriff, am i wrong with that? >> no, i'm not. you know, the issue is the action that you utilize when you have, ether it's a handgun, a shotgun, a butter knife or whatever, it's the actions that you take that commits the crime. it's not the handgun. it doesn't act on its own. it's the person that has it.

so to take your assumption, i guess, is to say that you want to eliminate all weapons -- any shotn, any rifle, any pistol in america. that's the next leap. >> no. i just said that increasing the number of firearms, in my judgment, will not reduce the crime rate. >> does this crease -- my question then is, does this increase the number of firearms manufactured in the united states? >> it inreeses the number of people that can be carrying them from all over the country. >> well, if they already have a permit in florida or georgia, how does that increase it? >> if they could not get a permit in their home state. you could have a situation where you were ineligible because of your criminal record or other behavior, you didn't get any aining, ineligible to get a permit in your home state. you can go to some other state, utah, and get a permit, and that

permit is good everywhere except your home state. so you can wander all over the country with that permit. and if you think that's going to reduce crime, fine. i don't think so. >> would the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> to be clear, mr. scott, that is the law of the land today. if you leave illinois and you go to florida and get a nonresident permit in florida, you can carry that handgun anywhere aacross the country today that florida has reciprocity. >> yes, if they have reciprocity. but that is a decision florida makes as to who they have reciprocity with. if a state doesn't kol up to their standards -- >> absolutely. the nonsit zin of florida, florida has the right today to give -- have the ability to give -- >> and they also have the right not to recognize concealed weapons permits from states that they do not believe come up to their standards. if they don't want people untrained wandering around with concealed weapons, they don't have to recognize that permit by

not giving recess sreciprocity. that's the law today, but this would override it. >> i yield back. >> mr. webster. gentlemen, thank you both for being here. i appreciate your time and testimony. next we'd like to take a panel consisting of the members we have here in the room, . natler, ms. jackson lee, mr. hastings, mr. johnson and ms. maloney. please come forward and please pull ahair up. mr. smith and mr. scott, mr. johnson, do you wish to testify? please take the chair up and we'll -- we're asking you to join this nel. so please pull your chair forward to the table. you can pull your chair right up to the table. does that cover everyone? let's begin with mr. nadler,

then ms. jackson-lee, then mr. hastings, mr. johnson and ms. maloney. . nadler, let me say i s a beautifully prepared statement. >> with considerable changes. >> i know since you made the changes, i'd like to say without objection that entire statement is going to appear in the statement and we'd welcome your summary. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll oe i'll omit the first part of the statement which basically describes why the bill is a terrible bill. but let me just address the p t part -- the amendment. with respect to guns, the concerns of more urbanized states like new york are different from like more rural states like alaska. within reason there are strong reasons to allow each state to tailor its own gun laws. that has been our general policy for hundreds of years.

anyone who talks aut states' rights ought to adhere to that. under this bill that would all change. anyone with a permit to carry a concealed handgun could bring their gun into a state of which they're not a resident regardless of whether or not they would even be allowed to possess a firearm if they were resident of the latter state. rules that the norn resident state might have prohibiting criminals, cloalcoholics, et cetera, would be overridden. anybody with a permit from another state would conceal a handgun in any state regardless whether they've met that state's ruled and requirements. i'm here to stand up for the rights of my state of new york and states across the country. right now for example new york and california prohibit persons convict of certain misdemeanor sex offenses against minors even possessing a firearm. also some states like utah prohibit persons with misdemeanor self convictions from getting a concealed carry permit. my first amement would enable a state to enforce its own

concealed carry laws regarding people convicted of a misdemeanor sex offense against minors. without my amendment, the underlying bill would force states to allow dangeroupeople with guns in their midst. i don't think the chairman's home state of california would appreciate tt, neither would my state of new york. to repeat, this amendment would say, regardless of the bill, a state could enforce a l against allowing someone convicted of a misdemeanor sex offense against a minor from having a convict -- from using a concealed carry permit in that state. if you had a concealed carry permit from arizona and you were convicted sex offender against a minor, new york can enforce its law against letting you use a concealed carry permit in new york. that's the aelt. the goal of the second amendment is to combine a national security -- combat a national

security threat known as a terror gap. i'll keenly aware of the harm terrorists can do to our country. that is why this whole national security concerns me. the terror gap refers to the loophole in national gun laws that allows known or suspected terrorists to buy guns in the united states. the reasoning as to why we have sufficient a policyis beyond me. this is a gap we no is exploited. according to t gao, of the 1453 people foundo be on the terrorist list trying to buy guns between 2004 and 2010, 1321 were allowed to proceed with the purchase. that's a success rate of 91% of known terrorists purchasing guns. the result of this gap in security have been serious and deadly. we all remember the tragedy with major nadal hassan. he had been investigated but he was not stopped from buying a weapon. and the fact of the purchase was never shared with the fbi. my colleague from new york

