ability to use firearms to commit crimes. i've learned an important lesson -- further limiting the ability of responsible citizens to buy guns will not keep criminals from getting one. in fact, i reached out to local police chiefs soliciting their advice on what is working and what is not working in stopping gun violence on the street. i wanted to be able to carry their message based on decades of experience on the front lines of this fight. these are the men and women who are the first line of defense, the first on the scene of a terrorist attack or a violent event, an active shooter situation. again and again, i heard the same thing -- enforce laws already on the books. number two, prosecute criminals for gun related crimes. number three, stop releasing violent criminals from jail before their sentences are

completed. they see the federal government as failing to uphold criminals accountable for gun crimes and they have their doubts about the promises they hear coming out of as one police chief print, if anyone of any political stripe whatsoever was sincerely concerned about gun violence, they would take a no holds barred approach to approaching the seemingly and with laws relating to guns that are already on the books. i don't think there is anyone in america whose heart does not break over the news of mass shootings that take innocent lives. there's no one that opposes making our streets safer. we want to do everything we can more gun crimes. -- to prevent more gun crimes. but we must make sure local actions taken place are grounded in fact. they must be vetted by the representatives of the american people and not undermine our

constitutional rights. two weeks ago, the president announced a series of executive actions he asserted would reduce gun violence. while he may have had the best of intentions, the law enforcement officers in my state and i , daresay around the country , believe these actions will not have a meaningful impact. the centerpiece of the president's order, expanding background checks to include the so-called gun show loophole, is not only an assault on the second amendment, but will be ineffective in reducing overall gun crime. it will be ineffective because less than 1% of illegal gun purchases are determined to come from gun shows, if you are still involved in violent crimes. it is our goal to reduce crime to make streets say. . the president's action will not accomplish that. the only practical effect of the provision will be to intimidate or frighten law-abiding citizens

so they will refrain from selling their guns at all, for fear they will be prosecuted for failure to register. instead of new rules and regulations, a better approach would be to enforce the laws we have by increasing the efficiency of an ending for the existing chexsystems. it is critical to ensuring guns do not end up in the wrong hands. i think that is the sentiment shared by all members of the committee on both sides. with thatbetter system. with more funding, states can ensure every felony is reported to the system. if the cause is not in the system, it is -- it cannot work. when the system does work, we find felons attempting to buy guns, and we prosecute them. using the same laws on the books today, the bush administration secured 35% more federal gun convictions into 2004 and 2005

inn the obama administration 2014. with the exception of a slight uptick in 2012, federal gun have fallen every year president obama has been in office. if we are not enforcing our laws and adding new executive orders, even if well-designed, will accomplish nothing. at the same time, the federal government must do more to them -- provide law enforcement more tools to do their job. countyriff of calhoun told me what he needs is more resources, not fewer. in fact, he has recently suffered the loss of assets to protect his officers in dangerous situations. we can do more. and remember, the sacrifice of our men and women in law enforcement grade i think sometimes we lose sight,

especially in the washington, that the reaction of a few have tarred the whole. i have had the sad duty, i'm sure other members have also, to attend funerals of officers fallen in the line of duty, either the result of a criminal, mentally ill person, or gang member. this is a major concern. i applaud president obama for focusing on the mental illness issue. my concern is it should not be done in the manner he is doing it, but should be debated by congress and this committee to be done in a thoughtful and thorough way. in conclusion, what we don't want to see is a veteran coming back from iraq or afghanistan, who has concerns and wants to talk to a counselor, finds himself unable to purchase a gun. the same for someone who might turn over to his affairs to a family member to handle, and ends up losing their second

amendment thank you for allowing me to be here. our second amendment rights can be protected at the same time we keep our american safe. mr. chairman, members of the committee, and addition to being number attorney general and a second amendment layer, i spent 12 years working in the mental health arena. i would say that nothing, not one thing in the president's executive actions related to we are discussing today would have any meaningful effect on tragedies like virginia tech in my state or san bernardino, much less more common gun related three kinds. -- however, the president's focus on improving mental health care does assist in preventing future tragedies, considering more than 60% of all gun related deaths are mentally health-related. , thosere two parts

relating to gun in law enforcement, and those relating to mental health. everything the president advocates cost money. i'm a lawyer. i have to start with my coffee yet. it would be my strenuous help, given the fact that our national government is astonishingly bankrupt, that the congress would cut more money than it proposes to spend on any of these programs. presumably you would cut lower priority expenditures if you decided mental health care is of greater importance, as i hope you will. directeddent's actions at scanning gun violence appeared to be in some cases, inely aspirational, and other cases intentionally intimidating and harassing of law-abiding citizens in an effort to get them to shy away from selling guns they legally own. to moreedural proposals quickly and smoothly run background checks more accurately are unarguable, as long as they are paid for.

