Thank you for the interruption and let me now turn to mr. Daniel with our appreciation and apologies for the interruption. Please proceed with your testimony. Good morning. Thank you, chairman. Us r grassley and senator grassley. Is your microphone on . Thank you, chairman. Senator grassley and the members of the Judiciary Committee for holding this important hearing. My name is alvin daniel. I am republican. I am an avid hunter, gun owner, and i enjoy using my guns for target practice with my family and friends. I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and a gun owner. Ann and nra member. And an nra member. I am here today to speak for my sister. I speak for her and my entire family because she is not to speak she is not here to speak for herself. Xena loved life. All she wanted to do is be a good mother to her two daughters. World, ricksney and eld, as a matter of fact her last , she said please leave these people alone. She was a beautiful person. This and some good will come out of her death. Beautiful person. Out ofe good will come her death. On october 1, 2012i received a phone call that no one should receive. I was told my sister had been shot and killed. By her estranged husband. We later learned he bought the , and irresponsible internet site that does not require background checks. Nearly two years should she was murdered and it is hard aching to know heartbreaking to know that our week gun laws continue to allow dangerous of users to buy guns without a background check. She was married for 14 years and eventually left her husband because he abused her, physically and mentally. To abuse her, slashing her tires when he was at when she was at work. Went to court and obtained a protective order. , i dont wantudge to die. Under federal law, this if he hadder tried to buy a gun from a licensed dealer he would have been denied. He knew that. So he chose to go through an unlicensed dealer to buy his gun. He went on armslist. Com and posted an ad saying serious buyer, looking to buy a gun asap. Within hours he met an unlicensed seller and exchanged 500 for the gun he used the next morning. This was all after the protective order was issued against him and entered into the system. Radcliffe stormed into the store where she worked and murdered her before taking his own life. I am convinced he deliberately bought the gun from an unknown piece and unlicensed dealer because he knew he could not pass a background check. If a background check have been done, chances are my sister would still be here with us. I am helping to care for my two nieces who lost their mother and who will have to grow up without her. I look at my parents, especially my father who lost his baby daughter. And fore today for zina stories like zinas that happen every day because of the serious gap in our gun laws that continue to put womens lives in danger. I believe there are two steps congress should take to save womens lives. Require background checks for all gun sales and keep guns out of the hands of abusive dating stalkers. Nd i am grateful for the opportunity to share my sisters story with you today. She was a loving mom, a terrific sister. For nearly two years, my family has lived a nightmare. Every happy family milestone is now covered with sadness. Survivedday is a date rather than to celebrate because we know zina is not here to watch over her girls. She wont be here to take pictures of her youngest daughter dressed up for prom or congratulate her daughters on their wedding day. Those moments will be happy and sad at the same time. Im committed to honor zinas memory by working to reduce the number of women killed by senseless gund violence. Lawsave the power to pass that we need to keep our sisters and mothers and daughters safe. So i am here today to ask you to when you think about taking action on this issue. Thank you for your time and the opportunity to let me speak today. I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Daniel. Powerfully represented your sister today in this hearing room. Im going to be here until the end, so i will reserve my questions and allow my colleagues to proceed ahead of me. I will recognize first the distinguished senator from minnesota, amy klobuchar. To all of the witnesses and particularly mr. Daniel. Braceletur sisters you gave me today with pride. She wont be forgotten. One of the things most powerful about your testimony is the fact you are a hunter, a gun owner, a member of the nra. Could you talk about how you reconcile that, which i think has been an issue for some of our colleagues in trying to understand how we can reconcile those that support hunting with the fact we are looking at commonsense rules here . For instance, making sure we include dating partners when we look at Domestic Violence rules, making sure we have good background checks in place, and making sure people convicted of stalking are also included in these prohibitions. Do you want to talk about how you reconcile that in your mind . It is totally different. Doing a background check has nothing to do with infringing on my Second Amendment. Makegun owner, i want to sure i keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people. Oront want criminals abusers get their hands on guns. I think every gun owner should feel the same as i