representative peter king, the chairman of the home land security committee has introduced legislation to close the terror gap and i am proud to be a co-sponsor of his bill. my second amendment is modeleded in his proposal and would empower the attorney general to deny the ability of a known or suspected terrorist, somee on the terrorist watch list, for example, who possesses a firearm, deny him the ability to use hr-822 to authorize concealed carry into another state. i would humbly suggest that preventing terrorists from carrying weapons across state line sz a worthwhile goal. i think the bill is a serious mistake, but if we are to consider it on the houts floor, at least i believe members should be able to make improvements. these two amendments provide such improvements. i ask they be made -- >> thank you. >> let me thank the members of the rules committee for their

indulgence. quickly i'll just move to my facts on two and three, number two having been revised. 38 states do not issue permits to people convicted of certain violent misdemeanors, 36 states require gun stavety training including fire drills and competency with a fire arls that shows distinct differences among states. however, hr-822 calls for one that applies to residents of a state and in a less restrictive standard that applies to visitors from out of states. many many states will be impacted but colorado, california, virginia my state of texas new york massachusetts south carolina florida among those who will be impacted by the differences in this law. i know that many of us hve heard the phrase "people kill

guns don't". but people used guns to kill and the ultimate result is that people are dead. my first amendments a simple process to aid our law enforcement officers who all of have been citing as who we would like to protect along th our citizens. my amendment ensures that a comprehensive database il mrelted providing a list of individuals from each state with permits and licenses to possess and carry concealed weaps be available to all law enforce the officers at all times. we don't know the mental conditions or the occurrences that happen to people who legitimately have a concealed weapon. if an officer discovered a gun, they'd have to terribl if the state permit is valid. that is of course if the officer

stops e car and asks the person for a weapon. this is a nearly impossible task in a tense situation. some state permits look as simple as a library card that would be easy to forge. reciprocity could also -- the merit including my amendment, amendment number one. amendment number two deals with the issue of providing notice to the designated state agency that an individual is coming into that state and carrying a gun. states must retain their ability to know which individuals are allowed under this newly proposed bill to possess and carry concealed weapons within their borders. this measure would require an individual to notify out-of-state law enforcement 24 hours in advance their intention to possess or carry a weapon into the borders of those state

in which those individuals are not licensed. again, it would be the des naitded state agency that would be notified and that is amendment number two. in my home state, we are mourning the death of mrs. cruz-rojas, a mother of three whose security employed officer, as a security officer. we've heard of the mall co that was a friendly person. but this is one of the security officers. came to her dental assistant job, pointed a gun through the glass, fired three shots, jumped over the counter, and ten fired more shots at her then-fallen body. three children are orphaned. i make the point because i'm also apologetic for my state. court records show mr. sousa was charged with beating ms ms. cruz-rojas in february 2009, but the misdemeanor assault charge was dropped after he completed domestic abuse class.

i'm appalled at that. but he was still carrying a gun. he still had a job and was able to kill a mother of three children. my third amendment simply says, even though texas has a robust handgun concealed carry law, i would ask that this measure enforce a minimum standar for gun possession. that would be a standard to include that you could not have a concealed weapon if you were convicted of stalking or electronic surveillance. this may be a bipartisan bill with a number of supporters. there obviously is disagreement. many of us do believe that the enhanced number of guns can contribute to the death of innocent individuals. mr. sojas left and stole a boat. i think my amendments are common sense and ask that they be included. >> thank you very much. without objection, mr. hastings' statement will be included in

the record. thank you. mr. deutsche's statement without objection will be included if in the record. mr. johnson and then ms ms. maloney. without objection, it will be included in the record. would you take the microphone there. >> amendments have remained an issue that needs to be addressed. more than likely we'll have support of this. nra supports it. illinois is the only state in the union that would be uncovered by this bill. this clarifies that illinois will be covered by th bill. i think it's a simple, rights and privileges of our state, which unfortunately, i'll apologize for my state, we don't have a law. nonetheless this puts us in a situation as any other state, provides for uniform laws. i think it's extraordinarily

important to buttress the bill with this amendment and ask for its adoption. >> let me say for the record i don't like everything that's done there, but i never apologize for california. ms. maloney. >>nly in the limited context of failure to act do i apologize for my great state of illinois. >> mr. chairman and members of the committee, i request a unanimous consent he to place my full -- >> included in the record. >> i specifically want to point out one of my amendments that would prohibit an individual convicted of a felony whose gun rights have been restored in his or her state of residence from getting reciprocity in another state. on the front page of today's "new york times" they highlight the ease with which felons are able to rega gun rights in certain states, and it points out that in some cases it has led to violent repeat actions that have hurt people.

