the virginia tech shooter pass a background check to get his guns much like those that commit similar crimes in fort hood, aurora, chattanooga, and the list could go on and on. more recently the terrorist responsible for the attacks in san bernardino obtained their guns the rate straw purchase, which means a background check without it helped either. yet we keep coming back to this issue. , couldttorney general you go through these examples and tell us having -- how having firearms licensees would alter the outcome of those events. ms. lynch: i do not believe we are able to look back and find a specific measure to prevent a specific crime. that does not mean we must not

seek prevent future tragedies. with respect to strengthening the background system, the system is overwhelmed at this point in time. as a sum of the tragic shooting in charleston, that individual information was submitted that because of the glitches through the experience but well-meaning examiners it was not discovered in time to prevent that. the licensed dealers that's omitted information deserve the best and most efficient system we can provide them. the individuals who submit information and way for that response also deserve the most efficient system we can provide them. and the measures we are discussing today, for example increasing the number of examiners for the system, they directly relate to our appropriations seek to serve that important and. ,ith respect to other tragedies one of the criminal laws which

gives us a way to protect people and vindicate the rights of those who have been the victims of crimes, but enough utterly to arrest the human condition that leads to crime. of course we're doing everything we can looking forward to making sure that our gun laws are enforced and american people are kept us safe as possible. >> as we look back in some of these tragedies and they are real tragedies, which of these individuals but the gun from a gun show and which of these criminals purchased their guns illegally online? i don't believe they did. ms. lynch: i am not able to even that information now, what i can indicate is with respect to the clarifications on who is as ared to seek a license federally licensed firearm dealer. this is a response to inquiries that the atf receives on a regular basis as they operate

within gun shows provide information and guidance and often receive telephonic inquiries as well from individual seeking to comply with the law who want to know , things the standards that determine whether or not they need to in fact apply for a license. a recent new york times article states that the president's plan on gun control would require officials from the bureau about the whole -- atf to contact gun sellers to let them know of new standards to clarify who would be considered a regulated dealer. the article goes on to suggest that the changes are particularly meant for online gun merchants to avoid conducting background checks inspite of making quote high volume gun control through certain web sites. matt of attorney general, --

madam attorney general the law , requires that anyone selling guns for profits, which i believe would be high volume gun sales, to have a federal firearms license. you are quoting in the article as saying, the article in "new york times" right now your words it is really an internet loophole. is this really a loophole in the law or failure of enforcement? ms. lynch: i typically do not comment on news articles. i would prefer to provide you my own response to that particular issue. with respect to internet sales, they are increasing. not only do we see an increase in sales at the typical -- on the darknet, that particular part of the internet not accessible to the average consumer but where illicit transactions are primarily held. transactions where an average law-abiding citizens are seeking

to require a firearm lawfully and through the traditional process. these are sales where criminals are seeking to require firearms to harm our american citizens. this is not a loophole. it is an area of enforcement that the atf has been focused on. as you indicated with respect to the individuals that operate at gun shows, flea markets, and the like, there will be an educational component to the guidance. the information to be provided to them. they will be allowed to ask questions. we believe this will increase compliance and lessen confusion. where individuals operate on the dark net, it will also put them on a notice. so that enforcement actions need to be taken, there will be no discussions they simply were not aware of the particular provision. >> madam attorney general, what i believe what we really should

be talks not just here today is how to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and violence offenders. this is an uphill battle, i believe, if the president continues to focus on eroding second amendment rights while commuting the sentences of criminals with firearm convictions. we will debate the mandatory minimum sentences. the president's actions to commute sentences of individuals convicted of illegal possession of a firearm is disturbing. i don't know, madame attorney general, why he feels they need shorter sentences. i do know this -- this sends a message to criminals if you commit a crime with the gun the administration will not be hard on you. perhaps go easy on you. that's the wrong message. the president's actions sending a mixed message to americans. one day he issues new executive

actions to change gun regulations. then he pardons criminals in gun-related convictions the next day. how can the president and you the attorney general representing this administration, say he's committed to using every tool at the administration's disposal to reduce gun violence when his own administer is not following through with the sentences of criminals with gun-related convictions? does that trouble you? >> well, mr. chairman, i don't know the specific cases to which -- >> we'll give you a list of them. >> what i can tell you is with respect to commutations and pardons, individuals who applied for those who carefully reviewed and carefully vetted. only after consideration of a number of factors, in particular again there's been recent discussions about connotations -- commutations of known violent drug offenders and whether or not they have firearm convictions, i would need to know the specific case.

with respect to the president's clemency project for example, it , is a focus on looking at individuals who today would not necessarily have received the lengthy narcotics sentences they receive and who also otherwise qualify as non-violent with a particular type of record. i'm happy to provide information to the extent that it is helpful on specific cases if you could alert me to them. i think with respect to want -- to the issues we are discussing, providing verification of existing case law's gathering the case law so , that individualing seeking to comply with the law have in one comprehensive preference to what the existing law says qualifies as engaged in a business of dealing in firearms so they know what they have to apply for a license or not or so their questions can be more informed helping the american people in clarifying

the important issue. clarifying the issue of who needs to report a firearm when it is lost or stolen in transit allows atf to begin stolen firearms investigations much more quickly than we are able to know. we recover on average 1300 guns a year from crime scenes that turn out to be lost or stolen. we don't know that information until they are recovered in the course of a criminal investigation. learning that information earlier will help us to start the investigation earlier and hopefully find those shipments before they fall in to the hands of criminals, which is, of course, the goal of all of us here. >> madame attorney general, i won't go through the record here since the beginning, but i've been handed by staff here a number of people who were convicted of possession of firearms during a -- committing a criminal act or using a

firearm during the criminal act and have been let out of prison early and back with the people. which is danger. thank you for your intelligence. -- indulgence, senator. >> thank you. it's good to see you again and we welcome you back to this community and way from maryland and baltimore thank the justice department for all their help during our recent challenges in baltimore related to the deathngs we had after the of freddie gray which is not going to the digital system. and we're examining the need for justice reform within our police department. over 350 baltimorians were killed last year. 350 dead. some of whom were little children who were killed as

innocent bystanders where there's a question about the revenge killings. this was criminal work. the growing nexus of drugs, crime, guns, violence, murder. my question to you, when i look at the 350 deaths, what can they -- we do in just plain english to keep the guns out of the hands of the criminals? i know we were talking about second amendment rights and maryland is a state with enormous numbers of hunters. the gun tradition in baltimore city shouldn't be that the drug dealer is the one who gets it. how could we -- how can we in either the president's proposals or in current law really have an aggressive effort on this issue

of guns and criminals? >> thank you, madame vice chairwoman. one of the most important things we can do is make sure the atf is fully resourced. our request for 200 additional agents and investigators for fiscal year is something that 2017 will be coming before the subcommittee for the 2017 budget. we intend in the spend plan send up information about the beginning of that process, even this fiscal year. the law enforcement priorities of etf at this point consistent with the smart on crime plan are to focus on the violent crime issue that you have just described, to focus on individuals who terrorize neighborhoods and harm children , who essentially through the unlawful possession of firearms create a danger to law abiding americans seeking to live their

lives in our vibrant cities. we are targeting not just the gun traffickers, but as my atf director calls it, the trigger polars. -- pullers.we are looking at ways to target our resources individualsthose who are causing the most harm to our communities. due, you feel this is also violence, isun related to the heroin epidemic. what is happening in my city which is just awful with this over 350 dead, let alone injured god for bid -- for bid, -- forbid, is not just like the baltimore -- this seems like an epidemic that is it our big urban areas. i believe the phrase