do. Checksrough background every time i buy a gun. I feel everybody should go through a background check without a doubt. It takes five minutes to fill out a form. In my case in illinois, you wait three days. Usually i get the gun. To shoot it for two or three weeks until i gather my family and friends who are shooting. To me, common sense says we should have background checks on all gun sales. Thank you very much. For yourthank you testimony. My mom was born in wisconsin. You are from a state that understands how important hunting is. You identified yourself as a conservative republican as well. Talk about how you have been able to reconcile hunting, incredibly important hunting culture in your state, with your support for my bill on stalking and extending the domestic prohibitions to dating partners. I am a conservative republican. I have said this openly in my community. Nothing to fear of lawabiding citizens who choose to arm themselves. Sheriff, iff as a have sworn to protect the wisconsin constitution as well as the u. S. Constitution. I understand the importance of preserving our Second Amendment. The keywords words are lawabiding citizens. As a Law Enforcement officer, we are the ones responding to these dangerous calls. If you look at the statistics by havebi, 150 law officers lost their lives responding to these types of calls. Do you want to talk about what you have seen with Law Enforcement . You have cases you use as an example of a woman being bound and being put into a freezing garage in the snow who clearly would have died without your intervention and good detective work. This you talk about how dating arrangement and stocking stalking and those things have evolved in your time in Law Enforcement . If youre justnk sending emails that is not scary to people. Also, how over time, it is not just married people. There are people who date who can also be victims. I can certainly answer that. In ourhave seen community and speaking with fellow sheriffs in the state, we have seen an uprise in individuals who cohabitate as. Pposed to being married the Domestic Violence is just as dangerous whether they are married or not. , fromespect to stalking 2005 22013, wisconsin suffered 29 Domestic Violence homicides. Of those 29, all precipitated by a history of stalking behavior. For your Law Enforcement officers, i think when most people think about Law Enforcement officers doing their them what someed of the most dangerous calls are they get, they would probably say robbery. Maybe drunk driving. All those kinds of things. I am not sure they would say a Domestic Violence call would endanger an officers life. Do you want to elaborate on that . Absolutely. Statisticsd the fbi of 150 law officers losing their lives. It is a wellknown fact in the Police Academys the way we train lawenforcement officials today, undoubtably domestic disturbance calls are the most dangerous. We are entering the homes of individuals. We are intervening in conversations. We are hindered hearing intimate details. Emotions are high. When the gun is involved, it can be deadly consequences. It is like my story of officer schneider showing up as your officers do every day. When the department gets a call, they cannot question it. They just show up at the door. It is unfortunate. There are many stories. I have been in calls where the abuser has told the dispatcher he will shoot Law Enforcement as they arrived at these calls. We had won two weeks ago where the offender indicated he planned to shoot every officer who arrived at his house. They are very dangerous calls. Justice mccaffery, thank you for being here today. Thank you for your thoughtful words. I appreciate the need to enforce the laws we have on the books. I also appreciate you understanding the laws have to be as uptodate as the people breaking them. The she wng out that you underd is there are a lot of dating intners that get involved violence or Domestic Abuse the same way people who are married did. I appreciate your willingness to look at that piece of our bill. Absolutely. Thank you very much. Dr. Campbell, wanted to talk about the link, you have done a lot of research, the link between stalking and violence against women. Could you talk about that in what your research has shown . In our study, we found the vast majority of women killed had been stopped stalked before hand. Even when there was no prior violence, the majority had been stalked. There were ones that have been abused and there was a murder afterwards. 87 of them were stalked. The ones not abused, it was 58 . Clearly, stalking was part of those pictures as well as gun ownership. That combination of Domestic Violence, stalking, and guns is extremely dangerous. As you say, people think harassing texting. ,hen stalking laws are violated it is when someone has been texted 40 times a day with threatening texts, clearly unwanted texts. Stalking with the homicidal cases was following her, doing things like slashing tires mentioned in one of the cases, destroying property. It was not just verbal harassment, emails, and texts. Was inof the criticisms modern days, people do not always call. They often text or send emails. One of the criticisms was it is not as scary if they do it by texts. You do see that in stalking behavior in the modern age. It is