heller if it stands for nothing else it stands for that. so the question before the committee, before you, mr. chairman and the others, is what are those protected arms? where does that line fall? it certainly falls at m-16's. >> let the professor respond here to this argument that we are talking about the instrument, the weapon, as opposed to many other things. tell me your reaction to it. >> thank you. much as i like and respect my friend, chuck cooper, i don't think he answered your question. the supreme court did not suggest in heller or mcdonald or any other case that uniquely within the constitution the second amendment protects a certain fixed set of objects. somehow magically the m-16 machine gun floats from our 1791 history as out of the range of protection. it's a much more nuanced inquirery. it's an inquiry into how common the weapon is, how essential it is to self-defense, and it's an inquiry to how unusually dangerous it is. the suggestion that i get from mr. cooper's written statement which he had more of a chance to elaborate

heller and mcdonald answer that question. of those weapons that are income and the courts words, are of the kind of the kind in common use for lawful purposes like self-defense. conversely, the second amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, end quote. and applying that common use of text, heller flatly and categorically struck down the district of columbia gun ban because it amounted to a prohibition of an entire class of arms, i'm quoting, that is overwhelmingly chosen by an american -- excuse me, society for the lawful purpose of self-defense. the constitutionality of pending proposed to ban certain arms, thus turns on whether the ban semiautomatic rifles, shotguns and pistols are of the kind that are in common use for lawful purposes in this nation. and even as professor tribe conceits, standard magazines holding more than 10 rounds and the firearms outfitted for them are by any reasonable measure of in quite common use in the united states. because s. 1

the heller decision makes pays not to cast any doubt on common sense gun laws. over and over, gun regulation is described as "permissible," supported by historical tradition and "presumptively lawful." when given the opportunity to retreat from those statements in the 2010 macdonald case, the court instead reinforced the same statements and described them as "assurances." in hundreds of cases following heller, lower courts have upheld common-sense gun laws as consistent with the second amendment. there are some who continue to challenge the constitutionality of reasonable gun regulation, even though history, president, and the supreme court's statements in heller and mcdonald way heavily against them. they do so hoping that judicial activism will advance their no- compromise ideology when it comes to guns. i think we need to be careful. this is not some abstract legal debate. guns have forever changed the lives of so many people. let me mention just a few of them. hadiya pendleton, and understood in an inspiration to our friends, all walking angel her cousin cal

the fact of the matter is that expired before the heller decision. so who knows what would have happened if it was tested? the senator may be right on that. you've been an excellent witness and want to thank you for your career. the department of justice focuses on prosecuting people who evade the back rent check system and acquire weapons illegally. they did not focus those who attempt to purchase firearms but were unsuccessful. criminals do not walk into a gun shop to buy weapons and submit themselves to a background check. they get them on the streets. >> that is exactly right. >> the people least likely to be caught by a background check. some on our side wonder why do we raise all this fuss about background checks when we have them in existence. i'm sure you're familiar with project that was launched in 1997 in richmond, virginia. it was an effort to enforce existing federal gun laws. residents were put on notice and all violations of firearms laws would be prosecuted. defendant's face five-year mandatory sentences. 372 persons were indicted and

have you read heller? and you tell us what level of scrutiny that is most the supreme court decision would apply to an assault weapons ban? >> first of all, i have read the heller opinion. i want to be careful. the department has not issued a formal opinion on the constitutionality of that particular legislation. having said that, the important thing to keep in mind for the is the three-part threshold that justice scalia and the heller opinion articulate. whether the weapon is a dangerous and unusual weapon of the kind that is traditionally been regulated and accepted. finally, whether the legislation under consideration in some manner impacts the core of the second amendment right, and that is the self defense right. look at each of those three threshold. it is fair to say that an assault weapons ban can be crafted successfully. it is something that i am certain that we will continue to work with the committee and senator feinstein in the course of this. i have great confidence that we can come up with ef