"epidemic" accurately captures increase in heroin and opioid abuse we're seeing. this is a problem in many urban areas but i must say it has sadly spread across this country. there are many counties with various densities, even rural areas that are in the grips of an opioid and heroin epidemic. and with that often comes an increase in violence. there are enforcement activities are focused on pairing atf agents with dea and fbi agents to target those criminal organizations that are bringing narcotics in and are protecting the drug trade with their firearms. >> well, thank you very much. my time is up. just wentldwin and i to a hearing chaired by senator alexander and senator patty murray. an excellent panel. very excellent witnesses.

in a minute we're going to talk of people issue mentally ill getting drugs. this issue of privacy rights. how do you stop? the virginia tech situation comes to mind. we can go through other cases but in virginia tech that young man had been in and out of institutions. who knew? you can help? who could intervene? and their ability to get these guns. we had a shooting at a columbia mall. we all have shootings. that is what is terrible. we all have shootings. i look forward to hearing your comments on the mental illness aspect. but it know we have excellent other senators. you will get to their questions. i want to hear your questions and answers. thank you very much. >> senator langford.

>> good morning to you and thank you for being a part of this. let me bounce a couple of questions off of you that are timely. previously in the house of representatives, we would part of the -- we were part of the committee process for additional documents for the fast and furious investigation on guns. those were delayed to us. privilege was announced on that as of yesterday. a court has told the attorney general's office this document the to be turned over by february 2. will office documents now be released to the oversight and government reform committee by february 2 as for the judge's order? ms. lynch: thank you for the question. we did receive the ruling yesterday in reviewing the ruling. i'm aware the provision everyone to study carefully and determine what appropriate steps to take and the timeliness of them. i can assure you we will be either responding to the committee or to the court at the appropriate time. >> you are not saying yes or no

if they will be turned over a time? clearly they have been collected. ms. lynch: we will pursue any legal action, we have not made that decision. and since we're not, i'm not able to give you information at this time. >> do you know what the answer will come back? ms. lynch: we will let you know in the time you mentioned. >> one of the conversations i had with your processor was process issues that your predecessor was a process. those can be combined to make sure we have clear processes across doj. is there any kind of progress atf in tryingith to align with some of the fbi processes for how they do investigations? ms. lynch: i would need to know a bit more the context of the processes you referred to. whether it is the confliction or joint efforts to provide. >> we will try to follow up on that because that was an ongoing conversation he and i agree on. there was a process moving on that.

let me ask about some of the guidances as you have mentioned several times for the federal firearms licenses. out seemsce has come to be the same as it was before. it is saying if you are in the business of dealing firearms, then you have to be licensed. that is nothing new. what is the new definition? the previous definition for that seemed to change during the clinton administration to have a lower number, people that are kitchen table dealers, selling to other neighbors are occasionally selling out of their collection. they are not a licensed dealer. we are trying to get a clarification as when with that clarification come out a what you are proposing in bolivia regulatory change or guidance document? -- lynch: the geithner guidance document answers a question you have raised. it collects information from all the cases it has considered this

issue and provides through a series of clear examples by definition for when someone is engaged in the business and when they are not. you are correct in the sense that the definition has not changed. the statute has not changed. we are simply gathering the case law, the legal definitions promulgated by courts to situations where people have been found to be engaged in the business. and also with a have clarified the definition of the hobbyist and the collector. those exceptions are also part of the law. hobbyists and collectors are not acquired -- required to obtain a license. it's important to note that this information has been scattered in a number of cases throughout the country. as i mentioned before, atf was constantly and still anticipates receiving inquiries of individuals seeking to comply with the law, asking if their activities constitute being engaged in the business of dealing. >> what would be the clear role? how many firearms decelerate your time?

is it over a lifetime? the number of in the collection? based on the amount income you receive? what will be the clear guidance? ms. lynch: the court determined another -- a number of factors are used. it specifically says there is makesspecific number that one pass the test. it is the totality of circumstances. essentially if one is repetitively selling firearms, if in fact you do intend to make a profit, all these things go into that calculation. the courts given different weight. this is -- >> that is what we are trying to get. there's a difference between guidance and regulation. we are trying to find out if there will be a world promulgated in this. i will walk back through some of the tests. one final question i find very important. the gathering of information going into the background checks. the interstates identification

index, is that information used in a criminal background check information as well or only what is going international criminal background checks which connects searches? ms. lynch: i would have to get clarification on that for you. this particular recommendation focuses on strengthening the nix system. >> which is part of my concern. i don't find anyone here that says we should not do background checks. and that that database should not be very effective. if i could have just a pleasure of the chairman for a moment, let me run through a couple of our states. in the states that submit information into the system. federally, it is a federal conviction for a felony, that goes in right away. if it's a state felony, as i look to the listing here, alabama currently has zero felonies. you will be glad to know that running into the system. has 4032.

delaware has zero. maryland has 12. a verya has one, law-abiding state clearly. rhode island has zero. wisconsin has 106. that is not very many coming from our states into the system. the question i would have's and i think there has been common agreement on, what is happening between the states that they are not submitting the information into the federal system, or has the federal system so complicated to get information into that our states of all stripes are not sitting that information? ms. lynch: i think you raise a very important issue. after the virginia tech tragedy the federal government did reach out to the states and request a greater influx of information into the system. federal agencies are required to record information into the system. states do it on a voluntary basis.

in fact in the year since the virginia tech shooting, the amount of information coming from all of those states is increased by proximally 17 -- 70%. >> in mental health but not felonies. ms. lynch: 70% across a number of categories. , it i did require recently sent a letter to the governors of every state asking them to look at their systems and processes and make sure they were in fact setting of the most efficient systems to provide information to us. the department of justice through its grants program does provide support for states who need assistance in categorizing the types of offenses that he be provided into nix. and making their own systems consistent with nix. we look forward to working with our state partners on this. they are very important part -- >> i would say i have indulged

the time and i apologize. this is an area of common ground we can actually work together on this. and i look forward to that. koontz.or kaine's -- >> think you so much attorney general lynch for your leadership of the department of justice and for appearing before the appropriations committee again. i was encouraged in your testimony earlier that you are focused on the smart and effective enforcement of our existing gun laws. i think the budgetary proposals you laid out in the elements of the executive order you have covered are strong and good attempts to do exactly that. i was pleased to hear you as the nations top law enforcement official review what you believe to be the well-settled constitutionality of the actions proposed an executive orders and the actions proposed in the budget. rather than debating that further i will move forward to what you view is the most valuable parts of the budget requests. something where this committee

will be taking action. a portion of the president's announcement was the addition of 200 and atf and 230 new fbi personnel. i have seensed tragically firsthand in my hometown wilmington what a dramatic spike in gun violence can do to disrupt the town and a community, to reconstruction and pain and loss on families and whole neighborhoods. and i and grateful for how the department of justice through its violence reduction network has provided additional resources. i have also seen how access to better quality background qualityaccess to better ballistic information and an increased federal law enforcement presence can make a significant difference. a little moren detail why these new atf agents and new fbi personnel, these new examiners and investigators are really necessary? and how they can help reduce gun violence not just in my hometown but in rural areas and urban areas all over this country?