threatening texts and emails. You make that qualification for stalking. Threatening and unwanted texts and emails, and continual. My time is up. Thank you very much. Senator blumenthal. Thank you for holding this hearing. Thank you to all of our expert panel. I want to mention i am pleased to be working with my partner from connecticut, senator chris murphy, who has been a leader in this area. I know he joins me in thanking the Jackson Family for being here today. Campbell, based on your research, do women take the decision lightly to seek a temporary restraining order . Absolutely not, and neither do judges in granting them could i talk with many judges. When carefully consider their options paid many women go for temporary protective orders and do not get them. Very careful in listening to what evidence is available around the temporary restraining orders. They are neither sought nor granted lightly. I believe judge mccaffery testified temporary restraining orders are often not made permanent because women are afraid to appear for the hearing. Is that confirmed by your research . That is what we find. Often they are afraid because they have been threatened with a weapon or a gun. That is the most scary thing for in terms of reinforcing and making it that they are less able to seek longterm detective orders. Protective orders. We find women are afraid of the hearing, that is a time he will know where she is. That can be increased danger unless we take protective actions around that. If she knew he was not allowed to have a gun, she could be less afraid of that access to her at the hearing. As you may know, in lori it was a case, temporary restraining order which was going to be made permanent literally the day after she was gunned down by her estranged husband. If that restraining order had in those guns being taken from her estranged husband, i believe she might be alive today. I agree. We just had a case in maryland with a similar incident. Maryland, we just passed a bill where we can deny possession of guns to persons who have had a temporary restraining order against them. But it is not true in all states. It is an issue for many women. In lori jacksons case, her estranged husband traveled to other states where guns might have been obtained. Wouldnt it make sense to have a National Rule that takes guns away from men or women under temporary as well as permanent restraining orders . I believe so. Sheriff, let me ask you based on your expertise whether you agree a uniform National Standard would make sense. I know you are a local Law Enforcement official. Would your job be made more effective if there were such a standard . Absolutely. We need to look at why victims seek these protection orders. They do because they have a reasonable fear for their safety. They are not taken lightly. I can only speak for my community. The victims i spoke to seek these important pieces of paper, these protective orders because they fear for the safety. Respective of if they live oun in racine were dan barry county, that fear is real or danberry county, that fear is real. Can you tell me whether the danger to a potential victim increases after she or he indicates she is leaving, she wants a divorce, the relationship is over . Does the danger increase . Is it higher . Yes, it definitely is according to our study and of the research of the research. It definitely increases the risk full first in the year after she leaves an abusive relationship. It does heighten the danger which says to us that is a time when we need to be vigilant as communities to prevent homicides. The onus of responsibility should not be on her. Implement laws around the country. This panel has been extraordinarily valuable in reinforcing and evidencing, providing objective facts and research in support of what we know from experience and from the tragic stories before us in this audience. Were jacksons family lori jacksons family among them. Thank you for being here with us. It has given us impetus and momentum in the effort to solve this problem, which we will do. Thank you very much. I turned to senator grassley. Apologize toke to mr. Daniel for missing his testimony and say sorry for the loss you talked about. Also to apologize to everybody. This is an apology ive done the third time in the last halfhour. First we News Conference with senator gillibrand and then to a group of people i work with closely on foster care. It is a rude way to treat all you folks who come here when we have to have two votes and two intervening things. But i appreciate your understanding that. My first question is going to be to professor malcolm. Took effect this month that allows people who receive an emergency protective order and pass a background check to obtain a provisional concealed carry permit in one day. I view this as a law that enables victims to protect themselves when the police are not around and their abusers information would not show up in a background check. Do you support the ability of people who obtain emergency protective orders to quickly obtain a provisional concealed carry permit . Yes, i do. I think that is the perfect way to help women who feel endangered. We have heard a lot of stories today about people who had temporary or permanent restraining orders and were harmed by the person