senator dean heller, thank you for joining us. >> thank you. you bet. see you too. >>> a big bet to lose. one big play in a super bowl is costing one company $600,000 in merchandise. >>> how are long-term relationships changing in america today? an exclusive new dating study from match.com unveiled right here on "starting point." and the results will shock you. officemax is celebrating our new collaboration with go daddy! with an online package including: domain name, website builder with five pages and basic email just $49.99! that's up to 76 percent below online providers and only at officemax stores! meet the 5-passenger ford c-max hybrid. when you're carrying a lot of weight, c-max has a nice little trait, you see, c-max helps you load your freight, with its foot-activated lift gate. but that's not all you'll see, cause c-max also beats prius v, with better mpg. say hi to the all-new 47 combined mpg c-max hybrid. i had[ designer ]eeling enough of just covering up my moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. i decided enough is enough. ♪ [ spa lady ] i st

court's heller decision, and couple years ago in heller, the majority of the 19th century court to considerthat prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the 2nd amendment or otherwise. and they say nothing in our opinion should being taken to cast doubt on the longstanding prohibitions, that should have some conceal carry advocates a little concerned. >> sure, it wasn't an issue-- i mean, that was in the case and that wasn't something that you could hold and say this was the purpose of heller or mcdonald for that matter and you look at the 10th circuit first. let's look there and all this have case is about, someone who isn't a citizen of colorado give a concealed carry permit know whether there is concealed carry permits available to the citizens or people who have a permit in another state which has reciprocity, in typical line with most states and virginia and others and may have a license and they grant reciprocity with and may not. in illinois, there was a complete ban and what the court said there in the 7th circuit, we' are not going to completely ban this. >> meg

that makes it protected by the second amendment according to the supreme court in the heller case andthe miller case. and if we want to change that, we could, but i think we would need to amend the second amended to modify it or repeal it to accomplish that legally. >> there are people now beginning to say, yes, maybe we should look as a nation, at amending the second amendment again, and the reason -- or appealing it, because the wording has been so open to interpretation that nobody seems quite sure what it means or what the founding fathers truly intended. >> well, look, it's always a tough task figuring out what the framers intended. i don't think you need to rewrite the second amendment to keep guns out of the wrong hands. we know that justice scalia, not a fan of gun control, when he wrote in the heller decision that particularly dangerous weapons can be banned to protect public safety. and other laws can be passed like background checks, like restriction on where you can carry certain kinds of guns. all of those laws were deemed perfectly acceptable. the question is, how far do

it was the pitch that they attempted to make in the heller case. there's no individual right to keep and bear arms. the supreme court rejecterred that and the supreme court was right both on a historical reading of the ?iews and what the founders meant. lauren? >> followup on the background check issue. i have two related questions. first, the property -- critical of the 40% estimate that is commonly used and you thought it was closer to 4% of the -- [inaudible] >> i wonder how you got the number. >> i used db i'm sorry go ahead. >> it's a two-part. answer that first. >> in that 1994 study, which was a telephone survey of 200 and some people, they asked where you got your firearm and was it through a licensed dealer. did it get it from family or friends. when you broke it down to say arms length unless you didn't know your family or friends, it comes down about 4%. i'm not saying that number is accurate. a full survey is inaccurate. and it's flawed and took place -- one of the reasons that even if you took the whole number one of the things they as

>> you have hit on what district of columbia versus heller was all about. how often are 100-round draw magazines used in crimes? pretty rarely. self-defense? pretty rarely, too. 70% of gun homicides are from handguns. the supreme court said that the fact these are frequently used in crimes does not mean that under the constitution you can prohibit them. the fact and you can point to any particular crime where a gun was misused, that approval to ban this gun or the accessories, that is the opposite of what the supreme court is saying. you do not look only at the misuse of an arm or accessory, you look at its lawful use. does it have common, lawful use. yes, handguns have common, lawful use. handgun magazines have common, lawful use. yes, the ar-15 rifle, the best selling rifle in this country for years, has pervasive lawful use. >> if we restrict access to these guns, we are limiting the ability of individual americans, law-abiding americans, to use them for lawful purposes? >> criminals may misuse something, but that does not constitute sufficient reason to

