Of the expanded use of deadly force. We have a large audience in the room today. At the outset, i want to note the senate rules prohibit any signs of ap to brace which would include outbursts, clapping or demonstrations. If theres someone who wishes to be witness to this hearing and cant attend in this room, there is another room available, room 226 in the dirksen building. Ill provide opening remarks and then giving senator cruz an opportunity before we turn to our witnesses. The debate over stand your ground laws raises fundamental questions about selfdefense in the be United States of america. In recent years weve seen a dramatic increase in laws expanding the situation in which a person can legally use deadly force in response to a perceived threat. Florida passed the first of this new wave of stand your ground laws in 2005. Prior to 2005, florida law held that a person outside his home could not use deadly force and then claim selfdefense if the person could have safely avoided the confrontation. This, quote, duty of safe retreat, closed quote, sought to prevent public disputes from escalating into violence. But the gun lobby pushed to change floridas law so people could shoot someone who threatened them without first trying to avoid a confrontation. Florida wasnt the first state to adopt the stand your ground principle, but floridas 2005 law expanded the principle in several dramatic new ways. First, the law grants criminal and civil of immunity for use withs of deadly force for uses of deadly force in stand your ground situations. Second, it replaces a defendants burden of proving reasonableness with a presumption of reasonableness when the defendant shoots anyone who intrudes upon his home, por of of. Or porch or vehicle. Third, it even i allows the use of deadly force when a threat is not imminent. The gun lobby wanted to spread floridas law across the nation, so the National Rifle association went to alec, the American Legislative Exchange council, and asked for their help. Now, alec is an organization that brings corporate lobbyists and state legislators together for concernses. They draft model bills, and then today work to get them enacted. In 2005 alec adopted model legislation that was nearly identical to floridas law. They then began promoting it in statehouses across the country. Within a year 13 more states passed similar laws. Today 25 states not counting florida have passed a law based in whole or in part on the alec model. Alec called the enactment of these laws one of, quote, alecs successes, closed quote. Cnn described alec as being, quote, behind the spread of stand your ground laws, closed quote. The wall street journal said alec was, quote, a key advocate for them. Now that alecstyle stand your ground laws are in effect for over half of the United States, we are seeing their National Impact when it comes to Public Safety and civil rights. This is what we will learn from our witnesses today. These stand your ground laws have led to increases in homicides and firearm injuries including 600 additional homicides per year. With no deterrent effect on crimes like robbery or assault. This point was made in several studies including recent research from texas a and h University Texas a m university. Second, these stand your ground laws have allowed shooters to walk free in shocking situations. Shootouts between rival drug gangs, drug deals gone bad and more. This point will be made effectively by the testimony of david le bon, president and ceo of the association of prosecuting attorneys. Third, in some devastating cases the laws have emboldened those who carry guns to initiate confrontations which have ended up killing unarmed children. The testimonies of Sybrina Fulton and lucy mcbeth about the devastating losses of their sons make that point more effectively than i ever could. Finally, these stand your ground laws increase Racial Disparity thisour criminal justice system. In our criminal justice system. In stand your ground states, nearly 17 of homicides involving white shooters and black victims were ruled justified compared to 1 of homicides with black shooters and white victims. At my request the Congressional Research service analyzed fbi data on justifiable homicide before and after the 2005 wave of stand your ground laws and found that Racial Disparities clearly increased. Ill be putting this crs memo in the record. It is clearly time for stand your ground laws to be carefully reviewed and reconsidered. Whatever the motivation behind them, its clear these laws often go too far in encouraging confrontations that escalate into deadly violence. They are resulting in unnecessary tragedies, and they are diminishing accountability under our justice system. Im pleased at the efforts to reconsider these laws are now underway. One of the legislators who drafted floridas law joined with some of its chief opponents in a bipartisan effort to change the law. Theyve been passed in a state Senate Committee in florida. Theres more that needs to be done, but we seem to be moving past the question of whether stand your ground laws should be fixed. Now we should be looking at the best way to fix them. I urge other states that have stand your ground i laws to revisit them as well. To the extent that stand your ground laws were passed based on the alec model, i would note that few who are connected with alec appear wedded to that model today. I reached out to every company and organization that has been publicly listed as a member or sponsor of alec since 2005 simply asking them, do you support the stand your ground bill . 