who was to be restrained. You mentioned a list of states that have not submitted records for the background check that so many people are depending on, so it makes it easier for someone who should not get a gun to get it. I think the ultimate protection has to be the individual. No Police Department can protect everyone all the time. 12 our women to have a firearm to allow women to have a firearm as a deterrent to protect yourself is essential. I think it is a great idea. You havee mccaffery, been a Police Officer and trial judge who issued many temporary restraining orders. Some were subject to the order to surrender the gun and sometimes you did not so order. What on your experiences, practical problems would arise if the bills before the committee were to be enacted into law . First of all, let me say we have these types of laws on the books in our state. Much of it comes down to enforcement. Let me give you an idea. Dr. Campbell pointed out how it can be tough for a victim to get tra. Is there to make sure it is a level field. The jurist wants to make sure the allegations are real and they are not gaming the system. We have orders the constrained the number of prisoners we can put in county jails. We have state laws coming down with additional prohibitions. Where are we going to put these people . We keep hearing we have to downplay or downgrade some laws so we dont put people in state custody because our second largest budget item in pennsylvania is prisons. The more laws we have, the more people we will convict, the more people will be sent to jail. Where will we put them . We keep been told we do not have the space. One reason i started so many diversion programs in pennsylvania was to intervene early and divert them out of the system, keep them out of jail and give them the treatment they need to cut down on the need to put people in jail. Understand something. One thing we have to worry about on the bench are people that game the system. Right now in philadelphia to 12,000u have 10 custody cases waiting to be adjudicated. If you file today, your case may not be up until april of 2015. Think about that. Some people who know how to game the system will call 911 and say i am being abused. Name being beaten or threatened by a firearm. Those cases are jumped to the beginning of the list. It is the job of the judge to make sure these people are not gaming the system because accused who have an is not doing what they are accused of. That is the role of the jurist. This will have to be my last question. Your testimony to require criminal background as block dating abusers and stalkers to own guns. Last year interview with the journal times, you said i am opposed to any regulation that would require a farmer to or pay for act and background check on a neighboring farmer to whom he wanted to sell a firearm. Rather than trying to strip away Constitutional Rights, i believe lawmakers need to define private sales and retail sales. More regulation will increase straw purchases. If a criminal is bent on doing she will find a weapon on the streets or solicit a thirdparty to make the purchase. You saidme interview, it was ineffective to limit magazine capacities. I completely agree with you when you said in that interview, we must not allow the actions of cowards to infringe on the liberties of responsible and lawabiding citizens. Why do you now say you are in favor of the universal background checks and believe they would stop criminals from obtaining guns . You said it best, lawabiding citizens. I have voice that i have nothing to fear of lawabiding citizens who wish to arm themselves. I preserve the constitutions, especially the Second Amendment. We have individuals bent on breaking the laws and abusing women. He should be prevented from purchasing firearms. Thank you very much. Let me ask dr. Campbell first. As senator grassley indicated, if someone is bent on murder, there are weapons that can be used to kill a human being. Why is it guns in particular create the added risk of violence you have chronicled in your work . For one thing, the destruction of a gunshot to the than body is far greater any of those other weapons. Yes, you can kill with other weapons. But it takes far more stab wounds, more carefully placed. They are much more lethal. Much more lethal. Secondly, i have examined thousands of homicide records. It is cleare cases, there may have been a Domestic Violence incident. Maybe someone would have gotten hurt that no one would have died if there was not a gun accessible already there. Gun anybody went out and bought the day before, although that has happen, but a gun that has been in the home that the perpetrator has owned for years. It was easy to get at. It was too available in a moment of extreme anger. Therefore, someone died where they would not have otherwise. Those are the two things i see. Sheriff, you talked about the environment of tension and high emotion in a Domestic Violence seen. Dangerous even to a trained, armed Law Enforcement does that say about that environment for the victim . We have talked about the violence a Domestic Violence calls. The numbers are real. Enforcement officers murdered each year responding to these calls, they are inherently dangerous. We are armed and trained to handle situations. But we are