all of us want the laws to be enforced. if that can be done more efficiently, then we are doing today, that would be wonderful. however, when the president and attorney general the to intentionally create confusion and ambiguity about when someone selling a single gun might be in violation of a lot with five-year jail penalties, one can only call that dishonorable intimidation of the citizenry by its government. i would note that this jail threat includes a problem found across the entire universe of federal regulatory law, namely there is no clear mens rea requirement, no necessity for finding culpable intent on the part of the hypothetical offender citizen. listis another of a long of existing residents, expanding federal power using regulatory bodies that have been imbued with criminal lawmaking authority.

now the president wants federal law enforcement authorities to crack down on people selling as few as one gun by forcibly classifying them as gun dealers. this is obviously ludicrous, but the president and attorney general don't seem to care. remember to put yourself in the position of the individuals. from individual citizens perspective, having your own federal government and we investigating you to make sure one gun sale you conducted privately and innocently, perhaps to use the money to go by a different gun, for example, is an excruciating and painfully expensive x fraught with peril -- experience fraught with peril. that is how the president wants it. his rhetoric surrounding the release of the proposed actions makes it very clear that while he cannot do much, he can threaten much. in that he intends the bureaucracy to torment many of my fellow citizens who also happened to be gun owners. has worked ono hundreds of mental commitment

cases, and deeply involved and how might own mental health community is involved with the thecial system, i would add -- in addition to mental health throughout our country as a relates to safety, we have a balance to strike between patient privacy and liberty, public safety, and liability. it would be my hope that the federal government would do two things and only two things in the area of mental health. first, provide funding to expand mental health funding in the -- mental health care in the states by cutting programs and second, get out of the way of the states. federal rules and requirements, and trust states to provide ways to find better and more cost efficient care over time.

they do want to do it. other than providing funding for mental health care, the president vaguely mentioned the department of health and human services removing information -- barriers to states reporting information about people disqualified from purchasing guns due to mental health reasons. i would urge the committee to go hhs to and urged the certify hit the -- hippa. in the case of the virginia tech tragedy, the shooters were virginia public high school, which i represented at the time in the virginia state senate, had figured out how to manage the shooters mental health issues, but they were not allowed to talk to virginia tech about the subject. even virginia tech did not know they had a seriously mentally ill student arriving as a freshman. while we fix that under virginia law, such opportunities for

improving information sharing exist throughout the legal system. yourl finish by calling attention to very serious concerns i have about threats to do process. and when i reference to the president's rhetoric, i think threats. the other concern at a constitutional level, because time is out, that i have is the second amendment, beyond the process, is the separation of powers. alreadyone senator here say, if the congress will not cooperate with the president, i'm glad the president is bypassing congress. actually, a lack of cooperation is a decision by the congress not to change the law. i have yet to hear a senator or witnessed data law should be anything other than an artist as it is written. -- other than enforced as it is written. thank you. >> thank you, members of the committee. my name is mark barden. over three years ago i was a

professional musician. a husband and a father, and doing a simple happy family life. i have the opportunity to be home with my children most of the day. my wife grew up in the bronx and put herself in school. to pursue her passion, which was teaching. we now live in newtown, connecticut. with our three beautiful children. daniel was our youngest, and an absolute light and joy. sense of awareness, empathy, and tenderness transcended his seven years that prompted many to refer to him as an old soul. he earned a reputation as a sweet little boy in school who would ask to sit with someone sitting alone or having a bad day. some of the parents of daniels kindergarten peers asked to have their children place with him again in first grade. at home, he was a bastion of ethics and respect for dinner crime -- dinnertime, he would

scold his older siblings if they were picking at their food before we sat at the table. he also insisted we offer a prayer of gratitude. i don't mean to sound my a bragging parent, but i think it is important in this context, that you take a moment to consider the humanity any and personal impact of what has been taken from us and what is at stake here. family and i had what we considered an idyllic existence. it all changed on december 14, 2012. when a gunman wielding an ar-15 semiautomatic assault rifle equipped with 30 round magazines shot his way into sandy hook elementary school, and shot and killed six educators, and 20 first grade children. one of those children was my sweet, precious daniel.