the supreme court decision columbia versus heller makes certain that the second amendment is going be alive and well. >> jon: as well it should be but we have to be reasonable about the illegalality. can you stick around -- is there a crime going on right now? >> i hope not. >> jon: hopefully spiderman or batman is there. -x,yy5

walter heller chaired kennedy's council of economic advisors.ennedy was our first keynesian president. it isn't that others hadn't done some keynesian things, but kennedy did it in an avowed and perceptive way. he was very cautious at first. he finally saw a more liberal approach was needed to stimulate the economy. it took the form of a massive tax cut proposed in i962. this net reduction in tax liabilities of $10 billion will increase the purchasing power of american families and business enterprises in every tax bracket. but john f. kennedy didn't live to see his programs enacted. instead, on that fateful november day, lyndon baines johnson was sworn in as the 36th president of the united states. johnson pursued kennedy's economic proposals and pushed the tax plan through congress. how well did it work? perfectly. business week, which isn't exactly a liberal pro-kennedy publication, said it probably was the most successful tax cut in history. it came out of the textbooks. it went back into the textbooks as the fiscal measure that came closer

. >> reporter: he was a plaintiff in the heller case in which they lifted d.c.'s banned on the handguns. >> i want to have teachers who are willing to stand as the last line of defense. >> reporter: he wants the metropolitan police department to provide firearms training to teachers and staff members who want it. the firearms would be kept in a locked biometric safe that only opens for those with the fingerprint match. that he says will keep the guns from getting in the wrong hands. >> you want to put your hand there and read the fingerprints. that it would open up and you could access the firearms. it could be done in just seconds. >> reporter: why allow teachers and staff to access these guns? they point to the columbine shooting and say that there is a need for more defense in the schools. >> reporter: the officer was outside at that time of the attack that happened. there were two shooters. he did engage one, but in the meantime the other shooter was free to do what he wanted to. >> reporter: they said active shooters have learned to first engage the school r

curry, tarullo, heller, anything to add to that? >> e q r m risk retention rulemaking process is an important one with q m in place, looking forward to adopt appropriate regulation as quickly as possible. >> as quickly as possible defined as when? >> we expect to wrap up most of the dodd-frank rulemaking this year. >> i would hope that would be sooner than the end of the year. >> the sooner the better. >> the q m coming out doesn't allow us to go and finish. most of the other issues, the latest processes work at a staff level people go through various issues and they try to work them through or present them to the commissioners or governors for resolution. most of that process has already proceeded. there are a couple things that have to be considered, it is having q m final which lets us go to completion. >> under secretary miller, at the request -- o f r has been studying the asset management industry and the study is intended to help to determine what risk if any this industry poses to the u.s. financial system and whether any su

>> reporter: george lyon was a plaintiff in the heller case in which they lifted d.c.'s ban on handguns. >> i want to have teachers who are willing to stand as the last line of defense. >> reporter: he wants the police department to provide firearms training to teachers and staff members who want it. the firearms would be kept in the locked biometric safe that only opens for those with the fingerprint match. that he says will keep the guns from getting in the wrong hands. >> they would open up. it could be done in seconds. >> reporter: why allow teachers and staff here and that they will point to the columbine shootings and say that there is need for more defense in schools. >> the officer was outside at the time the attack happened. there were two shooters. he did engage in one, but in the meantime they were free to do what they wanted to. >> reporter: they said that they have learned to first engage the school resource officers. >> once he is out of the picture, they have essentially a gun-free zone, you know, or a fertile killing field. >> reporter: he says that the