stepping into situations where if a firearm is present, the likelihood of someone losing their lives is that much greater. How would you respond to dr. Malcolm suggesting that arming the victim would make this a safer situation for the victim or your officers . Suggesting the victims should arm themselves . I shared a story where a victims gun was removed from her by the abuser and she was murdered with her own weapon. Let me give you a history of racing county. My jailhouse is about 876 prisoners. Each year, we book in 10,000 citizens on average. Are ase 10,000, about 12 domestice violence arrests. Every one of those leave behind victims, typically women and children we speak to the victims, we get there statements. I have interviewed countless. Ems of Domestic Violence never have i heard a victim say i need to arm myself. They look to the system to do. Ur job and keep them safe you are a professor of constitutional law. Let me ask you two questions of constitutional law. Is, does making sure people who are lawfully required to have background checks actually get a background check offendend any constitutional principle you can find . Questions one background checks can be intrusive. To the extent they are lawful, having it be enforced there is no constitutional problem. Right. The second question is, where existing Domestic Violence laws otherwise restrict gun possession by a stalker or abuser, does the difference andeen a cohabiting victim noncohabiting victim raise any constitutional issues . No. Add something . My time is up. Let me turn to senator durbin. Mr. Daniel, i am sorry i was not here to hear your testimony. I read it carefully. Thank you for being here to tell the tragic story of your sister. For what i glean from your testimony, the key element was her former husband had access to a gun over the internet where he was not subject to any kind of background check. If he had, he might have been stopped from purchasing the weapon. Had he gone to a federal licensed dealer, he definitely would have been denied access because his record was entered already as an abuser. You probably said this for the record but it bears repeating. As a person who owns guns, a member of the nra, conservative by nature, are you worried, offended, or have concerns over a requirement that would close the gun show loophole and require we inquire of all purchasers whether they are prohibited from purchase because felony, or aon, a state of mental instability . None whatsoever. I believe most gun owners would agree with me that there should be a background check done on all gun sales regardless. I am from downstate illinois. Owning guns is part of growing up and part of most families. They would agree with you. Most of my friends are hunters and nra members. We often speak of this. I have not had a person say, why do you want to do this . Sense it ison common sense. As a gun owner, i do not want guns to fall in the hands of criminals or abusers. It makes the rest of us look bad. Do youessor malcolm, believe victims of Domestic Abuse are safer if there abusers are permitted to carry guns while subjects of temporary restraining orders . Know that person is an abuser, he is entitled to have a hearing first before any weapon is taken away. A doesnt the issuance of restraining order suggest a hearing . But they are able to accuse the person. Their weapons are taken away and then they have the hearing. In these bills, we are talking about convicted stalkers, convicted Domestic Violence perpetrators, and those subject in the blumenthal bill to temporary restraining orders. In each of those cases, art we talking about a Court Hearing before the determination . We have in the past good i think this law would change it so in order to protect the women, there is this opportunity to make the allegation that guns get taken away and then they have the hearing. There is no question there can be ex partake hearings ex hearings because in many cases the person will not appear. A woman terrorized by a boyfriend or former spouse is at his mercy as long as he refuses to come to court by urinalysis . Your analysis . When you hold a hearing, at least you have given him the opportunity to be heard. That provides a fair chance or evidence to come out on both sides. Once the temporary restraining order is issued to protect a woman from the , do you the abuser atll quarrel with the notion that point we should take the gun away from that person . I think once there has been a fair hearing and evidence thiseen presented if person does seem to be posing a threat, i think that is fair. I would like to ask dr. Campbell what you think about on hearings and such while we are dealing with a woman who has been terrorized or has evidence of abuse to produce the mesh resent to the court present to the court. To obtain a temporary or emergency order, there is a hearing. A judge has to issue the temporary order. The permanent or longterm orders, there is a fuller hearing. Haveis when perpetrators the opportunity to appear. I have been through this. Anyone who has had a domestic actress has gotten a phone call. I am scared of this guy. It does happen. The first instinct of a lawyer, of most persons, protect the person being threatened. Argue it out in court later on, but first protect the person