in an instant, the little boy who danced around our house and rescued worms from the sun, and held doors open for strangers, was gone forever. in the days and weeks following his murder, like all of us, james and natalie were people there didn't harbor them with questions -- were be will did wildered and heartbroken, asking questions like how could anyone do this? old -- overned that 30,000 people are killed by gun violence every year. that is 89 people every day including children. gun related fatalities are on track to exceed car accident fatalities. this is unacceptable. subsequently made it my life's work to try to identify realistic sustainable solutions,

and ultimately save other families from having to live this never-ending pain. i am now one of three managing directors of sandy hook promise a nonprofit organization aimed at bringing gun related tragedies down through preventative programs. the bottom line is we as a nation, as americans, individual members, have to do better. shamefully, congress has done ,othing to address is epidemic and thankfully president obama and attorney general lynch are doing what they can within their andority as elected leaders president obama as a father, to take meaningful steps to protecting our children and making communities safer. package of executive action the president is offering will help enforce what is already on the books, adding resources to projects will facilitate a process for law-abiding

citizens who wish to purchase firearms. reporting guns lost or stolen in transit will help minimize the number of firearms ending up in the hands of criminals. applying better technology to firearms and making them safer will cut down on tragedies across the board, from stolen guns, accident shall discharge for children, and suicides. the president has also proposed more resources be available for mental health people. access to quality mental health care is critical to early identification and treatment for individuals who may be on the path to hurt themselves or anybody else. -- todayre you before as an informed, proud american who knows these modest proposals will go a long way toward not only saving lives but improving quality of life. i am also before you today as a grieving father who knows firsthand the cost of inaction. i'm asking you guys to think of my sweet, little dental and what

daniel, and what was lost. and the 90 american families who will lose a loved one today. and the 90 american families who will lose a loved one tomorrow. and so on, every day until we do something. president obama is trying to do something. please help him. sen. shelby: dr. malcolm. dr. malcolm: we are here because -- thank you very much for inviting me today to discuss this important issue. we are here today because on january 5, president obama announced lands to increasing gun control without obtaining the legislative approval of congress. certainly gun safety is essential duty of government, and we are all dismayed by the terrible incidents and rash of shootings that have taken place most recently in the president's hometown of chicago, baltimore,

paris, and san bernardino. the president has the authority and duty to see that existing laws are well enforced. however, members of congress have not ignore the problem. they are sensitive to the need to balance the constitutional rights of american citizens with government measures to keep citizens likely to misuse weapons from obtaining them. however, the president, thwarted in the effort to get his ideas through, is acting on his own initiative to address gun violence. there is a fundamental problem, whether his measures, without congressional approval, are constitutional. i would like to address two of these proposed measures that failed a test of constitutionality. the president has had many opportunities to direct federal

agencies and the execution of the law, but the constitution forbids him from changing the law. this is what he needs to do with his plans to expand the definition of gun dealer. current law requires individuals, as you have heard, who are in the business of selling guns commented that a federal license and perform background checks on buyers. obama would expand as to require everyone who sells a few guns, excludes, toal lot get a federal gun dealer license and perform background checks here it as you heard from the attorney general, it is really not clear how many gun sales would require a seller to obtain a lot -- a license. the penalty which is up to five years in jail and up to $250,000. the atf has warned under the 1968 gun control act, when this type of licensing was passed and part of the law, the court

appel part of the law, that the court upheld convictions for failing to have a license when to firearms were sold in a year. president obama is planning to alter present lot in opposition to the congress. is this permissible? in the famous case of youngstown, in which president truman was not allowed to carry out his planned seizure of gun mills, what he said was that when the president takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of congress, his power is at its lowest. then he can rely only on his constitutional powers.

courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling the congress from acting upon the subject. of power,president inclusive and preclusive, must be scrutinized. what is it it is the equilibrium established by the constitutional system. the president's actions alter this lot unilaterally. i have another minute but i would also like to mention the president's plan to put people who are on the no-fly list for being able to purchase a gun, heard, byf us have former senator edward kennedy, surprised to find his name on the no-fly list. it is compiled in secret for the last five years, the aclu has challenged the operation. it is extremely hard to get your name off of the list. does not seem to be any due process to do so. the aclu is representing to

including two marine corps veterans, and a u.s. air force veteran. projectticle their manager wrote, she claims, until the no-fly list is fixed, it should not be used to restrict people's freedoms. that holds true for their freedom to travel, and they should not have the second amendment right for self-defense impugned as well. thank you. >> senator shelby: thank all of you. i will start with you, general strains. according to the president's executive actions, the u.s. attorney general will begin a new dialogue with states to ensure the robust provision of data into the national criminal back on system. yet in recent years, his budget has proposed to cut the funding that grantsram

states and local law enforcement agencies, helping to make technology upgrades that enable better data sharing. at thes has balked president's proposal, and restored funding levels for these important points. strange, howral has the president's disjointed funding and other state related support programs impacted communities in our state of alabama and elsewhere? they have not been helpful. i want to think the leadership and the committee for their support of local law enforcement. as it has been made abundantly clear, without resources, the states cannot adequately get .nformation to the nci s without doing that we have a system that is functionally broken. that is a detrimental thing for law-enforcement. i don't think that i'm speaking

just for alabama, but every law enforcement official at the state level would say that. i did some checking, even though we have had the department provide this information for some time, only recently we have received any money at the state technologyvelop the and information needed to put information into the federal database. senator shelby: shouldn't this be a high priority for the president? a.g. strange: the best thing the committee could do to make this a higher priority. put it into the system. so we can identify gang members and others who would attempt to violate the law. sen. shelby: what senator langford pointed out earlier, i think you are here, i thought that was spot on. in your public service as an attorney general of virginia and in your position of a state

investor -- senator, you have been a strong supporter of the second amendment rights. now as a binding partner in the united self-defense law, which focuses on providing counsel in the area of self-defense rights, you are continuing to focus your career on the protection of the second amendment rights. the first question, do you believe the president's executive actions to implement new gun-control measures will have a deterring effect on violent gun crimes in the country? >> the answer to that is a simple no. what he has done in the area of guns is thoroughly indirect as it relates actual crime either on the street, or when you have tragic mass shootings and mental health-related incidents. there can't be a connection. anyone contemplating crime, when you think of deterrence, you think of them contemplating the

consequences. this will have nothing to do with that. sen. shelby: you have spent a lot of time dealing with mental health issues. how can we do more and what would you recommend? >> in your exchange with general strange, you noticed states reporting information. one of the lessons learned out ofvirginia tech, in the case chou, he had been in the mental health system. but he had not been formally adjudicated without his objection for mental health incapacity. however, he had submitted under mentalrt system, two health treatments. because he went that route, rather than resisting the adjudication, he was not reported to the system. we have fixed that in virginia.

i believe a lot of other state learned some of our informational lessons. if you look about a year or two years after virginia tech, you start to see date at a much higher rate of reporting of these sorts of people to the system. we don't want them to be able to purchase firearms. that was a failure of the system thiswe ought would cover area in virginia. i think a lot of other states are learning from that and fixing it. >> you're not saying we have solved the problem, but we had taken steps in the right direction. >> in virginia, and alabama as well, we stopped hundreds if not thousands of tons sales already. -- gun sales already. many being caught up in the system because of the information being provided this way. those are substantial. that is the one way that we

might have changed the outcome at virginia tech. a lot of these incidents, it is hard to find any way to have changed the outcome based on the kinds of regulatory and physicians the president is talking about here. shelby: the executive actions we have been talking how with what the president proposing, how would it infringed -- infringe on law-abiding citizens? those impression given to operating as individuals, the night in their mind conducting the business of gun sales, is that they are being intimidated and harassed. the attorney general cap saying that they were clarifying. say, i was thinking, she knows what this word means.