ms. lynch: with respect to the request for increased resources for etf, we have discussed -- , we had discussed resources of allow us to hire new investigators. some would increase in -- work on increased paperwork for background checks, to the agents will be focusing on the violent crime problems we find to be so troubling in so many of our cities and towns and neighborhoods. they are working in conjunction with task forces at state and local offices. we have found this to be extremely effective ways at focusing on the hotspots in particular areas. it would allow us also to increase the amount of enforcement we provide over the internet sales. and really focus on the violent crime problems plaguing so many of our cities. in addition to the agents we are requesting, the resources we are requesting and would begin using this year what also go toward strengthening what is called the

ballistics initiative. this is a law enforcement to law enforcement initiative that essentially traces guns found at crime scenes as well as casings. essentially all firearms related evidence and shares that nationwide on a basis with law enforcement entities. it allows us to make connections, to find connections between firearms, between those using the firearms. we are opening a national center for analysis located in huntsville, alabama. it is due to open in a few months. it's a tool our law enforcement agencies depend upon greatly. firearms isto track of great importance. the ability to track stolen firearms is one we feel can protect our communities. stolen firearms and even those lost do not end up in the hands of law-abiding americans. the unit in the hands of criminals.

and they are recovered during criminal investigations. at thehey are recovered rate we are seeing of 1300 a year on average over the last five years once a crime has already been committed. one of the things these regulations would do is allow us to begin those investigations earlier and hopefully intercept those shipments before they fall into the hands of criminals. >> let me enclosing thank you for the very good work your team has been doing in partnership with the wilmington police department, john skinner who is the lead. they had done a great job. i got to see how access -- better access to ballistics tools has increased our homicide case clearance rate in wilmington from 10% to 50% this year. that mesa real difference. having access to world-class and timely analysis and insight of ballistics evidence has significantly improved the

investigatory and prosecutorial outcomes in my hometown. i am excited about this work. it's my hope on a bipartisan basis we can invest resources to strengthen federal law enforcement to tackle gun violence around the country as said by senator mcconnell ski in the beginning. it is a crime. it's a shame that americans literally and they're going to church to worship, going to see movies coming -- going to elementary school have been victims of gun violence. we must do more together to tackle this very real problem facing our nation. thank you madam attorney general. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you attorney general for being here with us today and thank you for your service to our country. very appreciative. i want to begin my statement by echoing what we have heard across the board and that is the itraction we all feel -- hurts us all and certainly our prayers and thoughts are always

with those people deeply affected. i do think that a knowledge and there is a great deal of frustration by the unilateral actions that the administration is chosen to take to curb the gun violence. part of the executive actions seem and but in other parts it seems more about political messaging. but we should not not take action. you have spoken very eloquently about the laws that are currently on the books. as you know, much of the work that we have talked about today have been -- has been conducted in west virginia. this system is in clarksburg, west virginia and the tracing facility is in martinsburg, west virginia. we want to make sure that gun ownership is processed in an efficient and responsible manner.

i have visited both of these facilities and i have seen the professionalism and the deep commitment that they have to getting things right. you do mention that they are overstressed and overloaded and hopefully through the appropriations process that we work through last year, we will make sure that we are able to employ more so that they can make it and successfully complete it with a timely -- within a timely. -- period for background checks. i hear that you're going to go to a 24 hour system. is that goal? yes, the goal is to increase the capacity of the current system so that we would be on a 24 hour, seven day a week basis. limited bywe are

staffing, and we are able to operate 17 hours a day, actually, i am not sure if it is seven days a week at this time. we currently have they e-check system that allows dealers to get the information quickly and frankly, we hope to improve that platform with a additional services and gathering to howtion in how -- as to make that system up 24 hours a day. there are times when it must be down for maintenance or times when it must be loaded with information and that helps with the backlog that we are seeing. we anticipate this will continue. ms. capito: have you begun the hiring on that with a 230? -- with the 230? ms. lynch: we hope to begin that hiring and maintain that because we need to move as quickly as possible. we will likely begin to hire on

a contractor basis first because it is usually quicker than hiring full-time employees but the goal is having full-time employees on board. as you know, there is a significant -- well, i shouldn't say significant -- but there is a delay on background checks and the like. this is of course a matter of great concern for us because with the current system at this point, it is at a point where it has become increasingly difficult to in fact to process the applications within the three-day time period. ask you this.t me senator langford brought up what i thought was a an excellent point, and it was in regards to background checks. interested, the information was beable -- was unable to

traced to an individual. how are we going to face that challenge? will it be done at a local level? what will happen there? individualshese will pursue their jobs with great conviction and commitment. ms. capito: absolutely. my lynch: in charleston, understanding is that the arrest record was put in one general jurisdiction but the query was made in another jurisdiction and it prevented it from getting into the core system so that the examiner followed all of the into the court system so that the examiner followed all of the queries. , so to speak, but d in that. poole it was heartbreaking, for us, and for all of us who worked in the fbi and the department of justice.

even then, we began looking at ways to improve this system. director commissioned a report. we have folded a number of his recommendations into that request. able to modernize the electronic database will be incredibly helpful to ensure that all of the jurisdictions will be able to query. if that could happen on an electronic basis, that would be very helpful. looking back, it is impossible electronicher an glitch would have prevented this. what we want to strengthen the electronic platform for the next system. also, on the examiners, make sure that they have the time to conduct these examinations and to provide a response to the dealers who call in. most of this is still done over the phone. most of our responses are handled very, very quickly. cases, theficult

ones where you really do have to look and do search and to make sure that this individual is not prohibited, those often do take time. now still, this is a system in which we are incredibly proud. we think that this is frankly a to the country and to public safety. so we are incredibly proud of this system but we do want to make it the best system that we can. ms. capito: i want to pledge to work with you and those fine folks in west virginia who are working with this system and this background check system and that they have enough technology to help them. it is a very stressful position, in a lot of ways, for many of them. with this additional hiring, we can eliminate some of these loopholes that people are able to fall into and prevent of from gettinguldn't a firearm. thank you very much. ms. lynch: thank you, senator. madam attorney general, you

certainly overlook well and i am glad that you are not worn out by the job. i haven't seen you since your confirmation and it is good to see you again. ms. lynch: thank you. i am glad that you stress that the president's executive order should have enforcement that is easier and which enforcement that people seem to want within existing law. however, you do have to have existing law.rce as you have said twice in your remarks and once in your written remarks, atf is requesting $35.6 million for an additional 600 special agents and industry operation investigations through atf. is that atf isg going to have the retirement of 544 special agents this the year