ranking member and to senator manchant, senator warren, senator heitkemp, senator carlburn and senator heller who are joining this congress. i'd also like to welcome back my friend senator kirk. earlier this week i released my agenda for this congress and i look forward to this committee's continued productivity. i'm optimistic that we can work together on a bipartisan basis. to that end, ranking member crepo and i sent an order yesterday to the banking regulators on the importance of implementing basal 3 and i look forward to hearing from each of you in working with the ranking member on this issue. today this committee continues a top priority, oversight of wall street perform implementation. wall street reform was effected to make the financial system more resilient, minimize risk of another financial crisis, protect consumers from harmful purchases and ensure american taxpayers will never again be called upon to bail out a failing financial firm. this morning we'll hear from the regulators on how their agencies are carrying out these mandates of wall street reform. many of the laws are ru

under the heller decision, that's illegal firearm. the machine gun is not. a lot of other things people say we support are not. the second part of the question. i get carried away with my answers. is interesting. i think the only person in most of these mass shooting, the number of people if they look at it afterwards thought amnio the fellow doing it has something wrong with them, but didn't do anything about it. the only person that did anything with the gun salesman he went to to try and buy a firearm from the guy looked and said this guy is crazy. i'm not feeling him again. there's a number of instances where people -- the people who read ranges of code authorities because they think somebody there should never firearm. the matter what it is you're dealing with, if you see people that are obviously having problems with the criminal crimson, i thought at the system and the police, more important is that the firearms community days. one of the things the president talked about, which we think was something not to be focused, help but focus is firearms hand

one, the heller decision stated that individuals have the right to own firearms but with the second amendment comes responsibilities. just like the first amendment, you have the right to free speech but you can't incite a riot. with a firearm, you have to use it appropriately, it has to be an appropriate firearm. as justice scalia said, he's not any shrinking left wing violet, he's the one who stated there could and should be regulations. so nobody is trying to take your members' guns away, they can go out and shoot, they can hunt, they can have them for self-protection but they need to abide by the law in doing so. >> if i may, i think it's important, the chief and i discussed this last week, we were at a luncheon, the chief was saying something, i just happened to chime in. it's important to get different people in the room to be introduced to different sets of ideas. i remember this person was an nra member and they said, thanks, i never thought of it that way and he actually applauded what i had to say, you made me think about something differently. i'm going to go home and think about th

>> according to heller, they are not commonly used by law- abiding citizens for legitimate purposes. >> and 100 magazines are? >> thank goodness he had a piece of junk like that instead of something better where he could kill more people. >> that is what is all about? >> it is about saving lives with ordinary magazines. 100 magazines are not used by police officers or hunters. what you are talking about banning is normal magazines. >> the shooter in tucson showed up with two 33-round magazines, one of which was in his 9 millimeter. he unloaded the contents of that magazine in 15 seconds. very quickly. the first bullet went into gabby's head. bullet #13 went into a nine- year old girl named christina taylor green. she deserved a full life committed to enhancing those ideas. if he had a 10-round magazine -- let me back up. when he tried to reload one 33- round magazine with another, he dropped it. a woman named patricia grabbed it, and it gave bystanders time to tackle him. i contend, if that same thing happened when he was trying to reload one 10-round magazine with another, meaning h

all the points he's raised about the need for protection and he will see in some detail on the bill heller put them into place. >> i think by right honorable fred. written to honorable members on the issue of equality between same-sex and different sex individuals. the issues of consummation and adultery, while they will continue to be important aspects, they will not apply to marriage. they are both equal and should be a lifelong union. >> my honorable friend will know already there's no legal requirements to consummation, their provisions will mean ochiltree stays in couples will have the opportunity to decide on reasonable good behavior as many do already and issues he raises adults and not way. perhaps we can make more progress because there's no single view from religious organizations on this issue and i know also that some colleagues in the house feel that they cannot agree with this bill for principled religious beliefs. and i entirely respect if the honorable gentleman would give me a bit more progress. i don't think it's the role of government to tell people what to believe, but