that is not what they are talking about. they are holding a five-year prison sentence over the and that's not what they're talking about. five-year ding a prison sentence over the heads of anyone who isn't a gun dealer who by any objective not be considered one but who does sell a gun and attorney general says one is enough. to fall under their umbrella and with penalties like that, the obvious intent is to deter people from even considering making those otherwise and objectively entirely legal sales. >> but millions of americans, attorney general says one is enough. to fall under their umbrella and with penalties of old guns and a gun and taken money to buy another gun. but i'm not a gun dealer. >> yes. >> senator shelby: and so forth. but under the attorney general's recommendation, the president's recommendation, that could curtail my rights to that, could

not? >> that's how it affects your second xercise of the amendment. if you're a law-abiding citizen, owner.gun i did exactly what you and ibed, sold one gun bought another one to kind of upgrade the kind of gun i own. idea in my impression from the president, the attorney they l on down is that want folks in that situation to not be ice to maybe comfortable selling that gun except directly to and from a dealer where there's background checks going both ways. is to the ultimate effect slow down the opportunity to law-abiding hase by citizens, fire arms. that's where the imposition on the second amendment comes. chipping away at our constitutional right. >> yes, sir. >> do you believe rather than aving lives, the president's

executive actions could result in more lives lost through the violation of guaranteed rights and self-defense. >> one of the things that's situations ssed in like this is the defensive use of uns, it's the actual use guns for protection. if you go five years before had another , we school shooting down in outhwest virginia at appalachian law school where a student came on to the campus, hot and killed three, and was stopped by two students who ran to their cars and got their guns. senator shelby: okay. >> and that person, unusually surrendered. normally when confronted, mental health issues, they actually take their the time most of statistically speaking. there it was used five years before virginia tech as a protective measure. of those compilation

occurrences anywhere that i know of. yet, we see them all the time. those are the kinds of things we're defending. hundreds of clients. never had a client inappropriately use a gun. defended clients who have drawn their guns in defense themselves rotect from prosecution, for instance, and all of those have been favorably. but that is understated here. here's no questioning the tragic outcomes that happen time and time again. also the case that second rights and guns drawn to protect people, to defend stop crimes in progress. senator shelby: share with us for a minute something we all and we're taught and practiced. we have a right to defend ourselves, do we not? absolutely. it's a natural right. a natural law country. one of nd amendment is the justices, i believe scalia

said didn't give us this right. it preserved the right that we already had as a matter of natural law. shelby: thank you. professor malcolm? >> yes. senator shelby: the president has announced stricter standards ot passed or vetted or evaluated by congress will be applied by the atf to determine gun is, quote, engaged in the business of quote, fire arms, end and required to perform background checks. my question, do you believe that president's announcement of an undefined measurement -- measurement for determining when a gun seller the uote, engaged in business of selling fire arms and thus required to perform will result inks harassment and legal consequences for law-abiding who are simply engaged n constitutionally protected fire arms transactions as we

discussed. >> yes i do. senator shelby: and why? explain why. >> well, because as the attorney general said, we keep explaining and get all of these calls. he would not say how many guns to put someone in he category of being a gun dealer. it's explicit right now it has to be someone whose main selling guns and the aw exempts and congress explicitly exempt to the casual gun seller from that. they seem to be blurring that definition and thwarting the because ongress congress took pains to make sure that it would not include people just occasional gun sellers. shelby: do you think this announcement by the president will have a chilling on citizens who merely

ant to exercise their constitutional rights? i use myself as an example. i have guns. i've bought guns and i've sold uns and upgraded and i believe i have that right to do it. i'm not a gun dealer. dealer, no.n senator shelby: if this went gosh, fect, i might say, somebody might come after me for doing that. might sell a gun to a judge or somebody, a good or a n, or a prosecutor lawyer or something like that. >> it's bound to have a chilling when they've ally announced the punishment for not getting that license as a gun to five years in jail and a fine of $250,000. additional punishment for not doing a background check. kind of n with that draconian punishment, a threat explicit explanation of how many times we would require to be listed and get a

license. be tor shelby: it would intimidation syndrome wouldn't it? >> yes. you would say you better be careful. i have these rights but i better exercise them i better do this because someone igning an executive order infringing on my constitutional rights is that fair? >> yes. senator shelby: yes. >> when they prosecutor someone or selling as little of two guns a year, that's a clear indication of what their intentions are. shelby: you spent a great deal of your professional life studying constitutional and so second amendment, forth. as he second amendment just important to the well being of this country as the first amendment, fourth amendment, so forth? >> certainly is, because it embodies your right to self-defense, which has been mentioned. no right is more important