being threatened, the children were being threatened. I think that is the premise of this discussion. Right. A judge does have to issue that who is concerned with a level Playing Field in issuing that order. Wants to hear evidence before the temporary order is issued. Thank you for this hearing and for sponsoring this bill that i support in its entirety. Ages sad in this day and that this is one of the few hearings on the subject. Wehas been over a year since have seriously debated this matter on the floor of the senate while gun violence , sadlyated by criminals the results of a system that does not protect victims like mothers, women, and children, continues. Thank you for calling our attention to it today. I hope it will inspire us to do something. You have been a leading advocate in the senate in this area for a long time. Your home state of illinois was ably represented on the panel by mr. Daniel. Illinois shines today in this hearing room. I will turn out to senator klobuchar. We are going to have a second round of questioning. Then we have to break up before 1 00. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Dr. Malcolm, i know you wanted to follow up on something senator whitehouse was focusing on when his time ran out. , i am to get at the issue a supporter of senator blumenthals bill. I think temporary restraint orders are important. Lets set that aside and talk about permanent restraining orders in the federal law. They are where you cannot get a gun at all you do you support that . I do. Great. I want to get at the history just as mcafee and the sheriff a big part of my bill was extending the to victims who are dating partners. Do you support that piece of it . After there is a full hearing. By nature, there is a full hearing when you get a permanent restraining order. I think that is fair. I dont think it should be retroactive to anyone. After a full hearing, that is reasonable. The other thing i was thinking about was the numbers on the reduction of crime rates. I know some of the work we have done with violence against women and the word Justice Mccaffery , theone in Law Enforcement sheriff talked about what they have been doing in wisconsin under his leadership has made a difference. We have seen some reduction in those rates. I wonder if you would comment on that and particularly on Domestic Violence and what we are still seeing in terms of the numbers. Pleased andtremely should be proud Domestic Violence homicides have gone down. Data, they from the becausee down in part of the gun restrictions put on known Domestic Violence offenders and that have been upheld by the supreme court. It is clear that is where the reductions have come from. We need to do more to reduce Domestic Violence homicides by other means, to be proactive and preventive. But we can continue to reduce homicides with guns if we continue to expand legislation that allows us to restrict. To me, it is just refining the law. Aims change the mesh things change things change. You have people who day to get involved in Domestic Violence. As a prosecutor, you want to say we reduced crime. When you are a victim of crime, as mr. Daniel knows, those stats do not mean anything to you when it is your sister was killed who was killed. I look at this as a way to build on work done in the Domestic Violence field and understand we see a changing situation with the population. We have to be sophisticated as the people who are breaking them. That is what this is about. I wondered if you could share a comment on that. What is your question . The question is about how situations have changed with dating partners, the need to update. Secondly, in part because of the internet, there is more stalking and ways to track people down. Maybe in the past they could hide and get a new address or phone number. Why we would need to have a bill like this passed. Arerom what i have seen, we seeing more dating partner situations as opposed to spouses involved in Domestic Violence cases. We have heard the stats. More women are killed by abusive boyfriends than abusive husbands. We talk about stalking and how that relates. I shared the stats in wisconsin from 2005 22013. 29 Domestic Violence homicides. All were precipitated by stalking behavior. Technology is great. I am glued to the smartphone. I appreciate you not doing it while i was talking. These devices can be used to facilitate criminal behavior. We see more of that. I dont know how we would go about regulating that behavior when it comes to technology. The reason we have the stalking bill is there was a recent estimate of 12,000 convicted stalkers in 20 states right now who could get a gun. Seen because of the new technology, there are new ways to find people. It has made it easier. Blumenthal senator blumenthal. Thank you very much. Ask Justice Mccaffery, he said judges have to provide a level Playing Field. The less when an abuse victim quests a temporary restraining order, or you believe judges do provide that level Playing Field or do they hand out tros casually and willynilly . All jurists i am aware of take this very seriously, especially when it comes to victims. In pennsylvania, we have been on the cutting edge of protecting women that have gone through these types of traumatizing events. To us, it is far more than just