and we simply cannot allow violent criminals to travel freely between states with concealed weapons. so i respectfully request that this aemendment be placed in order, and i say that the people of my home state of new york have every reason to belie that our gun laws work considerably better for us than those of other states. and i go back to the statement of mrs. slaughter earlier on arizona, which has some of the most permissive gun laws in the country. according to one report, there were 15 gun deaths per 10000 people in arizona whilen new york there are only 5 gun deaths per 100,000 persons. that's a pretty stark difference. so my state and certainly other states may not want felons that have a record of violence he, of murder, of killing, of other felony actio to be able to come into our state. i think that's a reasonable

request. i also as one who represents families that lost 500 loved ones on 9/11 speak in support of mr. nadler's amendment which would prevent known or issed terr -- suspected terrorists from carrying concealed firearms across state ines. we should not let known terrorists carry firearms across state lines. to have that checked with the central area is very important. and i want to point out that earlier when we passed the 9/11 terrorist attacks screening bill, the one that provided health care and monitoring to those who are sick and dying because of 9/11, tre was an amendment that said that all of these survivors and victims should be checked against the 9/11 terrorist attacks list. so if u're going to check the police and fire who went i to protect each other, to protect

our citizens against the terrorist attack list, let's check other known terrorists against the terrorist attack list and not let them freely walk across state lines where they are known to have danger and harm to american citizens. >> thank you very much. >> i have others that really talk to the need to hire more police officers. if you're going to be having people coming in with concealed weapons it that can be terrorists, that can be felons, we will need more police officers on the street. and other amendments address that and the fact that we need to really look at the unemployment problems we confront. >> thank you very much, ms. maloney. are there any questions of the witness wies here? if not, thank you all for being here. >> can i enter this article in the paper? >> yes he. the article will be included in the record. that will conclude the hearing

for consideration hr-822. and the chair will be in receipt of a motion. excuse us, if our clerk could get to the desk here, mr. nadler, ms. jackson lee. thank you bothor being here. >> mr. chairman, i move the committee report a structure rule for hr-822, the national right to carry reciprocity act of 2011. rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the company shall be considered as original text with the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read. rule waives all points against committee's amendment -- the rule in the rulz committee report. each such amendment may only be offered in the order printed and threport may only be offered by a member des naited in the report and shall be considered as read. shall be debatable if in the

time specified, opponent shall not be subject to amendment, shall not be subject to demand or division of the question. rule waives -- finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without -- >> you've heard the motion in general. obviously as we've seen today, this is an issue that brin out strongly held beliefs. we this rule, we are proposing to make an order ten amendments, eight amendments offered by democrats, two amendments offered by republicans. >> thank you very much. the vote occurs on the mcgovern amendment, those in favor aye, those against no. >> mr. woodall no. mr. nugent, no.

mr. scott, no. mr. webster, no. ms. slaughter. mr. mcgovern, aye. mr. hastings aye. mr. pole is aye. mr. hair i men no. >> three ayes and 8 nos. >> mr. chairman, i offer as one motion the amendments of number 12 by mr. nadler and/or the number 8 by mr. bishop and i believe the committee members know what they are. and i won't offer any words in support of sail. >> vote occurs on the hastings amendment. those in favor say aye. those against no. clerk will call the roll. mr. sessions, no. ms. fox, no. mr. bishop, no. mr. woodall, no. mr. nugent, no. mr. scott, no. mr. webster, no.

ms. slaughter. mr. mcgovern, aye. mr. hastings aye. mr. polis, aye. mr. chairman no. >> and the clerk will report the total. >> three >> the house rules committee worked on this bill last night that would allow gun owners with the proper permits to carry firearms across state lines. the bill is scheduled to come up on the floor later today. [no audio] >> a couple of live event to tell you about this morning -- republican senator marco rubio will be interviewed by

political at 8:15 eastern on c- span 2. a little after that on c-span 3, defense secretary leon panetta testifies about the iraqi security at 9:30 eastern a.m. coming up in a few moments, today's headlines and your calls, live on "washington journal." the house is in session at 10:00 for general speeches with legislative business at noon. today's agenda is scheduled to include file work on the coast guard or reauthorization bill. in about 45 minutes, we will talk about politics and republican candidates for president with a former adviser to presidents reagan and george h. w. bush and an adviser to senator mccain's 2000 a presidential campaign. democratic representative sheila jackson lee of texas discusses federal spending and the work of the joint deficit