-- this year. retire,are eligible to i cannot say how many are going to retire. youit is clear to say that are going to lose people who and that is going to have -- people is going to have an unfortunate effect. do you have any comment on that? ms. lynch: thank you, senator. atf is an agency like so many agencies where we have so many agents who are talented who are going to retire. we hope not, but we understand if we have to lose them. requeststand that the for an additional 200 agents wood -- woudl still not increase that. the budget to hire these existing slots that are vacant now will soon be vacant. ms. feinstein: well, let me say

this. i speak for a state that is now over 40 million people. 39.1 million people, and another 2 million people that avoid the census. the enforce law and we want to see that the atf is staffed and able to do it and this is the subcommittee that is responsible to see that atf is funded sufficiently to enforce everyday laws. so i am going to do everything that i can on this committee to see that that amount is raised so that you get a sufficient number. so i would appreciate all of the data that you can provide me with. thank you. the second thing our machine other fully automatic weapons as well as weapons like short barreled shotguns. underare all regulated

the national firearms act and it individualsthat have been able to avoid regulations under the firearms by applying to acquire these dangerous guns through trusts or corporations rather than -- excuse me -- rather than as individuals. to moreication has gone than 90,000 applications in 2014. arethose -- the trusts obviously being used to not register them or to not have to have a background check or not to have to buy them through a licensed firearm dealer. so how has atf managed to keep increase in massive applicationsfa

despite manpower levels? is lynch: well, senator, it difficult to keep up with those applications. the national firearms act that you mentioned, there is an application process similar to a background check, similar to an application process. it also, typically at this point in time, requires what is called a law enforcement certification program, where a law enforcement officer concerted by buy that a person can do that. one of the regulations promulgated through this comment period is regulation that requires individuals who are seeking to purchase these weapons under the national firearms act to go through a background check whether they are going through a trust with a legal entity or whether they are a standalone person. right now, if an individual weapon with a silencer or a short barreled gun, they have to go through a background check. use the trust, they do

not. what is being promulgated as the final rule would close that loophole. illegalns that using an trust or a legal entity would change individual standing alone. what it also does is that it removes the the law enforcement certification requirement. that was an additional delay on the license. so with the information that we are getting from the background checks, individuals, whether they are using a trust, a legal entity, whether they are applying as individuals, would have the same requirements and undergo the same level of scrutiny before buying a national firearms act weapon, and that was a rule that was promulgated within this last week as well. ms. feinstein: thank you very much. i am delighted that you are on top of this. attacks, of more than four people killed, in the last 10 years, california has six of

them. i think watching a machine gun or those things that can be used to attack others is rely important and i thank you very ich and i will do everything can to be of help in making sure that you get more atf agents. ms. lynch: thank you, senator. chair: senator bozeman. bozeman: thank you. i have a concern with how the president continues to overreach his authority. there is a proposal by the social security administration to include folks who have [indiscernible] into this program. certainly not clarifying existing law. this would prohibit them from the constitutional second amendment right, not based on theprocess, but only due to fact that they request a family member or a friend to assist

them and i am concerned with your department's final ruling this would be say adjudicated as a mental defective and would be referred to a mental institution. more broadly, high-caliber folks that would be seeking treatment. now, you couple this with an upcoming social security rule. what are we going to have? please tell me what your department's plans are here. is the social security administration planning to do and who would be entered into this program is based solely on the social security records? ms. lynch: senator, thank you for raising that important issue. as you know, the gun control act looks at individuals who have been adjudicated in certain ways in regards to mental health and firearms, and currently, under current federal law, senators -- certifiers are required to enter adjudications.

also security administration is beginning the process of seeking comment through a rulemaking whoess in order to clarify within the social security administration and adjudication system should also fall into that category as well. to example, well i was going draw an example, but they are currently not providing information. so the questions that you raise very real and salient ones and the social security administration's process, which is just beginning, is designed to infect solicit comments and get input as to which types of adjudications should in fact be provided to this program and which should not. because as we know, the issues of mental illness is not one that is subjected to every individual who is under a prohibition from getting a firearm, so it is important that we clarify as other agencies have, which types of adjudications and which types of

issues would require those records to come to us. so the full security administration is beginning that process. and certainly, we look forward to providing what ever input and guidance they request from the department of justice on that is. one of the things that will of course be a part of that as with all of that, for example, our v.a. already provides records, but one of the things that will be a part of that process is making sure that any individual who may find themselves in that situation receives notice that that is a possibility, and that is something that would be consistent with existing law and the second amendment. also, that there is a way for an individual to apply for their rights to be restored. not just to possess and own a firearm, but anything that could be a collateral consequence of a particular kind of adjudication. at this time, i cannot predict for you what kind of adjudication within the social security mission nation --

social security administration would be provided, but we are going to go through that process. mr. boozman: well, thank you, because that is a real concern. i have spoken to my constituents within arkansas who have said the department of justice's mismanagement of the budget, they have written a letter programs forfeiture of within the doj. the doj has already implemented cost-reduction measures. one of the measures that you , could you explain the benefits to the american people? i ask this because it is an important program and we are so concerned about violent crime. as is one of the tools that we are using very effectively in order to, you know, decreased that. forlynch: well, thank you the question, senator, because i share your concern and also your regard with a strong working

relationship that the federal government has with our state and local counterparts. certainly as u.s. attorney, i was the direct beneficiary of their talents and their expertise, and now as attorney general, i do everything i can to make sure that those relationships are vital and are front and center in protecting the american people. in regards to the issues that you raise, there have been some budget issues there. a revision from the department in the last fiscal year, i do not know the exact time of it, but that essentially refine our ability to the funds for equitable sharing. we are looking forward to restoring those payments of receipts and we very much feel that equitable sharing is an important law enforcement tool. i know that there was a great deal of discussion about forfeiture in general. we have been working with congress to make sure that we retain this important aspect of it while also addressing those

concerns as well. mr. boozman: thank you, mr. chairman. chair: senator baldwin? baldwin: thank you for holding this important and timely hearing. violence continues to plague our community. state of wisconsin, gun homicides reached their highest point in a decade last year in the city of milwaukee. saw aile we finally notorious gun dealer that i once called the number one seller of guns in america, start to clean liable foreld selling firearms used to injure cops, other gun dealers have rushed in to take its place. my hope is that all of my colleagues can agree that we can

and must do more. more to do for this critical issue and more for this community -- and more to keep communities safe. i am a gun owner and i aspect the second amendment, but at the same time i am very frustrated that the senate has been able -- has been unable to advance existingto bolster our gun laws but also to pass additional safety provisions. of leadership on this important issue by the congress and the united states, i have to say that i applaud the president for taking small steps to strengthen the enforcement of existing federal gun laws. in our limited time, i want to two your attention to wisconsin matters, one that i noted in my preface, which is

that milwaukee was home for ue gunto a notorious rog shop, badger guns, which in 82 year period alone, sold enough guns to wound two milwaukee police officers. the shop, which first opened in 1987, had been found in violation of federal firearm at by the atf as early as 1989. subsequent inspections uncovered other violations. recommendation by federal regulators that its license be repealed went unheeded and it that the shop2011 lost its ability to sell guns. now despite an active role by the atf in monitoring this

facility and this store, it clearly -- it was allowed to put guns in the hands of dangerous criminals again and again and again. so you made it clear in your testimony that the president's actions are not wholesale solutions. we understand that. but i would like to hear how the steps that we are discussing today and the request for more atf personnel might help stop a bad actor like a badger guns and what more the congress can do to prevent stores like this from contributing to gun violence? ms. lynch: well, thank you, senator. in part from the recommendations that i made from the subcommittee -- to the president from the subcommittee to, what i will say is that the atf is dedicated to enforcing that law. gun dealers,e are and it is a very small

percentage of them that are in the category that you discussed, atf does take enforcement actions there. also, the guns that have been discovered from other means, we learned from investigations that shootings of law enforcement officers and civilians where the guns tend to come from shows that it supports us. look backrtunate to and re-create an investigative trail and say what could or should have been done, but what i can say is that part of the enforcement of the existing laws, atf takes situations such as you mentioned very, very seriously. this is a very small minority of gun sellers, but where we find this situation where a gun shop as you mentioned had that type of record, it is something that would be subject to enforcement actions. ms. baldwin: thank you.