handguns. It is all Domestic Violence. Yes, judges do take it seriously. Withve a Police Department directive 90 that makes sure our officers follow up on all Domestic Abuse allegations. The bottom line is it is one of our most important criminal investigations. The short answer is they take it very seriously. Dr. Malcolm, do you dispute that . Whether they take it seriously . Take it seriously and require a showing of fact indicating dangerousness and threat. I am sure that is what they do now. You need two people, the person being accused able to present their facts, and not just one person who comes in and is frightened or pretending to be frightened or whatever or just trying to get to the head of the list as we heard earlier. Is a pretending to be frightened you say pretending to be frightened. You know how much strength it takes for a woman to seek a temporary restraining order. I think that to bring private and embarrassing facts to complete strangers. We also heard from the judge there are people who game the system. I know it must take a tremendous amount of courage. That is why i think women should be able to protect themselves. Really, even with restraining orders, depend on the police to protect them. Theres an important case the District Of Columbia in 1981 with three roommates. Game theuld a woman system to protect herself from a liar and dangerous physical we heard from the judge this morning, there were these long lists of custody cases. If she says she is worried about an abuser, he gets her to the top of the list. That is something i would not have known had he not made that comment. Enart t their proceedings in other circumstances where equally important decisions are made such as searching houses, surveilling telephones, putting liens on property. If that is the case, i dont think we need to add another one. I dont think homes should be searched for weapons on the allegation of another person they have had no opportunity to dispute. It is dangerous for the place to go in without this person even having notice. It does not divide the opportunity provide the opportunity for evidence from both hardees. I think that is necessary. Frightening for women to make allegations. Many never do because they are frightened. There is a network to help these people. , from theeing said evidence i have seen, half of the accused persons after the hearing are found not to be guilty. There is an opportunity to be now. , correct pre right if there is a temporary restraining order and the proposed law became law, there would be an opportunity to be heard within two weeks grade immediately guns get taken away. Youthree weeks later are guilty until you prove yourself innocent now. Your property gets taken away immediately. Your home gets invaded. Danger this implies if the person has no notion this is happening and later on gets a chance to say something, i dont find that due process. You are opposed to any kind of temporary restraining order. Not if there is a hearing at the time for the temporary restraining order. Only if it is some other time later. What if the assailant, the abuser, is unavailable . If you provide the opportunity for that person to come to the hearing, you notify that person there is this hearing and they dont show up, that is their fault. But at least you are providing the opportunity to the judge to hear from both sides. How much time would you give to that person . I dont know. These are practical realities of trying to protect people, dr. Malcolm. I will tell you practical reality. An abuser represents a threat. A judge has to protect a person, man or woman. There are other ways from an assailant who has a gun and has indicated he wants to harm her. You are not if you have been in a Law Enforcement responsibility, but these are more than theoretical or abstract ideas. They are practical, threatening realities. They are, but you dont know for sure what the story is unless both people, as our constitution demands, have an opportunity to be heard. That is due process of law. A person has an opportunity before something is done against him, not two or three weeks or months later. Dontt to be clear, you think the police should be allowed to execute a lawful search warrant for a firearm . I think they can be allowed but for a temporary restraining order, there ought to be a hearing before that happens. For a search warrant, there is not a hearing. If your rule applies to temporary straining order, the same applies to a search warrant. You said earlier police should not be allowed to go into someones house looking for a firearm, which is what they do in the execute a search warrant. But they have to have evidence so they cannot willynilly go into somebodys house. Oftenhe police go in, more violence takes place. You think there is a higher evidentiary standard for a search warrant than for a temporary restraining order . I think for a temporary restraining order under these conditions where you have one thatn making allegations, you need to have the other person heard before property is taken away. Is that what happens in a search warrant . A complainant makes an allegation. The police take it before the judge. If the evidence is credible, they execute the search warrant. That happens everyday Law Enforcement. Are you suggesting