. -- senator dean heller. >> hello, no labels members and welcome to new york.son-in-law is being sworn in as a state senator in arizona. he is a democrat and i am a republican. our family is in no labels family. you can even say that nevada is a mill labels state. what we are doing together is very serious. america's future is threatened by hyper-partisanship and gridlock has gone out of control. the no labels solution of our party is coming together to solve our nation's problems is the only way forward. we have a democrat in the white house. democrats running the senate and republicans running the house. we either solve problems together or not at all. my legislation, called no budget, no pay is a poor example. starting the fiscal year, if congressman cannot pass a budget, they should not get paid. this legislation has bipartisan support. i am a republican and proud of that. the problem in washington is that too many people think being a republican or democrat, conservative or liberal, means never talking to or negotiating with the other side. that simply wil

and the good news, for those applauding, this is moving forward thanks to the leadership of senator hellerse] >> and the second reform is an annual fiscal report to congress. the truth is the financial condition of the united states is much worse than advertised. it's not the $16.4 trillion in debt you'll see in the national debt clock. it's $72.2 trillion. everybody has their own baseline. everybody's got their own assumptions. everybody's got their own opinions. our approach is we need an annual presentation to a joinlt session of congress that would be telecast to the american people on the facts and the truth about where we are, where we're heading, how we compare to others so we can build a burning flat form and accelerate action. if you don't put your finances in order, everyone will suffer over time. [applause] >> the third reform is the five-day workweek. [applause] i think we all understand that. believe it or not, members of congress are often in washington, d.c., for a few days a week. many times they come in late monday night to make take one vote and fly out thursday night. th

i won't ask for response now but we will work with you on that. >> senator heller and welcome to thecommittee. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. it will be a pleasure to serve with you. thanks for making me part of this team. i want to thank those who have testified today. a lot to learn. i guess there's two messages. this takes a team to solve these problems we have today. and two, i do have a lot to learn. i do want to concentrate my comments today more on consolidation. we've had massive consolidation in the banking industry in nevada. i come from a state with the highest unemployment, highest foreclosures, highest bankruptcies and i think the health of the banking industry reflects the health of the state. in its current position. from about a 30,000 feet level looking down at this, we only have 14 community banks left in nevada. we only have 23 credit unions left in nevada. 85% of all deposits are now concentrated in large banks. 31% of nevadans are unbanked or underbanked. which is the highest percentage in the country. our housing as mentioned, underwater mortgages is abou

i'm bill heller in for shepard smith. it's not often we can report the sky is falling. today that's pretty much what happened in russia. a meteor the size of a city bus streaked across the sky over the you'll mounts. nasa reporting it appeared brighter than the sun. traveling at around 40,000 miles an hour, fast enough that if you were to hitch a ride, it would get from you new york to l.a. in four minutes time flat. early estimates were it weighed ten tons. nasa says now more like 7,000. it ripped through the air like a blade through fabric triggering sonic booms and an immense shock wave when it exploded. when it shattered miles above the earth, we're told it released 20 times the energy, more powerful than the hiroshimo bomb in japan. it was powerful enough to knock down doors and shatter windows across one city. officials say more than 1,000 people went for medical treatment. flying glass blamed for most of those injuries. one witness saying when older women in the neighborhood spotted it, they started screaming that the world was ending. and just about everybody se

. >> so if we look at what the supreme court has said has recently as 2008 in the heller case saying we have a right to bare arms, but there can be restrictions on them. is the work done for you and do you think that the senate democrats in the senate can formalize and get something done through harry reid? it seems to be the honous is on you. >> there are republicans and democrats needing to talk about bipartisan consensus on background. chec checks. i think we can get some of that consensus as well. senator rubio and others who say that the proposals on the table wouldn't have changed what happened in newtown are wrong. they are absolutely wrong. if that young man didn't have 30 round ammunition magazines, there would be little boys and girls alive. i'm not the only one that believes that. the families of the kids believe that as well. the fact is that these have become weapons o of mass destruction. they give a false sense of courage to these mass murders who might not walk into these schools and religious institutions and movie theaters if they didn't have the fault weapon in the