than the right to defend family. and your and so it absolutely is essential. there are countries where people do not have the right to supposed to and are the government. and no government can protect everyone all the time. be ignored.to self-defense uses of guns and the fbi doesn't record self-defense uses of guns, it's there's from studies something like 1.5 million of law-abiding where citizens protect themselves and their family for the most part just having to show a gun to stop a crime from taking place. > have you seen any -- senator shelby: have you seen recent years or in the past years in the

presidency that would look at makeup and utional attack this amendment, the bill or attack this part of the constitution like this administration? > i think they've been rather clear that if they had their their sserts as it were, preference, they would ban guns. glowingly of spoke australia's buyback and banning guns for its people. i think that if they could they would. i always find it interesting is when they talk about the second amendment, they like to hunting. it's fine to have a gun for hunting. hunting does not rise to the of constitutional right. it's self-defense that does. senator shelby: self-defense is self-preservation, is sit not, miss attorney general? absolutely. senator shelby: senator murphy?

murphy: thank you very much, mr. chairman, thank you all for your candid testimony. this is a eel as if hearing on a document that i haven't seen. explore some of the inconsistencies between the interpretation of three of our and the words on the page. for your thank you advocacy in the face of unimaginable grief. i want to thank you for the holistic way. the ways in about the we can change enforcement of gun laws in order to prevent homicide. but your organization recognizes that the way in which we attack of gun violence is not simply through changing gun laws

or better enforcement of gun also through increased efforts to buttress mental resources or to increase prevent y or to violence in the first place, you have a much broader agenda, don't you? absolutely. hear words like attacked and this adversarial approach, we page all be on the same looking together to agree so we can move forward. done.hing has to be and this situation is huge and broad and complex and no one law will fix it all. laws will fix it all. will fix it all. we have to approach it in a more as you said holistic way, senator. senator murphy: one of the reasons you focus on gun laws is research that you looked at makes it pretty clear hat states that make it harder for criminals to access guns have lower rates of gun

homicide. recent report from johns hopkins comparing connecticut's law and st missouri's the effect of gun violence rates those homicide rates in two states suggest there's a real connection between the laws books with respect to the easy access of guns to criminals and rates of gun homicide. >> yes, that's correct, senator. there is clear evidence-based conducted by johns hopkins that clearly indicates permit to purchase egulation actually does -- has reduced homicide by 40%. over reduced suicide by 15%. and those numbers are reflected n the inversion in states like missouri who do not have this law where homicide have risen by 40% in the same time period. up in 15%.e gone and it comes down to -- it comes down to access. we're talking about

here is the whole fabric of this, with regard to access, with regard to prevention. you mentioned my organization is of work - we do a lot in the space of prevention and finding those individuals who violent e path to behavior and getting them to the help that we need -- that they need. so we should be bolstering our mental health system. better d have a legislation and mental health place to place for a get these people to the help that they need. let me get hy: so this inconsistent reading of the words and the guidance here. me start with you, dr. malcolm. i want to make this clear for the record. a decent amount of your written testimony in the last portion of your verbal talking about a conversation about including list duals on the no-fly on the list of those that would be prohibited to purchase guns. let's make it clear for the not in the is president's executive order.

that is the subject of this hearing today, correct? dr. malcolm: the president said he wanted to include people on no-fly list in the background check so they would not be able to buy guns. senator murphy: he asked congress to make that change. that's not in the executive -- it clear. >> it was one of the proposals. senator murphy: it was not the executive action. >> he announced it. not in murphy: it was the set of executive actions. he requested that congress make president and the has acknowledged that is a subject that's within the congress, not f within the jurisdiction of the enforcement of the existing law. so i think it's important to the record that's not part of the underlying executive actions. it clear,want to make you said in your testimony or maybe an answer to your question senator shelby that he announced in a the penalty for existing law with espect to who needs to be

licensed is certain period of time in jail -- >> dr. malcolm: if i said i misspoke. senator murphy: is. malcolm: the penalty is listed as part of record. existing rphy: that's law. dr. malcolm: that's existing lawn. existing rphy: that's law. this speaks to part of our disagreement. he very notion of expressing what the penalty is for violating the law equals a very tion, that's different reading of our set of that many of tes us have come to understand. recitation of the existing penalty. applied lm: when you it, the whole lot of people who are not at the moment under the law are going to be and will that penalty, i think it's important. senator murphy: so let's get implication.