ofiously, in continuance operation from 1987 through who 2011, it11 -- through created extremely significant concerns, so i wanted to see more swift action in cases like this moving forward. i have run out of time, but i hope to submit for the record additional questions regarding an atf operation in milwaukee that raised significant concerns in the last couple of years. ms. lynch: thank you, senator. chair: go ahead. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you, miss lynch, for your testimony this morning. one of the benefits of coming in toe is getting too listened the questions of my colleagues and one of them was senator feinstein's comments about trust and corporations that over the

last 15 years have been more active in acquiring weapons. one of the questions is that the proposal by the president would sort of pierce the corporate bill and require the individuals actually obtained these weapons to run a background check, is that correct? ms. lynch: that is correct, senator. mr. reed: and these are set up to avoid limitations for ordering automatic weapons were machine guns, or are they applying increasingly with just handguns are what we would consider to just be personalized weapons? ms. lynch: well, typically we see trusts and other corporate entities being used to purchase these weapons that are not handguns and that typically one can go to a dealer and purchase fairly quickly and easily. but these are weapons that are under the national firearms act that are the short barreled shotguns and certain types of machine guns as well as silencers. mr. reed: it just strikes me as somewhat ironic because the seen asmendment is

appropriately so as an individual right that americans have and to have corporations and trust to be able to use this , and it is not alone in this area, i have been a lawyer for quite a bit, operations and trust have been created to evade, or do something that done,begun -- can't be ad i think this represents forceful way that you and the president have suggested very prudent improvements upon background checks. to discuss the issues of business and for your answer, you rejected a categorical, arbitrary number of weapons and you reflected the opinion of the court in regards to the constitution.

this is constitutionally consistent with court decisions? senator, we have crafted our guidance to reflect what the courts have said, defined who have been engaged in the business of firearms, and the courts have said there is no set number. certainly, there have been large numbers of firearms transferred, but if someone has a collection and is simply selling that, that would not make them subject to the licensure or the requirement. but if someone sells them repetitively, that is a very, very different scenario. it is not limited to where one operates but to what one does. so we have collected the guidance based on court cases around the country into a document that we hope will be clear and easily understandable for people to have those questions. sayreed: this is not as i an arbitrary decision. it is a reflection of the court's view on the second amendment rights on individual

americans. ms. lynch: yes, senator. mr. reed: one other general is the effect of regulations overall. sense,, in a very gross we have populations of people who are exercising their rights for self-defense, for etc.,tion, for hobbies, and then we have people trying to obtain a weapon for illicit purposes. no impediments are for those who honestly seek a legitimate use of firearms or also to do so and would apply reasonable constraints on those with illicit purposes. is that my understanding of your law? ms. lynch: yes, senator. mr. reed: thank you. you, mr. chair, and thank you, attorney general, for being here today.

before i get into a question or two about guidance, i just want to continue on this line of questioning about resources. i think we talked about atf resources, but i wanted to explore a little more deeply about resources within this system it self. game out ouro budget for 2017 and is appropriations year, what should we be looking at in terms of appropriations necessary for the department of justice to be able to do all of the things that we contemplate that this law has to do in order to keep up with the increasing number of applications, but also the increased coordination that we see to make sure that we have all of the records uploaded to that system? ms. lynch: that question is a very timely one as we look to invest in a system that is one of our first lines of defense against keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. for fiscal year 15, nick's

performed over 23 million background checks. that number is increasing. just this alone, they received 3 december million requests. that's a highest number of requests since after the sandy hook shooting. our estimates are we would need $121 million to run it. that would allow us to maintain the additional positions we hope to add this year. we may not be able to add all of them right away. it would help us improve the electronic platform and have an operational on a 24 hour basis by the end of this year that will require a great deal of information technology, investment, and support. that is our goal.

senator murphy: those who are focused on the laws, you would need that to enforce that? ms. lynch: in order to provide for the accurate implementation of the nix system that has been set forth by congress to process the application in a timely fashion and provide the information, that is the basis for this request. senator murphy: i hope we can enter into the record the actual guidance that is the subject of this hearing if there is no objection. i would hope those that have an opinion, especially those who have a strong opinion on this guidance would take the time to

read it because our second panel will include individuals who are going to call it an unwarranted assault on the second amendment and an effort to intentionally intimidate and harass law-abiding citizens. there will be those who call it patently unconstitutional. i hope people will read through what this guidance actually says. in summary, it is five points -- one, that federal law requires a person be licensed by the atf. it's a simple recitation of existing law. second, you can be in gauged in in the business regardless of the location in which the firearms transaction is conduct that. i'm not sure anyone would dispute that fact. third, determining whether you are engaged in the business requires you to look at specific act and circumstances of your activities. that seems patently clear. number four, as a general rule, you need a license if you buy

and sell firearms with the principal motive of making a profit. but you don't need to be -- a clear restatement of existing law. and fifth, a simple explanation about what existing courts have already said to interpret the law. to the extent a lot of the objections may be over this fifth the point, let me ask you to state for the record, this fifth point on your page of key points is simply a recitation of existing court interpretations of underlying law. there is nothing in there that is a new statement of law that some -- it simply summarizes what existing courts have found relative to who is required to have a license. ms. lynch: that is correct, senator. senator murphy: there have been different interpretations by

different courts as to the interpretation of that law. ms. lynch: that is also correct. senator murphy: for those trying to determine whether they fall under the law or not, the existing precedent may be confusing or hard to track down. ms. lynch: it is hard to track down and it is a lot to ask every citizen to do a dyslexic search and determine what the courts have said about how they are operating. what often happens is individuals operating at gun shows or smaller sales will reach out to the atf and they have questions. they say this is what i'm doing and i don't know if it means i need to apply for a license or not. they asked those questions in person when they see investigators at gun shows, they call in and so our hope is this guidance along with the educational program the atf will be beginning providing the information to people will allow

people to have clarity about this issue. we don't assume everyone is a lawyer or even wants to be, but they do have this requirement if they are engaged in the dealing of firearms and we hope this will ease compliance for those individuals seeking to comply with the law. for those individuals who have no intention of complying with the law, this will put them on notice and remove the sense that this is too confusing or i had no idea i was falling in this category. it also allows people who are hobbyists and collectors to gain clarity about their collection and they need not apply. sen. shelby: we have reached the conclusion of our first panel. any subcommittee members have

additional questions for the attorney general, they submit them for the official hearing record and we would request madam attorney general provide responses within 30 days. you generally do. thank you for your appearance today and for your time. sen. mikulski: i must excuse myself from the second panel. i have several maryland constituents i scheduled to meet on the issue of hate crimes for which they are being targeted and i need to participate in that. i want to welcome the witnesses to the second panel. i have read their testimony, particularly their acknowledgment from esther barton and what he brings to the table as well as the practitioners of law. we look forward to moving forward on this agenda, to resource the agencies and to enforce the laws we have on the books and find common ground on the president's executive orders. ms. lynch: as the attorney general the parts, i invite our

second panel of witnesses to join us at the table. sen. mikulski: senator murphy will sit in my stead at the meeting. sen. shelby: i would like to make some brief introductions of the next witnesses. first, i welcome the attorney general for my state of alabama. attorney general strange is recognized as a national leader in advancing the causes of federalism and a limited government by fighting the increasing unconstitutional overreach of the federal government and its assault on individual liberty. he currently serves on the republican -- the executive committee of the republican attorney general's association and is the chairman of the southern region of the national association of attorneys general. next, we will be joined by the former attorney general of virginia. he challenged many of the federal government's attempt to overreach its constitutional powers.

