Table Of Content

" UWS GUN AND THE NEED FOR SELF-DEFENSE (PARTI) Y 4,J89/l:104/43/PT.l 9un Laus and the Heed for Self-Defe... J^Q BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION MARCH 31. 1995 Senal No. 43 ^'0> h ^ fOt*^-' %^^ Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PMNTING OFFICE 22-«97 WASHINGTON : 1996 ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice SuperintendentofDocuments,CongressionalSalesOffice,Washington,DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-052487-3 GUN UWS AND THE NEED FOR SELF-DEFENSE (PART 1) 4.J89/l;104/43/PT.l ^Q jh Laus anil the Heei for Self-Uefe.. . BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION MARCH 31, 1995 Serial No. 43 Ot Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 22-897 WASHINGTON : 1996 ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice SuperintendentofDocuments,CongressionalSalesOffice,Washington,DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-052487-3 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., PATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado Wisconsin BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts BILL McCOLLUM, Florida CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania HOWARD L. BERMAN, Cahfornia HOWARD COBLE, North CaroUna RICK BOUCHER, Virginia LAMAR SMITH, Texas JOHN BRYANT, Texas STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico JACK REED, Rhode Island ELTON GALLEGLY, Cahfornia JERROLD NADLER, New York CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia BOB INGLIS, South CaroUna MELVIN L. WATT, North CaroUna BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia XAVIER BECERRA, California STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana JOSE E. SERRANO, New York MARTIN R. HOKE, Ohio ZOE LOFGREN, Cahfornia SONNY BONO, Cahfornia SHEILAJACKSON LEE, Texas FRED HEINEMAN, North Carolina ED BRYANT, Tennessee STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MICHAEL PATRICK FLANAGAN, Ilhnois BOB BARR, Georgia AiAN F. Coffey, Jr., General Counsel/StaffDirector Julian Epstein, Minority StaffDirector Subcommittee on Crime BILL McCOLLUM, Florida, Chairman STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ZOE LOFGREN, Cahfornia FRED HEINEMAN, North.Carolina SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas ED BRYANT, Tennessee MELVIN L. WATT, North CaroUna STEVE CHABOT, Ohio BOB BA^R, Georgia PaulJ. McNulty, ChiefCounsel Glenn R. Schmitt, Counsel Daniel J. Bryant,Assistant Counsel Tom Dl\z, Minority Counsel (II) CONTENTS HEARING DATE Page March 31, 1996 1 OPENING STATEMENT McCoIlum, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the State ofFlorida, and chairman. Subcommitteeon Crime 1 WITNESSES Bordua, David, professorofsociology, UniversityofIllinois 76 Bridges, Todd, Wichita, KS 21 Joo, David, LosAngeles, CA 25 Klaus, Charmaine 29 McDermott, Mr 161 Murphy, Phil 38 Neel, Travis Dean 40 MD Ramboz, Sharon-Jo, Walkerville, 10 Rigsby, Bryan, Newnan, GA , 15 Steber, Mary 156 Steber, Mr 158 MD White-Bowden, Susan, Finksburg, 152 Wintemute, Garen J., M.D., M.P.H., director, violence prevention research program, University ofCalifornia, Davis 126 Wright,James D., professorofsociology, TulaneUniversity 58 LETTER, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING Bordua, David, professor of sociology. University of lUinois: Paper by Garry Kleck and Marc Gertz entitled, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Preva- lenceand Natiu-eofSelf-DefenseWith a Gun" 77 Bridges, Todd, Wichita, KS: Prepared statement 23 Jackson Lee, Hon. Sheila, a Representative in Congress fix)m the State of Texas: Prepared statement 7 Joo, David, LosAngeles, CA: Prepared statement 27 Klaus, Charmaine: Prepsired statement 32 Neel, TravisDean: Prepared statement 42 Ramboz, Sharon-Jo, Walkerville, MD: Prepared statement 13 Rigsby, Bryan, Newnan, GA: Prepared statement 18 White-Bowden, Susan, Finksbiu^, MD: Prepared statement 154 Wintemute, Garen J., M.D., M.P.H, director, violence prevention research program, University ofCaUfomia, Davis: Prepsired statement 132 Wright,James D., professorsociology, TulaneUniversity: Memorandum datedApril 6, 1995, concerningdruglegalization 120 Prepared statement 64 APPENDIX Material submitted forthehearing 175 (III) GUN LAWS AND THE NEED FOR SELF- DEFENSE (Part 1) FRIDAY, MARCH 31, 1995 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Crime, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bill McCollum (chairman ofthe subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Bill McCollum, Steven Schiff, Howard Coble, Fred Heineman, Ed Bryant ofTennessee, Steve Chabot, Bob Barr, Charles E. Schumer, Robert C. Scott, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Melvin L. Watt. Also present: Representative Helen Chenoweth. Staff present: Paul J. McNulty, chief counsel; Glenn R. Schmitt, counsel; Dan Bryant, assistant counsel; Aerin D. Dunkle, research assistant; Audrey Clement, secretary; and Tom Diaz, minority counsel. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN McCOLLUM Mr. McCollum. This hearing of the Crime Subcommittee is called to order. Today, we begin the first of a series of hearings on Federal gun laws. With these hearings, we mark a new chapter in the works ofthis subcommittee. Nearly 30 years ago Congress responded to the rise of violence in America by enacting a comprehensive gun control act. Many State and local governments followed suit and today we have more than 20,000 laws which restrict access to or ownership of guns in various ways. What have we witnessed at the same time? We have seen the rate ofviolent crimes skyrocket by more than 500 percent since the early 1960's. We have seen the annual number of murders steadily escalate to the current level of 24,000 per year. We have seen juvenile violence dramatically increase, particularly among 13- to 15- year-olds at a time when the juvenile population has been declin- ing. Drive-by shootings, carjackings, kidnapings and other acts of violence, once rare occurrences not long ago, now have become com- monplace. There is something else we have seen during this same period of time. Violent criminals have been ignoring gun control laws. Any- (1) one whose moral nature allows him to brutalize other human beings is certainly not bothered by laws related to the ownership of guns. In fact, as we all know, the areas of this country where there has been the greatest devastation from violence and gun traf- ficking are the same areas there has been the most gun control. But as we will learn at today's hearings, and in those that follow, gun control does have a real and significant impact. Unfortunately, the impact is on the wrong people. As legislative bodies have en- acted more and more restrictions and prohibitions on gun ownership, law-abiding citizens dutifully comply. Unlike criminals, who by definition are law breakers, Ainericans who play by the rules have been jumping through all the hoops set by policymakers. And what has been the effects of these laws on decent Americans? The ability to defend oneself and family from violent criminals has become more difficult, ifnot impossible. We have created a dependence on police officers for protection that is not the slightest bit realistic for citizens, or even fair to the police. We have turned law-abiding people into potential law breakers by arbitrarily declaring some guns to be good and some to be bad. So today we begin a process made possible by the voters last No- vember. We begin to hear the voices of those seldom heard before in these Halls of Congress, the voices of gun owners who obey the laws and, in particular, those who have learned that gun ownership can mean the difference between life and death. My hope is that the testimony we will hear today will remind lawmakers our actions will have a dramatic effect on the lives of innocent people. The question of who will live and who will die is often cited by who is armed and who is not. Many almost choose not to own guns and that is their right but those who do feel the need to protect themselves must have our support. I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses. I must apolo- gize for the fact that I will be leaving early as a result ofa schedul- ing conflict, but the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Schiff, has agreed to chair and will be chairing after about an hour or so of this hearing today. I am going to now yield to my friend from New York, Mr. Schu- mer, who is the ranking minority member on this subcommittee. I know that a lot of members would like to make statements today, but because we have a huge panel, I would like to ask that all of them be as brief as possible or refrain from making a statement so that we can get to our panel and let this hearing commence. But certainly the ranking minority member on the committee, Mr. Schumer. Mr. Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairmafi. And, first, I would like to compliment you on the fact that Chairman Brooks, whenever I would have a hearing on guns, would never give me this big room and you have already gotten it, so congratulations. But, seriously, I would say, Mr. Chairman, that the subject of guns demands blunt talk and I intend to dojust that. The American people have been told that the subject ofthis hearing is the right of self-defense. But the truth is that this hearing is a smoke screen for the NRA and the gun lobby. This is an ex- tremist pro-gun agenda in congressional disguise. The American people should know why we are having these hearings today. This is the first step toward an attempt to repeal the Brady law and the assault weapons ban. This is the gun lobby's opening salvo and, mark my words, there will be more to come. This hearing has the trappings of a circus. If it were the only thing on the gun lobby's agenda we could sit back and chuckle. Un- fortunately, the joke is on the American people, because the NRA's next act will be to try to repeal or gut every rational gun law in this land. We are here today because the NRA and the gun industry spent a lot ofmoney in the last election and now it is payback time. This hearing is about the power of the gun lobby to break a contract with the American people, a contract to take the AK-47's, the Uzis, and the street sweepers offour streets. Again, to repeat, ifthe NRA, the extreme wing ofthe Republican leadership, and the right wing extremists in America have their way, every rational gun