republican senator dean heller of nevada comes out for universal background checks.he number two house republican, eric cantor, also comes out for a beefed up background check system. and a bipartisan group in the house, republicans and democrats, outline their proposals for some gun safety reforms that they think can pass even the republican-controlled house. and that brings us to today. just about an hour ago, vice president joe biden attended the house democrats retreat in virginia. the topic he came to discuss? gun violence. and here is part of what he had to say. >> when people tell me that you can't prevent these kinds of occurrences, that doesn't mean we can't do something to god forbid if it happens again diminish the carnage. it matters. it matters. folks, you agree with me i'm sure. enough is enough is enough. we have to stand up. >> the common wisdom that nothing can be done on guns in this country is based on the premise that what happened in the past will happen again. it's based on the fact that in the past nothing has been done. the common wisdom is th

believe without a doubt would ultimately be rejected by the supreme court, who said a few years in the heller arms, the second amendment right is an individual right and the same way you look at the first amendment. you can't have restrictions on it that would violate that right and so far what's being proposed does nothing and the reality is, sean, i think it's the most curious aspect of it. this is hyperbole. no one will deal with the the real problem. those people that have guns that should not, the lack of prosecutions and why they wouldn't answer the paper prosecution and by the way, if you file a false statement to the federal government on the tax returns, you go to jail. >> go to jail. >> so they could absolutely do this. >> let me play for you, dianne feinstein, penny and i think i have some changes to the constitution i want to make after this. watch this. >> america has to step up the mothers, the women, the men of america have to make a decision as to whether their personal pleasure is more important than the general welfare. grievance killers look for these weapons, these weapons

versus heller the case that the supreme court decided the idea is you could have what is commonly availablere commonly available. over 3 million in circulation right now, in the united states. >> i have two. one of the things of the ar 15. is a weapon easily handled by people and doesn't have a lot of kick. >> i also put in people who were elderly. they probably wouldn't want to be called that way. 68, 77 years old and that affects vulnerable, not just women. i was looking at it from the women's perspective but also elderly. >> sean: how do juxtapose the position with the whole liberal obama rhetoric in the campaign there was a republican war on women. >> it is the opposite. this is not a partisan issue. everybody wants a safer are society. when you start trying to put people into groups and don't actually look at the effect of the legislation being proposed you harm everyone. >> sean: what do you think ultimately comes out of this? because you were up on capitol hill and spoke to a lot of the senators and congressmen. do you think it passes? >> i don't. i think that women will not surrende

anybody that has read the heller decision understands the supreme court said the second amendment only a handgun inside the home. and in fact that case invited the legislation that is very similar to what the president is proposing. so the people making the constitutional argument have no idea what the second amendment really means as has been interpreted by the conservative united states supreme court. secondly, they're losing the argument on the effectiveness. we know as we've discussed on this show, martin, that these laws would be very effective. we know from the international data where you compare the number of firearm-related deaths we have in this country, 30,000 a year, to a couple hundred in other countries like japan and the u.k. we know as you compare the states that have stronger gun legislation, how many fewer gun-related deaths there are every year. we know as you look at the assault weapons ban from the 1990s that assault weapons-related crimes after the ban went down by something like 60%, 70%. we know if you have a handgun inside your home, you're 22 times more likely

barrasso, enzi, mcconnell, roberts, boozman, grassley, heller, hoeven, inhofe, isaacson, rubio, scotttumyi, wicker. all these republicans voted today against having a vote on hagel. they did so after it was clear there would be a vote today. they did it to put themselves on record to undermine the functions of the government. they did it to put themselves on record for no better reason than to undermine, undermine is the key word here, the successful functioning of our government. they knew it would hurt hagel's prestige, would discredit president obama's leadership, and did it anyway. want to know why the government is grinding to a halt? check this list. they are men bent on division, distrust, and disdain toward the elected presidency of barack obama. and i mean it. i'm joined by steve clemens and peter beinart. these people are disreputable. peter beinart, why on god's earth would a united states senator whose purpose is to help the republic work, knowing this guy is going to be secretary of defense, knowing there's going to be a vote on it, vote publicly to deny him even a vote t