today as a private attorney with 20 years experience as a litigator, he serves as a founding partner and attorney for the self-defense law. barton, he works for a national nonprofit organization founded by several family members whose loved ones were killed at sandy hook elementary school. after tragically losing his son daniel, mr. barton has dedicated himself to bringing people together to find sensible solutions to prevent future tragedies and spare other families in pain of losing a child to gun violence. finally, we have dr. joyce lee malcolm joining us from george mason university school of law where she works as the patrick henry professor of constitutional law and the second amendment.

dr. malcolm is a constitutional scholar active in the area of constitutional history, focusing on the development of individual rights in great britain and america. she has written numerous books and articles on gun control, the second amendment, and individual rights. professor malcolm taught at princeton university, bentley college boston , university, northeastern university and cambridge university. i want to thank all of you for joining us here today and we will start with attorney general strange. welcome to the committee. mr. strange: thank you. i think vice-chairman mikulski for inviting me. i'm honored to accept your invitation to speak on an issue of importance to all americans -- reducing gun violence while ensuring the fundamental right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms is not infringed. i was to commend your centrally

-- wish to commend your centrally for convening this panel because these goals are not mutually exclusive. my duty is to enforce the law and i am here today as the chief law enforcement officer to deliver the law enforcement officers on the streets perspective on this issue. for the last five years, i have witnessed the challenge of safeguarding the gun rights of law-abiding citizens also working to deny lawbreakers the 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, 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 washington. 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 -- the seemingly endless 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 to prevent gun violence. the we must make sure political actions taken place are grounded in fact. they must 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 presidents 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 and fewer still are involved in violent crimes. it is our goal to reduce crime and make our streets safer. the president's action will not accomplish that. the only practical effect of the gun show provision will be to intimidate or frighten law-abiding citizens so that they will refrain from selling their guns. so instead of new rules and regulations, a better approach would be to enforce the laws we have by increasing the efficiency and funding the next system. -- nix system. i think that is a sentiment shared by members on both sides. we can do better with that

system. with more funding, the state can ensure everything is reported in the system. when the system does work, we find someone attempting to buy guns and prosecute them. using the same laws on the books today, the bush administration secured 35% of federal gun convictions in 2004 and 2005 then the obama administration did in 2014. federal gun convictions have fallen every year president obama has been in office. the federal government must do more to provide a law-enforcement tools they need to do their job. sheriffsom shares --

who told me what they need is more resources from the federal government not fewer. thehas recently suffered loss of assets to protect his officers in very dangerous situations. we can do more and remember the sacrifice of our men and women in law enforcement. i think sometimes we lose sight. we need to support our men and women in blue. i have had the sad duty as i know you have and other members of this committee to attend the funerals of officers who have fallen in the line of duty either through the , result of criminal or a gang member. mental illness is a major concern. i applaud president obama for focusing on the mental illness issue. i think it should be debated i

-- 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 from iraq or afghanistan who has concerns and finds himself unable to purchase a gun. same thing for someone who may turn over his affairs to a family member to handle and ends up losing their second amendment right. i thank you again for allowing me to be here. our second amendment rights can be protected and at the same time keep americans safe. >> members of the committee, i spent 12 years working in the mental health arena. i have that perspective as well and i would say that not one thing in the president executive actions related to guns that we are discussing today would have any meaningful effect on tragedies like virginia tech or

san bernardino, much more less common street crime. the president focus on mental health care does have the potential to assist in avoiding future tragedies, considering more than 60% of all gun related deaths are mentally health-related. everything the president advocates cost money. let me begin by saying i'm a lawyer. i have to start with my caveat, that it would be my strenuous hope that given the fact that our national government is astonishingly bankrupt, this congress would cut more money than it proposes to spend on any of these programs. presumably coming you would cut lower priority expenditures.

the president's actions directed at government violence appear to be merely aspirational and in other cases, intentionally intimidating. the procedural proposals to run more background checks are inarguable. all of us want the laws on the book to be enforced and that can be done more effectively, that would be wonderful. however, when the president and the attorney general intentionally create confusion and ambiguity about when someone selling a single gun might be in violation of the law with five-year jail penalties, one can only call that dishonorable intimidation of the citizenry by its government.

i would note this thread includes a problem found across the universe of federal regulatory law. namely, no necessity for a finding of culpable intent on the part of the hypothetical offender. this is another example of a president using power and expanding the federal authority. now our 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 the attorney general don't seem to care. please remember to put yourself in the position of the individuals. from an individual citizen's perspective having the , government investigating you for one gun sale, is an expensive experience.

that is exactly 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. and he intends to torment many of my fellow citizens who happen to be gunowners for the as a lawyer that has worked on , ier the mental health cases would urge efforts to improve mental health care at the state and local level to address some of the problems of violence in the country. the federal government's role in these efforts should you purely supportive as this is one of many challenges best address at the local level. in addition to mental health throughout our country as a -- as it relates to public 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 states by cutting programs and second, get out of the way of the state. eliminate all of the federal rules and requirements and trust the states 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 about people purchasing guns for mental health reasons. i would urge this committee to go much further and urge hhs to hipp.fy and the -- a. in the case of the virginia tech tragedy, the shooters were

virginia public high school, have figured out how to manage the shooters mental health issues, but they were not allowed to talk to virginia tech about the subject. virginia tech did not even know they had a mentally ill student when he arrived as a freshman. while we fix that under virginia law, such problems exist throughout the legal system. i will finish by calling your attention to very serious concerns reference about the presidents rhetoric. the other concern at a constitutional level, because i see time is out, that i have is beyond the second amendment, is the separation of powers. i had one senator hearsay if -- i heard one senator here

won't cooperate with say already if the congress the president, i'm sure glad the president is bypassing congress. i have not heard anyone say the law should be enforced except for as it is written. >> my name is mark barden. over three years ago i was a professional musician. i had the opportunity to be home with my children most of the day. my wife grew up in the bronx and put herself through school to pursue teaching. we now live in newtown, connecticut. daniel was our youngest and an absolute light and joy. his sense of awareness and

tenderness transcended his seven years as an old soul. in school, he earned a reputation as a sweet little boy who would ask someone sitting alone to sit with him. at home, he was full of ethics and respect. at home, at dinnertime he would scold james and natalie if they attempted to eat their food before my wife and i were at the table. he also insisted we offer a prayer of attitude -- 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 -- humanity and the personal impact of what has been taken from us and what is at stake here. my family and i had what we considered an ideal life.

it all changed on december 14, 2012. when a gunman wielding an ar-15 semiautomatic assault rifle shot his way into sandy hook elementary school and shot and 20led six educators and first grade children. one of those children was my sweet, precious daniel. in an instant the little boy who dance around our house and rescue forms from the sun and held doors open for strangers, was gone forever. in the days and weeks following his murder, james and natalie were heartbroken with questions that jackie and i were ill-equipped to answer. questions like why would someone do this, how could this happen? and so as an effort to try to at -- answer the question, we

learned that over 30,000 people are killed every year as a result of gun related tragedies in the u.s. every year. gun related fatalities are untracked. they exceed carpet helices in some states in this is unacceptable. i have made it my life's work to try to identify realistic , sustainable solutions and 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 tragedies down through prevention programs. we as a nation, as americans, as individual members of our families and communities come have to do better. shamefully, congress has done nothing to address this epidemic . thankfully president obama and , miss lynch are doing what they can within their power to

address this. the package of executive actions the president's offering will help enforce laws already on books. and resources to existing background check system will facilitate a faster, more efficient transaction for citizens willing to purchase firearms. as many guns used in crimes have been stolen, reporting these will be omitting the number of firearms that end up in the hand of criminals. applying better to elegy to firearms will cut down on tragedies across the board from stolen firearms, accidental discharge by children, and suicide. t.he president has also proposed more resources be available for our mental health care system.

