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. Yo