thank you very much, attorney general strange for being here today. you used strong words in referring to the president's executive order. being an about it unwarranted assault on the second amendment. i think this is where we get own to a question of the words on the page versus your perceived intention. and maybe we can see that it's a for us to icult understand what sits in the of the and minds individuals who write laws and write guidance. so we're left first with the page.on the so maybe just share with me five key hese sort of points that are in this guidance the u perceive to be unwarranted assault on the second amendment? is that interpretation ependent on an interpretation of intentions that you've derived independence of what the testified neral has

to today? strange: i eral would adopt the words of my colleagues and senator shelby has gone to that detail. i'm happy to answer that question. really jump at the comment because i want to deliver the message to the men and women on people who are in to the catastrophic active shooter situation. and get their opinion and bring that here and not only the right way to go about addressing the about, but to care point out that the areas that do the a difference and where senate committee here can make a difference have been neglected. one example is. senator murphy: i guess my question is -- i know i'm going to run out of time. what's specifically, the section here that you to be e to be the -- intimidating? what's the language here that's the assault on the second amendment to the extent that you point me to the provision that you're referring to?

attorney general strange: if i could follow up on that. you the sentiment of law enforcement, the men and every day the th ones devoted to solving the problems we all care about preventing it. murphy: you have an obligation to point to the specific provisions given we're talking about it. that ght be jumping to opportunity, i'll turn it to you. you have the most problem with existing tion of the court cases that -- that are in which you way would interpret whether you are subject to the requirement or not. and so you repeatedly referred to this suggestion that if you that you one firearm may be required to obtain a in a e, that's included section which simply recites existing court cases. so let me ask you a simple

question -- dispute any of the information that's list in this section relative to the existing court cases on this question of who has to get a firearm? who has to get a license? >> my concern arises from experience. my four years as attorney general of virginia, i dealt the the business end of spear of the federal government as they over-read, if you will, overinterpreted, and thereby used very aggressively authority didn't have. and we beat them back occasionally. to do it. and they're counting on the fact that corporations and individuals don't want to fight federal government. and when -- with the ntimidation you're asking the professor about, is the rather vaguely-worded, despite the attorney general's continue wall use of the word "clarify," it's of what he opposite they're doing. they're opening the door to the application of five-year jail

penalties to a bunch of people the existing law believe they understand that they don't fall under that law. senator murphy: what's vague? see a recitation of the existing law, and the recitation of existing court cases that are public record. so what of that is -- is intentionally vague such as to be intimidating? >> senator, if all they wanted o do is apply the laws that exist today, they wouldn't have to say anything. they could just keep pressing greater efforts, hopefully, to apply the existing laws. what's vague : here. it hen you bring all of together and you all or the attorney general with one of you was discussing ircuit-to-circuit differences, for instance, fourth circuit, which i am in, we have some unique case law. who live in the fourth circuit who do think of

themselves as dealers and who do a business of selling recognize what that law is. it.y have come to understand and so now you're introducing at level a new threat of enforcement that there the n't be any need for if law isn't going to change. so what are they to think? they're to think that something changed and the five-year penalty is being held out over their heads in a way to be ey now have concerned about. that intimidation has been used in all sorts of regulatory this administration for seven years. to go shelby: i want back to the lawn. this is the u.s. code. nd i'm going to quote from it that y'all are familiar with for the record. applied to a dealer and fire 921, as defined in section so forth, a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to in fire arms as a

regular course of trade or principal th a objective of livelihood and rofit through the repeated purchase and resale of five arms. not such terms shall include a person -- this is very important -- who makes sales, exchanges, or purchases of fire arms for the enhancement of a personal for a hobby or who sales all our part of his fire al collection of arms. so the president, i believe, is trying to assault the rights and also trying to get around the law. here, is it lear not? >> i think he's trying to eliminate the last clause of that section. senator shelby: through executive order, not through congress in a debate. that?u agree with senator murphy: i want to make a comment to that. there's a part of that that seems to be missing hat there are other factors that have to be included.