i'm before you today as an informed, proud american who knows these modest proposals will go a long way for not only saving lives, but improving lives. i'm also before you today as a grieving father who knows the cost of inaction. i'm asking you guys to think of my sweet, little daniel, and what was lost here. and the 90 american families who will lose a loved one today. and the 90 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

as obama decided to pass these increased gun control measures without congress's approval. gun safety is an essential duty of government and we're all very dismayed by the terrible incidents and mass shootings that have taken place, most recently in chicago and baltimore. the president has the authority and in fact the duty to see that existing laws are enforced. however, congress has not ignore the problem. they are sensitive to the right of american citizens to protect second amendment. the i'm happy to see congress and the senate debating about doing something about those mentally dangerous to themselves and others.

the president, in order to get his ideas through congress, is acting on his own. there is a fundamental problem whether his measures without congressional approval are constitutional. i would like to address two of these measures that i believe fail the test of constitutionality. the president has many opportunities through executive orders and actions to direct federal agencies and the execution of the law. the constitution forbids him from changing the law. this is what he means to do with his plan to ask and the definition of gun dealers for the current law requires individuals, as you heard who are in the business of selling guns to get a federal license, and perform background checks on buyers. obama now would require everyone who sells guns to perform background checks and as you heard from the attorney general,

the administration is not clear on how many gun sales would require a seller to obtain a license. the penalty of 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 upheld convictions for failing to have a license went to firearms were sold within a year. 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, the judge explained this goat of the president's power to take unilateral action. was when theay president takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of congress, his power is at its lowest. for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers. courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling the congress from acting upon the subject and he warns presidential claim to a power must be scrutinized with caution. what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system. the president's actions alter this law unilaterally. i would like to mention that the president's plan to put people who are on the no-fly list who

are unable to purchase a gun, i think many of us have heard, it is compiled in secret. the last five years the aclu has challenged the laws operation. it is extremely hard to get your name off of the list and there does not seem to be any due process to do so. the aclu is representing two marine corps veterans and in an article, wrote until the no fly list is fixed, it should not be as against them. they shouldn't have their second amendment right for self-defense impugned as well. thank you.

sen. shelby: i will start with you general strange. 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 background system. in recent years, his budget as proposed to cut the funding for the nix program. congress has balked at the president's proposal. attorney general strange, how happy presidents disjointed funding for justice department grants impacted communities in alabama?

dr. strange: i want to commend the leadership in this committee for its support of local law enforcement. without the resources, the states cannot get the information to the nci s. without doing that, we have a system that is broken and 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. even though we have had a requirement to provide this information, it is only recently within the last year that we have received any money at the state level to develop the technology and all the information needed to put into the federal database. sen. shelby: shouldn't this be a high priority for the president? dr. strange: i think it should be his highest priority.

-- be the highest priority. put it in the system so we can identify gang members and others who attempt to violate the law. sen. shelby: what senator langford pointed out, i think that was spot on. in your position you have been a , strong supporter of the second amendment rights. now as a founding 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 right. do you believe the president's executive actions to implement new gun-control measures will have an effect on violent gun crimes?

>> the answer to that is a simple no. what he has done in the area of guns as it relates to action and crime either on the street or when you have mass shootings, and mental health related incidents, there can be a connection. -- there cannot be a connection. anyone contemplating crime, when you think of deterrent, you think of them contemplating the consequences. this will have nothing to do at -- 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 notice states reporting information. one of the lessons learned from virginia tech, in the case of chou he had been in the mental health system.

but he had not been formally adjudicated without his objection for mental health and capacity. however, he had submitted under our court system to mental health treatment. because he went that route, rather than resisting the adjudication, he was not reported to the nix system. we have six that in virginia and i believe a lot of other states learned our lessons. if you look a year, two years at virginia tech, you see a much higher rating of reporting to the nix system. we don't want people to be able to purchase firearms. that was a system of failure. i think a lot of other states are learning. sen. shelby: you are not saying we solve the problem, but are taking steps in the right or

-- right direction? >> we are taking steps in the right direction. we heard statistics today about the number of gun checks -- 23 million or so. in virginia, we stop hundreds of thousands of sales of guns already, many of them being caught up in the system because of the information being provided this way. that is the one way that we might have changed the outcome at virginia tech. in a lot of these incidents, it if hard to change the outcome based on the regulatory impositions the president is talking about. sen. shelby: the executive actions we have been talking about come and i call it chipping away at the second amendment right how would what , the president is proposing infringe

on the second amendment right of law-abiding citizens >> the ? impression given to those operating as individuals is that they are being intimidated. they are being harassed. that is not what they are talking about. they are holding a five-year prison sentence over the heads of anyone who isn't a gun dealer and who by any objective standard should not be considered one but who does sell a gun and the attorney general has said one is enough to fall under their umbrella. with penalties like that, the obvious intent is to deter people from even considering making these otherwise entirely objectively legal sales.

sen. shelby: millions of americans own guns and i for one, i have sold a gun and taken the money to buy another gun, but i'm not a gun dealer. but under the attorney general's recommendation, the president's recommendation, that could curtail my right to do that, could it not? >> if you are a law-abiding citizen -- i'm a gun owner and i've done exactly as you described, sold one gun and bought another, to upgrade. the idea here, and my impression from the attorney general on down, is they want folks in that situation to think twice. maybe have folks think not to sell a gun except directly to and from a firearms dealer.

the ultimate effect is to slow down the opportunity to legally purchase, by law-abiding citizens, firearms. that is where the infringement comes on the second amendment. sen. shelby: do you believe that rather than saving lives, the president's actions could result in more lives lost through the violation of the constitution? >> certainly one of the things that is little discussed, is the defensive use of guns. the actual use of guns for protection. if you go five years before virginia tech, we had another school shooting down in southwest virginia at appalachian law school. a student came onto the campus, shot and killed three, and was stopped by two students who ran

to their cars and got their gun. that person, unusually enough, simply surrendered. normally when confronted, someone with mental health issues, they would take their own lifeless of the time comes to statistically speaking there's no compilation of those occurrences that i know of anywhere. and yet we see them all the time. in my law firm, those are the kinds of people we are defending. we have never had a client inappropriately use a gun. we have defended clients who have drawn their guns in defense and had to protect themselves from prosecution for instance. all of those have been resolved favorably. that is understated here. there is no questioning the tragic outcomes that happened time and time again in this country, but is also the case that the second amendment rights are to protect people, the thin