140 of them responded. Only one said, yes. Even alec, through a connecticut state representative and its chairman, mr. Discopoe, made a statement to the press that alec no longer has a policy on stand your ground laws. It is also important that Congress Review stand your ground law because of the way proposed federal legislation implicates those laws. Just this past april 57 senators voted for a gun lobby amendment that would allow a person who receives a conceal carry permit in one state to carry his gun in every state. Even if the person would be disqualified from getting a permit in the other states because of criminal convictions, inadequate training or other factors. Congress should think carefully about how proposals like this would mix with stand your ground laws. Today we have before us a distinguished lineup of witnesses who will talk about the impact of stand your ground laws on Public Safety, civil rights and american families. In ways can and ways that we should work to fix them. I look forward to their testimony and now recognize the republican member, senator cruz. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you to the witnesses who have come here this morning. Thank you to everyone who has come to join this hearing on a very important topic. Id like to talk about three different issues concerning stand your ground legislation. The first is the difference between serious efforts to stop Violent Crime and efforts to advance a political agenda. I have spent much of my adult life working in Law Enforcement and emphatically agree that Law Enforcement should be vigorous going after Violent Crime, protecting the incident, protecting those who are preyed upon by violent criminals. Indeed, one of my most significant criticisms of in this administrations enforcement of justice is that they have not made prosecuting gun crimes a priority. Many 2010 over 48,000 in 2010 over 48,000 fugitives, felons and other purchasers attempted to illegally purchase a firearm, and yet out of over 48,000, this administration prosecuted only 44 of them. In my view, atlas utterly that is utterly ip defensible. We should be going after, investigating and prosecuting each of those cases. Let me reiterate, out of over 48,000, this Justice Department prosecuted only 44. Likewise, the prosecution of violet gun crimes violent gun crimes has dropped significantly from a high of over 11,000 in 2004 to a low in 2012 of 7,774 which is a 29 decline. If we were to put action to all of the rhetoric given about stopping Violent Crime, we would again put priorities to prosecuting those who commit crimes with guns. Unfortunately, there are many in washington who seem more driven by advancing a political agenda than actually putting in place common sense steps to stop Violent Crimement crime. And that leads to the second point i want to make which is that in our federalist system, criminal law is primarily given to the states to enforce. And state selfdefense law is not in our constitutional system the responsibility of the federal government. Federal government doesnt have the jawrs diction, doesnt have the Constitutional Authority to determine what the substantive criminal law should be b in each of our 50 states and, indeed, it is quite fitting with the founders design that each of those 50 states would make different judgments based on the values and mores of their citizens. If if its not within Congress Jurisdiction to legislate substantive state criminal law, it raises whether there may perhaps be a broader political agenda behind the hearing instead. The third point i would make is that selfdefense is a bedrock liberty. Of every american. And i would note this is not a new concept. Indeed, the u. S. Supreme court in District Of Columbia v. Or heller stated it has been central to the Second Amendment right. Now, some who get their news from the the modern news media may believe that was a new creation of the modern court. I would note that that idea has been around from the founding of this nation. Indeed, Justice Harlan for a Unanimous Supreme Court in 1895 stated the following, quote he was not obliged to retreat or consider whether he could safely retreat but was entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack on him with a Deadly Weapon in such a way and with such force as under all the circumstances he at the moment honestly believed and had reasonable grounds to believe was necessary to save his own life or to protect himself from great Bodily Injury. The declaration of independence begins with the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness given by our creator to each of us. And if an individual is confronted by a violent aggressor, the right of selfdefense is an inherent right in each of us. And the notion that critics of these laws put fort that if put forth, that if youre attacked on the street by a violent attacker, youre obliged to turn and run rather than to defend yourself, is a notion that is contrary to hundreds of years of our jurisprudence and to the rights that protect all of us. I would note, also, that the chairman suggested a Racial Disparity. Look, the problem of violet crime in this Violent Crime in this country is enormous and, tragically, minority communities bear much of the cost of violet crime. Minorities find themselves at times aggressors, but often victims of Violent Crime, and i would note in florida the data show that africanamerican defendants have availed themselves of the stand your Ground Defense more frequently than have anglo defendants. According to press reports, 55 of africanamericans have successfully invoked the stand your ground prosecution compared to a 53 rate in the anglo population. This is not about politicking, this is not about enflaming