they're not saying just one person selling one gun. that's why they don't have a number. dies and whose husband she's trying to sell off his collection would not be subject to this. > that's -- because -- senator -- >> you asked me. senator shelby: go ahead. malcolm: congress has been lear it wanted to inhibit the occasional gun seller as having o be listed to get a fire arms license as a gun dealer. you read us the existing law. but the president has announced he wants to change the existing law. senator murphy: i didn't read read youxisting law, i the executive action. dr. malcolm: but the president anted to announce that he wanted to include the so-called gun show loophole. who sell here or there. senator shelby: he wants to include stuff -- rights that are protected in the law. he wants to do it by executive

order. is that correct? that's how i understand i want. is really -- s what this is aimed at is it's emerged the people who especially with the internet to sell thousands of fire arms while they have another -- maybe they're used car salesmen, that's their job. meantime, they may not have a store but they have fire ss cards and selling arms in existing packaging. they're clearly in the business. that's why they haven't defined certain number to delineate who's in the business and who's not. the people who should or captured like the widow trying to sell her or mr. cuccinelli who wants to upgrade would not be in this. senator shelby: we would all agree we want to keep guns out mental health problems, criminals, terrorist, everything else. i hope always protect

the right of gun owners who have sell guns under the second amendment. >> i don't see an infringement on any of this language? with r shelby: you agree that? >> i do. the nk mr. barden raises issue with the nature of sales with the growth of the internet, i'll name craigs list, for instance. there's nothing wrong. i don't think anyone would folks to making sure using those avenues are properly following -- licensed as they should be as it exists now. ut new law wasn't needed for that. the enforcement, the request for dditional enforcement tools would get to exactly those kinds of folks. you ld note for you that, know, what's called a gun show loophole is not a new debate. 40 miles west of here we have largest gun show on the east coast. we have it because of legislation i got in the state warner, one of k

your colleagues signed as governor at that time. through that gun show over 1,000 tables of over 400 of them with gun sales going on, 400 table, with the it.rietor filming went to every single seller of uns and asked every single one licensed dealer. every single one of them was except six. of the six, we asked three of them, well, what are you doing? why are you here selling these guns. they said they were all private collectors liquidating part of their collection. them.ree of senator shelby: which is covered here in the law. >> it is covered in the law. the debate just in virginia, it happened every year, there's off from this debate. in e is never identified virginia a purchase using -- referring to statistics that

ttorney general strange mentioned that came from the clinton administration, by the criminally e found used guns being bought and sold at gun shows. senator shelby: okay. >> doesn't happen in virginia. murphy: i know we're wrapping up. concluding thought. the heart of this issue a disagreement about what the words on this page say. and i think it's important that when pressed none of our actually recite any actual verbiage in the order that speaks to this claim of intimidation. and i think the exception that you talked about, mr. president, those who are just engaging in personal sales from their ollection is important, but that's in the guidance. mean, the guidance says very specifically, if you only make occasional sales of fire arms from your personal collection,

do not need to be licensed. ou need to be licensed if you repetitively buy and sell fire arms for the purpose of making a profit. fundamental about what is on the page here. i hope as we have this debate anchored in perceived intentions of what the administration is quietly do but the nning to objections are based in the executive of the order. that's what we've been missing in this hearing so far. missing disputes actual at thes text. when you come back to the text, it's something we agree on, which existing law requires people engaged in the sell of fire arms to get so andd wherever they do let out from that legislation selling fire arms occasionally from the personal collection. senator shelby: thank you, senator. i think the end game should be

all uphold the constitution. and all amendments including the second amendment. i want to thank the witnesses for coming here today and we've had an interesting debate and i timeliness is good. questions that would be submitted to you, we would hope like we said er within 30 days for the record. the subcommittee stands in recess subject to the call of chair. thank you very much. >> today on c-span, washingtonf journal is live with your phone alls, tweets, and facebook comments. the senate confirmation hearing for the nominee to be secretary army. tonight, the live troed the white house coverage with bernie new hampshire and hillary clinton in iowa. in a half hour, we talk to fletcher about the future

of electric cars. and tom jawetz on the supreme decision host: good morning, everyone. withgin here this morning the situation in flint, michigan. the water crisis there and the role the government played at every level to lead to the contamination of the water. what are your thoughts on this this morning? central part of the country, you dial in at 202-748-8000. mountain pacific, 202-748-8001. michigan residents, 202-748-8002 . you can also join us