Prevent outbursts or clapping or demonstrations of any kind during these hearings. There was so much interest in todays hearings that we had to expand opportunity for the audience in an adjoining room. The overflow room is 226 of the dirksen building. I will make opening remarks and give Ranking Member cruz the same opportunity and then welcome our first witness. We are here to discuss a critically important issue, maybe a very basic question. We venerate in this country are committed to the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of those who live in america. We also guaranteed under our bill of rights the right to bear arms. Can we make these two consistent . Can we protect a persons right to own a firearm and still say to the rest of america we also need to protect your light youre right to life, peace, freedom from violence from those same firearms . According to the centers for disease control, more than 11,000 americans 11,000 are murdered by guns each year. That is more each
I supported the emergence of that new understanding and the Supreme Court made it the law of the land in the Helen Mcdonald decisions. In 2008 and 2010. Of that pair of decisions demolishes the slippery slope theory of those who oppose basically all firearms regulation on the view that once we permit any new firearms regulation at all, we will be inviting the government stepbystep to come ever closer to disarm the people. Leaving only the police and military with firearms. With heller and mcdonald on the books, Supreme Court in its own words took certain policy choices off the table. Thereby cleared the path a reasonable regulations to be enacted without fear that those policy choices would either open the door to unlimited government control, or be imperiled by exaggerated interpretation of the Second Amendment. As Justice Alito put in mcdonald, theres no longer any basis for such doomsday proclamations. Justice scalia speaking for the court and heller said at the end of his opinion.