police should not be authorized to do that . I am not suggesting police should not be authorized after getting a search warrant. Toemporary restraining order protect somebody where only one person has been heard by the judge that is exactly the circumstance in a search warrant. If that is your logic, it must apply to search warrants. That puts you in the position of saying search warrants should not be executed by the police. I dont think that makes sense. I dont think it makes sense to invade someones house and take their property without having had a chance to be heard. Which is precisely what a search warrant does. So obviously, you dont think search warrants are appropriate. That is your position. Everyone is entitled to their position. You are changing the way the law works in these cases. The way the law works now, there is an opportunity for people to be heard. You have asked what if they dont show up. That is their problem, but at least there is an opportunity to be heard before they are put under a temporary restraining order. I think that is the issue here. If i can make one other comment, i also think with temporary and permanent restraining orders, the potential victim has to depend on the police being able to be there in time. I think that is a real concern. This case i was going to mention, one versus District Of Columbia where the police were called and they never came and they sue the police, the judge said it is a fundamental principle of law that the government and ages are under no duty to provide Police Protection to any individual citizen. Depend onnot really the police. The police cannot be everywhere. They need to be able to be armed to protect themselves. Any last words with respect to that . We cannot be everywhere as Law Enforcement. Im sure the judge could comment on that in his days of policing. We cannot be everywhere. We count on citizens to call us. We encourage them to exercise due diligence. I would never tell someone they should not arm themselves if they are a lawabiding citizen. The issue we have is those who should not have weapons, those who are convicted Domestic Violence abusers, stalkers, those who represent a Public Safety threat to the victims and Law Enforcement. That is what this is about. It is common sense legislation. Perfect words to close on. Note,i may add one quick i will supplement it for the record. The notion that action by the government in Law Enforcement requires both sides to be heard before there can be a wiretap or surveillance or a search putant, search and seizure, aside Domestic Violence, would not only undercut but cripple the protection of innocent citizens, as the chairman well knows from his expense in the intelligence area. Surveillance is done when one unrepresented, perhaps for weeks and months when there is sufficient threat, our constitutional system depends on a balance of the exigencies of threats to individual safety or National Security against the Constitutional Rights that may be temporarily infringed upon. As attorney general, i had to get some of those words ents myself. Warr that is one of the restrictions rhode island puts on it, that the attorney general shall appear in court. We are familiar with that, prosecutors. The hearing will remain open for an additional week, the record will remain open for an additional week. [laughter] anyone wanting to remain [laughter] how grateful iy am to senator klobuchar and senator blumenthal for their leadership in this area, how grateful i am to the witnesses for being here, particularly those who brought personal stories that have had such dramatic effect in their lives. To those of you in the audience, for your at thank you for your advocacy. For those who have suffered losses, we are with you. We will not forget and appreciate what you are doing. The hearing is adjourned. [gavel drops] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] among members of Congress Talk about technology legislation. I believe in a free and open internet without government intervention. Internet is going in the future, this is being done in the private sector. Why would they not want their brand exposed to tens of thousands of people . We think the blackout rule is obsolete. They will vote at the end of this year. We believe the nfl will follow suit. Concerns over retransmission consent giving people level footing when it comes to being able to negotiate with broadcast and providers and people trying to deliver that media to the consumers. It puts people on a level Playing Field when it comes to those negotiations. The republican representative from ohio and colorado republican representative monday night newsmakers,ext, with david bidder. After that, a student bank on private student loans. After that, q a. As the Congress Wraps up its business and makes way for its august break, we are pleased to have senator david vitter of louisiana. He is a senior republican on the environment works committee. He is chair of the caucus. Thats an right at the center and many of the big issues. Thank you for being with us. Let me introduce our two reporters. The Associated PressNational Environment reporter. Susan is that the washington examiner. I am going to start with your caucus. That is a very front and center issue for americans right now. Whaton