racial tensions although some might try to use it to do that. This is about the right of everyone to protect themselves, to protect their family. And i will tell you given a choice in a confrontation between a violent aggressor attacking an innocent civilian, i for one will always, always, always stand with the innocent civilian. Now, we have a system of justice to determine if that is the facts in any particular circumstance, but notably the stand your Ground Defense only applies when it is a violet adepress violent aggressor attacking an innocent bystander. This is a rule that only applies to protect innocent victims from violent aggressors, and find the notion that we say if you and your family are attacked on a public street you dont have the right to defend yourself, i find that an astonishing proposition and one that i certainly hope members of the u. S. Senate will not advocate. Turn to our first witness panel. I want to welcome congresswoman marsha fudge, Luis Gutierrez and congressman louie gohmert. Thank you for being here. Youll each have five minute toss make a statement, and if you have a written statement, well include it in the record. Marsha fudge is currently serving her third term. In 2012, congressman fudge was unanimously elected by her colleagues and serves as the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus in the 113th congress. Member of the House Committee on agriculture where shes Ranking Member on the committees department of oversight and work force. Congressman fudge, please proceed. Thank you very much, and good morning. Thank you, chairman durbin and Ranking Member cruz. I would just say it is interesting that the Ranking Member believes in states rights when it favors his position. You cannot have it both ways. Either the Justice Department is overprosecuting perps who buy with guns illegally in states, and if they are, then they should also be over stand your ground laws. Id like to focus on three issues that have serious implications to the Public Safety of our country. Stand your ground laws and racial profiling. On february 26, 2012, a young man lost his life, in my opinion, due to racial profiling. Earlier this year, Trayvon Martins killer, George Zimmerman, escaped the grip of justice. The three issues that i highlight today all map fest themselves manifest themselves in the senseless death of too many young men including jordan davis who was killed for playing music too loud in his car. The american legal system made them martyrs. I thank Sybrina Fulton and lucia mcbeth for being here today. I fully understand the right to defend ones sellful from violent as an established principle in our legal system. However, stand your ground laws eliminate all responsibility to retreat and peacefully end an incident. These laws permit and, quite frankly, encourage individuals to use deadly force even in situations where lesser or no physical force would be appropriate. At the urging of al he can and nra, the first stand your ground laws was enacted in florida in 2005. Since then 22 other states have activated similar laws. They actively lobbied states for those who carry firearms. Ultimately, this effort fosters a wild west environment in our communities where individuals play the role of judge, jury and executioner. In my home state of ohio, house bill 203 would with expand the concealedcarry law to permit the use of lethal force wherever an individual is legally permitted to be while removing the tooth to retreat. The duty to retreat. This change to current law would bring ohio in line with other stand your ground states. Proponents of stand your ground laws often allege that these laws deter crime. However, the opposite is true. According to a study by the university of texas a m, states with stand your ground laws have seep an 8 increase in homicides. The enforcement of stand your ground laws too often rely on the decisions of those with cultural biases on whether a persons life is in danger. Not surprisingly, these decisions have had a disparate impact on africanamericans. The urban Institutes Justice Policy Center found that in stand your ground states 35. 9 of shootings involving a black shooter are justified. These numbers should make all of us uncomfortable, mr. Chairman. Racial profiling continues to make communities of innocent individuals fear a system designed to protect them. Under new yorks unconstitutional stop and frisk policy, metropolitan 90 more than 90 of all those stopped by police were either black or latino even though these groups only make up 52 of the citys population. Given the underlying taint of racial profiling in both our culture and criminal justice system, it is troubling to see more states trend forth enacting stand your ground laws. The center for American Progress shows the intersection between stand your ground laws and weak state gun permitting laws. While every state has concealedcarry law, they differ on eligibility requirements. There must be a strong, uniform standard to allow an individual to carry a Deadly Weapon. Weak concealedcarry standards combined with stand your ground laws and racial profiling are a recipe for danger. We must continue to work with the department of justice to monitor and evaluate the impact of these three issues, and until these inherently biased laws are repealed, we have a responsibility to advocate and to education. Our work will not be complete until we insure that no one has to live with the fear of death based on his race or his age or a that is justified under stand your ground laws. I look forward to the day when every american can live knowing that the arc of justice bends toward fair and unbiased laws.