law in this country will be repealed or gut- ted, and that means that the lives of millions of ordinary Ameri- cans are at risk. Let us be clear. Except for the hidden agenda of repealing Brady and assault weapons, this hearing is about a nonissue. We all know this fact. There is not a single Federal law on the books today that interferes with the right to buy a gun for self-defense in any but the most trivial way. The Brady law does not stop law-abiding citizens from buying guns to protect themselves. The assault weapons ban does not stop law-abiding citizens from buying any of an infi- nite variety ofguns for self-defense. America's firearm factories turn out millions of new guns each year. No Federal law interferes with the right of self-defense. And does anyone really believe that giving every American an Uzi will make our streets safer; that by turning our towns into Dodge Cities we will be making life safer? This is pure pulp fiction. Arming the American people as a way to stop crime is like fighting drunk driv- ing by giving every driver a drink. So self-defense is not the issue here today. Self-defense is simply being used here as a C3niical political thea- ter. It is a puppet show being worked by the NRA, the gun lobby, and Speaker Gingrich. The hearing is a crazed fantasy dream to sell the loopy idea that guns are all good and gun laws are all bad, and, ofcourse, to allow the gun industry to sell more guns. Well, I hate to spoil today's little love-in with the gun lobby, but let me remind you how that phony fantasy plays out in real life. Here is a real life story from my city if we want to have a battle ofanecdotes. The headline is a simple one. It says: "Trying to Foil a Robbery, a Store Owner Is Shot to Death." It is the story of Orville Thomas, a hard-working immigrant who built his store up from nothing. He bought a gun because he thought it would protect him from rob- mm bers. Yes, when the time came, Orville Thomas drew his .9 pistol. He thought he could foil the robbery but his fantasy went wrong. Orville Thomas was shot once in the chest and killed before he could fire a single shot. The story of Orville Thomas is just a silent news clipping now, but we ought to remember it when we glorify the value of guns for self-defense. Now, let me tell you about a few other lives, the lives of two people who are in this room right now. I am going to ask these two to stand up and be recognized as I tell you about them. Burle Phillips Taylor is here today. Burle, would you please stand up in the audience. Thank you. Burle's 17-year-old son, Scott, was shot to death with an AK-47 assault rifle. The 18-year-old who literally executed Scott bought the AK-47 because he was to young to buy a handgun and he thought the AK-47 was cool. Thank you, Burle. Carol Lynn McCarthy is also here today. Carol Lynn, would you please stand up? Carolyn's husband, Dennis, was killed on the Long Island Rail- mm road by Colin Ferguson, who was armed with a .9 Ruger pistol and a 15-round, high capacity magazine now covered by the assault weapons ban. Her son, Kevin, was also seriously wounded, but fortunately he survived. Thank you, Carol Lynn. Ultimately, it is these human beings, their loved ones and the thousands like them that the assault weapons ban is all about. And neither they nor I nor the American people will let the NRA or its pals in Congress forget the fact that the fight over assault weapons starts with this hearing today. But if the pro-gun lobby believes they will repeal the assault weapon ban and the Brady law without a fight, they have got an- other thing coming. We are drawing a line in the sand today. We will not sit on our hands while pro-gun extremists try to repeal the laws that the overwhelming majority of American people demand. Too many lives have been saved, too mahy felons have been caught for us to turn back the clocks now. The American people are saying move forward in the fight against crime, move forward in gun control and do not let the bullies in the gun lobby run you over. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCOLLUM. You are welcome, Mr. Schumer. Before I move on, I want to make one comment, or two, very quickly. One is that this chairman does not have any plans whatso- ever to have legislation that would repeal the Brady bill. There will be oversight hearings on how it is working and the identification process, which all of us are concerned with, but the Brady bill is not at issue here in this subcommittee at this time. I am going to recognize other members very briefly. I would like for any opening statements that you make to be submitted for the record. Unginimous consent doesn't need to be asked. It is clear you can submit those statements, and if somebody wants to take 30 seconds, literally, fine, but we have a lot that could be said here this morning, but we have a huge panel, and three panels before the day is out. So I will not gag anybody, but I will ask that of all ofthe Members, both sides ofthe aisle. Mr. Schiff. Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I certainly have heard you now em- phasize the need to get going, and I will be extremely brief. I just want to say, however, that I think the issue before us should not