-- to defend families, to stop crimes in process. sen. shelby: just share with us for a minute, something we all believe in, we have a right to defend ourselves, do we not? >> absolutely. it is a natural right and we are a natural law country. the second amendment is one of the rights we have as natural law. sen. shelby: thank you. professor malcolm, the president has announced that stricter standards not passed or vetted with congress, will be applied by the atf to determine if the seller of a gun is engaged in the business of selling firearms. and required to perform background checks. my question, do you believe the president's announcement of an undefined measurement for determining when a gun seller is

engaged in the business of selling gun, and thus required to perform background checks, will result in harassment and legal consequences for law-abiding citizens who are simply engaged in constitutionally protected firearms transactions. professor malcolm: as the attorney general said, and we keep explaining and getting all these calls, he had not said how many guns would be required to be put in the category as a gun dealer. right now, the law is for someone whose main business is selling guns. the law explicitly from that. exempts the casual gun selling they seem to be blurring that

definition and i think congress took steps to make sure it would not include people who sen. were just occasional gun sellers. shelby: do you think this announcement by the president will have a chilling effect on citizens who merely want to exercise their constitutional right. i use myself as an example, i've used guns, bought guns, so guns. -- sold guns upgraded. , i believe i have that right. i'm not a gun dealer. if this went into effect, i might think someone might come after me for doing that. now i might sell my gun to a judge or a good citizen. professor malcolm: it's bound to have a chilling effect, especially when they have

announced the punishment without getting that license is up to five years in jail and eight fine of $250,000, not counting punishment for not doing a background check or it it is that kind of draconian punishment and no explicit explanation -- sen. shelby: in a way, it it would be intimidation. saying you have these rights, but you better be careful. someone signed an executive order infringing on my rights. thank you. professor malcolm. when the atf has made a point that they have prosecuted someone who has sold as little as two guns in a year sen. .

-- in a year. sen. shelby: is the second amendment just as important to the well-being of this country as the first amendment? third amendment? and so forth. professor malcolm: it certainly is. it in bodies your right to self-defense. no right is more important than the right to defend yourself and your family. it is absolutely essential. there are countries where people do not have the right to self-defense. and are supposed to defend -- depend on the government. no government can be there all the time.

while the fbi does not record self-defense uses of guns, it is been estimated that there is something of one half million of these a year -- one and a half million of these a year. sen. shelby: have you seen any in recent years or past years in the presidency that would look at part of our constitutional makeup and attack this amendment like this administration? professor malcolm: i think they have been rather clear that if they had their preference, they would ban guns. the president spoke openly of

australia's buyback. i find it interesting when they talk about the second amendment, they like to refer to hunting. that it is fine to have a gun for hunting. hunting does not rise to the level of a constitutional right, but self-defense does. sen. shelby: self-defense is self-preservation, is it not, senator murphy? senator murphy: thank you for your testimony. i feel this is a hearing on a document that i have not need. i went to explore some of the inconsistencies between the interpretation of three of our witnesses and the words on the page. but first i wanted to start with you, mr. barton. i want to thank you for your advocacy in the face of unimaginable grief and i want to specifically thank you with a

holistic way in which sandy hook promise attacks the ways in which we can change the enforcement of gun laws in order to prevent homicides but your organization recognizes that the way in which we attacked the issue of gun violence isn't lawsy through changing gun or better enforcement of gun laws, but also through increased efforts to mental health resources or to increase gun safety board to prevent violence in the first place. you have a much broader agenda, don't you? >> absolutely. i think we should all be on the same page here. we should be looking for solutions where we can agree that we need to move forward. something has to be done. this situation, this problem of gun related tragedies, it's huge and broad and complex. no one law will fix it all. no number of laws will fix it all. nothing will fix it all.

we have to approach it in a more holistic way. senator murphy: there are recent reports from john hopkins comparing connecticut's law to missouri's law, comparing homicide rates, suggesting there is a connection to the laws on the book with respect to the easy access of guns and rates of gun homicide. mr. barton: yes, that's correct. evidence-based research conducted by john that hopkins that clearly indicates the regulation actually

reduces homicides by 40%. it is reduce suicides by 15%. those numbers are reflected in the inversion of states that do not have this law. where homicides have risen and suicides have gone up. it comes down to access. what we're talking about here is the whole fabric of this come up with regard to prevention. you mentioned my organization, we do a lot of work in the state of prevention and violent behavior. there should be -- we should be bolstering our mental health system. we should have mental health reform in place to get these people the help they need. senator murphy: this

inconsistent reading of the words and guidance here. let me start with you, dr. malcolm, i just want to make this clear for the record. you spent a decent amount of your testimony talking about a conversation about including individuals on the no-fly list on the list of people who would be prohibited from purchasing a gun. let's make it clear for the record -- that is not in the president's executive order. dr. malcolm: the president said to include those on the list in the-fly background check so they would not be able to buy guns. senator murphy: for the record, it was not one of the executive orders. dr. malcolm: it was in a proposal. senator murphy: it was not in the set of executive actions. he has announced he request congress make that change and he has acknowledged that the subject that is within the

jurisdiction of congress, not within the jurisdiction of enforcement of existing law. i think it is important to point out for the record, that is not part of the executive actions. second i want to make it clear you said in your testimony, or maybe an answer to a question on senator shelby, that he announced the penalty for violating the existing law, with respect to who needs to be licensed, is a certain amount of time in jail. dr. malcolm: i misspoke. as part of is listed which you read. senator murphy: that is existing law. i think this speaks to part of our disagreement. very notion of expressing what the penalty is for violating the law equals intimidation then there is a , different reading of criminal statues.

that is a simple recitation of the existing penalty. dr. malcolm: when he implied that people currently under the law are under the law and are going to be and will face that penalty, i think it is important. senator murphy: thank you so much, attorney general strange, for being here. you use strong words and referring to the presidents executive order. this is a re-get down to a question of the words your on the page versus perceived intention. maybe we can all concede that it is a little difficult for us to understand what is in the thoughts and minds of those who write the laws. we are left first with the words on the page. maybe just share with me which of these five key points that

are in this guidance do you perceive to be the unwarranted assault on the second amendment or is that interpretation dependent on an interpretation of intentions that you've derived independent of what the attorney general has testified today. sen. shelby: i think i would adopt the comments of my colleagues. i would be happy to answer that question. i really jumped at the opportunity to comment the senator's invitation because i want to deliver the message from the men and women on the street. the people who are actually going to the active shooter situations and get their opinion here, and not only to criticize the president's proposal, but to point out that the areas that do make a difference and where the committee can make a difference have been neglected.

one example -- senator murphy: i'm going to run out of time, what specifically, what section do you perceive to be intimidating. what is the language that is the assault on the second amendment. to the extent you can point me to the provision that you are referring to. dr. strange: i don't have it in front of me. i can tell you that the sentiment of the men and woman and law enforcement, the people i work with devoted to solving the problems we all caps about -- senator murphy: i think you have an obligation to point to the specific provision given that we are talking about it. but let me just turn it over to you. i get the sense that you have the most problem with the recitation existing court cases of the that are currently the way in which you

would interpret whether you are subjected to the requirement or not. so you repeatedly referred to the suggestion that if you sell only one firearm, that you may be required to obtain a license. that is included in a section which simply recites existing court cases. let me just ask you this question, do you dispute any of thisnformation listed in section relative to the existing court cases on this question of who has to get a license? >> and mike rogers viewers of attorney general as virginia, i dealt with the business end of the federal government as they over red come over interpreted, and used very aggressively authority they did not have. we beat them back occasionally, but we had to do it.

they are counting on the fact that corporations and individuals don't want to fight with the federal government. with the intimidation you're asking the professor about, is the rather vaguely worded, despite the attorney general's continuous use of the word clarify, it is exactly the opposite of what they are doing. they are opening the door of the application of five-year jail penalties to a bunch of people under the existing law, believe they understand they do not fall under that law. senator murphy: what i see our existing court cases that are public record. mr. cuccinelli: senator, they could keep pressing ahead to e